The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About328 Roebling Negative Declaration ×Í Ò×Ì×ßÔ ÌËÜÇ ÍÝÒæÌÞÜ ÌßÌÛ ÔÛßÎ×ÒÙØÑËÍÛ ËÓÞÛÎ íîèÎÎøÞÓÔí÷ ÑÛÞÔ×ÒÙ ÑßÜ Î×ÌßÒÒ×ß ÑÜËÔßÎ ßÞÍ ÐÚæ ÎÛÐßÎÛÜ ÑÎ CSSF ITY OF OUTH AN RANCISCO Úîððç ÛÞÎËßÎÇ Ð ÎÛÐßÎÛÜ ÞÇ ÔÔÙ ßÓÐØ×ÛÎ ÎÛÙÑÎÇ ïçììÛ ÓÞßÎÝßÜÛÎÑ ÑôÝßçìêðê ßÕÔßÒÜ Ì¿¾´» ±º Ý±²¬»²¬ Page INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION..............................................................................................1 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION........................................................................................................17 INITIAL STUDY.......................................................................................................................................................31 ß .....................................................................................................................................................34 ÛÍÌØÛÌ×ÝÍ ßÎ ..............................................................................................................................37 ÙÎ×ÝËÔÌËÎÛ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ ßÏ ..................................................................................................................................................38 ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ ÞÎ .................................................................................................................................51 ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ ÝÎ ...................................................................................................................................53 ËÔÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ ÙÍ .....................................................................................................................................56 ÛÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ Ñ×ÔÍ ØØÓ ........................................................................................................71 ßÆßÎÜÍ ßÒÜ ßÆßÎÜÑËÍ ßÌÛÎ×ßÔÍ ØÉÏ ...............................................................................................................84 ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ ÔËÐ .............................................................................................................................98 ßÒÜ ÍÛ ßÒÜ ÔßÒÒ×ÒÙ ÓÎ ....................................................................................................................................102 ×ÒÛÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Ò ...........................................................................................................................................................104 Ñ×ÍÛ ÐØ ........................................................................................................................108 ÑÐËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ÑËÍ×ÒÙ ÐÍ ...........................................................................................................................................110 ËÞÔ×Ý ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ Î .................................................................................................................................................113 ÛÝÎÛßÌ×ÑÒ ÌñÌ ...........................................................................................................................114 ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒÎßÚÚ×Ý ËÍÍ ....................................................................................................................123 Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ ÓÚÍ ....................................................................................................130 ßÒÜßÌÑÎÇ ×ÒÜ×ÒÙÍ ÑÚ ×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÝÛ IS/MNDP AGE I Ú ×ÙËÎÛÍ Ú·¹«®» ïæ Í·¬» Ô±½¿¬·±² ¿²¼ Ê·½·²·¬§òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòí Ú·¹«®» îæ Û¨·¬·²¹ Í·¬» Ð´¿²òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòé Ú·¹«®» íæ Ð®±°±»¼ Í·¬» Ð´¿²òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòç Ú·¹«®» ìæ Ð®±°±»¼ Þ«·´¼·²¹ Û´»ª¿¬·±² øÞ«·´¼·²¹ Þ Í±«¬¸©»¬ Û´»ª¿¬·±²÷òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòïï Ú·¹«®» ëæ Ð®±°±»¼ Ô¿²¼½¿°» Ð´¿²òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòïí Ú·¹«®» êæ Ð®±°±»¼ Ù®¿¼·²¹ ¿²¼ Ü®¿·²¿¹» Ð´¿²òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòïë Ú·¹«®» éæ Ý±´³¿ Ý®»»µ Ú´±±¼ Ð®±¬»½¬·±² Æ±²»òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòèì Ú·¹«®» èæ ÚÛÓß Ú´±±¼ Æ±²» Ó¿°òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòèë Ì ßÞÔÛÍ Ì¿¾´» ïæ Ð±¬»²¬·¿´´§ Í·¹²·º·½¿²¬ ×³°¿½¬ ¿²¼ Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®»òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòïé Ì¿¾´» îæ ß·® Ï«¿´·¬§ Ü¿¬¿ Í«³³¿®§ º±® Ý´±»¬ Ó±²·¬±®·²¹ Í·¬»ô îððìóîððêòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòìð Ì¿¾´» íæ Û¬·³¿¬»¼ îððç Ñ°»®¿¬·±²¿´ ¿²¼ ß®»¿ Û³··±² ø·² °±«²¼ °»® ¼¿§÷òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòìì Ì¿¾´» ìæ Î»½±³³»²¼»¼ ßÞíî Ù®»»²¸±«» Ù¿ Ó»¿«®»òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòìé Ì¿¾´» ëæ Ò»¿®»¬ ß½¬·ª» Ú¿«´¬òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòêð Ì¿¾´» êæ Ð±¬»²¬·¿´ Ð±´´«¬¿²¬ Ú®±³ ×²¼«¬®·¿´ ß½¬·ª·¬·»òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòçð ß ÐÐÛÒÜ×ÝÛÍ ß°°»²¼·¨ ßæ ß·® Ï«¿´·¬§ ËÎÞÛÓ×Í Ñ«¬°«¬ ß°°»²¼·¨ Þæ Ì®¿ºº·½ Í¬«¼§ PIS/MND AGE II ×ÐÜ ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ ×ÌÜ ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ ÌÑ Ø×Í ÑÝËÓÛÒÌ This document serves as the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the 328 Roebling Road project. Per CEQA Guidelines (Section 15070), a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be prepared to meet the requirements of CEQA review when the Initial Study identifies potentially significant environmental effects, but revisions in the project would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. This document is organized in three sections as follows: Introduction and Project Description. This section introduces the document and discussed the project description including location, setting, and specifics of the lead agency and contacts. Mitigated Negative Declaration. This section lists the impacts and mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study and proposes findings that would allow adoption of this document as the CEQA review document for the proposed project. Initial Study. This section discusses the CEQA environmental topics and checklist questions and identifies the potential for impacts and proposed mitigation measures to avoid these impacts. ÐÎ ËÞÔ×Ý ÛÊ×ÛÉ The Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be circulated for a 30-day public review period. Written comments may be submitted to the following address: Linda Ajello, Associate Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Telephone: 650-877-8535 Fax: 650-829-6639 Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration does not constitute approval of the project itself, which is a separate action to be taken by the Planning Board. Approval of the project can take place only after the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been adopted. IS/MNDP1 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS ÙÐ× ÛÒÛÎßÔ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÒÚÑÎÓßÌ×ÑÒ ÐÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÒÌ×ÌÔÛÓÛÒÌÍ Development of the Project as proposed would require a Lot Consolidation, Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, and Preliminary Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. ÔÛßÜ ßÙÛÒÝÇ City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 ÝÑÒÌßÝÌ ÐÛÎÍÑÒ Linda Ajello, Associate Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Department P.O. Box 711/315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 650-877-8535 ÐÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÍÐÑÒÍÑÎ HCP, Inc. 400 Oyster Point Boulevard, Suite 409 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Contact: Jonathan M. Bergschneider, Vice President ÐÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÔÑÝßÌ×ÑÒ The approximately 3 acre Project site is located at 328 Roebling Road, in South San Francisco’s East of 101 Area, in San Mateo County. The Project would occupy three adjacent parcels that are currently occupied by warehouse, office, and industrial uses. The assessor’s parcel numbers Figure 1 (APNs) are 015041290, 015041250, and 015041110. shows the project location. ÙÛÒÛÎßÔ ÐÔßÒ ÜÛÍ×ÙÒßÌ×ÑÒ Business and Technology Park ÆÑÒ×ÒÙ Planned Industrial (P-I) P2IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Ú·¹«®» ïò Ð®±¶»½¬ Ô±½¿¬·±² IS/MNDP3 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS ÛÈ×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ËÍÛÍ Figure 2 Three office/warehouse buildings currently occupy the project site as shown in and described as follows: 233 East Grand Avenue APN: 015-041-290 Site Area: 1.18 acres Overall Building Square Footage: 40,423 square feet Office Use Square Footage: 1,287 square feet Warehouse Use Square Footage: 39,136 square feet Tenant(s): United Cold Storage (Warehouse) 328 Roebling Road APN: 015-041-250 Site Area: 1.1 acres Overall Building Square Footage: 18,636 square feet Office Use Square Footage: 1,340 square feet Warehouse Use Square Footage: 17,296 square feet Tenant(s): Slakey Brothers (Warehouse) 340 Roebling Road APN: 015-041-110 Site Area: 0.7 acres Overall Building Square Footage: 20,442 square feet Office Use Square Footage: 5,088 square feet Warehouse Use Square Footage: 15,354 square feet Tenant(s): William Tuck (Attorney), Melon’s Catering, Atlas Heating The site is currently industrial in design with buildings and paved areas covering the majority of the site. The current leases run for another two to four years, but relocation may be negotiated sooner depending on the project schedule. ÍËÎÎÑËÒÜ×ÒÙ ÔßÒÜ ËÍÛÍ ßÒÜ ÍÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The Project site is located on Roebling Road, a cul-de-sac off of East Grand Avenue, in the “East of 101” Area, the traditional and continued core of South San Francisco’s industrial and technology businesses, including Research and Development (R&D) offices. The site is in a Business and Technology Park area, with Business Commercial and Mixed Industrial uses nearby. The East of 101 Area consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land and is bounded by San Francisco Bay on the east side, Highway 101 and railway lines on the west, the City of Brisbane on the north, and San Francisco International Airport on the south. The area has a mix of land uses, P4IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS including industry, warehousing, retail, offices, hotels, marinas, and bioscience research and development facilities and is separated from the majority of residential uses by U.S. 101 though some houseboats are permitted at the nearby Oyster Point. While the East of 101 Area is almost completely built out, redevelopment remains extremely active as existing facilities are upgraded as industry continues to evolve toward high-technology and research and development uses. Adjacent and to the east of the project site is the location of a recently developed office R&D project at 249 East Grand Avenue. The property to the west of the project site, across Roebling Road, includes a number of buildings housing light industrial/warehousing/office uses, the majority of which is the site of the 213 East Grand Avenue office and R&D redevelopment proposal currently being considered by the City of South San Francisco. ÐÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÜÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ The Project proposes the removal of 3 existing office/warehouse buildings containing 79,501 square feet total on an approximately 3 acre site at 328 Roebling Road, and the construction in their place of two 2-story office/R&D buildings each containing 52,768 square feet (105,536 square feet total) of office/laboratory space over a basement garage. The Project would also entail the development of at-grade and subterranean parking at a ratio of 2.8 spaces per 1,000 Figure 3 square feet. The site plan is included as . Proposed Aesthetics The applicants have stated that this project is intended to help diversify the office/research and development inventory in the East of 101 Area and provide a place for young life-sciences companies to grow. With a target of younger-stage companies, the project includes smaller, more Figure 4 modest buildings (see ) than seen in other recent campus-style developments. The landscaping plan includes perimeter and frontage trees, additional parking lot trees for accent and Figure 5 shading, and a vegetated swale (see ). Usable outdoor open space is provided for each building in the form of landscaped patios along the northwestern side of each building. Proposed Phasing The project is intended to be implemented in two phases. Phase 1 would involve demolition of the two buildings at 328 and 340 Roebling Road and grading and construction of Building A on that back (northeast) portion of the site. Phase 2 would complete the project with demolition of the building at 233 Grand Avenue and grading and construction of Building B on that front (southwest) portion of the site. Proposed Grading The rear of the site is approximately 23 feet higher than the frontage along East Grand Avenue. The proposed grading plan shows a vegetated swale taking advantage of this existing elevation change to treat stormwater as it runs downward along the grade toward East Grand Avenue. The IS/MNDP5 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS proposed grading would be generally similar to what it is now, with grades varying between 1% and 4.4% from northeast to southwest. From east to west, the site currently drains to Roebling Road. The grading of the site will be changed to allow drainage to the swale that is proposed to Figure be installed along the site’s eastern boundary. The proposed grading plan is included as 6 . Proposed Circulation and Access As proposed, the Project site would be accessed through three entrances, two on Roebling Road and one on East Grand Avenue (See Figure 2). The main entrance on Roebling Road is in the middle of the site between Building A and Building B. The second Roebling Road entrance is to the east of Building A. Due to a median on East Grand Avenue that would prevent left turns into the site, this entrance could only be accessed via a right turn from northbound East Grand Avenue, and vehicles exiting the site could only make a right turn. There is a left turn lane for southbound vehicles on East Grand Avenue directing vehicles onto Roebling Road. P6IS/MND AGE ÓÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌÛÜ ÛÙßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÝÔßÎßÌ×ÑÒ ÐÜôôÍ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ ÔÑÝßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the 328 Roebling Road Project. See the Introduction and Project Description section of this document for details of the project. ÐÍ×ÎÓ ÑÌÛÒÌ×ßÔÔÇ ×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ÛÏË×Î×ÒÙ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ The following is a list of potential Project impacts and the mitigation measures recommended to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. Refer to the Initial Study Checklist section of this document for a more detailed discussion. Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level Air-1: Construction Dust and Exhaust. Construction activity Air-1a: Fugitive Dust Control Measures. The Project shall involves a high potential for the emission of air pollutants. demonstrate compliance with all applicable regulations and Construction activities would generate exhaust emissions from operating procedures prior to issuance of demolition, building vehicles/equipment and fugitive dust particles that could affect or grading permits, including implementation of the following local air quality. BAAQMD “Basic and Enhanced Control Measures” to reduce the temporary air quality impact associated with construction dust. Basic Measures • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction site. • Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. • Limit construction equipment idling time. IS/MNDP17 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level • Properly tune construction equipment engines, and install particulate traps on diesel equipment. Enhanced Measures • Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). • Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Air-1b: Construction Exhaust Reduction Programs. The Project shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable County regulations and operating procedures prior to issuance of demolition, building or grading permits, and shall use its best efforts to adhere to the following diesel reduction efforts: • At least 50 percent of the heavy-duty, off-road equipment used for construction shall be CARB-certified off-road engines or equivalent, or use alternative fuels (such as biodiesel or water emulsion fuel) that result in lower emissions. • Use add-on control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters. • Opacity is an indicator of exhaust particulate emissions from off-road diesel powered equipment. The project shall ensure that emissions from all construction diesel powered equipment used on the project site do not exceed 40 percent opacity for more than three minutes in any one hour. Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be prohibited from use on the site until repaired. • The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid the need for independently powered equipment (e.g., compressors). • Diesel equipment standing idle for more than two minutes shall be turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate or other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running continuously as long as they were on site. • Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions. Geo-1: Occupants of the Roebling Road site would be subject Geo-1a: Compliance with California Building Code. Project to seismic-induced ground shaking. Seismic-induced ground development shall meet requirements of the California Building shaking is a significant impact to all projects within the San Code Vols. 1 and 2, 2007 Edition, including the California Francisco Bay Region. Development of the Project would Building Standards, 2007 Edition, published by the P18IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level increase the number of structures and people potentially International Conference of Building Officials, and as modified exposed to hazards associated with a major earthquake in the by the amendments, additions and deletions as adopted by the region. While this impact cannot be eliminated, it can be City of South San Francisco, California. Incorporation of reduced through the implementation of the following mitigation seismic construction standards would reduce the potential for measures. catastrophic effects of ground shaking, such as complete structural failure, but will not completely eliminate the hazard of seismically induced ground shaking. Geo-1b: Compliance with a design level Geotechnical Investigation report and with Structural Design Plans. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical design and a Registered Structural Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in structural design. The structural engineering design shall incorporate seismic parameters as outlined in the 2007 California Building Code. The Project Geotechnical Investigation shall establish the seismic design parameters, as determined by the geotechnical engineer in accordance with requirements of the 2007 California Building Code. Geo-1c: Obtain a building permit and complete final plan review. The Project applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Plan Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by the Building Division for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. Geo-2: Liquefaction, Densification, and Ground Surface Geo-2a: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical Settlement. Due to the site’s location at the border between Investigation and in conformance with Structural Design Plans. the competent bedrock of Oyster point to the north, and A Design Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared artificial fill placed over tidal flats to the south, the Association for the site under the direction of a California Registered of Bay Area Governments’ liquefaction hazard map shows the Geotechnical Engineer, or Civil Engineer experienced in southern portion of the Project area as an area of high hazard geotechnical engineering, and shall include analysis for for liquefaction. The northern portion is shown as having a liquefaction potential of the underlying sediments. Proper very low hazard for liquefaction. Liquefaction or densification foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in of soils underlying the site could result in settlement and accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical differential settlement of site improvements including buildings, Investigation. The Geotechnical Investigation shall be pavements, and utilities and pose a threat to human health. reviewed and approved by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant and by the City Engineer. A Registered Structural Engineer, or civil engineer experienced in structural engineering shall prepare Project structural design plans. Structures shall be designed to minimize the effects of anticipated seismic settlements. The Geotechnical Engineer shall review the Structural Design Plans and provide approval for the IS/MNDP19 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level geotechnical elements of the plans. The design plans shall identify specific mitigation measures to reduce the liquefaction potential of surface soils. Mitigation measures may include excavation and replacement as engineered fill, reduced foundation loading, and ground improvement by methods such as stone columns or pressure grouting. Geo-2b: Obtain a building permit and complete plan review. The Project applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Plan Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by the Building Division for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. Geo-3. Landslides and Slope Stability. A landslide is a mass of Geo-3: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical rock, soil and debris displaced down slope by sliding, flowing Investigation and Proper Retaining Wall Design. A Design or falling. The site is located on gently sloping ground, and as Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared for the site such natural slope stability is not expected to be an issue. under the direction of a California Registered Geotechnical However, cuts currently exist in the northern part of the site, Engineer, or Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical and more cuts will be necessary to provide level building pads. engineering, and shall include analysis of the site slope These cuts will require construction of retaining walls, which stability. Proper foundation engineering and retaining wall could fail if improperly designed. design shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation. The Geotechnical Investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant and by the City Engineer. Geo-4. Soil Erosion. The Project would involve mass grading Geo-4a: Erosion Control Plan. The Project applicant shall at the site. Demolition of existing structures and pavements complete an Erosion Control Plan to be submitted to the City in could expose underlying contaminated soil to the elements. conjunction with the Grading Permit Application. The Erosion Excavation of soil for construction of new buildings and Control Plan shall include winterization, dust control, erosion pavement sections would also be performed and temporary control and pollution control measures conforming to the stockpiles of loose soil will be created. Soils exposed during ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control site grading would be subject to erosion during storm events. Measures. The Erosion Control Plan shall describe the "best Grading would disturb site soils potentially leading to impacts management practices" (BMPs) to be used during and to the San Francisco Bay. following construction to control pollution resulting from both storm and construction water runoff. The Plan shall include locations of vehicle and equipment staging, portable restrooms, mobilization areas, and planned access routes. Recommended soil stabilization techniques shall include placement of straw wattles, silt fences, berms, and gravel construction entrance areas or other control to prevent tracking sediment onto city streets and into storm drains. Public works staff or representatives shall visit the site during grading and construction to ensure compliance with the grading ordinance and plans, and note any violations, which shall be corrected immediately. P20IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level Geo-4b: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The Project applicant shall prepare and implement an updated SWPPP for the proposed site development. The updated SWPPP and Notice of Intent (NOI) must be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board to receive a Construction General Permit. The updated plan shall address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and be designed to protect water quality both during and after construction. The Project SWPPP shall include the following mitigation measures for the construction period: 1. “Best Management Practices” (BMPs) as outlined by the San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SMCSTOPP) shall be implemented for preventing the discharge of other construction-related NPDES pollutants beside sediment (i.e. paint, concrete, etc) to downstream waters. 2. After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be inspected for accumulated sediment, and these drainage structures shall be cleared of debris and sediment. Long-term mitigation measures to be included in the updated Project SWPPP shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Description of potential sources of erosion and sediment at the proposed Project site, and any hazardous or potentially hazardous materials and chemicals. This will include a thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources. 2. Development of a monitoring and implementation plan. Maintenance requirements and frequency shall be carefully described including vector control, clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures, vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters, regular sweeping of parking lots and other paced areas, etc. Wastes removed from BMPs may be hazardous, therefore, maintenance costs should be budgeted to include disposal at a proper site. Parking lot areas shall be cleared of debris that may enter the storm drain system on a daily basis. 3. The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the frequency agreed upon by the SFBRWQCB and/or City of South San Francisco. Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and submitted annually to the SWRCB. The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as necessary, to address any inadequacies of the BMPs. 4. Following development, the applicant shall prepare IS/MNDP21 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level informational literature and guidance on residential BMPs to minimize future pollutant contributions. This information shall be distributed to all employees at the Project site. At a minimum the information shall cover: a) proper disposal of commercial cleaning chemicals; b) proper use of landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and appropriate disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and d) prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains. Public works staff shall visit the site during grading and construction to ensure compliance with the grading ordinance and SWPPP, and note any violations, which shall be corrected immediately. Geo-5: Unstable Soils and Bay Mud. Undocumented fill soils Geo-5: Investigate unstable fill soils and Bay Mud. A Design are present on portions of the subject site. Fill soils may settle Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be performed to due to new building loads. Bay Mud and alluvial soil deposits determine the depth and extent of potentially unstable fill soil are present on adjacent sites and also constitute areas of and Bay Mud. Based on results of this study, the Geotechnical potentially unstable soils. Bay Mud may be present under the Engineer shall determine appropriate measures to stabilize the southern portion of the Project site and may settle under potentially unstable site soils. Consolidation testing of any Bay design loading conditions resulting in differential settlement of Mud soils present shall be performed, as part of the Design structures. Level Geotechnical Investigation, and estimates of settlement for the site shall be developed. Methods of unstable soil stabilization may include construction of driven pile foundations that support structures on materials located below fill soils and Bay Mud, and other methods as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer. Geo-6: Expansive Soils. Expansive soils are present in the Geo-6: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical existing fill on the site and in Bay Mud sediments that underlie Investigation and in conformance with Structural Design Plans. the site. The presence of expansive soils could cause damage A Design Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared to proposed improvements but are unlikely to create for the site under the direction of a California Registered substantial risk of life. Geotechnical Engineer and shall include analysis for expansion potential of the site soils. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation. The Geotechnical Investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant and by the City Engineer. A Registered Structural Engineer shall prepare Project structural design plans. The design plans shall identify specific mitigation measures to reduce the effects of expansive surface soils. Mitigations measures may include the following: Excavate expansive soils and replace with at least one foot of non-expansive fill. Design and construct structures to withstand expected stresses by the implementation of the following: minimize use of slab-on-grade floors; support buildings and slabs on non-expansive materials; chemically treat expansive materials to reduce expansion potential; avoid siting structures across soil materials of substantially different expansive properties; extend foundations below the zone of seasonal moisture P22IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level change; utilize pier-and-grade-beam foundation systems where appropriate; utilize special bending resistant design; and prevent accumulation of surface water adjacent to buildings. Haz-1: Routine Use of Hazardous Materials. The proposed Haz-1a: Registration in the Hazardous Materials Business development includes construction of Class-A office and Plan Program. Qualifying businesses occupying and/or laboratory buildings. Class A refers to a research laboratory, operating at the development must submit a Hazardous not merely an instructional laboratory. Depending upon the Materials Business Plan for the safe storage and use of nature of research planned at the proposed facilities, for which chemicals to the San Mateo County Environmental Health detailed information has not yet been provided, there are likely Department prior to the start of operations, and must review to be both hazardous and potentially hazardous materials and update the entire Business Plan at least once every two stored and used on the site that will eventually require years, or within 30 days of any significant change. disposal. This could include both biohazards, as well as Haz-1b: Compliance with US Department of Transportation, chemical hazards. There will also likely be transportation of State of California and local laws, ordinances and procedures hazardous materials to and from the site, probably traveling for transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous along Highway 101 and East Grand Avenue. wastes. All transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste to and from the site will be in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US Department of Transportation (DOT), State of California, and local laws, ordinances and procedures including placards, signs and other identifying information. Haz-2: Accidental Hazardous Materials Release. Existing Haz-2a: Demolition Plan and Permitting. A demolition plan buildings potentially contain hazardous materials including with permit applications shall be submitted to the City of South waste oil, asbestos, lead paint, and PCBs. Underlying site San Francisco Building Department for approval prior to soils may contain hazardous materials including toxic heavy demolition. The Demolition Plan for safe demolition of existing metals related to the history of heavy industry in the area. The structures shall include asbestos dust control and incorporate historic railroad grade along the northeast edge of the project recommendations from the site surveys for the presence of site may be a source of additional hazardous materials, potentially hazardous building materials, as well as additional including arsenic, chromium, creosote, zinc chloride, or other surveys when required by the City. The Demolition Plan shall wood preservatives. During demolition operations hazardous address both on-site Worker Protection and off-site resident materials could be released from structures at the site or from protection from both chemical and physical hazards. All the underlying soils. Following construction, operations at the contaminated building materials shall be tested for proposed facilities are expected to represent a continuing contaminant concentrations and shall be disposed of to threat to the environment through accidental release of appropriate licensed landfill facilities. Prior to building hazardous materials since the site is proposed to include demolition, hazardous building materials such as peeling, Class A laboratory facilities, where hazardous materials may chipping and friable lead based paint and asbestos containing be stored, used, and disposed of. building materials shall be removed in accordance with all applicable guidelines, laws, and ordinances. The Demolition Plan shall include a program of air monitoring for dust particulates and attached contaminants. Dust control and suspension of work during dry windy days shall be addressed in the plan. Prior to obtaining a demolition permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), an asbestos demolition survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2. Haz-2b: Additional Soil Sampling of Site Soils. The applicant shall retain a licensed Civil Engineer or Professional Geologist to complete additional surface and subsurface soil sampling to determine if elevated levels of toxic metals, herbicides, motor IS/MNDP23 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level oil, or wood preservatives are present in site soils. These tests shall take place within the entirety of the project site. If contamination exceeding commercial/industrial guidelines such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Levels for commercial/ industrial sites, USEPA Preliminary Remediation Goals for commercial/ industrial sites, or the California Department of Toxic Substances Control Human Health Screening Levels is detected, then a Site Soil Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan shall be prepared and implemented, as discussed in Mitigation Measure 2c. Haz-2c: Implementation of a Site Soil Management Plan. If contamination of site soils is detected, then results shall be reported to the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) and a Site Soil Management Plan shall be prepared in accordance with recommendations of the environmental consultant and established procedures for safe removal. Specific mitigation measures designed to protect human health and the environment will be provided in the plan. At a minimum the plan shall include, but not be limited to the following: (1) Documentation of the extent of previous environmental investigation and remediation at the site. (2) Requirements for site specific Health and Safety Plans (HASPs) to be prepared by all contractors at the Project site. This includes a HASP for all demolition, grading and excavation on the site, as well as for future subsurface maintenance work. The HASP shall include appropriate training, any required personal protective equipment, and monitoring of contaminants to determine exposure. The HASP will be reviewed and approved by a Certified Industrial Hygienist. (3) Description of protocols for the investigation and evaluation of previously unidentified hazardous materials that could be encountered during project development, including engineering controls that may be required to reduce exposure to construction workers and future users of the site. (4) Requirements for site-specific construction techniques that would minimize exposure to any subsurface contamination found to occur. This shall include treatment and disposal measures for any contaminated groundwater removed from excavations, trenches, and dewatering systems in accordance with San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines. (5) Sampling and testing plan for excavated soils to determine suitability for reuse or acceptability for disposal at a state licensed landfill facility. P24IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level (6) Restrictions (if any) limiting future excavation or development of the subsurface by residents and visitors to the proposed development. (7) The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the responsible jurisdiction prior to issuance of any demolition, grading and construction permits for the Project. Haz-2d: California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP). Future businesses at the development shall check the state and federal lists of regulated substances available from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD). Chemicals on the list are chemicals that pose a major threat to public health and safety or the environment because they are highly toxic, flammable or explosive. Businesses shall determine which list to use in consultation with the SMCEHD. Should businesses qualify for the program they shall complete a CalARP registration form and submit it to Environmental Health. Following registration, they shall submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP). RMPs are designed to handle accidental releases and ensure that businesses have the proper information to provide to emergency response teams if an accidental release occurs. All businesses that store or handle more than a threshold quantity (TQ) of a regulated substance must develop a RMP and follow it. Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public health and the environment if a regulated substance is released near schools, residential areas, hospitals and childcare facilities. RMPs must include procedures for: keeping employees and customers safe, handling regulated substances, training staff, maintaining equipment, checking that substances are stored safely, and responding to an accidental release. Haz-3: Hazardous Materials Near Schools. The nearest Haz-3: Mitigation Measures Haz-2a, Haz-2b, Haz-2c, and school or childcare sites to the project are the Gateway Child Haz-2d. Implementation of mitigation measures Haz-2a Care Center, located 0.21 miles northwest of the proposed through Haz-2d shall be performed. These mitigation Project and the Early Years Preschool, located 0.27 miles measures include requirements for preparing a Demolition southeast of the project site. Hazardous materials potentially Plan and obtaining permits for the demolition work, performing present at the project site could lead to a hazardous materials additional soil sampling of site soils to identify any release during site demolition or future on-site activities.contaminated soils present, and preparation and implementation of a Site Soil Management Plan under the oversight of the Department of Toxic Substances Control if contaminated soil is identified, as well as future business participation in the California Accidental Release Prevention Program if listed chemicals are used at the project site. Haz-4: Hazardous Materials on Site. The site is not currently Haz-4: Mitigation Measures Haz-2a, Haz-2b, Haz-2c, and included on the “Cortese List” but Phase I studies indicate the Haz-2d. Implementation of mitigation measures Haz-2a, Haz- possibility for hazardous material contamination of the site. 2b, Haz-2c, and Haz-2d for accidental release of hazardous materials will reduce the impact of hazardous materials on site to less than significant. IS/MNDP25 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level Hydro-1: Violate any water quality standards or waste Hydro-1a: Preparation and Implementation of Project SWPPP. discharge requirements. Exposure and disturbance of site Pursuant to NPDES requirements, the Project applicant shall soils during construction and delivery of post construction develop a SWPPP to protect water quality during and after surface runoff containing industrial pollutants to receiving construction. The Project SWPPP shall include, but is not waters could allow eroded soils and pollution to enter storm limited, to the following mitigation measures for the water and downstream waters. construction period: 1) Erosion control/soil stabilization techniques such as straw mulching, erosion control blankets, erosion control matting, and hydro-seeding, shall be utilized, in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. Silt fences used in combination with fiber rolls shall be installed down slope of all graded slopes. Fiber rolls shall be installed in the flow path of graded areas receiving concentrated flows and around storm drain inlets. 2) “Best management practices” (BMPs) for preventing the discharge of other construction-related NPDES pollutants beside sediment (i.e. paint, concrete, trash, etc) to downstream waters. 3) After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be inspected for accumulated sediment and trash, and these drainage structures shall be cleared of debris and sediment. Long-term mitigation measures to be included in the Project SWPPP shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 4) Description of potential sources of erosion, sediment, and trash at the Project site. Industrial activities and significant materials and chemicals that could be used at the proposed Project site should be described. This will include a thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources. 5) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the Project site based on identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources. Emphasis shall be placed on source control BMPs, with treatment controls used as needed. 6) Inclusion of refuse and trash management in site design and the storm drainage system, including trash colleting devices. 7) Development of a monitoring and implementation plan. Maintenance requirements and frequency shall be carefully described including vector control, clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures, trash removal, vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters, regular sweeping of parking lots and other paced areas, etc. Wastes removed from BMPs may be hazardous, therefore, maintenance costs should be budgeted to include disposal at a proper site. Parking lot P26IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level areas shall be cleared of debris that may enter the storm drain system on a daily basis. 8) The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the frequency agreed upon by the RWQCB and/or City of South San Francisco. Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and submitted annually to the SWRCB. The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as necessary, to address any inadequacies of the BMPs. The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on industrial and commercial BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed development. This information shall be distributed to all employees at the Project site. At a minimum the information shall cover: a) proper disposal of commercial cleaning chemicals; b) proper use of landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and appropriate disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and d) prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains. Hydro-1b: Submittal of all BMP designs, maintenance programs, and supporting calculations for approval by the City of South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant prior to construction. Hydro-2: Altered Drainage Patterns. Construction operations Hydro-2: Mitigation Measures Hydro-1a and Hydro-1b. associated with the project would present a threat of soil Implementation of mitigation measures Hydro-1a and Hydro- erosion from soil disturbance by subjecting unprotected bare 1b for construction related sources of erosion and post soil areas to the erosional forces of runoff and post construction BMPs will reduce the impact of altered drainage construction runoff that could increase and/or could contain patterns to less than significant. soil and sediment. Hydro-3: Degrade Water Quality. Construction and operation Hydro-3: Mitigation Measures Hydro-1a and Hydro-1b. of the project have the potential to degrade water quality. Implementation of mitigation measures Hydro-1a and Hydro- 1b for construction related sources of erosion and post construction BMPs will reduce the impact on water quality to less than significant. Noise-1: Construction-Related Noise. Project construction Noise-1: Construction Noise Abatement and Limitation of could result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the Construction Hours. Construction hours shall be limited to the operation of heavy construction equipment. Construction noise hourly restrictions specified n the City Noise Ordinance and typically ranges from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet for most the project sponsor shall require by contract specification that types of construction equipment, and slightly higher levels of construction best management practices be implemented by about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of earthmoving contractors to reduce noise levels to the 90-dBA at 25 feet and impact equipment.noise limit specified in the City Noise Ordinance, including but not limited to: • Ensuring that construction equipment is property muffled according to industry standards, • Implementing noise attenuation measures such as noise barriers or noise blankets, and • Requiring heavily loaded trucks used during construction to be routed away from noise and vibration sensitive uses. IS/MNDP27 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level Traf-1: The State Public Utilities Commission (September 26, Traf-1: The project proponent will be responsible for 2006 letter to City of South San Francisco) has noted in a implementation of improvements to the East Grand Avenue / recent inspection that the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection “at grade railroad Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection grade crossing is not up crossing” to meet minimum State Public Utilities Commission to minimum standards on one or more approaches for required standards for R15-1 and W10 warning signs and RxR advanced warning signing and pavement striping (i.e. R15-1 pavement striping or, if implemented by another party prior to and W-10-1 signs as well as RxR pavement striping). This initiation of construction for this project, will contribute fair- results in an existing safety concern that would be aggravated share reimbursement (as determined by the City Engineer). by the addition of Project traffic. Traf-2: The following intersection would receive a significant Traf-2: The following improvements would mitigate the level of service impact due to the addition of Project traffic to project-specific impacts. These improvements are included as year 2015 Base Case volumes. part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will be funded via the Project’s traffic impact fee E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way contribution to this program. AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 7.5 Widen East Grand Avenue east of Forbes Boulevard / Harbor percent at a location with unacceptable Base Case LOS D Way in order to provide a third westbound through lane and a operation being degraded to LOS F operation. second westbound left turn lane. The third westbound through PM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 8.5 lane should begin to the east of the Roebling Road intersection percent at a location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case (in order to mitigate left turn queuing impacts). In addition, signalized operation. widen the northbound Harbor Way approach to provide one additional through lane and one additional right turn lane (total five lanes: one left, two through and two right turn lanes). Traf-3: The following intersection would receive a significant Traf-3: The following improvements would mitigate the level of service impact due to the addition of Project traffic to project-specific impacts. The project proponent will be year 2015 Base Case volumes. responsible for implementation of the following improvements or fair-share reimbursement (as determined by the City E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road Engineer) if implemented by another party prior to initiation of PM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 4.7 construction for this project. percent at a location with unacceptable Base Case LOS F 1. Signalize the intersection and coordinate operation with the operation of the stop sign controlled Roebling Road signal at East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor intersection. Way. 2. Provide a third westbound through lane and continue to the Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection. 3. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue intersection approach from 75 feet up to 175 feet. This will leave room for a 250- to 260-foot left turn lane on the westbound East Grand Avenue approach to Harbor Way, which would accommodate a year 2015 95th percentile queue of 125 feet during the PM peak hour. Traf-4: The East Grand Avenue / Roebling Road unsignalized Traf-4: The following improvements would mitigate the intersection would receive a significant signal warrant impact project-specific impacts. The project proponent will be due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case responsible for implementation of the following improvements PM peak hour volumes. Volumes would be increased by more or fair-share reimbursement (as determined by the City than two percent (4.7%) at the one nearby unsignalized Engineer) if implemented by another party prior to initiation of intersection where Base Case volumes would already be construction for this project. exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels. 1. Signalize the intersection and coordinate operation with the signals along East Grand Avenue. P28IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level 2. Provide a third westbound through lane and continue to the Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection. 3. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue intersection approach from 75 feet up to 175 feet. Traf-5: The following intersection providing direct access to the Traf-5: The following improvements would mitigate the Project site would receive a significant queuing impact due to project-specific impact. The project proponent will be the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes. responsible for implementation of the following improvements or fair-share reimbursement (as determined by the City E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road (unsignalized) Engineer) if implemented by another party prior to initiation of AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 31% in construction for this project. the left turn lane on the E. Grand Avenue approach to E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road Roebling Road at a location with unacceptable Base Case 1. Signalize the intersection and coordinate the signals along 95th percentile queuing. The left turn lane queue at an East Grand Avenue. unsignalized intersection would be extended from 200 up to 225 feet in a location with only 75 feet of storage. 2. Provide a third westbound through lane and continue to the Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection. PM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 31% in the left turn lane on the E. Grand Avenue approach to 3. Extend the left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Roebling Road at a location with unacceptable Base Case Avenue approach from 75 up to 175 feet. (Please note 95th percentile queuing. The left turn lane queue at an that signalizing the intersection reduces the 95th percentile unsignalized intersection would be extended from 100 up to queue in this turn lane compared to unsignalized 125 feet in a location with only 75 feet of storage. operation.) Mitigation costs should be shared with the 213 East Grand Avenue project. Traf-6: The City of South San Francisco (Chapter 20.120 Traf-6: The Project sponsors shall implement a Transportation Transportation Demand Management) requires that all Demand Management (TDM) program consistent with the City nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120 net (potential minus existing vehicle trips) trips during peak Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable to hours to implement Transportation Demand Management C/CAG. These programs, once implemented, must be ongoing (TDM) measures to reduce vehicle traffic. The project would for the occupied life of the development. result in more than 100 net new peak hour trips during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours. Traf-7: On-Site Parking. The Project will provide parking at a Traf-7: Reduced Parking Demand. The Project sponsors shall ratio of 2.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet between the at-grade submit a parking demand analysis that satisfies the City and subterranean parking lots, for a total of 296 parking Engineer that parking demand will be met. spaces. Based upon City code criteria, between 349 (100% office) and 367 (100% R&D) parking spaces would be required although a reduction from this standard may be granted via approval of a Use Permit if supported by a parking demand analysis acceptable to the City Engineer. In addition, the project’s TDM program supports reduced parking as an effective tool to reduce trip reduction efforts. This is a potentially significant impact. IS/MNDP29 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS ÐÚ ÎÑÐÑÍÛÜ ×ÒÜ×ÒÙÍ The report preparers, in consultation with City of South San Francisco staff, have determined that with the implementation of mitigation measures identified in this Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If this Mitigated Negative Declaration is adopted by the City of South San Francisco, the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be considered to have been met by the preparation of this Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Project will not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. This decision is supported by the following findings: a.The Project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels or threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. It does not reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. It does not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre-history, since there is no identified area at the Project site which is habitat for rare or endangered species, or which represents unique examples of California history or prehistory. In addition, the Project is within the scope of use contemplated in the General Plan and the Project does not have any significant, unavoidable adverse impacts. Implementation of specified mitigation measures will avoid or reduce the effects of the Project on the environment and thereby avoid any significant impacts. b. The Project does not involve impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable, because the described Project will incorporate both Project-specific mitigation measures and cumulative mitigation measures to avoid significant impacts of the Project in the context of continued growth and development in the City of South San Francisco. c.The Project does not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, because all adverse effects of the Project will be mitigated to an insignificant level. P30IS/MND AGE ×Í Ò×Ì×ßÔ ÌËÜÇ ÛÚÐß ÒÊ×ÎÑÒÓÛÒÌßÔ ßÝÌÑÎÍ ÑÌÛÒÌ×ßÔÔÇ ÚÚÛÝÌÛÜ Environmental factors which may be affected by the Project, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act are listed alphabetically below. Factors marked with a filled in block () were determined to be potentially affected by the Project, involving at least one impact that has been identified as a “Potentially Significant Impact” with mitigation measures identified that would reduce the impact to a less than significant level, as indicated in the Environmental Evaluation Form Checklist and related discussion that follows. Unmarked factors () were determined to not be significantly affected by the Project, based on discussion provided in the Checklist. Aesthetics Hazards and Hazardous Materials Population and Housing Agriculture Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Public Services Air Quality Land Use and Planning Recreation Biological Resources Mineral Resources Transportation and Circulation Cultural Resources Noise Utilities and Service Systems Geology and Soils P31IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS ×ÍÝ Ò×Ì×ßÔ ÌËÜÇ ØÛÝÕÔ×ÍÌ The Checklist portion of the Initial Study begins below, with explanations of each answer. A “no impact” response indicates that the impact simply does not apply to the project or any action that would occur due to the Project. A “less than significant” response indicates that while there may be potential for an environmental impact, there are standard procedures or regulations in place, or other features of the Project as proposed, which would limit the extent of this impact to below significance thresholds. Responses that indicate that the impact of the Project would be “less than significant with mitigation” indicate that mitigation measures, identified in the subsequent discussion, will be required as a condition of Project approval in order to effectively reduce potential Project-related environmental effects to a level below significance thresholds. Finally, while this is not the case for any topics in this IS/MND, topics with a “potentially significant impact” response would indicate the inability to identify mitigation measures to reduce the impact below significance thresholds and would need to be analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report. IS/MNDP33 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Potentially Less Than Less Than Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Significant Significant with Significant No Determination of Environmental Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Impact I. ßÛÍÌØÛÌ×ÝÍ — Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ÍÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The Project site is located on Roebling Road, off of East Grand Avenue. The Project would replace three existing office/warehouse buildings with two 2-story office/R&D buildings. ÍÑËÌØ ÍßÒ ÚÎßÒÝ×ÍÝÑ South San Francisco’s urban character is one of contrast within a visually well-defined setting. San Bruno Mountains to the north, the ridge along Skyline Boulevard to the west, and the San Francisco Bay to the east provide the City with distinctive edges. The City is contained in almost a bowl-like fashion by hills on three sides. The City’s terrain ranges from the flatlands along the water to hills east and north. Hills are visible from all parts of the City, and Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain in the distance are visual landmarks. Much of the City’s topography is rolling, resulting in distant views from many neighborhoods. Geographically, the City is relatively small, extending approximately two miles in a north-south direction and about five miles from east to west. ÛßÍÌ ÑÚ ïðï ßÎÛß The Project site is located in the East of 101 planning sub-area of South San Francisco. The East of 101 Area was part of the first industrial development in South San Francisco about 100 years ago. Since then, the area has undergone many transformations. Pioneering industrial uses, such as steel manufacturing, and meat packaging gave way to industrial park and warehousing and distribution uses that came to dominate the area in the 50s and 60s. The recent emergence of modern office buildings marks the third major wave of land use change in the area. The newly emerging office areas are unique in their use of consistent and conscious street tree planting. Older manufacturing uses, industrial park structures and tilt-up warehousing buildings can all be found in the area. Blocks are generally very large in size and the area is in an obvious transition P34IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS from a very stark industrial look to office/R&D campuses with an emphasis on quality architectural and landscape designs. ÜÛÍ×ÙÒ ÙË×ÜÛÔ×ÒÛÍ East of 101 Area Plan Design Element In 1995, the East of 101 Area Plan established goals and policies for the City and East of 101 Area. Although the South San Francisco General Plan (adopted in 1999) supersedes the East of 101 Area Plan, the policies contained in the Plan’s design element still apply to development at the Project Site. The stated goals of the East of 101 Area Plan’s design element are to promote quality design, to 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 facilitate evaluation of individual development proposals through the use of the Plan’s design guidelines. The East of 101 Area’s development policies for the Project Site encourage the creation of campus-like environments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and other high quality multi-tenant office or warehouse developments. The East of 101 Area Plan design element sets area-wide design policies for streetscape, parking, loading and access, site design and open space, landscaping and lighting, fencing and screening, building design, signage and rooftop mechanical equipment. Additionally, the Plan sets more specific guidelines for individual land use categories. For the Project Site, the design guidelines include specific requirements for street trees, landscape buffers, minimizing visual impacts of blank walls, building orientation, design guidelines, parking lot trees and parking lot shrubs. ×ÓÐßÝÌÍ a) Scenic Vistas The Project site is not located within a scenic vista. CEQA generally protects against significant adverse impacts to public views of such scenic vistas, taking into consideration the environmental context—i.e., whether the view is from a recreation area or scenic expanse, as opposed to a developed urban area. San Bruno Mountain is a prominent visual landmark in South San Francisco, and can be seen from many locations throughout the city, including many portions of the East of 101 Area. Construction of the proposed Project may block a small portion of the existing views to the north from locations to the south. However, the areas from which views of the mountain may be blocked are not designated scenic overlooks; and are not places where people gather in order to gain a view of San Bruno Mountain. Therefore, blockage of existing views by the proposed Project, particularly given the Project site’s urban setting, would be considered less than significant. b) Scenic Highways The Project site is not located within or near a designated scenic highway. IS/MNDP35 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS c) Visual Character The proposed Project would involve the demolition of three existing office/warehouse buildings, and replacement with two 2-story office/R&D buildings. The Project site is directly across Roebling Road from a large proposed R&D/biotech development at 213 East Grand Avenue. The proposed Project is consistent with surrounding development and design guidelines contemplated for the East of 101 area, and would not result in development incongruous to the existing and proposed development in the area. This impact would be less than significant. d) Light and Glare Sources of light and glare in the project vicinity include interior and exterior building lights, service areas and surface parking lots, and city street lights. Light and glare associated with vehicular traffic along major thoroughfares in the area also create sources of glare. The existing level and sources of light and glare are typical of those in a developed urban setting. Residential uses and natural areas are particularly sensitive to light and glare impacts, particularly from nearby non-residential sources. However, the Project is located in a commercial and industrial area with no adjacent residential uses or natural areas. The Project would increase the active building area on the project site and therefore would increase the amount of nighttime lighting and glare. However, it is not expected that the project would substantially affect the overall ambient light levels in the project vicinity, a fully developed, urban context. As a standard condition of project approval, new lighting would be required to conform to standards that limit the amount of light that can spill over to other properties, through the use of downcast lighting fixtures. In summary, since the Project would consist of development and lighting treatments typical of the existing commercial/industrial urban settings and would incorporate standard lighting measures to address undue lighting on adjacent areas, it would not result in new sources of substantial adverse light or glare. The impact would be less than significant. P36IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Potentially Less Than Less Than Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Significant Significant with Significant No Determination of Environmental Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Impact II. ßÙÎ×ÝËÔÌËÎÛÎÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ : In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? ÍÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The project site is a currently developed industrial site. It is not farmland and is not under Williamson Act contract. a) Prime Farmland No designated agricultural land is located on the Project site. b) Williamson Act Contracts No land on the Project site is under a Williamson Act contract. c) Farmland Conversion No land on the Project site is used for agricultural purposes. IS/MNDP37 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Potentially Less Than Less Than Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Significant Significant with Significant No Determination of Environmental Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Impact III. ß×ÎÏËßÔ×ÌÇ — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] number of people? ÍÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the rate of release and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain, and for photochemical pollutants, sunshine. Northwest winds are most common in South San Francisco, reflecting the orientation of wind gaps within the mountains of the San Francisco Peninsula. Winds are persistent and strong, providing excellent ventilation and carrying pollutants downwind. Winds are lightest on average in the fall and winter. The persistent winds in South San Francisco result in a relatively low potential for air pollution in the City, but their northwesterly orientation can contribute to poor air quality in regions east of the City. Even so, in fall and winter there are periods of several days when winds are very light and local pollutants can build up. State of California and Federal Air Quality Standards Both the California Air Resource Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants, including ozone, carbon P38IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, suspended particulate matter (PM and PM) and 102.5 lead. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants that represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards include what are called “criteria” pollutants, because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. For some of these pollutants, notably ozone and PM, the State standards are more stringent than the national standards. 10 In addition to the criteria pollutants, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern in the Bay Area. TACs are injurious in small quantities and are regulated despite the absence of criteria documents. The identification, regulation and monitoring of TACs is relatively recent compared to that for criteria pollutants. Bay Area Air Quality Management District The local air quality agency is the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The BAAQMD enforces rules and regulations regarding air pollution sources and is the primary agency preparing the regional air quality plans mandated under state and federal law. The BAAQMD has prepared air quality impact guidelines for use in preparing environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) monitors air quality at several locations within the San Francisco Bay Air Basin, although none are located in South San Francisco. The monitoring stations closest to the Project site are located in San Francisco to the . Table 2 north and Redwood City to the south summarizes the air quality data recorded at these two sites. The table shows that from 2004 through 2006, the ambient air quality in the areas of San Francisco and Redwood City exceeded the state standard for ozone, the state standard for PM, and the federal standard for PM. 10 2.5 According to the standards of the federal Clean Air Act, the Bay Area is in attainment with all federal ambient air quality standards except for ozone and particulate matter. IS/MNDP39 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Table 2: Air Quality Data Summary for Closest Monitoring Sites, 2004-2006 Days Standard Exceeded Pollutant Standard Monitoring Site 2004 2005 2006 San Francisco 000 Ozone Federal 1-Hour Redwood City 000 San Francisco 100 Ozone State 1-Hour Redwood City 100 San Francisco 000 Ozone Federal 8-Hour 1 Redwood City 000 San Francisco 000 Federal 24-Hour PM 10 Redwood City 000 San Francisco 103 State 24-Hour PM 10 Redwood City 122 San Francisco 000 PM Federal 24-Hour 2.5 Redwood City 001 State/FederalSan Francisco 000 Carbon Monoxide 8-HourRedwood City 000 San Francisco 000 Nitrogen Dioxide State 1-Hour Redwood City 000 Source: California Air Resources Board website, http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/welcome.html, accessed 11/26/07. Í×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÝÛ ÌØÎÛÍØÑÔÜÍ The CEQA environmental checklist provides five questions regarding the air quality impact significance of proposed projects. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make 1 the determinations of significance. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelinesprovide the following definitions of a significant air quality impact: A project contributing to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of 9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over 8 hours or 20 ppm for 1 hour would be considered to have a significant impact. A project that generates criteria air pollutant emissions in excess of the BAAQMD annual or daily thresholds would be considered to have a significant air quality impact. The current thresholds are 15 tons/year or 80 pounds/day for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) or PM. Any proposed project that would individually have a significant air 10 quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. 1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, 1999. P40IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant impact. Any project with the potential to expose sensitive receptors or the general public to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants would be deemed to have a significant impact. The term “substantial levels” is further defined as an exposure associated with an excess cancer risk of 10 in one million. The BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction dust impacts are based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emission of PM. If the appropriate construction controls are to be 10 implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less than significant. ×ÓÐßÝÌÍ a) Conflict with Air Quality Plan Significance Criteria:The Project would be considered to have a significant impact if it were to be in conflict with the current air quality plan. A project would be in conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality plan if it would be inconsistent with the growth assumptions, in terms of population, employment or regional growth in vehicle miles traveled. The growth assumptions used for the regional air quality plans are based upon the growth assumptions provided in local general plans. As shown in the Land Use and Transportationsections, respectively, the Project would not exceed growth assumptions made in the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan. The Project site is in an area designated as Business and Technology Park in the 1999 General Plan. The South San Francisco General Plan specifies an average Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.5 for the Business and Technology Park designation, but permits increases up to a FAR of 1.0 for research and development uses. At a FAR of 0.8, the proposed Project would therefore be within the anticipated range. The Project site’s proposed use is also consistent with the zoning for the area, Planned Industrial (PI). The City’s General Plan designations and future land use types and intensities would have been taken into account during preparation of the BAAQMD’s most recent Clean Air Plan, released in 2000. Therefore, the Project would have no impact related to a conflict with the air quality plan. b) and c) Air Quality Standards Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would exceed BAAQMD’s mass emission rate threshold or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). IS/MNDP41 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Particulate Emissions from Construction Activities Demolition, earth-moving activities, and exhaust emissions from construction-related vehicles and equipment comprise the major sources of construction dust and diesel emissions. Instead of requiring quantitative analysis of construction activity to determine significance, BAAQMD regards emissions of PM and other pollutants from construction activity to be less than 10 significant if dust and particulate control measures are implemented. Impact Air-1 Construction Dust and Exhaust. Construction activity involves a high potential for the emission of air pollutants. Construction activities would generate exhaust emissions from vehicles/equipment and fugitive dust particles that could affect local air quality. This impact is considered to be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure Air-1a: Fugitive Dust Control Measures. The Project shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable regulations and operating procedures prior to issuance of demolition, building or grading permits, including implementation of the following BAAQMD “Basic and Enhanced Control Measures” to reduce the temporary air quality impact associated with construction dust. Basic Measures Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction site. Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Limit construction equipment idling time. Properly tune construction equipment engines, and install particulate traps on diesel equipment. P42IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Enhanced Measures Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Mitigation Measure Air-1b Construction Exhaust Reduction Programs. The Project shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable County regulations and operating procedures prior to issuance of demolition, building or grading permits, and shall use its best efforts to adhere to the following diesel reduction efforts: At least 50 percent of the heavy-duty, off-road equipment used for construction shall be CARB-certified off-road engines or equivalent, or use alternative fuels (such as biodiesel or water emulsion fuel) that result in lower emissions. Use add-on control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters. Opacity is an indicator of exhaust particulate emissions from off-road diesel powered equipment. The project shall ensure that emissions from all construction diesel powered equipment used on the project site do not exceed 40 percent opacity for more than three minutes in any one hour. Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be prohibited from use on the site until repaired. The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid the need for independently powered equipment (e.g., compressors). Diesel equipment standing idle for more than two minutes shall be turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate or other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running continuously as long as they were on site. Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions. IS/MNDP43 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS The BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction dust impacts are based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emission of PM. With implementation of the Basic and 10 Enhanced Control Measures listed in Mitigation Measure Air-1a and construction exhaust reduction measures listed in Mitigation Measure Air-1b, air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less than significant. Emissions of Hazardous Materials during Building Lot Demolition The California Health and Safety Code requires local agencies not to issue demolition permits until an applicant has demonstrated compliance with notification requirements under applicable federal regulations regarding asbestos, lead-based paint and other potentially hazardous materials. The BAAQMD is vested by the California Legislature with authority to regulate airborne pollutants through both inspection and law enforcement, and is to be notified ten days in advance of any proposed demolition and must provide information on the amount and nature of any hazardous pollutants, nature ofplanned work and methods to be employed, and the name and location of the waste disposal site to be used. The purpose of BAAQMD regulations is the minimization of potential hazards to the public and surrounding land uses. The Project must also comply with California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) regulations, standards and procedures and California Department of Health Services (DHS) Lead Work Practice Standards. These regulations are designed to minimize worker and general public exposure to hazardous building materials. The above regulations and procedures, already established and enforced as part of the permit review process, would ensure that the impact of hazardous emissions during construction of the Project would be less than significant. Air Pollutants from Operational Activities Currently, the BAAQMD mass emission rate threshold considers projects that generate 80 pounds per day of reactive organic gases (ROG, which contributes to the formation of ozone), nitrogen oxides (NO, such as NO), or PM as having significant direct andcumulativeair X210 quality impacts (i.e., contributing substantially to the current exceedances of air quality standards for ozone and PM). Consistent with CEQA, BAAQMD requires all phases of a project to be 10 evaluated for potential impacts, including impacts associated with construction activity (grading, exhaust from construction equipment, and any required demolition) and with the operation of the completed project (related to vehicle exhaust or stationary sources such as from industrial sources). The BAAQMD has developed the URBEMIS 2007 (version 9.2.2) model to screen projects for the potential to exceed emissions significance thresholds. The project size and forecasted trip generation (see Transportation and Circulation section) were input into this model. Default assumptions for the San Francisco Bay Area were used for a near-term model year of 2009. The project’s total (worst case scenario not subtracting for existing uses to be replaced or mitigation P44IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Table 3. measures) emissions are estimated as shown in The URBEMIS output sheets can be found in Appendix A. Ì¿¾´» íæ Û¬·³¿¬»¼ îððç Ñ°»®¿¬·±²¿´ ¿²¼ ß®»¿ Û³··±² ø·² °±«²¼ °»® ¼¿§÷ Pollutant CO ROG NO PM X10 Significance Threshold 550 80 80 80 Project Emissions 131 11 14 15 Emission factors were generated by BAAQMD’s URBEMIS 2007 9.2.2 model for San Francisco Air Basin, the output of which is included in Appendix A. All daily estimates are for summertime conditions except for CO, which assumes wintertime conditions. The BAAQMD requires localized carbon monoxide concentrations to be estimated for projects in which: 1) vehicle emissions of CO would exceed 550 lb/day, 2) project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service (LOS) D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F, or 3) project traffic would increase traffic volumes on nearby Table 3 roadways by 10% or more. Based on and the Traffic analysis presented in this IS/MND, no additional analysis of CO would be required for this project. Operational emissions attributable to the Project would be below BAAQMD thresholds. On this basis, the Project would be expected to have a less than significant impact on regional air quality and cumulative air quality. d) Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollution Concentrations Significance Criteria:For the purpose of assessing impacts of a proposed Project on exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations, the threshold of significance is exceeded when the probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI) exceeds 10 in one million. A quarter mile radius is an adequate distance within which to consider potential impacts to sensitive receptors due to operation. Examples of sensitive receptors include schools, hospitals, residential areas with children and convalescent facilities. The closest sensitive receptors are the Early Years Children’s Center located at 371 Allerton Avenue, between ¼ and ½ mile east of the proposed Project, and the Gateway Child Care Center at 599 Gateway Boulevard, less than ¼ mile west of the project site. The Project could include laboratory facilities or stationary equipment (e.g., standby emergency generators) that emit air pollution. These sources could emit small amounts of toxic air contaminants with the potential to affect sensitive receptors within a quarter mile of the project site. While the specific tenants of the proposed site have not been identified, stationary equipment or laboratories that are subject to BAAQMD permitting requirements will be required to show that impacts to the public would be negligible. Therefore, because the Project would comply with standard BAAQMD permitting requirements, the impact would be considered less than significant. IS/MNDP45 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS e) Odors Significance Criteria: The BAAQMD defines public exposure to offensive odors as a potentially significant impact. Potential odor impacts are based on a list of specific types of facilities, such as wastewater treatment plants, landfills, refineries, etc. Many construction vehicles run on diesel gasoline, the exhaust of which has a distinct smell generally considered an objectionable odor. However, these odors would be temporary, as they are only associated with construction, and would not be expected to reach substantially beyond the boundaries of the Project site as such odors do not generally remain noticeable at any substantial distance from their source. The impact of the Project with regard to odors is considered to be less than significant. This impact would be further reduced by implementation of mitigation measure Air-1b, intended to reduce construction exhaust. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change Significance Criteria: At this time there are no statewide guidelines for greenhouse gas emission impacts, but this will be addressed through the provisions of Senate Bill 97 (“SB 97”), which was enacted in 2007. SB 97 requires the State Office of Planning and Research "OPR" to develop CEQA guidelines for the effects and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, the guidelines will not be available for some time as OPR has until July 1, 2009 to draft the new greenhouse gas guidelines, and the State Resources Agency will thereafter have until January 1, 2010 to certify and adopt the regulations. Although, there is currently no adopted threshold to evaluate potential impacts, for this analysis, a project would be considered to have a significant impact if the project would conflicts with or obstructs implementation of greenhouse gas reduction measures under AB 32 and other state regulations. Global Climate Change is a long-term substantial change in the average weather on earth, as often measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation and temperature. The science of global climate change is evolving and remains subject to extensive debate and uncertainties, however, recent reports from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have concluded that global climate change is likely due, at least partially, to emissions of 2 “greenhouse gasses” (GHGs) from human activity. Greenhouse gasses are most frequently produced by the burning of fossil fuels for transportation and electricity generation, and include carbon dioxide (CO), methane (CH), nitrous oxide (NO), sulfur hexafluoride (SF), 2426 perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and water vapor (HO). They allow 2 sunlight to enter the atmosphere, but trap a portion of the outward-bound infrared radiation, thereby warming the air. Like the science of global climate change, the law surrounding its impacts is still evolving. Currently, neither CEQA nor the implementing Guidelines require analysis of a project’s GHG 2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group I: The Physical Basis of Climate Change, http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html, website accessed July 2, 2007. P46IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS emissions or impacts on global climate change. This is likely to change, however, following the adoption of Senate Bill (SB) 97. Though not required under CEQA, the following analysis evaluates the proposed project’s GHG impacts. Currently the Federal Government does not regulate emissions of greenhouse gases, however, the State of California has been proactive in studying the impacts of climate change. In October 2007, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) published the ExpandedList of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board 3 Consideration. The 44 measures are in the sectors of fuels, transportation, forestry, agriculture, education, energy efficiency, commercial, solid waste, cement, oil and gas, electricity, and fire Table 4 suppression as listed in . 3 California Air Resources Board, October 2007, Expanded List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration. IS/MNDP47 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Ì¿¾´» ìæ Î»½±³³»²¼»¼ ßÞíî Ù®»»²¸±«» Ù¿ Ó»¿«®» ID# Sector Strategy Name ID# Sector Strategy Name 1 Fuels Above Ground Storage Tanks 23 Commercial SF reductions from the non- 6 electric sector 2 Transportation Diesel – Offroad equipment 24 Transportation Tire inflation program (non-agricultural) 3 Forestry Forestry protocol endorsement 25 Transportation Cool automobile paints 4 Transportation Diesel – Port trucks 26 Cement Cement (A): Blended cements 5 Transportation Diesel – Vessel main engine 27 Cement Cement (B): Energy efficiency of fuel specifications California cement facilities 6 Transportation 28 Transportation Diesel – Commercial harbor Ban on HFC release from Motor craftVehicle AC service / dismantling 7 Transportation Green ports 29 Transportation Diesel – Off-road equipment (agricultural) 8 Agriculture 30 Transportation Manure management Add AC leak tightness test and (methane digester protocol) repair to Smog Check 9 Education 31 Agriculture Local Gov. Greenhouse Gas Research on GHG reductions from (GHG) reduction guidance / nitrogen land applications protocols 10 Education Business GHG reduction 32 Commercial Specifications for commercial guidance / protocols refrigeration 11Cool communities program 33 Oil and Gas Energy Reduction in venting / leaks from Efficiency oil and gas systems 12 Commercial 34 Transportation Reduce high Global Warming Requirement of low-GWP GHGs Potential (GWP) GHGs in for new Motor Vehicle ACs products 13 Commercial Reduction of PFCs from 35 Transportation Hybridization of medium and semiconductor industry heavy-duty diesel vehicles 14 Transportation SmartWay truck efficiency 36 Electricity Reduction of SF in electricity 6 generation 15 Transportation Low Carbon Fuel Standard 37 Commercial High GWP refrigerant tracking, (LCFS) reporting and recovery program 16 Transportation 38 Commercial Reduction of HFC-134a from Foam recovery / destruction DIY Motor Vehicle AC program servicing 17 Waste Improved landfill gas capture 39 Fire Suppression Alternative suppressants in fire protection systems 18 Fuels Gasoline dispenser hose 40 Transportation Strengthen light-duty vehicle replacement standards 19 Fuels Portable outboard marine 41 Transportation Truck stop electrification with tanksincentives for truckers 20 Transportation Standards for off-cycle driving 42 Transportation Diesel – Vessel speed reductions conditions 21 Transportation 43 Transportation Diesel – Privately owned on-Transportation refrigeration – road trucks electric standby 22 Transportation Anti-idling enforcement 44 Agriculture Electrification of stationary agricultural engines Source: California Air Resources Board, October 2007, Expanded List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration. P48IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS In addition to identifying early actions to reduce greenhouse gases, CARB has also developed mandatory greenhouse gas reporting regulations pursuant to requirements of AB 32. Once approved, the regulations will require reporting for facilities that make up the bulk of the stationary source emissions in California. The regulations identify major facilities as those that generate more than 25,000 metric tons of COE/yr. Cement plants, oil refineries, electric 2 generating facilities/providers, co-generation facilities, and hydrogen plants and other stationary combustion sources that emit more than 25,000 metric tons of COE/yr, are estimated to make 2 4 up 94 percent of the point source CO emissions in California. 2 In lieu of CEQA significance thresholds, the City of South San Francisco uses three types of analyses to determine whether the project could be in conflict with the State measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The analyses are as follows with a project-specific discussion trailing each in italics: 1.Whether the project conflicts with or obstructs implementation of CARB’s 44 early action strategies. The Project would not, by nature of its expected land use and associated activities, result in greenhouse gases falling under the sectors and action items listed in Table 4 above. Therefore, no conflict would result. 2.Whether the project’s volume of emissions would trigger the need to report greenhouse gas emissions to the state (i.e., emissions of at least 25,000 metric tons of 5 carbon dioxide equivalent per year). The 25,000 metric ton limit identifies the large stationary point sources in California that make up 94 percent of the stationary emissions. 6 The Project’s estimated unmitigated yearly emissions of CO are 140.01 metric tons. 2 CO emissions make up the majority of CO equivalent, particularly for a project, 22 such as this one, where the primary source of GHG emissions are vehicle emissions. Accordingly, where a project will only produce 140.01 metric tons of CO emissions, 2 total CO equivalent would not be expected to approach the 25,000 metric ton 2 reporting limit. Not surprisingly, the Project does not constitute a “major facility” that is a large stationary point source of emissions. 3.Elements of the project, mitigation measures, and City policies and requirements that contribute to the efficiency of the project and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Most 4 California Air Resources Board, December 6, 2007, Mandatory Reporting of California greenhouse gas Emissions, Presentation in El Monte, California. 5 The State of California has not provided guidance as to quantitative significance thresholds for assessing the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change and global warming concerns. Nothing in the CEQA Guidelines directly addresses this issue. 6 See Appendix A, URBEMIS 2007 emission calculations. Tons were converted to metric tons using the conversion factor of 0.907 metric tons per ton. IS/MNDP49 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS projects will include project components and/or mitigation measures, that may not be intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but will nonetheless have this effect. Similarly, many City policies and requirements, such as traffic demand management programs, may also operate to improve the efficiency and reduce emissions associated with the project. An analysis of a project’s impact on climate change should consider such elements, measures, and requirements. The Project includes a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. The TDM Plan, required by City Ordinance for the life of the Project, is required to achieve a 35% alternative mode-use by tenant employees. This would serve to reduce emissions related to employee vehicle use commuting to and from work. Additionally, the enhanced measures to reduce construction exhaust (Mitigated Measure Air-1) would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions resulting from, for example, the use of alternative fuels, electrical service for powered equipment, reduced diesel engine idling times frames. P50IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Potentially Less Than Less Than Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Significant Significant with Significant No Determination of Environmental Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Impact IV. Þ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔÎÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ — Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ÍÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The Project site is located in a largely industrial area, on a site that has previously been developed, and is predominantly covered with asphalt and buildings. The existing limited vegetation consists of parking lot and screening landscaping. IS/MNDP51 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS a) and b) Special Status Species and Habitat The Project site does not contain special status species or their habitat. The site has been developed and is in an urbanized state. The Project has no impact on special status species and habitat. c) and d) Wetlands and Wildlife Corridors The proposed project site does not contain wetland areas. It is an area that is currently developed with urban land uses. The Project has no impact on wetlands and wildlife corridors. e) and f) Plan and Policy Conflicts Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The existing vegetation on site consists of parking lot and screening landscaping. None of the trees onsite are large enough to be considered Protected Trees under the City of South San Francisco Tree Protection Ordinance. The Project has no impact on General Plan policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. P52IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Potentially Less Than Less Than Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Significant Significant with Significant No Determination of Environmental Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Impact V. ÝËÔÌËÎßÔÎÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ — Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] interred outside of formal cemeteries? ÍÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The Historic and Cultural Resources Element of South San Francisco’s General Plan provides the following description of the cultural and historic context: “South San Francisco’s growth is notable for the close relationship between industry and community. The development of a residential town in support of new industrial plants was the calculated strategy of local industrialists. With the success of the city’s industries, South San Francisco earned an important role as “The Industrial City” of the region. The conservation of this unique history is the objective of historic and cultural preservation in South San Francisco. In addition to Sign Hill, designated resources in South San Francisco include several residential and commercial buildings in the downtown area. The City’s Municipal Code and State and federal law, protect these local, State, and national historic resources from alteration and demolition. Although industry played a critical role in South San Francisco’s history, no industrial buildings or sites are currently designated historic resources.” No historic resources were identified on the project site or in the whole of the East of 101 Area. Additionally, South San Francisco’s Historic Preservation Commission has identified fifty historically or culturally significant sites through the Historic Marker Program. While none of these sites have been designated a Historic Resource, each has been identified for its historic or cultural significance and is identified by a marker that describes its significance as part of the history of this City. IS/MNDP53 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS a) Historical Resource Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5. The corner lot, 233 East Grand Avenue, is marker site #38 in the City’s Historic Marker Program. Created by the City’s Historic Preservation Commission, the Historic Marker Program is an effort to identify and provide information about sites with significance as part of the history of this City, though none of these sites have been designated as Historic Resources. This site’s marker notes that the lot was once the site of the United Packing Co. from 1929 to 1958 with its significance described as follows: “Built on the site of the Metzger Packing Plant. Owned by 7 A.C. Freeman. Housed a butcher's slaughterhouse and a broker's commission house.” This marker references previous uses no longer on the site and would not be considered to indicate a cultural or historic resource under CEQA. The Project site is currently developed with 1980s era office/R&D buildings, which are not eligible for designation on the California Register of Historic Resources. The Project has no impact on historical resources. b) Archaeological Resources Significant Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological resources as defined in CEQA Section 15064.5. According to the City of South San Francisco General Plan, South San Francisco’s coastal location, and its rich history as a center of industry, makes the existence of prehistoric and historic archaeological resources likely. It is possible that buried prehistoric resources may be found in the City, although currently there is insufficient data to predict that they may be found at the Project site, especially because the site has been previously disturbed. If archaeological resources are discovered on site, these resources shall be handled according to CEQA Section 15064.5(c), which calls on lead agencies to refer to the provisions of Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code, or Section 21084.1 if the archaeological site is determined to be a historical resource. This would be a standard condition of any project approval so the impact is consideredless than significant. c) Geologic/Paleontological Features There are no unique geologic or paleontological features associated with the Project site. The Project has no impact on paleontological resources or geologic features. 7 http://ssf.net/depts/ecd/historic/marker_program.asp P54IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS d) Human Remains Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in the disturbance of any human remains. There are no known human remains that would be disturbed by the proposed project. As mentioned under b) above, most of the Project site has already been disturbed by urban development. No formal cemeteries have been located on the Project site. If human remains are found within the Project site, they will be handled according to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code or, if the remains are Native American, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code as per CEQA Section 15064.5(d). This would be a standard condition of any project approval so the impact is considered less than significant. IS/MNDP55 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Potentially Less Than Less Than Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Significant Significant with Significant No Determination of Environmental Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Impact VI. ÙÛÑÔÑÙÇßÒÜÍÑ×ÔÍ — Would the Project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] liquefaction? iv) Landslides? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of roadway improvements, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ÍÛÌÌ×ÒÙ Regional Seismicity The Project site lies in the tectonically active Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province of Northern California, on the east side of the San Francisco Peninsula. The geologic and geomorphic structure of the northwest trending ridges and valleys in the region, including the Santa Cruz Mountains and San Francisco Bay, are controlled by active tectonism along the boundary between the North American and Pacific Tectonic Plates, defined by the San Andreas Fault P56IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS System. Regional faults have predominantly right-lateral strike-slip (horizontal) movement, with lesser dip-slip (vertical) components of displacement. Horizontal and vertical movement is distributed on the various fault strands within a fault zone. Throughout geologic time the fault strands experiencing active deformation change in response to regional shifts in stress and strain from plate motions. Within 15 miles of the Project site there are three major active faults that display large right-lateral strike-slip offsets, the San Andreas Fault, the San Gregorio Fault, and the Hayward Fault. The nearest known active fault is the San Andreas Fault trace, located approximately 3 miles (5 km) southwest of the site. Other nearby active faults include the Hayward Fault 15 miles (24 km) northeast, the San Gregorio Fault (Seal Cove Fault) located approximately 8.6 miles to the southwest, the Calaveras Fault located 25 miles northeast and the Concord/Green Valley Fault located 30 miles northeast. Other faults are nearer than the San Andreas but not considered active since they show no evidence of Holocene rupture or movement during the past 11,000 years. This includes the San Bruno and Serra Faults mapped approximately 1.4 and 2.6 miles (2.2 km and 4.2 km) west of the site. The nearest mapped fault of any type is the Hillside Fault mapped about 0.35 miles (0.55 km) northeast. While this is near the subject property the fault shows no evidence of rupture during at least the past 2 million years. Seismicity of the Project region has resulted in several major earthquakes during the historic period, including the 1868 Hayward Earthquake, the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, and most 8 recently, the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. According to ABAG, violent ground shaking (Modified Mercalli Intensity, MMI Level IX) is possible in response to a large earthquake along the nearby San Andreas Fault. A major rupture of the Hayward Fault is expected to produce strong ground shaking, MMI VII. Regional Geology The Project site is located at the edge of the San Francisco Bay, a submerged valley in the Central Coast Ranges of California. This area is characterized by northwest trending mountain ranges and valleys oriented sub-parallel to faults of the San Andreas Fault System. In the San Francisco Bay area, Tertiary strata commonly rest in angular unconformity on rocks of the Franciscan complex, which is composed of weakly to strongly metamorphosed greywacke (sandstone), argillite, limestone, basalt, serpentinite, and chert. The rocks of the Franciscan Complex are ancient Jurassic oceanic crust and deep marine (pelagic) deposits accreted onto the edge of the North American Continent and metamorphosed as a result of accretion and partial subduction. These deposits have been overlain by Late Jurassic to Late Cretaceous sedimentary deposits. Deposits of these rocks may be found outcropping along San Bruno Mountain in the Project vicinity. Little metamorphosed, high-pressure, low-temperature metamorphic minerals 8 California Division of Mines and Geology, 2002. Fault Evaluation Reports Prepared Under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, CGS CD 2002-01 IS/MNDP57 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS are common in the Franciscan complex, but there are also high grade metamorphic blocks in sheared but relatively un-metamorphosed argillite matrix which reflect the complicated history of the Franciscan. These rocks have been offset by movement along the San Andreas Fault System, which traverses the Santa Cruz Mountains prior to heading offshore in Southern Daly City, on the other side of the Peninsula. Several northwest trending and structurally controlled valleys dissect the San Francisco Peninsula, including the valley of Colma Creek, which contains the Project site. During the Quaternary Period of rising and falling sea level in response to patterns of global glaciation, these valleys were incised and then backfilled with sediment to form the suite of alluvial deposits that can be found today, including the Pleistocene Colma Formation. Along the bay margin, deposits of Holocene Bay Mud, marsh deposits, and other fine grained sediment accumulated by currents along the shore. Site Geology and Soils 9 According to a recent geologic map of the area, the Project site is at the northern edge of an area underlain by fill, described as clay, silt, sand, rock fragments, organic matter, and man made debris, placed over tidal flats. However, just north of the site is a large outcrop of Franciscan bedrock, indicating that the site is likely underlain at a relatively shallow depth by the Franciscan Complex. Sandstone bedrock typical of the Franciscan Complex was penetrated in two boreholes at the site located approximately 350 feet south of the site. A geotechnical investigation was not completed for the Project, but several geotechnical studies of the surrounding parcels have been completed in association with recent construction activities. In four geotechnical studies of adjacent properties, subsurface conditions were found to consist of fill materials overlying soft Bay Mud deposits, which are underlain by medium dense to very dense granular alluvial soils (Colma Formation). The thickness of fill and Bay Mud varied considerably on the adjacent properties. Fill soils ranged from five to twelve feet deep; Bay Mud varied from three feet to 30-feet in thickness under the fill soils. Bedrock was not encountered in boreholes, with the exception of two boreholes in which weathered sandstone was encountered at depths of 68.5 feet and 73 feet below ground surface. These boreholes were located 350 to 400 10 feet south of the Project site. It is expected that subsurface conditions at the Project site are generally similar to those encountered during the geotechnical studies of the surrounding parcels. The thickness of the surficial fill materials, Bay Mud, alluvial sediments, and depth to bedrock could vary considerably. 9 Bonilla, M.G. 1998, Geologic Map of the South San Francisco 7.5’ Quadrangle and Part of the Hunter’s Point 7.5’ Quadrangle, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-354 10 Geomatrix Consultants, 1997, Geotechnical Study Sugen and Metaxen Buildings Britannia Pointe Grand Business Park. P58IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS ÎÛÙËÔßÌÑÎÇ ÍÛÌÌ×ÒÙ State Laws and Regulations Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The California Legislature passed the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act in 1972 to 11 mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Act’s main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act addresses only the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. Local agencies must regulate most development in fault zones established by the State Geologist. Before a project can be permitted in a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, the city or county with jurisdiction must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that proposed buildings would not be constructed across active or potentially active faults. California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act The California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (California Public Resources Code Sections 2690-2699.6) addresses seismic hazards other than surface rupture, such as liquefaction and seismically induced landslides. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act specifies that the lead agency for a project may withhold development permits until geologic or soils investigations are conducted for specific sites and mitigation measures are incorporated into plans to reduce hazards associated with seismicity and unstable soils. California Building Code Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, also known as the California Building Standards Code, sets minimum requirements for building design and construction. The 2007 version of the California Building Standards Code are effective as of January 1, 2008. The California Building Standards Code is a compilation of three types of building standards from three different origins: Building standards that have been adopted by state agencies without change from building standards contained in national model codes; Building standards that have been adopted and adapted from the national model code standards to meet California conditions; and Building standards, authorized by the California legislature, that constitute extensive additions not covered by the model codes that have been adopted to address particular 12 California concerns. 11 California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997 revision, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, DMG Special Publication 42. 12 California Building Standards Commission website at http://www.bsc.ca.gov/title_24/default.htm IS/MNDP59 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS In the context of earthquake hazards, the California Building Standards Code’s design standards have a primary objective of assuring public safety and a secondary goal of minimizing property damage and maintaining function during and following seismic events. The 2007 version of the California Building Standards Code differs significantly from the previous versions of the code. The 2007 code assigns a seismic design category (SDC) to each structure. The SDC is assigned as a means of capturing both the seismic hazard, in terms of mapped acceleration parameters (spectral values), site class (defining the soil profile), and the occupancy category (based on its importance or hazardous material contents). The SDC affects design and detailing requirements as well as the structural system that may be used and its height. The previous versions of the 13 code captured these requirements simply based on the location’s seismic zone. Local Regulations and Policies City of South San Francisco Hazard Mitigation Plan The City of South San Francisco has adopted the Association of Bay Area Governments Local Hazard Mitigation Plan as the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) for the City by resolution 65-2006, on August 16, 2006. The HMP has been designed to identify the areas where people or structures may have higher vulnerability to earthquakes, flood, wildland fires, and other natural hazards. The plan identifies policies and actions that may be implemented by the City to reduce the potential for loss of life and property damage in these areas based on an analysis of the frequency of earthquakes, floods, wildland fires and landslides in terms of frequency, intensity, location, history, and damage effects. The Plan serves as a guide for decision-makers as they commit resources to reduce the effects of natural hazards. City of South San Francisco General Plan Update The General Plan Update Health and Safety Element includes a section on Geological and Seismic Hazards. This section identifies geotechnical and geologic impacts to the general City of South San Francisco area. The most recent General Plan update was completed in October 1999. East of 101 Area Plan The 1999 General Plan update also includes a summary of the East of 101 Area Plan, providing specific policies for the area located east of U.S. Highway 101. City of South San Francisco Municipal Code The City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 15 includes information on the Construction Codes and Amendments adopted by the City of South San Francisco. This includes the California Building Code, among other codes used in construction in the City of South San 13 Bonneville, David New Building Code Provisions and Their Implications for Design and Construction in California (abstract), 2007, obtained from http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/smip/docs/seminar/SMIP07/Pages/Paper12_Bonneville.aspx P60IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Francisco. The California Building Code Vol. 1 and 2, 2007 Edition, including the California Building Standards, 2007 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, and as modified by the amendments, additions and deletions set forth in Title 15 was adopted by reference as the building code of the city of South San Francisco on January 1, 2008. ×ÓÐßÝÌÍ a) Seismic Hazards Seismic hazards are generally classified as two types, primary and secondary. The primary seismic hazard is surface fault rupture. Secondary seismic hazards, caused by the sudden movement along a fault, include strong ground shaking, liquefaction, dynamic densification and seismically induced ground failure. i) Surface Fault Rupture Significance Criteria:The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with the surface rupture of a known earthquake fault. A number of active and potentially active faults are present in the region. According to the criteria of the State of California Geological Survey (CGS), active faults have experienced either historic or documented surface fault rupture within the last 11,000 years. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 initiated a program of mapping active and potentially active faults. According to the program, active faults must be zoned and development projects within the Alquist-Priolo defined Earthquake Fault Zones must be investigated to establish the location and age of any faulting across a proposed development site. Many active and potentially active faults in San Mateo County have undergone extensive investigation in the past. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has summarized results from many of these studies to quantify the potential impact to certain areas, while the California Geological Survey has established Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ) boundaries where primary seismic hazards are very high. According to these maps, the proposed development is not located within an EFZ. No faults zoned as active by the State of California are mapped across the Project site. As such, it has been determined that the risk of ground rupture along a fault trace is low at the Project site. The Project would have a less than significant impact on exposing people or structures to danger from surface rupture of a known earthquake fault. ii) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking Significance Criteria:The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground shaking. IS/MNDP61 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS The San Francisco Bay Region has experienced several historic earthquakes from movement along the San Andreas and other associated active faults. Mapped active faults (those experiencing surface rupture within the past 11,000 years) nearest the site are characterized in Table 5 . Table5: Nearest Active Faults Fault System Distance From Site Direction From MCE Moment Modified Mercalli (Miles/Km)Site to Fault MagnitudeShaking Intensity 123 San Andreas 3.5/5.6 Southwest 7.9 IX San Gregorio 9/14.5 Southwest 7.3 VIII Hayward 15/24 Northeast 7.1 VII Calaveras 24/39 East 7.5 VI Rodgers Creek 32/51.5 North 7.0 VII 1 Fault Activity map of California and Adjacent Areas, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994. 2 Caltrans California Seismic Hazards Map based on Maximum Credible Earthquakes, California Department of Transportation, 1996 3 Association of Bay Area Governments Shaking Intensity Map http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/mapsba.html 14 Data presented by the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (USGS, 2003) estimates the chance of one or more large earthquakes (Magnitude 6.7 or greater) occurring in the San Francisco Bay region between the years of 2002 to 2031 to be 62 percent. Consequently, the site will likely be subject to strong seismic shaking during the life of the improvements. The site is not located immediately adjacent to a known active fault, but the presence of deep soft underlying alluvium and marsh or bay mud deposits overlain by fill is expected to amplify seismic waves significantly. The intensity of ground shaking will vary with the distance and magnitude of the earthquake causing the ground shaking, as well as the density and consistency of underlying materials. This ground shaking intensity has been predicted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and California Geological Survey (CGS) for most of the Bay Area, including the Project site, and is summarized on the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) website. The maximum intensity ground shaking expected to occur at the site would be a modified Mercalli intensity level of IX (violent) in response to a major rupture along the San Andreas Fault equivalent to the 1906 earthquake. A major rupture on the San Gregorio, Hayward or Rodgers Creek faults is predicted to cause strong to very strong ground shaking (MMI=VII to VIII), while a major earthquake on more distant faults is expected to cause moderate to strong ground shaking of the site. Strong ground shaking could severely damage unreinforced masonry or poorly built 14 Working Group on California Earthquakes, Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region: 2003- 2031, USGS Open File Report 03-214 P62IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS structures, while violent shaking is expected to cause extensive damage to even well constructed buildings. The California Geological Survey has developed a probabilistic seismic hazards map to predict the peak ground acceleration that can be expected at a given site. The probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for this site predicts a peak ground acceleration of approximately 61% that of 15 gravity, with a 10 percent chance of being exceeded in 50 years. Impact Geo-1: Occupants of the Roebling Road site would be subject to seismic-induced ground shaking. Seismic-induced ground shaking is a significant impact to all projects within the San Francisco Bay Region. Development of the Project would increase the number of structures and people potentially exposed to hazards associated with a major earthquake in the region. This is a potentially significant impact. While this impact cannot be eliminated, it can be reduced through the implementation of the following mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure Geo-1a: Compliance with California Building Code. Project development shall meet requirements of the California Building Code Vols. 1 and 2, 2007 Edition, including the California Building Standards, 2007 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, and as modified by the amendments, additions and deletions as adopted by the City of South San Francisco, California. Incorporation of seismic construction standards would reduce the potential for catastrophic effects of ground shaking, such as complete structural failure, but will not completely eliminate the hazard of seismically induced ground shaking. Mitigation Measure Geo-1b: Compliance with a design level Geotechnical Investigation report and with Structural Design Plans. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical design and a Registered Structural Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in structural design. The structural engineering design shall incorporate seismic parameters as outlined in the 2007 California Building Code. The Project Geotechnical Investigation shall establish the seismic design parameters, as determined by the geotechnical engineer in accordance with requirements of the 2007 California Building Code. 15 California Geological Survey, Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap/pshamain.html IS/MNDP63 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Mitigation Measure Geo-1c: Obtain a building permit and complete final plan review. The Project applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Plan Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by the Building Division for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. Implementation of mitigation measures Geo-1a through Geo-1c would reduce the impact of exposing people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground shaking to a level of less than significant by implementation of current building code requirements and the design level recommendations for construction prepared by Geotechnical and Structural Engineers. Building Division Plan Review will verify that the code requirements and geotechnical and structural engineer recommendations are implemented. iii) Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading Significance Criteria:The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction and lateral spreading. Impact Geo-2: Liquefaction, Densification, and Ground Surface Settlement. Due to the site’s location at the border between the competent bedrock of Oyster point to the north, and artificial fill placed over tidal flats to the south, the Association of Bay Area Governments’ liquefaction hazard map shows the southern portion of the Project area as an area of high hazard for liquefaction. The northern portion is shown as having a very low hazard for liquefaction. Liquefaction or densification of soils underlying the site could result in settlement and differential settlement of site improvements including buildings, pavements, and utilities and pose a threat to human health. The potential for liquefaction of site soils is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Geo-2a: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical Investigation and in conformance with Structural Design Plans. A Design Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared for the site under the direction of a California Registered Geotechnical Engineer, or Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering, and shall include analysis for liquefaction potential of the underlying sediments. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation. The Geotechnical Investigation shall be reviewed P64IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS and approved by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant and by the City Engineer. A Registered Structural Engineer, or civil engineer experienced in structural engineering shall prepare Project structural design plans. Structures shall be designed to minimize the effects of anticipated seismic settlements. The Geotechnical Engineer shall review the Structural Design Plans and provide approval for the geotechnical elements of the plans. The design plans shall identify specific mitigation measures to reduce the liquefaction potential of surface soils. Mitigation measures may include excavation and replacement as engineered fill, reduced foundation loading, and ground improvement by methods such as stone columns or pressure grouting. Mitigation Measure Geo-2b: Obtain a building permit and complete plan review. The Project applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Plan Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by the Building Division for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. Implementation of mitigation measures Geo-2a and Geo-2b.would reduce the impact of exposing people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and lateral spreading to a less than significant level by implementation of current building code requirements and the design level recommendations for construction prepared by Geotechnical and Structural Engineers. Building Division Plan Review will verify that the code requirements and geotechnical and structural engineer recommendations are implemented. iv) Landslides Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to substantial hazards from landslides. Impact Geo-3.Landslides and Slope Stability . A landslide is a mass of rock, soil and debris displaced down slope by sliding, flowing or falling. The site is located on gently sloping ground, and as such natural slope stability is not expected to be an issue. However, cuts currently exist in the northern part of the site, and more cuts will be necessary to provide level building pads. These cuts will require construction of retaining walls, which could fail if improperly designed. The impacts of slope stability and landslides are potentially significant. IS/MNDP65 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Mitigation Measure Geo-3: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical Investigation and Proper Retaining Wall Design. A Design Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared for the site under the direction of a California Registered Geotechnical Engineer, or Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering, and shall include analysis of the site slope stability. Proper foundation engineering and retaining wall design shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation. The Geotechnical Investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant and by the City Engineer. Implementation of mitigation measure Geo-3 would reduce the impact of exposing people or structures to substantial hazards from landslides to a less than significant level by design and construction in accordance with recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation. Review and approval by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant and City Engineer will verify that the recommendations are sound and that they are implemented for the project. b) Erosion or Loss of Topsoil Significance Criteria:The Project would result in a significant environmental impact if it were to result in substantial soil erosion or in the loss of topsoil. Impact Geo-4. Soil Erosion. The Project would involve mass grading at the site. Demolition of existing structures and pavements could expose underlying contaminated soil to the elements. Excavation of soil for construction of new buildings and pavement sections would also be performed and temporary stockpiles of loose soil will be created. Soils exposed during site grading would be subject to erosion during storm events. Grading would disturb site soils potentially leading to impacts to the San Francisco Bay. This would be a potentially significant impact during and following site construction activities. Mitigation Measure Geo-4a: Erosion Control Plan. The Project applicant shall complete an Erosion Control Plan to be submitted to the City in conjunction with the Grading Permit Application. The Erosion Control Plan shall include winterization, dust control, erosion control and pollution control measures conforming to the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. The Erosion Control Plan shall describe the "best management practices" (BMPs) to be used during and following construction to control pollution resulting from both storm and construction water runoff. The Plan shall include locations of vehicle and equipment staging, portable restrooms, mobilization areas, and planned access routes. P66IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Recommended soil stabilization techniques shall include placement of straw wattles, silt fences, berms, and gravel construction entrance areas or other control to prevent tracking sediment onto city streets and into storm drains. Public works staff or representatives shall visit the site during grading and construction to ensure compliance with the grading ordinance and plans, and note any violations, which shall be corrected immediately. Mitigation Measure Geo-4b: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The Project applicant shall prepare and implement an updated SWPPP for the proposed site development. The updated SWPPP and Notice of Intent (NOI) must be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board to receive a Construction General Permit. The updated plan shall address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and be designed to protect water quality both during and after construction. The Project SWPPP shall include the following mitigation measures for the construction period: 1.“Best Management Practices” (BMPs) as outlined by the San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SMCSTOPP) shall be implemented for preventing the discharge of other construction-related NPDES pollutants beside sediment (i.e. paint, concrete, etc) to downstream waters. 2.After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be inspected for accumulated sediment, and these drainage structures shall be cleared of debris and sediment. Long-term mitigation measures to be included in the updated Project SWPPP shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 1.Description of potential sources of erosion and sediment at the proposed Project site, and any hazardous or potentially hazardous materials and chemicals. This will include a thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources. 2.Development of a monitoring and implementation plan. Maintenance requirements and frequency shall be carefully described including vector control, clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures, vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters, regular sweeping of parking lots and other paced areas, etc. Wastes removed from BMPs may be hazardous, therefore, maintenance costs should be budgeted to include disposal at a proper site.Parking lot areas shall be cleared of debris that may enter the storm drain system on a daily basis. IS/MNDP67 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS 3.The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the frequency agreed upon by the SFBRWQCB and/or City of South San Francisco. Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and submitted annually to the SWRCB. The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as necessary, to address any inadequacies of the BMPs. 4.Following development, the applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on residential BMPs to minimize future pollutant contributions. This information shall be distributed to all employees at the Project site. At a minimum the information shall cover: a) proper disposal of commercial cleaning chemicals; b) proper use of landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and appropriate disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and d) prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains. Public works staff shall visit the site during grading and construction to ensure compliance with the grading ordinance and SWPPP, and note any violations, which shall be corrected immediately. Geo-4aGeo-4b Implementation of mitigation measures and will reduce the impact of substantial soil erosion and loss of topsoil to less than significant by the implementation of the Best Management Practices and other measures to be included in an Erosion Control Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for the project. c) Unstable Geologic Unit Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Impact Geo-5: Unstable Soils and Bay Mud. Undocumented fill soils are present on portions of the subject site. Fill soils may settle due to new building loads. Bay Mud and alluvial soil deposits are present on adjacent sites and also constitute areas of potentially unstable soils. Bay Mud may be present under the southern portion of the Project site and may settle under design loading conditions resulting in differential settlement of structures. The presence of unstable fill soil and Bay Mud is a potentially significantimpact. Mitigation Measure Geo-5: Investigate unstable fill soils and Bay Mud. A Design Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be performed to determine the depth and extent of potentially unstable fill soil and Bay Mud. Based on results of this study, the Geotechnical Engineer shall determine appropriate measures to stabilize the potentially unstable site soils. Consolidation testing of any Bay Mud soils P68IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS present shall be performed, as part of the Design Level Geotechnical Investigation, and estimates of settlement for the site shall be developed. Methods of unstable soil stabilization may include construction of driven pile foundations that support structures on materials located below fill soils and Bay Mud, and other methods as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer. Geo-5 Implementation of mitigation measure will reduce the impact of the project being located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project to a less than significant level by construction of foundations that support structures on materials located below fill soils and Bay Mud. d) Expansive Soils Significance Criteria:The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property. Impact Geo-6Expansive Soils . Expansive soils are present in the existing fill on the site and in Bay Mud sediments that underlie the site. The presence of expansive soils could cause damage to proposed improvements but are unlikely to create substantial risk of life. The impact of expansive soil is potentially significant. Mitigation Measure Geo-6: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical Investigation and in conformance with Structural Design Plans. A Design Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared for the site under the direction of a California Registered Geotechnical Engineer and shall include analysis for expansion potential of the site soils. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation. The Geotechnical Investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant and by the City Engineer. A Registered Structural Engineer shall prepare Project structural design plans. The design plans shall identify specific mitigation measures to reduce the effects of expansive surface soils. Mitigations measures may include the following: Excavate expansive soils and replace with at least one foot of non- expansive fill. Design and construct structures to withstand expected stresses by the implementation of the following: minimize use of slab-on-grade floors; support buildings and slabs on non-expansive materials; chemically treat expansive materials to reduce expansion potential; avoid siting structures across soil materials of substantially different expansive properties; extend foundations below the zone of seasonal moisture change; utilize pier-and- grade-beam foundation systems where appropriate; utilize special bending resistant design; and prevent accumulation of surface water adjacent to buildings. IS/MNDP69 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Implementation of mitigation measure Geo-6 will reduce the impact of locating project improvements on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property to a level of less than significant by the inclusion of mitigation measures to remove and control the expansive properties of the soils. e) Capability of Soils to Support Septic Tanks Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it involved construction of septic systems in soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The Project does not propose to build any new septic tank or alternate waste disposal systems. The wastewater generated by the Project would be pumped into the local sewer system. Therefore, there is no impactdue to soils incapable of supporting septic systems. P70IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Potentially Less Than Less Than Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Significant Significant with Significant No Determination of Environmental Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Impact VII. ØßÆßÎÜÍßÒÜØßÆßÎÜÑËÍ ÓßÌÛÎ×ßÔÍ — Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a Project located within an airport land use [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ÍÛÌÌ×ÒÙ Site Use History th Originally a tidal marsh, the Project area was filled and developed in the late 19 century. Development was hastened by construction of the railroad, which facilitated transport of heavy IS/MNDP71 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS industrial materials along the railroad and from nearby barges on San Francisco Bay. In the site vicinity, the chief industries were metal plating and de-tinning operations from the 1920s until the early 1980s. Many small railroad spurs, all connecting to a large railyard located north of the site, served the various industrial facilities in the area. While the area in the project vicinity has been associated with heavy industry, the project site itself has historically been used as part of a livestock and meat packing operation, a cold storage facility, and for commercial uses. A site history for 328 Roebling was documented by GeoSyntec Consultants (GeoSyntec) as part of an environmental due diligence report, completed in general conformance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. GeoSyntec obtained Sanborn fire insurance maps, which identify use and owners of sites for the years 1950, 1956, and 1970. In the 1950 map, the site and surrounding areas are shown as owned by the United Packing Company, with hay barns, livestock feeding sheds, and cold storage buildings. The 1956 map shows the site and surrounding areas labeled as the South San Francisco Cold Storage Company. The 1970 map shows Roebling Road and lists 328 Roebling Road as a radio parts store, constructed of reinforced concrete, wood trusses, and a concrete floor. The cold storage facility is still shown south of the site with a plastic products company occupying the building north of the site. In 1988 the site was leased to the current tenant, Slakey Brothers. The site is currently being used as a wholesale warehouse for heating and air conditioning related equipment, as well as other small construction related equipment, including plumbing supplies. Secor International Incorporated (Secor) documented a site history for 340 Roebling as part of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, dated 3 December 2003. From 1908 to approximately 1956 the site was part of the Western Meat Company or Union Meat’s stock yards. The warehouse/ manufacturing building currently on-site was occupied by Roebling Wire Rope – The Colorado Fuel & Iron Corp from 1958 to 1968, and Precision Plastics has occupied the site since 1968. GeoSyntec also documented a site history for 233 East Grand Avenue as part of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, dated 14 August 2006. 233 East Grand was also part of the Western Meat Company/Union Meat Company stockyard/feedlot. Since at least 1966, when Ed Willig, Jr. purchased the property, it has been used solely for cold storage. Current Site Use and Potential Contamination GeoSyntec conducted a site visit to 328 Roebling Road on 7 November 2005, as part of their Phase I Site Assessment. They observed one small (10 gallon), unlabeled, closed-top plastic tank inside the building. The branch manager indicated that the tank contained waste oil, collected from compressors that were brought into Slakey Brothers for repair. The tank was approximately two-thirds full and appeared to be in good condition, however it was not stored in an area of secondary containment. Additionally GeoSyntec observed a few isolated areas of concrete staining on the warehouse floor. The stains were of unknown origin, generally small and did not appear fresh. No obvious evidence of stains, releases, or spills was noted in the large P72IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS outdoor storage area located north of the warehouse. There were no chemical storage areas located in the outdoor storage area. An Environmental Data Resources (EDR) report obtained by GeoSyntec on 24 October 2005 documents a search of available environmental databases. The project site was listed on two environmental databases, the HAZNET database for disposing (via recycler) of small quantities (0.22 tons) of liquids containing halogenated organic compounds (>1000mg/l). It is also on the San Mateo Business Plan database as a small quantity (<27 gallons per year) generator. Over 90 other sites within one mile of the project site were identified by the EDR report as appearing on one or more of the environmental databases. However, information in the EDR report indicated a southerly groundwater flow, therefore GeoSyntec concluded that none of the properties identified in the report are likely to affect the project site. GeoSyntec also conducted a site visit to 233 East Grand Avenue, and interviewed Mr. James Morgan, owner (as of 11 July 2006) of the United Cold Storage business on site. United Cold Storage has filed a Hazardous Materials Business Plan with the San Mateo County Division of Environmental Health as a site that generates waste oil/solvent. GeoSyntec observed regularly maintained compressors located in various areas of the building, with waste oil collected in 55- gallon drums within secondary containment. Freon in the refrigerant system was replaced with anhydrous ammonia in approximately 1992. Potentially asbestos-containing tiles and ceilings were observed in the office portion of the warehouse. A dry transformer had been installed in 2004, the current owner did not know if the previous transformer contained Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). A hydraulic elevator in the building was replaced in 1992, however there is no information as to whether the hydraulic oil was replaced, and/or whether it contains or previously contained PCBs. No indications of belowground structures were observed in the areas around the building. Secor conducted a site visit to 340 Roebling Road for their Phase I Site Assessment. They observed 55-gallon drums in the hydraulic oil storage area, with moderate to major staining nearby. The floor of the storage area was concrete with no floor drains and no evidence of significant staining. Additionally, four 55–gallon drums stored within secondary containment on wooden palates on an asphalt surface were observed near the south corner of the site. The drums appeared to be in good shape, with two containing waste oil and two containing oily water. Fluorescent lighting was observed throughout the building, and due to the age of the building may contain PCBs within their ballasts. Based on review of the Phase I Site Assessments for the subject properties there are five main hazardous materials concerns at the site. There is evidence of improper storage of waste oil with unknown quantities spilled over the years. The cold storage facility at 233 East Grand stores large quantities of anhydrous ammonia, which, if spilled would be an acute human health hazard, but would be unlikely to lead to a lasting environmental concern. Due to the ages of the existing buildings, they are likely to have asbestos containing building materials and/or lead based paint. The transformers on site may, or may have previously contained PCBs; fluorescent light ballasts are another potential source of PCBs. Additionally this area has a long history of heavy IS/MNDP73 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS industrial uses, with a nearby railyard and numerous active and inactive rail spurs, one of which runs just north of the project site. The long history of heavy industry in the area indicates potential contamination including toxic heavy metals such as lead in the subsurface. Historic railroad grades are potential sources of a number of hazardous materials. These include herbicides used to clear unwanted vegetative growth in railyards and along tracks and toxic metal contamination including arsenic and chromium associated with railroads. Wooden rail ties are another potential source of contamination due to creosote, zinc chloride or other preservatives. Additionally there exists the threat of contamination due to fuel spills. ÎÛÙËÔßÌÑÎÇ ÍÛÌÌ×ÒÙ Federal and State Level United States Environmental Protection Agency The chief environmental regulator at the federal level is the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region IX for Northern California. In California the department of Toxic Substances Control is chiefly responsible for regulating the safe, handling, use, and disposal of toxic materials in the state of California, while the State Water Resources Control Board regulates discharge of potentially hazardous materials into waterways and aquifers. Programs intended to protect workers from exposure to hazardous materials and from accidental upset are covered under the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) at the federal level and at the state level through the California Department of Occupational Safety and Health (CAL/OSHA), as well as through the California Department of Health Services (DHS). Resource Conservation and Recovery Act The RCRA is the United States primary law governing the handling and disposal of solid hazardous waste. The RCRA is actually an amendment, made in 1976, to the solid waste disposal act of 1965, but the amendments were so comprehensive that it is generally referred to as a new act. The RCRA defines solid and hazardous waste, authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set standards for facilities that generate or manage hazardous waste, and establishes a permit program for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. The RCRA was last re-authorized by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. The authorization for appropriations under the Act expired September 30, 1988, but funding for the 16 EPA’s programs in this area has continued; the Act’s other authorities do not expire. Department of Transportation Transportation of hazardous materials on the highways is regulated through the Federal Department of Transportation (DOT) and the California Department of Transportation 16 McCarthy, J and Tiemann, M, Congressional Research Service Report RL30032 – Solid Waste Disposal Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, National Council for Science and the Environment, obtained from http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/BriefingBooks/Laws/h.cfm P74IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS (Caltrans). This includes a system of placards, labels, and shipping papers required to identify the hazards of shipping each class of hazardous materials. Existing federal and state laws address risks associated with the transport of hazardous materials. These laws include regulations outlined in the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act administered by the DOT. Caltrans is mandated to implement the regulations established by the DOT, which is published as the Federal Code of Regulations, Title 49, commonly referred to as 49 CFR. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) enforces these regulations. Regulations of hazardous materials and wastes include the manufacture of packaging and transport containers; packing and repacking; labeling; marking or placarding; handling; spill reporting; routing of transports; training of transport personnel; and registration of highly hazardous material transport. State Water Resource Control Board The State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) was created by the state legislature in 1967, with the joint authority of water allocation and water quality protection. The SWRCB runs Geo Tracker, a database of environmentally regulated facilities in California. Within the State of California there are nine regional water quality control boards. The mission of the regional boards is to develop and enforce water quality objectives and implementation plans that will best protect the state’s waters, recognizing local differences in climate, topography, geology and hydrology. The City of Fremont is under the purview of the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board. Local and Regional Level Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Program The Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Program was authorized by the Robert T Stafford Disaster Assistance and Emergency Relief Act. Funding for the program is provided through the National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund to assist state and local governments in implementing cost-effective hazard mitigation activities that complement a comprehensive mitigation program. 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 201, Hazard Mitigation Planning, establishes criteria for state and local hazard mitigation planning authorized by the Stafford Act. After November 1, 2003, local and tribal governments applying for PDM funds through the state will have to have an approved local hazard mitigation plan prior to the approval of local hazard mitigation project grants. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), of which Fremont is a member, is the umbrella planning agency for the greater San Francisco Bay Area. ABAG has produced a local hazard mitigation plan, adopted March 17, 2005. The City of Fremont has produced an 17 annex to this plan, adopted July 5, 2005. These documents fulfill the requirements of the Robert T Stafford Disaster Assistance and Emergency Relief Act. 17 http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/bayarea_info/eqmaps/mitigation/plan.html IS/MNDP75 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Certified Unified Program Agency Local responsibility for hazardous materials oversight, permitting, and regulation is through the Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA).These programs were developed when the State of California delegated responsibility to local jurisdictions. The San Mateo County Division of Environmental Health is the CUPA for all businesses in San Mateo County. The San Mateo Division of Environmental Health is responsible for implementing the following programs at the local level: hazardous materials management plan, hazardous materials business plan, risk management program, underground storage tank program, spill prevention, control and countermeasure plan (SPCC) for aboveground petroleum product storage, hazardous waste generators, and on-site hazardous waste treatment. These programs include inspections of businesses and review of permit conditions and procedures for the handling, storage, use and disposal of hazardous materials. The Hazardous Materials Business Plan is used to keep track of the use of hazardous materials by businesses in accordance with both state and federal laws. In general, a hazardous materials business plan must be submitted and maintained when a business stores or uses more than 55 gallons of hazardous liquids, 200 cubic feet of hazardous gasses, or 500 pounds of hazardous solids. The Hazardous Waste Generator Program is based on the Hazardous Waste Control Law found in the California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5 and regulations found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5. ×ÓÐßÝÌÍ a) Routine Transport, Use, and Disposal of Hazardous Materials Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impact Haz-1:Routine Use of Hazardous Materials . The proposed development includes construction of Class-A office and laboratory buildings. Class A refers to a research laboratory, not merely an instructional laboratory. Depending upon the nature of research planned at the proposed facilities, for which detailed information has not yet been provided, there are likely to be both hazardous and potentially hazardous materials stored and used on the site that will eventually require disposal. This could include both biohazards, as well as chemical hazards. There will also likely be transportation of hazardous materials to and from the site, probably traveling along Highway 101 and East Grand Avenue. The risk of accidental upset and environmental contamination from routine transport, storage, use and disposal of hazardous and potentially hazardous materials to the public and environment is a potentially significant impact. P76IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Mitigation Measure Haz-1a:Registration in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program. Qualifying businesses occupying and/or operating at the development must submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the safe storage and use of chemicals to the Department prior to êÜÏðÜÉØÎúÎÈÏÉÄøÏÇÔËÎÏÐØÏÉÜÑõØÜÑÉÕ the start of operations, and must review and update the entire Business Plan at least once every two years, or within 30 days of any significant change. Businesses qualify for the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program if they store a hazardous material equal to or greater than the minimum reportable quantities. These quantities are 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and pressure) for compressed gases. Exemptions include businesses selling only pre-packaged consumer goods; medical professionals who store oxygen, nitrogen, and/or nitrous oxide in quantities not more than 1,000 cubic feet for each material, and whom store or use no other hazardous materials; or facilities that store no more than 55 gallons of a specific type of lubricating oil, and for which the total quantity of lubricating oil not exceed 275 gallons for all types of lubricating oil. These exemptions are not expected to apply to Class A laboratory facilities. The Business Plan must include the type and quantity of hazardous materials, a site map showing storage locations of hazardous materials and where they may be used and transported from, risks of using these materials, included in material safety data sheets for each material, a spill prevention plan, an emergency response plan, employee training consistent with OSHA guidelines, and emergency contact information. Businesses occupying and/or operating at the proposed development must submit a Business Plan prior to the start of operations, and must review and update the entire Business Plan at least once every two years, or within 30 days of any significant change. Some of these changes are new emergency contact information, major increases or decreases in hazardous materials storage and/or changes in location of hazardous materials. Plans shall be submitted to the San Mateo County Environmental Health Business Plan Program, which may be contacted at (650) 363- 4305 for more information. ðÔÉÔÖÜÉÔÎÏðØÜÊÈËØ Haz-1b:Compliance with US Department of Transportation, State of California and local laws, ordinances and procedures for transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. All transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste to and from the site will be in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US Department of Transportation (DOT), State of California, and local laws, ordinances and procedures including placards, signs and other identifying information. Haz-1aHaz-1b Implementation of Mitigation Measures and would reduce the impact of creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials to a level of less than significant by registration in the IS/MNDP77 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program, which includes development of a written plan and oversight by the County Environmental Health Department. The impact will also be mitigated to a level of less than significant by compliance with federal, state and local laws, ordinances, and procedures for the safe transport of hazardous materials and hazardous waste. b) Risk from accidental upset of hazardous materials Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impact Haz-2: Accidental Hazardous Materials Release. Existing buildings potentially contain hazardous materials including waste oil, asbestos, lead paint, and PCBs. Underlying site soils may contain hazardous materials including toxic heavy metals related to the history of heavy industry in the area. The historic railroad grade along the northeast edge of the project site may be a source of additional hazardous materials, including arsenic, chromium, creosote, zinc chloride, or other wood preservatives. During demolition operations hazardous materials could be released from structures at the site or from the underlying soils. Following construction, operations at the proposed facilities are expected to represent a continuing threat to the environment through accidental release of hazardous materials since the site is proposed to include Class A laboratory facilities, where hazardous materials may be stored, used, and disposed of. This represents a potentially significantimpact. Mitigation Measure Haz-2a: Demolition Plan and Permitting. A demolition plan with permit applications shall be submitted to the City of South San Francisco Building Department for approval prior to demolition. The Demolition Plan for safe demolition of existing structures shall include asbestos dust control and incorporate recommendations from the site surveys for the presence of potentially hazardous building materials, as well as additional surveys when required by the City. The Demolition Plan shall address both on-site Worker Protection and off-site resident protection from both chemical and physical hazards. All contaminated building materials shall be tested for contaminant concentrations and shall be disposed of to appropriate licensed landfill facilities. Prior to building demolition, hazardous building materials such as peeling, chipping and friable lead based paint and asbestos containing building materials shall be removed in accordance with all applicable guidelines, laws, and ordinances. The Demolition Plan shall include a program of air monitoring for dust particulates and attached contaminants. Dust control and suspension of work during dry windy days shall be addressed in the plan. Prior to obtaining a demolition permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District P78IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS (BAAQMD), an asbestos demolition survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2. Mitigation Measure Haz-2b: Additional Soil Sampling of Site Soils. The applicant shall retain a licensed Civil Engineer or Professional Geologist to complete additional surface and subsurface soil sampling to determine if elevated levels of toxic metals, herbicides, motor oil, or wood preservatives are present in site soils. These tests shall take place within the entirety of the project site. If contamination exceeding commercial/industrial guidelines such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Levels for commercial/ industrial sites, USEPA Preliminary Remediation Goals for commercial/ industrial sites, or the California Department of Toxic Substances Control Human Health Screening Levels is detected, then a Site Soil Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan shall be prepared and implemented, as discussed in Mitigation Measure 2c. Mitigation Measure Haz-2c: Implementation of a Site Soil Management Plan. If contamination of site soils is detected, then results shall be reported to the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) and a Site Soil Management Plan shall be prepared in accordance with recommendations of the environmental consultant and established procedures for safe removal. Specific mitigation measures designed to protect human health and the environment will be provided in the plan. At a minimum the plan shall include, but not be limited to the following: (1) Documentation of the extent of previous environmental investigation and remediation at the site. (2) Requirements for site specific Health and Safety Plans (HASPs) to be prepared by all contractors at the Project site. This includes a HASP for all demolition, grading and excavation on the site, as well as for future subsurface maintenance work. The HASP shall include appropriate training, any required personal protective equipment, and monitoring of contaminants to determine exposure. The HASP will be reviewed and approved by a Certified Industrial Hygienist. (3) Description of protocols for the investigation and evaluation of previously unidentified hazardous materials that could be encountered during project development, including engineering controls that may be required to reduce exposure to construction workers and future users of the site. (4) Requirements for site-specific construction techniques that would minimize exposure to any subsurface contamination found to occur. This IS/MNDP79 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS shall include treatment and disposal measures for any contaminated groundwater removed from excavations, trenches, and dewatering systems in accordance with San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines. (5) Sampling and testing plan for excavated soils to determine suitability for reuse or acceptability for disposal at a state licensed landfill facility. (6) Restrictions (if any) limiting future excavation or development of the subsurface by residents and visitors to the proposed development. (7) The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the responsible jurisdiction prior to issuance of any demolition, grading and construction permits for the Project. Mitigation Measure Haz-2d: California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP) . Future businesses at the development shall check the state and federal lists of regulated substances available from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD). Chemicals on the list are chemicals that pose a major threat to public health and safety or the environment because they are highly toxic, flammable or explosive. Businesses shall determine which list to use in consultation with the SMCEHD. Should businesses qualify for the program they shall complete a CalARP registration form and submit it to Environmental Health. Following registration, they shall submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP). RMPs are designed to handle accidental releases and ensure that businesses have the proper information to provide to emergency response teams if an accidental release occurs. All businesses that store or handle more than a threshold 18 quantity (TQ) of a regulated substance must develop a RMP and follow it. Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public health and the environment if a regulated substance is released near schools, residential areas, hospitals and childcare facilities. RMPs must include procedures for: keeping employees and customers safe, handling regulated substances, training staff, maintaining equipment, checking that substances are stored safely, and responding to an accidental release. 18 California Code of Regulations; Title 19. Public Safety; Division 2. Office of Emergency Services; Chapter 4.5 California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program, § 2770.5. P80IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Haz-2a Haz-2d Implementation of mitigation measures through will reduce the impact of creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidents involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment to a less than significant level by implementation of the identified mitigation measures. These mitigation measures include preparing a Demolition Plan and obtaining permits for the demolition work, performing additional soil sampling of site soils to identify any contaminated soils present, and preparation and implementation of a Site Soil Management Plan under the oversight of the Department of Toxic Substances Control if contaminated soil is identified. Additionally, future businesses shall participate in the CaliforniaAccidental Release Prevention Program if listed chemicals are used at the project site. c) Hazardous materials emissions or handling near school Significance Criteria:The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a quarter-mile of an existing or proposed school. Impact Haz-3: Hazardous Materials Near Schools . The nearest school or childcare sites to the project are the Gateway Child Care Center, located 0.21 miles northwest of the proposed Project and the Early Years Preschool, located 0.27 miles southeast of the project site. Hazardous materials potentially present at the project site could lead to a hazardous materials release during site demolition or future on-site activities. The impact of hazardous materials emissions within one-quarter mile of a school is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Haz-3:Mitigation Measures Haz-2a, Haz-2b, Haz-2c, and Haz-2d . Haz-2aHaz-2d Implementation of mitigation measures through shall be performed. These mitigation measures include requirements for preparing a Demolition Plan and obtaining permits for the demolition work, performing additional soil sampling of site soils to identify any contaminated soils present, and preparation and implementation of a Site Soil Management Plan under the oversight of the Department of Toxic Substances Control if contaminated soil is identified, as well as future business participation in the CaliforniaAccidental Release Prevention Program if listed chemicals are used at the project site. Haz-2a Haz-2b Haz-2c Haz-2d Implementation of mitigation measures ,, andwould reduce the impact of the potential release of hazardous materials within one quarter mile from a school to a less than significant impact through proper characterization and control of any hazardous materials currently present or planned to be used in the future at the project site. IS/MNDP81 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS d) Hazardous Materials on the site Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through being included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (“Cortese List”). The site is not included on the “Cortese List”. The Phase I ESAs performed by GeoSyntec and 9 Secor indicated that the project site was not listed within any of the databases requiring inclusion on the “Cortese List”. Sources reviewed include the National Priorities List (NPL), Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System list (CERCLIS), CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) list, Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) CORRACTS Facility List, RCRA TSD Facilities list, RCRA Generator list, Federal Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) database, State Priority and CERCLIS-Equivalent list (SMBRP), State Spills Leaks Investigations and Cleanups List (SLIC), Solid Waste/Landfill Facilities (SWLF) database, State Leaking Underground Storage Tank List (LUST), State Underground Storage Tank List (UST), and Dry Cleaners List. However, the businesses currently operating do handle hazardous materials and show up on the HAZNET database for disposal of waste oil/solvents, and have filed hazardous materials business plans with San Mateo County. Additionally, the Phase I ESAs indicated potential sources of hazardous materials including unknown quantities of waste oil spilled over the years; anhydrous ammonia used for cold storage; asbestos containing building materials; lead based paint; PCBs associated with fluorescent light ballasts, hydraulic elevator oil, and transformers; heavy metal contamination in soil due to the history of heavy industry in the area; as well as herbicides and wood preservatives associated with the railroad grade at the northern edge of the project site. Impact Haz-4:Hazardous Materials on Site. The site is not currently included on the “Cortese List” but Phase I studies indicate the possibility for hazardous material contamination of the site. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Haz-4:Mitigation Measures Haz-2a, Haz-2b, Haz-2c, and Haz-2d . The impact of being listed on a list of hazardous materials sites and the possible presence of hazardous materials on the project site would be mitigated by implementation of mitigation Haz-2a, Haz-2b, Haz-2c, and Haz-2d measures to a less than significantlevel. Theses mitigation measures include requirements for preparing a Demolition Plan and obtaining permits for the demolition work, performing additional soil sampling of site soils to identify any contaminated soils present, preparation and implementation of a Site Soil Management Plan under the oversight of the Department of Toxic Substances Control if contaminated soil is identified, and future business participation in the CaliforniaAccidental Release Prevention Program if listed chemicals are used at the project site. P82IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS e) and f) Safety Hazards Due to Nearby Airport or Airstrip Significance Criteria:The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were located within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport), if it would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area; or if it were located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, if it would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. The proposed Project would be located within the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Francisco International Airport. According to the East of 101 Area Specific Plan (available online through the City of South San Francisco Planning Department website), the most stringent height limits in South San Francisco are south of Forbes Boulevard and Lindenville, including the Project area. In this area, Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, limits building heights to an elevation of 161 feet above mean sea level, approximately 12 to14 stories. These height limitations are in place to insure the safety of the workers in the project area and to prevent interference of new construction with the Airport operations. No proposed building would exceed the 161 feet height limitation; therefore, the structures would be in compliance with the Airport Land Use Plan and will not create a safety hazard. The impact of the Project on the Airport Land Use Plan is less than significant with no mitigation warranted. g) Conflict with Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan Significance Criteria:The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No changes to the major access and evacuation routes along East Grand Avenue and Roebling Road are planned since the Project calls for redevelopment rather than reconstruction or new development of an entire area. Therefore, the Project would have no impactrelating to an adopted emergency response plan. h) Exposure of People or Structures to Wildland Fires Significance Criteria:The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The area is urbanized and there are no wildland corridors containing high fire fuel loads in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. The Project site is bordered on all sides by urban land uses, which do not contain vegetation conducive to wildland fires. Potential wildland fires will haveno impact on the Project. IS/MNDP83 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Potentially Less Than Less Than Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Significant Significant with Significant No Determination of Environmental Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Impact VIII. ØÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇßÒÜÉßÌÛÎÏËßÔ×ÌÇ — Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] P84IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS ÍÛÌÌ×ÒÙ Project Description The proposed project includes demolition of three existing structures and building two three- story structures, associated parking areas, and landscaping. According to the Site Grading and Drainage Plan, changes in site layout and landcover would include a decrease in the amount of 19 impervious surface area, and an increase in landscaped areas. Of the 2.95 acre site, 2.89 acres (98%) are currently covered in roof top and paved work and parking areas, impervious to rainfall infiltration. The Project will include 2.42 acres (82%) of impervious hardscape, a reduction of 16%. Planted stormwater treatment areas and landscaping will cover 18% of the site. The proposed Project also includes general reduction in the covered by structures, and an increase in the area used for parking. Parking areas will be graded to drain to stormwater treatment swales or stormdrain systems that contain inline sand filtration structures. Climate And Topography The Project site is located in a slightly sloped portion of the generally flat area east of U.S. 101 in the City of South San Francisco. The San Francisco Bay is located approximately 3,000 feet southeast of the site. The regional climate is typical of the San Francisco Bay Area and is characterized by dry, mild summers and moist, cool winters. About 80 percent of the total annual precipitation occurs during the months of November through March, with an average annual precipitation of 20 inches. Average monthly temperatures range from a high of 74 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer to a low of 42 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter. Regional Hydrology The site drains to the Colma Creek. The Colma Creek watershed includes portions of San Bruno Mountain as well as urbanized areas of Daly City, Colma, and South San Francisco. Most of this urbanized creek is channelized and/or conveyed underground to allow for urban development. The percent of impervious surface area in the Colma Creek watershed was estimated at 63 percent, the highest in the County. Colma Creek is maintained by the San Mateo County Department of Public Works. The Creek discharges into the San Francisco Bay just north of the San Francisco International Airport. Improvements to and maintenance of the creek and its flood control infrastructure are funded by assessment district properties that fall within the county- designated Colma Creek Flood Control Zone. The Project site is located within the designated Figure 7 boundaries of the Zone as shown in . 19 DES Archtects-Egineers, 2007. Grading and Drainage Plan. IS/MNDP85 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Ú·¹«®» éò Ý±´³¿ Ý®»»µ Ú´±±¼ Ð®±¬»½¬·±² Æ±²» Ð®»°¿®»¼ ¾§ Ï«»¬¿ Û²¹·²»»®·²¹ Site Hydrology Approximately 98 percent of the 2.95-acre project site is currently covered buildings, paved yards, and parking areas. Stormwater runoff from the project site begins as precipitation on roofs and parking lots and is primarily carried westward to Roebling Avenue, where it then flows down the street gutter to a storm drain inlet at South San Francisco Avenue. A few minor storm drain inlets currently exist in the parking areas. A small portion of roof and pavement runoff may also be directed to the vegetated fill slope east of the project site. Groundwater The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) defines state groundwater basins based on geologic and hydrogeologic conditions. According to the DWR, the Project site is located within the Westside Groundwater Basin. The Westside Groundwater Basin consists of bedrock and unconsolidated materials. Unconsolidated materials overlying the basin represent the primary water-bearing strata and are comprised of dune sands, the Colma Formation, and the Merced Formation. While groundwater quality in the basin is generally in compliance with drinking water quality standards, some wells in the basin have experienced nitrate-nitrogen concentration in excess of the primary maximum contaminant levels. P86IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Flooding The Project site is located outside of the 100-year flood hazard zone of Colma Creek as delineated by the current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Figure 8 Rate Map (FIRM). shows the location of the 100-year flood hazard zone in relation to the Project site and the San Francisco Bay. This is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map. It was extracted using F-MIT On- Line. This map does not reflect changes or amendments which may have been made subsequent to 3/21/2008. Ú·¹«®» èò ÚÛÓß Ú´±±¼ Æ±²» Ó¿° For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Ð®»°¿®»¼ ¾§ Ï«»¬¿ Û²¹·²»»®·²¹ Map Store at www.msc.fema.gov ÎÛÙËÔßÌÑÎÇ ÍÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The proposed Project must be constructed in accordance with several regulatory programs, laws, and regulations that aim to protect surface water resources. In some cases, Federal laws are administered and enforced by state and local government. In other cases, state and local regulations in California are more strict than those imposed by Federal law. This section summarizes relevant regulatory programs, laws, and regulations with respect to hydrology and water quality and how they relate to the proposed Project. IS/MNDP87 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Federal Laws and Regulations Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted by Congress in 1972 and amended several times since inception. It is the primary federal law regulating water quality in the United States, and forms the basis for several state and local laws throughout the country. Its objective is to reduce or eliminate water pollution in the nation’s rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters. The CWA prescribed the basic federal laws for regulating discharges of pollutants as well as set minimum water quality standards for all waters of the United States. Several mechanisms are employed to control domestic, industrial, and agricultural pollution under the CWA. At the Federal level, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the CWA. At the state and regional level, the CWA is administered and enforced by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). The State of California has developed a number of water quality laws, rules, and regulations, in part to assist in the implementation of the CWA and related Federally mandated water quality requirements. In many cases, the Federal requirements set minimum standards and policies and the laws, rules, and regulations adopted by the State and Regional Boards exceed them. State Laws and Regulations Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act established the SWRCB and the RWQCB as the principal state agencies having primary responsibility for coordinating and controlling water quality in California. The Porter-Cologne Act established the responsibility of the RWQCB for adopting, implementing, and enforcing water quality control plans (Basin Plans), which set forth the water quality standards of the state (i.e. beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater) and the objectives or criteria necessary to protect those beneficial uses. The NPDES permits must be consistent with the Basin Plans. NPDES Permit Requirements The CWA has nationally regulated the discharge of pollutants to the waters of the U.S. from any point source since 1972. In 1987, amendments to the CWA added section 402(p), which established a framework for regulating non-point source (NPS) storm water discharges under the National Pollutant Elimination System (NPDES). The Phase I NPDES storm water program regulates storm water discharges from industrial facilities, large and medium-sized municipal separate storm sewer systems (those serving more than 100,000 persons), and construction sites that disturb five or more acres of land. Under the program, the Project applicant will be required to comply with two NPDES permit requirements. The NPDES General Construction Permit Requirements apply to clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as excavation. The Project applicant is required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resource Control Board’s (SWRCB) Division of Water Quality. The NOI includes general information on the types of construction activities that P88IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS will occur on the site. The applicant will also be required to submit a site-specific plan called the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activities. The SWPPP will include a description of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the discharge of pollutants from the site during construction. It is the responsibility of the property owner to obtain coverage under the permit prior to site construction. The NPDES General Industrial Permit Requirements apply to the discharge of storm water associated with industrial sites. The permit requires the implementation of management measures that will achieve the performance standard of best available technology (BAT) economically achievable and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). Under the statute, operators of new facilities must implement industrial BMPs in the Project SWPPP and perform monitoring of storm water discharges and unauthorized non-storm water discharges. An annual report must be submitted to the RWQCB each July 1. Operators of new facilities must file an NOI at least 14 days prior to the beginning of operations. Local Programs and Regulations San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program To comply with the CWA, San Mateo County and the 20 cities and town in the County formed the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP). STOPPP holds a joint municipal NPDES permit from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The permit includes a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to creeks, San Francisco Bay, and the ocean to the maximum extent possible. San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is responsible for the development, adoption, and implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay region. The Basin Plan is the master policy document that contains descriptions of the legal, technical, and programmatic bases of water quality regulation in the San Francisco Bay Region. The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater within its region and specifies water quality objectives to maintain the continued beneficial uses of these waters. The proposed Project is required to adhere to all water quality objectives identified in the Basin Plan. The Basin Plan defines beneficial uses for surface waters and groundwater in its corresponding jurisdiction. The beneficial uses of surface waters in the south San Francisco Bay include wildlife habitat, estuarine habitat, preservation of rare and endangered species, fish migration, shellfish harvesting, commercial and sport fishing, water contact and non-contact recreation, navigation, and industrial service supply. The beneficial uses of groundwater in the Westside Groundwater Basin (also referred to as the Merced Valley North Groundwater Basin) include IS/MNDP89 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS municipal and domestic supply, industrial process supply, industrial service supply, and 20 agricultural supply. East of 101 Area Plan The East of 101 Area Plan provides detailed planning policies that are consistent with policies of the adopted South San Francisco General Plan.With respect to hydrology and water quality, the plan aims to reduce flooding by evaluating specific development proposals to determine drainage and flood protection requirements, and to prevent the degradation of water quality by minimizing erosion and sedimentation, and requiring that Projects comply with NPDES permit 21 requirements. City of South San Francisco The City of South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant The City of South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant requires Source Control Measures of Stormwater Pollutants for issuance of an NPDES permit, including methods for managing pollution sources. Applicable control measures include stormwater pollution prevention devices, management of refuse areas, reduced use of pesticide/fertilizer application for landscaping, and 22 marking of on-site storm drains to prevent illicit waste disposal. The Projects design, maintenance plans, and supporting calculations must be submitted to the City of South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant for approval. Engineering Division The City of South San Francisco Engineering Division oversees the Cities storm sewers and sanitary sewer systems, and regulates /facilitates development issues grading and utility permits. Grading of the Project site will require Engineering Division approval. ×ÓÐßÝÌÍ a) Violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it violated any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Increased Non-Point Source Pollutants (NPS) to Receiving Waters Non-point source pollutants (NPS) are washed by rainwater from roofs, landscape areas, and streets and parking areas into the drainage network. Typical industrial NPS pollutants for various 20 San Francisco Bay RWQCB, 1995. 21 City of South San Francisco, East of 101 Area Plan, 1994. 22 South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant. July 2005 P90IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Table 6 industrial activities are listed in . An increase in NPS pollutants could have adverse effects on wildlife, vegetation, and human health. NPS pollutants could also infiltrate into groundwater and degrade the quality of potential groundwater sources. Under existing conditions, almost all of the site runoff drains to Roebling Road, or minor underground stormdrains, before entering the municipal stormdrain network at East Grande Avenue, and then discharging to the San Francisco Bay. The proposed project includes a decrease in the amount of impervious surfaces, and an increase in landscaped areas. Of the 2.95 acre site, 2.89 acres (98%) are currently covered in hardscape, impervious to rainfall infiltration. The Project will include 2.42 acres (82%) of impermeable hardscape, a reduction of 16%. Planted stormwater treatment areas and landscaping will cover 18% of the site. The proposed Project also includes an increase in parking areas, and a general reduction in rooftop areas. Under the NPDES storm water permit, the proposed Project is required to provide permanent treatment for site runoff. To meet this requirement, the proposed Project would reduce the quantity and the levels of NPS pollutants and litter entering the San Francisco Bay by redirecting site runoff from roofs and parking areas into newly constructed vegetated swales and into new 23 onsite storm drain network systems with inline, underground sand filtration systems. Sand filters have a mixed record of for removing water quality impairing constituents, and have 24 been shown to require frequent maintenance. Field monitoring results suggest that Total 25 Suspended Solids (TSS) concentrations can be reduced by roughly 80 Mg/l. Appropriate design configuration and sizing of the sand filter, relative to impervious drainage area and 26 hydraulic head, are important design considerations. It should also be noted that this type of structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) requires periodic cleaning and maintenance. The Project applicant has neither indicated a particular design to be used, nor provided site-specific hydraulic sizing calculations for the sand filters. 23 DES Architects/Engineers, 24 , 2005. Hydraulic Design of Sand Filters for Stormwater Quality 25 Caltrans Database (unpublished) and Brian Currier (UC Davis) and Steve Taylor (RBF). 26 EPA, 1999. IS/MNDP91 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS TABLE 6: POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS FROM INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY Vehicle & Equipment X X X Fueling Vehicle & Equipment X X X X X X Washing Vehicle & Equipment X X X Maintenance & Repair Outdoor Loading & X X X X X X X Unloading of Materials Outdoor Container X X X X X X Storage of Liquids Outdoor Process X X X X Equipment Operations & Maintenance Outdoor Storage of Ray Materials, Products, & X X X X X X X Biproducts Waste Handling & X X X X X X Disposal Contaminated or Erodible X X X X X X X X Surface Areas Building & Grounds X X X X X X X Maintenance Building Repair, Remodeling, & X X X X Construction Parking/Storage Area X X X X Maintenance Source: California Stormwater Quality Association, 2003. California Stormwater BMP Handbook, Industrial & Commercial. P92IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Increased Erosion or Siltation to Receiving Waters Construction of the proposed Project would involve the demolition of existing structures and pavement areas and grading activities. Existing structures and pavement that currently help to stabilize site soils would be removed during Project construction. Construction operations associated with the Project would present a threat of soil erosion by subjecting unprotected bare soil areas to runoff during construction. Impact Hydro-1:Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements . Exposure and disturbance of site soils during construction and delivery of post construction surface runoff containing industrial pollutants to receiving waters could allow eroded soils and pollution to enter storm water and downstream waters. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Hydro-1a: Preparation and Implementation of Project SWPPP . Pursuant to NPDES requirements, the Project applicant shall develop a SWPPP to protect water quality during and after construction. The Project SWPPP shall include, but is not limited, to the following mitigation measures for the construction period: 1) Erosion control/soil stabilization techniques such as straw mulching, erosion control blankets, erosion control matting, and hydro-seeding, shall be utilized, in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. Silt fences used in combination with fiber rolls shall be installed down slope of all graded slopes. Fiber rolls shall be installed in the flow path of graded areas receiving concentrated flows and around storm drain inlets. 2) “Best management practices” (BMPs) for preventing the discharge of other construction-related NPDES pollutants beside sediment (i.e. paint, concrete, trash, etc) to downstream waters. 3) After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be inspected for accumulated sediment and trash, and these drainage structures shall be cleared of debris and sediment. Long-term mitigation measures to be included in the Project SWPPP shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 4) Description of potential sources of erosion, sediment, and trash at the Project site. Industrial activities and significant materials and chemicals that could be used at the proposed Project site should be described. This will include a thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources. IS/MNDP93 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS 5) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the Project site based on identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources. Emphasis shall be placed on source control BMPs, with treatment controls used as needed. 6) Inclusion of refuse and trash management in site design and the storm drainage system, including trash colleting devices. 7) Development of a monitoring and implementation plan. Maintenance requirements and frequency shall be carefully described including vector control, clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures, trash removal, vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters, regular sweeping of parking lots and other paced areas, etc. Wastes removed from BMPs may be hazardous, therefore, maintenance costs should be budgeted to include disposal at a proper site. Parking lot areas shall be cleared of debris that may enter the storm drain system on a daily basis. 8) The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the frequency agreed upon by the RWQCB and/or City of South San Francisco. Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and submitted annually to the SWRCB. The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as necessary, to address any inadequacies of the BMPs. The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on industrial and commercial BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed development. This information shall be distributed to all employees at the Project site. At a minimum the information shall cover:a) proper disposal of commercial cleaning chemicals; b) proper use of landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and appropriate disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and d) prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains. Mitigation Measure Hydro-1b: Submittal of all BMP designs, maintenance programs, and supporting calculations for approval by the City of South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant prior to construction. Prior to construction, the location and sizing of all BMPs, including supporting calculations, shall be submitted to the City of South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant. The impact of violating any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be reduced to a less than significant level by implementation of mitigation measures Hydro-1a, which include preparation and implementation of project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan that has an approved Erosion Control Plan and identifies Best Management Practices for control of discharge of sediment, pollution, refuse, landscaping and cleaning chemicals and other P94IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS potential sources of water quality degradation and Hydro 1-b, which includes provisions for review and approval by the City of South San Francisco. b) Groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impactif it substantially depleted groundwater supplies or interfered substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). According to the Preliminary Landscape Plan and the Grading and Drainage Plan, construction of the proposed Project would increase the amount of pervious surface areas including planted landscape areas and vegetated bio swales. Increasing permeable surface area allows for a greater rate infiltration of rainfall, therefore there is no impact related to groundwater recharge. c) and d) Alter the existing drainage pattern resulting in erosion or siltation or flooding on- or off-site Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impactif it substantially altered the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion, siltation or flooding on- or off-site. According to the Preliminary Landscape Plan and the Grading and Drainage Plan, site grading and construction of the proposed Project would not alter the drainage pattern in a manner that would increase erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site. Impact Hydro-2:Altered Drainage Patterns . Construction operations associated with the project would present a threat of soil erosion from soil disturbance by subjecting unprotected bare soil areas to the erosional forces of runoff and post construction runoff that could increase and/or could contain soil and sediment. Mitigation Measure Hydro-2: Mitigation Measures Hydro-1a and Hydro-1b . Implementation of Hydro-1a and Hydro-1b mitigation measures for construction related sources of erosion and post construction BMPs will reduce the impact of altered drainage patterns to less than significant. The impact of alterations to existing drainage patterns resulting in construction related sources of erosion would be reduced to less than significant by implementation of mitigation measure Hydro-1a, which includes preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of Best Management Practices for sediment control. Post Construction BMPs, if IS/MNDP95 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS properly maintained following standard requirements under the SWPPP and approval of the City of South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant, would likely reduce the potential for erosion. Review and approval of the SWPPP and BMPs by the City of South San Francisco will provide supporting documentation that the mitigation measures are properly designed and implemented. The impact of altered drainage patterns will be mitigated to a level of less than significant following implementation of mitigation measures Hydro-1a and Hydro-1b. e) Exceed capacity of stormwater drainage system. Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impactif it created or contributed runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Relative to existing conditions, the proposed Project includes a reduction in impervious surface areas and an increase landscape areas where water can infiltrate into site soils instead of flowing into the stormwater system. Inclusion of stormwater treatment features, such as vegetated swales, will also serve to reduce stormwater flows. Therefore the proposed Project would have no impact on the existing or planed stormwater drainage system. f) Substantially degrade water quality. Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impactif it increased pollution or otherwise degraded water quality. Impact Hydro-3:Degrade Water Quality . Construction and operation of the project have the potential to degrade water quality. Mitigation Measure Hydro-3: Mitigation Measures Hydro-1a and Hydro-1b . Implementation of Hydro-1a and Hydro-1b mitigation measures for construction related sources of erosion and post construction BMPs will reduce the impact on water quality to less than significant. The impact of a degradation water quality would be reduced to less than significant by elements of the proposed Project including a reduction in impervious surface areas and an increase in storm water treatment features, such as vegetated swales, curb cuts, and stormwater sand filters. Mitigation Measures Hydro-1a and Hydro-1b, preparation and implementation of Project SWPPP, including review and approval by the City of South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant, and required maintenance and monitoring, would further reduce project related impacts that could otherwise degraded water quality to a less than significant level. g) Place housing in a flood zone. Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impactif it placed housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. P96IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS The proposed Project does not include housing, and according to FEMA flood maps, the project is not located within a 100-year flood zone. Therefore, there would be no impact from placing housing in a flood zone. h) Impede or redirect flood flows. Significance Criteria:The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it placed structures within a 100-year flood hazard area, which would impede or redirect flood flows. According to FEMA flood maps, the project is not located within a 100-year flood zone. Therefore, there would be no impact from impeding or redirecting flood flows. i) Flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam Significance Criteria:The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located in an area mapped as being within the inundation area after the failure of a dam or levee. According to maps published by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the project is not located downstream of a dam, nor are there any levees near the project area. Therefore, there would be no inundation and no impactresulting from a dam or levee failure. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow Significance Criteria:The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located in an area susceptible to seiche (a wave caused by oscillation in an enclosed body of water such as a lake or reservoir), a tsunami, or mudflow. The proposed Project is located over 3000 feet from the San Francisco Bay, and over 6 miles from the Pacific Ocean. Wave run up from a tsunami is estimated at 6 feet above mean sea level 27 for a 500-year tsunami. Project site elevations range from 12 feet to 31 feet above mean sea level, therefore, the site is not in danger of inundation from a tsunami. Further, the site is not located near an inland body of water, nor is it located adjacent to a soil slope susceptible to rapid mass wasting or mudflows. Therefore, there would be no impactdue to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. 27 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Health and Safety Element, 1999, p. 250. IS/MNDP97 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Potentially Less Than Less Than Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Significant Significant with Significant No Determination of Environmental Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Impact IX. ÔßÒÜËÍÛßÒÜÐÔßÒÒ×ÒÙ — Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established community? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] plan or natural community conservation plan? ÍÛÌÌ×ÒÙ South San Francisco has a distinctive land use pattern that reflects the decision to initially locate industrial areas east of the majority of homes and businesses in order to take advantage of the topography and winds on Point San Bruno. Another development trend that shaped the arrangement of uses was the extensive residential development that occurred during the 1940s and 1950s, creating large areas almost entirely developed with single-family housing. As a result, South San Francisco is largely comprised of single-use areas, with industry in the eastern and southeastern portions of the City, single family homes to the north and west, commercial uses along a few transportation corridors, and multiple family housing clustered in those same corridors and on hillsides. In some ways a microcosm of American industry, South San Francisco has been making a slow industrial transformation over the past 30 years. Steel production and other heavy industries have largely been replaced by warehousing, research, development and biotechnology. As high technology businesses have moved into many of these older industrial areas, conflicts, such as between automobile and truck traffic, and land use and visual character have become increasingly pronounced. Business centers have somewhat different needs than industrial and warehousing uses, including smaller blocks, more through street connections, ancillary facilities such as restaurants, easier connections to transit, sidewalks and bikeways, and higher landscape standards. The City attempts to balance regional growth objectives with conservation of residential and industrial neighborhoods. The East of 101 Area Plan, adopted in 1994, was prepared to maximize the potential of undeveloped or underused properties in the City’s traditional industrial east of U.S. 101. Upgrading of existing uses and provisions for quality design are important components of the P98IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Plan. In addition to policies relating to land use dispersion, intensities, and transportation, the Plan includes a Design Element to help achieve a high standard of development. ÙÑÊÛÎÒ×ÒÙ ÐÔßÒÒ×ÒÙ ÜÑÝËÓÛÒÌÍ ßÒÜ ÑÎÜ×ÒßÒÝÛÍ ÑÊÛÎÊ×ÛÉ South San Francisco General Plan Adopted in October 1999, the South San Francisco General Plan recognizes that the biotech/R&D industry is South San Francisco’s largest industrial cluster. It is vital that the City strive to create an environment that is beneficial in realizing this potential and maintains the City’s competitive edge. The General Plan establishes goals and policies for the City and East of 101 Area, such as: Establishes an economic development program that promotes the biotechnology/R&D industrial cluster, Encourages the development of R&D campuses, Establishes infrastructure capacity, Establishes transportation improvements, and Promotes employee amenities, open space and recreation areas. General Plan Designation The Project site is within the area subject to the provisions of the East of 101 planning subarea of the City of South San Francisco’s General Plan. The plan designates the Project site for “Business and Technology Park” uses, and gives the following summary of Business and Technology Park designation: This designation accommodates campus-like environments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and offices. Permitted uses include incubator-research facilities, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing and printing, marinas, shoreline-oriented recreation, and offices, and research and development facilities. Warehousing and distribution facilities and retail are permitted as ancillary uses only. All development is subject to high design and landscape standards. Maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.5, but increases may be permitted, up to a total FAR of 1.0 for uses such as research and development establishments, or for development meeting specific transportation demand management (TDM), off-site improvement, or specific design standards. City of South San Francisco East of 101 Area Plan In 1994, the East of 101 Area Plan established goals/policies for the City and East of 101 Area. Although the South San Francisco General Plan (adopted in 1999) supersedes the East of 101 IS/MNDP99 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Area Plan, most of the Plan’s original design, noise, opens space and development standards still apply to campus development. Specifically, it: Encourages economic development, Establishes design and development standards for all development, and Encourages regulatory incentives for facility-wide planning. PI (Planned Industrial District) Zone Under the City’s existing zoning regulations, the Project site is subject to the provisions of the SSFMC Chapter 20.32 (Planned Industrial District). Zoning regulations prescribe the allowable uses within specific zoning districts and impose standards on those uses. The proposed project is consistent with the regulations of this zone assuming approval of conditional use entitlement per the SSFMC Sections 20.32.060 and 20.74.060(e). County of San Mateo Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) The 1981 San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan, in coordination with Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, established a 161-foot above mean sea level height limit around San Francisco International Airport. This height limit would apply to the Project site. ×ÓÐßÝÌÍ a) Division of an Established Community Significance Criteria:The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to physically divide an established community. The Project would involve construction of an office/research and development facility located on an already urbanized site. The Project have no impact related to division of an established community. b) Conflicts with Land Use Plan and Zoning Significance Criteria:The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Project proposes development of a Research and Development facility of the type and size consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as summarized above and would require a Lot Consolidation, Use Permit, and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan as well as design review consistent with existing plans and policies. Research and Development facilities are explicitly allowed and encouraged for the area in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and the Project proposes development within the allowable development intensity at a proposed FAR P100IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS (Floor Area Ratio) of 0.81, where a FAR up to 1.0 could be allowed. The aesthetics of the proposal have been analyzed from an environmental perspective in the previous Aesthetics section and found to have no significant impacts. While it is ultimately in the domain of the City’s decision-makers to decide project consistency with applicable City plans and policies related to project approval, from a CEQA perspective, the Project would not conflict with plans or policies in any way that could have an adverse environmental impact. The project would have no impact related to a conflict with policies and plans. c) Conflict with Conservation Plan Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. There are no conservation plans either currently in force or proposed that are applicable to the subject property. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on conservation plans. IS/MNDP101 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Potentially Less Than Less Than Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Significant Significant with Significant No Determination of Environmental Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Impact X. Ó×ÒÛÎßÔÎÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ — Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? ÍÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The California Department of Conservation is the primary agency with regard to mineral resource protection. The Department is charged with conserving earth resources (Public Resources Code Sections 600-690) and has five program divisions that address mineral resource issues: Division of Mines and Geology; Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources; Division of Land Resource Protection; Division of Recycling; and Office of Mine Reclamation. Additionally, the State Mining and Geology Board develops policy direction regarding the development and conservation of mineral resources and reclamation of mined lands. Mineral resources of concern include metals, industrial minerals (e.g., aggregate, sand and gravel), oil and gas, and geothermal resources that would be of value to the region and residents of the state. Loss of mineral resources would primarily be the result of conversion of lands underlain by these resources to other uses, or within close proximity to the resources, such that the construction and occupancy of the project would restrict or eliminate sage and environmentally sound measures to implement extractive operations. Loss of access could also be the result of changes in land ownership. Important mineral resource areas are recognized at the federal and state levels through environmental resource management plans and adopted mineral resource mapping, and at the local level through land use planning documents such as General Plans that incorporate such information. a) and b) Loss of Mineral Resources Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region P102IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS and the residents of the state, or if it were to result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. No mineral resources of value to the region and the residents of the state have been identified at the Project site. The Project site has not been delineated as a locally important mineral recovery site on the City of South San Francisco General Plan, on any specific plan, or on any other land use plan. In addition, as the Project site exists above Bay Fill, it can be conclusively stated that there are no subsurface mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on mineral resources. IS/MNDP103 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Potentially Less Than Less Than Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Significant Significant with Significant No Determination of Environmental Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XI. ÒÑ×ÍÛ — Would the Project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? e) For a Project located within an airport land use [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? ÍÛÌÌ×ÒÙ Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Whether a sound is unwanted depends on when and where it occurs, what the listener is doing when it occurs, characteristics of the sound (loudness, pitch and duration, speech or music content, irregularity) and how intrusive it is above background sound levels. In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than daytime levels. However, most household noise also decreases at night and exterior noise becomes more noticeable. Further, most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to noise intrusion. Residential and open space recreational uses are generally considered to be sensitive receptors for noise. The Project is within ½ to 1 mile of the Bay Trail, which runs along the edge of the San Francisco Bay northeast of the Project site. The Bay Trail would be considered a sensitive receptor. P104IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS The Noise Element of the 1999 General Plan contains land use criteria for noise-impacted areas in South San Francisco. These criteria define the desirable maximum noise exposure of various land uses in addition to certain conditionally acceptable levels contingent upon the implementation of noise reduction measures. These criteria indicate that noise levels of less than 12 75 dBA (CNEL) are acceptable noise levels for industrial and open space uses. The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Noise Regulations, Section 8.32.030) specifies the maximum permissible sound levels for residential, commercial and industrial uses. 13 The noise level standard for the Project site is 70 dBA(L). Shorter periods of noise levels 50 higher than these limits are allowed, but only for specified periods of time. Specifically, the standard + 5 dB for more than 15 minutes, the standard + 10 dB for more than 5 minutes, and the standard + 15 dB for more than one minute in any hour are used. The standard + 20 dB cannot be exceeded for any period of time. However, where the existing ambient noise level already exceeds the above noise limits, the ambient noise level becomes the standard. The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Section 8.32.050) restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also limits noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the property line. ×ÓÐßÝÌÍ a) - d) Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards or to Excessive Groundborne Noise Levels, or a Substantial Temporary or Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the South San Francisco General Plan or the City’s Noise Ordinance. Construction Noise During site preparation and construction at the project site, operation of heavy equipment could result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site. Impact Noise-1:Construction-Related Noise . Project construction could result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy construction equipment. Construction noise typically ranges from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet for most types of construction equipment, and slightly higher levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment. This impact is considered to be potentially significant. IS/MNDP105 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Mitigation Measure Noise-1: Construction Noise Abatement and Limitation of Construction Hours. Construction hours shall be limited to the hourly restrictions specified in the City Noise Ordinance, and the project sponsor shall require by contract specification that construction best management practices be implemented by contractors to reduce noise levels to the 90-dBA at 25 feet noise limit specified in the City Noise Ordinance. Required practices shall include but not be limited to: Ensuring that construction equipment is property muffled according to industry standards, Implementing noise attenuation measures such as noise barriers or noise blankets, and Requiring heavily loaded trucks used during construction to be routed away from noise and vibration sensitive uses. Implementation of the above mitigation measure would reduce the impact of construction-related noise to a level of less than significant. Operational Noise The operation of the Project would increase ambient noise levels in two ways, through the generation of additional traffic and the operation of exterior mechanical equipment. Traffic. Implementation of the proposed Project would increase traffic noise levels along local streets due to Project generated traffic. As a rule of thumb, a doubling of traffic volumes would result in a 3-dBA noise increase in a traffic dominated noise environment, and a 3-dBA noise increase is barely perceptible to most people. Per the Transportation and Circulation checklist section, the project would increase traffic by about 125 vehicle trips during the AM and PM commute peak traffic hours compared to existing site traffic activity. This would lead to a small but possibly perceptible increase in traffic noise levels at the Project site and on the Roebling Road cul-de-sac, but would be unlikely to increase noise by a perceptible amount elsewhere. The increase in traffic noise levels would be considered less than significant. . Mechanical EquipmentImplementation of the proposed Project could increase ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity due to the operation of rooftop mechanical equipment, such as an HVAC system. However, such equipment would be required to conform to standards of the City of South San Francisco Noise Ordinance and the impact would be considered less than significant. Vibration. It is not be expected that future land uses at the Project site would generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. Therefore, it is expected that the Project would haveno impact related to excessive groundborne vibration or excessive groundborne noise. P106IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Project-generated traffic noise and noise from operation of exterior mechanical equipment could increase but would not exceed noise standards and would not significantly increase ambient noise levels nor substantially impact noise-sensitive receptors. This would be considered a less than significant impact. e) and f) Aircraft Noise Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were located within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport) or in the vicinity of a private airstrip and were to expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. The Project site is located about 2.5 miles north of the San Francisco International Airport. Flights leaving from and arriving at the airport can occasionally be heard at the Project site. The 1999 General Plan Noise Element contains existing and future airport noise contours associated with San Francisco International Airport. These contours indicated the Project site is located outside the 65-dBA (CNEL) existing and future airport noise contours. Projected contours for road and railroad noise are also included in the Noise Element. These contours indicate that the Project site is located in an area where noise levels generated by major road and railroad noise sources would continue to be less than 60 dBA (CNEL). Based on the City’s land use criteria, the proposed Project’s office type land use would be compatible with future noise level projections in the Project vicinity of less than 60 to 65 dBA (CNEL), thereby representing no impact. IS/MNDP107 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Potentially Less Than Less Than Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Significant Significant with Significant No Determination of Environmental Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XII. ÐÑÐËÔßÌ×ÑÒßÒÜØÑËÍ×ÒÙ — Would the Project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ÍÛÌÌ×ÒÙ South San Francisco has a distinctive land use pattern with industry in the eastern and southeastern portions of the city, single-family homes to the north and west, commercial uses along the few transportation corridors, and multi-family housing clustered in those same corridors and on hillsides. Single-family residences take up the largest percentage (33%) of the land in the city with industry comprising over a quarter of the total area. However, according to the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Background Report, the city has more jobs than employed residents in the city. Because much of the land in South San Francisco is not suited for residential development, such as the East of 101 Area that houses the Project site, it is unlikely a balance between jobs and housing will be attained. However, South San Francisco’s housing/jobs ratio is in contrast to the County-wide ratio, and it could be considered to be promoting regional balance between jobs and housing. a) Substantial Population Growth Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to induce either directly or indirectly substantial population growth. The project would not lead to substantial population growth. Though the Project may result in a slight increase in the number of employees at the Project site, and it would be expected that some of these future employees would decide to live within the City of South San Francisco, their numbers would not be substantial and would be considered less than significant. P108IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS b) and c) Displace People and Housing Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would result in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing units or people living at the Project site. The project would not displace any residents or housing units, and therefore, would have no impact on the displacement of housing or people. IS/MNDP109 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Potentially Less Than Less Than Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Significant Significant with Significant No Determination of Environmental Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XIII. ÐËÞÔ×ÝÍÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ — a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] ii) Police protection? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] iii) Schools? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] iv) Parks? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] v) Other public facilities? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] ÍÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The proposed Project is within the jurisdiction of the City of South San Francisco and would be served by City of South San Francisco public services, including the following. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services The South San Francisco Fire Department is staffed by 79 sworn and 15 non-sworn personnel. The department provides residents and local businesses with protection from fire, natural disasters, hazardous materials and emergency medical incidents through direct response, public education, code development and enforcement. The Fire Department is the only department in San Mateo County presently providing emergency medical care via its own fire rescue 28 ambulances. Minimum on duty staffing is 20 persons. Police Protection Services The South San Francisco Police Department’s jurisdictional area includes the entire city. The Department currently has a total of 79 sworn officers and 37 civilian employees covering a city of approximately 65,500 residents with a daytime population around 100,000 people, for a ratio 29 of 1.2 sworn officers for every one thousand residents. The Department is generally able to 28 City of South San Francisco web site http://www.ci.ssf.ca.us/depts/default.asp 29 CalOpps.org website, California public agency employment opportunities service P110IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS respond to high priority calls within two to three minutes. These times are within the Department’s response time goals. The Department typically works a four-beat system, but the watch supervisor has the discretion to deploy personnel to effectively accomplish daily goals and objectives. Each beat is typically staffed by a one-officer unit with between six and nine other officers consisting of traffic, K-9, training, float, and supervisory units available for backup and 30 overlap. School Services The South San Francisco Unified School District provides schooling to South San Francisco’s children in ten Elementary Schools (grades K-5), three Middle Schools (grades 6-8) and three High Schools (grades 9-12) located throughout the area. a) Public Services Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks and recreational facilities, or other government facilities. i) Fire Protection South San Francisco Fire Department Station #62 is the closest station to the Project site, less than one half mile away at 249 Harbor Way, and would provide all first response services to the Project. Response times to the Project site are between 1 to 2 minutes and a project of this nature 31 and size would not be expected to impact response times or staffing needs. 32 The Project site is not located in any of the city’s fire hazard management unit areas, and access to the site via East Grand Avenue is good. The Project’s design would be required to comply with the City’s Fire Code (Chapter 15.24 of the Municipal Code) and the city Fire Marshall’s code requirements regarding on site access for emergency vehicles as is a standard condition for any project approval. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on the City’s fire protection services. ii) Police Protection Though the Project would result in more people onsite, it is expected that the proposed office/research and development land use would not lead to a substantial increase in service calls to the Police Department. It is not expected that the Project would lead to an increase in Police 30 City of South San Francisco, City of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p.268 31 Communication with Dave Quasney, Battalion Chief, South San Francisco Fire Department, November 2, 2006. 32 City of South San Francisco, City of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p.265 IS/MNDP111 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS 33 Department service call response times. Therefore the Project would have a less than significant impact on police services. iii) Schools The City of South San Francisco is served by the South San Francisco Unified School District. Some of the Project’s ultimate employees may relocate to the City, thereby generating a small student population increase. However, because the project would not involve construction of new residences, it is not likely that the school district would experience a substantial growth in student population. Therefore, the impact on the South San Francisco Unified School District would be less than significant. iv) Parks The proposed project would not place a substantial demand on the City’s public parks. Though some users of the project site would use the City’s parks, this use would be considered less than significant. v) Other Facilities As with the public services listed above, while the Project could result in a marginal increase in use of other facilities in South San Francisco, the net effect is likely to be less than significant. 33 Communication with Planning Sergeant Alan Normandy, City of South San Francisco Police Department, November 13, 2006 P112IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Potentially Less Than Less Than Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Significant Significant with Significant No Determination of Environmental Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XIV. ÎÛÝÎÛßÌ×ÑÒ — a) Would the Project increase the use of existing [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ÍÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department manages parks and recreation centers within the city boundaries. According to the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space element of the South San Francisco General Plan, there is an estimated 320 acres of parks and open space in the city, including community parks, neighborhood parks, mini-parks, linear parks, open spaces and school lands. a) and b) Recreation Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in an increase in the use of existing parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of these facilities could be anticipated, or if it were to include recreational facilities, the construction of which might have adverse physical effects on the environment. The proposed Project would not substantially increase demand on the City’s public parks. Though some users of the project site may use the City’s parks, this use would not substantially deteriorate existing parks or recreational facilities. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant. IS/MNDP113 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Potentially Less Than Less Than Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Significant Significant with Significant No Determination of Environmental Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XV. ÌÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒñÌÎßÚÚ×Ý — Would the Project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ÍÛÌÌ×ÒÙ East Grand Avenue is a major arterial street and a central access route serving the industrial/office areas east of the U.S. 101 freeway. In the vicinity of the Project, it has two travel lanes in each direction separated by a raised median, with no on-street parking allowed along either the north or south sides of the street. Eastbound vehicles on East Grand Avenue can access Roebling Road, a cul-de-sac off of East Grand Avenue, via a left turn lane. There would be three entrances to the proposed Project site, two on Roebling Road and one on East Grand Avenue. The main entrance on Roebling Road is between Buildings A and B, and the other entrance on the street is east of Building A at the end of the cul-de-sac. The East Grand Avenue entrance can only be accessed via a right turn heading northward due to a median that prevents left turns into the site. The Project would result in 296 parking spaces on the Project site, which would meet City code criteria. P114IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS ×ÓÐßÝÌÍ A Traffic Study has been prepared for this project, included as Appendix B of this document as used to inform the discussion below. a) Increase in Traffic in Relation to Existing Traffic Load and Street System Capacity Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. Traffic service levels for intersections and roadway segments are characterized by examining peak period and daily operations. The standard used for evaluating traffic flow is called level of service (LOS). Levels of service are classified by a letter grade that describes the quality of flow, ranging from the best condition (LOS A) through the worst (LOS F). A common level of service measurement is volume-to-capacity. The City of San Francisco considers Level of Service D (LOS D) to be the poorest acceptable operation for signalized and all-way-stop intersections and LOS E to be the poorest acceptable operation for unsignalized city street intersection turn movements. The 1999 General Plan evaluated the segment of East Grand Avenue east of Forbes Blvd. as LOS A, with an existing and projected volume-to-capacity value of .67 and .62, respectively. Implementation of the proposed Project would replace the existing 79,500 square feet of office/warehouse with 105,536 square feet of office/R&D. The increase of 26,036 square feet and change in land use type would correspond with an increase of about 125 vehicle trips during the AM and PM commute peak traffic hours compared to existing site traffic activity. This additional traffic associated with the Project would be a significant contribution to congestion on East Grand Avenue in the immediate vicinity of the project (at the Roebling Road and Forbes Boulevard-Harbor Way intersections). Impacts and required mitigations are as follows. Impact Traf-1: The State Public Utilities Commission (September 26, 2006 letter to City of South San Francisco) has noted in a recent inspection that the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection grade crossing is not up to minimum standards on one or more approaches for required advanced warning signing and pavement striping (i.e. R15-1 and W-10-1 signs as well as RxR pavement striping). This results in an existing safety concern that would be aggravated by the addition of Project traffic. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Traf-1: The project proponent will be responsible for implementation of improvements to the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection “at grade railroad crossing” to meet minimum State Public Utilities Commission standards for R15-1 and W10 warning signs and RxR pavement striping or, if implemented by another party prior to initiation of IS/MNDP115 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS construction for this project, will contribute fair-share reimbursement (as determined by the City Engineer). Implementation of mitigation measure Traf-1 will reduce the impact to a less than significant level by establishing compliance with safety standards for the approaches. The nearby 213 East Grand Avenue project and 250-270 East Grand Avenue project proposals, also undergoing environmental analysis at the time of drafting of this report, would contribute to the impact at this intersection and require the same mitigation. Whichever project initiates construction first would be responsible for implementation of the improvements, and may be reimbursed on a fair-share basis (as determined by the City Engineer) by the other projects if/when they proceed. Impact Traf-2: The following intersection would receive a significant level of service impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes. E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 7.5 percent at a location with unacceptable Base Case LOS D operation being degraded to LOS F operation. PM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 8.5 percent at a location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case signalized operation. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure Traf-2: The following improvements would mitigate the project-specific impacts. These improvements are included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will be funded via the Project’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program. Widen East Grand Avenue east of Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way in order to provide a third westbound through lane and a second westbound left turn lane. The third westbound through lane should begin to the east of the Roebling Road intersection (in order to mitigate left turn queuing impacts). In addition, widen the northbound Harbor Way approach to provide one additional through lane and one additional right turn lane (total five lanes: one left, two through and two right turn lanes). Resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Signalized Operation: AM Peak Hour: LOS D-45.0 seconds control delay (which would be better than Base Case LOS E-69.6 seconds control delay operation) PM Peak Hour: LOS D-53.8 seconds control delay (which would be better than Base Case LOS F-110 seconds control delay operation) P116IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Implementation of mitigation measure Traf-2 will reduce the impact at this location to a less- than-significant level through contribution of funds to an established Transportation Improvement Program that will be applied to physical improvements to improve the functioning of the intersection. The E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection is included in the City’s East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. Therefore, a portion of the traffic impact fee collected for the proposed Project will be used to help fund planned improvements to this intersection that would maintain or improve the current levels of service and reduce the Project’s impact to a level of less-than-significant. Specific improvements planned for this intersection and the resultant level of service are presented in mitigation measure Traf-9. Impact Traf-3: The following intersection would receive a significant level of service impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes. E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road PM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 4.7 percent at a location with unacceptable Base Case LOS F operation of the stop sign controlled Roebling Road intersection. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Traf-3: The following improvements would mitigate the project-specific impacts. The project proponent will be responsible for implementation of the following improvements or fair-share reimbursement (as determined by the City Engineer) if implemented by another party prior to initiation of construction for this project. 1. Signalize the intersection and coordinate operation with the signal at East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way. 2. Provide a third westbound through lane and continue to the Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection. 3. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue intersection approach from 75 feet up to 175 feet. This will leave room for a 250- to 260-foot left turn lane on the westbound East Grand Avenue approach to Harbor Way, which would accommodate a year 2015 95th percentile queue of 125 feet during the PM peak hour. Resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Signalized Operation: AM Peak Hour: LOS B-12.8 seconds control delay PM Peak Hour: LOS B-12.6 seconds control delay IS/MNDP117 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS These improvements are not currently included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program. The nearby 213 East Grand Avenue project proposal, also undergoing environmental analysis at the time of drafting of this report, would contribute to the impact at this intersection and require the same mitigation. Whichever project initiates construction first would be responsible for implementation of the improvements, and may be reimbursed on a fair-share basis (as determined by the City Engineer) by the other project if/when it proceeds. Mitigation measure Traf-3 would reduce the impact at this location to a less-than-significant level through implementation of physical improvements that will improve the functioning of the intersection in compliance with city standards. Impact Traf-4: The East Grand Avenue / Roebling Road unsignalized intersection would receive a significant signal warrant impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case PM peak hour volumes. Volumes would be increased by more than two percent (4.7%) at the one nearby unsignalized intersection where Base Case volumes would already be exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Traf-4: The following improvements would mitigate the project-specific impacts. The project proponent will be responsible for implementation of the following improvements or fair-share reimbursement (as determined by the City Engineer) if implemented by another party prior to initiation of construction for this project. 1. Signalize the intersection and coordinate operation with the signals along East Grand Avenue. 2. Provide a third westbound through lane and continue to the Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection. 3. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue intersection approach from 75 feet up to 175 feet. Resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Signalized Operation: AM Peak Hour: LOS B-12.8 seconds control delay PM Peak Hour: LOS B-12.6 seconds control delay These improvements are not currently included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program. P118IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS The nearby 213 East Grand Avenue project proposal, also undergoing environmental analysis at the time of drafting of this report, would contribute to the impact at this intersection and require the same mitigation. Whichever project initiates construction first would be responsible for implementation of the improvements, and may be reimbursed on a fair-share basis (as determined by the City Engineer) by the other project if/when it proceeds. Mitigation measure Traf-4 would reduce the impact at this location to a less-than-significant level through implementation of physical improvements that will improve the functioning of the intersection in compliance with city standards. Impact Traf-5: The following intersection providing direct access to the Project site would receive a significant queuing impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes. E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road (unsignalized) AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 31 percent in the left turn lane on the E. Grand Avenue approach to Roebling Road at a location with unacceptable Base Case 95th percentile queuing. The left turn lane queue at an unsignalized intersection would be extended from 200 up to 225 feet in a location with only 75 feet of storage. PM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 31 percent in the left turn lane on the E. Grand Avenue approach to Roebling Road at a location with unacceptable Base Case 95th percentile queuing. The left turn lane queue at an unsignalized intersection would be extended from 100 up to 125 feet in a location with only 75 feet of storage. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Traf-5: The following improvements would mitigate the project-specific impact. The project proponent will be responsible for implementation of the following improvements or fair-share reimbursement (as determined by the City Engineer) if implemented by another party prior to initiation of construction for this project. E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road 1. Signalize the intersection and coordinate the signals along East Grand Avenue. 2. Provide a third westbound through lane and continue to the Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection. IS/MNDP119 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS 3. Extend the left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue approach from 75 up to 175 feet. (Please note that signalizing the intersection reduces the 95th percentile queue in this turn lane compared to unsignalized operation.) Resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Signalized Operation: AM Peak Hour: LOS B-12.8 seconds control delay PM Peak Hour: LOS B-12.6 seconds control delay These improvements are not included in the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program. The nearby 213 East Grand Avenue project proposal, also undergoing environmental analysis at the time of drafting of this report, would contribute to the impact at this intersection and require the same mitigation. Whichever project initiates construction first would be responsible for implementation of the improvements, and may be reimbursed on a fair-share basis (as determined by the City Engineer) by the other project if/when it proceeds. Mitigation measure Traf-5 would reduce the impact at this location to a less-than-significant level through implementation of physical improvements that will improve the functioning of the intersection in compliance with city standards. b) Direct or Cumulative Increase in Traffic Which Causes a Congestion Management Agency Standard to be Exceeded Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a direct increase in traffic that would cause a Congestion Management Agency standard to be exceeded, or contribute substantially to a cumulative increase in traffic that would cause a Congestion Management Agency standard to be exceeded. Impact Traf-6: The City of South San Francisco (Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management) requires that all nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more net (potential minus existing vehicle trips) trips during peak hours to implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce vehicle traffic. The project would result in more than 100 net new peak hour trips during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Traf-6: The Project sponsors shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program consistent with the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable to C/CAG. These programs, once implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life of the development. P120IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Implementation of mitigation measure Traf-6 would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level by instituting a program that would reduce project peak hour trip generation to levels acceptable to both the City of South San Francisco and to C/CAG. c) Alter Air Traffic Patterns Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. The Project would not alter any air traffic patterns that are already in place and therefore would haveno impact on local air traffic patterns. d) Hazards Due to Design Features or Incompatible Uses Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to increase traffic hazards due to its design or the introduction of incompatible traffic. The proposed Project would be bordered on the west and south sides by sidewalks. In addition, sidewalk connections would be provided to all buildings. Driveway connections would be provided to both Roebling Road and to East Grand Avenue and would connect internal to the site. Sight lines would be acceptable at each driveway intersection. Project design would not increase traffic hazards and therefore would haveno impact on hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. e) Emergency Access Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to have inadequate emergency access. The proposed Project is designed in a manner that allows free and clear circulation for emergency vehicles that would respond to an emergency on site. Driveway connections would be provided to both Roebling Road and to East Grand Avenue and would connect internal to the site. Parking aisles would be in close proximity to each building. The project would have adequate emergency access and therefore would have aless than significant impact on emergency access. f) Parking Significance Criteria: The Project would have significant effect if it would result in an inadequate amount of parking being available. Impact Traf-7:On-Site Parking . The Project will provide parking at a ratio of 2.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet between the at-grade and subterranean parking lots, for a total of 296 parking spaces. Based upon City code criteria, between 349 (100% office) and 367 (100% R&D) parking spaces would be required IS/MNDP121 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS although a reduction from this standard may be granted via approval of a Use Permit if supported by a parking demand analysis acceptable to the City Engineer. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Traf-7:Mitigation Measure Traf-6 . The Project proponent shall implement a TDM program to reduce demand for parking. Implementation of a TDM program, as required by Mitigation Measure Traf-6, supports reduced parking as an effective tool to reduce trip reduction efforts. The following General Plan policies also specifically support a commitment to reduced parking requirements: 4.3-I-11 Establish parking standards to support trip reduction goals by: Allowing parking reduction for projects that have agreed to implement trip reduction methods, such as paid parking. 4.3-I-12 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to reduce minimum parking requirements for projects proximate to transit stations and for projects implementing a TDM program. With implementation of a TDM program, the Project would have a less than significant impact with regard to parking. g) Alternative Transportation Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). Transportation Demand Ordinance In 2001, The City Council adopted the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance. The ordinance requires a schedule of alternative mode use requirements based on floor-area ratio (FAR) for various land uses according to their General Plan designations. The Project would have a FAR of 0.8, and based on its General Plan land use designation, would have to provide an 34 alternative mode shift of 30 percent. The project will be developing a TDM plan to meet both City of South San Francisco and CCAG mode shift criteria. The project would have a less than significant impact on adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. 34 Zoning Code, Table 20.102.030-D. P122IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Potentially Less Than Less Than Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Significant Significant with Significant No Determination of Environmental Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XVI. ËÌ×Ô×Ì×ÛÍßÒÜÍÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍÇÍÌÛÓÍ — Would the Project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] regulations related to solid waste? ÍÛÌÌ×ÒÙ Wastewater All wastewater produced within the City of South San Francisco is treated at the City’s Water Quality Control Plan (WQCP), which is located at the end of Belle Air Road, near the edge of the San Francisco Bay. The WQCP is jointly owned by the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, and it treats all wastewater generated within the two cities. The WQCP also has contracts to treat most of the wastewater produced by the City of Colma and a portion of the wastewater produced by the City of Daly City. The existing wastewater system serving the Project site and surrounding community is operated and maintained by the City of South San Francisco Public Works Department. The complete IS/MNDP123 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS sewer network consists of approximately 155 miles of 6-inch through 36-inch diameter pipes, which convey flows from the cities of South San Francisco, San Bruno, and portions of Daly City and Colma to the South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) 35 located at the end of Belle Air Road in South San Francisco. Currently, the WQCP has the capacity to provide secondary treatment for 13 MGD in dry weather and 60 million gallons per day in wet weather. Average dry weather flows to the plant 36 are 8.8 MGD; peak wet weather flows approach 40 MGD. Wastewater treatment at the WQCP consists of screening, grit removal, chemical addition to aid settling of solids, primary settling under vacuum, aeration, clarification, and disinfection by chlorination. Excess chlorine is 37 removed prior to discharge of the treated water 2 miles offshore in San Francisco Bay. Regulatory Setting Wastewater treatment and disposal in the City of South San Francisco is governed by laws, regulatory programs and policies established by the Federal government, the State of California, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, and the City of South San Francisco. Most of the pertinent requirements affecting wastewater facilities for the proposed Project are contained in the following: Federal Laws and Regulations Clean Water Act (CWA) The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted by Congress in 1972 and amended several times since its inception. It is the primary federal law regulating water quality in the United States, and forms the basis for several state and local laws throughout the country. Its objective is to reduce or eliminate water pollution in the nation’s rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters. The CWA prescribed the basic federal laws for regulating discharges of pollutants as well as set minimum water quality standards for all waters of the United States. At the Federal level, the CWA is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). At the state and regional level, the CWA is administered and enforced by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The State of California has developed a number of water quality laws, rules, and regulations to assist in the implementation of the CWA and related Federally mandated water quality requirements. In many cases, the Federal requirements set minimum standards, and the laws, rules, and regulations adopted by the State and Regional Boards are more restrictive, i.e. more protective of the environment. 35 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Lamphier-Gregory, 249 East Grand Ave EIR, 2005 36 Castagnola, 2007 37 South San Francisco Public Works, SSF Water Quality Control Plant webpage http://www.ci.ssf.ca.us/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=305 P124IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS State Laws and Regulations Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act establishes the SWRCB and the RWQCB as the principal state agencies having primary responsibility for coordinating and controlling water quality in California. The Porter-Cologne Act establishes the responsibility of the RWQCBs for adopting, implementing, and enforcing water quality control plans (Basin Plans), which set forth the state’s water quality standards (i.e. beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater) and the objectives or criteria necessary to protect those beneficial uses. San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is responsible for the development, adoption, and implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay region. The Basin Plan is the master policy document that contains descriptions of the legal, technical, and programmatic bases of water quality regulation in the San Francisco Bay Region. The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater within its region and specifies effluent limitations, discharge prohibitions, and water quality objectives to maintain the existing potential beneficial uses of the waters. The proposed Project is required to adhere to all applicable requirements of the Basin Plan. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit Requirements The San Francisco-San Bruno WQCP operates under an NPDES permit issued by the State of California. One of the requirements of the permit is that the WQCP implement a Pretreatment Program to regulate the collection of toxic and hazardous wastes in municipal sewers. Under the Pretreatment Program, dischargers of industrial wastewater are required to abide by specific wastewater discharge limits and prohibitions. Industrial dischargers are also required to submit self-monitoring reports on the total volume and pollutant concentrations of their wastewater, and to allow for inspections by the City of South San Francisco. Local Programs and Regulations East of 101 Area Plan The East of 101 Area Plan was adopted by the City of South San Francisco in 1994 in order to guide and regulate development in the City’s East of 101 Area, which includes the Project site. The Plan provides detailed planning policies for land use, circulation, public facilities, design, conservation, financing and other related elements. With respect to wastewater collection and treatment, the Plan outlines policies for the repair and reconstruction of East of 101 Area sewer collection lines, pump stations, and the WQCP. The Plan also addresses the issue of increasing wastewater treatment demand, and recommends that new projects that will generate large wastewater quantities be required to lower their wastewater treatment needs through water recycling, on-site treatment, graywater irrigation, or other similar technologies wherever feasible. IS/MNDP125 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Water Potable water is provided for the majority of the City of South San Francisco and much of San Mateo County by the California Water Service Company (CWSC), which purchases most of its supply from the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD). The CWSC also serves San Carlos and San Mateo, with no restrictions on water allocation among these communities. The CWSC bases its future water use projections on estimates of both the number of future water users and the amount of water each type of user will consume. The five year average growth in the number of accounts is the basis for the utility’s projections of the number of water users through 2020. Water use projections for 2020 range from 5.9 MGD to 9.1 MGD. Assuming the SFWD contract allocation is not modified during the remaining contract period, the CWSC has 38 adequate supply to meet even the highest projected demand. Water lines in the East of 101 Area would generally be adequate to serve new development 39 allowed under the East of 101 Area Plan. The water distribution system in the area was designed and constructed to meet industrial water demands. It consists of a network of 12-inch lines in relatively good condition, adequate to serve the 2,500 gallons per minute fire flow requirement and use demands for the land uses planned for the area. Stormwater The existing drainage system in the East of 101 Area is generally designed and constructed for industrial development, which has a high ratio of impervious surfaces. Thus, any redevelopment of existing development will generally not increase runoff. Solid Waste Solid waste is collected from South San Francisco homes and businesses and then processed at the South San Francisco Scavenger Company’s materials recovery facility and transfer station. Materials that cannot be recycled or composted are transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, near Half Moon Bay. Browning-Ferris Industries, owner of the landfill, has a permit for forward expansion of the Corinda Los Trancos Canyon at Ox Mountain. When the permit expires in 2016, either Corinda Los Trancos will be expanded further or Apanolio Canyon will be opened for fill. The South San Francisco Scavenger Company’s facility is permitted to receive a daily maximum of 1,250 tons per day of wastes and recyclable materials. This facility gives the Company increased capability to recover valuable materials from wastes, reducing the amount of waste being sent to the landfill. South San Francisco recycles both household and industrial solid waste and sewage sludge. 38 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p.194. 39 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Brady and Associates, East of 101 Area Plan, 1994, p. 98. P126IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS a) Regional Wastewater Treatment Standards Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board, as outlined in the Setting section. The Project will be required to comply with all applicable regulations and would not cause an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements so would have no impact related to an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. b) Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or in the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. The City of South San Francisco estimates its water and wastewater capacity needs based on the projected General Plan buildout of all land uses. The Project is consistent with the General Plan buildout scenarios, and therefore has been included in the City’s water and wastewater growth projections. The 1999 General Plan EIR indicated that major water delivery, and major wastewater treatment facilities were adequate, or would be improved, in order to meet project water and wastewater demand growth. The expansion of the South San Francisco/San Bruno Sewage Treatment Plant was to occur during the horizon of the 1999 General Plan, increasing capacity from 9 million gallons per day (MGD) to 13 MGD. Much of the existing South San Francisco sewer system is over sixty years old, and portions of the system are in need of repair. In the area east of Highway 101, subsidence of sewer lines has resulted in reduced capacity though these issues are being addressed through an area master plan to replace or repair these lines. The City of South San Francisco has initiated a sewer improvement program, whereby individual projects would pay a pro rate, fair share sewer improvement fee to cover the costs of any necessary sewer improvements. The Project must, and would, pay this pro rate fee to help construct any local sewer improvements necessitated by the Project. With mandated payment of fee, the impact of the Project on increased water and wastewater facilities would be less than significant. c) Storm Water Drainage Facilities Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or in the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Periodic flooding occurs in South San Francisco, but is confined to certain areas along Colma Creek. Colma Creek handles much of the urban runoff generated in the city; since South San IS/MNDP127 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Francisco is highly urbanized, runoff levels are high and there is increased potential for flood conditions during periods of heavy rainfall. While the Project site is not located in the vicinity of the creek and would not be susceptible to flooding during a 100-year storm (see the Hydrology and Water Quality checklist section of this document for more information), site runoff may be within the Colma Creek watershed. The proposed Project would result in a reduction in impervious surface area of 16%. The Colma Creek Flood Control District requires that drainage calculations, including outflow locations, be submitted to the District for approval. Per the Districts requirements, future discharge rates to District facilities may not exceed pre-project conditions. Therefore, the project would result in no net increase in storm water runoff and would have no impact with regards to increased storm water runoff and the building or expansion of new storm water drainage facilities. d) Water Supply Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require additional water supply beyond that available from existing entitlements and resources. The proposed Project would lead to an increase in demand for potable water, but would utilize existing water entitlements and resources, having a less than significant impact on other water resources. e) Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which may serve the Project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. The proposed project would contribute both domestic sewage and industrial wastewater to the City of South San Francisco’s municipal sewer system. The South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality Control Plan (WQCP) has recently been upgraded and currently has capacity to provide secondary treatment for 13 MGD in dry weather and 60 MGD in wet weather. The Project would place a less than significant demand on the area’s wastewater treatment provider and would not prevent it from fulfilling its existing commitments. f) and g) Solid Waste Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to be served by a landfill with inadequate permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs, or if it were to fail to fully comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would be expected to be in full compliance with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs, and P128IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS would not require or result in construction of landfill facilities or expansion of existing facilities nor would it impede the ability of the City to meet the applicable federal, state and local statures and regulations related to solid waste. The project would have a less than significant impact in relation to solid waste. IS/MNDP129 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS Potentially Less Than Less Than Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Significant Significant with Significant No Determination of Environmental Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XVII. ÓßÒÜßÌÑÎÇÚ×ÒÜ×ÒÙÍÑÚ Í×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÝÛ — a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the Project have impacts that are [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects.) c) Does the Project have environmental effects, [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Quality of the Environment Project implementation could lead to development that adversely affects the environment in terms of impacts to various CEQA issue topics, as discussed in this IS/MND. However, impacts of the Project are considered to be less than significant with mitigation. Implementation of the Project would not degrade the quality and extent of the environment provided all policies, rules, and regulations of all relevant governing bodies are adhered to, and the mitigation measures contained within this document are implemented. b) Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts of the Project are considered to be less than significant with mitigation. As discussed in the preceding sections of this checklist, implementation of the Project would not cumulatively impact the environment provided all policies, rules and regulations of all relevant governing bodies are adhered to, and the mitigation measures contained within this document are implemented. P130IS/MND AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS c) Adverse Effects on Human Beings While human beings could be affected by a variety of impacts described above, the Project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Noise, hazardous materials, air quality, and traffic impacts on adjacent land uses are less than significant with mitigation. The Project would not expose people to new hazards. There would be no other adverse effects on human beings. IS/MNDP131 AGE 328RR(BML3) OEBLINGOADRITANNIA ODULARABS This page intentionally left blank. P132IS/MND AGE ßß ÐÐÛÒÜ×È ßÏËÎÞÛÓ×ÍÑ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ ËÌÐËÌ ßÞ ÐÐÛÒÜ×È ÌÍ ÎßÚÚ×Ý ÌËÜÇ Ò±¬ Ì± Í½¿´» ÒÑÎÌØ ã Ð®±¶»½¬ Í·¬» ïÓÈÙÔ×ÐÐûÆ× íîè Î±»¾´·²¹ Î¼ Ì®¿ºº·½ Í¬«¼§ ÝÎßÒÛ ÌÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ÙÎÑËÐ Ò±¬ Ì± Í½¿´» ÒÑÎÌØ ÐÎÑÖÛÝÌ Í×ÌÛ Û¿¬ Ù®¿²¼ ßª» ã Í¬±° Í·¹² ã Í·¹²¿´ íîè Î±»¾´·²¹ Î¼ Ì®¿ºº·½ Í¬«¼§ Ú·¹«®» î Û¨·¬·²¹ ×²¬»®»½¬·±² Ô¿²» Ù»±³»¬®·½ ¿²¼ Ý±²¬®±´ ÝÎßÒÛ ÌÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ÙÎÑËÐ Ò±¬ Ì± Í½¿´» ö ÒÑÎÌØ Ì±¬¿´ ±º ¿´´ Ü®·ª»©¿§ »®ª·²¹ íîè Î±»¾´·²¹ Î¼ ª·¿ Î±»¾´·²¹ Î±¿¼ íîè Î±»¾´·²¹ Î¼ è ÐÎÑÖÛÝÌ ö Í×ÌÛ ïî îð êí ïïîîç ïé î ð îëî ð îð îéë Û¿¬ Ù®¿²¼ ßª» êìí í íê ïîëë ïíëð ïîï êì ïçê ïíë ßÓ ÐÛßÕ ØÑËÎ ö Ì±¬¿´ ±º ¿´´ Ü®·ª»©¿§ »®ª·²¹ íîè Î±»¾´·²¹ Î¼ íîè Î±»¾´·²¹ Î¼ ª·¿ Î±»¾´·²¹ Î±¿¼ ïð ÐÎÑÖÛÝÌ ö Í×ÌÛ î îî ïîð ð íç íìç ê í çéë ð èì ïðìî Û¿¬ Ù®¿²¼ ßª» îïë è ð îíî îêî ïèï îî ìç éè ÐÓ ÐÛßÕ ØÑËÎ íîè Î±»¾´·²¹ Î¼ Ì®¿ºº·½ Í¬«¼§ Ú·¹«®» í Û¨·¬·²¹ ßÓ ¿²¼ ÐÓ Ð»¿µ Ø±«® Ê±´«³» ÝÎßÒÛ ÌÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ÙÎÑËÐ Ò±¬ Ì± Í½¿´» ö ÒÑÎÌØ Ì±¬¿´ ±º ¿´´ Ü®·ª»©¿§ »®ª·²¹ íîè Î±»¾´·²¹ Î¼ ª·¿ Î±»¾´·²¹ Î±¿¼ íîè Î±»¾´·²¹ Î¼ è ÐÎÑÖÛÝÌ ö Í×ÌÛ ïî ïê èë îððîî íé î ð ëíî ç ëí ëìé Û¿¬ Ù®¿²¼ ßª» çèð í íêì îííé îîçð íîé êí ïèð ííï ßÓ ÐÛßÕ ØÑËÎ ö Ì±¬¿´ ±º ¿´´ Ü®·ª»©¿§ »®ª·²¹ íîè Î±»¾´·²¹ Î¼ íîè Î±»¾´·²¹ Î¼ ª·¿ Î±»¾´·²¹ Î±¿¼ ïð ÐÎÑÖÛÝÌ ö Í×ÌÛ î ïë îçê ð ïèï èêè ïï í îðìê ð îêî ïçèî Û¿¬ Ù®¿²¼ ßª» ïèï éï ð ìêí ìèè ïëï êç éì êð ÐÓ ÐÛßÕ ØÑËÎ íîè Î±»¾´·²¹ Î¼ Ì®¿ºº·½ Í¬«¼§ Ú·¹«®» ì Ç»¿® îðïë Þ¿» Ý¿» øÉ·¬¸±«¬ Ð®±¶»½¬÷ ßÓ ¿²¼ ÐÓ Ð»¿µ Ø±«® Ê±´«³» ÝÎßÒÛ ÌÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ÙÎÑËÐ Ò±¬ Ì± Í½¿´» ÒÑÎÌØ ÐÎÑÖÛÝÌ Í×ÌÛ Û¿¬ Ù®¿²¼ ßª» ã Í¬±° Í·¹² ã Í·¹²¿´ íîè Î±»¾´·²¹ Î¼ Ì®¿ºº·½ Í¬«¼§ Ú·¹«®» ë Ç»¿® îðïë ×²¬»®»½¬·±² Ô¿²» Ù»±³»¬®·½ ¿²¼ Ý±²¬®±´ ÝÎßÒÛ ÌÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ÙÎÑËÐ Ò±¬ Ì± Í½¿´» ö ÒÑÎÌØ Ì±¬¿´ ±º ¿´´ Ü®·ª»©¿§ »®ª·²¹ íîè Î±»¾´·²¹ Î¼ ª·¿ Î±»¾´·²¹ Î±¿¼ íîè Î±»¾´·²¹ Î¼ ë ÐÎÑÖÛÝÌ ö Í×ÌÛ ïïë ï ë ð ë ë í ë ë Û¿¬ Ù®¿²¼ ßª» ð éë ïïî íê Ì¸» °®±¶»½¬ ·²½®»³»²¬ ¼±» ²±¬ ·²½´«¼» »¨·¬·²¹ ¬®¿ºº·½ ½«®®»²¬´§ «·²¹ ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ ¼®·ª»©¿§ò ßÓ ÐÛßÕ ØÑËÎ ö Ì±¬¿´ ±º ¿´´ Ü®·ª»©¿§ »®ª·²¹ íîè Î±»¾´·²¹ Î¼ íîè Î±»¾´·²¹ Î¼ ª·¿ Î±»¾´·²¹ Î±¿¼ ëè ÐÎÑÖÛÝÌ ö Í×ÌÛ îî ï ð ëè ìé ëê ð ìè ìé Û¿¬ Ù®¿²¼ ßª» îî ð ïè ì Ì¸» °®±¶»½¬ ·²½®»³»²¬ ¼±» ²±¬ ·²½´«¼» »¨·¬·²¹ ¬®¿ºº·½ ½«®®»²¬´§ «·²¹ ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ ¼®·ª»©¿§ò ÐÓ ÐÛßÕ ØÑËÎ íîè Î±»¾´·²¹ Î¼ Ì®¿ºº·½ Í¬«¼§ Ú·¹«®» ê Ð®±¶»½¬ ×²½®»³»²¬ ßÓ ¿²¼ ÐÓ Ð»¿µ Ø±«® Ê±´«³» ÝÎßÒÛ ÌÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ÙÎÑËÐ Ò±¬ Ì± Í½¿´» ö ÒÑÎÌØ Ì±¬¿´ ±º ¿´´ Ü®·ª»©¿§ »®ª·²¹ íîè Î±»¾´·²¹ Î¼ ª·¿ Î±»¾´·²¹ Î±¿¼ íîè Î±»¾´·²¹ Î¼ ïí ÐÎÑÖÛÝÌ ö Í×ÌÛ ïíð ïê èë îððîí ìî î ë ëíé ïî ëè ëëî Û¿¬ Ù®¿²¼ ßª» çèð ð ìéê îìïî îîçð íêí êí ïèð ííï ßÓ ÐÛßÕ ØÑËÎ ö Ì±¬¿´ ±º ¿´´ Ü®·ª»©¿§ »®ª·²¹ íîè Î±»¾´·²¹ Î¼ íîè Î±»¾´·²¹ Î¼ ª·¿ Î±»¾´·²¹ Î±¿¼ êè ÐÎÑÖÛÝÌ ö Í×ÌÛ îì ïê îçê ð îíç èêè ïï ëð îïðî ð íïð îðîç Û¿¬ Ù®¿²¼ ßª» ïèï çí ð ìèï ìèè ïëï éí éì êð ÐÓ ÐÛßÕ ØÑËÎ íîè Î±»¾´·²¹ Î¼ Ì®¿ºº·½ Í¬«¼§ Ú·¹«®» é Ç»¿® îðïë Þ¿» Ý¿» õ Ð®±¶»½¬ ßÓ ¿²¼ ÐÓ Ð»¿µ Ø±«® Ê±´«³» ÝÎßÒÛ ÌÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ÙÎÑËÐ Ò±¬ Ì± Í½¿´» ÒÑÎÌØ Û¿¬ Ù®¿²¼ ßª» ã Í¬±° Í·¹² ã Í·¹²¿´ îêðù Û¿¬ Ù®¿²¼ ßª» ïéëù ã ß¼¼»¼ô ®»³±ª»¼ô ±® ½¸¿²¹»¼ ´¿²» ±® ½±²¬®±´ ã Í·¹²¿´ ûÈÈÔ×öÍÊÚ×ÉúÐÆØ ôÛÊÚÍÊúÐÆØ ÷ÛÉÈõÊÛÎØûÆ×ÓÎÈ×ÊÉ×ÙÈÓÍÎÅÓØ×ÎÅ×ÉÈÚÍÇÎØ÷ÛÉÈõÊÛÎØ ûÆ×ÎÇ×ÛÎØÛØØÛÈÔÓÊØÈÔÊÍÇÕÔÛÎØÉ×ÙÍÎØÐ×ÖÈÈÇÊÎÐÛÎ×åÓØ×ÎÈÔ×ÎÍÊÈÔÚÍÇÎØôÛÊÚÍÊúÐÆØ ÛÌÌÊÍÛÙÔÛÎØÛØØÛÉ×ÙÍÎØÊÓÕÔÈÈÇÊÎÐÛÎ×ÛÎØÛÉ×ÙÍÎØÈÔÊÍÇÕÔÐÛÎ× éÓÕÎÛÐÓÂ×ÈÔ×õÊÛÎØûÆ× êÍ×ÚÐÓÎÕêØÓÎÈ×ÊÉ×ÙÈÓÍÎÛÎØÛØØÛÈÔÓÊØÈÔÊÍÇÕÔÐÛÎ×ÍÎÅ×ÉÈÚÍÇÎØ õÊÛÎØûÆ×éÔÍÊÈ×ÎÈÔ×÷ÛÉÈõÊÛÎØûÆ×Ð×ÖÈÈÇÊÎÐÛÎ×ÍÎÈÔ×Å×ÉÈÚÍÇÎØÛÌÌÊÍÛÙÔÈÍ öÍÊÚ×É ôÛÊÚÍÊÈÍ ÛÎØÐ×ÎÕÈÔ×ÎÈÔ×÷ÛÉÈõÊÛÎØûÆ×Ð×ÖÈÈÇÊÎÐÛÎ×ÍÎÈÔ×ÛÌÌÊÍÛÙÔ ÈÍêÍ×ÚÐÓÎÕêØÈÍ íîè Î±»¾´·²¹ Î¼ Ì®¿ºº·½ Í¬«¼§ Ú·¹«®» è Ó·¬·¹¿¬»¼ ×²¬»®»½¬·±² Ô¿²» Ù»±³»¬®·½ ¿²¼ Ý±²¬®±´ ÝÎßÒÛ ÌÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ÙÎÑËÐ TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 328 ROEBLING ROAD SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO May 15, 2008 Prepared for: City of South San Francisco Prepared by: Mark D. Crane, P.E. California Registered Traffic Engineer (#1381) CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP 2621 E. Windrim Court Elk Grove, CA 95758 (916) 647-3406 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP 328 ROEBLING ROAD TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1 II. SETTING 1 A. ROADWAYS.......................................................................................................1 B. INTERSECTION OPERATION..........................................................................2 C. INTERSECTION SIGNALIZATION REQUIREMENTS..................................3 D. VEHICLE QUEUING..........................................................................................5 E. TRANSIT & SHUTTLE SERVICE.....................................................................6 F. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES....................................................9 G. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM........................................................10 H. FUTURE BASE CASE (WITHOUT PROJECT) CONDITIONS.....................11 I. YEAR 2015 BASE CASE OPERATING CONDITIONS.................................11 III. IMPACT ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................13 A. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA.............................................................................13 B. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION.......................................................................14 C. PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION.....................................................................14 D. ON-SITE CIRCULATION AND ACCESS.......................................................15 E. PARKING...........................................................................................................17 F. RAIL SAFETY...................................................................................................17 G. PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE INTERSECTION OPERATION.................18 H. PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE VEHICLE QUEUING.................................22 I. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY GUIDELINES...........................23 APPENDIX CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP 328 ROEBLING ROAD TABLES Table 1 Intersection Level of Service. Existing & Year 2015 with 250 E. Grand Improvements in Place. AM Peak Hour....................................................................4 Table 2 Intersection Level of Service. Existing & Year 2015 with 250 E. Grand Improvements in Place. PM Peak Hour.....................................................................5 Table 3 Intersection Signalization Requirements. Existing & Year 2015..............................5 Table 4 Transit Service – South San Francisco.......................................................................7 Table 5 Alliance Shuttle Service – South San Francisco.........................................................8 Table 6 Trip Generation – Approved & Planned Local Area Development by 2015 (Without 328 Roebling Road Project)......................................................................11 Table 7 Project Trip Generation.............................................................................................14 Table 8 328 Roebling Road Site. Net New Trip Generation Due to Replacing Existing Warehouse Use with Office Development...............................................................14 Table 9 Year 2015 Project Traffic Distribution.....................................................................15 Table 10 Mitigated Intersection Level of Service. Year 2015................................................18 FIGURES Figure 1 Area Map Figure 2 Existing Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control Figure 3 Existing AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes Figure 4 Year 2015 Base Case (Without Project) AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes Figure 5 Year 2015 Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control Figure 6 Project Increment AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes Figure 7 Year 2015 Base Case + Project AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes Figure 8 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control óó îèêíøçùèóíî This report details the circulation impacts resulting from development of the 105,536-square- foot office/research and development project at 328 Roebling Road in the City of South San Francisco. Existing and year 2015 conditions have been evaluated at the two intersections along East Grand Avenue that would be most affected by project traffic (at Roebling Road and at Forbes Boulevard-Harbor Way). Project off-site impacts to intersection level of service, signalization needs and vehicle queuing have been determined, as have impacts due to project access, internal vehicular circulation, pedestrian circulation and parking. Measures have then been recommended to mitigate all significant impacts. Where appropriate, excerpts and findings from the following EIRs or initial studies/negative declarations have been included in this chapter: Genentech Master Plan Revised Draft EIR (EIP Associates and Korve Engineering, as partially revised December 2006), 250-270 East Grand Avenue Draft EIR (Lamphier-Gregory and Crane Transportation Group, December 2007), the Terrabay Phase 3 Final EIR (City of South San Francisco and Crane Transportation Group, October 2006) and the 213 East Grand Avenue DEIR (Lamphier-Gregory and Crane Transportation Group, in preparation). óóé ÷èèóîõ ûêíûøåûãé The 328 Roebling Road Project site is located north of East Grand Avenue, east of Roebling Road and west of the 249 East Grand Avenue project, which is under construction (see Figure 1 ). The project site is now served by one driveway connection to East Grand Avenue and three driveway connections to Roebling Road. Driveways are not all connected via internal parking aisles. However, the proposed project will have all driveways connecting internal to the site. A schematic presentation of existing intersection approach lanes and control at the two major intersections in close proximity to the site requested for analysis by Figure 2 the City are presented in . Streets East Grand Avenue is a major arterial street and a central access route serving the industrial/ office areas east of the U.S.101 freeway. It has six travel lanes in the vicinity of the freeway and narrows to four travel lanes east of the Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection. In the Project vicinity it has two travel lanes in each direction and left turn lanes provided on the eastbound approach to Roebling Road and on the westbound approach to Harbor Way. The median break at the Roebling Road intersection is long enough to allow eastbound left turn access into a small parking area on the project site on the northeast corner of the East Grand Avenue / Roebling Road intersection. No on-street parking is allowed along either the north or south sides of East Grand Avenue. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph) and “Keep Clear” messages have been painted in the westbound lanes at the Roebling Road 328RRTS P1 OEBLINGOADRAFFIC TUDY AGE MARKD.CRANE,P.E.•CRANETRANSPORTATIONGROUP intersection. A railroad track diagonally crosses the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard- Harbor Way intersection. Roebling Road is a 40-foot-wide street extending about 600 feet north of East Grand Avenue before ending in a cul-de-sac. There is no posted speed limit nor a painted centerline. Pavement condition is adequate. Curb, gutter and sidewalks line both sides of the street. Roebling Road is stop sign controlled on its approach to East Grand Avenue. Harbor Way is a two-lane street serving existing and planned industrial/office uses south of East Grand Avenue. Harbor Way provides access to South Airport Boulevard and several U.S.101 freeway ramps via Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue. Volumes Weekday AM and PM peak hour analysis was requested by City staff at the following two intersections serving the Project site. 1.E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way (Signal) 2.E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road (Roebling Road Stop Sign Controlled) Counts were conducted by Crane Transportation Group in February 2008 at the following locations. E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard-Harbor Way All driveways along Roebling Road The project driveway along E. Grand Avenue Figure 3 presents existing AM and PM peak hour volumes at the analysis intersections. úóîè÷êé÷ùèóíîíì÷êûèóíî Analysis Methodology Signalized Intersections. Intersections, rather than roadway segments between intersections, are almost always the capacity controlling locations for any circulation system. Signalized intersection operation is graded based upon two different scales. The first scale employs a grading system called Level of Service (LOS) which ranges from Level A, indicating uncongested flow and minimum delay to drivers, down to Level F, indicating significant congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches. The Level of Service scale is also associated with a control delay tabulation (year 2000 Transportation Research Board [TRB] Highway Capacity Manual [HCM] operations method) at each intersection. The control delay designation allows a more detailed examination of the impacts of a particular P2 328RRTS AGEOEBLINGOADRAFFIC TUDY MARKD.CRANE,P.E.•CRANETRANSPORTATIONGROUP Project. Greater detail regarding the LOS/control delay relationship is provided in the Appendix . Unsignalized Intersections. Unsignalized intersection operation is also typically graded using the Level of Service A through F scale. LOS ratings for all-way stop intersections are determined using a methodology outlined in the year 2000 TRB Highway Capacity Manual. Under this methodology, all-way stop intersections receive one LOS designation reflecting operation of the entire intersection. Average control delay values are also calculated. Intersections with side streets only stop sign controlled (two-way stop control) are also evaluated using the LOS and average control delay scales using a methodology outlined in the year 2000 TRB Highway Capacity Manual. However, unlike signalized or all-way stop analysis where the LOS and control delay designations only pertain to the entire intersection, in side street stop sign control analysis LOS and delay designations are computed for only the stop sign controlled approaches or individual turn and through movements. The Appendix provides greater detail about unsignalized analysis methodologies. Analysis Software All existing operating conditions have been evaluated using the Traffix software program, while the Synchro software program has been utilized to evaluate year 2015 conditions at the East Grand intersections with Roebling Road and with Forbes Boulevard-Harbor Way. Standards The City of South San Francisco considers Level of Service D (LOS D) to be the poorest acceptable operation for signalized and all-way-stop intersections, with LOS E the poorest acceptable operation for unsignalized city street intersection turn movements. The City has no standards for turn movements from private driveways. Existing Intersection Operating Conditions Tables 12 and show that both analyzed intersections are currently operating at good to acceptable (LOS D or better) Levels of Service during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours. ùóîè÷êé÷ùèóíîéóõîûðóâûèóíîê÷ëçóê÷ï÷îèé Traffic signals are used to provide an orderly flow of traffic through an intersection. Many times they are needed to offer side street traffic an opportunity to access a major road where high volumes and/or high vehicle speeds block crossing or turn movements. They do not, however, increase the capacity of an intersection (i.e., increase the overall intersection's ability to accommodate additional vehicles) and, in fact, often slightly reduce the number of total vehicles that can pass through an intersection in a given period of time. Signals can also cause an increase in traffic accidents if installed at inappropriate locations. 328RRTS P3 OEBLINGOADRAFFIC TUDY AGE MARKD.CRANE,P.E.•CRANETRANSPORTATIONGROUP There are 8 possible tests for determining whether a traffic signal should be considered for installation. These tests, called "warrants", consider criteria such as actual traffic volume, pedestrian volume, presence of school children, and accident history. Usually, two or more warrants must be met before a signal is considered for installation. In this report, the test for Peak Hour Volumes (Warrant #3) has been applied. When Warrant 3 is met there is a strong indication that a detailed signal warrant analysis covering all possible warrants is appropriate. These rigorous analyses are described in the 2003 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices by the Federal Highway Administration, while Warrant 3 is presented in the Appendix of this report. It is possible that an unsignalized intersection will not meet signal warrants, but will have one or more movements that experience LOS F operations. Level of Service F can be indicated for a very low volume of vehicles at a stop sign. Although these stopped vehicles may experience long delays of one minute or more, there would not be an overall benefit if the higher numbers of vehicles on the major street are stopped in favor of the few vehicles on the minor street. The signal warrant considers a balance between major street and minor street delays, and may indicate that there is overall benefit if drivers for some turn movements from the minor street continue to experience long (LOS E or F) delays. èóðíé ûúð÷îè÷êé÷ùèóíî÷æ÷ðö÷êæóù÷ ÷ã ÷õóì äóéèóîõ÷ûêåóèôêûîøïìêíæ÷ï÷îèéóîðûù÷ ûïìô ÷ûñíçê YEAR 2015 BASEBASE CASE INTERSECTION EXISTING CASE* + PROJECT (1) E. Grand Ave./Forbes Blvd./Harbor Way (Signal) D-36.9 E-69.6 F-81.5 (2) E. Grand Ave./Roebling Rd. (Stop Sign Control) B-10.7 D-25.4 E-37.6 * Base Case = traffic projections from the Genentech Master Plan Revised Draft EIR (including full Genentech buildout) + 213 East Grand Avenue. (1) Signalized level of service – vehicle control delay in seconds. (2) Unsignalized level of service – vehicle control delay in seconds/Roebling Rd. stop sign controlled approach to E. Grand Ave. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group P4 328RRTS AGEOEBLINGOADRAFFIC TUDY MARKD.CRANE,P.E.•CRANETRANSPORTATIONGROUP è óðíé ûúð÷îè÷êé÷ùèóíî÷æ÷ðö÷êæóù÷ ÷ã ÷õóì äóéèóîõ÷ûêåóèôêûîøïìêíæ÷ï÷îèéóîðûù÷ ìïìô ÷ûñíçê YEAR 2015 BASEBASE CASE INTERSECTION EXISTING CASE* + PROJECT (1) E. Grand Ave./Forbes Blvd./Harbor Way (Signal) C-34.2 F-109.4 F-115.3 (2) E. Grand Ave./Roebling Rd. (Roebling Stop Sign Control) B-13.4 F-68.1 F-149 * Base Case = traffic projections from the Genentech Master Plan Revised Draft EIR (including full Genentech buildout) + 213 East Grand Avenue. (1) Signalized level of service – vehicle control delay in seconds. (2) Unsignalized level of service – vehicle control delay in seconds/Roebling Rd. stop sign controlled approach to E. Grand Ave. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group Existing Signalization Needs Currently, the East Grand Avenue / Roebling Road intersection has AM and PM peak hour Table 3 volumes below signal warrant criteria levels (see ). è óéê ûúð÷îè÷êé÷ùèóíîóõîûðóâûèóíî÷ëçóê÷ï÷îèé ÷ã äóéèóîõ÷ûê Do volumes meet peak hour volume signal warrant #3 criteria levels? AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR YEAR 2015 YEAR 2015 BASEBASE CASE BASEBASE CASE EXISTING EXISTING CASE + PROJECT CASE + PROJECT E. Grand Ave./ No No No No Yes Yes blid Compiled by Crane Transportation Group øæ÷ôóùð÷ëç÷çóîõ Analysis Methodology The Synchro software program has determined year 2015 projections of vehicle queuing on the critical approaches to the E. Grand Avenue intersections with Roebling Road and Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way. 328RRTS P5 OEBLINGOADRAFFIC TUDY AGE MARKD.CRANE,P.E.•CRANETRANSPORTATIONGROUP Queuing Standards The standard adopted by the City of South San Francisco is that the 95th percentile vehicle queue must be accommodated within available storage for each left turn lane on the approach to a major intersection. The 95th percentile queue indicates that vehicle backups will only extend beyond this length five percent of the time during the analysis hour. Queuing analysis is presented in this study for year 2015 Base Case and Base Case + Project conditions. ÷èêûîéóèéôçèèð÷é÷êæóù÷ Transit service in the study area includes local bus service, shuttle service and regional rail Table 4 service. lists the type and frequency of transit service provided to South San Table 5 Francisco and the Project area, while lists the Alliance Shuttle Service schedule. P6 328RRTS AGEOEBLINGOADRAFFIC TUDY MARKD.CRANE,P.E.•CRANETRANSPORTATIONGROUP èèé¥ééö ûúð÷êûîéóè÷êæóù÷íçèôûîêûîùóéùí FREQUENCY SERVICE ROUTE AM/PM PEAK MIDDAY AREA SERVED Airport/Linden—Daly SamTrans City and Colma BART 20/20 30 Airport Blvd./Linden Ave. Stations (130) South SF BART 30/30 50 Airport Blvd./Linden Ave. Station (132) Airport/Linden- 30/30 60 Airport Blvd./Linden Ave. Serramonte (133) Palo Alto-Daly City 30/30 30 South SF BART Bay 3 (390) Redwood City-Colma El Camino Real/South SF 15/30(a) 15(a) BART Station (391) BART Station San Mateo-SF (292) 15/15(a) 30 Airport Blvd./Baden Ave. Caltrain Gilroy-SF 30/30 60 South SF Caltrain Station BART Pittsburg-Daly City 15/15 15 Daly City BART Station Fremont-Daly City 15/15 15 Daly City BART Station Richmond-Daly City 15/15 — Daly City BART Station Dublin-Millbrae 15/15 15 South SF BART Station Gateway Area 30/30 — Genentech Bldgs B9, B5 Gull/Oyster Point and 384 Oyster Point Area 30/30(a) — Caltrain Shuttle Oyster Point to SSF Station Sierra Point Area 30/30(a) — 5000 Shoreline Ct. Utah-Grand Area 30/30(a) — Cabot/Allerton BART Shuttle Sierra Point Area 35/35 — 5000 Shoreline Ct. to SSF Station Gateway Area 20/20 — 1000 Gateway Genentech 15/15 — Genentech Bldgs. B5, B54 Gull/Oyster Point and 384 Oyster Point Area 23/23(a) — Oyster Point Utah-Grand Area 23/23(a) — Cabot/Allerton Frequency of transit service is presented in minutes. SF = San Francisco (a) = average frequency period. Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission (511.org), San Mateo County ALLIANCE (commute.org) 328RRTS P7 OEBLINGOADRAFFIC TUDY AGE MARKD.CRANE,P.E.•CRANETRANSPORTATIONGROUP èûéé¥ééö ûúð÷ððóûîù÷ôçèèð÷÷êæóù÷íçèôûîêûîùóéùí SHUTTLE STATION SERVED SCHEDULE AREA SERVED BART eight AM & nine PM trips Oyster Point Blvd., Gull Rd., Oyster Point Eccles Ave., Forbes Blvd., Caltrain seven AM & seven PM trips Veterans Blvd. BART nine AM & nine PM trips E. Grand Ave., Utah Ave., Utah-Grand Harbor Way, Littlefield Ave. Caltrain seven AM & seven PM trips BART ten AM & twelve PM trips Gateway Blvd.-BART Gateway Area Gateway Blvd., Genentech Caltrain six AM & five PM trips Office-Caltrain BART four AM & four PM Sierra Point Sierra Point, Shoreline Caltrain four AM & four PM trips Both shuttles alternate between 15- and 30-minute headways during both peak hours. Source: San Mateo County ALLIANCE (Commute.org) Bus Service The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service to South San Francisco. However, currently there is no SamTrans service east of the U.S.101 freeway. Bus service running just west of the freeway is as follows. Route 34: Tanforan Shopping Center–Geneva operates along Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard between Brisbane and the San Bruno BART station in the study area. This route operates during midday only on weekdays with headways of about two hours. Route 130: Daly City/Colma BART–South San Francisco operates along Linden Avenue and Grand Avenue in the study area. It connects central South San Francisco with the Colma BART station and Daly City. It operates with 20-minute peak period headways and 30- to 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays, 30-minute headways on Saturdays and 60- minute headways on Sundays. Route 132: Airport/Linden-Arroyo/El Camino operates along Hillside Avenue and Grand Avenue connecting to the South San Francisco BART station. It operates on 30-minute peak period headways and 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 60-minute headways on Saturdays. Route 292: San Francisco–SF Airport–Hillsdale Shopping Center operates along Airport Boulevard. It operates with 20- to 30-minute peak headways and 25- to 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 30- to 60- minute headways on Saturdays and Sundays. P8 328RRTS AGEOEBLINGOADRAFFIC TUDY MARKD.CRANE,P.E.•CRANETRANSPORTATIONGROUP Caltrain Caltrain provides train service between Gilroy, San Jose and San Francisco. There is a station located on the corner of Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue Overcrossing in South San Francisco. Trains operate every 15 to 20 minutes during commute periods and hourly during midday. Caltrain/BART Shuttles Van shuttles are provided between the South San Francisco Caltrain station and employment centers east of U.S.101 during commute hours. Separate shuttles provide service to/from the Colma BART station. Shuttle stops are provided at two locations along East Grand Avenue near the Project site. The Gateway Area/Genentech Shuttle (BART and Caltrain) provides service on Gateway Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard, Forbes Boulevard, Grandview Drive and East Grand Avenue. There are 15 morning trips and 15 afternoon trips on the BART shuttle, and six morning trips and five afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle. The Utah-Grand Shuttle (BART and Caltrain) serves over 20 employers in the Utah/Grand/Littlefield area. It provides service on Harbor Way, East Grand Avenue, Cabot Court, Grandview Avenue, Littlefield Avenue, Haskin Way and Utah Avenue. There are nine trips in the morning and nine trips in the afternoon on the BART shuttle, with nine morning and eight afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle. All shuttle service is fixed-route, fixed-schedule and is provided on weekdays during the commute periods. The shuttles are free to riders. The operating costs are borne by the Joint Powers Board (JPB), SamTrans, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the City/County Association of Governments (75 percent) and sponsoring employers (25 percent). öì÷ø÷éèêóûîûîøúóùãùð÷öûùóðóèó÷é Sidewalks are in place along the north and south sides of East Grand Avenue and along both sides of Roebling Road in the Project vicinity. However, there are no Class II or Class III bicycle lane designations along East Grand Avenue or Roebling Road adjacent to the Project site, although there are numerous bicycle facilities available in the study area. Bike lanes are provided along East Grand Avenue east of Littlefield Avenue, Sister Cities Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard (east of Gateway Avenue), Gull Road, and Gateway Boulevard (south of East Grand Avenue). Bike routes are designated on South Airport Boulevard and on East Grand Avenue between Executive Drive and the East Grand Overcrossing. Bike paths are available along Executive Drive, and along the shoreline. Future bike lanes are planned along Gateway Boulevard, East Grand Avenue, Allerton Avenue, and Forbes Boulevard (east of Allerton Avenue). Future bike routes are planned along Forbes Boulevard (west of Allerton Avenue), while a future bike path is planned along the Caltrain right-of-way. The 328RRTS P9 OEBLINGOADRAFFIC TUDY AGE MARKD.CRANE,P.E.•CRANETRANSPORTATIONGROUP proposed future bike lanes, routes, and paths are designated in the General Plan Transportation Element. õùóèãíöéíçèôéûîöêûîùóéùíèêûîéìíêèûèóíîø÷ïûîø ïûîûõ÷ï÷îèìêíõêûï The City of South San Francisco requires that all nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips, based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce vehicle traffic (Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management). The purposes of the TDM ordinance are as follows: Implement a program designed to reduce the amount of traffic generated by new nonresidential development, and the expansion of existing nonresidential development pursuant to the City’s police power and necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Ensure that expected increases in traffic resulting from growth in employment opportunities in the City of South San Francisco will be adequately mitigated. Reduce drive-alone commute trips during peak traffic periods by using a combination of services, incentives, and facilities. Promote the more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure that new developments are designed in ways to maximize the potential for alternative transportation usage. Establish minimum TDM requirements for all new nonresidential development. Allow reduced parking requirements for projects implementing the requirements of this chapter. Establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure that the measures are implemented. The analysis prepared for the General Plan Amendment includes the assumption that a moderate TDM program will reduce peak hour traffic generation by an additional 9.5 percent compared to existing traffic generation rates. The objective of TDM programs is to reduce vehicle trips at commercial/residential developments by incorporating project components such as encouraging increased transit use, carpooling, and providing facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians. South San Francisco has a “menu” of potential TDM programs, each with a specific number of points that relate to the program’s effectiveness. Examples of TDM programs include bicycle racks and lockers, free carpool parking, shuttle services, and on-site amenities. P10 328RRTS AGEOEBLINGOADRAFFIC TUDY MARKD.CRANE,P.E.•CRANETRANSPORTATIONGROUP ôöçèçê÷úûé÷ùûé÷åóèôíçèìêíò÷ùèùíîøóèóíîé The proposed Project’s traffic impacts have been evaluated in relation to year 2015 Base Case conditions. Year 2015 reflects a horizon year that the 328 Roebling Road Project could be completely constructed and fully occupied. This section details the process to determine Base Case traffic operating conditions for year 2015 conditions. Year 2015 Base Case Development, Cumulative Scenario The year 2015 baseline conditions include traffic generated by approved and proposed development in the study area, as well as traffic generated by projects that are under construction. The majority of the traffic projections have been recently developed as part of the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan Revised Draft EIR. In addition, traffic from one recently proposed development not included in the Genentech DEIR (213 East Grand Avenue) has also been included in the Base Case conditions. Year 2015 peak hour Future Without Project conditions were developed by adding traffic expected to be generated by all the approved and proposed development projects in the greater East of 101 Area (as provided by the City of South San Francisco) to the existing traffic network. The data in this DEIR includes expected traffic volumes generated by several recently approved background projects including the Lowe’s, Home Depot, Terrabay and Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan projects as well as traffic from the proposed 213 East Grand Avenue Table 6 development. The number of trips generated by future developments is provided in . èèõ¥ûìðûøú ûúð÷êóì÷î÷êûèóíîììêíæ÷øðûîî÷øíùûðê÷û÷æ÷ðíìï÷îèã å êêì óèôíçèí÷úðóîõíûøêíò÷ùè AM PEAK HOURPM PEAK HOUR INBOUND OUTBOUND TOTAL INBOUND OUTBOUND TOTAL East of 101 Total w/o Genentech 2828 1003 3831 1372 3055 4427 Genentech Proposal 1762 215 1977 292 1519 1811 Total 4590 1218 5808 1664 4574 6238 Source: Korve Engineering/Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan Revised Draft EIR & Crane Transportation Group Year 2015 Base Case (without Project) AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Figure 4 . óã÷ûê íì÷êûèóîõùíîøóèóíîé Roadway Improvements Planned by 2015 The following intersection improvements were projected by City of South San Francisco Public Works staff to be in place for year 2015 Base Case analysis. These improvements will be funded by approved projects or the City’s East of 101 capital improvements program. 328RRTS P11 OEBLINGOADRAFFIC TUDY AGE MARKD.CRANE,P.E.•CRANETRANSPORTATIONGROUP Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way Widen the southbound Forbes Boulevard approach and stripe as one left, one through and two right turn lanes. Restripe the northbound Harbor Way approach as one left, one through and one right turn lane. Widen eastbound East Grand to provide an exclusive right turn lane. Change northbound and southbound signal phasing from split to protected and provide right turn overlap phasing. Figure 5 provides a schematic presentation of year 2015 intersection approach lanes and control. Intersection Level of Service All intersections with year 2015 Base Case volumes would be operating at acceptable Levels Tables 12 of Service with the following exceptions (see and ). E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way (Signal) AM Peak Hour: LOS E PM Peak Hour: LOS F E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road (Roebling Road Stop Sign Control) PM Peak Hour: LOS F Intersection Signalization Needs The following unsignalized intersection would have year 2015 Base Case volumes meeting Table 3 or exceeding peak hour signal warrant #3 volume criteria levels (see ). E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road PM Peak Hour: Vehicle Queuing The following left turn lane would have a 95th percentile year 2015 Base Case queuing exceeding the available 75-foot storage as determined using the Synchro software program. E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road (Eastbound Left Turn) AM Peak Hour: 200-foot queue PM Peak Hour: 100-foot queue P12 328RRTS AGEOEBLINGOADRAFFIC TUDY MARKD.CRANE,P.E.•CRANETRANSPORTATIONGROUP óóóóû ïìûùèîûðãéóé ûéóõîóöóùûîù÷ùêóè÷êóû Standards of Significance have been measured based on CEQA, City of South San Francisco and C/CAG Guideline thresholds. Therefore, Project impacts would be significant if they result in any of the following conditions: a.The Project would exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the local roadway system (C/CAG criteria only). b.Signalized intersection operation and all-way-stop operation would change from Level of Service (LOS) A, B, C or D to LOS E or F and total volumes passing through the intersection would be increased by at least two percent. c.Uncontrolled turn movements or stop sign controlled approaches at side street stop sign controlled intersections would change from LOS A, B, C, D or E to LOS F and total volumes passing through the intersection would be increased by at least two percent. Side street criteria are applicable only for stop sign controlled approaches with more than 25 trips during any peak traffic hour. d.Project traffic would increase Base Case volumes at an unsignalized intersection to meet peak hour volume signal warrant criteria levels, or to meet pedestrian/school crossing signal warrant criteria levels. e.The proposed Project would increase total volumes passing through an intersection by two percent or more with signalized or all-way stop operation already at a Base Case LOS E or F, or when the intersection is side street stop sign controlled and the stop sign controlled Base Case operation is at LOS F (and there are more than 25 vehicles on the stop sign controlled approach). f.The proposed Project would increase traffic entering an unsignalized intersection by two percent or more with Base Case traffic levels already exceeding peak hour volume signal warrant criteria levels. th g.Project traffic would increase acceptable Base Case 95 percentile vehicle queuing in a left turn lane to an unacceptable level (as determined by the Synchro software program), th or if Base Case 95 percentile queuing in a left turn lane is already projected at unacceptable lengths, the Project would increase queuing volumes by one percent or more. h.If on-site circulation would be confusing to drivers and result in excessive traffic flow through various parts of the Project site. i.The Project would result in an inadequate amount of parking being available. j.Project development or project traffic would produce a detrimental impact to local transit or shuttle service. 328RRTS P13 OEBLINGOADRAFFIC TUDY AGE MARKD.CRANE,P.E.•CRANETRANSPORTATIONGROUP k.If, in the opinion of the registered traffic engineer conducting the EIR analysis, a significant traffic, pedestrian or bicycle safety concern would be created or worsened. úìêíò÷ùèèêóìõ÷î÷êûèóíî Table 7 shows that a total of 105,536 square feet of research and development or office uses would be likely to generate 130 inbound and 18 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, with 24 inbound and 118 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. This assumes a 9.5 percent reduction in peak hour trips due to a moderate TDM program and office rather than R&D uses to provide a conservative analysis, as trip generation has been found to be higher from office than from R&D uses. èìèõ ûúð÷êíò÷ùèêóì÷î÷êûèóíî NEW DAILY AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS SQUARE 2-WAY TRIPS IN OUT IN OUT USE FOOTAGE RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL (1)(1)(1)(1) Office 105,536 SQ.FT. 11.01 1162 1.23 130 .17 18 .23 24 1.12 118 (1) 9.5% reduction in average trip rates due to City mandated TDM program. Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group Table 8 As shown in , after allowance for traffic associated with existing uses on the project site, the proposed project would result in 115 inbound and 10 outbound net new trips on the local circulation system during the AM peak hour, with 22 inbound and 105 outbound net new trips on the local circulation system during the PM peak hour. è êêé ûúð÷í÷úðóîõíûøóè÷ îîèõøê÷åç ÷è÷åêóì÷î÷êûèóíîç÷èí÷ìðûùóîõäóéèóîõûê÷ôíçé÷é÷åóèô íø ööóù÷÷æ÷ðíìï÷îè AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS IN OUT IN OUT Proposed Project (Office) 130 18 24 118 15 8 2 13 Existing Site Activities (includes driveway and on-street) NET NEW TRIPS 115 10 22 105 Source: Crane Transportation Group ùìêíò÷ùèèêóìøóéèêóúçèóíî Project traffic was distributed to the regional roadway network based upon East of 101 development traffic patterns contained in the April 2001 Draft SEIR for the South San Table 9 Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Ordinance (see ) as well as traffic distribution patterns at driveways already serving development on the Project site. Virtually no existing site traffic was surveyed traveling to/from west of the project site on East Grand Avenue. Overall, about 62 percent of Project traffic is projected to be P14 328RRTS AGEOEBLINGOADRAFFIC TUDY MARKD.CRANE,P.E.•CRANETRANSPORTATIONGROUP destined to/from south and southwest of the site, with 38 percent destined to/from the north and northwest. It is likely that Project drivers destined to/from the U.S.101 freeway either north or south would choose to access the freeway via several routes and interchanges. AM and PM peak hour Project traffic is shown distributed to the local roadway network in Figure 6Figure 7 , while presents resultant year 2015 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + Project volumes. èã ìèø ûúð÷÷ûêêíò÷ùèêûööóùóéèêóúçèóíî DIRECTION SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DEVELOPMENT U.S.101 North/San Francisco 29 U.S.101 South 48 South San Francisco (central area) 3 Daly City/Colma via Sister Cities Blvd. 8 Daly City/Colma via Guadalupe Parkway 0 Brisbane 7 Airport Area via South Airport Blvd. 3 Local East of U.S.101 2 TOTAL 100% Source: City of South San Francisco, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001. øíîéóè÷ùóêùçðûèóíîûîøûùù÷éé Project Access The Project would be accessed via one driveway connection to East Grand Avenue and two driveway connections to Roebling Road. AM and PM peak hour turn movement projections Figure 7 are presented in . The proposed driveway along East Grand Avenue would allow westbound right in/right out movements only. All driveways along Roebling Road would allow all in and outbound movements, but due to the cul-de-sac would just experience right turn inbound and left turn outbound movements.. Impact 1: Site lines at East Grand Avenue Driveway. The Project’s driveway connection to East Grand Avenue would be located about 200 feet east of the Forbes Boulevard / Roebling Road intersection. Sight lines at the Project’s only driveway connection along East Grand Avenue, where right turns only would be allowed, would be at least 800 feet to the east (to see westbound traffic). Minimum stopping sight distance for a vehicle speed of 40 miles per hour (five miles greater than the posted speed limit) would be 305 feet. Therefore, sight lines are acceptable at this location. This would be a less-than-significant impact. 328RRTS P15 OEBLINGOADRAFFIC TUDY AGE MARKD.CRANE,P.E.•CRANETRANSPORTATIONGROUP Mitigation Measure 1: No mitigation required. Impact 2: Sight Lines at Roebling Road Driveways. Roebling Road is straight and level along its 600-foot length adjacent to the Project. Project driveways would be located along the east side of the street about 300 feet and 600 feet from East Grand Avenue. Speeds along Roebling Road are now 25 miles per hour or less and would be expected to remain at this level with the Project. Minimum stopping sight distance for a vehicle speed of 25 miles per hour would be 155 feet. Therefore, sight lines are acceptable at these driveways. This would be a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 2: No mitigation required. Internal Circulation Impact 3: Internal Vehicular Circulation. The internal circulation plan as shown on the 7/27/07 site plan by DES Architects / Engineers appears acceptable. Each Project driveway along Roebling Road would be channelized at least 20 feet internal to the site, with the East Grand Avenue driveway being channelized at least 35 feet internal to the parking lot. In addition, all surface parking aisles are shown to be 25 feet or greater in width as are all parking garage aisles, which meets City code criteria and good traffic engineering practice. This would be a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3: No mitigation required. Impact 4: Internal Pedestrian Circulation. Internal walkways are shown on the site plan connecting all buildings and connecting the buildings to the sidewalks along Roebling Road and East Grand Avenue. This would be a less-than significant impact. P16 328RRTS AGEOEBLINGOADRAFFIC TUDY MARKD.CRANE,P.E.•CRANETRANSPORTATIONGROUP Mitigation Measure 4: No mitigation required. ÷ìûêñóîõ Impact 5:On-Site Parking. The Project will provide parking at a ratio of 2.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet between the at-grade and subterranean parking lots, for a total of 296 parking spaces. Based upon City code criteria, between 349 (100% office) and 367 (100% R&D) parking spaces would be required although a reduction from this standard may be granted via approval of a Use Permit if supported by a parking demand analysis acceptable to the City Engineer. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 5: Mitigation Measure 11 . The Project proponent shall implement a TDM program to reduce demand for parking. Implementation of a TDM program, as required by Mitigation Measure 11, supports reduced parking as an effective tool to reduce trip reduction efforts. The following General Plan policies also specifically support a commitment to reduced parking requirements: 4.3-I-11 Establish parking standards to support trip reduction goals by: Allowing parking reduction for projects that have agreed to implement trip reduction methods, such as paid parking. 4.3-I-12 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to reduce minimum parking requirements for projects proximate to transit stations and for projects implementing a TDM program. With implementation of a TDM program, the Project would have a less than significant impact with regard to parking. öêûóðéûö÷èã There is an at grade railroad crossings near the Project site running diagonally across the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection. No gates or lights are provided at the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection crossing. Impact 6: Grade Crossing Approaches Missing Signing and Pavement Striping. The State Public Utilities Commission (September 26, 2006 letter to City of South San Francisco) has noted in a recent inspection that the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection grade 328RRTS P17 OEBLINGOADRAFFIC TUDY AGE MARKD.CRANE,P.E.•CRANETRANSPORTATIONGROUP crossing is not up to minimum standards on one or more approaches for required advanced warning signing and pavement striping (i.e. R15-1 and W-10-1 signs as well as RxR pavement striping). This results in an existing safety concern that would be aggravated by the addition of Project traffic. This would be a significantimpact. Mitigation Measure 6: Impacts to Grade Crossing Approach Signing & Pavement Striping . The Project shall provide a fair share contribution towards all needed signs and pavement markings on the approaches to the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection “at grade railroad crossing” to meet minimum State Public Utilities Commission requirements as detailed in the 2003 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Services by the Federal Highway Commission. Impact reduced to a less-than-significantlevel. õìêíò÷ùèûîøùçïçðûèóæ÷óîè÷êé÷ùèóíîíì÷êûèóíî è ïóðíé ûúð÷óèóõûè÷øîè÷êé÷ùèóíî÷æ÷ðö÷êæóù÷ ã ÷ûê AM PEAK HOURPM PEAK HOUR BASEMITIGATEDBASEMITIGATED BASECASE + BASE CASE BASECASE + BASE CASE INTERSECTION CASEPROJECT+ PROJECT CASEPROJECT+ PROJECT East Grand Ave./Forbes (1)(1) D-53.8* F-81.5 D-45.0 F-98.3* F-115.3 D-53.8 Blvd./Harbor Way (Signal) E. Grand Ave./Roebling (2)*(2)* D-34.7 F-149 B-12.6 C-18.7 E-37.6 B-12.8 Rd. * Signalized intersection level of service—vehicle control delay (in seconds). ** Side street stop sign controlled intersection—southbound approach vehicle control delay (in seconds). (1) Widen westbound E. Grand Ave. approach to provide a third through lane and a second left turn lane. Widen northbound Harbor Way approach to provide a second through lane and a second right turn lane. (2) Signalize the intersection and add a third through lane on the westbound E. Grand Ave. approach. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual analysis methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group Impact 7: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive a significant impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Tables 12 Case volumes (see and ). E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way P18 328RRTS AGEOEBLINGOADRAFFIC TUDY MARKD.CRANE,P.E.•CRANETRANSPORTATIONGROUP AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 7.5 percent at a location with unacceptable Base Case LOS D operation being degraded to LOS F operation. PM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 8.5 percent at a location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case signalized operation. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 7: E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way. Table 10 (seeand Figure 8 ) The following improvements would mitigate the project- specific impacts. These improvements are included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will be funded via the Project’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program. Widen East Grand Avenue east of Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way in order to provide a third westbound through lane and a second westbound left turn lane. The third westbound through lane should begin to the east of the Roebling Road intersection (in order to mitigate left turn queuing impacts). In addition, widen the northbound Harbor Way approach to provide one additional through lane and one additional right turn lane (total five lanes: one left, two through and two right turn lanes). Resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Signalized Operation: AM Peak Hour: LOS D-45.0 seconds control delay (which would be better than Base Case LOS E-69.6 seconds control delay operation) PM Peak Hour: LOS E-53.8 seconds control delay (which would be better than Base Case LOS F-110 seconds control delay operation) Implementation of mitigation measure 7 will reduce the impact at this location to a less-than-significant level through contribution of funds to an established transportation improvement program that will be applied to physical improvements to improve the functioning of the intersection. The E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection is included in the City’s East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. Therefore, a portion of the traffic impact fee collected for the proposed Project will be used to help fund planned improvements to this intersection that would maintain or improve the current levels of service and reduce the Project’s impact to a level of less-than-significant. Specific 328RRTS P19 OEBLINGOADRAFFIC TUDY AGE MARKD.CRANE,P.E.•CRANETRANSPORTATIONGROUP improvements planned for this intersection and the resultant level of service are presented in mitigation measure Traf-7. Impact 8: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive a significant impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Tables 12 Case volumes (see and ). E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road PM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 4.7 percent at a location with unacceptable Base Case LOS F operation of the stop sign controlled Roebling Road intersection. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 8: E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road. Table 10 Figure 8 (seeand) The following improvements would mitigate the project-specific impacts. The project proponent will be responsible for implementation of the following improvements or fair-share reimbursement (as determined by the City Engineer) if implemented by another party prior to initiation of construction for this project. 1. Signalize the intersection and coordinate operation with the signal at East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way. 2. Provide a third westbound through lane and continue to the Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection (see Mitigation Measure 7). 3. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue intersection approach from 75 feet up to 175 feet. This will leave room for a 250- to 260-foot left turn lane on the westbound East Grand Avenue approach to Harbor Way, which would accommodate a year 2015 95th percentile queue of 125 feet during the PM peak hour. Resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Signalized Operation: AM Peak Hour: LOS B-12.8 seconds control delay PM Peak Hour: LOS B-12.6 seconds control delay These improvements are not currently included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program. P20 328RRTS AGEOEBLINGOADRAFFIC TUDY MARKD.CRANE,P.E.•CRANETRANSPORTATIONGROUP The nearby 213 East Grand Avenue project proposal, also undergoing environmental analysis at the time of drafting of this report, would contribute to the impact at this intersection and require the same mitigation. Whichever project initiates construction first would be responsible for implementation of the improvements, and may be reimbursed on a fair-share basis (as determined by the City Engineer) by the other project if/when it proceeds. Mitigation measure 8 would reduce the impact at this location to a less-than-significant level through implementation of physical improvements that will improve the functioning of the intersection in compliance with city standards. Impact 9: Intersection Signalization Needs. East The analysis concluded that the Grand Avenue / Roebling Road unsignalized intersection would receive a significant signal warrant impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case PM peak hour volumes. Volumes would be increased by more than two percent (4.7%) at the one nearby unsignalized intersection where Base Case volumes would already be exceeding peak Table 3 hour signal warrant criteria levels (see ). This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 9: E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road. Table 10 Figure 8 (seeand) The following improvements would mitigate the project-specific impacts. The project proponent will be responsible for implementation of the following improvements or fair-share reimbursement (as determined by the City Engineer) if implemented by another party prior to initiation of construction for this project. 1. Signalize the intersection and coordinate operation with the signal at East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way. 2. Provide a third westbound through lane and continue to the Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection (see Mitigation Measure 7). 3. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue intersection approach from 75 feet up to 175 feet. Resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Signalized Operation: AM Peak Hour: LOS B-12.8 seconds control delay PM Peak Hour: LOS B-12.6 seconds control delay 328RRTS P21 OEBLINGOADRAFFIC TUDY AGE MARKD.CRANE,P.E.•CRANETRANSPORTATIONGROUP These improvements are not currently included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program. The nearby 213 East Grand Avenue project proposal, also undergoing environmental analysis at the time of drafting of this report, would contribute to the impact at this intersection and require the same mitigation. Whichever project initiates construction first would be responsible for implementation of the improvements, and may be reimbursed on a fair-share basis (as determined by the City Engineer) by the other project if/when it proceeds. Mitigation measure 9 would reduce the impact at this location to a less-than-significant level through implementation of physical improvements that will improve the functioning of the intersection in compliance with city standards. ôìêíò÷ùèûîøùçïçðûèóæ÷æ÷ôóùð÷ëç÷çóîõ Impact 10: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing — Synchro software evaluation. The following approach to an intersection providing direct access to the Project site would receive a significant queuing impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes. E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road (unsignalized) AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 31 percent in the left turn lane on the E. Grand Avenue approach to Roebling Road at a location with unacceptable Base Case 95th percentile queuing. The left turn lane queue at an unsignalized intersection would be extended from 200 up to 225 feet in a location with only 75 feet of storage. PM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 31 percent in the left turn lane on the E. Grand Avenue approach to Roebling Road at a location with unacceptable Base Case 95th percentile queuing. The left turn lane queue at an unsignalized intersection would be extended from 100 up to 125 feet in a location with only 75 feet of storage. This would be a significantimpact. Mitigation Measure 10: Improvements for Vehicle Queuing. Figure 8 (see) The following improvements would mitigate the project-specific impact. The project P22 328RRTS AGEOEBLINGOADRAFFIC TUDY MARKD.CRANE,P.E.•CRANETRANSPORTATIONGROUP proponent will be responsible for implementation of the following improvements or fair-share reimbursement (as determined by the City Engineer) if implemented by another party prior to initiation of construction for this project. 328RRTS P23 OEBLINGOADRAFFIC TUDY AGE MARKD.CRANE,P.E.•CRANETRANSPORTATIONGROUP E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road 1. Signalize the intersection and coordinate the signals along East Grand Avenue.. 2. Provide a third westbound through lane and continue to the Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection. 3. Extend the left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue approach from 75 up to 175 feet. (Please note that signalizing the intersection reduces the 95th percentile queue in this turn lane to unsignalized operation.) Resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Signalized Operation: AM Peak Hour: LOS B-12.8 seconds control delay PM Peak Hour: LOS B-12.6 seconds control delay These improvements are not included in the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program. The nearby 213 East Grand Avenue project proposal, also undergoing environmental analysis at the time of drafting of this report, would contribute to the impact at this intersection and require the same mitigation. Whichever project initiates construction first would be responsible for implementation of the improvements, and may be reimbursed on a fair-share basis (as determined by the City Engineer) by the other project if/when it proceeds. Mitigation measure 10 would reduce the impact at this location to a less-than-significant level through implementation of physical improvements that will improve the functioning of the intersection in compliance with city standards. óùíîõ÷éèóíîïûîûõ÷ï÷îèûõ÷îùãõçóø÷ðóî÷é Impact 11: Project Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Trips During Peak Hours. The Project would generate more than 100 net new trips during the AM and PM peak hours (125 net new two-way (inbound + outbound) trips during the AM peak hour and 127 net new two-way trips during the PM peak Table 7 hour (see )). The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for the implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program (“C/CAG Guidelines”) P24 328RRTS AGEOEBLINGOADRAFFIC TUDY MARKD.CRANE,P.E.•CRANETRANSPORTATIONGROUP specifies that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants will mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development.This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 11: Transportation Demand Management Program. The Project sponsors shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program consistent with the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable to C/CAG. These programs, once implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life of the development. The C/CAG guidelines specify the number of trips that may be credited for each TDM measure. The Project’s TDM program will generate trip credits to offset the 125 total AM peak hour and 127 PM peak hour trips generated by the Project. Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level. 328RRTS P25 OEBLINGOADRAFFIC TUDY AGE MARKD.CRANE,P.E.•CRANETRANSPORTATIONGROUP Appendix SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA Level of Average Control Delay Description Service(Seconds Per Vehicle) Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression A< 10.0 and/or short cycle lengths. Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or B10.1 to 20.0 short cycle lengths. Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or C20.1 to 35.0 longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and/or high volume-to-capacity D35.1 to 55.0 (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are E55.1 to 80.0 frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to F> 80.0 oversaturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000). UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA Level of Average Control Delay Description Service(Seconds Per Vehicle) ALittle or no delays< 10.0 BShort traffic delays10.1 to 15.0 CAverage traffic delays15.1 to 25.0 DLong traffic delays25.1 to 35.0 EVery long traffic delays35.1 to 50.0 Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded (for an all-way stop), or with approach/turn movement F> 50.0 capacity exceeded (for a side street stop controlled intersection) Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000).