Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout475 Eccles SSF IS NOP CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA INITIAL STUDY/NOTICE OF PREPARATION TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Ali Y ICI' / i PREPARED FOR: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT- PLANNING DIVISION 315 MAPLE AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94083 PREPARED BY: ALLISON APP WOLLAM CONSULTING AI IisonnappConsultin .co August 22, 2012 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INITIAL STUDY NOTICE OF PREPARATION TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Submitted to: STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNORS OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 Submitted by: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION Mr. Billy Gross, Associate Planner 315 MAPLE AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94083 August 22, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Initial Study and Legislative Framework 1-1 1.2 City of South San Francisco Project Review Process and 1-4 Mitigation Measures Required by Law 1.3 Lead Agency Determination 1-12 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Location and Setting 2-1 2.2 Proposed Project 2-5 2.4 Environmental Measures Incorporated into the Project 2-11 2.3 General Plan and Zoning 2-18 2.4 Required Entitlements 2-18 CHAPER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.1 Aesthetics 3-2 3.2 Agricultural Resources 3-10 3.3 Air Quality '-12 3.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3-23 3.5 Biological Resources 3-32 3.6 Cultural Resources 3-35 3.7 Geology and Soils 3-39 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3-45 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality 3-56 3.10 Land Use and Planning 3-61 3.11 Mineral Resources 3-65 3.12 Noise 3-66 3.13 Population and Housing 3-71 3.14 Public Services 3-69 3.15 Recreation 3-73 3.16 Transportation and Traffic 3-75 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems 3-80 3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance/ Summary of Findings 3-84 i APPENDIX A 1.A Air Quality Assumptions and Methodologies 1.13 Air Quality Annual LC Air Quality Summer 1.13 Air Quality Winter 1.E Air Quality Model Output 2.A Cleary Geotechnical Report 2.13 CSA Peer Review Geotechnical 2.0 Cleary Geotechnical Response 3.A Phase I ESA 3.B Asbestos Report 4.A Traffic Projections for Air Quality and Noise LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Location 2-2 2.2 Existing Conditions 2-4 2.3 Proposed Conditions 2-6 ii 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INITIAL STUDY/LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK This Initial Stud- has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality- Act (CEQ A),which can be found in the California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000 et seq., and the CEQ_A, Guidelines found in California Code of Regilations Title 14, Chapter 3, (CCR) Section 15000 et seq., as amended. This Initial Stud- identities the potential environmental impacts associated with demolition, grading, construction and future occupancy- of the Project which includes any �e�i,on�rbly fo�e.ree�ible impacts associated with the Project in its entirety-. CEQA (PRC Section 21065) defines a Project as: An activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably- foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and which is and- of the following: a) An activity- directly-undertaken by a public agency-. b) An activity undertaken by a person which is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies. c) An activity that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more agencies. The _applicant is seeping entitlements to demolish an existing vacant warehouse/office building, construct a life science campus and temporarily- relocate a wireless facility- in order to construct the campus at 475 Eccles Avenue in South San Francisco, California. The _applicant proposes to a development agreement that among other things would rest the project for up to 12 rears. The Applicant's various requests trigger legislative, adjudicative and ministerial actions. Execution of a development agreement requires a legislative action. _adjudicative actions include requested review and approval of a conditional use permit, a Transportation Demand Management Program and design review. The ministerial actions include grading and building permits. The proposed project (Pro)ect) meets criteria "c", identified above, and therefore requires environmental review. Preparation of an environmental analysis and subsequent environmental determination is required prior to or simultaneously with entitlement review. Environmental review does not constitute Project approval, but is an independent analysis of potential Project impacts and mitigation measures. The Lead _agency mad-, after review of the entirety- of the BIOMED REALTY TRUST/475 ECCLES- INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-1 CHAPTER l: INTRODUCTION record, find that the environmental analysis is adequate and approve, disapprove or conditionally approve the Project based upon environmental and merits review. The Lead _agency for this document is the City- of South San Francisco. Tlie Planning Commission will mare determinations on adjudicative actions and a recommendation on the legislative action. The City Council will make the determination on the legislative action. These actions will tape place in legally-noticed public hearings. This htitial Study, City Project Number: P11-00101, EIR12-0001, UPI 1-0001,TD:NI 11-0001and DRII-0039 is for the Project identified 475 Eccles Avenue in South San Francisco, California (APN: 051-071-330). The 6.1 acre site is currently developed with an approximately 155,000 square foot vacant warehouse building that would be demolished. The Applicant proposes to constrict tvo four-story life science buildings totaling 262,000 square feet and a fire-level parking stnicture. T-Mobile, under separate application, is the applicant for a conditional use permit that would permit temporary relocation of its wireless facility, currently located on the existing building, to an interim on-site location pending completion of the life science campus. The construction of the facility is incorporated into the demolition and construction schedule and analysis for the Project known as P11-00101. 1.2 PROJECT APPLICANT/TEAM/CONTACT PROJECT APPLICANT AND TEAM The property owner and applicant is B1IR 475 Eccles LLC. represented by Salil Payappilly, Director of Leasing and Development and Andrew Richard, Senior Project Manager. The applicant has assembled a Project team consisting of Jose Cotto of CAS Arcliitects; Steplien Reynolds of Fier & Wright stnictural engineers; Paul Reed of Reed and _associates Landscape Arcliitects; Matt Davis of Watry Design, Inc. parking architects and planning; N-isli Ponnatlipore of PM Green Engineers, lighting engineer; Aaron hvamme of Rinse & Peterson, structural engineers; and Cecil-T. Barclay of Perkins Coie, attorneys at law. The contact for the Project is: Mr. Salil Payappilly BMR 475 Eccles LLC 7677 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 100, Newark, CA 94560 (510) 505-6046 LEAD AGENCY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT The Lead _agency for this Initial Sthidy is the City- of South San Francisco. The administrative record for the Project is on file at the City's Planning Division. The following person has been assigned as the custodian and Case Planner/Project 1lanager for the Lead_agency: Mr. Billy Gross,Associate Planner Department of Economic and Community Development-Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080 (650) 877-8535 PAGE 1-2 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES- INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER l: INTRODUCTION The Environmental Document was prepared bp: Allison Knapp Wollam, Environmental Consultant ALLISON KNAPP WOLLAM CONSULTING 511 Linden Street, Suite B, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 902-3238 The environmental consulting team consists of Allison I tiapp Wollam Consulting, hB Environmental Engineering for the air quality- and hazard risk assessments and Crane Transportation Group with Dr. Wo for the traffic modeling and analysis. 1.3 DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE GENERAL 475 Eccles Avenue Initial Sthidy and Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, _Alison Iuiapp Wollam Consulting, 2007. CULTURAL Cultuaal Rerouaces Vtli 1y of the 475 Eccles Aopeaty, ,Volith ,Sala Faanezreo, ,Vali Mateo Coulaty,, California. Holman &_associates. July-30, 2007. GEOLOGY t,�dated Geotechliical Irare.it7,atiora Report 4f ,Vt1'eiace Cappli, 475 Eccles Areiaue, ,Vollth ,Va/1 F-la/I is o, California, Cleary Consultants, December, 2011 and June 18, 2012. Geotechliical Peer Relior, BlIR 475 Eccles LL(,, 475 Eccles Arelaue, ,Volffh ,Sala Frzxnezreo, California, Cotton Shires _associates, Mav 18, 2011. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Phase I Elalzaolaplelatal,Site As essplelat 475 Eccles Arelaue, ,Vollth ,Sala Francisco, CA 94080, URV Ply eet No. 27705055.01000, URS, November, 2005 and July-, 2012. TRAFFIC Crane Transportation Group Traffic Tables 1-4, July-, 2012. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-3 CHAPTER l: INTRODUCTION 1.4 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS As a matter of law, the Project is required to comply- with federal, state and local laws and regulations. These regulations are verified as satisfied and incorporated into the Project as a matter of demolition, grading and /or building permit issuance or permits will not be issued by the City- of South San Francisco. As such, these requirements are considered a part of the Project, not a separate and distinct requirement. City- of South San Francisco project processing requires that applications for projects are first reviewed by the City-'s Technical _advisory- Group (LAG). TAG is comprised of representatives from Planning, Building, Police, Fire, Engineering, Parrs and Recreation, and Water (Quality- Control. TAG review identities changes and additions that are required in a project to comply- with local, state and federal laws that are implemented through the City's lhuiicipal Code. The Planning Division, subsequent to TAG review, issues a letter to the applicant identifying the changes required in Project plans and supporting materials necessary- to comply-with prevailing laws pursuant to site development, construction and land use. The applicant is required to revise the plans and supporting documentation or the application is not certified as complete and not processed. Revised plans and documentation are submitted to the Planning Division to be routed again to all affected City- departments and divisions; again to evaltuate the application in light of their earlier comments and requirements. The process results in an application that can be certified `complete' as well as identifying the Conditions of _approval (('.()As) that are required should the Project be approved. Marty of these CO As implement environmental mitigations that were historically identified tlirotigli the environmental review process (California Environmental Quality- _pct, or CEQA) and now have become a part of the City-'s legislative requirements, through its general plan, special, area, municipal code, special districts, or memoranda of understanding (i.e., its police power). After a project application is complete it is subject to environmental, public and discretionary review through and by the Planning Commission and/or City- Council, depending upon the ty pe of project, as defined by the lhunicipal Code of South San Francisco and state law. The COAs identified throtigh staff review of the project, and any- additional ones identified through the public review process become required of the project as a matter of law. Prior to the City issuing a building, grading and/or demolition permit all City- departments and divisions (identified above) review the project plans for compliance with their identified COAs and any- ones added through the public review process. Permits are not issued by the Building Division in absence of authorization from City staff or in absence of the requirements being incorporated into the Project plans. 1.5 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REQUIRED BY LAW ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The following COAs limit environmental impacts and are required through the City of South San Francisco's standard review and permitting procedures. Therefore these measures are not separately identified as mitigation measures. As is the case with all PAGE 1-4 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES- INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER l: INTRODUCTION aspects of an approved project, the Project's conditions of approval could not be altered without additional City review and approval, which could entail subsequent or supplemental CEQA review. Failure of the Applicant to meet the required measures and/or elements of their Project description relating to environmental issues, such as LEED Silver measures and TDM Programs may obviate this environmental document and require subsequent or supplemental CEQA review as the Project as proposed coupled with the required conditions of approval is the baseline from which environmental impacts were evaluated for the Project. 1. AESTHETICS AESTHETICS LIGHT AND GLARE: Signage is required to be reviewed by staff, and in some instances the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. Lighting, size, color, placement, design and compatilbility with surrounding land uses is addressed and assured through this process. The City's sign regtilations are intended to preserve and improve appearance, protect from visual clutter and blight, protect property values and enhance commtinity appearance, minimize diversion of vehicle operators' attention and safegtiard life, health, property and public welfare. Potential environmental impacts and the need or lack thereof for environmental clearance is also addressed and undertaken as a part of the Sign Permit procedure (Chapter 20.360 South San Francisco Municipal Code-Zoning). The Planning Division implements and monitors this requirement. Projects are reviewed 1)y the City's Design Review Board consisting of professional architects and landscape architects. The Planning Commission, and in some cases the City- Council, adds desigii elements to projects. Projects that are within a state or local scenic corridor are further addressed throtigli the CEQA,process. 2.AIR QUALITY AIR QUALITY DUST CONTROL: All constriction projects are required to comply with the Bay Area _fir Quality- Management District's (13AAQ1ID) dust control measures. These measures are levied 1)y the Engineering Division as a condition of building permit issuance and are monitored for compliance 1)y staff and/or special City- Engineering and/or Planning inspectors. The measures include all the &Yie Eugitire Dust ENIZ'Sfl'olis Redlictioli learures, &ISie ENI)alwt ENIZ'Sfl'olis Redli tioli learures and some of the Additioli al Fu,itire Mls-t ENIZ'Sfl'olis Redlictiola learures identified by the B AAQID flap, 2011. The City requires Projects to: a) Water all active constriction sites at least twice daily. b) Corer all tricks hauling soil, sand, and otlier loose materials or require all tricks to maintain at least tvo feet of freeboard. c) Pare, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at constriction sites. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-5 CHAPTER l: INTRODUCTION d) Sweep daily- (with water sweepers) all pared access roads, parking areas and staging areas at constriction sites. e) Sweep streets daily- (with wet power vacuum sweepers) if risible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 1) Hydroseed or apply- (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive constriction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). Q Enclose, corer, water twice daily, or apply- non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiled materials. h) Install sandbags or other erosion-control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. i) Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. j) Watering should be used to control dust generation during the break-up of pavement. Q Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site. 1) Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into tnicks whenever feasible. m) Water or corer stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. n) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be in proper running order prior to operation. o) Diesel powered equipment shall not be left inactive and idling for more than fibre minutes, and shall comply with applicable B_ AQ1ID riles. p) Use alternative fueled construction equipment, if possible. cl) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. r) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be pared shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. s) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to fibre (5) minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2484 of the California Code of re nilations). Clear sip nage shall be provided for constriction workers at all access points. PAGE 1-6 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES- INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER l: INTRODUCTION t) Post a visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and tape corrective action within 24 hours. The Air District phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regilations. AIR QUALITY TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS: The potential for toxic air contaminants (asbestos and lead based paint) to be released into the environment is regulated and monitored through the Building Division in compliance with Blz"/�11D Re,ulatio i 7 7, Rule 2 dwn'/, Deulolitio i. Any applicant requesting a building or demolition permit involving a stnicture suspected of containing asbestos (defined as a building constricted prior to 1978) and/or lead based paint (defined as a building constnicted prior to 1960) is required to obtain a J-Permit from the B AQ:NID. The J Permit is required to be posted on the job site and if it is not there the job will be fined by the B_ AQID and may be shut down by the City's Building Division. Through this process, the B_ AQ1ID and the City- Building Division ensure that asbestos and lead based paints are handled, removed, encapsulated and disposed of in accordance with prevailing law requisite to protect the environment, the people conducting the work and nearby sensitive receptors. The process ty ically requires surveys and removal of lead based paints and asbestos by licensed contractors certified in the handling methods requisite to protect the environment and public health and safety-. The process also provides for B_ AQNfD and City- supervision to insure compliance. AIR QUALITY VEHICLE EMISSIONS: The potential for air quality degradation from vehicle emissions is regilated to some extent by Section 20.400.003 of the South San Francisco Code. Table 20.400.003 in the Zoning Ordinance establishes specific program requirements for a project generating one hundred or more vehicle trips per dap or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus. The required alternative mode (mode shift) use for all projects is twenty- eight percent below standard trip rates modeled for the project without TD:NI measures in place. Projects with an increased FAR are required to increase their alternative mode use accordingly. The Planning Division implements and monitors this requirement. 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEOLOGY AND SOILS TABLE 18-1-B UNIFORM BUILDING CODE: All construction projects are required to comply with the Uniform Building Code. Projects located on soils identified in Volume 2 Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code are required to comply with the construction specifications to limit potential damage due to liquefaction. This requirement is enforced and monitored by the Engineering Division. Compliance with the Uniform Building Code is also implemented and monitored by the Building Division. GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS: The City Engineering Division also requires geotechnical reports as a part of the permit package for projects to be constricted on vacant land, demolition and rebuilding and additions to buildings that require grading and additional loading. The geotechnical reports are required to be prepared by a licensed geologist, geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. The reports address design and constriction specifications for the Project including grading, site drainage, utility- and infrastructure design specifications and placement and building design. The reports are peer reviewed by the City's geotechnical consultant and are modified as recommended by the City's consultant. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-7 CHAPTER l: INTRODUCTION Geotechnical approval is required prior to issuance of a building permit. The geotechnical professional of record is required to sign all project drawings and the City's geotechnical consultant provides constriction inspections, oversight and monitoring for the City-. The Engineering Division implements and monitors this requirement. 4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: The following is a summary of applicable requirements in Provisions C.3.1).11 and (13.ca2 of the San Francisco Bad- Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit ("1lunicipal Regional Permit" or ":NIRP"). The full text may be downloaded at All projects that are required to treat stormwater will need to treat the permit-specified amount of stormwater runoff with low impact development methods. These methods include rainwater harvesting and reuse, infiltration, evapotranspiration, or biotreatment. However, biotreatment (filtering stormwater through vegetation and soils before discharging to the storm drain system) will be allowed only where harvesting and reuse, infiltration and evapotranspiration are infeasible at the Project site. Vault-based treatment will not be allowed as a stand-alone treatment measure. Where stormwater harvesting and reuse, infiltration, or evapotranspiration are infeasible, vault-based treatment measures may be used in series with biotreatment, for example, to remove trash or other large solids. (see Provision (13.ca.2 of the MRP.) Projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface related to auto service facilities retail gasoline outlets, restaurants, and/or surface parking will be required to provide low impact development treatment of stormwater runoff. This requirement applies to uncovered parking that is stand-alone, or included as part of any other development project, and it applies to the top uncovered portion of a parking stricture, unless drainage from the uncovered portion is connected to the sanitary sewer (see Provision (13.1).11.1 of the MRP). For all other land use categories, 10,000 square feet is the regional threshold for requiring low impact development, source control, site design, and stormwater treatment, although municipalities may have the authority to require treatment to the maximum extent practicable for smaller projects. The new requirements are built into the following standard requirements. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY STORMWATER RUNOFF PREVENTION (OPERATIONAL): All Projects are required to comply with the San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), an organization of the City-/County _association of Governments (C/C.AG) of San Mateo Count- holding a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Discharge permit. The City- requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (B:NIPs) for new development and constniction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City- COA's. The requirements are implemented and monitored by the Engineering and Water Quality Control Divisions. The measures address pollution control and management mechanisms for contractor activities, e.g. stricture constriction, material delivery and storage, solid waste management, employee and subcontractor training. Stormwater pollution prevention measures also affect site development PAGE 1-8 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES- INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER l: INTRODUCTION and operations in order to prevent pollution due to Project occupancy. Typical storm water quality protection measures include: a) Walking and light traffic areas shall use permeable pavements where feasible. Ty ical pervious pavements include pervious concrete,porous asphalt, turf block, brick pavers, natural stone pavers, concrete unit pavers, crushed aggregate (gravel), cobbles and wood mulch. b) Parking lots shall include hybrid surfaces (pervious material for stalls only), concave medians with biotilters (grassy swales), and landscaped infiltration/detention basins as feasible. c) Landscape design shall incorporate biotilters, infiltration and retention/detention basins into the site plan as feasible. d) Outdoor work areas including garbage, recycling, maintenance, storage, and loading, applicable storm water controls include siting or set back from drainage paths and water ways, provision of roofing and curbs or berms to prevent run on and run off. If the area has the potential to generate contaminated run off, structural treatment controls for contaminant removal (such as debris screens or filters) shall be incorporated into the design. e) Roof leaders and site drainage shall be filtered and directed to the City- storm drain system and harvesting of rainwater shall occur. f) Drainage from pared surfaces shall be filtered through vegetated swales, buffer or sand strips before discharge to the City's storm drain system. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY STORMWATER RUNOFF PREVENTION (CONSTRUCTION): The City- of South San Francisco requires through COAs, Project compliance with the State Water Quality Control Board's general permitting requirements which requires the applicant to secure a Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit, complete a Notice of Intent (NOI) and prepare and obtain approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SN\TPP). The state issues a Waste Discharge Identification number within 10 days of receipt of a complete NOI and SWPPP. The applicant is then required to submit copies of the NOI and SN\T'PP to the City of South San Francisco's Technical Services Supervisor within the Water Quality Control Plant of the Public Works Department prior to issuance of building and/or grading permits. The requirements are implemented and monitored by Water Quality Control personnel. Typical construction stormwater protection measures include: a) Identify all storm drains, drainage swales and creeks located near construction sites and prevent pollutants from entering them by the use of filter fabric cloth, rock bags, straw wattles, slope liydroseeding, cleaning up leaks, drips or spills immediately, use dry cleanup methods to clean up spills, use of berms, temporary ditches and check dams to reduce the velocity of surface flow. b) Place rock bags at all drain inlets to filter silt and along curb and knitter to filter water before the drain inlets. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-9 CHAPTER l: INTRODUCTION c) Place straw wattles and hydroseed the sloped areas. d) Place straw matting at the temporary-sloped areas for erosion control. e) Place drain systems to filter and then drain into drain inlets. f) Use silt fencing with straw mats and hand broadcast seed for erosion control. g) Constrict temporary-drainage systems to filter and divert water accordingly-. h) Constrict temporary- rock and asphalt driveways and wheel washers to buffer public streets from dirt and mud. i) Use part and full time street sweepers that operate along public streets and roads. j) Cover all stockpiled soils to protect from erosion. Use berms around stockpiled soils. k) Cover and protect from erosion plaster, concrete and other powders which create large amounts of suspended solids. 1) Store all hazardous materials (faints, solvents, chemicals) in accordance with secondary- containment regilations and corer during wet weather. m) Use terracing to prevent erosion. n) Through grading plan review and approval, phase grading operations to reduce disturbed areas during wet weather, limit vegetation removal, delineate clearing limits, setbacks, easements, sensitive or critical areas, trees, drainage courses and buffer zones to prevent unnecessary- disturbance and exposure. Limit or prohibit grading during the wet weather season, October 15 to April 15`" o) Prevent spills and leaks by maintaining equipment, designating specific areas of a site for such activities that are controlled and away- from water courses and perform major maintenance off-site or in designated areas only-. p) Corer and maintain all dumpsters, collect and properly- dispose of all paint removal wastes, clean up paints, solvents, adhesives and all cleaning solvents properly-. Recycle and salvage appropriate wastes and maintain an adequate debris disposal schedule. cl) Avoid roadwork and pavement stormwater pollution by following manufacturers' instructions. PAGE 1-10 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES- INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER l: INTRODUCTION 5. NOISE NOISE INTERIOR AMBIENT NOISE: The City of South San Francisco regulates noise exposure through state law and their General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan. The California Building Code (CBC) Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 2.35 of the California Code of Regilation, collectively known as Title 24, contains acoustical requirements for interior sound levels in habitable rooms for multi-family residential land uses. Title 24 contains requirements for construction of new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family- dwellings intended to limit the extent of noise transmitted into habitable spaces. The standard specifies the extent to which walls, doors, and floor-ceiling assemblies must block or absorb sound in between units and the amount of attenuation needed to limit noise from exterior sources. The standard sets forth an interior noise level of 45 dBA (CNEL or L,li,) in any habitable room with all doors and windows closed and requires an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 dB A (CNEL or L,,„). Title 24 requirements are enforced as a condition of building permit issuance by the Building Di`"iSloll. The City-, through its General Plan, adopted the NoiSe Guidelines of the State Department of Health Services in their Noise Element (1999). Table 92-1, L alid Use Cniten'a for A'oi.ie Impacted Areas, contained in the Noise Element of the General Plan (page 280) guides land use decisions based upon noise thresholds and acoustical analysis and mitigation. _additionally, the General Plan (page 279) also guides and mitigates development in light of aircraft noise. The City- implements the Federal Aviation _administration adopted noise contours and participates in an aircraft noise insulation program. Figire 9-1 of the General Plan Ah'cl�lft Noise a/n/ Noise hisulatiora A gnipl (page 279) identities the noise contours and program area. The East of 101 Area Plan requirement for interior ambient noise for commercial, office and retail is 45 dB A, L,q, echoing state law. Residential land uses are prohibited. The Noise Guidelines are implemented by the Planning Division through new project review. NOISE EXTERIOR AMBIENT NOISE: The City of South San Francisco regulates exterior noise levels through the South San Francisco Municipal Code (Section 8.32.030). The Municipal Code reggulates noise pursuant to land use and time of day-. Lower density- residential maximum noise exposure (excluding vehicle horns and emergency- vehicles) is restricted to 50 dB 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. and 60 dl) from 7 A.M. and 10 P.M. Higher density- residential and commercial is restricted to 55 dB from 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. and 65 dl) from 7 A.M. and 10 P.M. Industrial land uses are restricted to 70 dB anytime of the day-. These noise standards are implemented largely- through enforcement actions (i.e., citizen complaint and governmental response). The Fire Department through its Code Enforcement Officer implements these regulations. Constriction noise is also regilated through the Municipal Code (8.32.050(d)). Hours of constriction are exempt from the standards identified in the preceding paragraph and are limited to 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. Monday through Friday-, 9 A.M. to 8 P.M. on Saturdays and 10 A.M. to 6 P.M. on Sundays and holidays. The Building Division enforces and monitors these regulations. Exceptions to the hours of constriction may be granted by the Chief Building Official. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-11 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.6 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED This Initial Study evaluates the Project is is defined as that proposed by the Applicant and as modified by the City of South San Francisco's standard COAs, identified above. Therefore any impacts identified by the following Initial Study are those impacts that could occur above and beyond those that would be mitigated by the City's standard permitting process and as such will require additional mitigation and/or additional environmental review. Environmental factors that may be affected by the Project, as defined by C 1 and as described herein, are listed below. Factors identified with shading have been determined to have the potential for significant impacts and will be addressed in an EIR. Factors which are unmarked (❑) have been determined to be clearly insignificant and unlikely to occur. Factors identified mith shading have been determined to be potentially affected by the Project based on discussion also provided in Chapter 3. Aesthetics Hazards&Hazardous Materials Public Services ,Ngriculture&Forest Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation Air Quality Land Use and Planning In Transportation Greenhouse Gas Mineral Resources Utilities&Service Systems Biological Resources Noise M Cumulative Impacts Cultural Resources Population&Housing Geology&Soils ...............-- 1.7 LEAD AGENCY'S DETERMINATION On the basis of the analysis contained in Chapter 3: x I find that the proposed Project MAY have a "potentiaRy significant impact" or gcpotentially significant unless mitigated impact" or a "significant unavoidable impact" on traffic and circulation based upon the attached Initial Study. Therefore, an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT focusing on transportation and circulation and other CEQA required EIR topics will be prepared and shall analyze only t e e ffects that remain to be addressed. Z,,6 I Z— ms." X y�uY- -al� K Date Chief Planner PAGE 1-12 BM R 475 ECCLES LL /475 ECCLES- INITIAL STUDY 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING PROJECT LOCATION The Project site is located in the eastern portion of the City- of South San Francisco, east of US 101, at 475 Eccles Avenue. Regionally- the Project site is accessible from the north west via the US 101 off- and on-ramps to Oyster Point Boulevard and from the south west by East Grand Avenue exit off of Highway- 101. Locally-, the site is accessible from Forbes Boulevard, via East Grand Avenue to the south and from Oyster Point Boulevard to the north (see Figure 2.1 Project Location). EAST OF 101 AREA LAND USE HISTORY Land uses in the East of 101 Area have witnessed a change in land use over the rears. The East of 101 Area was part of the first industrial development in South San Francisco about 100 rears ago. Since then, the area has undergone mangy- transformations. Pioneering industrial uses, such as steel manufacturing, and meat packaging gave way- to industrial parr and warehousing and distribution uses that came to dominate the area in the 1950s and 1960s. The recent emergence of modern office buildings and life science campuses mark the third major ware of land use change in the area. Older manufacturing uses, industrial park structures and tilt-up warehousing buildings, such as the building on the Project site, can all be found in the area. Blocks are generally- very large in size and the area has a very stark industrial look. Numerous abandoned railroad spurs are present, again as witnessed adjacent to the Project site. Since the late 1990s, developers have preferred to redevelop the older industrial park blocks and construct new mixed office and research and development (R&D) developments north of East Grand venue. Development has resulted in the clean-up of old industrial sites (Brownfield sites), consistent with environmental practices associated with LEED and the Environmental Protection Agency principles and objectives. In the past half dozen rears the East of 101 Area has witnessed expansion of the Genentech Research and Development Facility- and Master Plan from 124 acres to 200 acres of Office/R&D/1anufacturing uses. Hotel, office, mixed-use and R&D have been approved over the past six years throughout the area. Some examples include office and R&D in Oyster Point; and office/ R&D on three sites along; East Grand Avenue; and on Forbes Boulevard and Roeblitig venue. R&D is anticipated to reach approximately 7.7 million square feet in the East of 101 Area BIOMED REALTY TRUST/475 ECCLES - INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-1 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION i i ;� ma m III &III III"'III...... 1 +d FIGURE 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION PAGE 2-2 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES- INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION by 2015 and 8.5 million by 2035.1 Other land uses in the East of 101 Area include approximately 8 million square feet of manufacturing; 664,000 square feet of commercial/retail; 360,000 square feet of office and 3,385 hotel rooms.'" LAND USE ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT SITE Surrounding land uses are a mix of light industrial, manufacturing and research and development. _adjacent land uses include open space owned by Southern Pacific Railway that previously contained rail tracks to the north, north-est. Eccles Avenue fronts the site to the east and an adjacent industrial building is located at 472 Eccles _venue to the south. Avis Rent a Gar and Yzsumoto and Company are located at 490 Eccles _venue, east of the site. Industrial stnictures occupied by Universal Freight Forward and the Dimero Express (USA) Corporation are located further west of the site. The Gateway Specific Plan _area, located west of the Project site, contains mixed use office and R&D land uses. 2.2 PROJECT SITE CHARACTERISTICS SITE DESCRIPTION BMR-475 Eccles Avenue LLC (BMR) is the Applicant for the life science campus and owner of the 6.1 acre' Project site. Under a lease with MIR, T-Mobile has installed a communications facility- on the Project site. T-Mobile is the applicant for approval of the interim relocation of this communications facility pending construction of the life science campus. The site is currently developed with an approximately 155,0001 square foot building consisting of an 114,000 square foot footprint with a mezzanine. _asphalt pared drive«ays, parking lots and walkway areas surround the site consisting of approximately 152,000 square feet' of pared area (see Figure 2.2 Existing Conditions). 1 These figures are for R&D Crane Transportation Group,July,2012 and are contained in the Appendix. '-East of 101 Traffic Model land use classifications and square footage for 2015. 3 The site net square footage is 26 ,613 square feet for planning and floor area purposes (which excludes the shared access easement). 4 The site is currently developed with approximately 1,52,145 square feet of building area consisting of ground floor and mezzanine areas and is rounded up to 1,55,000 square feet for purposes of the analysis. Approxiinately 11,613 square feet of site area remains outside the building footprint,rounded to 12,000 square feet. The Civil Engineer indicates that approximately 13 percent of the site (or 35,568 square feet) is landscaped and pervious, leaving approximately 116,432 square feet of payed,impervious surface outside the building footprint. However,instead of relying solely on these rounded numbers, this CEQ A analysis assumes a worst-case scenario for each type of impact. For addressing the impacts of site grading, disturbance and demolition, this CEQ A analysis assumes that all 12,000 square feet are payed surfaces. However, for addressing hydrology impacts, this CEQ A analysis recognizes that the baseline includes 35,568 square feet of pervious surfaces. Using this baseline for the hydrology analysis ensures that the Project is not credited with creating new pervious surfaces (and thus reducing stormwater runoff) except to the extent that new pervious surfaces will exceed the amount of pervious surfaces that currently exist at the site. BIOMED REALTY TRUST/475 ECCLES - INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-3 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION i i i i i i l i J t � r / i 1 / f f m i ,l C f 1>( FIGURE 2.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS PAGE 2-4 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES- INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION The concrete tilt-up office/warehouse stnicture was constricted in the 1960s and was designed to house freight forwarding uses. The remainder of the site is primarily- on-grade parking with small sparsely- landscaped areas along the Eccles _venue frontage and edges of the site. The tree survey- conducted in 2007 identified 41 trees on the site ranging in condition from good to dead. Tree species consist of Italian Stone and 1lonterev pines, Eucalvptus, London Plane, Brisbane Box, Hollywood Juniper and Strawberry-. The largest specimen is 24 inches in circumference at 54 inches above grade (Reed Landscape _architects, Iuiapp site visit). Mr. Paul Reed, Reed _associates Landscape Architects, the Project landscape architect noted in 2007 that the trees are in poor condition largely- due to lack of maintenance, inappropriate staking, and inappropriate root barriers being installed. _approximately 276 parking spaces are located on the site; the majority- being on the east portion of the site. The southeast side of the site has shared easements to allow trick access with an adjacent property-. The building was constricted in 1965, renovated in 1995 and has been vacant since 2006 except for the rooftop communication facility. The wireless T-Mobile facility-is located on the west corner on the roof of the existing building. The transmission facility- consists of a Spieler-designed antenna mount system with three antenna sectors and two dual port antennas per sector. The equipment, located approximately thirty feet to the north on the rooftop and connected to the antennas by coaxial cabling in an aluminum cable tray-, consists of tvo BTS cabinets housed within a screened enclosure. The site is relatively level with surface elevations ranging from +68 feet above mean sea level (1ISL) in the northwestern parking lot area to +63 feet MSL along the abandoned railroad spur area at the rear (north) of the existing building. A fill slope approximately fibre feet in height separates the parking lot from the former railroad spur area. See Figure 2.2 Project Location which shows the existing site and area conditions. 2.3 PROPOSED PROJECT The Applicant is requesting various approvals (see 2.6 Project Entitlements) to demolish an existing building and associated parking, and to constrict a new life science campus (research and development) consisting of tvo buildings that together would comprise 262,287 square feet, a five- level parking stnzcture and limited surface parking (see Figure 2.3 Proposed Conditions). The Project would include relocation of the existing wireless telecommunication facility- to an onsite tower pending completion of the Project, and then integration of the wireless facility within the Project . G tTnder a lease with BMR, T-Mobile has installed a communications facility on the Project site. T-Mobile now seeks approval of the interim relocation of this communications facility pending construction of the Project upon which time it will be relocated back onto the site. BIOMED REALTY TRUST/475 ECCLES - INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-5 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION " k IrygI � „ FIGURE 2.3 PROPOSED CONDITIONS NEW CONSTRUCTION BUILDINGS The Project would constrict tvo buildings to serve the life science industry-. Both buildings would be four stories high. The combined gross floor area would be up to 262,287 square feet, resulting in a floor area ratio of approximately 1.0. Service areas would be enclosed at the rear of each building in a metal shinned stricture that would rise to encase a mechanical penthouse at the top of each building. The primary- block of the buildings would be curtain wall with aluminum sunshades. The buildings would have an aluminum curtain wall system with dual pane solar glazing. Metal spandrel with painted metal finish and insulation are proposed at opaque areas above ceiling line and from floor level to a height of 3'-7" above finished floor on levels above the first floor. Aluminum sunshades integral to the curtain wall system are proposed. The design includes operable window sashes within each stnictural bad- at each floor. Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete (GFR(.^) would be used at balconies and at the entry- feature of the buildings. The overall stricture behind is a steel frame which the GFRC panels would be attached. Both the fiber and concrete will contain recycled materials. The buildings may be connected by an enclosed bridge. Lastly, the tvo buildings would have one loading zone each. GFRC panels are reinforced with glass fiber to create lightweight panels for the cladding of opaque surfaces on buildings. PAGE 2-6 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES- INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION PARKING The Project proposes 655 parking spaces (a ratio of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building space) initially. Of these 655 spaces, 551 spaces would be in the parking structure and 104 would be on grade. Up to 53 additional on grade landscaped parking spaces may be added at a later date, based upon City- review and approval, which would result in up to 708 spaces for a parking ratio of 2.7 per 1,000 square feet. The owner would be required to demonstrate that the requirements of the Transportation Demand Management Program were being met and that there was an unmet parking need. A five-level parking structure would feature colored screens and sculptural stair canopies. A bridge from the parking garage, extending across the central drive, would provide pedestrian access to the central courtyard. Landscaping and screening at the lower level of the parking structure are proposed in addition to the City- code required green roof on parking structures (see landscaping discussion below). GRADING,EXCAVATION AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACES The Project proposes to balance cut and fill on site, with approximately 2,815 cubic yards of cut followed by 2,720 cubic yards of fill. Maximum depth of cut would be approximately fire feet for overall site grading. The maximum depth of cut for deepened footing excavations is approximately 20 feet, although the geotechnical report indicates most footings would be one to fibre feet in depth J,:dated Geotechliiudl hirertigatioli Report Lif ,Vcz'elice Campus, 475 Eccles Arelaue, ,Vouth ,Vali Fialici.reo, Ca iforliz'a' Cleary Consultants, December, 2011 and June 18, 2012). The total disturbed area is assumed for CEQ A purposes to be the entire site, or 266,000 square feet. Currently the site is developed with 87 percent of the area in impervious surface. The Project would reduce impervious surface an additional 14 percent to a total of 73 percent of the site area. Therefore, the Project would result in 27 percent of the site being porous over existing conditions which is 13 percent of the site area. LANDSCAPING CONCEPT AND DESIGN The Project proposes landscaping around the perimeter and interior of the site, including landscaped walkways and parking areas. The Project also proposes rooftop planters with a minimum dimension of 24 inches in width around the perimeter of the roof of the parking structure as required by the City's Zoning Code (Section 20.330.010.L.8). The tvo R&D buildings would be separated by a central courtyard featuring a seating area defined by low walls and a water feature using recycled water spilling over quarried stone. Three sections would surround the courtyard,with each containing gardens of a unique character. The exterior area between the buildings would also be designed to support outdoor activity which would extend into the central circular courtyard. BIOMED REALTY TRUST/475 ECCLES - INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-7 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Wind resistant and seacoast plantings are proposed to foster the success of the landscape plan. Trees, shrubs, groundcover and grasses (fescue, flax, blue rye) are proposed. The Project proposes to plant 139 24-inch box trees. Zoning Code Section 20.330.010.L.9 requires one 13-gallon tree to be planted for every fire parking spaces. The Project would be required to plant 142 trees (assuming 708 parking spaces)8 and as proposed would exceed the Code requirements by 11 trees, in addition to the increased size of the trees. The trees that are identified on the landscape plan (bap, laurel, oak, juniper and others) would provide a 13 to 30 foot canopy at matturity and a four to six foot canopy at planting. Medium and low water consumptive plantings are proposed, save for one area of tLurf. The proposed tree canopy would serve to reduce the heat island effect of pared surfaces. Plantings and building treatments are proposed to reduce wind experienced in outdoor areas (Donald Ballanti, Certified Consulting Meteorologist, November 7, 2011). Planters, hedges, low walls and porous fencing are proposed to reduce wind exposure and enhance the outdoor experience. PROPOSED CIRCULATION AND ACCESS Direct access and circulation to the Project site would remain largely unchanged. The site has four points of access from Eccles Avenue. Vehicular access to the Project site would be obtained via three existing locations off of Eccles Avenue; one driveway would be replaced with curb, mutter and sidewalk. _access points would be midpoint and at the eastern and western edges of the site (see Figures 2.2 and 2.3). PROPOSED UTILITY CONNECTIONS The Project would connect to the existing utility lines present in the Project area. Utility lines on the Project site would be reconfigured to accommodate the new site plan. A stormwater quality control plan is proposed (sheet C-3 of the drawings). The plan proposes 20 planted water retention areas. ANTENNA RELOCATION The wireless communication facilities housed on site would be relocated to an interim facility- to be constructed at the Project site pending construction of the life science campus for a period not to exceed seven years. The facilities would then be relocated to a permanent site on top of the parking structure, and would be integrated into the Project pursuant to the design criteria set forth in South San Francisco 1lunicipal Code Section 20.370.003.D.1.a. a The comparison of trees to parking is made on the potential for an additional 53 parking spaces thus providing a reasonable worst case comparison. The Project, based upon the 6,55 parking spaces, would require 131 trees and as proposed would be 28 more than required by code. PAGE 2-8 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES- INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION PHASING The Project may proceed in a single phase or in tvo phases depending on market demand. The parking stnicture providing 551 spaces and 55 of the on grade parking spaces would be built in the first phase should the Project be constricted in tvo phases'. The remaining 49 on grade parking spaces would be built as part of the second phase of constriction. Parking areas not developed in Phase 1 would have temporary-planting consistent with the overall planting design. Demolition and site preparation are expected to take approximately three months. Construction of the Project, if done in one phase, would take approximately nineteen months, including interior improvements, to complete. A tvo-phase constniction schedule would consist of an initial phase of seventeen months for Building A and the parking garage, and second phase of seventeen months for Building B. These phases may be separated by a few months or several rears depending upon market demand. The CEQA analysis assumes one phase of constriction. The assumption represents a reasonable worst case analysis of potential Project impacts with respect to the level of intensity- on the site at any given time. SITE DEMOLITION AND PREPARATION Site demolition and preparation will follow the same process regardless of whether the Project is constructed in one or tvo phases and will require approximately three months to complete. Site demolition and preparation would be estimated to start in January-, 2013. The applicant's contractor would mobilize the site upon confirmation that PG&E has disconnected the utility services. A jobsite trailer would be located on the site. An approved Stormwater Pollution and Protection Plan (SN\T'PP) would be implemented to provide erosion control measures. A temporary constniction site fence would be erected. Up to fibre workers would be on site during this process,which would take approximately-a week. Two hvdraulic excavators and tvo skid steer bobcat loaders would start the building demolition process. One water truck would be on site at all times to minimize constniction dust and reclaimed water would be applied to disturbed areas a minimum of twice daily. _approximately seven workers would be involved with the demolition process. _approximately twenty-fire to thirty hauling tricks would enter and exit the site daily- to off haul waste debris. This process would take approximately- one month. ')The City may not permit some of the parking to be constructed prior to the second budding. The potential for surface parking to be constructed in Phase 1 is noted herein but in actuality may not be constructed until the completion of the Project. BIOMED REALTY TRUST/475 ECCLES - INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-9 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Approximately three weeks would be required to remove the underground utilities such as plumbing, fire line, storm drain and electrical. Excavators, loaders, and a backhoe would be used to conduct this work effort. Underground utilities for the catch basins and storm drains would need to be reworked to conform to civil drawings and grade elevations. _approximately fire workers would be on site for this work,which will take approximately one to tvo weeks. Upon completion of the storm drain and catch basin surveying, staking would begin to set the grade and grade the site in accordance with the civil drawings. Existing soil and baserock would be graded in accordance with the civil drawings. One piece of equipment and one to three workers would be on site during the grading process. Site grading is estimated to take approximately one to tvo weeks. Temporary-above-ground irrigation would be installed by one to three workers for the hydroseeding. Subsequently hydroseeding would occur and require tvo to three workers and approximately one week to complete. CONSTRUCTION10 The following describes a reasonable schedule for constriction in tvo phases and in one phase. Construction is dependent upon market demand and therefore could be delayed substantially. The demolition schedule would be the same for either constniction schedule. ONE PHASE CONSTRUCTION Under the one-phase constniction schedule, site characterization requirements would follow the same protocols for the depth and extent of loose fill. Site improvements for suitable, compacted fill would follow recommendations of the stnictural engineer. Similarly, testing and analysis of ground water conditions would determine the proper approach to address any perched and/or static groundwater. Construction of Building A and the parking stnucture would precede construction of Building B. Constriction of Building A is estimated to start in flay or June, 2013. Building B would be constricted after Building A,with constriction starting approximately fire weeks later, in July, 2013. The completion of the parking structure and exterior shells of Buildings A and B is estimated to occur in March, 2014. Core and tenant improvements for Buildings A and B are estimated to be complete in July, 2014, for an overall constniction period of slightly more than one rear. 10 The estimated start and completion tunes for construction are illustrative and should be construed as to provide an overall schedule of events. Actual start tunes would likely yaty depending on market conditions. Therefore, it is not certain that construction would commence in a particular month but it is reasonably foreseeable that the length of time to complete the phases of construction would be as shown with minor variations. PAGE 2-10 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES- INITIAL STUDY TWO PHASE CONSTRUCTION If construction proceeds in tvo phases, Building A on the northeast corner of the Project site and the parking structure would be constructed first,with Building B on the southeast corner of the site to follow in Phase 2. CONSTRUCTION PHASE 1: Following building demolition, potholing would be performed to determine both the depth and extent of fill on the site at various locations. Additional geotechnical site characterization would be performed 1)y potholing with a backhoe at various locations to determine the depth and extents of fill (Clean- _associates, Cotton Shires _associates). The work would be performed over a week's time. Structural fill and compaction work would be done according to recommendations of the stnictural engineer as reviewed and approved by Cotton Shires _associates. Groundwater conditions would be examined at this time, monitored and dewatering of the site could occur, if required. Substantial completion of the parking structure and exterior shell of Building A would be estimated for December, 2013 with core and tenant improvements estimated to be completed in May, 2014. Construction Phase 2: Commencement of construction of Building B is projected to follow the completion of Building A I)y tvo months, with an estimated starting date in July-, 2014. Potholing, fill analysis and sampling of groundwater would follow the same procedures as Phase 1, if relevant. The exterior shell of Building B would be estimated to be completed in June, 2015. Core and tenant improvements would be estimated to be completed in November, 2015. 2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT The following measures are proposed as part of the Project and are shown on the architectural drawings (sheet P.A.1.1a) and in application materials. These measures are in addition to the City's standard requirements identified in Chapter 1 save for _fir Quality- items 1-3 and Site Remediation Measures that require J Permits to remove asbestos and lead based paint containing materials. The measures are designed to reduce the environmental affect of the Project. Failure of the Applicant to meet the required measures and/or elements of their Project description relating to environmental issues, such as LEED Silver measures and TDM Programs and site characterization and remediation may obviate this environmental document and require subsequent or supplemental CEQA review as the Project as proposed coupled with the required conditions of approval is the baseline from which environmental impacts were evaluated for the Project. BIOMED REALTY TRUST/475 ECCLES - INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-1 1 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. AIR QUALITY AND GREEN HOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTION MEASURES 1) BASIC FUGITIVE DUST EMISSIONS REDUCTION MEASURES. The constnzction contractor shall reduce construction-related air pollutant emissions by implementing B A-AQ:NID's basic fugitive dust control measures. Therefore, the Project shall include the following requirements in construction contracts: ➢ All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered tvo times per day. ➢ All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered. ➢ All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry- power sweeping is prohibited. ➢ All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. ➢ All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be pared shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. ➢ A publicallp visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead _agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action with 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 2) BASIC EXHAUST EMISSIONS REDUCTION MEASURES. The construction contractor shall implement the following measures during construction to reduce constniction-related exhaust emissions: ➢ Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Re,gilations). Clear signage shall be provided for constriction workers at all access points. ➢ All constniction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 3) COMPLIANCE WITH BAAQMD REGULATION 11, RULE 2 DURING DEMOLITION. Demolition of existing buildings and strictures would be subject to B_ AQ11D Regulation 11, Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing). B AQ:NID Regulation 11, Rule 2 is intended to limit asbestos emissions from demolition or renovation of strictures and the associated disturbance of asbestos-containing waste material generated or handled during these activities. The rule requires the notification of B AQ:NID of any regulated renovation or demolition activity-. This notification includes a description of strictures and methods utilized to determine whether asbestos-containing materials are potentially- present. All asbestos-containing material found on the site must be removed prior to demolition or renovation activity in accordance with B AQ:NID Regulation 11, Rule 2, including specific requirements for surveying, notification, removal, and disposal of material containing asbestos. PAGE 2-12 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES- INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4) COMPLIANCE WITH BAAQMD REGULATION 8, RULE 3 FOR ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS. Emissions of volatile organic compounds (vOC) due to the use of architectural coatings are regulated by the limits contained in Regulation 8: Organic Compounds, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings (Rule 8-3). Rule 8-3 was recently revised to include more stringent VOC limit requirements. The revised VOC architectural coating limits, which became effective on January 1, 2011, are projected to result in a 32 percent reduction of VOC emissions in the Bay Area associated with architectural coating applications. B. TRANSPORTATION AND GREEN HOUSE GAS REDUCTION MEASURES The applicant proposes a Transportation Demand Management Program (TD1l Program) (475 Eccles venue Transportation Demand Management Program, Fehr & Peers, October, 2011). The TD1l Program is aimed at a 30 percent mode shift compared to projects that do not include a TD1l, to qualify for a 1.0 FAR. The TD1l Program is required by law to be reviewed by the City- and modified by the Applicant as required by the City to meet the mode shift requirements. Performance audits are also required. The _applicant proposes the following measures, at a minimum, for the TD:NI Program: 1. Bicycle Parking (racks for visitors and sheltered bicycle parking for employees). 2. Shower and locker facilities (in lease agreement). 3. Preferential Carpool and Vanpool Parking. 4. Passenger loading zones for carpool and vanpool drop-off. 5. Pedestrian Connections. 6. TD:NI coordinator (in lease agreement). 7. Carpool/N-anpool hatching services (TD1l coordinator responsibility). 8. Guaranteed ride home (through Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance). 9. Information Board for TD:NI Program (in lease agreement). 10. Promotional programs including new employee orientation and TD1l Programs (TD1l coordinator responsibility). 11. Shuttle bus service to Caltrain and BART and downtown Dasher, coordinated with _alliance (TD1l coordinator responsibility.) 12. Membership in Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance. C. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL DESIGN ELEMENTS ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY The LEED design and construction strategies that have been integrated into the planning documents include: 1. The use of a previously developed site without impacts associated with endangered species, flood plain, and adjacency to wetlands or bodies of water. 2. The Project will document and remediate asbestos previous to demolition. BIOMED REALTY TRUST/475 ECCLES - INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-13 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3. A TD1l Program that includes the use of public/pri�-ates shuttles pro�-iding access to major public transportation hubs. In addition to the requirements for bike parking the Project«%ill include shower/changing room amenities for bike users. 4. The Project «%ill provide adequate preferred parking for low-emitting and alternative fuel vehicles. The Project«%ill provide fewer parking spaces than those referenced in local zoning requirements. 5. The Project provides more than 20 percent of the total site area in open space. More than 50 percent of all parking will be under corer to reduce heat island effects for site surfaces. 6. The Project has developed tenant design and constriction guidelines including recommendations and requirements for tenant improvements. 7. Indoor plumbing fixtures within the core and shell design and those required by the tenant scope of work will achieve greater than a 30 percent water use reduction. 8. Site landscape and irrigation equipment will provide irrigation efficiencies greater than 50 percent reduction from a standard summer baseline. 9. The Project will provide fundamental and enhanced commissioning (C-x) of MEP energy,- systems, including a requirement for tenant improvement Enhanced CY and a 10 month post-occupancy return to verity equipment warranty and operational efficiencies. Current ener,y model targets anticipate a greater than 15"o reduction in energy compared to Title 24 and ASHRAE 90.1. Base building and tenant improvement mechanical and food service equipment will be required to comply with enhanced refrigerant management requirements. The Project will provide adequate areas for the collection and storage of recyclables, and tenants will be required to implement desk-side recycling. 10. The Project has developed a Constriction Waste Management plan that targets at least 75 0'o diversion of landfill waste, with a goal of 9,50,o diversion. The Project has integrated requirements into planning specifications and plans to target a greater than 200'o recycled and regional content (by cost) in all building materials for the project. The Project will target a greater than 50 percent FSC certified wood content (by cost) in all new wood building materials for the project. 11. The Project will require, and require tenants,all materials installed within the vapor barrier of the Project to comply with LEED/CalGreen VOC & C ARB requirements, and specifically contain no-added urea-formaldehyde (N AUF) products. The Project will conduct, and require tenants to conduct, and Indoor fir Quality Management Plan for Construction _activities that requires contractors to comply with SMACNA LAQ qudelines for best practices during construction. Please see Table 2.1 for a complete list of LEED Silver measures provided by the Applicant to be incorporated into the Project, or an equivalent thereto. PAGE 2-14 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES- INITIAL STUDY TABLE 2.1 LEED SILVER MEASURES Site Selection Brownfield Redevelopment Alternative Transportation,Public Transportation Access Alternative Transportation,Bicycle Storage&Changing Rooms Alternative Transportation,Low Emitting&Fuel Efficient Alternative Transportation,Parking Capacit, Vehicles Site Development,Maximize Open Space Tenant Design and Construction Guidelines Heat Island Effect,Roof Innovation in Design: Green Building Education Program Water Use Reduction,30'90 Reduction Water Efficient Landscaping,Reduce by:i0"o Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy- Optimize Energy-Performance- (15)o) Systems Fundamental Refrigerant Management Enhanced Commissioning Storage&Collection of Recyclables Construction Waste Management,Divert:i0"o Construction Waste Management,Divert 75% Recycled Content, 10% Recycled Content,20'90 Regional Materials, 10% Certified Wood Minimum LAQ Performance Environmental Tobacco Smoke(ETS) Control Construction LAQ i\Ianagement Plan,During Construction Low-Emitting i\Iaterials,Adhesives &Sealants Low-Emitting i\Iaterials,Paints &Coatings Low-Emitting Materials,Carpet Systems Low-Emitting i\Iaterials,Composite Wood&Agrifiber Products Daylight&Views,Views for 90'90 of Spaces Exemplar--Performance: SSc4 Comprehensive Transit Plan Exemplar-Performance:EQc3 Tenant LAQ Plan, Construction D. SITE REMEDIATION FOR ASBESTOS, LEAD BASED PAINTS AND RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS The _applicant will, as indicated on the plans and application materials, remove lead based paints and has already removed much of the asbestos containing materials in the building (Certificate of Job Completion, Professional Asbestos and Lead Seri-ices, Inc., March April, 2012). During Project demolition minor amounts of asbestos«%ill be removed as electrical equipment is removed providing access to the location of the material. BIOMED REALTY TRUST/475 ECCLES - INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-15 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION During the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (URS, July 2012) one potential sump was observed on the Project site during the site reconnaissance. The potential sump is on the warehouse floor, and was obstnicted with a metal corer. The corer was coated with significant oil staining. Subsequent to the site reconnaissance, facility personnel attempted to remove the cover and photograph the area below. There was an additional metal corer present below that could not be removed. This metal corer was also stained with oil, and the area below could not be assessed. The _applicant as shown on the plans will conduct the following remediation which is largely standard procedure. The work will be done during the demolition and site preparation phase of the Project. TABLE 2.2 REMEDIATION MEASURES Media Hazardous Materials Approach `vault/pit interior All • Mobilize equipment to remove metal coyer concrete Investigation • Inspect interior concrete for the presence of liquid or significant staining and integrity-of the concrete. • Collect supple of any liquid material present or concrete chip sample. le. Soil-Investigation All • If staining/liquid are present and concrete is in poor condition soil sampling should be conducted. • Apply for boring permit from the Sun Mateo Countv Environmental Health Department(S�,ICEHD). • Advance one soil boring below the pit using a direct push drill rig to 20 feet below ground surface. • Collect soil samples at 1,5,10 and 20 feet bgs. • Analyze samples for VOCs,total petroleum hydrocarbons,semi volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) PCBs,and metals. • Report results to the S:NICEHD and consult for remediation requirements. • Remediation of contaminated soils can be completed during the demolition stage of the Project. Soil Remediation (ex- Fuels • Reuse on Site(if concentration is less than 100 ppm). situ) • Haul and Dispose at appropriate landfill. • Capping and vapor barrier. • Treat on site(see below). Soil Remediation VOCs (gasoline fuels, • Consult the S:NI(-'EHD for requirements. (ex-situ) solvents) • Haul and Dispose. • Aeration—requires a notification to 13 VAQNID,daily volumes are limited. • Vapor Stripping—apply vacuum system to covered piles,notify BAQNID. • Bioremediation- apply bio-treatment materials, moisture and"work"soil piles. • Thermal Desorption—various vendors provide mobile treatment units. • Capping and vapor barrier. PAGE 2-16 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY Media Hazardous Materials Approach Soil Remediation Inorganics • Consult B AAQMD and S:NICEHD for requirements. (ex-situ) (metals) • Haul and Dispose. • Chemical Stabilization. • Sorting—reduce waste volume by screening to target contaminant particle size. Soil Remediation VOCs • Consult S:NICEHD for requirements. (in-situ) • Soil Vapor Extraction—apply vacuum to vapor wells, notify BAAQ N ID. • In-situ chemical oxidation. • In-Situ Vitrification—use electricity to melt waste and surrounding soils. Soil Remediation SVOCs • Consult S:NICEHD for requirements. (in-situ) • Bioremediation—saturate soils with bio-treatment materials. • Chemical Stabilization—saturate soils with chemicals to immobilize contaminants. • In-Situ Vitrification. • Capping. Groundwater - All • If contaminants are detected in the 30 foot below Investigation ground surface soil sample an additional boring should be completed to groundwater. • Analyze sample for contaminants detected in soil. • Report results to the S:NICEHD and consult on remedial alternatives. Groundwater VOCs • Consult B AAQNID and S:NICEHD for requirements. Remediation • Pump and Treat—pump from wells,treat and discharge treated water. • Air Sparging—inject air to volatilize contaminants and create aerobic groundwater conditions suitable for natural bioremediation. Generally applied in conjunction with Soil Vapor Extraction to control released volatiles. • Bioremediation—inject bio-treatment materials into affected groundwater. • Chemical Oxidation—inject oxidation chemicals into affected groundwater. Groundwater SVOCs • Consult B AAQNID for requirements. Remediation • Pump and Treat. • Bioremediation. • Chemical Oxidation. Groundwater Inorganics • Consult B AAQNID for requirements. Remediation • Pump and Treat. • Chemical Immobilization—inject chemicals to precipitate or chernicallr fix contaminants to soil articles. The Project submittals note that a Licensed General Contractor with Hazardous Substance Removal Certification from the State of California «%ill inspect and remove the electrical equipment. The qualifications of the contractor will be noted on the plans submitted to the City- for issuance of a demolition permit. BIOMED REALTY TRUST/475 ECCLES - INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-17 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.5 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The Project site is Within the area subject to the provisions of the "East of 101" Planning Sub Area of the City- of South San Francisco's General Plan. The General Plan designates the Project site for "Business and Technology Parr" uses, and gives the following summary- of the Business and Technology Parr 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, which also meet specific transportation demand management (TDM), off-site improvement, or specific design standards. ZONING CLASSIFICATION The Project site is zoned `Business and Technology Park" (BTP). The BTP District provides for Research and Development and mirrors the land use designation intent (see above) specifying campus-like development. The City- adopted a revised zoning code in 2010 and rezoned specific properties, including the Project site, to bring the General Plan Designations and Zoning Classifications into conformance. A complete list of permitted and conditional uses is identified in Chapter 20.110 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (f1T"f P://(�)code.us). 2.6 REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS LEAD AGENCY REQUIREMENTS The Applicant has applied for the legislative and adjudicative entitlements as identified below. LEGISLATIVE ➢ Development Agreement. MIR seeks a Development Agreement to vest the approvals of the Project for seven rears with a fire-rear extension (i.e., up to 12)-ears), provided MIR meets certain milestones in developing the Project. ADJUDICATIVE ➢ Conditional Use Permit. The zoning ordinance provides for a base floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.5,which can be increased to 1.0 based upon an approved incentive program,which may be PAGE 2-18 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES- INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION permitted with a Conditional Use Permit. The Project proposes a 1.0 FAR and therefore requires an Incentive Program to be reviewed through the use permit process. ➢ Transportation Demand Management Program review and approval to achieve a 30 percent mode shift which is part of the incentive program for the 1.0 FAR. ➢ Conditional Use Permit for the interim relocation of the wireless facility. ➢ Design Review approval. MINISTERIAL ➢ Grading and Building permits. ➢ Encroachment permits to work in the public right-of-way. OTHER AGENCY REQUIRED PERMITS ➢ Bay Area Air Quality Management District "J Permit' as described in Chapter 1, Introduction, Section 1.2.8 for removal of asbestos lead based paints. ➢ Local and State approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. ➢ San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health(potential soil contamination). BIOMED REALTY TRUST/475 ECCLES - INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-19 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following checklist is consistent with CEQ A Guidelines, Appendix G. A "no impact" response indicates that the Project would not result in an environmental impact in a particular area of interest, either because the resource is not present, or the Project does not have the potential to cause an effect on the resource. A "less than significant" response indicates that,while there may be potential for an environmental impact, the sigrtificance of the impact would not exceed established thresholds and/or that there are standard procedures or regulations in place that would apply to the Project and hence no mitigation is required, or that, although there is the potential for a significant impact, feasible mitigation measures are available and have been agreed to and proposed by the Project to reduce the impact to a level of "less than significant" A "potentially significantimpaef' indicates that the Project could exceed established thresholds, no mitigation is currently proposed or identified and therefore the impact will be analyzed in an environmental impact report. A "less than significant with mitigation" indicates that although the impact would be considered sigrtificant, measures are identified and required herein that will reduce the impact to less than significant. Citations for this chapter are contained within the relevant discussion. BIOMED REALTY TRUST/475 ECCLES - INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-1 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.1 AESTHETICS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentiallj- Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation I. AESTHETICS—Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X vistas b) Substantially damage scenic resources, X including,but not linuted to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highways c) Substantially degrade the existing visual X character or quality-of the site and its surroundings-r d) Create a new source of substantial light or X glare,which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the areas SETTING PROJECT SITE The Project site is located on Eccles Avenue, between Oyster Point and Forbes Boulevards. The Project is within the South San Francisco Industrial Parr #3B. The Project site is relatively flat. Views of San Bruno Mountain are prevalent on the site and in the Project area. The site is developed with a concrete tilt-up industrial building and originally housed freight forwarding uses. The building was constructed in 1965, renovated in 1995 and has been vacant since 2006 except for a wireless communication facility-located in the west corner on the roof of the building. The building elevations are devoid of architectural detail, although some awnings punctuate the facades of the building. Landscaping is sparse and in poor to good condition. _asphalt pared driyeNvays, parking lots and walkway areas surround the site. _approximately 13,568 square feet (13 percent) of the site is landscaped, leaving approximately 116,432 square feet of pared surface outside the building footprint. The landscaping is in poor condition. The tree surrey conducted in 2007 identified 41 trees on the site ranging in condition from good to dead. Tree species consist of Italian Stone and Monterey pines, Eucalyptus, London Plane, Brisbane Box, Hollywood Juniper and Strawberry-. The largest specimen is 24 inches in circumference at 54 inches above grade (Reed Landscape _architects, Knapp site visit). Mr. Paul Reed, Reed _associates Landscape _architects, the Project landscape architect noted in 2007 that the trees are in poor condition largely due to lack of maintenance, inappropriate staking, and inappropriate root barriers being installed. PAGE 3-2 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO South San Francisco's urban character is one of contrasts within a visually-well defined setting. San Brno Mountain to the north, the ridge along Sky-line Boulevard to the west, US 380 to the south, and the San Francisco Bay- to the east provide the City-with distinctive edges. The City- is contained in almost a bowl life fashion by hills on tvo sides. The City's terrain ranges from the flatlands along the water to hills east and north. Hills are risible from all parts of the City-, and Sign Hill and San Brno 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 tvo miles in a north-south direction and about fire miles from east to west. South San Francisco's industrial roots are reflected in its urban character, especially- in its eastern parts. _almost 20 percent of South San Francisco's land is occupied by industrial and warehousing uses. EAST OF 101 AREA Land uses in the East of 101 Area have witnessed a change in land use over the rears. The East of 101 Area was part of the first industrial development in South San Francisco about 100 rears ago. Since then, the area has undergone many transformations. Pioneering industrial uses, such as steel manufacturing, and meat packaging gave way- to industrial parrs, including warehousing and distribution uses that came to dominate the area in the 1950s and 1960s. The emergence of modern office buildings and life science campuses in the 1980s marks the third major ware of land use change in the area. Older manufacturing uses, industrial parr strctures and tilt-up warehousing buildings, such as the building on the Project site, can all be found in the area. Blocks are generally- very large in size and the area has a very- stark industrial loop. Numerous abandoned railroad spurs are present, again as witnessed adjacent to the Project site. Since the late 1990s, developers have preferred to redevelop the older industrial park blocks and construct new mixed office and research and development (R&D) developments, largely north of East Grand Avenue. Development has resulted in the clean-up of old industrial sites (Brownfield sites), consistent with environmental practices associated with LEED and the Environmental Protection _agency- principles and objectives. In 2006 Genentech Research and Development Facility- (R&D) and Master Plan Area was expanded from 124 acres (consisting of 2.8 millions square feet of Office/R&D/Manufacturing uses) to 200 acres (permitting up to six million square feet of Office/R&D/Manufacturing uses). Hotel, office, mixed-use and research and development have also been approved in recent nears. Some examples include approximately 2.25 million square feet of office and R&D in Oyster Point, approximately 4.5 million square feet of office and R&D on three sites along East Grand Avenue, and on Forbes Boulevard and Roebling Avenue as well as the Gateway Specific Plan Area located west of the Project. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-3 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PROPOSED PROJECT DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION The Project would demolish an existing building and associated parking, and constnict a new life science campus (R&D) consisting of tvo buildings that together would comprise 262,287 square feet, a fire-level, 551 space parking structure and up to 157 surface parking spaces. The Project would include relocation of the existing wireless telecommunication facility- to an onsite tower pending completion of the Project, and then integration of the wireless facility within the Project. The primary block of the buildings would be curtain wall with aluminum sunshades. The buildings would have an aluminum curtain wall system with dual pane solar glazing. Metal spandrel with painted metal finish and insulation are proposed at opaque areas above ceiling line and from floor level to a height of 3'-7" above finished floor on levels above the first floor. Aluminum sunshades integral to the curtain wall system are proposed. The design includes operable window sashes within each structural bad- at each floor. Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete (GFR(.) would be used at balconies and at the entry feature of the buildings. The overall structure behind is a steel frame which the GFRC panels would be attached. Both the fiber and concrete would contain recycled materials. The buildings are shown to be connected by an enclosed bridge. Service areas would be enclosed at the rear of each building in a metal skinned structure that would rise to encase a mechanical penthouse at the top of each building. The top of the R&D buildings to the penthouse would be 90 feet; 71.6 feet to top of parapet; 76 feet to top of roof screen and the top of the parking structure would be 66 feet. LANDSCAPING The Project proposes landscaping around the perimeter and interior of the site, including landscaped walkways and parking areas. The Project also proposes rooftop planters with a minimum dimension of 24 inches in width around the perimeter of the roof of the parking structure. The tvo R&D buildings would be separated by a central courtyard featuring a seating area defined by low walls and a water feature using recycled water spilling over quarried stone. Three sections would surround the courtyard,with each containing gardens of a unique character. The exterior area between the buildings would also be designed to support outdoor activity which would extend into the central circular courtyard. Wind resistant and seacoast plantings are proposed to foster the success of the landscape plan. Trees, shrubs, groundcover and grasses (fescue, flax, blue rye) are proposed. The Project proposes to plant 159 24-inch box trees. The trees that are identified on the landscape plan include Saratoga Bad- Laurel, _arbutus Marina, Australian Willow, Holly- Oak, Pathfinder Juniper, Catalina Ironwood, Paperbark Tree, New Zealand Christmas, Chinese Pistache and Boxleaf Azara. The selection of tree plantings would provide a 15 to 30 foot canopy-at maturity and a four to six foot canopy-at planting. Medium and low water consumptive plantings are proposed, save for one area of turf. The proposed placement, quantity and types of trees proposed would serve to reduce the heat island effect of pared surfaces. PAGE 3-4 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST USABILITY OF OUTDOOR SPACE Plantings and building treatments are proposed to reduce wind experienced in outdoor areas (Donald Ballanti, Certified Consulting Meteorologist, November 7, 2011). Planters, liedges, low walls and porous fencing are proposed to reduce wind exposure and enhance the outdoor experience. ANTENNA RELOCATION The wireless communication facilities housed on site would be relocated to an interim facility- to be constructed at the Project site pending construction of the life science campus for a period not to exceed 12 years. The facilities would then be relocated to a permanent site on top of the parking structure, and would be integrated into the Project pursuant to the design criteria set forth in South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.370.003.D.1.a. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK DESIGN REVIEW BOARD As identified in Chapter 1.5.1, the Project is required by law to undergo review by the City's Design Review Board. Changes in design may be identified by the Board and may also be identified by the Planning Commission. Design review regilates signage, site layout, arcliitecture, urban design and ligliting. GENERAL PLAN The South San Francisco General Plan identifies maximum heights for stnict<ires with respect to potential aircraft hazards as well as areas with special scenic considerations. The Project site is within the 300 foot special height limit restriction (Figure 2-3, ,S�etialA�ea Heio&LiplilCmiol?S, General Plan, page 35). The Project site is not located within a scenic vista or scenic corridor. The Project site is identified as a site as being risible from tvo viewpoints (Figire 2-4 flie)).rhed, General Plan, page 36 and General Plan Background Report). EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN DESIGN ELEMENT In 1995, the East of 101 Area Plan establislied goals and policies for the East of 101 _area. The policies contained in the Plan's design element apply to development at the Project site and the Project area (South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, page 53). The stated goals of the East of 101 Area Plan's design concept are to promote quality- design, to promote a functional, safe and attractive environment, preserve the character of Soutli 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 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-5 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST guidelines. The East of 101 Area's development policies for the Project site encourage the creation of campus-like environments for corporate headquarters, R&D 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 niidelines for individual land use categories. For the Project site, the design gLi*del* ities include specific requirements for street trees, landscape buffers, avoidance of blank walls, building_ orientation toward the street, design guidelines, parking lot and slinibs. IMPACTS a) Scenic Vistas ,S'zgaaifuanee Czten'a: For the purpose of assessing impacts of a proposed project on scenic vistas, the threshold of significance is exceeded when a project would result in the obstniction of a designated public vista, or in the placement of an ar Liably offensive or negative-appearing project within such a vista. Arty clear conflict with a general plan policy-or otlier adopted planning policy-regarding scenic vistas would also be considered a potentially-significant adverse environmental impact. The Project is not located within a formally- designated public vista, nor would it result in the obstruction of a formally- designated public vista. _additionally, the Project would not conflict with an adopted planning policy- regarding scenic vistas. The Project would not obstruct views of the wind harp located on San Brno Ktioll nor of San Brno Mountain. Views would continue to be vailable between on-site buildings, public streets and private access easements and between buildings on adjacent parcels. Therefore, the Project would have no impact with respect to scenic vista impacts. b) Scenic Resources and Scenic Routes ,S'zgaaifuanee Ciiten'CI: For the purposes of assessing impacts of the Project on scenic resources, the threshold of significance is exceeded by and- Project-related action that would substantially- damage scenic resources (i.e., trees, rock outcroppings, and Historic buildings within a state [or local] scenic Highway). The Project would not be risible from a state or local scenic liighway. The Project site does not contain historic buildings or trees or significant rock outcroppings. Therefore the Project would have no impact on scenic resources. c) Visual Character ,S'zgaaif uanee Czten'a: The Project would Hare a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially-degrade the existing visual character or quality-of the site and its surroundings. PAGE 3-6 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The visual character of new projects must conform to the desigii principles and policies set forth in the East of 101 Area Plan Design Element. The design principles and policies applicable to the Project include: ➢ Streetscape. Street trees are required to be planted every thirty (30) feet. The Project would plant street trees at a PlaNiNIuNl of every thirty feet on center along Eccles Avenue as well as the east and west and a portion of the south property lines. Extensive tree planting is not proposed along the south property line as there is a legal easement in favor of access to the adjacent property. ➢ Footpaths and Sidewalks. The design guidelines call for sidewalks and footpaths and a clear connection between the street and building. The Project proposes to improve the pedestrian experience from Eccles Avenue by providing a landscaped walkway from Eccles to the ccnirtyard. Sidewalks are shown on botli sides of the central driveway from Eccles Avenue. The treatment of the sidewalk is prominent, and leads to the landscaped and screened entryway; elements which provide a clear connection of the building to the street. Sidewalks are proposed to connect the various buildings, parking to the buildings and to the landscaped central courtyard. The landscape treatment and pathways provide vistas of San Bruno Mountain. ➢ Landscape Buffers. A 10 foot wide landscape buffer along the Eccles venue frontage is required. The Project proposes a 30 foot landscape buffer along Eccles venue. Six foot wide side and rear landscape buffers are also required. Tlie Project proposes 10 to 15 foot landscape buffers along the east and north perimeters of the site. The intermittent placement of the landscaping on the south side is due to the presence and restrictions of the access easement favoring the adjacent property. ➢ Building Orientation. The Design Guidelines require a clear relationship of the buildings to the street. The landscaping, setbacks, pathways, and building entrances all serve to provide this building/street orientation. The central courtyard coupled with the visibility of Buildings A and B accertmates the relationship of the buildings to the street. ➢ Massing of Walls. The Design Guidelines discourage blank walls in expanses greater than 30 feet that are visible from the public right-of-ways. The Project does not propose blank walls. ➢ Parking and Access Design. The Project would utilize three of the existing four site entrances. The Design Guidelines require shrubs in parking lot medians and that no more than 12 cars are parked in a row without a tree island. The Project proposes to reduce surface parking from 276 to a maximum of 157 spaces with the remainder of parking in a tire-story- structure with rooftop landscaping. Trees and other landscaping are proposed to be placed directly- in front of all surface parking. Moreover, as noted in Chapter 2 and above, Zoning Code Section 20.330.010.L.9 requires one 15-gallon tree to be planted for every fire parking spaces. The Project would be required to plant 142 trees (assuming 708 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-7 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST parking spaces)' and proposes 159 24-inch box trees. The Project would therefore exceed the Code requirements for trees both in size and quantity. ➢ Loading Dock/Service Area Access Design. The Project would locate the service area and loading dock area for Building A along the rear elevation. Building B loading area would be along the side (east) elevation, thus allowing for a landscaped pathway- between Buildings A and B. Both loading areas would be landscaped. ➢ Lighting. A lighting plan is provided and reveals that the light is task orientated. Off site light leakage is minimal, as lighting decreases at the perimeter of the site to less than one foot candle. ➢ Building Design and Height. The Project architecture is cohesive on the site and represents an improvement over existing conditions. The City's Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the Project and requested modifications to the architecture of the parking structure to be more cohesive with the architecture of Buildings A and B. The Applicant returned to the DRB on June 19, 2012 showing architectural improvements to the parking structure. The Project was approved by the DRB on June 19th. The top of the R&D buildings to the penthouse would be 90 feet; 71.6 feet to top of parapet; 76 feet to top of roof screen and 66 feet to the top of the parking structure. The height, at +/- 158' feet above mean sea level (1ISL) is within the maximum permitted 300 feet above 1ISL (South San Francisco General Plan, page 34. 1999) requisite for aircraft safety ➢ Rooftop Mechanical Equipment. The Project would shield all rooftop mechanical equipment from view with top of roof screening. The Project would be located in an area whose visual characteristics consist of R&D, industrial and manufacturing buildings with surface parking typically- adjacent to the buildings. The City-'s efforts over the rears have been to improve both site and building lavout and design on properties undergoing redevelopment in the East of 101 Area. The Project would replace a building timid of architectural interest with a building of architectural interest in compliance with the East of 101 Area Design Guidelines. The Project would also reduce surface parking, the heat island effects accompariving surface parking and increase landscaping on the site. The Project complies with the East of 101 Area Design Guidelines and exceeds landscaping requirements prescribed by code. The Project would have no impact on visual character. i The comparison of trees to parking is made on the potential for an additional 53 parking spaces thus providing a reasonable worst case comparison. The Project, based upon the 6,55 parking spaces, would require 131 trees and as proposed would be 28 more trees than required by code. The site ranges in elevation from 62 to 68 feet above mean seal level as identified in Chapter 2. PAGE 3-8 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST d) Light or Glare ,V gliif uance Czten'a: Project related creation of any-new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day- or nighttime views in the area would be regarded as a significant environmental impact. The site is developed with a building, surface parking and lighting. The site is actively liglited for safety- and security- purposes althotigh the building is vacant. Pole lighting in the parking areas and building liglits are on during evening and nighttime hours. The existing lighting was designed and installed on the site in the mid-1960s. Project implementation would involve installation new light futures throtighout the site (sheet E1.1 of the arcliitectural drawings). The proposed lighting plan indicates that liglit sources and fixtures would be designed to cast liglit in a downward task-oriented direction with foot candle levels reducing to less than one at the perimeter of the site. Project-generated liglit levels over existing conditions would be less than significant as shown on the photometric plan. The Project would reduce the area used for surface parking (and requisite lighting thereto) by approximately- one third. Building materials would not be sources of glare given the soft palette (grays and off-wliites), sunscreens for glazing, minimal use of reflective materials and the amount of landscaping (24 percent of the site area) proposed on the site. Light and glare resultingfrom the Project site would be considered less than significant. Finding: The Project would not have an impact on the aesthetics or scenic quality on the site or in the area. There would be no individual or cumulative impacts with respect to aestlietic, visual quality or liglit and glare associated with the Project. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-9 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentiallj- Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation II. AGRI(_'LTLTLTRE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies mar refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment i\lodel(1997)prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland,are significant environmental effects,lead agencies mar refer to the information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventor-of forest land,including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project;and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or X Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland:N lapping and i\lonitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural user b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, X or a Williamson Act contracts c) Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning X of,forest land(as defined in the Public Resources Code section 13330(g)),timberland(as defined bi Public Resources Code section 4,520) or timberland zoned Timberland Production(as defined bi Government Code section,51104(g))r d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of X forest land to non-forest user e) Involve other changes in the existing environment X which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest user SETTING The Project site is developed. Site grading occurred around 1956, the building was constnlcted in 1965, renovated in 1995 and has been vacant since 2006 except for a communication facility- located in the west corner on the roof. The East of 101 Area, including the Project site, was part of the first industrial development in South San Francisco about 100 rears ago. Pioneering industrial uses, such as steel manufacturing, and meat packaging gave wad- to industrial parr and warehousing and distribution uses that came to dominate the area in the 1950s and 1960s. The recent emergence of PAGE 3-10 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST modern office buildings and life science campuses mark the third major ware of land use change in the area. Older manufacturing uses, industrial parr stnictures and tilt-up warehousing buildings, such as the building on the Project site, can all be found in the area. IMPACTS a, b and e) Farmland Impacts ,V�gliifurnee Ciiten'CI: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agrinilairal use, conflict with current zoning for agricultural use or the provisions of a current Williamson _pct contract, or involve any- environmental changes that could result in the conversion of farmland currently in agricultural uses to non-agricultural uses. The Project site contains no farmland and as such would not involve the conversion of Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland flapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The Project site is not in Williamson pct Contract. The Project site is not nearby or adjacent to any agricultural use and as such would have no impact to farmland c, d and e) Forest Land Impacts The site is not zoned for timberland production or in use as such, nor in proximity to such a use. Use of the site for office and R&D would not cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in the Public Resources Code section 12220(8)), timberland (as defined I)y Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section51104(g)). The Project is not nearby or adjacent to timberland or forest lands and would have no impact on timberland production or resources or forest lands. Finding: The Project would not adversely affect any- existing agrinilairal operations. The site was developed in the mid-1960s with office and warehouse uses. The Project would not impact agrinultural resources individually or cumulatively and is not in and- Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), or in Williamson _pct Contract. The site is not zoned for timberland production or in use as such, and would not cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in the Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section51104(g)). BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-11 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.3 AIR QUALITY Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation III. AIR QtT ALIT N\'here mailable, 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 X the applicable air quality-plan? b) ti iolate any air quality-standard or contribute X substantially to an existing or projected air qualit, violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net X 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 X pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? SETTING This air quality- analysis was performed using; methodologies and assumptions recommended within the Bad-Area _fir()uality Management District (13AAQ1ID) C EEQA Air(41ality Guideline.? (dated June 2010, updated in flay 2011, and revised in May 2012).' This section describes existing; air quality- 3 The Air District's June 2010 adopted thresholds of significance were challenged in a lawsuit. On :\larch 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the Air District had failed to comply with CEQ A when it adopted the thresholds. The court found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under CEQ A and ordered the Air District to examine whether the thresholds would have a significant impact on the environment under CEQ A before recommending their use. The court did not determine whether the thresholds are or are not based on substantial evidence and thus valid on the merits. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the District to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the Air District had complied with CEQ A. The court's order permits the Air District to develop and disseminate these CEQ A Guidelines,as long as they do not implement the thresholds of significance. Although the 13_AQNID's adoption of significance thresholds for air quality-analysis has been subject to judicial actions, the City of South San Francisco has determined that 13 AQNID's Revised Draft Options and Justification Report (October 2009),provide substantial evidence to support the B i\ID�Q recommended thresholds. Therefore, the City of South San Francisco has determined the B AQNID recommended thresholds are appropriate for use in this analysis. PAGE 3-12 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST and air pollutant constniction and operational impacts. _fir Quality- conditions of approval (as described in Chapter 1, Section 1.5.1) that are required to be implemented as part of the Project pursuant to the City- of Soutli San Francisco's project review process are also addressed and included in this analysis. _fir quality- pollutants included in the analysis are carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic compounds (ROG), nitrogen dioxide (NO,), sulfur dioxide (SOS) and particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 micrometers (tine particulates or RNI,;). Diesel particulate matter (DP1I) is also a concern with regard to health risk assessment and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were also addressed within a separate section. CLIMATE The peninsula region of the Bay-Area _fir Basin (Bad- _area) extends from the area northwest of San Jose to the Golden Gate. The Santa Cruz Mountains extend up the center of the peninsula, with elevations exceeding 2,000 feet at the soutli end, and gradually- decreasing to an elevation of 500 feet in Soutli San Francisco,where it terminates. San Francisco is at the north end of the peninsula and because most of the topograpliv of San Francisco is less than 200 feet, the marine layer is able to flow across most of the city-, malting its climate relatively- cool and wind-}. Meteorological data collected at the San Francisco International _airport (SF()), which is approximately- tvo miles south of the Project site, are representative of general project area conditions. _average maximum and minimum winter (i.e.,January-) temperatures at SF() are 56 and 42 °F, respectively, while average summer (i.e., July) maximum and minimum temperatures are 72 and 54 °F, respectively. Precipitation at SF() averages approximately 20 inches per rear'. Annual average wind speeds range from fibre to 10 miles per hour (mph) throughout the peninsula. The east side of the mountains has a westerly- wind pattern; however, it is influenced by local topo rapliic features. That is, a few hundred feet rise in elevation will induce flow around that feature instead of over it during stable atmospheric conditions. Tliis can change the wind pattern by as much as 90 degrees over short distances. Chi mornings without a strong pressure gradient, areas on the east side of the peninsula often experience eastern flow in the surface laver, induced by upslope flow on the east-facing slopes and by the bay- breeze. The bay- breeze is rarely seen in the afternoon because the stronger sea breeze dominates the flow pattern`'. 4 Bar Area Air Quality :Nlanagernent District. October 4, 2010, Bar Area Climatology- httl://w«w.haacind.Tov/Divisions/Coinmmiications-and-Outreach/fir-Chiility-in-the-Bay_Srea�Bav_Srea- Climatoiogv.asux,accessed Febnran-4,2011. Western Regional Climate Center, Local Clzlwate Data S111;v1;varies for San Fnwtisco International _Airport California. httl://« �«.wrcc.dri.edu/cPi-bill/c1i1cd.UEca23234,accessed Febnrar- 4,2011. Bar area fir Qualitv Management District. October 4, 2010, Bar area Clirnatology- httl://w«w.haacind.Tov/Divisions/Coinmmiications-and-Outreach/fir-Chialit�-iii-the-Bay_Brea/Bay_Srea- Climatoiogv.asux,accessed Febnrary 4,2011. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-13 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SENSITIVE RECEPTORS People that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution within the general population include children, elderly, and those that suffer from certain illnesses or disabilities. Therefore, schools, convalescent homes, and hospitals are considered to be sensitive receptors to air pollution. Residential areas are also considered sensitive to poor air quality because people ustially star home for extended periods of time,which results in greater exposure to localized air pollutants. B_ AQ11D considers the relevant zone of influence for an assessment of health risks to be those areas within 1,000 feet of a project boundary. There are no sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the Project boundary. Residential land uses are approximately 2,400 feet (0.45 miles) to the east (west of Highway 101). The closest sensitive receptors to the site are tvo child care centers; one at 599 Gateway Boulevard 0.3 miles (1,760 feet) from the site and one at 444 Allerton _venue 0.4 miles (1,320 feet) from the Project site. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK CRITERIA POLLUTANTS The B_ AQ1ID monitors and regulates air quality pursuant to the Federal Clean _fir _pct, as amended, and the California Clean Air Act. The B AAQ:NID adopts and enforces controls on stationary sources of air pollutants throtigh its permit and inspection programs. Other B_ AQ1ID responsibilities include monitoring air qualit< preparation of clean air plans, and responding to citizen air gtiality complaints. The B_ AQ11D has also published C:E/�A Air ()IIality Guidelines, to assist lead agencies in evaltiating air gtiality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the Bay-_area. CURRENT AIR QUALITY The B_A-AQ1ID operates a regional monitoring network for ambient concentrations of six criteria pollutants. Currently, the criteria pollutants of most concern in the Bay Area are ozone and particulate matter. The monitoring;station closest to the Project site is in San Francisco on Arkansas Street. This air quality monitoring station monitors levels of ozone,particulate matter in the form of P1110 and P112.5, CO, NO,, and S(),. Air Quality Table 1 summarizes the most recent three years of data published by the California Air Resources Board (_FRB) for the San Francisco, Arkansas Street air monitoring station, which is approximately seven and a half miles to the north of the Project site. The federal 24-hour PM23 standard was exceeded three times in 2010 and once in 2009. No other State or federal air quality standards were exceeded during the three year period. The Bay Area is currently designated "nonattainment" for state and national (1-hour and 8-hour) ozone standards, for the state P1110 standards, and for state and national (annual average and 24- hour) P1123 standards. The Bay- Area is designated "attainment" or "unclassified" with respect to the other ambient air quality standards. PAGE 3-14 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES-INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AIR QUALITY TABLE 1 AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY SAN FRANCISCO,ARKANSAS STREET, CA, 2008—2010 Ozone State 1-1-lour 0 0 0 Ozone Federal 8—Hour 0 0 0 Ozone State 841our 0 0 0 P:N 110 Federal 2-[--�Flour 0 0 0 P:N 110 State 2-[--�Flour 0 0 0 PA L2. Federal 2-[--�Flour 0 1 3 CarbonAlonoxlde State/Federal 0 0 0 8—Hour Nitro en Dioxide State 1—Hour 0 0 0 Sulfur Dioxide State 24-Hour 0 0 0 Source: Bar Area Air Quahty Management District, Annual Bar Area Air Quality- Simunaries, «�.baacmd.Toy-/Di�-isions/Commtuiications-and-Outreach/Air-Oua1it,-in-the-Ba,_area/iii Ouality- Sunuualies.asm.2012. IMPACTS a) Conflicts with the Current Air Quality Plan ,V g aif urnee Ciiten'CI: Any project that would not support the goals of the 2010 Bad- Area Clean _fir Plan (CAP)would not be considered consistent with the 2010 CAP. On September 15, 2010, the B AQ:NID adopted the 2010 CAP. The 2010 Bay area CAP updates the Bay- Area 2005 ()zone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the California Clean _fir Act (C('._-A,) to implement all feasible measures to reduce ozone; provide a control strategy- to reduce ozone, particulate matter, air toxics, and GHG emissions in a single, integrated plan; and establishes emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2010 through 2012 timeframe. The primary-goals of the 2010 Bay-Area CAP are to: • _attain air quality-standards; • Reduce population exposure and protecting public health in the Bay area;and • Reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate. The recommended measure for determining project support of these goals is consistency- with B_ AQ1ID-approved CEQ_A, thresholds of significance. Tlerefore, if approval of a project would not result in significant and unavoidalble air quality- impacts after the application of all feasible mitigation, the Project would be considered consistent with the 2010 Ba) area CAP. As described below, the Project will not have an)- significant and unavoidable air quality- impacts. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the 2010 Bay Area CAP, and thus, the impact is less than significant. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-15 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST b and c)Violation of Standards and a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase ,S'z,aifurnee C7ite9iC1: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would exceed B_ AQ1ID's constriction and/or operational mass emission thresholds for exhaust emissions and/or if appropriate air pollutant control measures are not implemented. The B AAQ:NID CEQA Air Guidelines recommend that mtmulative air quality- effects from criteria air pollutants also be addressed by comparison to the mass daily and annual thresholds. These thresholds were developed to identify- a nimulatively considerable contribution to a significant regional air quality- impact. _fir gtiality impacts are associated with both constriction and operation of a project. B_ AQ1fD riles and regulations govern certain aspects of the constriction phase of projects. B_ AQ1fD regulations applicable to the construction of the Project relate to portable equipment (e.g., gasoline- or diesel-powered engines used for power generation, pumps, compressors, and cranes), architectural coatings, fiigitive dust, and paving materials. Project constriction and operation impacts are dismissed within the following sections. CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPACTS The Project proposes to redevelop a 6.1-acre parcel. The Project would demolish a vacant structure and perform rotigh and finish grading. The existing building is 152,145 square feet designed to house freight forwarding uses. The Project would constnict a new life science campus consisting of tvo buildings comprising 262,287 square feet, a parking stricture (approximately- 551 spaces) and approximately- 157 surface parking spaces. The demolition and constriction would begin in Jantiary of 2013 and occur in 2013 and 2014. Chapter 2 Project Description provides further information on Project phasing and constriction characteristics.^ The Project may proceed in a single phase or in tvo phases depending on market demand. If it proceeds in tvo phases, the parking stnicture would be built in the first phase. Demolition and site preparation is expected to take approximately- three months. If conducted in a single phase, the new development would take approximately nineteen months including interior improvements. A tvo- phase constriction scliedule would consist of an initial phase of seventeen montlis for Building A and the parking garage, and second phase of seventeen months for Building B. Project construction would generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including fugitive dust and equipment exhaust emissions. The B AAQ:NID C,(-')A Air (41ality Guidelilies recommend quantification of constriction-related exhaust emissions and comparison of those emissions to significance thresholds. Tlierefore, this analvsis includes quantification of constriction emissions and comparison of the emissions to the B_ AQ1fD's constriction significance thresholds. The CalEEllod (California Emissions Estimator Model) was used to quantify- Project constriction emissions of criteria pollutants (see Appendix A for emissions estimate assumptions. CalEEllod output files are available at the City-). Air Quality Table 2 provides the estimated short-term construction emissions that would be associated with the Project and compares those emissions to the B_ AQ1ID's thresholds for A one phased construction schedule is assumed as it results in a reasonable worst case analysis. PAGE 3-16 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST construction exhaust emissions. As the demolition and construction phases would be sequential, the average daily- constriction period emissions are compared to the B_ AQ1ID significance thresholds. All construction-related emissions would be below the B AAQ D significance thresholds. AIR QUALITY TABLE 2 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS (pounds per day) Construction 35.7 46.6 2.60 2.60 45.9 Si nificatice Thresholds )4 54 82 54 --- significant Im pactr No No No No No Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all emission assumptions. There is no BAQID Significance Threshold for CO for construction activities. B_ AQ1ID's C:E/�A Air G7lideliliei provides a number of Con.rtirlctio i 11itioatioia 11eaiu�es (related to fiigitive dust and exhaust emissions) for constriction activities which are required of the Project through the City's standard review and approval procedures (see Introduction, Chapter 1, Section 1.5.2). The applicant would also use low ROG coatings and finishes. All construction emissions would be below the B_ AQ:NID significance thresholds with the implementation of these measures that are required by law. Therefore, Project impacts that would be associated with construction related exhaust emissions would be less than significant with implementation of the measures the Cityrequires bylaw and proposed by the Project. OPERATIONAL IMPACTS The C.alEEllod was used to estimate emissions that would be associated with natural gas space heating, water heating, and landscape maintenance emissions expected to occur due to implementation of the Project. The Project would facilitate approximately 894 employees. Operational emissions associated with employees, visitors, and deliveries were also estimated. The Project proposes to meet the constriction and operational standards of a LEED Silver classification. Estimated operational daily- and annual emissions that would be associated with the Project are presented in Air Quality Tables 3 and 4 and are compared to B AAQ:NID's thresholds of significance. As indicated, the estimated operational emissions that would be associated with the Project would be below the BAAQMD's significance thresholds and would be less than significant. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-17 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AIR QUALITY TABLE 3 PROJECT DAILY OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS (pounds per day) Area 13.4 0.00 00 ().00 0.00 0.00 00 Ener r 0.20 1.81 0.00 0.00 1.52 Mobile 3.96 5.90 0.26 0.26 35.6 Total Proposed 17.6 7.71 0.26 0.26 37.1 Si lific Lice Thresholds 54 1 54 1 82 1 54 1 --- significant lm pacts No I No I No I No No Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all emission assumptions. Values reflect rounding. BAQID Significance Threshold for CO for operational activities pertains to a screening roadway intersection analysis. AIR QUALITY TABLE 4 PROJECT ANNUAL OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS (tons per year) Area 2.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ener r 0.04 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.28 Mobile 0.54 0.85 0.04 0.04 5.29 Total Proposed 3.02 1.18 0.04 0.04 5.57 Si lificance Thresholds 10 10 1-) 1 10 --- Si lificant lm pacts No No No No No Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all emission assumptions. Values reflect rounding. BAQID Significance Threshold for CO for operational activities pertains to a screening roadway intersection analysis. A project is potentially- significant if it results in CO concentrations of 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) and 20.0 ppm (1-hour average) at roadway- intersections. The B_A-AQ1ID has identified preliminary- screening criteria for determining whether CO emissions would be significant. The screening criteria provide a conservative indication of whether the implementation of the Project would result in CO concentrations that are potentially significant. The screening criteria consider whether the: • Project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the count- congestion management agency- for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. • Project traffic would increase traffic vohimes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. • Project traffic would increase traffic vohimes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway-). The additional traffic associated with the Project would not exceed the screening criteria based on the size of the facility-and the anticipated resultant traffic vohimes. Further, the Project is consistent with the applicable congestion management plan in that it proposes a Transportation Demand Management Program designed to achieve a 30 percent mode shift equating to a 20 percent PAGE 3-18 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES-INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST reduction in traffic associated with operation of the Project. Therefore, impacts that would be associated with long-term operational CO exhaust emissions would be less than significant. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The B_ AQ1ID C:E/�A Air Guidelines recommend that cumulative air quality- effects from criteria air pollutants also be addressed I)y comparison to the B_ AQ1ID's mass daily and annual significance thresholds. As sho«%n in Air Quality Tables 2 through 4, Project-related emissions would be below the thresholds with implementation of the measures the City requires by law (see Introduction, Chapter 1, Section 1.5.2) and proposed by the Project. Therefore, the Project would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. d) Impacts to Sensitive Receptors Sz,aif uance Citen'a: The significance of impact to sensitive receptors is dependent on the chance of contracting cancer from exposure to toxic air contaminants (T_ C.$) such as DP1I or of having; adverse health effects from exposure to non-carcinogenic T ACs. A project is considered to be significant if the incremental cancer risk at a receptor exceeds 10 in a million. The closest sensitive receptors to the site are tvo child care centers; one at 599 Gateway Boulevard 0.3 miles (1,760 feet) from the site and one at 444 Allerton avenue 0.4 miles (1,320 feet) from the Project site. Residential land uses are approximately- 2,400 feet (0.45 miles) to the east (west of Route 101). There are no sensitive receptors located within a 0.25 mile radius of the Project site. For cumulative analysis of cancer risk,B_ AQ1ID recommends that the risks from all sources within a 1,000 foot radius of the source or receptor be assessed and compared to a cumulative increased risk threshold of 100 in one million. The non-cancer hazard index significance threshold of 1.0 is defined iii the B AAQ:NID C,(-')A Air Oucrlity Guidelilies. For cumulative analysis of non-cancer hazard index, B_A-AQ1ID requires that the hazards from all sources within a 1,000 foot radius of the source or receptor be assessed and compared to a cumulative hazard index threshold of 10. The B_A-AQ1ID has established a separate significance threshold for P1I23 to protect public health as emissions of PM23 are associated with health risks. For individual projects, the B_A-AQ1ID significant threshold for PM2.5 impacts is an average annual increase of 0.3 �«/m'. For cumulative analvsis, B_ AQ1ID recommends that the P1I23 concentrations from all sources within a 1,000 foot radius of the receptor be assessed and compared to a cumulative threshold of an average annual increase of 0.8 µg/m'. CANCER RISK Cancer risk is defined as the lifetime prolbalbility of developing cancer from exposure to carcinogenic substances. Cancer risks are expressed as the chances in one million of contracting cancer, for example, ten cancer cases among one million people exposed. Following Health Risk _assessment (HRA) gLiidelines established I)y California Office of Environmental Health Hazard_assessment (OEHHA) and B_ AQ1ID's Health J�isk ,Veieeiaii,A&Iy.l7s BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-19 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST GIlideliliei, incremental cancer risks were calculated bv applying toxicity factors to modeled T_ C. concentrations in order to determine the inhalation dose (milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day [mg/kg-day]). See Appendix A for details concerning the methodology, assumptions, and basis of calculation for the cancer risks. CONSTRUCTION RELATED IM13-- --TS As a result of construction activities (with implementation of the measures the City requires by law), the unmitigated maximum cancer risk for a residential-adult receptor would be 0.04 per million and for a residential-child would be 0.44 per million. The unmitigated maximum cancer risk for a school child receptor would be 0.03 per million. Thus, the unmitigated cancer risk due to construction activities is below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per million and would be less than significant. OPERATIONAL REL TED IM13-- cTS The maximum cancer risks from the Project operations for a residential-adult receptor would be 0.41 per million and for a residential-child would be 0.44 per million with implementation of the measures the City requires by law. The maximum cancer risk for a school child receptor would be 0.04 per million. Thus, the health impacts from Project operations would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per million and less than significant. ICON-CANCER HEALTH IMPACTS Both acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) adverse health impacts unrelated to cancer are measured against a hazard index (HI), which is defined as the ratio of the predicted incremental exposure concentration from the Project to a published reference exposure level (REL) that could cause adverse health effects. The RELs are published I)y OEHHA based on epidemiological researcli. The ratio (referred to as the Hazard Quotient [I-I(J) of eacli non-carcinogenic substance that affects a certain organ system is added to produce an overall HI for that organ system. The overall HI is calculated for each organ system. If the overall HI for the liigliest-impacted organ system is greater than 1.0, then the impact is considered to be significant. The chronic reference exposure level for DP1I was established I)y the California OEHHA as 5 µg/m'. There is no acute REL for DP1I. However, diesel exhaust does contain acrolein and otlier compounds, which do have an acute REL. Based on B_ AQ1ID's DP1I speciation data acrolein emissions are approximately 1.3 percent of the total DPI emissions. The acute REL for acrolein was established I)y the California ()EHH_ ' as 23 µg/m'. See Appendix A for details concerning the methodology, assumptions, and basis of calculation for the health index. The Project's chronic HI for DP I would be less than 0.03. The chronic III for DPM would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than significant. s California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment Toxicitv Criteria Database, 2010. http://w-,YAv.oehha.ca.gov//. PAGE 3-20 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The Project's acute HI for acrolein Would be less than 0.01. The acute III for acrolein would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than significant. PM2.5 CONCENTRATION Dispersion modeling was also used to estimate exposure of sensitive receptors to Project-related concentrations of PM23. Because emissions of PM23 are associated with health risks the B_ AQ1ID has established a separate significance threshold to protect public health. The B_ AQ1ID guidance requires inclusion of PM23 exhaust emissions only in this analysis (i.e., fiigitive dust emissions are addressed under B_ AQ1ID dust control measures and are required by law to be implemented into Project construction, see Introduction, Chapter 1, Section 1.5.2). The unmitigated maximum annual PM2.5 concentration as a result of Project construction would be less than 0.01 ug/m3. The annual PM2.5 concentration due to implementation of the Project would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 0.3 Ug/m. and hence is considered less than significant. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The B AAQ:NID's C,()A Air Qllali y Guidelilies include standards and methods for determining the significance of cumulative health risk impacts. The method for determining cumulative health risk requires the addition of the health risks from permitted sources and major roadways in the vicinity of a project (i.e.,within a 1,000-foot radius of the source, also considered the zone of influence for a health risk analpsis), then adding the health risks of the Project impacts to determine whether the cumulative health risk thresholds are exceeded. B AAQ:NID has deb-eloped a geo-referenced database of permitted emissions sources throughout the San Francisco Bay _area, and has developed the ,Vltmioliaq ,Vou�ee Risk &Hartii d A116ly.l7.r Tool (dated flap, 2011) for estimating cumulative health risks from permitted sources. Fibre permitted sources are located within 1,000 feet of the Project. B_ AQ1ID has also developed a geo-referenced database of roadways throughout the San Francisco Bad- Area and has developed the Hzgh)rgy ,Vcieeiaiiig A&Iyri.r Tool (dated May 2011) for estimating cumulative health risks from roadways. B_ AQ1ID C:E/�A Air Guidelines also require the inclusion of surface streets within 1,000 feet of the project with annual average daily traffic (_ ADT) of 10,000 or greater'. No nearby roadways meet the criteria. B AQN 1D County Surface Street Screening Tables,alai-2011 and C E H T P Traffic Linkage Service Demonstration, /traffic tool.iso BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-21 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Air Quality Table 5 lists the B A-AQ:NID-permitted facility and major roadways within 1,000 feet of the Project. Air Quality Table 5 also shows the cumulative cancer risk, hazard impact, and PM23 concentrations (in FIg/m') associated with these facilities (developed I)y B_ AQ1ID), as well as the Project. The cumulative impacts are below the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Secondly, given that the Project would not result in increased health impacts exceeding the Project-level thresholds, the Project would also not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to localized health risk and hazard impacts, resulting in a less than significant cumulative air quality impact. AIR QUALITY TABLE 5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Rm /j j 13861 City-of SSF Water 955 Gateway-Blvd Quality Plant 0.99 <0.01 <0.01 17664 Gallo 440 Forbes Blvd <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 13778 UPS Supply Chaim 455 Forbes Blvd Solutions 2.1 <0.01 <0.01 19547 Chamberlin 200 Ouster Point Blvd 8.5 0.003 0.027 _associates 18885 Chamberlin 180 Ouster Point Blvd. 1.7 0.001 0.0053 _associates Permitted Sources Total 13.3 <0.01 0.03 Proposed Project 0.44 0.03 <0.01 Grand Total 13.7 0.03 0.03 Significance Thresholds 100 10 0.3 Significant Impacts No No No e) Odor Impacts Sz,aifurnee Ciiten'CI: The B__AQ1ID's significance criteria for odors are more sulbjective and are based on the number of odor complaints generated by a project. Generally, the B AQ:NID considers any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors to cause a significant impact. Projects that would site a new odor source or a new receptor fartlier than the applicable B_ AQ1ID-established screening distances from an existing receptor or odor source, respectively, would not likely result in a significant odor impact. An odor source with fibre more confirmed complaints per year averaged over three years is considered to have a significant impact on receptors within the screening distances. Typical odor sources of concern include wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, transfer stations, composting facilities, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, cliemical manufacturing facilities, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, auto body shops, rendering plants, and coffee roasting facilities. Diesel-fueled construction equipment would generate some odors associated with diesel exhaust; however, these emissions typically- dissipate quickly and would be unlikely to affect a substantial number of people. The Project operations include a biomed research and development facility, which would not be expected to create or increase odors. Therefore, odor impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project would be less than significant. PAGE 3-22 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Finding: The Project would not result in a sign ficant impact to air cluality and would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria nonattainment pollutants (ozone precursors,PNI10, and P112.5). The City's building and planning permit procedures and the LEED Silver equivalent measures proposed by the Project include the B_ AQ:NID permitting regulations, as «%ell as B AAQ:NID's recommended emission control measures (sheet PA.1.1a of the Project submittals). 3.4 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentiallj- Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation I�-. GREENH()I_ SE GAS E\IISSI()NS Would the Project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either X directly or indirectly,that mar have a significant nripact on the enyironmentr b) Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or X regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasesr SETTING Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs) because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, much like a greenhouse does. The accumulation of GHGs has been implicated as the driving; force for global climate change. The primary- GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO,) methane ((.H,), nitrous oxide (N,()), ozone, and water vapor. N\11le the presence of the primary- GHGs in the atmosphere are naturally occurring, CO, CH,, and NJ) are also emitted from human activities, accelerating the rate at which these compounds occur within earth's atmosphere. Emissions of CO, are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas methane results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Other GHGs include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, and are generated in certain industrial processes. Greenhouse gases are ty ically reported in "carbon dioxide-equivalent" io measures (('.O,e). There is international scientific consensus that human-caused increases in GHGs have and will continue to contribute to global warming. Potential global warming impacts in California may include, but are not limited to, loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat daps per pear, 0 Because of the differential heat absorption potential of various GHGs, GHG emissions are frequently measured in "carbon dioxide-equivalents," which present a weighted average based on each gas's heat absorption (or "global warming")potential. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-23 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought)-ears. Secondary- effects are likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease rectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversitv.11 GARB estimated that in 2006 California produced about 484 million gross metric tons of C(),e (ALVTCO,e), or about 535 million U.S. tons.'; GARB found that transportation is the source of 38 percent of the state's GHG emissions, followed by electricity generation (both in-state and out- of-state) at 22 percent and industrial sources at 20 percent. Commercial and residential fuel use primarily for heating) accounted for 9 percent of GHG emissions.l' In the San Francisco Bay_area, (1 g) < -- 1 fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) and the industrial and commercial sectors are the tvo largest sources of GHG emissions, each accounting for approximately 36 percent of the San Francisco Bay- _area's 95.8 1IIITCO,e emitted in 2007.1} Electricity generation accounts for approximately 16 percent of the San Francisco Bay- _area's GHG emissions followed by residential fuel usage at 7 percent, off-road equipment at 3 percent and agriculture at 1 percent.l" REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The following regulations and guidelines are applicable to GHGs in California. EXECUTIVE ORDER S-3-05 In 2005, in recognition of California's vulnerability to the effects of climate change, Governor Schwarzenegger established Eecuti�-e Order S-3 05, which set forth a series of target dates by which statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows: • By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; • By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels;and • By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. ASSEMBLY BILL 32—CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT In 2006, the California legislature passed _assembly Bill (AB) 32 (California Health and Safety- Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq., or AB 32), also known as the Global Warming Solutions _pct. AB 32 requires C ARB to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and other measures, 11 California Climate (lunge Portal. Frequently Asked Questions about Global Climate Change. Available Online at: htt1://««��.climatechan�e.ca.go�-/Iuhlicntions/fngs.html. accessed June 17,2012. 1'California Air Resources Board (ARB),"California Greenhouse Gas Inventor\-for 2000-2006—by Category-as Defined in the Scoping Plan."Available Online at: http://«�\-\\.arh.ca.go�-/cc/iti�-entor;/data/tables/�h� iliVentop sco 7int-�i)lan 2009-03-13.2 f. Accessed June 17,2012. 3 Ibid. 14 Bar Area Air Quality Management District, Source InventorV- of Bar-Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Base Year 2007, tTpdated: Febnlan-2010. Available Online at: httl://«««.haaglnd.�o�-/��/media/Files/Plamiui '�30and'030 Research/Emission' )201 ventory re�ionalinventon-2007 2 10.aslvs. Accessed June 17,2012. 1'Ibid. PAGE 3-24 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST such that feasible and cost-effective statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 1990 levels I)y 2020 (representing a 25 percent reduction in emissions). In June 2007, C ARB directed staff to pursue 37 early actions for reducing GHG emissions under AB 32. The broad spectrum of strategies to be developed, including a Low Carbon Fuel Standard, regulations for refrigerants with high global warming potentials, gtildance and protocols for local governments to facilitate GHG reductions, and green ports, reflects that the serious threat of climate change requires action as soon as possible. In addition to approving the 37 GHG reduction strategies, GARB directed staff to further evaluate early action recommendations made at the June 2007 meeting, and to report back to C ARB within six months. GARB suggested a desire to attempt to pursue greater GHG emissions reductions in California in the near-term. Since the June 2007 GARB hearing, GARB staff has evaluated all 48 recommendations submitted I)y stakeholders and several internally-generated staff ideas and published the E.%paluled Lev of Ear ly Aetio i leasll�es To Reduce Geeiahollse Gas ENIZ'SSioll.i In Crliforiai�r Reeopmelided For Boani ColiSidenitio i." Pursuant to AB 32, C ARB adopted a Scoping Plan in December 2008, outlining measures to meet the 2020 GHG reduction limits. In order to meet these goals, California must reduce its GHG emissions I)y 30 percent below projected 2020 business as usual emission levels or about 15 percent from today's levels. The Scoping Plan estimates a reduction of 174 1111TC(),e (al)out 191 million U.S. tons) from the transportation, ever y, agriculture, forestry-, and high global warming potential sectors (see GHG Emissions Table 1). C ARB has identified an implementation timeline for the is GHG reduction strategies included in the Scoping Plan. Some measures may require new legislation to implement, some will require subsidies, some have already been developed, and some will require additional effort to evaluate and quantify. _additionally, some emissions reductions strategies may require their own environmental review under CEQ A. AB 32 requires GARB to establish a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020 based on 1990 emission levels. AB 32 required C ARB to adopt regulations by January 1, 2008 that identify- and require selected sectors or categories of GHG emitters to report and verify their statewide GHG emissions, and GARB is authorized to enforce compliance with the program. Under AB 32, GARB was also required to adopt a statewide GHG emissions limit I)y January- 1, 2008 equivalent to the statewide GHG emissions levels in 1990, which must be achieved I)v 2020. GARB established this limit, in California Air Resources Board (CARB), Expanded List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration, October 2007. Available Online at: hit p://«-\yvy.arb.ca.roy/cc/ccea/meetings/ea filial report.gdf. Accessed tune 17,2011. i California Air Resources Board(C ARB),California's Climate Plan Fact Sheet,Updated lanuary 27,2010. Available Online at: http:///w«�yarb.ca. oy/cc/facts/scolitigrlan fs.lydf. Accessed tune 17,2011. 18 California Air Resources Board(C ARB),Scoping Plan Measures Implementation Timeline,October 28,2010. AyadableOnlineat: measures implementation timeline.)clf. Accessed tune 17,2012. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-25 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST December 2007, at 427 1IIITCO,e. This is approximately 30 percent below forecasted business-<as- ustial emissions of 596 1IIITCO,e, and about 10 percent below average annual GHG emissions during the period of 2002 through 2004. GHG EMISSIONS TABLE I GHG REDUCTIONS FROM THE AB 32 SCOPING PLAN SECTORS19 i i Transportation Sector 62.3 Electricity and Natural Gas 49.7 Indus try 1.4 Landfill Methane Control Measure(Discrete Early 1 Action) Forestr 5 High Global Warming Potential GHGs 20.2 Additional Reductions Needed to Achieve the GHG 34.4 Cap Total 174 /iii Government Operations 1-2 Agriculture-Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1 Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1 Additional GHG Reduction Measures Water 4.8 Green Buildings 26 • High Recycling/Zero Waste • Commercial Recycling • Composting 9 • Anaerobic Digestion • Extended Producer Responsibility • Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Total 42.8-43.8 Notes:GHG=greenhouse gas;�\I\ITCO-,e=million gross metuc tons of carbon dioxide equivalents i�Ibid. PAGE 3-26 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST On January- 1, 2011, CARB was required to adopt rules and regulations, to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions. AB 32 permits the use of market-based compliance mechanisms to achieve those reductions. As of January- 1, 2012, the rules and market mechanisms adopted by CARB took effect and are legally- enforceable. However, the cap-and-trade measure will go into effect on January- 1, 2013. Full implementation of AB32 and its timeline may be subject to legal challenges. AB 32 also anticipates that local government actions will result in reduced GHG emissions. CARB has identified a GHG reduction target of 13 percent from current levels for local governments themselves and notes that successful implementation of the plan relies on local governments' land use planning and urban growth decisions because local governments have primary- authority- to plan, zone, approve, and permit land development to accommodate population growth and the changing needs of their jurisdictions. The C ARB Scoping Plan relies on the requirements of SB 373 to implement the carbon emission reductions anticipated from land use decisions. SB 375 was enacted to align local land use and transportation planning to further achieve the state's GHG reduction goals. SB 375 requires regional transportation plans, developed by Metropolitan Planning Organizations, to incorporate a "sustainable communities strategy" in their regional transportation plans (RTPs) that would achieve GHG emission reduction targets set by CARB. SB 375 also includes provisions for streamlined CEQ A, review for some infill projects such as transit-oriented development. SB 375 would be implemented over the next several years and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's 2013 RTP would be its first plan subject to SB 375. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES REVISIONS In 2007, the California legislature passed SB 97, which required amendment of the CEQ A, Guidelines to incorporate anal-sis of, and mitigation for, GHG emissions from projects subject to CEQ A. The California Natural Resources Agency adopted these amendments on December 30, 2009, and they took effect March 18, 2010, after review by the Office of_administrative Law and tiling with the Secretary- of State for inclusion in the CCR. The CEQ_A, Guideline revisions include a new section (Section 15064.4) that specifically addresses the significance of GHG emissions. Section 15064.4 calls for a good-faith effort to describe, calculate or estimate GHG emissions; Section 15064.4 further states that the significance of GHG impacts should include consideration of the extent to which the project would increase or reduce GHG emissions; exceed a locally- applicable threshold of significance; and comply with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. The revisions also state that a project may be found to have a less- than-significant impact if it complies with an adopted plan that includes specific measures to sufficiently reduce GHG emissions (Sec. 15064(h)(3)). Importantly, however, the revised guidelines do not require or recommend a specific analysis methodology or protiride quantitative criteria for determining significance of GHG emissions. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-27 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE The Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regilations, Title 24,Part 11, better known as C ALGreen), requiring all new buildings in the state to be more energy efficient and environmentally responsible, took effect on January 1, 2011. These comprehensive regulations are targeted to achieve major reductions in GHG emissions, energy consumption and water use to create a greener California. C ALGreen requires that every new building constructed in California: • Reduce water consumption by 20 percent • Divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills • Install low pollutant-emitting materials • Requires separate water meters for nonresidential buildings' indoor and outdoor water use • Requires moisture-sensing irrigation systems for larger landscape projects • Requires mandatory inspections of energy systems (e.g., heat furnace, air conditioner and mechanical equipment) for nonresidential buildings over 10,000 square feet to ensure that all are working at their maximum capacity and according to their design efficiencies. BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT The Bay Area _fir Quality- Management District (B_ AQ1ID) is the primary agency responsible for air quality regulation in the time count- San Francisco Bay- Area _fir Basin. As part of their role in air quality regulation, B_ AQ1ID has prepared CEQA air quality qudelines to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality impacts of proposed projects and plans. The qudelines provide procedures for evaluating potential air quality impacts during the environmental review process consistent with ('.E(_)-A, requirements. The CEOA Air Ou rizty Guidelilies provide CEQ A, thresholds of significance for operational GHG emissions from land use projects for the first time. The B_ AQ1ID has not defined GHG thresholds from construction activities, but recommends that significance be determined in relation to meeting AB 32 GHG reduction targets. OPR's amendments to the CEQ A Guidelines as well as BAAQ D's C:E()A Air Quality Guidelines and thresholds of significance have been incorporated into the analysis of potential GHG impacts associated with the proposed Project. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO The City- of South San Francisco does not have an adopted plan or specific policies to reduce GHG emissions, although many of the City's policies and ordinances—such as one of the region's most aggressive TD11 programs achieve the same objective. Currently, the City- is preparing a community-wide comprehensive Climate Action Plan (CAP). The CAP will provide goals, policies, and programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, climate change adaptation and support the goals of AB 32 and SB 373. In preparation of the CAP, the City has completed a Government Operations Emissions Inventory, a community-wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, and has recently- adopted a Bicycle Master Plan. _although the General Plan did not specify policies and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions, many of the Plan's policies do contribute to this objective by promoting development that is less reliant on motor vehicles. According to the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Update (adopted 2010), South San Francisco emitted approximately 527,000 tons of CO2e in 2005 from all major sources, nearly-half of which were from transportation. PAGE 3-28 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST IMPACTS a) Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions ,V gliif uanee C7iten'CI. There is no B_A-AQ1ID CEQA significance threshold for construction-related GHG emissions. For operational activities, the B_ AQ1ID CE/�A Air (41alin Guidelines identify- a project specific threshold of either a brightline threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO,e per year or an efficiency threshold of 4.6 metric tons of CO,e per pear per service population (i.e., the number of residents plus the number of employees associated with a new development); above which would result in a cumulatively- considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively- significant impact. Alternatively, a project that is found to be consistent with a Qualified Climate Action Plan would have a less than significant impact to global climate change. For construction activities, this analysis applies the briglitline threshold of 1,100 metric tons of C(),e per year significance criterion. For operations, this anal-sis applies the efficiency- threshold of 4.6 metric tons of C(),e per year per service population significance criteriOrl. GalEEllod was used to quantify GHG emissions associated with Project construction activities (for informational purposes), as well as long-term operations associated with natural gas space and water heating, electricity-, landscape maintenance, and veliicles. Estimated construction GHG emissions that would be associated with the Project are presented in GHG Emissions Table 2. The estimated construction GHG emissions are 1,002 and 388 metric tons in 2013 and 2014, respectively. As indicated, 30-rear amortized annual construction related GHG emissions would be 46 metric tons. GHG construction impacts would be less than 1,100 metric tons and considered a less than significant impact. GHG Emissions Table 2 also provides the estimated operational GHG emissions that would be associated with the Project. The Project would generate an estimated 2,142 metric tons of CO,e per year before application of the LEED design features but including the TD11 Program measures. As part of the Project, the TD:N1 Program is required to reach a 30 percent mode shift by City ordinance to qualify, for a 1.0 FAR. Chi an efficiency basis, the Project would generate 2.4 metric tons of CO,e per service population (894 employees) per year. Because the Project is below the threshold of 4.6 metric tons per service population, the generation of GHG for operations would be considered less than significant. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES- INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-29 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST GHG EMISSIONS TABLE 2 PREFERRED PROJECT RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 1;44 r >, Construction (30-year amortized) 46 B_4-4OIID B c ht line Th e.d)old 1,100 Potentially Significantr No Operations Area Sources 0.0 Energy 997 Alobde 818 Solid Waste 9.07 Water 319 Total Emissions 2,142 Total Emissions per Service Population 2.4 B_4-4OIID Effleung Th e.d)old 4.6 Potentially Significantr No Total Emissions (LEED Silver) 1,842 Total Emissions per Service Population 2.1 B_4-4OIID Effleung Th e.d)old 4.6 Potentially Significantr No Additional Reduction due to tree planting 113 Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all emission assumptions. In addition, the applicant intends to construct the Project to a LEED Silver'' design, which«%ould further reduce the generation of GHG. The LEED features «%ould be expected to reduce non- motor vehicle-related GHG emissions by 20 percent'' for total GHG emissions of 1,842 metric tons per year (or 2.1 metric tons per sere-ice population). The Project is also expected to include 139 new trees which potentially decrease the GHG emissions by another 113 metric tons annually. 20 The LEED Silver measures include: Development Density and Community Connectivity-,Alternative Transportation, Stormwater Design-Quantity Control, Heat Island Effect-Nonroof, Light Pollution Reduction, Water Efficiency Landscaping,Innovative Water Technologies,Water Use Reduction, Optimize Energy Performance, On-site Renewable Energy-, Enhanced Commissioning, Enhanced Refrigerant Management, Measurement and Verification, Construction Waste Management, Materials Reuse, Reci-cled Content, Regional Materials, Rapidly Renewable Materials, Certified Wood, Outside Air Delivery Monitoring, Increased Ventilation, Construction I AQ Management Plan-During Construction, Construction IAQ Management Plan-Before Occupancy, Low-Emitting Materials, Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control,Controllability of Sy stems-Lighting and Thermal Comfort,Thermal Comfort-Design,Daylight and Views-Daylight,Daylight and Views-Views and Innovation in Design. 21 The GHG analysis assumes a 20 percent reduction for a reasonable worst case analysis under CEQ A. PAGE 3-30 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST b) Potential Conflicts with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation The City- of Soutli San Francisco currently- does not have an applicable adopted plan, polio-, or regLilation regarding the reduction of GHG emissions. The Cit< has established a baseline government and community-wide inventory of GHG emissions. The Project would result in a significant impact if it would be in conflict with AB 32 State goals for reducing GHG emissions. The assumption is that AB 32 will be successful in reducing GHG emissions and reducing the cumulative GHG emissions statewide 1)v 2020. The State has taken these measures, because no project individually could have a major impact (eitlier positively or negatively) on the global concentration of GHG. Therefore, the Project has been reviewed relative to the AB 32 measures (through the calculation of project-related GHG emissions) and it has been determined that the Project would not conflict with the goals of AB 32 and is considered a less than significant impact. Finding: The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact with respect to GHG emissions. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-31 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentiallj- Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation �'. BI()L()GICAL RES()L ROES—N\-ould the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either X 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 Gagne or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any X 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 ITS Fish and Wildlife Services c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally X 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,hi-diological interruption,or other means-r d) Interfere substantially with the movement of X any native resident or rnigratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or rnigratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sitesr e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances X protecting biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinances i) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted X Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plant SETTING The building on the site was constnlcted in 1965, renovated in 1995 and has been vacant since 2006 except for a communication facility- located in the west corner on the roof of the building. The Project site is located in a largely- industrial area surrounded by properties that are being redeveloped with mixed use and R&D. Development in this East of 101 began over 100 rears ago and in the Cabot, Cabot and Forbes Industrial Parr in the 1940's. San Francisco Bay- is located approximately 2,000 feet (0.4 mile) north of the site. San Bruno Mountain is located 0.75 miles northwest of the site. PAGE 3-32 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Site demolition and preparation would be estimated to start in January-, 2013. The applicant's contractor would mobilize the site upon confirmation that PG&E has disconnected the utility services. A jobsite trailer would be located on the site. An approved Stormwater Pollution and Protection Plan (SWPPP)would be implemented to provide erosion control measures. A temporary construction site fence would be erected. Up to fibre workers would be on site during this process, which would take approximately-a week. Demolition activities would be the same for both the one-and tvo-phased construction schedules. Site demolition, building and tree removal, are the activities that could potentially impact biological resources and are proposed to occur in January, 2013. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 Protected Tree Ordinance: South San Francisco lfunicipal Code Section 13.30.020 defines a "Protected Tree" as one with a circumference of 48" or more when measured 54" above natural grade; a tree or stand of trees designated by the Director of Parks and Recreation as one of uniqueness, importance to the public due to its location or unusual appearance, Historical significance or otlier factor; or a stand of trees that the Director of Parks and Recreation has determined each tree is dependant on the others for survival. STATE OF CALIFORNIA California Department of Fish and Game: Nesting birds are protected by the California Department of Fish and Game Code Section 3503, which reads, "It is unlawfid to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest ore gs of and- bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or and- regulation made pursuant thereto." FEDERAL Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA: 16 U.S.C., Section 703-712: There are over 900 species of birds protected by the 1113TA. The MBTA prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regLilations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. Tliis _pct encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Construction activities during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or nest abandonment. The MBTA is typically- enforced by the California Department Fish and Game. A standard requirement is to either conduct tree and building removal during the non-nesting season which in San Mateo County is September 1-January 31 or conduct a nesting survey-within fire days prior to tree removal and should nests be found they are required to be protected in place until the birds have fledged. Protection of the nests would require leaving the tree in place and based upon the type of bird species identified by the biological stud-, various setbacks during project construction (including grading and tree removal)would be required until the birds have fledged. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-33 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST IMPACTS a-d) Habitat ,V g aifurnee Ciiten'a. The Project would have a significant impact if it were to sulbstantially impact habitat,wetlands, migratory-corridors and Waters of the United States as identified in 3.4 a-d, albowe. Suitable habitat requires the presence of vegetation for corer and food and a source of water. Suitable wildlife habitat is located approximately 2,000 feet north of the site along the San Francisco Bay- and approximately 0.75 miles northwest of the Project site in San Brno Mountain Count- and State Parr. The Project site itself is located in a largely industrial area, on a site that was previously developed. There is very little to no habitat value to the site. Trees on the site are either very small in circumference or in bad to dead condition which results in little to no value for migratory- and nesting birds, especially in light of suitable habitat in the vicinity. See Biology Table 1 Tree Removal Plan, below which summarizes the conditions of the trees on the site. Food and water sources for wildlife are lacking on the Project site. The proximity of suitable habitat within 0.40 to 0.75 miles of the site further renders any habitat value of the Project site insignificant. The Applicant proposes to conduct demolition (including tree removal) operations in January, 2013 which is also during the non-nesting season for migratory birds. Demolition activities are anticipated to take one week (see Chapter—�. The City is requiring through conditions of approval that a tree surrey be conducted a maximum of fire days prior to tree and building removal should unforeseen demolition schedule delays necessitate tree and building removal outside the non-nesting season (September 1- January 31). The City will approve the selection of the biologist and the _applicant will follow the protocol established I)y the biologist s to avoid take of raptors or bats should active nests be present. BIOLOGY TABLE 1 TREE REMOVAL PLAN Species Quantity Size Condition (54" above grade) Italian Stone Pine 1 24" Find blown Afonterev Pine 3 18",20"and 24" Dead and 20"&22" Good Eucalyptus- Red Flowering Gum 2 6"and 8" Good Brisbane Box 23 2"-6" Bad Strawberry Tree 1 5" Good Holh-wood juniper 2 18" Good London Plane 9 4"-7" Bad Source: Reed&Associates,Landscape Architects/Site Visits hnapp Consulting April,2012 There are no wetlands or riparian habitat on the site (East of 101 Area Plan, Knapp Consulting,July, 2007, December, and May, 2012, Cleary Geotechnical Consulting). Redevelopment of the site would not interfere 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 nurser' sites. PAGE 3-34 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The Project would have no impact on any endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, or to any federallyprotected wetlands or wildlife corridors. e) and f) Local Policies and Ordinances and Habitat Conservation Plans ,V g aifurnee Ciite9LC1: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to conflict with arty local policies or ordinances protecting Mole<gical resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, Habitat Conservation Plan, Namral Community Conservation Plan, or otlier approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The Project site is located in a largely industrial area interspersed with recent R&D development. The site was completely graded by 1956 and developed in the mid-1960's. Tliere are no Protected Trees on the site as defined by City ordinance and identified in Biology Table 1, above. No Habitat or Conservation Plan governs the site, as the site does not contain habitat. The Project is not located on ecologically sensitive lands and would have no impact on General Plan policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Finding: The Project would not result in a significant impact or significant unavoidable impact to biological resources individually or cumulatively. The Project is not located on ecologically sensitive lands and would have no impact on General Plan policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. There were no nests visible during site inspections (Alay,and June, 2012). 3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentiallj- Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation �'I. CULTL RAL RESOURCES—Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the X significance of a historical resource as defined in j11,5064.5r b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the X significance of an archaeological resource Pursuant to jW5064.5r c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic features d) Disturb any human remains,including those X interred outside of formal cetneteriesr SETTING The building on the site was constnlcted in 1965, renovated in 1995 and has been vacant since 2006 except for a communication facility located in the west corner on the roof. The Project site is BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-35 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST located in a largely industrial area with sites that are being rede�-eloped with mixed use and R&D. Development in this East of 101 began over 100 rears ago and in the Cabot, Cabot and Forbes Industrial Parr in the 1940's. San Francisco Bay- is located approximately 2,000 feet (0.4 mile) north of the site. San Bruno Mountain is located 0.75 miles northwest of the site. ARCHAEOLOGICAL REVIEW Holman & _associates, Mr. 1lilev Holman conducted an archival search and site inspection at the request of the City- by Knapp Consulting. Mr. Holman presented his findings in a report dated July 30, 2007 (C111tu7al Resources ,Vtll 1y of the 475 Eccles Nopeq, ,Vouth ,Vali Fi'xnei.reo, ,Vali Mateo Collg)', California. Holman & Associates. July 30, 2007).22 The findings of the report are summarized in the following and incorporated by reference in this document. An archival search was conducted by Miley Holman (Holman & _associates) in person at the Northwest Information Center located at Sonoma State University on July 27, 2007 (file no. 07-153) to obtain information about recorded historic and prehistoric sites in the Project area, and evidence of previous archaeological studies of the area. There are no recorded historic or prehistoric archaeological sites located inside the Project borders or within a quarter mile of the site. There have been no previous archaeological field studies of the Project area, or any- properties within a quarter mile of the site. The Project area has been altered considerably- in historical times; the 1899 San Mateo U.S.G.S. map of the area shows the project located near the top of the ridge which once ran from the southwest to the northeast to the west of San Brno Point. By 1995, the 7.5 minute U.S.G.S map of the area barely- suggests that there had been an actual ridge line in the vicinity of Eccles venue. In July, 2007 Mr. Holman completed a brief visual inspection of the Project area and surrounding properties to confirm that the area had been graded at some point in the late 20t" century. It was clear from his inspection that considerable soil was removed from this area to constrct the industrial sites which currently- are found on either side of Eccles Avenue; the lands at 475 Eccles still drop gently to the west outside of the fence line, probably following the original topography to some extent. It is the finding of his report that future redevelopment of the parcel located at 475 Eccles venue would have no effect on buried or obscured historic and/or prehistoric archaeological resources: the entire area has been graded, removing all top soils to an undetermined depth. The nearest historic and prehistoric archaeological resources would have probably been located north of Butler Road, which separates the hills west of Point San Brno from the former margin of the bay. Mr. Holman does not recommend any form of mechanical subsurface presence/absence testing, and does not recommend archaeological monitoring of future construction related earthmoving activities. These conditions and findings are present and relevant today. 2222 The cultural reconnaissance was conducted for a project proposed in 2007 and is on file with the City. PAGE 3-36 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REGULATORY FRAMEWORK CEQ A, relies on the criteria identified in Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Public Resources Code Section 4852.1 to identify- if a building is appropriate for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Determining the Significance of Impacts on Historical and Unique _archaeological Resources, Section 15064.5 Title 14, Chapter 3, California Code of Regulations). In summary, these criteria include consideration of whether the building: A. Associated wit i events that liave made a significant contri kution to the broad patterns of California History and niltural lieritage; B. _associated with the lives of persons important in our past; C. Embody- the distinctive characteristics of type, period, region or method of constniction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses liigli artistic valhies; or, D. Meld or may be likely to Meld, information important in prehistory or history. A lead agency- does not Hare to rely- solely- on the above criterion and may determine the appropriateness of a potential resource based upon age. Commonly- 50 rears of age is used as a basis by which to consider a stnicture's potential Historic significance under which a more detailed and rigorous anal ysis is required to determine actual or imagined significance (Determining the Significance of Impacts on Historical and Unique _archaeological Resources, Section 15064.5 Title 14, Chapter 3, California Code of Regulations). IMPACTS a) Historic Resources ,V gliifuanee Citoix The Project would Hare a significant environmental impact if it were to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Historical resource as defined in _7\15064.5. The building was constnicted in 1965, 47 rears ago. Tenant improvements ensued immediately- thereafter and Hare also ocnirred over the rears as vacancies arise and new tenants with different needs lease the building. Site improvements are in a diminished state of repair and the architecture is lacking in architectural interest and significance. All these factors render the building on the site lacking in Historical significance. Moreover, the Project site or buildings contained therein are not identified on Figire 7-3 DeSi'gli ated1 Histo�ie Rerou�ces in the City's General Plan (k-)age 241). There are no Historical resources or structures on the Pro)'ect site. The Project would have no impact on historic resources. b - d)Archaeological Resources ,V gliifuanee Citoia: The Pro)'ect would Hare a significant environmental impact if it were to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in _7\15064.5, directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature, or disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-37 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST As evidenced in the Holman & _associates site reconnaissance and data search there are no archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains located on the Project site or within a 0.25 mile of the Project site. The Project would have no impact on archaeological or paleontological resources. Finding: The Project is located on a developed site and in a developed area. Based upon the Holman & _associates reconnaissance and literature search and evahiation of the on site improvements in light of Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Public Resources Code Section 4852.1, there are no historic, archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains located on the Project site or Nvithin a 0.25 mile of the Project site. The Project«%ould have no impact on cultural resources. PAGE 3-38 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentiallj- Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation �-II. GEOLOGY AND SOILS—Would the Project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury-,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, X as delineated on the most recent Alcluist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning flap 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? X in) Seismic-related ground failure, X including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss X of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is X unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the Project,and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in X Table 18-1-B of the UnifotYn Building Code (1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? SETTING PROJECT SITE The Project site is a 6.1 acre parcel currently-dev eloped with concrete tilt up structure constructed in the 1960's. Grading began to appear on the site in the late 1940's, and by 1956 the entire site was graded (URS, 2007, 2012). The site is relatively level and surface elevations range from +68 feet above mean sea level (1ISL) in the northeastern portion of the site to 63 feet MSL along the old railroad bed at the southwestern (rear) area of the site. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-39 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The City- Engineering Division requires geotechnical reports as a part of the permit package for projects to be constricted on vacant land, demolition and rebuilding and additions to buildings that require grading and additional loading (see Chapter 1, Section 5). The geotechnical reports are required to be prepared by a licensed geologist, geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. Tlie reports address design and constriction specifications for the Project including grading, site drainage, utility- and infrastnicture design specifications and placement and building design. The reports are peer reviewed by the City s geotechnical consultant and are modified as recommended by the Citv's consultant. A geotechnical investigation was conducted and a report prepared for the Project. The report is incorporated herein by reference J,:dated Geoteclrlaiurlliale.itio�itioa Report, 4f ,Vcielaee Caplplls, 475 Eccles Arelaue, ,Voutl) ,Vali F-ialitl'Sco, Caiforiai�x, Clean- Consultants, Inc., Consulting Geotechnical Engineers, December, 2011 and June 15, 2012) (Geotechnical Report). The Geotechnical Report was peer reviewed by the City's Consulting Geologists, Cotton Shires _associates (('.S_A,) in a report dated 11av 18, 2012 and is incorporated herein by reference (both are included in Appendix A). PROJECT SITE GEOLOGY Fire subsurface borings were conducted on December 1, and 5, 2011 to a maximum depth of 34.5 feet below ground surface (bgs) (Clean- _associates). These borings are in addition to the eiglit performed by Donald E. Banta in 2007 (Geote lrraiurl Report, ,Shell xia l,Site I: gnu/e, 475 Eccles Ar elaue, 'South 'Va/a F'/a/1t7*.ie0, Caiforiai�r, Donald E. Banta & _associates, Inc., Consulting Geotechnical Engineers, June 6, 2007). All the boring locations are shown in the Clean Report, attached in Appendix A of this Initial Study-. The eiglit exploratory borings by Banta were conducted on September 11, 2006 to depths ranging from 10 to 34.2 feet. Three Seismic Refraction Surreys were also conducted on September 11, and October 10, 2006 and indicated a wide variability in bedrock hardness. Minor groundwater at the site was encountered in Boring 2 at a depth of 19 feet. Heavy seepage was encountered in Boring 8 (central, northern portion of the site) at a depth ranging six to eight feet. Groundwater was not encountered during the Clean borings in December, 2011. A fill slope which is approximately fibre feet in height separates the parking area from the former railroad spur. A cut slope, approximately 20 to 30 feet in height is located beyond the northwestern property- line, and northwest of the former railroad spur. Franciscan bedrock materials are exposed over the majority of the cut slope. Colma sand materials appear to be present on the eastern portion of the cut slope. Groundwater seepage was noted near the base of the cut slope which is present rear round, rouglily 20 feet below existing grade, and off the Project site. The Project site is situated on low bedrock upland within the northwestern area of Point San Bruno, an eastern extension of San Brno Mountain that projects into San Francisco Bay-. The bedrock is associated with Franciscan Complex a chaotic, folded and sheared assemblage of sediments and lava flows that originally-accumulated in deep submarine trenches. PAGE 3-40 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Bedrock in the vicinity- of the Project site is composed of a melange of relatively- coherent rocks that are ty ically within a matrix of firm, clavev, sheared rocks. The crushed and sheared rocks are a result of ancient faulting related to the formational processes and uplifting of San Bruno Mountain. The clavev matrix materials have a relatively low permeability-. Therefore, locally- perched groundwater horizons are relatively- common, forming seeps or springs where they discharge on hillsides and within areas of hillside cuts. An excavated cut slope that is inclined downward at an inclination of about 30 degrees lies northwest of the Project site. The exposed bedrock is largely- greenstone, an altered basaltic rock, with localized areas of sheared sandstone, shale and serpentine. The "Preliminary- Geologic flap of the San Francisco South Quadrangle" (Bonilla, 1971 and 1998) maps the Project site as underlain by sheared rocks of the Franciscan formation. The northeast corner of the property- is mapped as sandy clays/clayey sands overlying sheared Franciscan rock. The sheared rocks are described as small to large fragments of hard rock in a matrix of sheared rock. SEISMIC FAULTS No active earthquake faults have been recognized within the immediate site area. _although the site and vicinity- is believed to be free of active faults, the San Francisco Bay Area is known to be within a seismically active region. The dominant fault in this area is the San Andreas Fault, located about 3.4 miles southwest of the site. Other active faults in the area include the San Gregorio fault located roughly- 8.8 miles west-southwest, Monte NTista-Shannon is located 172 miles southeast, and the Hayward fault located on the order of 14.7 miles northeast. _additional faults in the area that are not considered active include the San Bruno and Sierra faults located roughly- 22 and 3.3 miles southwest of the site, respectively-. The Hillside fault, a northwesterly-trending escarpment aligned with a zone of sheared rocks on the knoll of Point San Bruno just south of Oyster Point, has also been mapped a very- short distance from the Project site. Until the late 1990's this fault was considered active for planning purposes. Subsequent geophysical studies conducted in the late 1990's using a more accurate high-powered deep-penetrating sonar system found no evidence suggesting that the Hillside fault is potentially- active. Moreover, geologic observations of the Hillside fault exposed during recently-graded cuts on San Bruno Mountain did not detect any recognizable offsets of units that would indicate a current fault rupture hazard. Therefore, there is no evidence that this fault has been active within geologically- recent time; however, it may- be possible for sympathetic movements to be imposed on this fault as a result of stress from major earthquakes on nearby- faults, such as the San Andreas and Harvard faults. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND PEER REVIEW CONCLUSIONS The Geotechnical Report and CS A peer review indicate that the site, from a geotechnical engineering perspective, is suitable for the proposed development provided that the conclusions and recommendations presented are incorporated into the design and construction of the Project. The BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-41 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST report includes desigii specifications for foundations and earthwork. The requirements focus on site preparation, earthwork operations and drainage, foundations and paving design. Site preparation, earthwork operations and drainage requirements address clearing and site preparation, subgrade preparation, subgrade conditions, excavation, material for fill, selection of non-expansive fill, compaction, nit and fill slopes, trench back fill, surface drainage, seepage control and constriction observation. Foundation requirements include building foundation design, lateral load resistance, building slabs-on-grade, non-building foundations and retaining wall design. Pavement design specifies pavement design criteria. During grading, the more sheared and weathered rock could be excavated with conventional earthmoving equipment In areas where harder bedrock is encountered heavy ripping using larger earthmoving equipment such as a hoe-ram would be needed. There are no extraordinary recommendations in the Geotechnical Report. The City's Consulting Geologist found that the Project Geoteclinical Consultant adequately characterized the site geoteclinical conditions and recommended satisfactory design measures to mitigate apparent site constraints. IMPACTS Seismic Hazards Seismic hazards are generally classified as tvo types, primary and secondary. Primary- geologic hazards include surface fault nipaire. Secondary geologic hazards include ground shaking, liquefaction, dvmamic densification and seismically-induced ground failure. i) Surface Fault Rupture ,V gliif uanee Ciiten'CI: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or strictures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with the surface nipaire of a known earthquake fault. There are no active faults underlving the site and the nearest one is the San Andreas Fault, located about 3.4 miles southwest _according to the Geoteclinical Report, the hazard from fault rupturing on the site is considered to be low. The Hillside fault is located nearby, but there is no evidence that this fault has been active within geologically recent time. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on exposing people or structures to danger from surface rupture of known earthquake fault. ii) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking ,V gliif uanee Ciiten'CI: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or strictures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground shaking. PAGE 3-42 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Given that there are no active faults within the Project site, damage from a seismic event is most likely to occur from the secondary- impact of strong seismic ground shaking originating on a nearlbv fault. Estimates of actual ground shaking intensit< at a particular location are made according to the Modified Nlercalli Intensity Scale, which accounts for variables such as the size and distance from the earthquake. For the Project site, Nlercalli Intensity- estimates indicate that earthquake-shaking intensity would vary depending upon where the seismic event originates. For the Maximum Credible Earthquakes (NICE) along the nearbv San Andreas and San Gregorio faults (Richter Nlagniaide 7.9 and 7.4, respectively) the shaking intensities would be IX, "violent" and VIII, "very strong", respectively, at the Project site. Development of the Project would increase the number of stnictures and people potentially exposed to hazards associated with a major earthquake in the region. The Project and all buildings in the San Francisco Bay Area are built with the knowledge that an earthquake could occur, and are required to meet the California Building Code ((.B(.) standards for seismic safety. Conformance with the latest CBC would ensure that the impact of seismic ground-shaking is reduced to a level of less than significant. iii) Liquefaction ,V gliif uanee Ciiten'CI: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or strictures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Liquefaction is a secondary- seismic hazard involving saturated coliesionless sand and silt- sand sediments located close to the ground surface. Liquefaction occurs when the strength of a soil decreases and pore pressure increases as a response to strong seismic shaking and cyclic loading. During the loss of strength, the soil becomes mobile, and can move both horizontally and vertically if not confined. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, clean, saturated, uniformly-graded, fine-grained sands. The Project site is underlain by a non-saturated layer, approximately one to seven feet in depth, of medium dense to dense clavev sand and silty sand, overlving relatively shallow greenstone and a melange bedrock of the Franciscan assemblage. The Geotechnical Report concludes that the liquefaction potential necessary for liquefaction of materials under the Project site is remote. Therefore, the Project would have no impact with respect to liquefaction of subsurface materials. iv) Landslides ,V gliifuanee Ciiten'CI: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or strictures to substantial hazards from landslides. A landslide is a mass of rock, soil and debris displaced down slope by sliding, flowing or falling. The _association of Bay Area Governments indicates that Project site is "flatland." (_association of Bay Area Governments, The Geotechnical BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-43 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Report notes a free face cutslope in Franciscan bedrock approximately 60 feet south of the site that appears to be globally- stable. The Project would be setback greater than 75 feet from this cutslope and would not pose a hazard. There is no threat oflandslides on the Project site; therefore the Project would have no impact with respect to landslides. b) Erosion or Loss of Topsoil ,V gliif calice Ciiten'CI: The Project would result in a significant environmental impact if it were to result in substantial soil erosion or in the loss of topsoil. In absence of the NPDES C-3 requirements implemented by the City as a condition of building and grading permit issuance the Project would have a potential to increase erosion during constriction. This is described in detail in Section 3.8: Hydrology and Water Quality and in Chapter 1, Section 5. Erosion control measures are required as a matter of law and as a result this impact is considered to be less than significant. c) Geologic Instability ,V�gliifurnee Ciiten'a: 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. The Geoteclinical Report, based upon subsurface testing, found that the site is located on Franciscan bedrock, a stable geologic unit. The Project would have no impact with respect to a geologic unit becoming unstable, the Project is situated on Franciscan bedrock a stable geologic unit, and the Project would not result in the potential for on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse. d) Expansive Soils ,V�gliifurnee Ciiten'CI: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property-. The Project stnicture would not be located on expansive soil (PI of 15 or more) and expansive soils are not permitted for fill material (Cotton Shires,Banta and Cleary). The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to expansive soils because it would not be located on expansive soils. e) Capability of Soils to Support Septic Tanks ,V�gliifurnee Ciite97C1: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it involved constriction of septic systems in soils incapable of adequately- supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. PAGE 3-44 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The Project does not propose to build and- new septic tank or alternate waste disposal systems. The Project site is connected to the city's sanitary sewer system. The Project would have no impact on soils due to septic systems as the project is connected to the City's sanitary system. Finding: With the measures required by law as a matter of securing;grading and building; permits, the Project would not result in a sigrtitic nt impact with respect to Geology and Soils individually or cumulatively. 3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS— Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous X 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 X 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 X 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 X 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 X with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk X of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-45 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SETTING A Phase 1 Environmental Site _assessment was prepared for the Project (Phase I Elililonplel&V,Site As esspleiat, 475 Eccles Arelaue, ,Vouth ,Vali Fralitl'reo, Caiforiai�r 94080. URS, November 11, 2005, updated July, 2012) (Phase 1). The Phase 1 is incorporated herein by reference and included in appendix A. The Phase 1 was conducted pursuant to the guidelines established by the American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) Designation E 1527-00, "Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process". The purpose of the Phase I is to provide a professional opinion on the potential presence of current recognized environmental conditions (RECs) at the Project site. REC, as defined by AST1I Designation E 1527-05, means "the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of arty hazardous substances or petroleum products into strictures on the property or into the ground, ground water, or surface water of the property. The term includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with laws. The term is not intended to include de NliraiNli.r conditions that generally do not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. Conditions determined to be de Painiynis are not recognized environmental conditions." SITE HISTORY AND CONDITIONS The following information is summarized from the Phase 1 ESA and the geology and soils reports provided by Cleary Consultants as peer reviewed by Cotton Shires _associates (see Section 3.7, Geology and Soils). SITE DEVELOPMENT _according to historical aerial photographs and topographic maps, the Project site has historically been and currently remains an office and warehouse use since developed in 1965. _serial photographs document the site beginning in 1899 and show the area undeveloped. The 1915 aerial photographs show the rail line northwest of the Project site as being in place. North of the railroad yard an east-west-oriented road appears in the approximate current alignment of Oyster Point Boulevard. The Project site remains undeveloped in 1943 and 1950 aerial photographs. There is increased development of rail lines leading from the Southern Pacific Railroad to the Bay, and large strictures near the Southern Pacific Line to the north of the Project site. The 1950 aerial photo and topographic maps show increased development in the surrounding areas. The Project site is shown in 1965 to be developed with the current square-shaped stnzcture and at least a partially pared parking area adjacent to the northeastern side of the building. The surrounding area shows railroad tracks aligned in a northeast-southwest direction adjacent to the northwestern perimeter of Project. Land adjacent to the northeast appears to remain undeveloped. Eccles Avenue is present and pared adjacent to the southeast, bevond which are tvo smaller industrial-appearing strictures. _mother, smaller, industrial-appearing stricture is adjacent to the southwest of the Project site. Aerial photographs from 1965 on show the site in its current configuration. PAGE 3-46 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SITE USE The following table contains a history- of the uses at the Project since 1970. HAZARDS TABLE 1 HISTORIC SITE INFORMATION 1970 William Volker&Company 5419 Other Professional,Scientific,and Technical Services 1975 William Volker&Company 5419 Other Professional,Scientific,and Technical Services 1980 Ota iri Mercantile 4,543 Direct-Selling Establishments 1985 Ota iri Mercantile 4,543 Direct-Selling Establishments 1990 ATC Partners 5419 Other Professional,Scientific,and Technical Services 1995 ATC Partners 5419 Other Professional,Scientific,and Technical Services 2000 Ocular Sciences Incorporated X419 Other Professional,Scientific,and Technical Services 200 Ocular Sciences Incorporated X419 Other Professional,Scientific,and Technical Services 2010 No listing GEOLOGY The USGS topographic map (South San Francisco, C.A, 1993) indicates the site to be at an elevation of approximately- 63 feet above mean sea level (msl). The immediate site vicinity is moderately- hill- and slopes downward to the north-northwest. The nearest mapped surface water is San Francisco Bad-, approximately-2,000 feet to the north of the Project site. The site is located on an easterly- projecting bedrock extension of San Bruno Mountain, which lies about 3/4 mile to the northwest. The area is comprised of Holocene-age slopewash, Pleistocene- age Colma Formation, and Jurassic-Cretaceous—age sandstone and shale, chert, and Franciscan _assemblage sheared rocks consisting of greenstone and sheared melange rocks. Geotechnical borings installed at the site encountered one to four feet of medium dense to dense, silt- sand and clayey sand fill overlying locally- medium-dense to predominantly- very dense Franciscan melange bedrock to the maximum depth explored of 34.5 feet. HYDROLOGY The site is in the Visitation Valle- Hydrologic Area (2.32) based on a review of available hydrogeologic documents from the Regional Water Quality- Control Board (RNVQCB), San Francisco Bay- Area Region, and the California Department of Water Resources. _according to the RWQCB, groundwater in the Visitation Valle- Hydrologic Area has regulatory-designated beneficial uses for process and industrial supply- purposes, and potential municipal and agricultural supply- purposes (URS, 2005). There are no other designated beneficial uses of groundwater in this hydrologic area. The water table gradient is anticipated to mimic, in subdued fashion, the topography of the overlying BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-47 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST land surface. The direction of groundwater flow beneath the subject propert< and its immediate vicinity is anticipated to be towards the north-northwest. Groundwater flow direction at a site approximately- 1,000 feet southeast of the Project site varies from northeast to northwest. However, because the Project site sits on a small ridgeline and the point on which the site is located is surrounded by San Francisco Bad- on three sides, there is a high degree of variability in groundwater flow direction in the area surrounding the site. The depth to groundwater at the Project site is unknown. The groundwater is present at approximately- 10 feet below ground surface at the site 1,000 feet southeast of the Project; a site that lies at a lower elevation than the Project site. Geotechnical borings completed at the Project to 34.E feet below ground surface did not encounter groundwater. RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS The Phase 1 ESA notes: • One potential sump was observed on the Project site during the reconnaissance. The potential sump is on the warehouse floor, and is covered with a metal corer. The corer was coated with significant oil staining. Facility- personnel attempted to remove the corer and photograph the area below but there was an additional metal corer present below that could not be removed. The second metal corer was also stained with oil, and the area below could not be assessed for further investigation. • Pacific Gas and Electric Company- (PG&E) provides electricity- to the Project site. Fire dry- transformers were observed within the building, and one PG&E transformer was observed outside the building within the property boundary on the eastern edge at the time of the site visit. The dry- transformers contain no oil and as such do not represent a risk for PCBs. The other transformer was observed in good condition with no sign of stains or leaks. • Several stained areas were observed during the June, 2012 site visit. There was minor staining on the floor of the former hazardous materials and equipment and storage room, as well as on the warehouse floor. The pavement near the landscaped grassy- area to the southeast of the site, near the entrance,was stained. All of the staining was minor, and does not represent a significant entirironmental concern with exception of the potential sump area. • California Water Service Company- provides water to the Project site. No wells are on the Project site. • Wastewater discharge is limited to sanitary-water,which is discharged to the municipal sewer system. • The parking area of the Project site has six stormwater drains that drain to the municipal storm sewer system. • There are no designated waste storage areas established in the Project site. The site is currently-vacant, generating no waste. PAGE 3-48 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST • No process equipment was present on the Project site. • The Environmental Data Resources (EDR) report did not identify any existing or historical underground storage or aboveground storage tanks associated with the Project site. • No hazardous materials were noted on the subject property during the URS 2012 site visit with the exception of small quantities of paint stored in an interior closet. • There are no pits, ponds, lagoons or wetlands on the site. • No evidence of potential fill was observed on the subject property. There were several household items (television, children's tors, etc.) in the former hazardous waste storage area that were reported to be the result of unauthorized or potentially illegal dumping. • There are no federal or state standards regulating radon exposure. The U.S. EPA recommends a maximum exposure level of 4.0 picocuries per liter (pCi/L). The site is in San Mateo County within U.S. EPA Radon Zone 2, according to the EDR. Properties in U.S. EPA Radon Zone 2 have a moderate potential to have radon concentrations greater than 2, but less than 4 pCi/L. • Based on the age of the building, there is the potential for lead-based paint to be present. • The site is listed on tvo data bases. The site is included in the HAZNET (hazardous materials tracking and early warning) database for tvo former tenants or owners which are Copper Vision Inc. and Ocular Science Inc.,who disposed of hazardous waste from the site. The waste consisted of oil and mixed oil, off-specification organics, and unspecified solvents. The disposal of this material in the absence of any reported releases does not represent an ongoing environmental issue to the subject property. The site is also on the NPDES database as Copper Vision Inc., and was enrolled in the NPDES program for constniction activities. This listing does not represent a significant environmental concern to the subject property. • The ballasts for all of the interior fluorescent lights were removed prior to the site visit. No other potential PCB-containing items were observed on the Project site. URS did not conduct an asbestos survey- at the subject property. The property owner provided an asbestos survey that was completed for the facility- by Professional_asbestos and Lead Services, Inc., March April, 2012. The report identified asbestos in several areas of the site. The report notes,with the exception of one small area in the electrical room at the site, all asbestos has been abated in the building. The Project submittals note that the remaining area will be abated when the transformer is removed from the electrical room. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-49 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REMEDIATION PROPOSED AS PART OF THE PROJECT As noted in the Project Description, further assessment«%ill be conducted at the site to determine the presence and/or extent of potential environmental contamination associated with the concrete staining. The investigation«%ill include removal of the metal cover on the vault/sump and inspection of the interior for the presence of oil or oil staining. The integrity of the concrete in the vault«%ill also be evaluated along with the extent of the staining. Further investigation, in the form of subsurface drilling, may be required to assess if there was a release to the subsurface if there is significant staining; beyond that on the surface of the concrete vault and/or there are any- issues with the concrete integrity (i.e., if the concrete is damaged and has allowed the staining to progress beyond surface areas). Therefore, as the first step, the vault/pit interior concrete will be investigated. Equipment will be used to remove the metal cover; an inspection of the interior concrete for the presence of liquid or significant staining and integrity of the concrete will be conducted; and a sample of any liquid material present or concrete chip sample will be collected and analyzed for content. The work will be conducted as part of the demolition permit from the City- Building Division. If the staining has moved beyond the vault areas soil testing will occur. The work will include and/or require the following: • Applying for a boring permit from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SII('.EHD) and South San Francisco Building Division. • _advancing one soil boring below the pit using a direct push drill rig to 20 feet below ground surface. • Collecting soil samples at 1, 5, 10 and 20 feet below ground surface. • _analyzing samples for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), total petroleum hydrocarbons, semi volatile organic compounds (SVOCs),PCBs, and metals. • Reporting results to the S:NICEHD and consulting for remediation requirements. Remedaation of contaminated soils, if present,will be completed during the demolition stage of the Project. The following table identifies the various types of remediation that could be employed depending on the extent or lack thereof of contamination. PAGE 3-50 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST HAZARDS TABLE 2 STANDARD REMEDIATION PRACTICES Media Hazardous Approach Materials Soil Remediation (ex-situ) Fuels • Reuse on Site(if concentration is less than 100 ppm). • Haul and Dispose at appropriate landfill. • Capping and vapor barrier. • Treat on site(see below). Soil Remediation (ex-situ) VOCs (gasoline • Consult the Si\I(-'EHD for requirements. fuels,solvents) • Haul and Dispose. • Aeration—requires a notification to B_ AQNID,daily volumes are limited. • Vapor Stripping—apply vacuum system to covered piles, notify BAAQ N ID. • Bioremediation- apply bio-treatment materials,moisture and"work"soil piles. • Thermal Desorption—various vendors provide mobile treatment units. • Capping and vapor barrier. • Consult B AAQNID and Si\ICEHD for requirements. Soil Remediation Inorganics • 1-Iaril and Dispose. (ex-situ) (metals) • Chemical Stabilization. • Sorting—reduce waste volume by screening to target contaminant particle size. Soil Remediation VOCs • Consult Si\ICEHD for requirements. • Soil Vapor Extraction—apply vacuum to vapor wells, (in-situ) notify B A AQNID. • In-situ chemical oxidation. • In-Situ Vitrification—use electricity to melt waste and surrounding soils. Soil Remediation S�'OCs • Consult Si\ICEHD for requirements. • Bioremediation—saturate soils with bio-treatment (in-situ) materials. • Chemical Stabilization—saturate soils with chemicals to immobilize contaminants. • In-Situ Vitrification. • Capping. Groundwater- Investigation All • If contaminants are detected in the 20 foot below ground surface soil sample an additional boring should be completed to groundwater. • analyze sample for contaminants detected in soil. • Report results to the Si\ICEHD and consult on remedial alternatives. Groundwater Remediation tiTOCs • Consult B AAQNID and Si\ICEHD for requirements. • Pump and Treat—pump from wells,treat and discharge treated water. • fir Sparging—inject air to volatilize contaminants and create aerobic groundwater conditions suitable for natural bioremediation. Generally applied in conjunction with Soil BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES- INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-51 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Vapor Extraction to control released yolatiles. • Bioremediation—inject bio-treatment materials into affected groundwater. • Chemical Oxidation—inject oxidation chemicals into affected groiandwater. Groundwater Remediation StiTOCs • Consult B AAQNID for requirements. • Pump and Treat. • Bioremediation. • Chemical Oxidation. • Consult B AAQNID for requirements. Groundwater Remediation Inorganics . Pump and Treat. • Chemical Immobilization—inject chemicals to precipitate or chemically fix contaminants to soil particles. The Project submittals note, and conditions of Project approval«%ill require that a Licensed General Contractor with Hazardous Substance Removal Certification from the State of California will inspect and remove the electrical equipment. The qualifications of the contractor«%ill be noted on the plans submitted to the City- as part of the issuance of a demolition permit (Mr. Bill- Gross, Associate Planner). REGULATORY FRAMEWORK SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO The South San Francisco Fire Department requires businesses using or transporting hazardous substances to provide a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (H1IBP) for their review and approval. STATE AND FEDERAL _additionally, hazardous materials use, storage, and disposal would be governed by the following; standards and permits: • Toxic Substances Control_pct, administered by the EPA, Regulation 40 CFR 720. • Hazardous Materials Transportation _pct, administered by the Department of Transportation, Regulation 49 CFR 171-177. • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 4 USC 6901-6987. • Hazardous NVaste Management Standards for Generators, Transporters, and NVaste Facilities, administered by EPA, 40CFR 260-2625. • California Hazardous NVaste Control _pct. California Health and Safety- Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5. • California Hazardous NVaste Management Regilations. California _administrative Code, Title 22. Social Security, Division 4. Environmental Health, Chapter 30. • Occupation Safety and Health_pct, 29 USC 651. PAGE 3-52 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST • Workplace Exposure Limits, administered I)v Occupational Health and Safety- _administration. 29CFR 1900-1910. • California Occupational Safety-and Healtli_pct. IMPACTS a) and b) Hazardous Materials ,V g aif urnee Ciiten'CI: 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, or disposal of hazardous materials or if it were to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonalbly foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the clivironment. Arty hazardous materials incident on the site would first be responded to 1)y the Soutli San Francisco Fire Department. As with all development and entitlement review applications project plans are routed to various City Departments for review and comment. These departments include the Planning and Building Divisions, Public Works, Water Quality- Control, Engineering, Police, and Fire. The South San Francisco Fire Department requires businesses using or transporting hazardous substances to provide a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for their review and approval (Fire Marshal, Luis DeSll`"a in letter to _applicant and Mr. Bill- Gross, _associate Planner, January- 10, 2012). The Project site is located in an area zoned for packaging/manufacturing, mixed use office and research and development, and industrial uses. There are no sensitive land uses within 0.25 miles of the site. The Phase I did note significant oil staining within the interior of the building in one area. The Project, as proposed, would investigate and characterize the extent of the oil staining and remediate as required by law (see Hazards Table 2, above). Remediation, if necessary, would be conducted during demolition activities and with the oversiglit of SII(.DEH, as required 1)y law. The remaining asbestos in the building would be removed according to the B_ AQ1ID and Building Division permitting process identified in Chapter 1, Section 5.2 Air Quality. A J-permit is required to remove asbestos-containing and lead based materials. The J-permit is obtained 1)y the applicant or contractor from the B AAQ:NID and the Building Division will not issue a demolition permit in absence of proof of the J-permit. The Phase 1 noted fire dry- transformers which contain no oil and pose no recognizable environmental condition. The one pad-mounted transformer shows no staining or leafs and is not identified as a recognizalble environmental condition. The Project would handle hazardous materials as a course of conducting business operations. As noted albove, the South San Francisco Fire Department requires businesses using or transporting hazardous substances to provide a Hazardous Materials Business Plan. The Fire Department also BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-53 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST conducts routine inspections of businesses to assure compliance with all aspects of the handling of hazardous and toxic materials. The Project, as proposed will characterize the area stained I)y oil and conduct clean-up activities as prescribed by law. The project through the entitlement process and routine inspection is required as a matter of law to operate under all applicable federal, state and local gLildelines governing hazardous waste, the impact of the Project with regards to hazardous waste would therefore be less than significant with respect to demolition and operation activities. c) and d) Hazardous Materials Presence ,V g aifurnee Czten'a: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely-hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, or if it was located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 ("Cortese List"). There are no existing or proposed schools or day care centers or facilities within a quarter mile of the Project site. The Project site is not listed on the Department of Toxic Substances Control's Cortese List (California Department of Toxic Substance Control, httl-?: \v.dtsc.c j.�!ov/datal ase/Calsites/Cortese List.cfm and Phase I). Therefore, the Project would have no impact from the emission or handling of hazardous materials or wastes on schools or from any environmental contamination posed by the sites listed on the Cortese List. e) and f) Safety Hazards Due to Nearby Airport or Airstrip ,V g aif urnee Ciiten'CI: 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 tvo miles of a public airport or public use airport), if it would result in a safety- hazard for people residing or wor-ing in the Project area; or if it were located wit ain the vicinity of a private airstrip, if it wou result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. The Project site is located approximately 1.75 miles north of San Francisco International Airport, and within the San Mateo County _airport Land Use Commission's jurisdiction. The ALUC allows development within ALUC boundaries, provided that development is below a prescribed height limit. In 1981, the San Mateo County _airport Land Use Plan, in coordination with Federal Aviation Renilation Part 77, established a 300-foot height limit for some buildings within ALUC jurisdiction, which applies to the Project site. The Project site is 63 to 68 feet above mean sea level (:NISL). The completed Project would be 158 feet above :NISL. The Project would be 142 feet below the ALUC height limit and would not result in a safety hazard for people working at the Project site. Potential safety impacts associated with airports and airstrips is considered to be less than significant. PAGE 3-54 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST g) Conflict with Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan ,V gliifurnee Ciiten'CI: 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. There are no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Project vicinity. Therefore the Project would have no impact on the implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The Project is also required to have Emergency Responder Radio Coverage (Fire Marshal, Luis DeSllva letter to Planning Department, January 10, 2012). h) Exposure of People or Structures to Wildland Fires ,V gliif urnee Ciite97C1: 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. There is no wildland in the vicinity of the Project site or area. The Project would have no impact with respect to wildland fires. Finding: The Project as proposed will characterize the area stained by oil and conduct clean-up activities as prescribed by law. The project through the entitlement process and routine inspection is required as a matter of law to operate under all applicable, federal, state and local guidelines governing hazardous waste, the impact of the Project with regards to hazardous waste would be less than significant with respect to demolition and operation activities. There are no existing or proposed schools or day care centers or facilities within a quarter mile of the Project site. The Project site is not listed on the Department of Toxic Substance Control's Cortese List (California Department of Toxic Substance Control. The Project would have no impact from the emission or handling of hazardous materials or wastes on schools or from any environmental contamination posed by the sites listed on the Cortese List. The Project would be 142 feet below the ALUC height limit and would not result in a safety- hazard for people working at the Project site. Potential safety- impacts associated with airports and airstrips is considered to be less than significant. There are no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Project vicinity. Therefore the Project would have no impact on the implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The South San Francisco Fire Department is in the process of initiating a study to identify offensive capabilities in the Project area. The Project would be required tlirotigli conditions of approval to provide a fair share financial contribution to the department's saidy and improvements. There is no wildland in the vicinity of the Project site or area. The Project would have no impact with respect to wildland fires. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-55 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY—Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste X discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or X 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 X 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 X exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard X 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 X structures,which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk X 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? X PAGE 3-56 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SETTING Colma Creep, the Citv's main natural drainage system, is a perennial stream with a watershed of about 16.3 square miles that trends in a rotiglily soutlieasterly direction tlirotigli the center of the City-. The Colma Creek watershed is one of the three largest in the County-. The basin is bounded on the northeast by San Bruno Mountain and on the west by a ridge traced by Skvline Boulevard. Dominant topo rapliic features of the drainage basin include tvo relatively- straiglit mountain ridges that diverge toward the southeast that are connected by a low ridge at the northern boundary- of the area. The valley- enclosed by the ridges widens toward the southeast where it drains into San Francisco Bay. The site is located in Flood Zone C defined as "areas of minimal flooding" on the City's Federal Emergency-dapping Act (FEALA,) map (Community-Panel # 063062 0007B, September 2, 1982). REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FEDERAL National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water Discharge Permit: As identified in Chapter I Section 5.4, the City- of South San Francisco is a member of the San Mateo Court"-wide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), an organization of the City-/County _association of Governments (C/C.AG) of San Mateo County holding a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm �ti'ater Discharge permit. STOPPP's goal is to prevent polluted storm water from entering creeks, wetlands, and the San Francisco Bay. The City requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (B1IP's) and Low Impact Development (LID) measures for new development and construction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City-conditions of project approval. The City-requires the implementation of BMP's and LID measures to ensure the protection of water quality- in storm runoff from the Project site. In brief, the measures presented in the BMP handbook address pollution control and management mechanisms for contractor activities, e.g. stnicture constnuction, material deliver- and storage, solid waste management, employee and subcontractor training, etc. The handbook also provides direction for the control of erosion and sedimentation as well as the establishment of monitoring programs to ensure the effectiveness of the measures. The City- also requires an agreement with the applicant that ensures the permanent and on-going maintenance of water quality control improvements by the applicant and/or project site owner(s). Refer to the Bay- Area Storm Water Management _agencies _association (BASAIAA) Start at the Source Design Guidance Manual for Storm Water Quality- Protection (available from BASALA,A ((/), 510-622-2465 for a comprehensive listing of required measures. Typical storm water qualit. protection measures are identified in Chapter 1, Section 1.2.4 of this document. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-57 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST STATE OF CALIFORNIA State Water Quality Control Board's General Permitting Requirements: As identified above and in Chapter 1 Section 5.4, the City of South San Francisco requires through conditions of project approval, project compliance with the State Water Quality Control Board's general permitting requirements which require the applicant to secure a Construction activities Storm Water General Permit, complete a Notice of Intent (NOI) and prepare and obtain approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SNUPP). The state issues a Waste Discharge Identification number within 10 days of receipt of a complete NOI and SWPPP. The applicant is then required to submit copies of the NOI and SN\TPP to the City of South San Francisco, Public Works Department Division of Water Quality, prior to issuance of building and/or grading permits. The conditions of approval identified in the Introduction Chapter I Section 1.5.4 apply to the Project as a matter of law. IMPACTS a)Violation of Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements S g aifurnee Ciite9LC1: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in arty violation of existing water quality-standards or waste discharge requirements. The Project as a matter of law is required to comply with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The City requires the implementation of LIDs and B:NIPs for new development and constniction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City- conditions of project approval I)y the Water Quality Control Division of the Public Works Department. Some of the conditions the project is required to meet are: to install a grease receptor if a food service facility is on site; install a separate water meter for landscaping; connect trash and garbage clean-out drains to the sanitary sewer system, as well as fire sprinkler test discharge lines, and pay sewer connection fees based upon BOD and TSS calculations (Mr. Lecel, Senior Environmental Compliance Inspector, Water Quality Control Plant,January 9, 2012 memorandum to the Planning Department). The Project would present no impact with respect to violation of water quality standards or waste discharge standards as the result of the City's permitting requirements. b) Deplete or Interfere Substantially with Groundwater S g aif urnee Ciiten'a: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it substantially depletes groundwater supplies or interferes sulbstantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. _approximately 13 percent of the site (or 35,568 square feet) is landscaped and pervious, leaving approximately 230,045 square feet of pared, impervious surface including the building footprint. The Project would reduce impervious surfaces on the site by 11 percent, resulting in 24 percent of the site in pervious landscaped area. The increase in pervious area does not include the parking structure rooftop planting area. The Project would improve conditions on the site and would have no impact with regards to groundwater depletion. Additionally, the Project would PAGE 3-58 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST receive its water supply from existing local infrastructure, not groundwater and would increase porosity of the site from existing conditions. c) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Erosion and Siltation Effects ,V�gliifuxnee Ciiten'x The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation. The Project would be built on a site previously developed in a suburban, industrial area. The Project is required to comply- with current NPDES and SN\TPP measures, as noted in a above. The regulations mandate the Project to treat all stormwater runoff from the entire Project on-site; use plants that are suited for the site including insectary-plants to attract beneficial insects and a diversity- of plants among other items (Mr. Lecel, Senior Environmental Compliance hispector,Water Quality Control Plant, January 9, 2012 memorandum to the Planning Department). There would be no impact related to altered drainage patterns or siltation at the Project site as a result of the NPDES and SWPPP measures required by the City. d)Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Flooding Effects ,V�gliifuxnee Ciiten'x The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface ninoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. The Project would improve the existing drainage pattern of the site as noted in c above and as such would not increase the amount of surface runoff. The Project would result in no impact related to an increase of surface runoff. e) Runoff Exceeding Drainage System Capacity/Increase Polluted Runoff ,V gliif uance Ciiten'x The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create or contribute ninoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The Project, as a matter of law, is required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SN\TPP) and an Erosion Control Plan to the City- Engineer and the Water Quality- Control Division prior to the commencement of any grading or construction of the proposed Project. The SN\TPP as noted in the Chapter 1.5.4, the Setting Section above and in a above, is required to include storm water pollution control devices to treat all stormwater on site and use stormwater onsite for landscaping to prevent pollutants from entering the City's storm drain system and San Francisco Bay. The Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City- Engineer and the City's Water Quality Control Plant coordinator. Water quality measures are required to be included in the building permit packet; therefore all contractors are as a matter of law made aware of the requirements. _additionally, the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department as well as the Water Quality- Control Plant Compliance BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-59 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Inspector conducts routine inspections of this and all project sites to insure compliance. Failure to comply with the approved construction BAIPs would result in the issuance of correction notices, citations or a Stop Work Order. Plans for the Project will as a matter of law include erosion control measures to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system. Implementation of the measures required as a matter of law would reduce the Project's impact runoff to a level of less than significant. f) Otherwise Degrade Water Quality ,V g aifurnee Ciiten'a: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to degrade water quality-. The Project would increase pervious area from 13 percent to 24 percent of the total area. The Project, as required by law,would treat all stormwater on site. The Project compared to existing conditions would be an improvement and would result in no impact on water quality from point source water pollution at the Project site. g—i) Flood Hazards ,V g aif calice Ciiten'CI: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to place any housing units within a designated 100-rear flood hazard area; if it placed any- structures in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows; or if it were to result in the exposure of people or strntctLtres to flooding hazards. The Project site is not located in a 100 year flood hazard zone, is in Flood Zone C an area of minimal flooding and therefore would have no impact related to the placement of people or structures in a flood hazard area, the exposure ofpeople or structures to a flood hazard, or a structure in such a way that it would impede or redirect flood flows (�B�G,http://��,��-��-.abag ca.go�-/bay-area/ecmaps/egtloods/floods.html). j) Tsunami Hazards ,V g aifurnee Ciiten'CI: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in the exposure of people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. The Project site is located in a low-lying area near to San Francisco Bay-. _fin earthquake could cause tsunamis (tidal wares) and seiclies (oscillating wares in enclosed water bodies) in the Bay-. The City's General Plan estimates that potential ware run-up of a 100-year tsunami would be approximately 4.3 feet albove mean sea level (msl) and approximately- 6.0 feet albove msl for a 500-rear tsunami (Dyett and Bhatia, ,S'outl),See a Fi'�xnei.reo Gelmal Plali, adopted October 1999, page 250). The Project site,with an elevation of 63 to 88 feet albove 11SL would be outside the pinup zone subject to inundation by a ''500-rear tsunami and would be outside the any potential tsunami hazard zone . _additionally, the Project would conform to the latest building code requirements. The Project is not within the an inundation zone therefore the impact of potential inundation by tsunami or seiche is 23 Tsunami Inundation:NIap for Emergence Planning,State of California south San Francisco Quadrangle,lulr 15,2009. PAGE 3-60 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST considered to be less than significant. Finding: The City's standard conditions of approval which implement state, federal and local regtilations are required 1)v laNv and are adequate to address any- potential water quality- impacts as a result of Project construction or occupation. The site is not within a flood zone or an area subject to seiche or tsunami inundation or run-up zones. No mitigation measures, above those required by the City- as a matter of law, are identified in this Initial Stlidv. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulati�-e impact to hydrole<g or water qualit< resources. 3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact X. LAND USE AND PLANNING—Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, X 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 X plan or natural community conservation plan? SETTING Land uses in the East of 101 Area have witnessed a change in land use over the rears. The East of 101 Area was part of the first industrial development in South San Francisco about 100 rears ago. Since then, the area has undergone man- transformations. Pioneering industrial uses, such as steel manufacturing, and meat packaging gave way to industrial parr and warehousing and distribution uses that came to dominate the area in the 195Os and 1960s. The recent emergence of modern office buildings and life science campuses mark the third major ware of land use change in the area. Older manufacturing uses, industrial park structures and tilt-up warehousing buildings, such as the building on the Project site, can all be found in the area. Blocks are generally very large in size and the area has a very stark industrial look. Numerous abandoned railroad spurs are present, again as witnessed adjacent to the Project site. Since the late 1990s, developers have preferred to redevelop the older industrial park blocks and constrict new mixed office and research and development (R&D) developments north of East Grand venue. Development has resulted in the clean-up of old industrial sites (Brownfield sites), consistent with environmental practices associated with LEED and the Environmental Protection agency principles and objectives. In the past half dozen rears the East of 101 Area has witnessed expansion of the Genentech Research and Development Facility- and Master Plan from 124 acres to 200 acres of Office/R&D/lanufacturing uses. Hotel, office, mixed-use and R&D have been approved over the BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-61 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST past six rears throughout the area. Some examples include office and R&D in Ouster Point; and office/ R&D on three sites along; East Grand Avenue; and on Forbes Boulevard and Roebling Avenue. R&D is anticipated to reach approximately 7.7 million square feet in the East of 101 Area by 2015 and 8.5 million by 2035.2} Other land uses in the East of 101 Area include approximately- 8 million square feet of manufacturing; 664,000 square feet of commercial/retail; 360,000 square feet of office and 3,385 hotel rooms.2' Surrounding land uses are a mix of liglit industrial, manufacturing; and research and development. _adjacent land uses include open space owned by Southern Pacific Railway- that previously contained rail tracks to the north, north-west. Eccles venue fronts the site to the east and an adjacent industrial building is located at 472 Eccles Avenue to the south. Avis Rent a Gar and Yzsumoto and Company- are located at 490 Eccles Avenue, east of the site. Industrial stnictures occupied by Universal Freight Forward and the Dimero Empress (USA) Corporation are located further west of the site. The Gateway- Specific Plan _area, located west of the Project site, contains mixed use office and R&D land uses. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK South San Francisco General Plan The Project site is within the area subject to the provisions of the East of 101 planning subarea of the City- of Soutli San Francisco's General Plan. The plan designates the Project site for `Business and Teclinol<<gy Park" uses, and gives the following summary- of the Business and Teclinol<<gy 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. Ala:ximum 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 (TDAl), off-site improvement, or specific design standards. The General Plan recognizes that the bioteclinology and the R&D industry is Soutli 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 establislies goals and policies for the City-and East of 101 _area, such as: -4 These figures are for R&D and are what the East of 101 Traffic Model is based upon, Crane Transportation Group, June,3013. East of 101 Traffic Alodel land use classifications and square footage for 2015. PAGE 3-62 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST • Establishes an economic development program that promotes the biotechnology/R&D industrial cluster, • Encourages the development of R&D campuses, • Establishes infrastrucaire capacity, • Establishes transportation improvements, and • Promotes employee amenities, open space and recreation areas. ZONING CLASSIFICATION The Project site is zoned `Business and Technology Park" (BTP). The BTP District provides for Research and Development and mirrors the land use designation intent (see al)ove) specifying campus-like development. The City- adopted a revised zoning code in 2010 and rezoned specific properties, including the Project site, to bring the General Plan Designations and Zoning Classifications into conformance. A complete list of permitted and conditional uses is identified in Chapter 20.110 of the South San Francisco lhinicipal Code. IMPACTS a) Division of an Established Community ,V gliif uanee Ciiten'CI: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to pliysically divide an established community-. The Project is located within a business and teclinolo park designation that evolves from the industry designation. The designation and uses permitted therein acknowledge and foster the R&D industry- of South San Francisco. The area immediately surrounding the Project site is industrial and R&D in nature. The Project is consistent with the surrounding and in particular emerging character of the area and would complement and support the existing general manufacturing and R&D uses present in the area. Thus, the Project would have no impact on dividing an established community and would continue the goals of the City to encourage quality R&D campus- like development in the East of 101 Area. b) Conflicts with Land Use Plan and Zoning ,V gliif uanee Ciite97Ca: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a conflict with any- applicable land use plan, policy, or regilation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Project site's General Plan land use designation and zoning classification is Business and Technology Park. The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, in designating art area for such uses, essentially- targets that area for the growth and development of that specific use. The Project would implement the intended use of the site and would be in conformance with the planning and zoning BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-63 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST designations. Redevelopment of the site provides an opportunity- to improve the landscaping, aestlietics, pedestrian access, parking access, lavout and quantity-, exterior ligliting, Ilvdrologic measures and implement a TD:NI Program on the site while maintaining and promoting the economic strength of the East of 101 Area. The Project meets the development guidelines of the East of 101 Plan as described in Section 3.1 Aesthetics, the Zoning Ordinance and the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan including: • Allowable Use. R&D, light manufacturing, administrative and business offices are permitted land uses. Other tv of permitted uses include administrative services, business and professional services, financial services consumer repair services, custom manufacturing. The Project proposes R&D, office and liglit manufacturing. • Floor-Area Ration (FAR). The Project proposes a 1.0 FAR«%here a 1.0 FAR is permitted with incentives, such as the proposed TD1l Program. • Height Limits. The ALUC and the General Plan establishes a height limit of 300 feet above :NISL. The Project would be approximately 138 feet above :NISL. Therefore, the Project would be 142 feet below the maximum permitted height. The Project would conform to all applicable land use plans and zoning regulations and, therefore, would have no impact. c) Conflict with Conservation Plan ,V gliif uance Ciiten'CI: 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 or natural community conservation plans that govern the Project site (or area) as identified in Section 3.5, Biological Resources. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on conservation plans. Finding: The Project would not physically divide an established community. The site is planned for mixed use/R&D and liglit manufacturing and the Project is consistent with the planned uses. There are no conservation or natural community conservation plans that govern the Project site or area. The Project would not result in any individually or cumulatively considerable impacts. PAGE 3-64 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.11 Mineral Resources Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XI. MINERAL RESOURCES—Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known X 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- X important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? SETTING The Project site is located in a lar�elf industrial area that includes properties that are being redeveloped with mixed use and R&D. Development in this East of 101 Area began over 100 rears ago and in the Cabot, Cabot and Forbes Industrial Parr in the 1940's. IMPACTS a) and b) Loss of Mineral Resources ,V gliif urnee Ciiten'CI: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in the loss of availalbility of a known mineral resource that would be of vahie to the region and the residents of the state, or if it were to result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. 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. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on anyknown mineral resource, or result in the loss of availability of any locally important resource recovery site. Finding: The Project Site does not contain any local or regionally significant mineral resources. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to mineral resources. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-65 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.12 NOISE Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XII. NOISE—Would the Project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise X 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 X excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient X noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in X ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? e) For a Project located within an airport land use X 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 X airstrip,would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? SETTING The Project site is located in the eastern area of the City- and in a relatively quiet area. FigLire 9-2 A jeeted Rail alid Road Noise (page 283, General Plan) indicated that the site is within 60 dB contour interval. The site is not within an aircraft insulation area as shown on FigLire 9-1 Airt,7�ift Xoi.re alid A'oi.ie hislllatio i Aog�apl (page 279, General Plan). NOISE DEFINED 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, irreqtlarity) 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 intnision. PAGE 3-66 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Residential, schools, child care facilities and convalescent facilities are tv pically considered noise sensitive land uses. The closest sensitive receptors to the site are tvo child care centers; one at 599 GateNvay Boulevard 0.3 miles (1,760 feet) from the site and one at 444 Allerton Avenue 0.4 miles (1,320 feet) from the site. Residential land uses are approximately 2,400 feet (0.45 miles) to the east (west of Route 101). There are no sensitive receptors located within a 0.25 mile radius of the Project site. Noise attenuates (reduces in level) the further it travels from the source. Typically noise attenuates 6dB per doubling distance in hard surface environments (l-)aving, hardscape). The sliell (sometimes referred to as the envelope) of a building does attenuate noise 15 to 25 dB depending on the type construction and insulation contained therein. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The Soutli San Francisco Noise Element of the 1999 General Plan contains land use criteria for noise as it pertains to various land uses. 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 70 dBA (CNEL)26 are acceptable noise levels for commercial land uses and less than 75 dBA is acceptable for industrial and open space uses. 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 dB A at 25 feet or at the property line. IMPACTS a — d) Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards, Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Excessive Groundborne Noise Levels, a Substantial Temporary or Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity above Levels Existing Without the Project. ,S'zg aifurnee Ciiten'CI: 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. 26 The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit used to quantify sound intensity. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions in a process called "A-weighting" written as "dB A". CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level(CNEL). BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-67 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PROJECT DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION Notwithstanding a one- or tvo-phased constriction schedule, existing site improvements would be demolished in one phase. The following analysis assumes constriction activities would occur in one phase resulting in a reasonable worst-case anal ysis of noise impacts. Demolition, hauling, undergrounding of utilities and rotigh grading are anticipated to require tvo months to complete. Project construction would result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy grading and demolition equipment. Maximum noise levels from grading operations ty ically range from about 80-90, Lmax2- at 50 feet for certain types of earthmoying and impact equipment. The hourly Leq would range 72-80 dB. Constniction noise would be lower ranging from 70 to 75 dB at 50 feet for most types of constriction equipment. Therefore, during site preparation the use of heavy equipment, such as a hoe-ram would result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site. The site is in an area that is predominately industrial which is not considered a noise sensitive land use. Noise levels up to 85 dBA, CNEL are conditionally acceptable for industrial land uses (South San Francisco General Plan, page 283). Most activities in the area are conducted inside buildings which allows for noise attenuation of 20 dB.2' Chatdoor activities in the area such as loading and unloading of equipment and goods are not noise sensitive land uses and are also intermittent activities which would not result in a continuous exposure to excessive noise. Some grading activities, such as the times a hoe ram is in use,would result in the most intnisiye level of sound generated 1)y the Project. The closest land uses to the Project are industrial buildings south and north of the Project. Both of these buildings are 50 feet from the property line of the project to the face of the buildings.' Exterior noise levels at these tvo receptors would be approximately- 90 dB for a short period of time (approximately- 20 percent) when a hoe ram is used during grading. This activity would be intermittent during the first tvo months of work on the Project site. Interior sound levels would attenuate approximately- 20 dB or to 70 dB, Leq.30 Sound levels to the closest sensitive receptor, the child care facility on Allerton avenue 1,320 feet away from the Project,would attenuate to background levels; due to the distance as well as the building envelope. Constriction related interior noise levels would be approximately- 10-15 dB less than those experienced during grading. Constriction noise levels would also attenuate as the activity moves into the interior of the site, as building shells are erected blocking line of sight, and as quieter activities occur. Demolition and construction related noise impacts would be considered a The Lmax represents the maximum sound power from a source. '-a assuming the midpoint of noise attenuation afforded by a budding shell for a reasonable worst case analysis. -') The noise impacts are yety conservative in that the analysis is from the Project property-line and do not assume additional attenuation as the work moves further into the interior of the site providing additional attenuation. 31'mother industrial building is located 120 feet east and across Eccles Avenue from the site. Interior noise levels would attenuate approximately 32 dB to approximately 60 dB. The analysis focuses on the worst case exposure which is the two closest buildings. PAGE 3-68 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST less than significant because the 1)noise associated with grading operations would not be a continuous noise source during an eight hour day and would be expected to be complete within two months; 2) industrial land uses are considered less noise sensitive and are permitted in an environment up to 75 dB which assumes a continuous noise exposure; 3) the land uses in the area are conducted indoors which affords a 20 dB noise reduction in addition to noise attenuation due to distance from the source;and 4) outdoor land uses such as deliveries, walking to and from a vehicle, loading and unloading operations are infrequent and intermittent which would by nature not expose people to excessive amounts ofnoise. OPERATIONAL NOISE The operation of a Project could increase ambient noise levels in tvo ways, tlirotigli the creation of additional traffic on local roadways and the operation of exterior mechanical equipment. Typically traffic volumes need to double in order to result in a barely perceptible increase in noise levels (Le., 3-5 dB). The Project would shield and/or enclose rooftop mechanical equipment which would result in a less than significant impact with respect to mechanical noise exposure. A traffic saidy was prepared for the Project (Crane Transportation Group,June, 2012) as a part of the scope of services for this Initial Study.'' The saidy analyzed 16 intersections; four freeway (Interstate 101) mainlines; fire off-ramps; and fire on-ramps. The analysis addresses existing conditions; existing with Project conditions; 2015 ftiture without Project conditions; 2015 ftiture with Project conditions; 2035 future without Project conditions; and 2035 future with Project conditions. In 2015, the Project would increase traffic along; Eccles _venue by approximately 14 percent over existing conditions during; the heaviest traveled period; the P1I Pear (4 to 6 P1l). Currently 418 trips (tvo-way volhune) occur along;Eccles _venue; this would increase to 485 P1I Pear trips.31 The Project would represent 67 trips of the total;a 14 percent increase and would have little to no impact on the noise environment. In 2035, the horizon year, cumulative P1I Pear trips would increase from existing conditions (418) to 672 with the Project and anticipated development. Traffic volhunes would increase approximately 31 The traffic study identified potential cumulative impacts to certain intersections in the East of 101 Area and as a result the findings of this Initial Study are that an EIR shall be prepared addressing transportation and circulation. The traffic generation numbers are used for the noise analysis. 3' The PSI Peak Period is heavier traveled than the AEI Peak and is used for the noise evaluation representing a conservative analysis. The PSI Peak accounts for approximately 14 percent of the total daily traffic volumes in the East of 101 Area. Additionalli-,the effect of traffic noise would be experienced to a greater degree along Eccles Avenue(which is why this location was selected to evaluate noise impacts) as the project's contribution to traffic is higher along Eccles and the background levels are lower. The Project's contribution to traffic drops from 14 percent along Eccles to five percent near Forbes Boulevard and 3.5 percent near Oyster Point Boulevard. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-69 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 62 percent over current conditions. Because traffic volumes, even in the cumulative scenario,would not double, noise levels would not increase over existing conditions, resulting in a less than significant impact with respect to noise. The Project would not individually increase noise levels in the area nor would the Project contribute to a cumulative impact with respect to noise and as such noise impacts associated with the Project would be less than significant. e) and f) Aircraft Noise ,V�gliifuxnee Ciite97C1: 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 tvo 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 site is not within an aircraft insulation area as shown on Finire 9-1 _�IYCYaft Noise and Noise Insulation Program (page 279, General Plan). The contours indicate the Project site is located outside the 65-dB A (CNEL) noise contour. The project is located the 60 dB or less contour area. The Project would have no impact with respect to excessive aircraft noise exposure as it is not located within the 65 dB contour. Finding: Constniction related noise would be considered a less than significant impact because the 1) noise associated with grading operations would not be a continuous noise source during an eight hour day and would be expected to be complete within a month; 2) industrial land uses are not considered noise sensitiV e; 3) the land uses in the area are conducted indoors which affords up to a 20 dB noise reduction in addition to noise attenuation due to distance from the source; and 4) exterior land uses such as deliveries,walking to and from a vehicle, loading and unloading operations are infrequent and intermittent which would by nature not expose people to excessive amounts of noise. Because operation of the Project would not sulbstantially increase traffic vohimes, and would screen any mechanical equipment, it would not increase noise levels in the Project area. The Project would not have individually-significant or ni nulatively significant impacts with respect to noise. PAGE 3-70 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —Would the Project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, X 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 X housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? SETTING The Project site is a 6.1 acre parcel currently developed with concrete tilt up structure constnzcted in the 1960's. Grading began to appear on the site in the late 1940's, and 1)v 1956 the entire site was graded. The site«as originally constnicted to house freiglit forwarding uses. IMPACTS a) Population Growth ,V�gliifurnee Ciiten'a: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to induce eitlier directly of indirectly substantial population growth. The Project could indirectly induce population growth though additional employment if it were to exceed the development parameters outlined in the Citds General Plan. The Project proposes a 1.0 FAR and is within the analysis and density- assumed in the General Plan for the Project site. Moreover, the South San Francisco General Plan assumes an employment base associated with office and R&D of approximately 28,000 people and 8.342 million square feet of office and R&D development (page 106, General Plan). The Project's increment of this total development assumption is approximately 900 employees and 262,000 square feet of office and R&D. The development assumptions are refined somewhat in the City's East of 101 Traffic Model. The model anticipates R&D to reach approximately- 7.7 million square feet in the East of 101 Area I)y 2015 and 8.5 million by 2035, as noted in Chapter 2. The Project would fit within the growth assumptions contained in the City's General Plan and its impact on population growth would be less than significant. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-71 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST b) and c) Displacement of Housing or People ,V gliifurnee Ciiten'CI: The Project would have a significant environmental impact it it would result in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing units or people living at the Project site. There are no residential units on the Project site. The Project would not require the displacement of any existing residential units or persons living on the site and therefore would have no impact on the displacement ofhousing or people. Finding: The Project is consistent with the development and growth assumptions contained in the Soutli San Francisco General Plan. The Project site does not include housing and would not displace housing units or residents. 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES — 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? X ii) Police protection? X iii) Schools? X iv) Parks? X v) Other public facilities? X SETTING The Project proposed a land use and development density- that is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning, as noted above in Section 3.10 Land Use and Planning and 3.13 Population and Housing. PAGE 3-72 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST IMPACTS a—d) Public Services ,V gliifurnee Ciite9LC1: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in substantial adverse plivsical impacts associated with the provision of new or phi-sically altered governmental facilities, the constniction 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. As described above, in Section 3.10 Land Use and Planning and Section 3.13 Population and Housing, the Project is not anticipated to increase the City of South San Francisco's population. The Project would be redeveloped in an area planned, used and zoned for office and R&D uses and within the development density envisioned by the General Plan. With no increase in population, no significant increase in the demand for public services would be expected. School impact fees are required for new construction and paid for at the time of building permit issuance. The South San Francisco Police and Fire Departments commented on the Project through the City's standard review process identified in Chapter 1 Sections 4 and 5. The required conditions of Project approval (many identified within the Hazardous and Hazardous Materials Section 3.8,) are standard. Neither department identified staffing or service issues associated with redevelopment of the site. The Police Department identified requirements for building security. Any increased demand for public services as a result of the Project would not require construction ofnew facilities and would be considered less than significant. Finding: The Projectwould not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. Redevelopment of the Project site would not increase the demand for public services individually or cumulatively. 3.15 RECREATION Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XV. RECREATION— a) Would the Project increase the use of existing X 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 X or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-73 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SETTING The Project proposed a land use and development density- that is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning, as noted albove in Section 3.10 Land Use and Planning and Section 3.13 Population and Housing. IMPACTS a) and b) Recreation ,V gliifuanee Ciite9LCa: The Project would have a sigiiilicant environmental impact if it were to result in an increase in the use of existing parrs or recreational facilities such that substantial phi-sical deterioration of these facilities could be anticipated, or if it were to include recreational facilities, the construction of which might hatire adtirerse physical effects on the environment. The Project is within walking distance to the Bay- Trail and the Ouster Point Marina Parr. The Ouster Point Marina is identified as an area of additional park planning (FigLire 5 ,Vchooli, Pa�ks alid Opeaa ,S�aee, General Plan, page 175). General Plan Polio- 3.5-1-9 directs the City- to "Examine the feasibility- of developing a shoreline park at the terminus of East Grand Avenue". The Project would not involve redevelopment that would result in a significant increase in the use of existing parks or recreational facilities as the site would not be used for residential purposes. Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from the population and development projections contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project is consistent with these development assumptions and would not increase the population of the City, as noted in Sections 3.10 Land Use and Planning and 3.14 Population and Housing. The Project's impact on recreation facility demand or construction would be less than significant. Finding: Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from the development assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project is proposing a 1.0 FAR consistent with planning projections and needs assessments based upon the projections contained in the General Plan. The Project would not result in an individual or cumulatively considerable impact on parks and recreation. PAGE 3-74 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.16 Transportation and Traffic Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact ALitigation XVL TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC—Would the Project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance X or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system,taking into accounts all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relative components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets,highways and freeways.pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion X management program including but not limited to the level of seii-ice standards and traN-el demand measures,or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways'! c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, X including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safetti-risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X design feature(e.g., sharp cruxes or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or X programs supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? SETTING ROADWAY SYSTEM The Project site is located in the City- of South San Francisco, which is located along major transportation routes including U.S. 101, Interstate 380, Interstate 280, and Caltrain. San Francisco International _airport is approximately- 1.75 miles south of the site. U.S. 101 is approximately- one mile east of the site. The project site is served directly- by- Eccles Avenue,while regional access is provided by the U.S. 101 freeway-. Four driveNvav connections exist from Eccles to the Project site. The Project proposes to retain three of the driveways. _access to U.S. 101 is provided by- a BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-75 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST variety of major streets connecting directly or indirectly to Eccles Avenue,with several route options available. Each roadway is briefly described below. MAJOR REGIONAL ROADWAYS U.S. 101 FREEWAY U.S. 101 is an eight-lane freeway that provides access to the Project area extending from downtown San Francisco and Northern California to Los Angeles and Southern California. Within the Project area, U.S. 101 has northbound on-ramps at Grand Avenue, South Airport Boulevard (between Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue), and at Oyster Point Boulevard. Northbound off-ramps are provided at East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive, South Airport Boulevard (between Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue), and at Dubuque Avenue (just south of Oyster Point Boulevard). Southbound on-ramps are provided from Dubuque Avenue (just south of Ouster Point Boulevard), Airport Boulevard (north of Oyster Point Boulevard), and at Produce Avenue. Southbound off- ramps are provided at Produce Avenue, Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue, Ouster Point Boulevard/Gatewav Boulevard, and at_airport Boulevard (just north of Oyster Point Boulevard). There are auxiliary lanes on northbound U.S. 101 both north and south of Oyster Point Boulevard and on southbound U.S. 101 south of Oyster Point Boulevard. In 2010, U.S. 101 carried an annual average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 232,000 vehicles south of Produce Avenue, 220,000 vehicles south of Ouster Point Boulevard, and 216,000 vehicles just north of Ouster Point Boulevard. LOCAL STREETS ECCLES AVENUE Eccles _venue is a tvo-lane local street that extends in a general southwest to northwest direction between Oyster Point Boulevard and Forbes Boulevard. Eccles _venue is signal controlled at both locations. The street is 40 feet wide, on-street parking is prohibited and the posted speed is 30 miles per hour. Curb and knitter line both sides of the street and a sidewalk is located along the west (Pro)ect) side of the street. FORBEs BOULEVARD Forbes Boulevard is a four-lane collector street connecting the San Bruno Point Genentech area with East Grand _venue. Within the Project area, this roadway- is 60 feet wide curb to curb,with an intermittent raised median that is 12 feet wide. On - street parking is prohibited and the posted speed limit is 33 miles per hour. A sidewalk is provided along the north side of the street, but not along the south side. PAGE 3-76 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST EAST GRIND AVENUE East Grand _venue is a major arterial street and a central access route serving the industrial/office areas east of the U.S. 101 freeway. This roadwav has six travel lanes in the vicinity- of the freewav and narrows to four travel lanes east of the Forbes Boulevard/Harbor Wav intersection. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour. The roadway traverses a sharp horizontal curve just east of the Allerton Avenue intersection. OYSTER POINT BOULEVARD Oyster Point Boulevard is one of the primary- arterial access routes serving the East of 101 area in South San Francisco. It has six travel lanes near its interchange with the U.S. 101 freeway-, four lanes east of Veterans Boulevard, and tvo lanes near Gull Road. Bicvcle lanes are provided in both directions along the entire length of the roadway-. H--IRBOR WAY Harbor Way is a tvo lane street serving existing and planned industrial/office uses south of East Grand _venue. Harbor Way provides access to South _airport Boulevard and several U.S. 101 freeway ramps via Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue. AIRPORT BOULEVARD _airport Boulevard is a four- to six-lane, north-south arterial street that nuns parallel to and west of U.S. 101. U.S. 101 continues north into the City- of Brisbane and the City- of San Francisco,where it is called Bayshore Boulevard. South of San Mateo _venue, _airport Boulevard changes names to Produce Avenue. G STEW- y BOULEVARD Gateway Boulevard is a four-lane major arterial street connecting East Grand _venue with South Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. SOUTH AIRPORT BOULEVARD South _airport Boulevard is a four-lane divided roadway- extending southerly- from the _airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue intersection to the San Bruno Avenue East/North McDonnell Road intersection at the San Francisco International Airport. Most of South Airport Boulevard nuns parallel to and east of U.S. 101. DUBUQUE AVENUE Dubuque _venue is a tvo- to seven-lane roadway running parallel to and east of U.S. 101 in a north south direction. This roadway- extends from East Grand _venue Overcrossing to Oyster Point Boulevard. Dubuque Avenue has tvo lanes south of the Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 ramps and up to seven lanes between the ramp intersection and Oyster Point Boulevard. Dubuque Avenue is classified as a collector roadway. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-77 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST MITCHELL AVENUE Mitchell venue is a two-lane street running in an east-west direction. Mitchell venue connects South_airport Boulevard/Gateway?Boulevard with Harbor Way. IMPACTS a and b) Increase in Traffic in Relation to Existing Traffic Load and Street System Capacity ,V g aifurnee Ciiten'CI: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity- of the street system. The addition of Project traffic to the area could result in significant impacts at on-and off- ramps to U.S. 101 and potentially intersections in the East of 101 Area. A traffic analysis will be prepared and evaluated in an environmental impact report. c) Alter Air Traffic Patterns ,V g aif urnee Ciiten'CI: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to result in a change in air traffic patterns, inchiding either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety-risks Air Navigation Hazards are discussed in Section 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The Project site is located approximately- 1.75 miles north of San Francisco International _airport, and within the San Mateo Count- _airport Land Use Commission's jurisdiction. The ALUC allows development within ALUC boundaries, provided that development is below a prescribed height limit. In 1981, the San 1lateo Count- _airport Land Use Plan, in coordination with Federal Aviation RegLilation Part 77, established a 300-foot height limit for some buildings within ALUC jurisdiction, which applies to the Project site. The Project site is 63 to 68 feet above mean sea level (NISL). The completed Project would be 158 feet above :NISL. The Project would be 142 feet below the ALUC height limit and would not result in a safety- hazard for people working at the Project site. The Project would not alter any air traffic patterns that are already in place and, consistent with the previous discussion, the Project would have no impact. d) Hazards Due to Design Features or Incompatible Uses z,aif uance C iiten'CI: The Project Nvotild have a significant effect it it were to increase traffic hazards due to its desigii or the introduction of incompatible traffic. Potential impacts related to access to and from the Project site from Eccles Avenue will be addressed in the EIR. PAGE 3-78 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST e) Emergency Access ,V�gliifiurnee Ciiten'a: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to have inadequate emergency access. The Project is required to have Emergency Responder Radio Coverage (Fire Marshal, Luis DeSilva letter to Planning Department, January 10, 2012). Additional conditions include building security- features, fire sprinkler systems and all weather roadways a minimum of 20 feet in width that support a load of 73,000 pounds for emergency access. The Project would keep the existing site access patterns, has been reviewed by South San Francisco Police and Fire Departments and with the required conditions of approval would have a less than significan t impa ct on em ergen cy a ccess. f)Alternative Transportation ,V gliifiurnee Ciite97C1: 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, bicvcle racks). The Project proposes a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM Program) as identified in Chapter 2. The TD�I Program is required by law to meet a minimum 30 percent mode shift (for a 20 percent reduction in vehicle trips) and to comply with C/C AG requirements. Bicycle racks, shower facilities, shuttle services are included in the TD:NI Program. Shuttle services serge the Project area and the Project would be connected to these services through the TD:NI Program. Four shuttles connect the East of 101 Area to BART and Caltrain. The Oyster Point shuttle services businesses along Oyster Point Boulevard, Eccles _venue, Gull Drive, Forbes Boulevard and Veterans Boulevard. Currently there are eight Ail and time PNl trips to BART and seven AM and seven PNl trips to Caltrain. The Project would have no impact on alternative transportation use and by adding a population requiring shuttle service mayresultinimproving alternate modes of transportation availability. Finding: An EIR shall be prepared to assess potential Project impacts with respect to transportation and circulation and intersection, freeway mainline and on-and off-ramp operations. The Project would have less than a significant impact on air traffic patterns and emergency access and no impact on the use of alternative transportation modes. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-79 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS—Would the Project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of X the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new X 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 X 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 X the Project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater X 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 X capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes X and regulations related to solid waste? SETTING The Pro)ect site is developed. Site grading occurred around 1956, the building was constnicted in 1965, renovated in 1995 and has been vacant since 2006 except for a wireless communication facility located in the west corner on the roof. IMPACTS a) Regional Wastewater Treatment Standards ,V�gliifurnee Ciite9LC1: The Pro)ect would have a significant environmental impact if it were to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). PAGE 3-80 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The City's storm drain outfalls operate under NPDES permits granted by the RNVQCB. The South San Francisco 1lunicipal Code (Title 14) contains regulations related to stormwater management. As identified in Chapter 1.2.4 and in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality as a matter of law, projects are required to implement B:N Ps and LID measures and comply with SWPPP regulations. Mr. Lecel, Senior Environmental Compliance Coordinator for the City- reviewed the Project, identified conditions of approval, and did not identify and extraordinary- measures or significant impacts with respect to wastewater. The City- is in compliance with their RWQCB permit. Therefore, the Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB, resulting in a less than significant impact. b and e Wastewater Treatment Facilities ,V gliifiurnee Ciiten'CI: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result III a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which may serge the Project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. All wastewater produced within the City- of South San Francisco is treated at the City's Water Quality Control Plant (NVQCP), which is located at the end of Belle _fir Road, near the edge of San Francisco Bay. The NVQCP is jointly owned by the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, and it treats all wastewater generated within the tvo cities. The NVQCP 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 City-'s wastewater treatment plant was upgraded in 2000-01. The Project as a matter of law would be required to pay wastewater improvement fees. The City- of South San Francisco has a current allocation of 8.74 million gallon per day (MGD), is currently generating 5.6 1IGD and projects 62 1IGD upon build-out of recent plan amendments that increase permitted density along the south El Camino Corridor. The capacity- allocated to the City- of South San Francisco is based upon the growtli projections identified in the City's General Plan and the South El Camino Real General Plan amendment (2009). The Project is not requesting a variance to floor area or density- regulations, and is within the maximum permitted FAR with approved incentives. As a result, the amount of wastewater generated by the Project is within the General Plan growth projections and associated wastewater treatment capacity allocations. The wastewater treatment plant has capacity to treat Project and cumulative projected wastewater. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to wastewater treatment. c) Storm Water Drainage Facilities ,V gliifiurnee Ciite9LC1: 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 constniction ofwliicli could cause significant environmental effects. The Project is connected into the stormwater facilities, proposes to improve storm water facilities on the site and is required to implement BLIP and LID measures as identified in the BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-81 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Introduction Chapter 1.5.4 and Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality. As a result of these desigii features and measures, the Project would not increase water runoff. Therefore, the Project would not require the construction of new or expanded storm drainage facilities, resulting in a less than significant impact b and d) Water Treatment Facilities and Supply ,V g aif urnee Ciiten'CI: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require additional water supply- beyond that available from existing entitlements and resources. Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) was adopted in 2001 and became effective January- 1, 2002. SB 610 requires cities to consider water supply- assessments to determine wlietlier projected water supplies can meet a project's water demand. SB 610 and the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15083.5) identify- residential projects generally- exceeding 500 units and commercial or industrial projects emploving more than 1,000 persons as potential impact thresholds. Potable water is provided for the City- of South San Francisco by the California Water Service Company- (CN SC) and the Westborotigli Count- Water District ( VCti'D). provides water to the area east of Interstate 280 (I-280) in South San Francisco, inchiding the Project site, and its service areas includes the City- of Colma and the Broadmoor area. N\'CNti-D serves the portion of South San Francisco west of I-280. C�ti'CS recei�-es water from the Cit< and County of San Francisco, through the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. CN SC drafted and adopted an Urban Water 1lanagement Plan (UNVNIP) in 2006. The UN\'11P was establislied in accordance with the California Urban Water Management Planning _pct, (Division 6 Part 2.6 of the Water (.ode, Section 10610-10656). Water Code Section 10910 subd. (c)(2), Government Code, Section 66473.7, subd. (c)(1) notes that it is acceptable to use the most recently- adopted UNVNIP to assess water supply- in accordance with the California Urban Water Management Planning _pct and SB 610. Between sources guaranteed by a settlement agreement and the purchase of the Los Trancos Count-Water District has a total Supply-_assurance _allocation of 35.5 million gallons a dad- (1IGD) of water indefinitely-." The UNVNIP projected that the Soutli San Francisco District population would increase from 55,024 in 2000 to 64,050 in 2020; an increase of approximately-0.8 percent per rear. The population of the service area is projected to be 64,050 by 2020. South San Francisco's total population is anticipated to be approximately- 69,810 in 2020. The service area population projections for CWSC are approximately 82 percent of the entire population of South San Francisco. Tlerefore, in 2020 it is anticipated that the service population area will be 57,678 providing adequate water supply- for existing and projected development.34 The Project would employ- approximately- 894 people; or 106 less than the significance threshold set by Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15083.5 directing further assessment of potential impacts. 33 C�Y'SC,2006 Urban Water Management Plan for South San Francisco,December 15,2006. 34 t?N\'MP,2006 and South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment and FIR, Citv of South San Francisco,Dvatt and Bhatia,November,2009. PAGE 3-82 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The Project is consistent with the development and employee assumptions identified in the General Plan, including the South El Camino Real General Plan amendment and the UN NIP which builds upon the development and growth assumptions in planning documents in the entire service area. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to water supply and would not result in a cumulatively considerable or Project related impacts. The Project would not result in a need to obtain new water allocations to serve existing, Project or the development projections contained in the General Plan. f and g) Solid Waste ,V g aifiurnee Czten'a. The Project would have a sigiiilicant environmental impact if it were to be served 1)v 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 re,gilations related to solid waste. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CINti'1IB) manages the waste generation and disposal data for South San Francisco. Non-recyclalble or non-compostable waste is disposed at Ox Mountain landfill near Half Moon Bay-. The closure date of Ox Mountain is 2023. CIN\'1IB notes South San Francisco's solid waste generation is 7.76 pounds per resident per day. Solid waste projected at build-out (year 2020) is anticipated to be 276 tons per day. The Ox Mountain landfill has a maximum permitted disposal rate of 3,598 tons per day for South San Francisco. The total projected solid waste disposal needs for South San Francisco, based upon cumulative projections, is 7.7 percent of the daily permitted waste intake.'° Construction and operation of the Project would generate a less than significant amount of solid waste, and operation of the Project would be in full compliance with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The Project is within the development assumptions contained in the General Plan and adequate waste capacity has been planned for and acquired. Finding: The City's wastewater treatment plant was upgraded in 2000-01. The Project as a matter of law would be required to pay wastewater improvement fees. The wastewater treatment plant has capacity- to treat Project and cumulative projected wastewater. The UNVN P, adopted in 2006, shows adequate water is availalble for the Project and projected cumulative development. There is adequate capacity at Ox Mountain landfill for Project and cumulative solid waste and the City- is meeting its 50 percent solid waste diversion mandate. Demolition, construction and operations of the Project would be required to incorporated LIDs and B:NIPs for stormwater treatment; an improvement over existing conditions. All stormwater is required to be treated on-site. The Project would not contribute individually or cumulatively to water, wastewater, solid waste, stormwater, or utility-impacts. 3' South San Francisco's existing and projected waste stream generation include an approximate 50 percent demonstrated diversion rate. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-83 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE— a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade X 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 X 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, X which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? A) QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT All environmental impacts associated with aesthetics, agriculaire and forest resources, air quality-, greenhouse gas emissions, health risks biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous and hazardous materials, livdrol<<gy and water quality-, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems are considered less than significant. The Project would have either no impact or a less than significant impact with respect to 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) CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Potential significant cumulative traffic and circulation impacts may result from the Project. Impacts may be experienced at on- and off-ramps to Interstate 80 and potentially- some localized intersections in the East of 101 _area. For this reason an EIR will be prepared that focuses on transportation and circulation. PAGE 3-84 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST C)ADVERSE EFFECTS ON HUMAN BEINGS The Project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: AESTHETICS: The Project would not have an impact on the aesthetics or scenic quality on the site or in the area. There would be no individual or cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetic, visual quality or light and glare associated with the Project. AIR QUALITY/HAZARD RISKS: The Project would not result in a significant impact to air quality and would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria nonattainment pollutants (ozone precursors, PNI10, and PNI2.5). The City's building permit procedure and the LEED Silver equivalent measures proposed by the Project include the B A-AQID permitting regtilations, as well as B_ AQ1ID's recommended emission control measures that are proposed as part of the Project (sheet PA.1.la of the Project submittals). GREENHOUSE GAS: The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact with respect to GHG emissions. BIOLOGY: The Project would not result in a significant impact or significant unavoidable impact to biological resources individually or cumulatively. The Project is not located on ecologically- sensitive lands and would have no impact on General Plan policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. There were no nests visible during site inspections (May,and June, 2012). CULTURAL RESOURCES: The Project is located on a developed site and in a developed area. Based upon the Holman &_associates reconnaissance and literature search and evaluation of the on site improvements in light of Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Public Resources Code Section 4852.1, there are no historic, archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains located on the Project site or within a 0.25 mile of the Project site. The Project would have no impact on cultural resources. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: With the measures required by law as a matter of securing grading and building permits, the Project would not result in a significant impact with respect to Geology and Soils individually or cumulatively. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: The Project as proposed will characterize the area stained by oil and conduct clean-up activities as prescribed by law. The project through the entitlement process and routine inspection is required as a matter of law to operate under all applicable, federal, state and local guidelines governing hazardous waste, the impact of the Project with regards to hazardous waste would be less than significant with respect to demolition and operation activities. There are no existing or proposed schools or day care centers or facilities within a quarter mile of the Project site. The Project site is not listed on the Department of Toxic Substance Control's Cortese List (California Department of Toxic Substance Control. The Project would BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-85 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST have no impact from the emission or handling of hazardous materials or wastes on schools or from any environmental contamination posed by the sites listed on the Cortese List. The Project would be 142 feet below the ALUC height limit and would not result in a safety hazard for people working at the Project site. Potential safety- impacts associated with airports and airstrips is considered to be less than significant. There are no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Project vicinity. Therefore the Project would have no impact on the implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The Project is also required to have Emergency Responder Radio Coverage (Fire Marshal,Luis DeSll`"a letter to Planning Department,January 10, 2012). There is no wildland in the vicinity of the Project site or area. The Project would have no impact with respect to wildland fires. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: The City's standard conditions of approval which implement state, federal and local regulations are required by law and are adequate to address any potential water quality- impacts as a result of Project constriction or occupation. The site is not within a flood zone or an area subject to seiche or tsunami inundation or run-up zones. No mitigation measures, above those required by the City- as a matter of law, are identified in this Initial Study. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to hydrole<� or water quality resources. LAND USE AND PLANNING: The Project would not physically divide an established community. The site is planned for mixed use/R&D and light manufacturing and the Project is consistent with the planned uses. There are no conservation or natural community conservation plans that govern the Project site or area. The Project would not result in any individually or cumulatively considerable impacts. MINERAL RESOURCES: The Project Site does not contain any local or regionally- significant mineral resources. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to mineral resources. NOISE: Construction related noise would be considered a less than significant impact because the 1) noise associated with grading operations would not be a continuous noise source during an eight hour day and would be expected to be complete within a month; 2) industrial land uses are not considered noise sensitive; 3) the land uses in the area are conducted indoors which affords up to a 20 dB noise reduction in addition to noise attenuation due to distance from the source; and 4) exterior land uses such as deliveries, walking to and from a vehicle, loading and unloading operations are infrequent and intermittent which would by nature not expose people to excessive amounts of noise. Because operation of the Project would not substantially-increase traffic volumes, and would screen any mechanical equipment, it would not increase noise levels in the Project area. The Project would not have individually significant or cumulatively significant impacts with respect to noise. POPULATION AND HOUSING: The Project is consistent with the development and growth assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project site does not include housing and would not displace housing units or residents. PAGE 3-86 BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES—INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PUBLIC SERVICES: The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. Redevelopment of the Project site would not increase the demand for public services individually or cumulatively. RECREATION: Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from the development assumptions contained in the Soutli San Francisco General Plan. The Project is proposing a 1.0 FAR consistent with planning projections and needs assessments based upon the projections contained in the General Plan. The Project would not result in an individual or cumulatively considerable impact on parks and recreation. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION: An EIR shall be prepared to assess potential Project impacts with respect to transportation and circulation and intersection, freeway mainline and on-and off-ramp operations. The Project would have less than a significant impact on air traffic patterns and emergency access and no impact on the use of alternative transportation modes. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: The City's wastewater treatment plant was upgraded in 2000-01. The Project as a matter of law would be required to pad-wastewater improvement fees. The wastewater treatment plant has capacity- to treat Project and cumulative projected wastewater. The UN\:NfP, adopted in 2006, sliows adequate water is availalble for the Project and projected cumulative development. There is adequate capacity- at Ox Mountain landfill for Project and cumulative solid waste and the City- is meeting its 50 percent solid waste diversion mandate. Demolition, construction and operations of the Project would be required to incorporated LIDs and B1fPs for stormwater treatment; an improvement over existing conditions. All stormwater is required to be treated on-site. The Project would not contribute individually or cumulatively to water,wastewater, solid waste, stormwater, or utility-impacts. BMR 475 ECCLES LLC/475 ECCLES— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-87 Appendix A-1 Air Quality Assumptions and Methodologies Construction Activities The Project proposes to redevelop a 6.1-acre parcel. The Project Nvould demolish a vacant structure. The existing building is 152,145 square feet (sf) designed to house freight fonvarding uses. The Project Nvould construct a new life science campus consisting of two buildings comprising 262,287 square feet and a parking structure (approximately 655 spaces). The demolition and construction Nvould occur in 2013 and 2014. Construction emissions Nvere estimated using the California Air Resources Board (CARB) CalEEMod (California Emissions Estimator Model) combined Nvith the project description and corresponding equipment schedule and usage. Air quality assessment methodologies in this section generally conform to those identified by BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Construction emissions Nvere estimated using the CalEEMod (version 2011.1.1). BAAQMD acknoNvledges CalEEMod as an appropriate tool for assessment of air quality impacts relative to CEQA (Kirk, 2012). This model Nvas also used to calculate the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures. Construction of the project is expected to begin in 2013 and Nvould occur over a period of approximately thirteen months. Operations The Project plans to begin operation by 2015. The Project is required by City Ordinance to meet the construction and operational standards of a LEED Silver classification. CARB's CALEEMod Nvas used to estimate operational emissions that Nvould be associated Nvith natural gas space and Nvater heating, landscape maintenance, delivery trucks, and employee vehicles. Operational phase emissions Nvere also estimated using CalEEMod and incorporate the trip generation figures developed by Crane Transportation Group for the Project. Health Risk Assessment A health risk assessment (HRA) is accomplished in four steps; hazards identification, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization. These steps cover the estimation of air emissions, the estimation of the air concentrations resulting from a dispersion analysis, the incorporation of the toxicity of the pollutants emitted, and the characterization of the risk based on exposure parameters such as breathing rate, age adjustment factors, and exposure duration; each depending on receptor type. The HRA Nvas conducted in accordance Nvith technical guidelines developed by federal, state, and regional agencies, including US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance 1, and the BAAQMD's Health Risk Screening Analysis Cnzidelines.2 According to CalEPA, a HRA should not be interpreted as the expected rates of cancer or other potential human health effects, but rather as estimates of potential risk or likelihood of adverse effects based on current knovdedge, under a number of highly conservative assumptions and the best assessment tools currently available. TERMS AND DEFINITIONS As the practice of conducting a HRA is particularly complex and involves concepts that are not altogether familiar to most people, several terms and definitions are provided that are considered essential to the understanding of the approach,methodology and results: Acute effect—a health effect(non-cancer)produced Nyithin a short period of time (fey minutes to several days)folloNving an exposure to toxic air contaminants (TAC). Cancer risk—the probability of an individual contracting cancer from a lifetime (i.e., 70 Near) exposure to TAC in the ambient air. Chronic effect—a health effect(non-cancer)produced from a continuous exposure occurring over an extended period of time(Nveeks,months,Nears). Hazard Index (HI) —the unitless ratio of an exposure level over the acceptable reference dose(RfQ. The HI can be applied to multiple compounds in an additive manner. Hazard Quotient(HQ) —the unitless ratio of an exposure level over the acceptable reference dose(RfQ. The HQ is applied to individual compounds. Toxic air contaminants (TAC) —any air pollutant that is capable of causing short-term (acute) and/or long-term(chronic or carcinogenic,i.e., cancer causing) adverse human health effects (i.e.,injun-or illness). The current California list of TAC lists approximately 200 compounds,including particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines. Human Health Effects - comprise disorders such as eve Nyatering respirator*or heart ailments, and other(i.e.,non-cancer)related diseases. Health Risk Assessment(HRA) —an analysis designed to predict the generation and dispersion of TAC in the outdoor environment, evaluate the potential for exposure of human populations, and to assess and quantIA-both the individual and population-Nyide health risks associated Nvith those levels of exposure. Incremental—under CEQA,the net difference (or change)in conditions or impacts when comparing the baseline to future Near project conditions. Maximum exposed individual(MEI) —an individual assumed to be located at the point Nvhere the highest concentrations of TAC, and therefore,health risks are predicted to occur. Non-cancer risks—health risks such as eve watering,respiratory or heart ailments, and other non-cancer related diseases. t Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA),2003.Air Toxics Hot Spots Prograin Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk:Assessments,httlr: tvtsw.oehha.org air hot sots pdf HKAguidetinal.17df 2 Bav Area Air Qualitv Management District(BAAQMD),2005.MAMIE)Health Risk:Screening Analysis Guidelines (http: wil1i'.baacemd�Lor rant air toxics risk proccdures jrolicies hrsa jrvi klines.101),June 2005. Receptors—the locations Nvhere potential health impacts or risks are predicted(schools, residences and Nvork-sites). LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES There are a number of important limitations and uncertainties common1v associated Nvith a HRA due to the Nvide variability of human exposures to TACs, the extended timeframes over Nvhich the exposures are evaluated and the inability to verIA- the results. Among these challenges are the folloN ing: • The HRA exposure estimates do not take into account that people do not usually reside at the same location for 70 Nears and that other exposures (i.e., school children) are also of much shorter durations than Nvas assumed in this analysis. Therefore, the results of the HRA are highly overstated for those cases. • Other limitations and uncertainties associated Nvith HRA and identified by the CalEPA include: (a.) lack of reliable monitoring data; (b.) extrapolation of toxicity data in animals to humans; (c.) estimation errors in calculating TACs emissions; (d.) concentration prediction errors Nvith dispersion models; and (e.) the variability in lifestyles, fitness and other confounding factors of the human population. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION TAC emissions associated Nvith the project Nvould occur from the folloNving project activities: • Off-road equipment and haul trucks during construction activities • Employees and delivery operations along nearby roadway-s and at the facility Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of numerous individual gaseous and particulate compounds emitted from diesel-fueled combustion engines diesel particulate matter(DPM)is formed primarily through the incomplete combustion of diesel fuel. DPM is removed from the atmosphere through physical processes including atmospheric fall-out and Nvashout by rain. Humans can be exposed to airborne DPM by deposition on Nvater, soil, and vegetation; although the main pathway-of exposure is inhalation. In August 1998,the California Air Resource Board (CARB)identified DPM as a TAC. The CARB developed Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel- Fueled Engines and Vehicles and Risk Management Guidance for the Permitting of New Stationary Diesel-Fueled Engines and approved these documents on September 28, 2000. The documents represent proposals to reduce DPM emissions, Nvith the goal of reducing emissions and the associated health risk by 75 percent in 2010 and by 85 percent in 2020. The program aimed to require the use of state-of-the-art catalyzed DPM filters and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel. In 2001, CARB assessed the state-Nvide health risks from exposure to diesel exhaust and to other toxic air contaminants. It is difficult to distinguish the health risks of diesel emissions from those of other air toxics, since diesel exhaust contains approximately 40 different TACs. The CARB study detected diesel exhaust by using ambient air carbon soot measurements as a surrogate for diesel emissions. The study reported that the state-wide cancer risk from exposure to diesel exhaust Nvas about 540 per million population as compared to a total risk for exposure to all ambient air toxics of 760 per million. This estimate, which accounts for about 70 percent of the total risk from TACs, included both urban and rural areas in the state. The estimate can also be considered an average Nvorst-case for the state, since it assumes constant exposure to outdoor concentrations of diesel exhaust and does not account for expected loNver concentrations indoors, Nvhere most of time is spent. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Dispersion is the process by which atmospheric pollutants disseminate due to Nvind and vertical stability. The results of a dispersion analysis are used to assess pollutant concentrations at or near an emission source. The results of this analysis allow predicted concentrations of pollutants to be compared directly to air quality standards and other criteria such as health risks. Dispersion Modeling Approach This section presents the methodology used for the dispersion modeling analysis. This section addresses all of the fundamental components of an air dispersion modeling analysis including: • Model selection and options • Receptor locations • Meteorological data • Source release characteristics Model,Selection and Options The AERMOD (Version 12060) Nvas used for the dispersion analysis. AERMOD is the US EPA preferred dispersion model for general industrial sources. The model can simulate point, area, volume, and line sources. The AERMOD model is the appropriate model for this analysis based on the coverage of simple, intermediate, and complex terrain. It also predicts both short-term and long-term (annual) average concentrations. The model Nvas executed using the regulatory default options (stack-tip downwash, buoyancy-induced dispersion, and final plume rise), default Nvind speed profile categories, default potential temperature gradients, and no pollutant decay. The selection of the appropriate dispersion coefficients depends on the land use Nvithin three kilometers (km) of the project site. The land use tYping Nvas based on the classification method defined by Auer (1978); using pertinent United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000 scale (7.5 minute) topographic maps of the area. If the Auer land use types of heavy industrial, light-to- moderate industrial, commercial, and compact residential account for 50 percent or more of the total area the US EPA Guideline on Air Quality Models recommends using urban dispersion coefficients; othenvise, the appropriate rural coefficients Nvere used. Based on observation of the area surrounding the project site, rural (urban is only designated Nvithin dense city centers such as San Francisco)dispersion coefficients Nvere applied in the analysis. Receptor Locations Some receptors are considered more sensitive to air pollutants than others, because of preexisting health problems, proximity to the emissions source, or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Land uses such as primary and secondary schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to be relatively sensitive to poor air quality because the very young, the old, and the infirm are more susceptible to respiratory infections and other air quality-related health problems than the general public. Residential areas are also considered sensitive to poor air quality because people in residential areas are often at home for extended periods. Recreational land uses are moderately sensitive to air pollution, because vigorous exercise associated with recreation places a high demand on respiratory system function. Sensitive receptors such as residences, schools, and outdoor recreational areas near the Project Nvere chosen as the receptors to be analyzed. Receptors Nvere placed at a height of 1.8 meters (typical breathing height). Residential land uses are approximately 2,400 feet to the east (Nvest of Route 101) of the project. The closest sensitive receptors to the site are two child care centers; one at 599 Gatewa-,T Boulevard which is 03 miles from the site and one at 444 Allerton Avenue which is 0.4 miles from the Project site. Terrain elevations for receptor locations Nvere used (i.e., complex terrain) based on available USGS information for the area. Exhibit 1 displays the location of the receptors used in the HRA. EXHIBIT 1 HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT RECEPTORS 1� ry I n �,. r pr'��'i° a, i /✓a r d r �V it 4 Is C1 Ron' � v �"r� 6t Meteorological Data Air quality is a function of both the rate and location of pollutant emissions under the influence of meteorological conditions and topographic features affecting pollutant movement and dispersal. Atmospheric conditions such as Nvind speed, Nvind direction, atmospheric stability, and air temperature gradients interact Nvith the physical features of the landscape to determine the movement and dispersal of air pollutants, and consequently affect air quality. Hourly meteorological data from BAAQMD's San Francisco International Airport (surface data), located approximately two and a half miles to the south of the project, and Oakland International Airport (upper air) Nvere used in the dispersion modeling analysis. The data from 2005 through 2009 Nvere used. Exhibit 2 displays the Nvind rose during this period. Wind directions are predominately from the Nvest and there is a high frequency of calm and low Nvind conditions. EXHIBIT 2 WINDROSE FOR SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NORTFf 25% 20% "15% 10% 5% ;DIES '', .',, .,��� ;' ,- ; EAST; IND SPEED (rfVs) 8.8- 11.1 5.7- 8.8 3.6- 5.7 0 2.1 - 3.6 0.5- 2.1 Calms: 12.94% Source Release Characteristics Construction equipment activities Nvere treated as an area source. The release height of the off-road equipment exhaust Nvas 3.05 meters. Haul trucks and employee trips Nvere treated as a line source (i.e., volume sources placed at regular intervals) located along the access road. The haul trucks Nvere assigned a release height of 3.05 meters and an initial vertical dimension of 4.15 meters, which accounts for dispersion from the movement of vehicles. Terrain elevations for emission source locations Nvere used (i.e., complex terrain) based on available USGS DEM for the area. AERMAP (Version 11103) was used to develop the terrain elevations, although the project site is generally flat. Dispersion Modeling Results Using AERMOD, the maximum annual and 70-year average annual concentrations Nvere determined for DPM emissions for the emission sources of concern. These concentrations Nvere estimated for a unit emission rate (1 gram per second) and adjusted based on the calculated project- related emission rate. The HRA Nvas conducted folloNving methodologies in BAAQMD's Health Risk-Screening Analysis Gitidelines3 and in the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance.4 This Nvas accomplished by applying the highest estimated concentrations at the receptors analyzed to the established cancer risk estimates and acceptable reference concentrations (RfC)for non-cancer health effects. The toxicity values used in this analysis Nvere based on OEHHA guidance. These toxicity values are for carcinogenic effects and acute/chronic health impacts. The priman- pathway for exposures Nvas assumed to be inhalation and carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects Nvere evaluated separately. The incremental risks Nvere determined for each emission source of TAC and summed to obtain an estimated total incremental carcinogenic health risk. The 80"' percentile adult breathing rate of 302 L/kg-day Nvas used to determine cancer risks to residents from exposure to TAC. The residential exposure frequency and duration Nvas assumed to be 350 days per year and 70 years. For children, OEHHA recommends assuming a breathing rate of 581 L/kg-day to assess potential risk via the inhalation exposure pathway. This value represents the upper 95t11 percentile of daily breathing rates for children. The modeled TAC concentrations Nvere used to represent the exposure concentrations in the air. The inhalation absorption factor Nvas assumed to be 1. Cancer risk estimates also incorporate age sensitivity factors (ASFs). This approach provides updated calculation procedures that factor in the increased susceptibility of infants and children to carcinogens as compared to adults. OEHHA recommends that cancer risks be Nveighted by a factor of 10 for exposures that occur from the third trimester of pregnancy to 2 years of age, and by a factor of 3 for exposures from 2 years through 15 years of age. For estimating cancer risks for 3 Bav Area Air Qualitv Management District(BAAQMD),2005.B4A0.11D Health Risk:Screening Analysis Guidelines (http: wil1i'.baacemd�Lor rant air toxics risk procedures jrolicies hrsa orvidelines.101),June 2005. 4 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA),2003.Air Toxics Hot Spots Prograin Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk:Assessments,httl7: tvtsw.oehha.org air hot s ots lxlf HKAguidetinal.l7df residential receptors over a 70 year lifetime, the incorporation of the ASFs results in a cancer risk adjustment factor(CRAF) of 1.7. Based on OEHHA recommendations, the cancer risk to residential receptors assumes exposure occurs 24 hours per day for 350 days per year. For children at school sites, exposure is assumed to occur 10 hours per day for 180 days (or 36 weeks) per year. Cancer risk to residential receptors based on a 70-year lifetime exposure. Cancer risk estimates for children at school sites are calculated based on 9 year exposure duration. Table 1 provides a summary of the risk assessment exposure parameters used in the analysis. TABLE 1 HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT EXPOSURE PARAMETERS Receptor Breathing Cancer Risk Daily Annual Exposure Rate Adjustment Exposure Exposure Duration (DBR) Factor(CRAF) (ED) Adult 302 1.7 24 hours 350 days 70 years Child 581 10 24 hours 350 days 3 years School 581 3 10 hours 180 days 9 years RISK CHARACTERIZATION Cancer risk is defined as the lifetime probability of developing cancer from exposure to carcinogenic substances. Cancer risks are expressed as the chance in one million of getting cancer (i.e., number of cancer cases among one million people exposed). The cancer risks are assumed to occur exclusively through the inhalation pathway. The cancer risk can be estimated by using the cancer potency factor (milligrams per kilogram of body Nveight per day [mg/kg-day]), the 70-year annual average concentration (microgram per cubic meter [µg/m']), and the lifetime exposure adjustment. FolloNving guidelines established by OEHHA, the incremental cancer risks attributable to the project Nvere calculated by applying exposure parameters to modeled TAC concentrations in order to determine the inhalation dose (mg/kg-day) or the amount of pollutants inhaled per body Nveight mass per day. The cancer risks occur exclusively through the inhalation pathNvay; therefore, the cancer risks can be estimated from the folloNving equation: Dose-inh =Cair * IDBRI, * A * CRAF * EF * ED * 10J AT Where: Dose-inh =Dose of the toxic substance through inhalation in mg/kg-day 10_6 =Micrograms to milligrams conversion,Liters to cubic meters conversion Cair =Concentration in air(microgram (µg)/cubic meter(m,1) {DBR} =Daily breathing rate (liter(L)/I-.g body weight—day) A =Inhalation absorption factor CRAF =Cancer Risk Adjustment Factor, Age Sensitivity Factor EF =Exposure frequency(days/year) ED =Exposure duration(years) AT =Averaging time period over Nvhich exposure is averaged in days (25,550 days for a 70 Near cancer risk) To determine incremental cancer risk, the estimated inhalation dose attributed to the project Nvas multiplied by the cancer potency slope factor (cancer risk per mg/kg-day). The cancer potency slope factor is the upper bound on the increased cancer risk from a lifetime exposure to a pollutant. These slope factors are based on epidemiological studies and are different values for different pollutants. This allows the estimated inhalation dose to be equated to a cancer risk. Non-cancer adverse health impacts, acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term), are measured against a hazard index (HI), Nvhich is defined as the ratio of the predicted incremental exposure concentration from the project to a published reference exposure level (REL) that could cause adverse health effects as established by OEHHA. The ratio (referred to as the Hazard Quotient [HQ]) of each non-carcinogenic substance that affects a certain organ system is added to produce an overall HI for that organ system. The overall HI is calculated for each organ system. If the overall HI for the highest-impacted organ system is greater than one, then the impact is considered to be significant. The HI is an expression used for the potential for non-cancer health effects. The relationship for the non-cancer health effects is given by the annual concentration (pghn ) and the REL (pg/m'). The acute hazard index Nvas determined using the "simple" concurrent maximum approach, Nvhich tends to be conservative (i.e., overpredicts). The relationship for the non-cancer health effects is given by the folloNving equation: HI=C/REL Nvhere, HI Hazard index, an expression of the potential for non-cancer health effects. C Annual average concentration(µghn ) during the 70 Near exposure period REL The concentration at which no adverse health effects are anticipated. The chronic REL for DPM Nvas established by the California OEHHA5 as 5 nhn'. There is no acute REL for DPM. HoNvever, diesel exhaust does contain acrolein and other compounds, Nvhich do have an acute REL. BAAQMD's DPM speciation table (based on profile 4674 Nvithin the U.S. EPA Speciate 4.2)6 Nvas used to assess the acute impacts. Acrolein emissions are approximately 13 percent of the total emissions. The acute REL for acrolein Nvas established by the California OEHHA7 as 2.5 µg/m'. California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment Toxicity Criteria Database,2010. http: www.oehha.ca.Qov�. h ` Provides for a speciation faction of 1.3 percent of acrolein per DPM emission rate.http: 'w w.epa.gov html. California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment Toxicity Criteria Database,2010. http: www.oehha.ca.Qov�. CUMULATIVE SOURCES The BAAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Guidelines include standards and methods for determining the significance of cumulative health risk impacts. The method for determining cumulative health risk requires the tallying of health risk from permitted sources and major roadwa-,Ts in the vicinity of a project (i.e., Nvithin a 1,000-foot radius of the source or new receptor), then adding the project impacts to determine whether the cumulative health risk thresholds are exceeded. BAAQMD has developed a geo-referenced database of permitted emissions sources throughout the San Francisco Bav Area, and has developed the Stationary Source Risk & Hazard Analysis Tool (dated May 2011) for estimating cumulative health risks from permitted sources. Five permitted sources are located Nvithin 1,000 feet of the Project$. Table 2 provides the estimated screening cancer risk, hazard impacts, and the PMz; concentrations for the cumulative permitted source. Table 3 provides the estimated adjusted cancer risk, hazard impacts, and the PMz; concentrations for the cumulative permitted source. TABLE 2 CUMULATIVE HEALTH IMPACTS—PERMITTED SOURCES Adjustment Factors and Screening Data Facility# Facility Type Address Adjustment Cancer Hazard PM2.5 Factor Risk Impact Concentration 13861 Citv of SSF Water Qualitv Plant 955 Gatewav Blvd 0.04 24.85 0.009 0.006 17664 Gallo 440 Forbes Blvd 1 0 0 0 13778 UPS Supply Chain Solutions 455 Forbes Blvd 0.08 26.37 0.009 0.006 1947 Chamberlin Associates 200 Ouster Point Blvd 0.22 0 0 0 18885 Chamberlin Associates 180 Ouster Point Blvd. 0.22 3 .79 0.013 0.008 TABLE 3 CUMULATIVE HEALTH IMPACTS—PERMITTED SOURCES Adjusted Data Facility# Facility Type Address Cancer Hazard PM2.5 Risk Impact Concentration 13861 Citv of SSF Water Qualitv Plant 955 Gatewav Blvd 0.99 0.00 0.00 17664 Gallo 440 Forbes Blvd 0 0 0 13778 UPS Supply Chain Solutions 455 Forbes Blvd 2.11 0.00 0.00 1947 Chamberlin Associates 200 Ouster Point Blvd 0 0 0 18885 Chamberlin Associates 180 Ouster Point Blvd. 7.87 0.00 0.00 BAAQMD has also developed a geo-referenced database of roadwa-,Ts throughout the San Francisco Bav Area and has developed the Highway Screening Analysis Tool(dated Mav 2011) for estimating cumulative health risks from roadwa�Ts. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Crr1 delines also require the inclusion of surface streets Nvithin 1,000 feet of the project Nvith annual average daily traffic (AADT) of 10,000 or greater. Upon review of nearby roadwa-,Ts, no nearby roadwa-,Ts meet the criteria. 8 Email from Alison Kirk at BAAQMI)on April 12,2012 Stationary Source Inquiry Form Request-Life Sciences Campus. 9 BAAQMI)Countv Surface Street Screening Tables,Mav 2011 and C E H T P Traffic Linkage Service Demonstration, http: w w.ehib.or�traf c tool'isp Appendix A-2 Construction and Operational Emissions CALEEMOD Output Files Appendix A-3 Health Risk Assessment Supporting Files a 7 \ 0 a / / 0 cu 2 d \ 2 e 3 cu § 3 § - § E \ \ ) ; \ U � � ' ■ § � o u O � § u . . m � a � � � \ g / ƒ 4 a) 04 \ L 0 ) G = E > n 2 � k 2 d \ U) CO .3.. @ Of _ g \ U) 7 y ■ 2 \ / , 0 ± ' \ ° 2 § ) 7 0 / : § . \ Q u Q \ E @ 2 o ; ) 3 '+ \ q \ \ D o @ f e _ @ 2 t / = E E E \ o - E a a a $ 3 $ \ � } 2 § k k \ w w w 7 2 ) . k \ \ 7 7 7 \ 2 / = 7 f \ / / / / o 04 D 0 m E u o 0 0 0 7 » a 0- _ / ( \ k ® f k § w o » . \ E E n .k = / 2 m \ g \ g ■ (D \ 0) §w w w _0 _0 _0 S S S 7 f & = 2 m & _ % E 2 + & / \ \ / 0 $ i ƒ / / \ i \ \ Uj 0 C4 co 0 co N Co. o N .0 o O O) '� M 0 0 M 0 'M 0 'M 0 O : :O O 0 O O O N O �O O N O �O O Z O .0 o Z O .0 o V 0 co N V 0 M N 0 O .0 O 0 O .0 O ___4___ 0 co 0 co (6 o)) m M (6 o)H p) M O O) 'M O o) 'M o H O N ,O O O N m0 m M m0 q co o) 'M o) 'M N N 0 O ':O O 0 O ':O O C) O O O C) O O O p O :d O p O :o O 07 07 — — 0 LM ' fop 0 M a o ;o o a o ;0 6 O O ;LO ll'l w a o ;o o w a o ;0 6 I M r 00 .•N � 'O r .-•N O H O O a o ;o o a o ;o o LL LL o— g) o) oo °2 v .'co 0 O 'N M O co N d ;o d o ;o X d O ;O O X d O ;O O W j W j, C C O O O O >O o) .� (O oo .O Ln O iia o ;o o iia o ;o o N O N O 0 O O O 0 O O O u) O ;O O u) O ;O O D) O W o r N 0 n o 0 o a 0 O ;N W 0 O ;N m 0 X V N O X Lo N O ++ 0 v LO rn 0 Ln +, U z ai 0 z v m U ---F--- +, C 7 N 0 O O O r 0 N M 0 0 'O N 0 O U Cr O r.: c Cr O Lo O U ..r.. U ..r.. L ++ N i+ co M V R r � � N co 0 ,O ,co ,co rn V N O O O O 0 O (d r O :.o C) O O O O M N 0 O N O O ,O N N O 'O 'O 'O Z O .O .O .O O O V O V V V LO f, = O 'O 'O 'N 'O N C) O .O .O O Cl) N 0 P- C) O 0 O � O O ' 'O �`. '� ll'l O O O O O 0 V O p O O ' N N LC)H _ N O N O ,V O O ,V W 0 0 p ; mU o •0) .co �o �0 0 O ' N N N 0 O 'O 'O 'LO 'O LO O 'O 'O 'O 'O O p O 'O 'O ' T 'O 07 LO— N 0 O 'O 'O 'O 'O O O O O O O O n O O O O v m� o 0'o 'o 'o '0 0 L O O O O O O wa O O O LL La O 0 00 'o '0) 0'00 '0 °o a o ;o .0 .0 .0 w O O L O 'O 'O 'O 'O O x a o ;o ;o ;o ;0 0 W j C O O >O M M O W L 0 O 'O (n O O :d O 0 O CO O O 0 O O 0 LO LC x O co Lo 00 O 'M 'CO c 0 Z O O O 0 _4___4___4_ �L L N 0 V 'O 'LO O Q O Cr N 'O 'O M O v ..r...p...r...p.. L _ ` ' N O O p Q ;w N 04 co 0 ;( ;(D v LD N O O 'LO '0 N 0 O n M M 0 O O O N 00 .0 N 0 O � O O I� 00 N O 'O Z O .0 .0 .0 .0 0 V O M (o O = O 'O 'O r O C) O .O .O O N M N 0 O U O 0 O M 0 N c6 Ao mo O O O M 0 O O H _ M O N O LO O O 0 O 'O O mU 0 •0) .co �o �c N 0 O 'O 'O 'M 'O M O 'O 'O 'co 'O 00 0 O 'O 'O 'N 'O N 07 N 0 O 'O 'O 'O 'O O O O O O O O O O O O v m� o 0'o 'o 'o '0 0 L O O O O O O wa O O O LL La O 0 00 '0 'rn '00 '00 q a 0 ;0 ;0 ;0 ;0 0 w O O L O 'O 'O 'O 'O O X a 0 ;0 ;0 ;0 ;0 0 W j C O P, O .M M N F-- Ln ll'l L�a ;O 0 O N N 0 O 'O 'O O 0 (n O O :d O (n N O 0 O O 'N 'N ll'l 0 C) O O 0 Ln CJ O X O (O LO X f3 0 0 N C0 0 Z O :d :d Z L 0 0 'L� 0 0 QO O M d' Q O . . 0 ..r...p...t...p. V 'a cc 0 0 R O > (6 F ++ U Q 'w '� N U °� U N M z N N C M co 0 N 0 'N Cl! 0 .0 00 0 O O O 0 O :O O N O 'O O Z O .0 O V O 0 O .0 O T ' N c� O O O ' p d W W O O O H 0 O Z 0 O O O N 0 O 'O O O 'O O p O 'O O 07 LO— _ O O O O ;O O �LO o v v L O 'O O x a o ;o 0 w (1)� LL o m o 'o o a o ;o 0 w O o O L O 'O O x a o ;o 0 W j, C O j O O E o LL 0 _Q r_ LU N O O 0 0 O O n ;O O ++ O C 0 M M V! (n 0 v o W O 0 0 ;0 0 U U c F O V! o o +, 0 O N (6 M u z ;0 0 N L t3 0) c Q C y F O W U _0 N O O o 0 U ll� o o O Q .a O O m LL x _ N ...�.. cc N W W , U 0 O _ 0 _ o o M M co 0 I- N LO N N r P.-N W '0 ' M N 0 'N Cl! O N O N O O (CO (D 0 O : : :O O O 0 O O O N O �O �O O N O �O O Z O .0 .0 o Z O .0 o V O O O O V O C) O .0 .0 o C) O .0 o O W O M O O N O V O 75 N 'o (6 0 'W 00 y0 N N y0 .O W H H O N M O O O N O r m 0 W O M 0 O m Z U N O N Z 0 O O LD N N 0 O ': 'O :O O 0 O ':O O 0 O O O O 0 O O O 0 O O O O 0 O O O 0] Fn LO— LO— 0 O 00 00 O 0 O NO O d~ o ,o ,o O d~ o ,o O - �LO �LO O O O O O O O N N (6 N O O O O (6 N O O O a o ;o ;o o a o ;o o w w - O 'o O O .•N O :O O O .-•N O O a o .o .0 o a o 0 LL LL 0- 0—2 M -00 -00 r 2 O O O a o .o .0 o a o ;0 0 O O .O .O O O O .O O X d O O O O X d O .O O W j W j, C C O O O O >O N .O .O >O M M O O O O a o ;o ;o o a o 0 N O O :0 O N :0 O 0 O O O O 0 O O (n O O O O (n :0 O - t' 0 0 '0 O N a) 0 V a 0 O O O O 0 O O 0 0 X r O O f.- O X Lo LO bra 0 'O O ': c 0 'Cl) M M V Z o o o o 0 z o 0 0 U N c 0 N O O N r 0 Lo LO L 0 0 O 'O 'O O y 0 'O O c d' :O o 0 • 0 ' o is ' p 0 U .� '0 F N ii M co 0 w N LO N N 'LO 'n N .0 '0 M N 0 'M M O N O N O O M M 0 O ' ' 'O O O 0 O O O N O 'O 'O O N O 'O O Z O .0 .0 o Z O .0 o V O 'O 'O O V O 'O O O O .0 .0 o O O .0 o 0 W '0 M 0 O N N 76 N 'o V M 0 'O O y0 N N y0 M M H H O N W 'O ' M O N O N N m0 O 'v m0 O Z U N O N Z 0 O M M N N 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O 'O O C) O 'O 'O O C) O 'O O p O :d :d O p O :d O 07 07 L— LO— �0 O '00 '00 O �0 O 'O O a o ;o :d o a o ;0 0 - �LO �� O O 'O 'O O O O 'N N (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O 'O O a o ;o ;o o a o ;o o w w ? co 0 rn N O 'O 'co W N O 'CO M O O 'O 'CO 00 O O 0 O O O O O O ,M M 0 O : : :O O O 0 O O O N O 'O 'O O N O 'O O z O O O o z O O o V O : : :O O O V O O O S O 'O 'O O S O 'O O O O O O o O O O o 0 O O CO 00 0 O N N _ O 'O 'CO 00 _ O mo O O O O o O O O O o M M H H O N O O CO 00 O N O 'I� m0 O 'O 'CO oo m0 O 'N N z O O O O O z O O ,M M N N 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O 'O O C) O 'O 'O O C) O 'O O p O :d :d O p O :d O 07 07 - - 0 o' o 'o o 0 o' O O d~ o ,o ,o o d~ o ,O o - �� o o o o o (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O w a o ;o ;o o w a o ;0 6 O O O O > N N "N O 'O 'O O E O O L�a o ,o ,o o L�a O O - O 2 oo 'oo 'oo oo O 2 O 'O o o d o ,o ,o o d o ,o o O O 'O 'O O O O X d O O O O X d O O O W j W j C C O O O O >O O O O O >O V O 'O 'O O �� O O LL o ;o ;o o o Lia 0 N O O ': 'O O N :O O 0 O 'O O O 0 O O (n O O O O (n :o O t' O o 'o 'O O a) O 'ON o 0 O O :d O i+ 0 O O - O O x o 'o 'o o x ;rn N ++ O o 'o 'o O O U z o ;o ;o o O z ;o 0 O W 7 F_ f+ c 0 O 'O 'O O r 0 'M M (� O 0 O 'O 'O O 0 'O O i (� � y o 'o 'o o U) 0 o 0 c3 O ; Q ...t...P.. V ..�.. CL O +O+ a N ++ O C a ) R (3 O o R ,/ - > ) 0 S > O F M LL M co 0 0 ,O O N O 'O .0 00 N O ,O O O O 'O 'W 00 0 O ,W 00 0 O O O O O O V 0 O ' ' 'O O O 0 O O O N O 'O 'O O N O 'O O Z O .0 .0 o Z O .0 o V O ' 'O O O V O S O 'O ' O O .0 .0 o O O .0 O O O 0) a)O 'O 'co 00 O O ,(O f0 _ O 'O 'co 00 _ O P.-75 O O O O 5 O ,V O O H H - O 0A O N O 'O 'co 00 O N O ,O f0 m0 O 'O co Do m0 O P, Z O O O O O Z O O ,V N N 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O 'O O C) O 'O 'O O C) O 'O O p O 'O 'O O p O 'O O 07 07 L— L �0 O '0 '0 O �0 O 'O a o ;o ;o o a o ;0 6 - �LO �� O 'O 'O O O '� r, (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O 'O O a o ;o ;o o a o ;o o w w "N O 'O 'O O '"'N O O a o ;o .0 o ma o 0 LL LL O 2 a O .0 '0 O M ; ; ;'O Cl! oo o o o 0 0 O O 'O 'O O O O 'O O X d O O O O X d O .O O W j W j C C O O O O >O O 'O 'O O >O M iia o ;o o ; o iia o 0 N 0 0 'O O N 'O O 0 O 'O 'O O 0 'O O (n O O O O U) O O - t' +�+ 0 O 'O (n 0 '0) a)'O 'O O 'I� P, 0 O O O O 0 O O 1 - r O O X O 'O 'O O 0 X '(O O N C O O 'O 'O O '++ O '� ? O z o ;o ;o o U z 0 L O O 'O 'O O O O O o O O O C C ll� o o o o N () ll� 'o 0 CL 0 V ..t...P.. N ..�.. CL N fC °a = °o Y R l3 °a o m 0 L > , 0 O le D O � 'O M M M co 0 ,O o N O O V a N O ,O O p ° ° ° °' p ° o 00 C) O O N N p O V - p O : : :O O O p O O O N O 'O 'O O N O 'O O Z O .0 .0 o Z O .0 o V O : :O O O V O S O 'O ' O O .0 .0 o O O .0 o O O 0) a)O .O �M M p O �(O f0 75 O O N N 75 O V O O H H - O a) O N O .O M M O N O (O f0 m p O 'O 'O W m O 0 r P.: Z O O O N N Z O O .,;T qt N N O O 'O 'O O O O 'O O C) O 'O 'O O C) O 'O O p O 'O 'O O p O 'O O 07 07 L LO— — ' �0 O 'O� O O O O O a o ;o ;o o a o ;0 0 - �LO �LO (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O 'O O a o ;o ;o o a o ;o o w w O O O O > N N "N O 'O 'O O E O O LL LL a o ;o .0 o a o 0 O 2 00 '00 '00 00 O 2 O 'o a o ;o ;o o a o ;0 0 m O O 'O 'O O O O 'O O 0 Lo LO X d O O O O X d O .O O W j W j C C O O O O >O O .O .O O >O O 0 O 'O 'O O a� O O iia o ;o ;o o LL o 0 N O O :0 O N :0 O p O 'O O O p O O (n O O O O (n :0 O - t' O O 'O 'O O O 'W W C) O O O O i+ p O O 0 0 X O O O O O X 'LO LO bra O O 'O 'O O c O 'I� P, u Z O O O O O Z O O i-' U M U) 7 T- c 0 O 'O 'O 0 +L+ 0 'N O O O O 'O 'O O p N () o 'o 'o o C ll� '0 0 a O ++ O C , O O R O . 0 R j C LL M co 0 N N O 'O 'V V N M M 0 O O N N 0 (D (D M M 0 O ' 'O O O 0 O O N O 'O 'O O N O O Z O .O .O o Z O o V O 'O 'O O V T S O 'O 'O O S O O C) O .O .O o C) O o 0 0 co co C) O 'O co M C) V V O O O W (D O_ O O N N _ O O O O M M H H O O O N O 'O 'co M O N T V m 0 O 'O 'O W m 0 (D (D Z C) O O N N Z C) (O (0 M M N N 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O C) O 'O 'O O C) O O p O 'O 'O O p O O 07 07 LO— LO— (p O 'O 'O O (p M M 0 O 'O 'O O 0 N N d~ O ,O ,O o d~ 0 0 �L �LC) O O 'O 'O O O M M (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N N N a O ,O ,O o a 0 0 W W ? O 'o 'O O ?L� .•N O 'O 'O O .•N a o ;o .0 o a LL LL 0- 0-(p O 'O 'O O (p M M 00 O 'O 'O O y0 N Cl! a o ;o ;o o a 0 0 O O '0 '0 O O N N X d O O O O X d O O W j W j C C O O O O >O O 'O 'O O >O iia o ;o o ; o iia N O 'O 'O O N O O 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O (n O O O O (n O O --4---4-- � - r ++ O o '0 'O O O 0 Cl) M 0 O O O O N 0 N N � � 0 O X O 'O 'O O 0 0 X r P, C 0 O 'O 'O O 4+ �.+ 0 V 0 Z O O O O 0 u Z M M M j L N r 0 (� 0 O 'O 'O O 0 0 Lo LQ N c ll� o 'o 'o O V 0 � 0 0 0 io O R 0 C) C U O le M M co 0 co N N CO 00 O V Ci N 00 ,O) ,Cl) N N Cl) M 0 O M O 0 r 0 O r r 0 CO CO m M M M 0 O : :O O O 0 O O N O 'O 'O O N O O Z O O O o Z O o V O N V V S O O S O O C) O O O o C) O o 0 O Lo M 0 CO O 75 ° (O M W (O O O r r (O O p M p M M H H CO LO M (O O O N O — q O N V Iq m0 O r V m0 C00 f00 M M M N N 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O C) O 'O 'O O C) O O p O :d :d O p O O 07 07 n— n— 0 o 'o' o O 0 o oo d~ o ,O ,O o d~ o o LO _ LC) O O M V O CO 00 (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N w a o ;o ;o o w a o 0 O N E• O O .•N L�a o ,o ,o o LL a °m o .o o °m cO t2 O 0 '0 'N M O a o ;o ;o o a o 0 !6 O O 'O CO W X d O O O O X d O O W j W j C C O O O O >O O 'CO P.- >O O 'O iia o ;o ;o o iia N O O :o O N O O 0 O 'O O O 0 O O (n O O O O (n O O r O U- O °o 'v r�i N O v v N 4 0 O N 0 N N � 0 -- 0 0 X O ,M ,N LO O X LO LO }+ ++ 0 O N 0 O O V U Z O O 0 Z N N �� r L L u N N 7 O o 0 O N y 0 M M o c ll� o o o O O O o ++ C , O � O R � R L(� C) S > ~ C) 0 ~ M co 0 v N N 00 O M M N 0 0 0 m m m l,M N N 0 0 M M 0 O M 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O N O 'O 'O O N O O Z O O O o Z O o V O N V N N S O O S O O C) O O O o C) O o 0 CO LO M 0 M M C) O — q C) N N ° (O M W M m O I� r o W O M O H H O LO M M M O N O — q O N N N Fn 0 O r t m 0 W W M N N 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O C) O 'O 'O O C) O O p O :d :d O p O O 07 07 LO— LO 0 o o 'o 'o O O O O a o ;o ;o o a o o LO _ Lc)O O 'M O O O (6 N O 'O a o ;o ;o o o 0 a w w O N E• O O .•N L�a o ,o ,o o LL a o- o 'rn o °2 o 0 O 9 .9 'N M O a o ;o ;o o a o 0 O O o co'O O O X d O O O O X d O O W j W j C C O O O O >O O 'CO P.- >O O 'O iia o ;o ;o o iia N O 'O :o O N O O 0 O 'O O O 0 O O (n O O O O (n O O 0 0 O 'V ' LO 0 v, 0 0 N C) o N N L C) L � � � L 0 O O X O ,M ,N LO 0 0 X O O 0 o N ++ ++ 0 co Lo U 0 Z O O U V Z +L+ U - N N C O 0 O N C 0 0 N N U c � o 'o 'o O U U o o o of U ..r...p.. of S O R C O M M co 0 LD O ,0 r N O LD O O W W 0 W W 0 O : :O O O 0 O O N O .O .O O N O O Z O .O .O O Z O O V O O O O V N N S O .O .O O S O O C) O .O .O O C) O O 0 O M 0 M M C) 00 O O O C) N Cl! 0 O W .0 O W W H H O N O 0 0 O O N N N O Z C) O .0 .0 m C� W W N N 0 O ': 'O :O O 0 O O C) O O O O C) O O p O :d :d O p O O 07 07 — — �0 O NO O O �0 O O a o ;o :d o a 0 0 (6 N a O �O a)O O 0 0 o o o 0 w w O ? co 0 LO N 0 'O N LO '0 LQ O O W o O O N N 0 O : : :O O O 0 O O O N O 'O 'O O N O 'O O Z O O O o Z O O o V O : : :O O O V O O O = O 'O 'O O = O 'O O C) O O O o C) O O o ° o o ° V .o v 76 0 'O 'V (6 O 'o O y0 W o 0 N N H H 00 o ,O ,� oo V ,o v ZD O W r ZD O N N N 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O 'O O C) O 'O 'O O C) O 'O O p O :d :d O p O :d O 07 07 LO- LO- 0 o' O 'O O 0 o 'o O d~ o ,o ,O o d~ o ,O o - �LO _ �� O O :O O M O M (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O 'O O a o ,O ,O o a o ,o o W W ? co 0 I- N O 'O ' r � N L� 'O LLQ 0 o 'o 'v V 0 'o C) O O C) N O N 0 O : : :O O O 0 O O O N O 'O 'O O N O 'O O Z O O O o Z O O o V O : : :O O O V O O O = O 'O 'O O = O 'O O C) O O O o C) O O o 0 O O V V 0 V 'O V o 75 O o 5 N .O N O O H H O N O O V O N O O O m 0 O 'O V a m 0 V .O a Z U O d Z U ( d N N N 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O 'O O C) O 'O 'O O C) O 'O O p O :d :d O p O :d O 07 07 LO- LO- 0 o 'o 'o O 0 O 'O O a o ;o ;o o a o ;0 0 - �LO �LO O O O O O O N O N (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O 'O O a o ;o ;o o a o ;o o w w ? co 0 w N O .O V N O O LD O O 'O 'V O O 'LO LO 0 O O 0 O N N 0 O : : :O O O 0 O O O N O 'O 'O O N O 'O O Z O O O o Z O O o V O : : :O O O V O O O = O 'O 'O O = O 'O O O O O O o O O O o O O O O O V O O LO LO 75 O 'O 'V _ O 'LO LQ O O O N N O O H H O N O O V O N O LO LO m 0 O 'O V m 0 O 'LO L Q z O O O z O O N N N N 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O 'O O C) O 'O 'O O C) O 'O O p O :d :d O p O :d O 07 07 LO- LO- 0 o' o 'o O 0 o 'o O a o ;o ;o o a o ;0 0 - Ln n o o o o o o o (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O 'O O w a o ;o ;o o w a o ;0 0 ? co 0 rn N O .O O LD N O O LD O O 'O 'M M O O 'LO LO 0 O O co M 0 O N N 0 O : : :O O O 0 O O O N O 'O 'O O N O 'O O z O O O o z O O o V O : : :O O O V O O O S O 'O 'O O S O 'O O O O O O o O O O o O O O O O (O LD O O LO LO _ O 'O 'M M _ O 'LO LQ O O co M O N N O O H H O N O O (O LD O N O LO LO m0 O 'O 'M M m0 O 'LO LQ z O O O co M z O O N N N N 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O 'O O C) O 'O 'O O C) O 'O O p O :d :d O p O :d O 07 07 LO— LO— 0 o' o 'o O 0 o 'o O a o ;o ;o o a o ;0 0 - Ln n o o o o o o o (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O 'O O w a o ;o ;o o w a o ;0 0 ? co 0 0 N O .O co co N O 'O 'M M 0 O ;O ;co M 0 O : :O O O N O 'O 'O O z O .0 .0 O V O : :O O O S O 'O 'O O C) O .0 .0 O T ' ' 0 C) O .O (O f0 _ O 'O 'M M mo O ;O ;co M H O N O .O (O (0 Fn 0 O 'O 'M M z C) O ;O ;co M - N 0 O 'O 'O O O 'O 'O O p O 'O 'O O 07 LO N -F 0 O 'O 'O O O O ;O ;O O �LO O O O O m O 'O 'O o L O ;O ;O O wa (1)� I O O O O O� O .0 .0 O LL La m °O '°O .0 0 00 a o ;o ;0 0 w O O L O 'O 'O O x a o ;o ;0 0 W j C O O >O O O .O O O 'O 'O O LL a o ;o ;0 0 N O O ':O O 0 O 'O O O (n O ;O ;O O 0 +�+ 0 O O N N O 'O 'O O N o ;o ;0 0 x O 'O 'O O H! D O 'O 'O O y cc+' 0 z o ;0 ;0 0 L L C J O 'O 'O 0 t3 +) O O 'O 'O q c5 L ll� 0 '0 '0 0 �+ v U ..r...P.. O a) T O V f+C `O ri O � co 0 ° ( ; N N O 'O Q O '� z O , CO CO O ° '° N O 'O 3 00 00 Z O O Z r.+ C CA CA 4 Q Z 0 ; 0 V V V U O = O 'O Z O O .0 0 N c� Q0) � ••Y [) O 'O Q � CO ,CO Z , y0 W ,W U °- 0 O N rn ;0) Q H C9 0 ; Fn O co co z N (0 (0 = m > 0) m I� N rn rn O O 'O Q O 'O 0 o ,o z Q U o ; o m o 0 N O 'O Q = ° o o z m N O 'O Q 0. — �j 0 L� O �0 z p- � (I G M wa 0' rn CF) 0 r- ' r- __4__ U , N N 0 ° 2 > +•N a ° .0 Z LL '00 O, M M U O , O dH O �O Z D O 0, V V � ' � O L O O Q U d o o z W Q , m >O ° N 0' N N O U U� 0 ,0) Z O' In In O) ' O) O O O O) LL = N Q 0 (n O �O O '0) Q C) 4___ cc O • O 0 W W Q L 0) • N 0 0) • N Z O O Z 0 N i s N cc D ` ' N F c Cn o6 H L c rn;oS m ��t m S; [7 V , Q J Y• i J Y • i O n n Z � `m• Cu `m m �� O 'O E a• N d • N ..�.. E Q :� p . � A Q Q L N M LU � � O co 0 N N N � W N N �O) �N ��_ Q p T ,N Z C) Cl) W O O O N Cl) V N M Q = O 'O O O Z C) O ;O ;O .6 N O Cl) .N M C) 0) 'O 'Lo`o 'o) Q O O O Z O M O LO O LO 'Cfl 'N 'M H M N O M LO ,V Q 0]0 o M o LO Z LO (O N M N O O O O O O O O O Z p O O O O 07 LO— N o 'o 'o 'o Q O O 'O 'O 'O Z LO (06 N O 'o 'O 'O Q X a o :d o o Z w (1)� LLO)cC Z La 000 'Oo 'o 'o a o Z w O O m O 'O :o :o Z x a o ;o ;o ;o W j C --4---4---4-- O O >O LL La N O O Q 0 O O Z u) C _ W � Q V! J Q px M Q Z ;o ;o Z N cc > p ° ° W Z ; ;o ;o C ..�...�...�.. }' p I W cc LU C C m W a). o E'y:--'Y E F C) W N N N N W 00 N O (O f0 N O N N Q O Q O ,N N Q O O LD Q O W 00 M M N N r co 0 Q O Q O N O 'O O N O 'O O Co Z O ;O O Z O ;O O N V O V O = O 'O O I- O Q O ;O O Q O ;O O T T Q M M Q W 00 Q O , T Q O LO LQ mo O LO LO O W 00 p M M p N N H H M M W 00 O N O ,V � O N O LO LQ Fn Q O O Q O C) O LO LO C) O W 0 00 M M N N N N Q O 'O O Q O 'O O Q O 'O O Q O 'O O 0 O ;O O 0 O ;O O 07 07 LO— LO— Lp O M M Lp O N N 0 O 'O O 0 O 'O O a 0 ;0 o a 0 ;0 0 N O ' w a o ;0 0 w a o ;0 0 > >LQ La La O � O 'O O O � O 'O O a� 0 ;0 0 a0 0 ;0 0 (6 O O 'O O (6 O O 'O O X d O ;O O X d O ;O O WL U j C C O O O O >O >O O� O� LL LL N O :O O N O O O Q O 'O O Q O 'O O (n O ;O O (n O ;O O O co 00 O N N Q O 'N N Q O 'N Cl! Q O .0 0 Q O .0 0 N --4-- --4-- cc V X O co M X O (O w Q O 'Co M Q O 'N Cl! LZ O .0 0 Z O .0 0 cc z 0 O V 0 O co M Q O 'O O Q O 'O O • d' O 'O O d' O 'O O O O O O (�6 Z N (�6 Z N cc C� m o LO C5 m o .0 Cl) J Y Y O co �••� 0 t 06 C 06 N ° Q R f3 2 E m -O (n (6 O p -O (n (6 O O W > > F co O v N N N N C-4 N O O N O 0 O .V V O O .M M 0 O M M 0 O O O LO O O O O O N O 'O O N 'O O Z O .0 O Z O .0 O T T V O 'co M V O 'N N = O 'O O = O 'O O 0 O O O 0 O O O N N 0 N N 0 M M () O .O O () O O W _ O _ O 0) a) O 'M M O O O p 'CO f0 O 'LO LO H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 _T _T � O O 0 0 cc LU (7 (7 i 0 0 Q N LA :0 :0 .0 O N N y >L y >L N 'U > O 'U > O c cc J U Y �O U Y cc 0 t 06 06 -O (n (6 0 O c O cl Ln a a O t0 Cfl co 0 N 0 O '00 Z 0 00 '00 '00 O C� o ;0 C) o o ;0 0 0 O O 0 O .O .O O N O :0 Q N O 'O 'O O Z O O Z Z O O O O V O O V O O O O = O 'O Q = O 'O 'O O C) O :0 Z C) O .O .O 0 0 0 C) O .O C) O .O .O O _ O 'O Q _ O 'O 'O O mo O O Z O .O .O O O O H H O N O O O N O .O .O O m 0 O 'O Q m 0 O O O O ZC) O .O Z ZC� O O �O O N N 0 O 'O 0 O 'O 'O O C) O 'O Q 0 O 'O 'O O p O :d Z p O :d :d O 07 07 — — N0 O 'O Q ND O O O O d~ 0 ,O Z d~ o ,O ,o o 0 0 O O O O (6 N O 'O Q (6 N O 'O 'O O Z o o 0 0 a 0 ;0 w wa ; E �O)cC Z O)cC La La m 00 '0 Q 0 m 00 00 '00 °O a 0 ;0 Z a 0 0 ;0 0 m O 'O Q O O 'O 'O O X d O O Z X d O O O O WL U j C C O O O O >O >O O� Z O� La La N O O N O O 0 O 'O Q 0 O O U) O O Z U) O O 0 O 'O Q 0 O O 0 O O Z 0 O O 0 O 'O Q C O O Z O O Z Z O O cc 0 V V U 0 O O 'O LO 0 v 'v Q 0 LO .0 O a O 'O N o cc tw, R c U c: E (6 R o '.- p L C o� c o. O 9 �C) oa�a F N U) Q U co O N O .O .O O N O O O O 0 O ;O ;O O Q O O O O Z O .0 .0 O V O : :O O O = O 'O 'O O Q O .0 .0 O T ' ' Q � Q O .O .O O _ O 'O 'O O mo O ;O ;O O H O N O .O .O O Fn Q O 'O 'O O z Q O ;O ;O O N 0 O :0 :0 O O O O O p O :d :d O 07 LO— N 0 O 'O .0 0 O O O O ;O ;O O �LO O : :O O O m O 'O 'O O L O ;O ;O O wa LLO� La a o ;o ;0 0 w O O L O 'O 'O O X a o o ;0 0 W j C O O >0 LLO� La N .O O Q O O (n :0 O 0 .0 0 O O (6 O O }� cc CO X :0 O U 0 Q Q O O cc cc c C) O co 0) O `O N O LO co 'O Iq 2 U 3 d O O N 'c T c cc 0 O LC N U.0: E t: (6 R L Q L O. C O.-�O F -- Q- N to Q r t0 O ti ti co 0 I- N 0 o m N 00 O f0 Q O 00 Q O 'M M Q O O O N 0 Z O O O N 0 (D � N 0 0 Q Q N � N 'M V O LO O 0 a) ' W O O M M O '0 N 0 O Z 4 Z O N O O f0 Q O V O 75 o O o O O 0 LO p N N S 'rn Z ~ 4_ N 4 O N (n O N co O Q v o p 'N ~ 4 0 N _T O Q F 0 Z C O O O a O o m o 0 o O Z o 7 o c p 0 � O E a In o O o F N N 'moo ti a co 0 w N o ;o m N 0 .O 0 O 0 M M U O N N N N 0 O P, N O 'O O Z O ;O O T V O (O (0 = O 'I rl� () O ;N N N O N N () O r _ O h fh � O H 0 O0 U_ _T o CO 0 V! Q- 0 cc E � N U O a N 0 a� ° ;(D c cc l3 0 Z O N 0 0 U J 0 0 /^ 0 N L } cc N J m 'moo r f- a O 00 O co 0 rn N O r.- N O 'O O 0 O ;O W 0 O 'O O N O 'O O Z O ;O O 0 M 'O Z 0 (D o) 0 O ;O O 0 O '° N ° '° Z Z O ;O N 0 C) O Lo LO ---4--- _ O 'O O 5 O ;V Z ~ --F-- 0 O ;O N 0 4 0 C) M ' 'O Z 4 O ~ 4 0 � z � 0 Z C O o R rn Q o o Q c3 o � z J N _ 0 � E R cc o U N 'moo c a co 0 0 co O Lo LO N O 'M M 0 O O f0 0 O O O N O 'O O Z O O O T = O 0 O O O N 0 0 O ' o W O N N O H 0 0 LO U _T C O ' O Z a o 0 ° °° r cc J +N, cc U) a° N f3 ° E m d -° (n c6 o O O O N > F N co a C d7 co 0 co N � � O N N U o O Z O o r N LO 0 N Z v o o = o 0 U o o O o ZZ O N O O LO LQ 5 N O V O ¢ = O Z () O O N (n 0 LO Z N 6 O O U O ¢ U) z o O z O z 0 o O O Z 0 N rn (7 y z i y z N > a° Z y o o N o � j Z r On oi a \_ \ 0 a / / 0 cu 2 d \ 2 e 3 cu § 3 § E - C E \ ) ; \ ■ m U � a 0 ■ o m a 2 § a � m g / ƒ 4 \ L 0 ) G = E > n 2 � k 2 d \ U) m .3.. @ O _ g \ U) 7 y ■ 2 \ / , \ ± ' \ ° 2 § ) 7 0 / : § . \ Q u E @ 2 3 ; ) 3 � '+ \ q \ \ \ o @ f e _ @ 2 t / = E E E \ o - E a a a $ 3 $ \ � } 2 § k LU k \ w w w 7 2 ) . k \ \ 7 7 7 \ 2 / = 7 f \ / / / m o 04 D 0 m E u o 0 0 0 \ » a 0- _ / ( \ k ® f k § w o » . \ ? E E n .k = / 2 m \ g \ g ■ \ §w w w _0 _0 _0 S S S 7 f & = 2 m & _ % E 2 + & / a n + / « \ \ / 0 $ i ƒ / / \ i \ \ Uj 0 C4 LD N O 'O 'O (o co 60 O o Z O o Z p O 'O p O O N 0 0 Q N O 'O Q Z O .0 z Z O .0 z V o 'O V I� 'O = O '(O Q = O '(O Q O ;O z O ;O z 0 0 9 C) O 'O p O 'O _ O 'O Q _ O 'O Q (6 O ;O z z O O H H O .O O .O m 0 Y Q m O O Q z 0 ° .O z z 0 ° z .O _ c _ .0 N N p O 'O p O 'O C) O 'O Q p O 'O Q z O_ O 'O z mo 07 07 W _ 0 M ' O z 'M z (6 N (Op ' Q (6 N V '(,2 Q W a 'N z W � N O ' Q � 0)ii a z m i z O 5 �o �� Q gym° z a� N �� z (60 O O w a T T N z x a T M :N z LU a --4-- a --4-- E O O � Q :O M, c Q LU a co z a o c, z �a N c, �a cc co co p 'O Q 0 'O Q E (n O ;O z (n O ,O z O 'O Lo 'co .X O Lo 0) Q O O N .0 z O O 'I� z (O V (O .V O x O 'r x O 'M ++ U z rn .v z O z LO ch Z U c O O 'of Z y O °? 'of Z O U Lo c l 'LO L ++ r � � 04 LD N O N 'N 'O Cl! N 0 .0 .0 O Q O ,V O Q O N (O 00 (O 00 Q Q M M Z .0 o Z .0 o V O V (O O V O M (O 0A = O 'O 'N M = O 'O 'N N Q O .0 .0 o Q O ;O .0 o Q 9 Q 9 Q Q m O O H H 'O 'co 00 'O '.0 00 O N O 'O 'V V O N O 070 ° �I� �� W 070 ° �� p Z Q O ,V Doi Z Q O ,O ,V N .(D 00 (O 00 N N Q Q Q Q O_ O_ 07 07 — — 0 O' 'N f00 0 O 'LO fM0 d~ o ;o ;o o d~ o ;o ;o 0 n n O �O 'co m O �O co m (6 N O 'O 'N N (6 N O 'O w a o ;o ;o o w a o ;o ;o 0 �co m co m Cl! N 'N N a ;o o a ;0 0 LL LL ° 2 O ;V ;LO 0 °46 O , ;LO fo y0 O Cl! y0 O Cl! a� o ;o ;co 00 a� o ;o ;co 00 O O '0 'N N O O '0 'N N X d o ;o ;o O X d o ;o ;o O w w 9 9 'co 00 co Do a a r, � � N O 00 N O r 00 Q O 'O 'O O Q O 'O 'O O (n O :0 :0 O (n O :b :b O Q 0 O N 0 O O 0 LL W M Q W q Q ° ' 'M M Q ° M M (4 X O 'O X O O Q O 'W V Cl! Q O 0 Z O ;LO f. Z O ;LO O __F---F__ 0 __F---F__ L L Q Q N 0 M 'o :m M O . � O O _ ' N ' O O N V N C M LD N O LD 0 ° N N C) O , O lfl O Z V O O _ CO 00 U .O O O 9 C) mo H O N W W m p O O Z p O r rz N O U O_ 07 N 0 p 'OO LQ O O M M O 'O O LQ m 0 wL O ' U a o ;r i o o N O O °a o 0 LL o_2. O �� T M 0 a w O O_ L O 'OO LQ x O M M w a m >° rn rn N v v, E is _Q r_ W N r.- C p 'O O U) O O ++ O C V U N _Q H! (A p Cj v O U U F 0 0 N O M 7 z P, 7 N L c3 0) c Q C y F W U _0 N O O (D w W c U co co o 0 O CW x _ O ...�.. N W W , U p C _ E _ o o r N p LL M M LD N O M N V O ;(D O N O Ln ll'l 0 00 LN O cc O O LN LINT N N P, - O O Z Z V O N V O O 'co 00 O O .0 .0 O U .0 O O 9 O 9 O C) m O O H H D m0 �0 O 07 ZO Ln .� .� m zU N N rz N N 0 0 'O O O_ O O O 07 07 — — 0 LO 'O 'O N 0 O 'V d~ O O O O d~ O N N O I; O 00 O O (6 N V 'O O a O O O O N a O N W W O) O O O O .•N O 'O 'O r .-•N O O a o ;o ;o o a o 0 LL LL O 76 O c) O (6 �0 O 'N �0 M 'V cq O T 'O 'O (6 O O 'V X d O O .0 O X d O N N W W 9 9 >O O 'N � � M M o o co a CO ; ; m �a � ri N N O O N P.- O O 'O 'O O O 'O O U) O O O O U) O O - tL O O 'O 'O R N O O °) O N i+ O °v V 0 - O x O) 'O 'D) 00 O x .0 00 ++ O V .O .O ll'l O .r M V z O O O O O z M M 0 U N O 0 O :0 O 'O 0 'M M N c d' 'Lo Lfl 0 •1 0 °a = °o ) R f3 °a o m ' p O S > > .FM 'O F N D 2, ii M LD N O M f� co 00 N V O (D C, O N O M M N O 00 0 LN O cc O O .0 O N N c0 00 - O O Z Z 0 0A S 'O 'O S 'c0 00 O O .0 .0 O O .0 0 O 9 O 9 0 0 m O O H H O M M 0 0A 0n 07 0A z() LO O O Z 0 0 0 0A N N P.- N N O O 0 0 O_ O_ 07 07 _ O N 0 LO 'O 'O IQ N O OM) 'OM) 00 d~ O O O O d~ 0) m M n n O 00 O O 'M M (6 N V 'O O 'D) CA a o ;o ;o o m 0 a o ; w w 0 'o O M M .•N O 'O 'O r '"'N m q a o ;o ;o a)o a of � LL O 5 'O 'c) p Om 'M p (O O N 0A O O O d O O O O d M N O T 'O 0 00'O O O '0 0A X d O O .0 O X d O M M W W 9 9 >O O � N V '-' 0 O O a co 'o 'o ma co 00 LL LL N N 'O 'O N N 'I� P.- 0 O 'O 'O O 0 'O O U) O O O O U) O O LO 0 - tL +�+ O O '0 0 O 0 M M O D) O 0 N C V O C x rn C oo O 0) a)'O '� 0)0 O O N 'rO rn M 0 z O ;o ;o m U z ;0) 0) 0 04 C U) O 0 'O 'O l3 O O 'm rn c d' N 'O 'O N L U d' '0 0A 0 0 c V ..t...p.. C N ..�.. fC °� d - 'a °o R N o m cn C U a� 0 F N M ii M M LD N O o m .0 00 00 N O O 'O an N O 'O f0 Q O 'O Q o Q O .0 Q O :E O N N c 00 - Q Q Z Z V O 'O V 'O 0A S O 'O 'O O S 'co 00 C) O .O .0 O C) .0 O Q 9 Q 9 C) C) m O O H H O 0A O N O 'O r O N 'O LD Q O 'O r Q 'r mC) O ;O mC) �rn rn N N N N 0 0 'O O O_ O O O 07 07 — — �0 O O C-4 �0 V LO O d~ O O O O d~ V N L.- n n O O 'O O O 'LO ll-1 (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O 'LO IQ a O O O O O N a N W W - I O 'o f E O 'O 'O O .-•N V V L�a o ;o .0 o LL a v v 0- 0-2 O 'O 'co 00 2 M '0 O O 'O 'N N O 'LO d O .O .0 O d .0 N O O O 'O 'O O O O 'LO LQ X d O O O O X d O N N W W 9 9 6) O 'O 'N N a o ;o ;o o a co 00 Li Li N O 'O 'O O Q O 'O 'O O Q O O U) O O O O U) O O tl Q D) a) O 'O 'N N a) Q � ' Q O .O i+ Q .M M - O O x o o x L () Z O O O O O Z O W 7 F_ f+ c 0 O 'O r 0 'N N O Q O O N Q 'rn a)L U Cr O O O O d' Lo ll-1 O 0 Q ...t...p.. V ..�.. CL O F O ++ a N ++ O C a y R f3 O O R ,/ — > A Q U ES) F M LL M LD N O .O O () o m rn rn N ° '° O an N O 'W 00 0 O 'O . 0 O r` C) O .0 C) O '.0 0 0 Z Z V O 'O V '(O O 0 O .0 .0 O 0 0 9 0 9 O 0 m O O H H O O O O N O 'O , m0 ° '° m0 Lo 0 zC) O ;O z0 .0 00 N N O O N N 0 0 O_ O_ 07 07 — — �0 O O �0 M 'LO a� o ;o ;o _ O 'O O 'LO rn (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O 'LO ll'l a o ;o ;o o w a o w ?`n o 'o ?`n E• O 'O 'O O .-•N M ' M LL a O O O O a M LL M 02 O 'O 'co 00 ° 2 r 'O N O ° '° 'N N O O 'LO a� o ;o .0 O a� .0 O O 'O 'O O O O 'LO LQ X d O O O O X d O T W W 9 9 6)� O 'O 'N N (O O a o ;o ;o o a co 00 ri ri N O 'O 'O O N O O 0 O 'O 'O O 0 (n O O O O U) O O t,^' +�+ O O 'O 'N N v/ 0 ,.0 O 'O 'N N r 'N cq ° '° [) C-4 ' C 'LO Lfl 1 r � O 0 x O 'O O x N C O O O +, 0 r O z o ;o ;o o U z ;0) rn U O M v1 i y 0 O 'o O O O � o 'o 'o o N U O 0 , CL V ..t...P.. ..�.. CL 0 N fC a 0 o m 0 M 0 le D 0 � 'O M M LD N O O .O O r 0) rn (4 j ° '° .LO N N O ..0 00 C) O .0 M M p O .0 00 N N O O O O Z Z V O 'O V '(O LO O O .0 .0 0 O O 9 O 9 O O m O O H H O LO O O N O 'O ,N Cl! O N ,Lo L p]O ° '° O 0 W 00 LO pj O LO z(� O O M M z(� ' DD 'N N �O O N N 0 0 O O O_ O O O 07 07 �0 O' O 'O O �0 V 'T a� o ;o ;o n _ n O O 'O O O 'M M (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O 'V a o ;o ;o o a o ;ri 0 w w ?L� o 'o rn .-•N O 'O 'O O .-•N V V a o .o .0 o a LL LL 00 O' O 'M M 0 'V M a� o;o ;o o O O 'O 'O O O O 'V X d O O O O X d O M M W W 9 9 ° O 'O 'O O ?° O o 6)� O 'O 'M ci O CA ii a o ;o o ; o ii a ri ri N O 'O 'O O N O O p O 'O 'O O p (n O O O O U) O O t. O O 'O 'M M O O Ln LIl O ° ° i+ O LCOO l(On 0 O x O 'O ' C-4 O O O 0 ++ 'O c 'N N u Z O O O O O Z .0 0 i-. U M U) 7 T- C 0 O 'O 'N � +`+ 0 'rn a)O O O O 'O U) p '� r, N a O N ..r...p. V ..p. ++ O 0 R le D LL M LD N O r r N ° '° 'LO IQ N O O O 'O LO O O ° N N O O O V O O N N Z Z V O 'O V (O O O O .0 .0 O O O O O 9 O 9 0 0 O O H H N N O N O 'O ,N Cl! O N O O 0 p 'p 0 O O m 0 O O 'M M m 0 V V N N O O V � O O U 0 O_ O_ 07 07 — — 0 O 'O 'N N 0 CO 00 0 O 'O 'O O 0 N N d~ O �O �O O d~ N N O O 'O O O 00 (6 N O 'O O O O a O N a N W W O 'O E O 'O 'O O .•N a o ;o LL LL °m o 'o °m .0 00 0 O 'O 'M M 0 N Cl! d O .O O O d N N !6 O O '0 'O O !6 O N N X d O O O O X d N N W W 9 9 iia o ;o ;o o iia N O 'O 'O O N V 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O (n O O O O (n O O --4---4-- � - +�+ O O '0 'M M O O 0 ° ° N C 0 N N O 0 O 'O '� � O O x CO w O O Z O O O O 0 U Z co M +� 0 7 M j F___F +L+ y r +L+ CJ 0 0 'N CJ P.-O y O ° '° C O O N c 0 '0 :0 o V () a LO 0 O R C le C) LO = O O M M LD N O N 'O O O .O Cl) N O M M 0 0 0 .N W M 0 LO 0 C) O ,O O p O O O O N N Z Z V O 'r N W V (O (D C) O .0 .6 O p O O O 9 O 9 C) C) O O H H Co W N N p N O 'V .0 N O N (D LD 0]p O LO CO M 07 p V z C) O O .0 O Z p O O N N 0 O O O O_ O O O 07 07 - - 0 O O 'm 0 r ll'l 0 O W �0 'M d ll'l � r a� o ;o ;o o a� �LO �LC) O O 'N ' a O O a) (6 N O 'M 'O M (6 N r W a o ,o ,o o W a L� O 'Lo ;O LO >Ln a o .o .0 o a LL LL 0- a)O 'Lo 'N O 46 O W d O N M d O O 'M 'O M O X d O O O O X d W W 9 9 >O O 'N 'Lo P >O O� O O MOB L l a O O N M LL a N O p O 'O 'O O p O O (n O O O O (n O O C U1 p 00 N O rn rn N w C) o v C) v v 4- N N N � O 1 0 0 X O 'LC) 'O LO O X M M 4+ ira O O 'N M c 0 LO LQ U U Z O N 0 z ON N U --- N N 7 0 O 'O 'O O +L+ 0 LO LO 0 0 p O 'M a N p LO Ln U U Cr O N c Cr M M 0 ++ O C , O O R 0 O O R L(� C) S > ~ C) 0 ~ M LD N O co 'O O O 'O 'Cl) N N LO 111 0 0 0 .N W M 0 V V (� O .0 O () O O 0 0 N N Z Z V O r N W V N N 0 O .0 .6 O 0 O O 0 9 0 9 0 0 O O H H W a) pN O 'V '.0 N ON O LD m0 O M m0 V z 0 O O .0 O Z 0 O O N 'T V 0 0 0 0 O_ O_ 07 07 n— n— �0 O 'M LQ LO� 0 O O d~ O O O O d~ N N LO LC) O O N a) O N N (6 N O 'M 'O M (6 N O O a O O O O N a N W W O Lo O LO j LO a o ;o .0 o a LL LL O (p O Lo N t` O (p N N �0 O 'O 'r r` �0 O O d O N M d N N O O 'M 'O M O O O X d O O O O X d N N W W 9 9 >O O 'N 'Lo P >O O� O O MOB L l a O O N M LL a N O N N N V 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O (n O O O O (n O O t' Q N O oo '0 r` C 0 ° Cl! N ,^ 0 O ' N 04 C 0 N N 1 ^ 1 0 0 O X O 'LO 'O Lf) 0 0 x CO f0 0 O 'N M 0 O O U0 Z O N U Z M M U U) U) r 0 O 'O 'O O c CJ V 0 0 O 'ch v, 0 0 O r` 0 d O N U d V v o of U ..r...p.. S O R ) 0 F C 0 O M M LD N O V co rn r O .O N N Ln lA 0 00 :100 LIT) M 0 V V C) .O .0 O C) O O 0 0 N N Z Z V O r 00 V N N 0 O .0 .0 O 0 O O 0 9 0 9 0 0 O O H H pN O 'O O a) ON O f0 m 0 O O .V O 070 T V z 0 O .O .0 O Z 0 O O N N 0 O O O O_ O O O 07 07 LO LO - �� O W 0 O M 0 r t` a o ;o ;o o a LO LC)O O r` rn rn (6 N O 'M 'O M (6 N r t wa o ;o ;o o wa > 0 LO ;O LO >L� a o .o .0 o a LL LL O (p O N N V O (p O W O O 'O 'r t` 0 r t` d O N M d O O 'OM 'O M O X d O O O O X d W W 9 9 >O O 'N ' P >O O O O MOB L l a O O N M LL a N O N N N V 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O (n O O O O (n O O le Q n 0 0 .o r` N 0 rn q N w 0 0 04 0 v v 4- . . N N N r O r O0 0. M .0 M O O LM YM7 U U Z o 'O 0 z oN N U --- N N 7 0 O 'N M +L+ 0 LO LO O 0 0 O 'N 'O Cl! y 0 LO LQ U U Cr O N c Cr M M 0 N ..r...p.. U ++ O C , O O R O O R L(� C) S > ~ C) 0 ~ M LD N O LD co rn �o 00 N O O N Cl! N O Q O � V M Q N 'O N C) O O O O Q O O a N ' N N - Q Q Z Z V O r W V r P.- U O .0 .0 O U O O Q 9 Q 9 Q Q m O O H H pN O 'O .0 LD ON O LD mQ O O V O 070 r z U O O O O Z Q O W N ' N N N N Q Q Q Q O_ O_ 07 07 LO— LO— (p O LO r N (p V .O V �0 O 'M LP �0 r 'O fl d~ O O O O d~ N O N - 0 n 0 n O O O r P, O V O V (6 N O 'M 'O M O fl a O O O O N a N O W I O LO O LO j LO .•N O 'O � r .-•N ' a o ;o .0 o a LL LL 0—2 O N N V 0— 2 V .O V O O 'O 'r 0 r 'O P-: d O N M d N O N O O 'OM 'O M O 'O X d O O O O X d N .0 N W W > 9 9 >O O 'N ' P >O O O O MOB L l a O O N 0 LL a N O N N N M M Q O 'O 'O O Q O O (n O O O O (n O O le - �L r O 'W W O O N Q O N C Q ON N ' 0 O O 0 0 O rn rn V 0 Z O U Z M M +, U r CJ O 'N M le 0 O 'O O O Q O 'N 'O N r 0 Q N 'O N U d O N Q U d 0 LPl O 04 0) U ..r...p.. , ..�.. $ � T � (C O C O N f6 '> ++ O O R m +' U = > ~ d C U O 'a ~ Lf� to D M M LD N O Cfl M M co 00 N O 'O ,M M N 'O 0 0 '0 P.- 0 0) '0 a N N - O O Z Z V O 'O V r P.- U O .0 .0 O U O O 0 9 0 9 C) 0 m O O H H Lo 0 p N O 'O 'V r 0' N O O 0 p 'p O r m C) O O r � m C) p) ' p) N N N N 0 O O O O_ O O O 07 07 �0 O '00 'O O �0 LL '00 LQ a o ;o ;o o a ;o n _ n o 'O v 'o v (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N LO 'O LP) a o ;o ;o o a ;o w w - ?Ln o 'o ?Ln .•N O 'O 'O O .•N ' a o .o .0 o a LL LL 0- 0— 2 O 'O 'M M 2 V 'O �0 O 'O 'N N �0 0 'O a o .o .o o a ;o O O 'O 'O O O LO 'O LQ X d O O O O X d O W W > 9 9 >O O 'o 'N N >O 6) O 'O iia o ;o o ; o iia N O 'O 'O O N M ' M 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O U) O O O O U) O O - t' O O O 0 O '0 m W N O O U 0)0 O O O O CA 0 0 0 X O 'O 'co 00 0 u Z O O O O 0 Z U U) 7 0 O 'O 'O O y 0 n 'O LO 0 U Cr O 'O 'O O c d' N 'O N 04 O ..t...P.. U ..�.. .> i-' O cc M LD N O I— r N O 'O ,M M N O ,O O O O .o M M O O N N O O O ,I� O O W 00 'N N O O Z Z V O 'O V V O O .0 .0 o O .0 o O 9 O 9 O C) m O O H H V V O 0A O N O 'O r O N — r 0 O 'o 0 mO O ;O �� � mC) 'co 00 N N N N O O O U O_ O_ 07 07 — — ' 0 O O 'O O 0 O a� o ;o ;o o a� o ;0 0 _ O 'O O 'v v (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O W a o ,O ,O o W a o :d O .•N O 'O 'O O .•N ' a o ;o ;o o a LL LL 0- 0— 2 O 'O 'M M 2 O 'V 0 O 'O 'N N 0 O a o ;o ;o o a o ;0 0 O O 'O 'O O O O 'N N X d O O O O X d O .0 O W W 9 9 >O O 'o 'N N >O 6� O 'O iia o ;o ;o o iia N 0 0 '' 'O O N 'O O O O 'O O O O O O (n O O O O (n :0 O tL O 'O 'M M r (n 'N N O O o 'rn rn , O 'rn rn CJ o ;o ;o o 04 CJ Ox O 'O 00 0 x P.-O 'O :co'O O '++ O '� rl� O Z O :d :d O u Z N N ++ cc y ---F-- L �•/ M 00 }� CJ O 'O 'D) CA CJ .0 'Ln N O O 'O 'O R l3 O O co a)Q d' O 'O 'O O L U d' LO 'O 0 04 O n n U ..r...p.. v ..�.. CL r L ,o co r� 2 ri ri LD N O 00 r N O 0 ,. O ,O Q 0 0 Q 0 N N Q O O '0 0 O W O 0 V N N - Q Q Z Z V O 0 N N V V C) O .0 .0 o C) .0 0 Q 9 Q 9 C) C) m O O H H 0 0A 0 0A O N O 0 0 q O N — r Q 0 'o Q m Q O .0 .O O m Q ..0 0 0 V N N N N 0 0 'O O O_ O O O 07 07 — — �0 O O O �0 O d~ o ,o ,O o d~ o ,O O - �� _ o �0 o ;Ln (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O a o ;o ;o o o a ;0 0 w w O O N N .•N O 'O 'O O .•N ' a o ;o .0 o a LL LL 0—2 00 .0 'L uV7 0— 2 00 'V, V a o ;o ;o o a o ;0 0 O O '0 'O O O O - r X d O O O O X d O .0 O W W 9 9 >O 0 '0 'N N >O iia o ;o ;o o iia N 0 0 ':0 O N :0 O Q O '0 0 O Q 0 O (n O O O O (n :0 O - tl fn Q O ,O Q D D _ 00 0 L Q O O N Q N 4— 0 X O 0 0 O O X .0 00 ..+ Q O '0 'N Cl! c Q 'V u Z O O O O 0 Z cc 0 , U W 7 F_ ' ' M 00 L O [7 O O O O r 0 .0 'Ln O Q 0 '0 'N Cl! N Q W 'N Cn LO 'O LO LO V "a P.. V ..�.. N (� i+ - 'a 'Y R O O R Q Q S > ~ Cj L 0 F M LD N O r N M M N O O V Q O 0 Q O O o O o O 'V � Q Z V O O N N Q O .0 .0 O T Q 9 Q mo H O a) O N O O 0 Q O 'O m Q O O O O 'V � - N Q Q O_ 07 N -F 0 O 'O 'O O O O O :d O O O m� o 'o L O O O O wa � O �'O �N N O� O .0 .0 O LL La O 2 00 '00 'L ll� a o ;o ;0 0 w O _ O L O 'O X O O O O LU m � 9 >O O O N N LL a o ;o ;0 0 N O O ':O O Q O 'O O O (n O O O O 0 ' O O O CO 00 O 'O N O O N N O QX O :O :O O V! O 'O 'N Cl! 4 0 Z O O O O L cc U u F___F U) L C J O 'O 'O O (� +) Q O 'O 'N N C L d' O 'O 'O O •� C v U ..r...p.. O a) T O ri O � LD N O O O O O OO O Q 0 Z O (0 (0 0) > O Q 01 (0 r N 00 00 4 Q Z O ; O v o 'co U o Z 0 p 0) U O O 0 T N 9 ' U Q o Z U F- ° U O ' OO a O oN T ' T H (n O ; v m0 Z C) co co m > N rn rn O Q 0 Z Q U 0 : 00 m o 0 p ' ri O o o Z N cNO ;(D Q 0. - �j O ; O L� O �0 Z p. M G M wa 0. CF) CF) 0 r- r- __4__ -O N N 0 ° 2 > +• Q d U N O .O Z (6 LLs 0 _ '0 O, M M O U O , O Q T j ' 06 06 d F- )co co Z 0 O, V V O 2 _F' X O .0 w Z Q a > a 4_' m 9 -O O. U O ; O j 0 N O' N N O U ' U� O In In O) O) O) O) LL = N 0 0 O 'O Z U) O .0 O 'O 0 W 'W Q 0 C C O • O 0 Q L 0 ) ' 0) O Z ui ui Z O N i• N > Oi • �.p o E F c of o6 H L c rn;o3 0 � � � J u O J Y . 0 — r r (h .(h Z Y.0• N Cu 0 ' N •�IL • N • N ..�.. E :W Q :� p . � A U � C N M LU � � O O O N Q 0 W Q N LD N N Q O V 0 N O 'O O r Z O ;O O N O o ._ Q Q �_ Z 4 N V O V Q O ;O O O M 6 N O 'O Z O ;O Z 0 9 Q 4 5 O O .0 O O O N 'O O O a ---4--- 0�0 ° r N 9 Z Q O r (o — N N mo Z 4 N O O O (D O_ O N .0 m m 0 0) ; Z z � n— � N d~ O ;O O O Q Z 4 O_ m • • L O .0 0 O O xa o ;o O n w (N 2 Q 4_ ao o ;o Z 0 O� ' O wa (6 N O 'O Q --4-- X O O Z wa o_ m O ;v --4-- �° o ;0 0 > a� Q Z LL d ; w O O o --4-- L O 'O O xa o ;0 0 o w Q �0 d o ;o Z >o L �O w L� O 'O Z X o ;o w a > N o Q O '0 0 9 U) o ;o 0 >o La LL O N N -4-- 0 O 'L(? ll'l O N Q Q U) __4 (n O ;O Z ,c V X Q O --4-- O 'CO o0 N L Z O cc W O O 'N N d O 'O O J Q V 'CO Q ) N U F t3 U O ' N V W 0 (o o c3 m m � N W ° ° Z J m cc N (6 (6 0 02;(7 m R X (n (n c6 m, c6.°� O a In c6 O O L UW ' N z zz N D 'moo Ln Ln a O O N O U o O O r L(7 --4--- N O oo 'o o N Z o ,o o N V O M M = O 'O O (� O O O 0 9 U 75 H .o O o N O m0 o , a)z U O rn,O O -- N 0 U O_ 07 V 2 O 0 O r d o ,o O U a o ;0 0 w , N� > !_N O� , La LL o- 2 O O O O O a w O O m O 'O O W a T O O O N 9 >O O� LL N O 0 (n O O O 0 o '°) a) U O N 4 c , V X O O 'V L OZ O cc+' c3 z 0 -o (O L • O 'O O U) U) N • • L m o) N m m o °v (6 cc J m Y c z •� ) c W ' 2 N ` Q r ! = I a n , 6 O W > L Z N Ln a C Cfl LD N O (o N O O '00 Z O 00 '00 '00 O O o ;o O o o 0 0 O Q O N N Z Z Z V O O V O O = O 'O Q = O O Q O O Z Q O o T � T O 9 O 9 Q — Q Q p Z mp O O H H O N O O O N .O O m Q O 'O Q m Q O O z Q O O Z z Q .O O N N Q Q Q Q Q Z O_ O_ 07 07 — — N0 O 'O Q ND O O O O d~ o ,O Z d~ o ,O ,o o 0 0 O O O O (6 N O 'O Q (6 N O 'O 'O O wa o ;o w Z a o o 0 0 > >� E N ' Q O)cC ZO)cC La La O m 00 '0 Q 0 ° m o0 00 00 Oo a o ;o Z a o ;o ;0 0 m O 'O Q m O O 'O 'O O x a O .0 Z X d O O O O W W > 9 9 La La N O O N O O Q O 'O Q Q O O U) O O Z U) O O O O 'O Q O O O Q O O Z Q O O Q O 'O Q Q Q ' 'O O Z O O Z Z :0 O (� 0 0 '0 ". 0 co M O °) O M .M Q O 0 .M .0 M �. co 'co Z 0 a f3 T o T a ° w' R c U c: E (6 R N '.- p L C o� c o. O 9 �O� Oa�a F N U) Q O LD N O V N O 'O 'O O N O O O O 0 O ;O :d O 0 Z V O O U ;O O 0 9 0 mo H O N O O O 0 0 O_ 07 V O 'O 'O O O O ;O ;O O � o 'o '0 0 m O O 'O O L O ;O ;O O wa LLO� La 0 m 00 00 .0 0 00 a o ;o ;0 0 w O O L O 'O 'O O X O ;O ;O O LU m (1) 9 >o a� LL N 'O O 0 O O U) ;O O CO 0 '00 00 L (6 +O+ (� 0 ;O O � U) O cc CO cc E --F---F-- C O O O °o °o N N _0 o E! i c y 7 (D 7 ca N cn N 0) U cc c cc c 0 O .M '0 M C� O C� U 'cc C U cc cc cc L 2 N(6' E a O R C= Q N C= Q 0 L O S C O:- F C Q C 9 EU Ca m N U) Q > co O ti O op O 1� 00 d7 LD N O LD N a \_ \ 0 a / / 0 cu 2 d \ 2 e 3 cu § 3 U � k � c � ■ § § a � m ; \ a) 04 g / ƒ 4 \ L 0 ) G = E > n 2 � k 2 d \ U) CO .3.. @ Of _ g \ U) 7 y ■ 2 \ / , 0 ± ' \ ° 2 § ) 7 0 § . \ Q u Q E @ 2 3 � '+ \ q \ \ D o @ f e _ @ 2 t / = E E E \ o - E a a a $ 3 $ \ � } 2 § w k k \ w w w 7 2 ) . k \ \ 7 7 7 \ 2 / = 7 f \ / / / / o 04 D 0 m E u o 0 0 0 \ » a 0- _ / ( \ k ® f k § w o » . \ ? E E n .k = / 2 m \ g \ g ■ \ §w w w _0 _0 _0 S S S 7 f & = 2 m & _ % E 2 + & / a n + / « \ \ / 0 $ i ƒ / / \ i \ \ Uj 0 C4 LD N O (o co (1) bo O 0 � Z O 0)Z O ° O ° C0 O O O O O 'O N O 'O Q N O 'O Q Z O .0 Z Z V o 'O V I� 'O = O (O Q = O (O Q O ;O Z O ;O z 0 0 9 _ O :O Q _ O O Q (6 O ;O z (6 O ;O z O O LO LO H H -4--- ---4-- 0) . 0) O .M O .M m0 0 .NO Q m0 0 .Np Q Z 0 ° Z Z 0 ° .0 Z N N 0 O :0 0 O :0 0 O O Q 0 O O Q O_ O 'O z O_ O 'O Z LO mo 07 07 W Ln M ' z 0 O 'M z �LO Lc) (6 N (Op Q (6 N V .(,2 Q W a 'N Z W �N O Q N I ' Q iia 0) o z iia v o z O 5 �o Q Om Q z a� N �� z (60 O Q (6O Q 0 w a T T N z w a T M :N z a --4-- a --4-- O co Q :O M, c Q LU a co z a o c, z �a N c, �a cc co co O O Q 0 O Q E co O ;O Z co O ,O z c0 Lo V O x O co Lo Q O o N c O M �� z (� N �m z (o .v (o .v O x M x v rn (o Q c0 Q ++ V z 0) Z O n cN z U ++ y O i O (n c 0 � 'Ln ++ 0 N 'M 'O♦ 0 °) Z y 0 ° °) Z 0 ' ' c ' L ++ r � � N LD N O O o N N Ln N O LO LQ 0 ° W ' W 0 ° 'V 0A 0 ° ,O O 0 O ,O r ,O LD 0 �v a 0 Z .0 o Z .0 o V O r M f. V O M M w = O 'O 'N N = O 'O 'N C'! U O ;O .0 o U O ;O .0 o 0 9 0 9 C) U m O O H H 'O 'M M 'O 'M M pN O 'O O LD ON O 'r O M ED 0 ° r O 00 0 ° O O O C) O ,O O m z0 O ,(O O f0 N LO 00 LO f.- N N 0 0 U U O_ O_ 07 07 0 O' 'LN f00 0 O 'LO fM0 a~ o ;o ;o o a~ o ;o ;o 0 n n O �O �co m O �O �co m (6 N O 'O 'N N (6 N O 'O wa o ;o ;o o wa o ;o ;0 0 m co m N Cl! N N a o a 0 � � 0— y0 O Cl! y0 O Cl! a� o ;o ;co 00 a o ;o ;co 00 O O '0 'N N O O '0 'N N X a o ;o ;o o X a o ;o ;0 0 W W 'co Do co Do LL LL r� N O O O 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O 'O 'O O (n O ;O ;O O (n O ;O ;O O 0 0 L (O r 0 0 O O 00 0 ° 0 ° .M M (4 X O 'O X O O 0 O 'W O 0 O r_ 0 Z O ;LO f. Z O ;LO __F---F__ 0 __F---F__ 0 0) 0 L Q C r j M 'o 'rj O O . � 4a O O _ ' N ' O O N V N C M LD N O LD 0 ° N N C) O , O lfl O Z V O O _ CO 00 U .O O O 9 C) mo H O N W W m p O O Z p O r rz N O U O_ 07 N 0 p 'OO LQ O O M M O 'O O LQ m 0 wL O ' U a o ;r i o o N O O °a o 0 LL o_2. O �� T M 0 a w O O_ L O 'OO LQ x O M M w a m >° rn rn N v v, E is _Q r_ W N r.- C p 'O O U) O O ++ O C V U N _Q H! (A p Cj v O U U F 0 0 N O M 7 z P, 7 N L c3 0) c Q C y F W U _0 N O O (D w W c U co co o 0 O CW x _ O ...�.. N W W , U p C _ E _ o o r N p LL M M LD N O v 0 N (O O 'y) LQ N O Ln LQ 0 m o �� LNfi N N r P, - 0 0 Z Z V N O M V O O 'co W U O .0 .0 O U .0 O 0 9 0 9 0 0 m O O H H m0 V v �0 O 07 Z U c ° LD Z U Ln lA N r rz N N 0 0 'O O O_ O O O 07 07 — — 0 LO 'O 'O N 0 O 'V d~ O O O O d~ O N N O c0 O W O O r (6 N V 'O O a O O O O N a O N W W O) 'o O O O .•N O 'O 'O r .-•N O O a o ;o .0 o a o 0 LL LL �0 O 'N � 0 M 'V cq O T 'O 'O (6 O O 'V X d O O .0 O X d O N N W W 9 9 >O O �a CO ;o o ; m LLa ri M N N O O N N r P.- 0 O 'O 'O O 0 'O O U) O O O O U) O O - tl 0 M 'O '0) M a) 0 'r 0 ON ° ° N i+ 0 °v V 0 - 0 x LC) 'O O LO O x .0 W ++ 0 O) •O O c 0 •r M V z O ° ° 0 z M M 0 +L+ U N 0 0 O 'O 'O 0 'M M.0 0 N c d' 'Lo LPl 0 •1 0 °a = °o ) R f3 °a o m ' p 0 S > > .� 'O F N D ii M LD N O v 0 co 00 N (O O Y) LQ N O M M N O O O f, N O .(b O 0 Ln ,O O � O O N N co 00 - O O Z Z V N O M V O) W S 'O 'O S 'co 00 O O .0 .0 O O .0 0 O 9 O 9 0 0 m O O H H N N V D a) le Fn 0 V '0 0 V 0 ' P, m D CA C) LO �O �O O ZU �O) W N N N N O O 0 0 O_ O_ 07 07 LO _ LO O N 0 LO 'O' O LQ 00 N O OM) 'OM) 00 d~ O O O O d~ 0) m M n n O T O CA O O M M (6 N V 'O O 'D) CA a o ;o ;o o m 0 a o ; w w O) 'o O M M a o ;o ;o a)o a of � LL O 5 'O 'c) p Om 'M p (O O N W 0 O O d O O O O d M N O T 'O 'O O O 'O) W X d O O .0 O X d O M M W W 9 9 >O O � N V '-' 0 O O a co 'o 'o ma co 00 LL LL N N O O N P.- 0 O 'O 'O O 0 'O O U) O O O O U) O O - tL +�+ O M '0 �0) M fn 0 M M 1 0 ON .O .O N C 0 V V LO O Q C x 0) 'O ;O ^ O O x o a) M O z o ;o ;o U z ;(1) a) O 0 y N i 0 co 'O 'O 00 ++ c U) O O. 'o l3 O O 'm q ' O N L'O) W cc 0 0 CV ..t...p.. ..p.. a L f+C CL E f3 0 °� a ' p Cl) C Ua) 0 F N M D ii M M LD N O .0 00 00 N O O O O N O M M 0 O 'O M M O O O .O �O 0A O O �O O co 00 - 0 0 Z Z V O 'O V 'O 0A S O 'O 'O O S 'co 00 O O .O .0 O O .0 O 0 9 0 9 O O m O O H H O 0A O N O O W 00 O N '(O LD 0 p .0 0 r m0 O ;O ;rn rn m0 �O) °) O 0A N N 0 0 'O O O_ O O O 07 07 — — �0 O O �0 V 'LLO O d~ O O O O d~ V N L.- n n O O 'O O O 'LO ll-1 (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O 'LO IQ a O O O O O N a N W W - I O 'O f E O 'O 'O O .-•N V V L�a o ;o ;o o LL a v v - O 2 O O co 00 O 2 M LO O O 'O 'N N O 'LO d O O O O d .0 N O O O 'O 'O O O O 'LO LQ X d O O O O X d O N N W W 9 9 >O p 'p M r 6) O 'O 'N N �� a o ;o ;o o a co 00 Li Li N O O O O 0 O 'O 'O O 0 'O O U) O O O O U) O O tl 0 ' a) 0 D) a) O O ' ' 0 O .O i+ 0 .M M - O O x O 'O 0 0 x n n N +, 0 O 'O 0 L () Z O O O O 0 Z O W 7 F_ f+ c 0 O 'O 'N r 0 'N N l3 O O O 'O 0 '0) a)i () � o :6 N'o o U) 0 n O 0 Q ...t...p.. V ..�.. d F ) +�+ a N ++ O C a y R f3 O O R ,/ — > A O U .� 'O F M LL M LD N O 'O O () N O O o rn 0 0 ,0 .0 00 0 ' 'M M 0 r 0 O .O O 0 0 O .0 00 �O O 0 0 Z Z V O 'O V '(O w 0 O .0 .0 0 0 0 9 0 9 O 0 m O O H H O LD O ON O 'O .0 00 ON ,Cp Lp Fn 0 ° '° N N pj O LO 0 C) O �O 'O a) z0 'W 00 �O O N N 0 0 0 0 O_ O_ 07 07 n— n— �0 0 00 'O O �0 M 'LO a� o ;o ;o n _ n O 'O O 'LO rn (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O 'LO ll'l a o ;o ;o o w a o w ?Ln o 'o ?Ln E• O 'O 'O O .-•N M ' M LL a O .O O O LL a M M 02 O 'O 'co 00 ° 2 r 'O N O ° '° 'N N O O 'LO a� o ;o .0 O a� .0 O O 'O 'O O O O 'LO LQ X d O O O O X d O T W W 9 9 6)� O 'O 'N N (O f0 a o ;o ;o o a co 00 ii ii N O 'O 'O O N O O 0 O 'O 'O O 0 (n O O O O U) O O t,^' 0 O 'O co 00 v/ 0 '.0 00 C] ° '° 'LN IN r � O 0 x O 'O 0 N C O O 'O ++ O L O z o ;o ;o o U z ;0) rn U -__F___F O M v1 L O O 'O 'N_ O O O eq ++ O 'O 'o o N U O 0 , CL V ..t...P.. ..�.. CL a) 0 N fC 0 0 o m 0 M 0 le D 0 � 'O M M LD N O O .O O r �LO 0 ,rn rn N ° ° .LO LQ N O .W 00 C) O O p O 'W O O Z Z V O 'O V '(O O O O O O O O O 9 O 9 O O m O O H H O O O O N O 'O . N p]O ° .° V p]O LO N zp O O zp W 00 N N O O N N 0 0 O O O_ O O O 07 07 — — �0 O O O �0 V 'T a� o ;o ;o _ O O 'O O O 'M M (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O 'V � a o ;o ;o o a o ;ri 0 w w o 'o rn .•N O 'O 'O O .-•N V V a o .o .0 o a LL LL 00 O' O 'M M 0 'V M a� o;o ;o o O O 'O 'O O O O 'V X d O O O O X d O M M W W 9 9 ° O 'O 'O O ?° O o 6)� O 'O 'M ci O CA ri a o ;o o ; o ri a ri ri N O 'O 'O O N O O p O 'O 'O O p (n O O O O U) O O t. O lr7 O '0 O '(D O O ° ° i+ O LCOO (D 0 +O x O 'O O O O 0 + ' 'N N u Z O O O O O Z .0 0 i-. U M U) 7 T- C 0 O 'O 'v � +`+ 0 'rn a)O O O O 'O U) p '� r` N r a O ++ O 0 R le D LL M LD N O r r �O uQ N O O ' N M M LQ 0 0 ;0 V 0 LO y07 N N O O V � O O N N Z Z V O 'O V (O O O O .0 .0 O O O O O 9 O 9 O O m O O H H N N O O ON ' N N ON (O O O O 'O O O O m 0 o 0'v V m v V 0 N N O O V V O O O O O_ O_ 07 07 LO— LO— (p O 'O 'N N (p CO 00 0 O 'O 'O O 0 N N d~ O O O O d~ N N 0 0 O O 'O O O 00 (6 N O 'O O O O a O N a N W W 0 O 'O .•N O 'O 'O O .•N a o ;o LL LL °m o 'o °m .0 00 00 O 'O 'M M y0 N Cl! d O .O O O d N N !6 O O 'o 'O O !6 O N N X d O O O O X d N N W W 9 9 iia o ;o ;o o iia N O 'O 'O O N V 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O Cn O O O O Cn O O LO LO --4---4-- � - +�+ O o 'O 'M M O O 0 ° ° N C 0 N N O 0 ° '° �� O O x CO w O O Z O O O O 0 U Z co M +� 0 7 M j F___F +L+ y +`+ (7 0 'o ' c v (7 O y O ° '° C O O 04 o 'o 'o o V () Lo LO 0 cmV ..r...P.. cm O R C le C) LO = O O M M LD N O N .co v O O r r Cl! O M M Q 00 V M a 0 OO 0 Q O W R Q O O M V � Q Q N N Z Z V O .0 W V (O (D Q O .0 .0 O Q O O Q 9 Q 9 C) C) O O H H LO '(O N N pN O '.0 V M ON O LD m Q O .V .O V m Q V V Z Q O O .0 W Z Q O O M V � N N 0 O O O O_ O O O 07 07 n- n- 0 O O m 0 r ll'l 0 O W �0 'M d ll'l � r a� o ;o ;o o a� LO LC) O O N a O O a) (6 N O 'M 'O M (6 N r wa o ;o ;o o wa > 0 LO ;O LO >L� a o .o .0 o a LL LL O 46 O Lo N O 46 O W d O N M d O O 'M 'O M O X d O O O O X d W W 9 9 >O O 'N 'Lo P >O O� O O MOB L l a O O N M LL a N O N N N V Q O 'O 'O O Q O O (n O O O O (n O O Q fn Q °o o LO Q rn rn N L- C) o 'v m C) v v 4- N N N L O L -- 0 0 X O 'N 'M LO O X M M 4+ ira Q O 'LO .N c Q LO LQ U u Z O N 0 Z ON N U --- N N 7 0 O 'N M +L+ 0 LO LO O 0 Q O 'V 'N fp N Q LO LA U U Cr O N c Cr M M 0 ++ O C , O O R 0 O O R C) 0 ~ M LD N O co o co v r O O r 'r Cl! N LO ll l O oo 'v 'M a O v a O O W R O O O M V � O O N N Z Z V O '.0 W V N N O O .0 .0 O O O O O 9 O 9 0 0 O O H H Ln O pN O '.0 'V M ON O LD m 0 O 'V O V m 0 V V z 0 O O .0 W Z U O O M V � O O U 0 O_ O_ 07 07 n— n— �0 O 'M LQ LO� 0 O O d~ O O O O d~ N N LO LC)O O 'N ' a) O N N (6 N O 'M 'O M (6 N O O a O O O O N a N W W >� O 'Lo O LO j LO a o ;o .0 o a LL LL O (p O Lo N f, O (p N N �0 O 'O 'r 1` �0 O O d O N M d N N O O 'M 'O M O O O X d O O O O X d N N W W 9 9 >O O 'N 'Lo P >O O� O O MOB L l a O O N M LL a N O N N N V 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O (n O O O O (n O O - t' Q LO r O O Q N O O 'r 'O M Q O N Cl! N i+ 0 O ' N 04 C 0 N N 1 ;^ 1 O O O x O 'N 'M Ln O O x o m ++ O O 'LO 'c� ++ '++ O o 0 UO Z O N U Z M M U U) U) r 0 O 'N M c 0 V O 0 O 'v 'N m O O O r� 0 o N U U v v o of U ..r...p.. N S O R ) 0 F C O O M M LD N O V c .�o m r 0 N O M N Ln lA 0 00 .0 0 co N O V V C� O W R C) O O M V � 0 0 N N Z Z V O r O N C) O .0 .6 O U O O 0 9 0 9 C) C) O O H H p N O 'r �O rl� pi N O O m 0 O .O .O N m 0 T z 0 O O .0 W Z U O O M V � N N 0 O O O O_ O O O 07 07 -F — O LO r N (6 O W 0 O 'M 0 r a o ;o ;o o a n n (6 N O 'M 'O M wa o ;o ;o o wa > 0 LO ;O LO >L� a o .o .0 o a LL LL 0— a)O M N ll'l O (p O W d O N M d O O 'OM 'O M O X d O O O O X d W W 9 9 >O O 'N 'Lo P >O O O O MOB L l a O O N M LL a N O N N N V 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O (n O O O O (n O O 0 0 00 . .LO M 0 0 O W N L- C) o C) v v LF N N N L O L -- 0 0 X O 4+ ira 0 O 'LO f0 0 LO ll'l U U Z O 'O p Z 0 N U --- N N 7 0 O 'N M +L+ 0 LO LO 0 0 0 O 'ch v, y 0 LO Ln U U Cr O N c Cr M M 0 ++ O C , O O R 0 O O R L(� C) S > ~ C) 0 ~ M LD N O LD 'c '�o (D co 00 N O N O M N O Iq O O .0 0 co N O N 'O N C� O 0) .0 00 C) 0) ,O a M N N - O O Z Z V O r O V r P, C) O .0 .6 O U O O O 9 O 9 C) U m O O H H M LO 0 p N O 'r 0) fl pi N O O m 0 O O O N m 0 Z U O ,0) ,c0 W Z D 0) W M N N N N 0 0 U U O_ O_ 07 07 n- n O N V- 0 O �") �r l 0 � 0 V 'M d Pl �0 r 'O O fl d~ O �O �O O d~ N �O N n n O O O r P, O V O V (6 N O 'M 'O M O fl a O O O O N a N O W I O LO O LO j LO .•N O 'O � r .-•N ' a o ;o .0 o a LL LL O 2 O M N LO O 2 V .O O O 'O 'r P-: 0 r 'O d O N M d N O N O O 'OM 'O M O 'O X d O O O O X d N .0 N W W > 9 9 >O O 'N ' P >O O O O MOB L l a O O N 0 LL a N O N N N M M 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O U) O O O O U) O O le - �L r O '.0 'r LO O O Q 0 O 'r Ln M 0 r 04 i+ 0 O '�2 N C 0 ON N - 0 0 X O 'V 'N (0 0 x 0) W (� 0 Z O b- U Z M M +, U r 0 O 'N M l 0 O 'O O 0 0 O 'M V T- 0 0 N 'O N U C Cr O N Q U Cr 0 O N U ..r...p.. , ..p.. $ � T � (C O C O N f6 '> ++ O O R m +' U = > ~ d C U O 'a ~ Lf� CO D M M LD N O Cfl ,rn a) co 00 N O O .W W N O O 'O ,� 'O 0 0 '0 LO 0 0 � '0 a N N - O O Z Z V O 'O V r P.- U O .0 .0 O U O O 0 9 0 9 C) 0 m O O H H _ LO ll'l ON O 'O r ON O f0 0 p 'p ED O r C) O .0 Lo L m C) p) ' W N N N N 0 O O O O_ O O O 07 07 - - �0 O O O �0 LO '00 LQ a o ;o ;o o a ;o n _ n o 'O v 'o v (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N LO 'O LQ a o ;o ;o o a ;o w w - ?Ln o 'o ?Ln .•N O 'O 'O O .•N ' a o .o .0 o a LL LL 0- 0- 2 O 'O 'M M 2 V 'O �0 O 'O 'N N �0 LO 'O a o .o .o o a ;o O O 'O 'O O O LO 'O LQ X d O O O O X d O W W > 9 9 >O O 'o 'N N >O 6� O 'O iia o ;o o ; o iia N O 'O 'O O N M ' M 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O (n O O O O (n O O - t' O O O 0 O '0 '0 W N O O U 0)0 O O O O W 0 0 0 O X O 'O O ,O O O OX O O ++ ' c ' u Z O O O O 0 Z U U) 7 le O 0 O 'O 'O o � 0 � 'O r.- 0 O 'O y 0 n 'O LO 0 U Cr c d' N 'O N 04 0 ..r...p.. U ..p.. cc +�+ a M LD N O r N O) 0R N .M M N O 'O ,W 00 N O ,O O O O .o LO 0 O O N N O O O ,LO 0 O O W 00 'N N O O Z Z V O 'O V V O O .0 .0 o O .0 o O 9 O 9 O C) m O O H H O) 0A O N O 'O ,r O N — r p O 'o 0 mO O ;O ;Li LO mC) 'co 00 N N N N 0 0 O U O_ O_ 07 07 — — ' 0 O O 'O O 0 O a� o ;o ;o o a� o ;0 0 _ O 'O O 'v v (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O I a o ;o ;o o w a o :d 0 .•N O 'O 'O O .•N ' a o ;o ;o o a LL LL 0- 0— 2 O 'O 'M M 2 O 'V 0 O 'O 'N N 0 O a o ;o .0 o a o ;0 0 O O 'O 'O O O O 'N N X d O O O O X d O .0 O W W 9 9 >O O 'o 'N N >O 6� O 'O iia o ;o ;o o iia N 0 0 '' 'O O N 'O O O O 'O O O O O O (n O O O O (n :0 O tl O 'O 'O O r (n 'N N O O o 'O) 0 , O '0)04 CJ o ;o ;o o 04 CJ 0 O x O 'O ;O O 0 x r� O 'o ++ O O Z O O O O u Z N N ++ cc y ---F-- L �•/ M 00 }L 0 O 'O 'O O CJ W 'Lo N r O O 'O l3 O O co 'T a;Q d' O 'O 'O O L U d' LO 'O LO 04 0 n n U ..r...p.. v ..�.. cc E CL r L ,o co r� DI Q ri ri LD N O 00 r M M N O .0 , r N O .0 O 0 O 'O W 00 0 0 ,N N 0 O O 0 f0 0 O W 00 M M N N - 0 0 Z Z V O 0 N N V V C) O .0 .0 o C) .0 0 0 9 0 9 C) C) m O O H H .0 00 O 0A O N O 0 0 q O N - r ( 0 0 '0 0 m C) O .0 CO (D m C) .0 00 M M N N N N 0 0 'O O O_ O O O 07 07 - - �0 O O O �0 O d~ o ,o ,O o d~ o ,O O - �� _ o �0 o ;Ln (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O a o ;o ;o o o a ;0 0 w w O O N N .•N O 'O 'O O .•N ' a o ;o .0 o a LL LL 0-2 00 .0 9 'L uV7 0- 2 00 'V, V a o ;o ;o o a o ;0 0 O O '0 'O O O O - r X d O O O O X d O .0 O W W 9 9 >O 0 '0 'N N >O iia o ;o ;o o iia N 0 0 ': '0 O N :0 O 0 O '0 0 O 0 0 O (n O O O O (n :0 O - t,^l v/ O O .0 0 '0 O +�+ 0 '.0 W 0 L 0 0 O O _ N 4- N N 0 X O 0 N N O X .0 00 �.+ 0 O 'O 'N Cl! c 0 u Z O O O O 0 Z cc 0 , U W 7 F_ M 00 L O (7 O 'O 'N N JLj 0 .0 'Ln O 0 0 '0 'N Cl! N 0 W 'N CA LO 'O LO LO V "a P.. V ..�.. N (� i+ - 'a 'Y R O O R Q C) Cj L 0 F M LD N O r O O ;r v N O 'O 0 W W 0 O O O O 'M M 0 Z V O O N N U O .0 .0 O T 0 9 C) mo H .0 00 O N O O 0 0 O 'O C) O .O �( CO (D 'M M - N 0 U O_ 07 N o 'O O 'O O O O O O O O O m� o 'o L O O O O wa O O N N O� O .0 .0 O LL La O 2 00 '00 'L ll� a o ;o ;0 0 w O _ O L O 'O X O O O O LU m � 9 >O O O N N LL a o ;o ;0 0 N O O :0 O 0 O 'O O O (n O O O O 0 ' O O O 0 W O 'O 'O O N O O N N O OX O :O �N N V! O 'O 'N Cl! 4 0 Z O :d :d O L cc U u F___F U) L C J O 'O 'N N (� +) 0 O 'O 'N Cl! C L d' O 'O 'O O •� C v U ..r...P.. O a) T O ri O � LD N O O O 'O N O Z O °) 0) O Q rn m N 3 00 00 4 ¢ Z O ; O Z 0 p 0) U O O O T N 9 0 Q o Z U a o O N (D (D H (n O , V m0 0 o Q Z O 0) .0) Z d c° (° _ n n m > _4__ °-) 70I� N = : OD OD O Q 0 Z ¢ U p Op m o 0 N 0 'N Q = O o o Z N cNO ;(D Q o. — �j O ; O Z p- � (I G M wa 0. CF) CF) 0 r- r- __4__ -O N N O ° 2 > +• Q d (� N O .O Z (6 LL _ '00 O, M M U O , O O Q T j ' 06 06 d F- )co co Z 0 O, V V O 2 _F' L ' Q X O .O w Z Q a > a 4_' m 9 -O O. U O O >O Z U � O) O) .0 0 O) O) LL = •Y• •Y• N 0 '0 Q 0 O 'O Z U) O .0 N 'N • • O O 'O Q 0 M .M Z O C C • 0 O 0) Q O 0) O Z ui ui Z O N i• N O i • > �.p o E F c of o6 H L c rn;o3 m cwt m S; 0 (O .O Q J Y• i 0 0 O p Z O 0' (6 0 • (6 •� M 'M a• N d • N ..�.. E :W Q :� Q . � A N M W � � O LO O O N Q 0 W Q N LD N N Q O V 0 N O 'O O r Z O ;O O N O o ._ Q Q �_ Z 4 N V O V Q O ;O O O M 6 N O 'O Z O ;O Z 0 9 Q 4 5 O O .0 O O O N 'O O O a ---4--- 0�0 ° r N 9 Z Q O r (o — N N mo Z 4 N O O O (D O_ O N .0 m m 0 0) ; Z z � n— � N d~ O ;O O O Q Z 4 O_ m • • L O .0 0 O O xa o ;o O n w (N 2 Q 4_ ao o ;o Z 0 O� ' O wa (6 N O 'O Q --4-- X O O Z wa o_ m O ;v --4-- �° o ;0 0 > a� Q Z LL d ; w O O o --4-- L O 'O O xa o ;0 0 o w Q �0 d o ;o Z >o L �O w L� O 'O Z X o ;o w a > N o Q O '0 0 9 U) o ;o 0 >o La LL O N N -4-- 0 O 'L(? ll'l O N Q Q U) __4 (n O ;O Z ,c V X Q O --4-- O 'CO o0 N L Z O cc W O O 'N N d O 'O O J Q V 'CO Q ) N U F t3 U O ' N V W 0 (o o c3 m m � N W ° ° Z J m cc N (6 (6 0 02;(7 m R X (n (n c6 m, c6.°� O a In c6 O O L UW ' N z zz N D 'moo Ln Ln a O O N O U o O O r L(7 --4--- N O oo 'o o N Z o ,o o N V O M M = O 'O O (� O O O 0 9 U 75 H .o O o N O m0 o , a)z U O rn,O O -- N 0 U O_ 07 V 2 O 0 O r d o ,o O U a o ;0 0 w , N� > !_N O� , La LL o- 2 O O O O O a w O O m O 'O O W a T O O O N 9 >O O� LL N O 0 (n O O O 0 o '°) a) U O N 4 c , V X O O 'V L OZ O cc+' c3 z 0 -o (O L • O 'O O U) U) N • • L m o) N m m o °v (6 cc J m Y c z •� ) c W ' 2 N ` Q r ! = I a n , 6 O W > L Z N Ln a C Cfl LD N O (o N O O '00 Z O 00 '00 '00 O O o ;o O o o 0 0 O Q O N N Z Z Z V O O V O O = O 'O Q = O O Q O O Z Q O o T � T O 9 O 9 Q — Q Q p Z mp O O H H O N O O O N .O O m Q O 'O Q m Q O O z Q O O Z z Q .O O N N Q Q Q Q Q Z O_ O_ 07 07 — — N0 O 'O Q ND O O O O d~ o ,O Z d~ o ,O ,o o 0 0 O O O O (6 N O 'O Q (6 N O 'O 'O O wa o ;o w Z a o o 0 0 > >� E N ' Q O)cC ZO)cC La La O m 00 '0 Q 0 ° m o0 00 00 Oo a o ;o Z a o ;o ;0 0 m O 'O Q m O O 'O 'O O x a O .0 Z X d O O O O W W > 9 9 La La N O O N O O Q O 'O Q Q O O U) O O Z U) O O O O 'O Q O O O Q O O Z Q O O Q O 'O Q Q Q ' 'O O Z O O Z Z :0 O (� 0 0 '0 ". 0 co M O °) O M .M Q O 0 .M .0 M �. co 'co Z 0 a f3 T o T a ° w' R c U c: E (6 R N '.- p L C o� c o. O 9 �O� Oa�a F N U) Q O LD N O V N O 'O 'O O N O O O O 0 O ;O :d O 0 Z V O O U ;O O 0 9 0 mo H O N O O O 0 0 O_ 07 V O 'O 'O O O O ;O ;O O � o 'o '0 0 m O O 'O O L O ;O ;O O wa LLO� La 0 m 00 00 .0 0 00 a o ;o ;0 0 w O O L O 'O 'O O X O ;O ;O O LU m (1) 9 >o a� LL N 'O O 0 O O U) ;O O CO 0 '00 00 L (6 +O+ (� 0 ;O O � U) O cc CO cc E --F---F-- C O O O °o °o N N _0 o E! i c y 7 (D 7 ca N cn N 0) U cc c cc c 0 O .M '0 M C� O C� U 'cc C U cc cc cc L 2 N(6' E a O R C= Q N C= Q 0 L O S C O:- F C Q C 9 EU Ca m N U) Q > co O ti O op O 1� 00 d7 LD N O LD N Appendix A-2 Construction and Operational Emissions CALEEMOD Output Files a 7 \ 0 a / / 0 cu 2 d \ 2 e 3 cu § 3 § - § E \ \ ) ; \ U � � ' ■ § � o u O � § u . . m � a � � � \ g / ƒ 4 a) 04 \ L 0 ) G = E > n 2 � k 2 d \ U) CO .3.. @ Of _ g \ U) 7 y ■ 2 \ / , 0 ± ' \ ° 2 § ) 7 0 / : § . \ Q u Q \ E @ 2 o ; ) 3 '+ \ q \ \ D o @ f e _ @ 2 t / = E E E \ o - E a a a $ 3 $ \ � } 2 § k k \ w w w 7 2 ) . k \ \ 7 7 7 \ 2 / = 7 f \ / / / / o 04 D 0 m E u o 0 0 0 7 » a 0- _ / ( \ k ® f k § w o » . \ E E n .k = / 2 m \ g \ g ■ (D \ 0) §w w w _0 _0 _0 S S S 7 f & = 2 m & _ % E 2 + & / \ \ / 0 $ i ƒ / / \ i \ \ Uj 0 C4 co 0 co N Co. o N .0 o O O) '� M 0 0 M 0 'M 0 'M 0 O : :O O 0 O O O N O �O O N O �O O Z O .0 o Z O .0 o V 0 co N V 0 M N 0 O .0 O 0 O .0 O ___4___ 0 co 0 co (6 o)) m M (6 o)H p) M O O) 'M O o) 'M o H O N ,O O O N m0 m M m0 q co o) 'M o) 'M N N 0 O ':O O 0 O ':O O C) O O O C) O O O p O :d O p O :o O 07 07 — — 0 LM ' fop 0 M a o ;o o a o ;0 6 O O ;LO ll'l w a o ;o o w a o ;0 6 I M r 00 .•N � 'O r .-•N O H O O a o ;o o a o ;o o LL LL o— g) o) oo °2 v .'co 0 O 'N M O co N d ;o d o ;o X d O ;O O X d O ;O O W j W j, C C O O O O >O o) .� (O oo .O Ln O iia o ;o o iia o ;o o N O N O 0 O O O 0 O O O u) O ;O O u) O ;O O D) O W o r N 0 n o 0 o a 0 O ;N W 0 O ;N m 0 X V N O X Lo N O ++ 0 v LO rn 0 Ln +, U z ai 0 z v m U ---F--- +, C 7 N 0 O O O r 0 N M 0 0 'O N 0 O U Cr O r.: c Cr O Lo O U ..r.. U ..r.. L ++ N i+ co M V R r � � N co 0 ,O ,co ,co rn V N O O O O 0 O (d r O :.o C) O O O O M N 0 O N O O ,O N N O 'O 'O 'O Z O .O .O .O O O V O V V V LO f, = O 'O 'O 'N 'O N C) O .O .O O Cl) N 0 P- C) O 0 O � O O ' 'O �`. '� ll'l O O O O O 0 V O p O O ' N N LC)H _ N O N O ,V O O ,V W 0 0 p ; mU o •0) .co �o �0 0 O ' N N N 0 O 'O 'O 'LO 'O LO O 'O 'O 'O 'O O p O 'O 'O ' T 'O 07 LO— N 0 O 'O 'O 'O 'O O O O O O O O n O O O O v m� o 0'o 'o 'o '0 0 L O O O O O O wa O O O LL La O 0 00 'o '0) 0'00 '0 °o a o ;o .0 .0 .0 w O O L O 'O 'O 'O 'O O x a o ;o ;o ;o ;0 0 W j C O O >O M M O W L 0 O 'O (n O O :d O 0 O CO O O 0 O O 0 LO LC x O co Lo 00 O 'M 'CO c 0 Z O O O 0 _4___4___4_ �L L N 0 V 'O 'LO O Q O Cr N 'O 'O M O v ..r...p...r...p.. L _ ` ' N O O p Q ;w N 04 co 0 ;( ;(D v LD N O O 'LO '0 N 0 O n M M 0 O O O N 00 .0 N 0 O � O O I� 00 N O 'O Z O .0 .0 .0 .0 0 V O M (o O = O 'O 'O r O C) O .O .O O N M N 0 O U O 0 O M 0 N c6 Ao mo O O O M 0 O O H _ M O N O LO O O 0 O 'O O mU 0 •0) .co �o �c N 0 O 'O 'O 'M 'O M O 'O 'O 'co 'O 00 0 O 'O 'O 'N 'O N 07 N 0 O 'O 'O 'O 'O O O O O O O O O O O O v m� o 0'o 'o 'o '0 0 L O O O O O O wa O O O LL La O 0 00 '0 'rn '00 '00 q a 0 ;0 ;0 ;0 ;0 0 w O O L O 'O 'O 'O 'O O X a 0 ;0 ;0 ;0 ;0 0 W j C O P, O .M M N F-- Ln ll'l L�a ;O 0 O N N 0 O 'O 'O O 0 (n O O :d O (n N O 0 O O 'N 'N ll'l 0 C) O O 0 Ln CJ O X O (O LO X f3 0 0 N C0 0 Z O :d :d Z L 0 0 'L� 0 0 QO O M d' Q O . . 0 ..r...p...t...p. V 'a cc 0 0 R O > (6 F ++ U Q 'w '� N U °� U N M z N N C M co 0 N 0 'N Cl! 0 .0 00 0 O O O 0 O :O O N O 'O O Z O .0 O V O 0 O .0 O T ' N c� O O O ' p d W W O O O H 0 O Z 0 O O O N 0 O 'O O O 'O O p O 'O O 07 LO— _ O O O O ;O O �LO o v v L O 'O O x a o ;o 0 w (1)� LL o m o 'o o a o ;o 0 w O o O L O 'O O x a o ;o 0 W j, C O j O O E o LL 0 _Q r_ LU N O O 0 0 O O n ;O O ++ O C 0 M M V! (n 0 v o W O 0 0 ;0 0 U U c F O V! o o +, 0 O N (6 M u z ;0 0 N L t3 0) c Q C y F O W U _0 N O O o 0 U ll� o o O Q .a O O m LL x _ N ...�.. cc N W W , U 0 O _ 0 _ o o M M co 0 I- N LO N N r P.-N W '0 ' M N 0 'N Cl! O N O N O O (CO (D 0 O : : :O O O 0 O O O N O �O �O O N O �O O Z O .0 .0 o Z O .0 o V O O O O V O C) O .0 .0 o C) O .0 o O W O M O O N O V O 75 N 'o (6 0 'W 00 y0 N N y0 .O W H H O N M O O O N O r m 0 W O M 0 O m Z U N O N Z 0 O O LD N N 0 O ': 'O :O O 0 O ':O O 0 O O O O 0 O O O 0 O O O O 0 O O O 0] Fn LO— LO— 0 O 00 00 O 0 O NO O d~ o ,o ,o O d~ o ,o O - �LO �LO O O O O O O O N N (6 N O O O O (6 N O O O a o ;o ;o o a o ;o o w w - O 'o O O .•N O :O O O .-•N O O a o .o .0 o a o 0 LL LL 0- 0—2 M -00 -00 r 2 O O O a o .o .0 o a o ;0 0 O O .O .O O O O .O O X d O O O O X d O .O O W j W j, C C O O O O >O N .O .O >O M M O O O O a o ;o ;o o a o 0 N O O :0 O N :0 O 0 O O O O 0 O O (n O O O O (n :0 O - t' 0 0 '0 O N a) 0 V a 0 O O O O 0 O O 0 0 X r O O f.- O X Lo LO bra 0 'O O ': c 0 'Cl) M M V Z o o o o 0 z o 0 0 U N c 0 N O O N r 0 Lo LO L 0 0 O 'O 'O O y 0 'O O c d' :O o 0 • 0 ' o is ' p 0 U .� '0 F N ii M co 0 w N LO N N 'LO 'n N .0 '0 M N 0 'M M O N O N O O M M 0 O ' ' 'O O O 0 O O O N O 'O 'O O N O 'O O Z O .0 .0 o Z O .0 o V O 'O 'O O V O 'O O O O .0 .0 o O O .0 o 0 W '0 M 0 O N N 76 N 'o V M 0 'O O y0 N N y0 M M H H O N W 'O ' M O N O N N m0 O 'v m0 O Z U N O N Z 0 O M M N N 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O 'O O C) O 'O 'O O C) O 'O O p O :d :d O p O :d O 07 07 L— LO— �0 O '00 '00 O �0 O 'O O a o ;o :d o a o ;0 0 - �LO �� O O 'O 'O O O O 'N N (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O 'O O a o ;o ;o o a o ;o o w w ? co 0 rn N O 'O 'co W N O 'CO M O O 'O 'CO 00 O O 0 O O O O O O ,M M 0 O : : :O O O 0 O O O N O 'O 'O O N O 'O O z O O O o z O O o V O : : :O O O V O O O S O 'O 'O O S O 'O O O O O O o O O O o 0 O O CO 00 0 O N N _ O 'O 'CO 00 _ O mo O O O O o O O O O o M M H H O N O O CO 00 O N O 'I� m0 O 'O 'CO oo m0 O 'N N z O O O O O z O O ,M M N N 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O 'O O C) O 'O 'O O C) O 'O O p O :d :d O p O :d O 07 07 - - 0 o' o 'o o 0 o' O O d~ o ,o ,o o d~ o ,O o - �� o o o o o (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O w a o ;o ;o o w a o ;0 6 O O O O > N N "N O 'O 'O O E O O L�a o ,o ,o o L�a O O - O 2 oo 'oo 'oo oo O 2 O 'O o o d o ,o ,o o d o ,o o O O 'O 'O O O O X d O O O O X d O O O W j W j C C O O O O >O O O O O >O V O 'O 'O O �� O O LL o ;o ;o o o Lia 0 N O O ': 'O O N :O O 0 O 'O O O 0 O O (n O O O O (n :o O t' O o 'o 'O O a) O 'ON o 0 O O :d O i+ 0 O O - O O x o 'o 'o o x ;rn N ++ O o 'o 'o O O U z o ;o ;o o O z ;o 0 O W 7 F_ f+ c 0 O 'O 'O O r 0 'M M (� O 0 O 'O 'O O 0 'O O i (� � y o 'o 'o o U) 0 o 0 c3 O ; Q ...t...P.. V ..�.. CL O +O+ a N ++ O C a ) R (3 O o R ,/ - > ) 0 S > O F M LL M co 0 0 ,O O N O 'O .0 00 N O ,O O O O 'O 'W 00 0 O ,W 00 0 O O O O O O V 0 O ' ' 'O O O 0 O O O N O 'O 'O O N O 'O O Z O .0 .0 o Z O .0 o V O ' 'O O O V O S O 'O ' O O .0 .0 o O O .0 O O O 0) a)O 'O 'co 00 O O ,(O f0 _ O 'O 'co 00 _ O P.-75 O O O O 5 O ,V O O H H - O 0A O N O 'O 'co 00 O N O ,O f0 m0 O 'O co Do m0 O P, Z O O O O O Z O O ,V N N 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O 'O O C) O 'O 'O O C) O 'O O p O 'O 'O O p O 'O O 07 07 L— L �0 O '0 '0 O �0 O 'O a o ;o ;o o a o ;0 6 - �LO �� O 'O 'O O O '� r, (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O 'O O a o ;o ;o o a o ;o o w w "N O 'O 'O O '"'N O O a o ;o .0 o ma o 0 LL LL O 2 a O .0 '0 O M ; ; ;'O Cl! oo o o o 0 0 O O 'O 'O O O O 'O O X d O O O O X d O .O O W j W j C C O O O O >O O 'O 'O O >O M iia o ;o o ; o iia o 0 N 0 0 'O O N 'O O 0 O 'O 'O O 0 'O O (n O O O O U) O O - t' +�+ 0 O 'O (n 0 '0) a)'O 'O O 'I� P, 0 O O O O 0 O O 1 - r O O X O 'O 'O O 0 X '(O O N C O O 'O 'O O '++ O '� ? O z o ;o ;o o U z 0 L O O 'O 'O O O O O o O O O C C ll� o o o o N () ll� 'o 0 CL 0 V ..t...P.. N ..�.. CL N fC °a = °o Y R l3 °a o m 0 L > , 0 O le D O � 'O M M M co 0 ,O o N O O V a N O ,O O p ° ° ° °' p ° o 00 C) O O N N p O V - p O : : :O O O p O O O N O 'O 'O O N O 'O O Z O .0 .0 o Z O .0 o V O : :O O O V O S O 'O ' O O .0 .0 o O O .0 o O O 0) a)O .O �M M p O �(O f0 75 O O N N 75 O V O O H H - O a) O N O .O M M O N O (O f0 m p O 'O 'O W m O 0 r P.: Z O O O N N Z O O .,;T qt N N O O 'O 'O O O O 'O O C) O 'O 'O O C) O 'O O p O 'O 'O O p O 'O O 07 07 L LO— — ' �0 O 'O� O O O O O a o ;o ;o o a o ;0 0 - �LO �LO (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O 'O O a o ;o ;o o a o ;o o w w O O O O > N N "N O 'O 'O O E O O LL LL a o ;o .0 o a o 0 O 2 00 '00 '00 00 O 2 O 'o a o ;o ;o o a o ;0 0 m O O 'O 'O O O O 'O O 0 Lo LO X d O O O O X d O .O O W j W j C C O O O O >O O .O .O O >O O 0 O 'O 'O O a� O O iia o ;o ;o o LL o 0 N O O :0 O N :0 O p O 'O O O p O O (n O O O O (n :0 O - t' O O 'O 'O O O 'W W C) O O O O i+ p O O 0 0 X O O O O O X 'LO LO bra O O 'O 'O O c O 'I� P, u Z O O O O O Z O O i-' U M U) 7 T- c 0 O 'O 'O 0 +L+ 0 'N O O O O 'O 'O O p N () o 'o 'o o C ll� '0 0 a O ++ O C , O O R O . 0 R j C LL M co 0 N N O 'O 'V V N M M 0 O O N N 0 (D (D M M 0 O ' 'O O O 0 O O N O 'O 'O O N O O Z O .O .O o Z O o V O 'O 'O O V T S O 'O 'O O S O O C) O .O .O o C) O o 0 0 co co C) O 'O co M C) V V O O O W (D O_ O O N N _ O O O O M M H H O O O N O 'O 'co M O N T V m 0 O 'O 'O W m 0 (D (D Z C) O O N N Z C) (O (0 M M N N 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O C) O 'O 'O O C) O O p O 'O 'O O p O O 07 07 LO— LO— (p O 'O 'O O (p M M 0 O 'O 'O O 0 N N d~ O ,O ,O o d~ 0 0 �L �LC) O O 'O 'O O O M M (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N N N a O ,O ,O o a 0 0 W W ? O 'o 'O O ?L� .•N O 'O 'O O .•N a o ;o .0 o a LL LL 0- 0-(p O 'O 'O O (p M M 00 O 'O 'O O y0 N Cl! a o ;o ;o o a 0 0 O O '0 '0 O O N N X d O O O O X d O O W j W j C C O O O O >O O 'O 'O O >O iia o ;o o ; o iia N O 'O 'O O N O O 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O (n O O O O (n O O --4---4-- � - r ++ O o '0 'O O O 0 Cl) M 0 O O O O N 0 N N � � 0 O X O 'O 'O O 0 0 X r P, C 0 O 'O 'O O 4+ �.+ 0 V 0 Z O O O O 0 u Z M M M j L N r 0 (� 0 O 'O 'O O 0 0 Lo LQ N c ll� o 'o 'o O V 0 � 0 0 0 io O R 0 C) C U O le M M co 0 co N N CO 00 O V Ci N 00 ,O) ,Cl) N N Cl) M 0 O M O 0 r 0 O r r 0 CO CO m M M M 0 O : :O O O 0 O O N O 'O 'O O N O O Z O O O o Z O o V O N V V S O O S O O C) O O O o C) O o 0 O Lo M 0 CO O 75 ° (O M W (O O O r r (O O p M p M M H H CO LO M (O O O N O — q O N V Iq m0 O r V m0 C00 f00 M M M N N 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O C) O 'O 'O O C) O O p O :d :d O p O O 07 07 n— n— 0 o 'o' o O 0 o oo d~ o ,O ,O o d~ o o LO _ LC) O O M V O CO 00 (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N w a o ;o ;o o w a o 0 O N E• O O .•N L�a o ,o ,o o LL a °m o .o o °m cO t2 O 0 '0 'N M O a o ;o ;o o a o 0 !6 O O 'O CO W X d O O O O X d O O W j W j C C O O O O >O O 'CO P.- >O O 'O iia o ;o ;o o iia N O O :o O N O O 0 O 'O O O 0 O O (n O O O O (n O O r O U- O °o 'v r�i N O v v N 4 0 O N 0 N N � 0 -- 0 0 X O ,M ,N LO O X LO LO }+ ++ 0 O N 0 O O V U Z O O 0 Z N N �� r L L u N N 7 O o 0 O N y 0 M M o c ll� o o o O O O o ++ C , O � O R � R L(� C) S > ~ C) 0 ~ M co 0 v N N 00 O M M N 0 0 0 m m m l,M N N 0 0 M M 0 O M 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O N O 'O 'O O N O O Z O O O o Z O o V O N V N N S O O S O O C) O O O o C) O o 0 CO LO M 0 M M C) O — q C) N N ° (O M W M m O I� r o W O M O H H O LO M M M O N O — q O N N N Fn 0 O r t m 0 W W M N N 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O C) O 'O 'O O C) O O p O :d :d O p O O 07 07 LO— LO 0 o o 'o 'o O O O O a o ;o ;o o a o o LO _ Lc)O O 'M O O O (6 N O 'O a o ;o ;o o o 0 a w w O N E• O O .•N L�a o ,o ,o o LL a o- o 'rn o °2 o 0 O 9 .9 'N M O a o ;o ;o o a o 0 O O o co'O O O X d O O O O X d O O W j W j C C O O O O >O O 'CO P.- >O O 'O iia o ;o ;o o iia N O 'O :o O N O O 0 O 'O O O 0 O O (n O O O O (n O O 0 0 O 'V ' LO 0 v, 0 0 N C) o N N L C) L � � � L 0 O O X O ,M ,N LO 0 0 X O O 0 o N ++ ++ 0 co Lo U 0 Z O O U V Z +L+ U - N N C O 0 O N C 0 0 N N U c � o 'o 'o O U U o o o of U ..r...p.. of S O R C O M M co 0 LD O ,0 r N O LD O O W W 0 W W 0 O : :O O O 0 O O N O .O .O O N O O Z O .O .O O Z O O V O O O O V N N S O .O .O O S O O C) O .O .O O C) O O 0 O M 0 M M C) 00 O O O C) N Cl! 0 O W .0 O W W H H O N O 0 0 O O N N N O Z C) O .0 .0 m C� W W N N 0 O ': 'O :O O 0 O O C) O O O O C) O O p O :d :d O p O O 07 07 — — �0 O NO O O �0 O O a o ;o :d o a 0 0 (6 N a O �O a)O O 0 0 o o o 0 w w O ? co 0 LO N 0 'O N LO '0 LQ O O W o O O N N 0 O : : :O O O 0 O O O N O 'O 'O O N O 'O O Z O O O o Z O O o V O : : :O O O V O O O = O 'O 'O O = O 'O O C) O O O o C) O O o ° o o ° V .o v 76 0 'O 'V (6 O 'o O y0 W o 0 N N H H 00 o ,O ,� oo V ,o v ZD O W r ZD O N N N 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O 'O O C) O 'O 'O O C) O 'O O p O :d :d O p O :d O 07 07 LO- LO- 0 o' O 'O O 0 o 'o O d~ o ,o ,O o d~ o ,O o - �LO _ �� O O :O O M O M (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O 'O O a o ,O ,O o a o ,o o W W ? co 0 I- N O 'O ' r � N L� 'O LLQ 0 o 'o 'v V 0 'o C) O O C) N O N 0 O : : :O O O 0 O O O N O 'O 'O O N O 'O O Z O O O o Z O O o V O : : :O O O V O O O = O 'O 'O O = O 'O O C) O O O o C) O O o 0 O O V V 0 V 'O V o 75 O o 5 N .O N O O H H O N O O V O N O O O m 0 O 'O V a m 0 V .O a Z U O d Z U ( d N N N 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O 'O O C) O 'O 'O O C) O 'O O p O :d :d O p O :d O 07 07 LO- LO- 0 o 'o 'o O 0 O 'O O a o ;o ;o o a o ;0 0 - �LO �LO O O O O O O N O N (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O 'O O a o ;o ;o o a o ;o o w w ? co 0 w N O .O V N O O LD O O 'O 'V O O 'LO LO 0 O O 0 O N N 0 O : : :O O O 0 O O O N O 'O 'O O N O 'O O Z O O O o Z O O o V O : : :O O O V O O O = O 'O 'O O = O 'O O O O O O o O O O o O O O O O V O O LO LO 75 O 'O 'V _ O 'LO LQ O O O N N O O H H O N O O V O N O LO LO m 0 O 'O V m 0 O 'LO L Q z O O O z O O N N N N 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O 'O O C) O 'O 'O O C) O 'O O p O :d :d O p O :d O 07 07 LO- LO- 0 o' o 'o O 0 o 'o O a o ;o ;o o a o ;0 0 - Ln n o o o o o o o (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O 'O O w a o ;o ;o o w a o ;0 0 ? co 0 rn N O .O O LD N O O LD O O 'O 'M M O O 'LO LO 0 O O co M 0 O N N 0 O : : :O O O 0 O O O N O 'O 'O O N O 'O O z O O O o z O O o V O : : :O O O V O O O S O 'O 'O O S O 'O O O O O O o O O O o O O O O O (O LD O O LO LO _ O 'O 'M M _ O 'LO LQ O O co M O N N O O H H O N O O (O LD O N O LO LO m0 O 'O 'M M m0 O 'LO LQ z O O O co M z O O N N N N 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O 'O O C) O 'O 'O O C) O 'O O p O :d :d O p O :d O 07 07 LO— LO— 0 o' o 'o O 0 o 'o O a o ;o ;o o a o ;0 0 - Ln n o o o o o o o (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O 'O O w a o ;o ;o o w a o ;0 0 ? co 0 0 N O .O co co N O 'O 'M M 0 O ;O ;co M 0 O : :O O O N O 'O 'O O z O .0 .0 O V O : :O O O S O 'O 'O O C) O .0 .0 O T ' ' 0 C) O .O (O f0 _ O 'O 'M M mo O ;O ;co M H O N O .O (O (0 Fn 0 O 'O 'M M z C) O ;O ;co M - N 0 O 'O 'O O O 'O 'O O p O 'O 'O O 07 LO N -F 0 O 'O 'O O O O ;O ;O O �LO O O O O m O 'O 'O o L O ;O ;O O wa (1)� I O O O O O� O .0 .0 O LL La m °O '°O .0 0 00 a o ;o ;0 0 w O O L O 'O 'O O x a o ;o ;0 0 W j C O O >O O O .O O O 'O 'O O LL a o ;o ;0 0 N O O ':O O 0 O 'O O O (n O ;O ;O O 0 +�+ 0 O O N N O 'O 'O O N o ;o ;0 0 x O 'O 'O O H! D O 'O 'O O y cc+' 0 z o ;0 ;0 0 L L C J O 'O 'O 0 t3 +) O O 'O 'O q c5 L ll� 0 '0 '0 0 �+ v U ..r...P.. O a) T O V f+C `O ri O � co 0 ° ( ; N N O 'O Q O '� z O , CO CO O ° '° N O 'O 3 00 00 Z O O Z r.+ C CA CA 4 Q Z 0 ; 0 V V V U O = O 'O Z O O .0 0 N c� Q0) � ••Y [) O 'O Q � CO ,CO Z , y0 W ,W U °- 0 O N rn ;0) Q H C9 0 ; Fn O co co z N (0 (0 = m > 0) m I� N rn rn O O 'O Q O 'O 0 o ,o z Q U o ; o m o 0 N O 'O Q = ° o o z m N O 'O Q 0. — �j 0 L� O �0 z p- � (I G M wa 0' rn CF) 0 r- ' r- __4__ U , N N 0 ° 2 > +•N a ° .0 Z LL '00 O, M M U O , O dH O �O Z D O 0, V V � ' � O L O O Q U d o o z W Q , m >O ° N 0' N N O U U� 0 ,0) Z O' In In O) ' O) O O O O) LL = N Q 0 (n O �O O '0) Q C) 4___ cc O • O 0 W W Q L 0) • N 0 0) • N Z O O Z 0 N i s N cc D ` ' N F c Cn o6 H L c rn;oS m ��t m S; [7 V , Q J Y• i J Y • i O n n Z � `m• Cu `m m �� O 'O E a• N d • N ..�.. E Q :� p . � A Q Q L N M LU � � O co 0 N N N � W N N �O) �N ��_ Q p T ,N Z C) Cl) W O O O N Cl) V N M Q = O 'O O O Z C) O ;O ;O .6 N O Cl) .N M C) 0) 'O 'Lo`o 'o) Q O O O Z O M O LO O LO 'Cfl 'N 'M H M N O M LO ,V Q 0]0 o M o LO Z LO (O N M N O O O O O O O O O Z p O O O O 07 LO— N o 'o 'o 'o Q O O 'O 'O 'O Z LO (06 N O 'o 'O 'O Q X a o :d o o Z w (1)� LLO)cC Z La 000 'Oo 'o 'o a o Z w O O m O 'O :o :o Z x a o ;o ;o ;o W j C --4---4---4-- O O >O LL La N O O Q 0 O O Z u) C _ W � Q V! J Q px M Q Z ;o ;o Z N cc > p ° ° W Z ; ;o ;o C ..�...�...�.. }' p I W cc LU C C m W a). o E'y:--'Y E F C) W N N N N W 00 N O (O f0 N O N N Q O Q O ,N N Q O O LD Q O W 00 M M N N r co 0 Q O Q O N O 'O O N O 'O O Co Z O ;O O Z O ;O O N V O V O = O 'O O I- O Q O ;O O Q O ;O O T T Q M M Q W 00 Q O , T Q O LO LQ mo O LO LO O W 00 p M M p N N H H M M W 00 O N O ,V � O N O LO LQ Fn Q O O Q O C) O LO LO C) O W 0 00 M M N N N N Q O 'O O Q O 'O O Q O 'O O Q O 'O O 0 O ;O O 0 O ;O O 07 07 LO— LO— Lp O M M Lp O N N 0 O 'O O 0 O 'O O a 0 ;0 o a 0 ;0 0 N O ' w a o ;0 0 w a o ;0 0 > >LQ La La O � O 'O O O � O 'O O a� 0 ;0 0 a0 0 ;0 0 (6 O O 'O O (6 O O 'O O X d O ;O O X d O ;O O WL U j C C O O O O >O >O O� O� LL LL N O :O O N O O O Q O 'O O Q O 'O O (n O ;O O (n O ;O O O co 00 O N N Q O 'N N Q O 'N Cl! Q O .0 0 Q O .0 0 N --4-- --4-- cc V X O co M X O (O w Q O 'Co M Q O 'N Cl! LZ O .0 0 Z O .0 0 cc z 0 O V 0 O co M Q O 'O O Q O 'O O • d' O 'O O d' O 'O O O O O O (�6 Z N (�6 Z N cc C� m o LO C5 m o .0 Cl) J Y Y O co �••� 0 t 06 C 06 N ° Q R f3 2 E m -O (n (6 O p -O (n (6 O O W > > F co O v N N N N C-4 N O O N O 0 O .V V O O .M M 0 O M M 0 O O O LO O O O O O N O 'O O N 'O O Z O .0 O Z O .0 O T T V O 'co M V O 'N N = O 'O O = O 'O O 0 O O O 0 O O O N N 0 N N 0 M M () O .O O () O O W _ O _ O 0) a) O 'M M O O O p 'CO f0 O 'LO LO H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 _T _T � O O 0 0 cc LU (7 (7 i 0 0 Q N LA :0 :0 .0 O N N y >L y >L N 'U > O 'U > O c cc J U Y �O U Y cc 0 t 06 06 -O (n (6 0 O c O cl Ln a a O t0 Cfl co 0 N 0 O '00 Z 0 00 '00 '00 O C� o ;0 C) o o ;0 0 0 O O 0 O .O .O O N O :0 Q N O 'O 'O O Z O O Z Z O O O O V O O V O O O O = O 'O Q = O 'O 'O O C) O :0 Z C) O .O .O 0 0 0 C) O .O C) O .O .O O _ O 'O Q _ O 'O 'O O mo O O Z O .O .O O O O H H O N O O O N O .O .O O m 0 O 'O Q m 0 O O O O ZC) O .O Z ZC� O O �O O N N 0 O 'O 0 O 'O 'O O C) O 'O Q 0 O 'O 'O O p O :d Z p O :d :d O 07 07 — — N0 O 'O Q ND O O O O d~ 0 ,O Z d~ o ,O ,o o 0 0 O O O O (6 N O 'O Q (6 N O 'O 'O O Z o o 0 0 a 0 ;0 w wa ; E �O)cC Z O)cC La La m 00 '0 Q 0 m 00 00 '00 °O a 0 ;0 Z a 0 0 ;0 0 m O 'O Q O O 'O 'O O X d O O Z X d O O O O WL U j C C O O O O >O >O O� Z O� La La N O O N O O 0 O 'O Q 0 O O U) O O Z U) O O 0 O 'O Q 0 O O 0 O O Z 0 O O 0 O 'O Q C O O Z O O Z Z O O cc 0 V V U 0 O O 'O LO 0 v 'v Q 0 LO .0 O a O 'O N o cc tw, R c U c: E (6 R o '.- p L C o� c o. O 9 �C) oa�a F N U) Q U co O N O .O .O O N O O O O 0 O ;O ;O O Q O O O O Z O .0 .0 O V O : :O O O = O 'O 'O O Q O .0 .0 O T ' ' Q � Q O .O .O O _ O 'O 'O O mo O ;O ;O O H O N O .O .O O Fn Q O 'O 'O O z Q O ;O ;O O N 0 O :0 :0 O O O O O p O :d :d O 07 LO— N 0 O 'O .0 0 O O O O ;O ;O O �LO O : :O O O m O 'O 'O O L O ;O ;O O wa LLO� La a o ;o ;0 0 w O O L O 'O 'O O X a o o ;0 0 W j C O O >0 LLO� La N .O O Q O O (n :0 O 0 .0 0 O O (6 O O }� cc CO X :0 O U 0 Q Q O O cc cc c C) O co 0) O `O N O LO co 'O Iq 2 U 3 d O O N 'c T c cc 0 O LC N U.0: E t: (6 R L Q L O. C O.-�O F -- Q- N to Q r t0 O ti ti co 0 I- N 0 o m N 00 O f0 Q O 00 Q O 'M M Q O O O N 0 Z O O O N 0 (D � N 0 0 Q Q N � N 'M V O LO O 0 a) ' W O O M M O '0 N 0 O Z 4 Z O N O O f0 Q O V O 75 o O o O O 0 LO p N N S 'rn Z ~ 4_ N 4 O N (n O N co O Q v o p 'N ~ 4 0 N _T O Q F 0 Z C O O O a O o m o 0 o O Z o 7 o c p 0 � O E a In o O o F N N 'moo ti a co 0 w N o ;o m N 0 .O 0 O 0 M M U O N N N N 0 O P, N O 'O O Z O ;O O T V O (O (0 = O 'I rl� () O ;N N N O N N () O r _ O h fh � O H 0 O0 U_ _T o CO 0 V! Q- 0 cc E � N U O a N 0 a� ° ;(D c cc l3 0 Z O N 0 0 U J 0 0 /^ 0 N L } cc N J m 'moo r f- a O 00 O co 0 rn N O r.- N O 'O O 0 O ;O W 0 O 'O O N O 'O O Z O ;O O 0 M 'O Z 0 (D o) 0 O ;O O 0 O '° N ° '° Z Z O ;O N 0 C) O Lo LO ---4--- _ O 'O O 5 O ;V Z ~ --F-- 0 O ;O N 0 4 0 C) M ' 'O Z 4 O ~ 4 0 � z � 0 Z C O o R rn Q o o Q c3 o � z J N _ 0 � E R cc o U N 'moo c a co 0 0 co O Lo LO N O 'M M 0 O O f0 0 O O O N O 'O O Z O O O T = O 0 O O O N 0 0 O ' o W O N N O H 0 0 LO U _T C O ' O Z a o 0 ° °° r cc J +N, cc U) a° N f3 ° E m d -° (n c6 o O O O N > F N co a C d7 co 0 co N � � O N N U o O Z O o r N LO 0 N Z v o o = o 0 U o o O o ZZ O N O O LO LQ 5 N O V O ¢ = O Z () O O N (n 0 LO Z N 6 O O U O ¢ U) z o O z O z 0 o O O Z 0 N rn (7 y z i y z N > a° Z y o o N o � j Z r On oi a \_ \ 0 a / / 0 cu 2 d \ 2 e 3 cu § 3 § E - C E \ ) ; \ ■ m U � a 0 ■ o m a 2 § a � m g / ƒ 4 \ L 0 ) G = E > n 2 � k 2 d \ U) m .3.. @ O _ g \ U) 7 y ■ 2 \ / , \ ± ' \ ° 2 § ) 7 0 / : § . \ Q u E @ 2 3 ; ) 3 � '+ \ q \ \ \ o @ f e _ @ 2 t / = E E E \ o - E a a a $ 3 $ \ � } 2 § k LU k \ w w w 7 2 ) . k \ \ 7 7 7 \ 2 / = 7 f \ / / / m o 04 D 0 m E u o 0 0 0 \ » a 0- _ / ( \ k ® f k § w o » . \ ? E E n .k = / 2 m \ g \ g ■ \ §w w w _0 _0 _0 S S S 7 f & = 2 m & _ % E 2 + & / a n + / « \ \ / 0 $ i ƒ / / \ i \ \ Uj 0 C4 LD N O 'O 'O (o co 60 O o Z O o Z p O 'O p O O N 0 0 Q N O 'O Q Z O .0 z Z O .0 z V o 'O V I� 'O = O '(O Q = O '(O Q O ;O z O ;O z 0 0 9 C) O 'O p O 'O _ O 'O Q _ O 'O Q (6 O ;O z z O O H H O .O O .O m 0 Y Q m O O Q z 0 ° .O z z 0 ° z .O _ c _ .0 N N p O 'O p O 'O C) O 'O Q p O 'O Q z O_ O 'O z mo 07 07 W _ 0 M ' O z 'M z (6 N (Op ' Q (6 N V '(,2 Q W a 'N z W � N O ' Q � 0)ii a z m i z O 5 �o �� Q gym° z a� N �� z (60 O O w a T T N z x a T M :N z LU a --4-- a --4-- E O O � Q :O M, c Q LU a co z a o c, z �a N c, �a cc co co p 'O Q 0 'O Q E (n O ;O z (n O ,O z O 'O Lo 'co .X O Lo 0) Q O O N .0 z O O 'I� z (O V (O .V O x O 'r x O 'M ++ U z rn .v z O z LO ch Z U c O O 'of Z y O °? 'of Z O U Lo c l 'LO L ++ r � � 04 LD N O N 'N 'O Cl! N 0 .0 .0 O Q O ,V O Q O N (O 00 (O 00 Q Q M M Z .0 o Z .0 o V O V (O O V O M (O 0A = O 'O 'N M = O 'O 'N N Q O .0 .0 o Q O ;O .0 o Q 9 Q 9 Q Q m O O H H 'O 'co 00 'O '.0 00 O N O 'O 'V V O N O 070 ° �I� �� W 070 ° �� p Z Q O ,V Doi Z Q O ,O ,V N .(D 00 (O 00 N N Q Q Q Q O_ O_ 07 07 — — 0 O' 'N f00 0 O 'LO fM0 d~ o ;o ;o o d~ o ;o ;o 0 n n O �O 'co m O �O co m (6 N O 'O 'N N (6 N O 'O w a o ;o ;o o w a o ;o ;o 0 �co m co m Cl! N 'N N a ;o o a ;0 0 LL LL ° 2 O ;V ;LO 0 °46 O , ;LO fo y0 O Cl! y0 O Cl! a� o ;o ;co 00 a� o ;o ;co 00 O O '0 'N N O O '0 'N N X d o ;o ;o O X d o ;o ;o O w w 9 9 'co 00 co Do a a r, � � N O 00 N O r 00 Q O 'O 'O O Q O 'O 'O O (n O :0 :0 O (n O :b :b O Q 0 O N 0 O O 0 LL W M Q W q Q ° ' 'M M Q ° M M (4 X O 'O X O O Q O 'W V Cl! Q O 0 Z O ;LO f. Z O ;LO O __F---F__ 0 __F---F__ L L Q Q N 0 M 'o :m M O . � O O _ ' N ' O O N V N C M LD N O LD 0 ° N N C) O , O lfl O Z V O O _ CO 00 U .O O O 9 C) mo H O N W W m p O O Z p O r rz N O U O_ 07 N 0 p 'OO LQ O O M M O 'O O LQ m 0 wL O ' U a o ;r i o o N O O °a o 0 LL o_2. O �� T M 0 a w O O_ L O 'OO LQ x O M M w a m >° rn rn N v v, E is _Q r_ W N r.- C p 'O O U) O O ++ O C V U N _Q H! (A p Cj v O U U F 0 0 N O M 7 z P, 7 N L c3 0) c Q C y F W U _0 N O O (D w W c U co co o 0 O CW x _ O ...�.. N W W , U p C _ E _ o o r N p LL M M LD N O M N V O ;(D O N O Ln ll'l 0 00 LN O cc O O LN LINT N N P, - O O Z Z V O N V O O 'co 00 O O .0 .0 O U .0 O O 9 O 9 O C) m O O H H D m0 �0 O 07 ZO Ln .� .� m zU N N rz N N 0 0 'O O O_ O O O 07 07 — — 0 LO 'O 'O N 0 O 'V d~ O O O O d~ O N N O I; O 00 O O (6 N V 'O O a O O O O N a O N W W O) O O O O .•N O 'O 'O r .-•N O O a o ;o ;o o a o 0 LL LL O 76 O c) O (6 �0 O 'N �0 M 'V cq O T 'O 'O (6 O O 'V X d O O .0 O X d O N N W W 9 9 >O O 'N � � M M o o co a CO ; ; m �a � ri N N O O N P.- O O 'O 'O O O 'O O U) O O O O U) O O - tL O O 'O 'O R N O O °) O N i+ O °v V 0 - O x O) 'O 'D) 00 O x .0 00 ++ O V .O .O ll'l O .r M V z O O O O O z M M 0 U N O 0 O :0 O 'O 0 'M M N c d' 'Lo Lfl 0 •1 0 °a = °o ) R f3 °a o m ' p O S > > .FM 'O F N D 2, ii M LD N O M f� co 00 N V O (D C, O N O M M N O 00 0 LN O cc O O .0 O N N c0 00 - O O Z Z 0 0A S 'O 'O S 'c0 00 O O .0 .0 O O .0 0 O 9 O 9 0 0 m O O H H O M M 0 0A 0n 07 0A z() LO O O Z 0 0 0 0A N N P.- N N O O 0 0 O_ O_ 07 07 _ O N 0 LO 'O 'O IQ N O OM) 'OM) 00 d~ O O O O d~ 0) m M n n O 00 O O 'M M (6 N V 'O O 'D) CA a o ;o ;o o m 0 a o ; w w 0 'o O M M .•N O 'O 'O r '"'N m q a o ;o ;o a)o a of � LL O 5 'O 'c) p Om 'M p (O O N 0A O O O d O O O O d M N O T 'O 0 00'O O O '0 0A X d O O .0 O X d O M M W W 9 9 >O O � N V '-' 0 O O a co 'o 'o ma co 00 LL LL N N 'O 'O N N 'I� P.- 0 O 'O 'O O 0 'O O U) O O O O U) O O LO 0 - tL +�+ O O '0 0 O 0 M M O D) O 0 N C V O C x rn C oo O 0) a)'O '� 0)0 O O N 'rO rn M 0 z O ;o ;o m U z ;0) 0) 0 04 C U) O 0 'O 'O l3 O O 'm rn c d' N 'O 'O N L U d' '0 0A 0 0 c V ..t...p.. C N ..�.. fC °� d - 'a °o R N o m cn C U a� 0 F N M ii M M LD N O o m .0 00 00 N O O 'O an N O 'O f0 Q O 'O Q o Q O .0 Q O :E O N N c 00 - Q Q Z Z V O 'O V 'O 0A S O 'O 'O O S 'co 00 C) O .O .0 O C) .0 O Q 9 Q 9 C) C) m O O H H O 0A O N O 'O r O N 'O LD Q O 'O r Q 'r mC) O ;O mC) �rn rn N N N N 0 0 'O O O_ O O O 07 07 — — �0 O O C-4 �0 V LO O d~ O O O O d~ V N L.- n n O O 'O O O 'LO ll-1 (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O 'LO IQ a O O O O O N a N W W - I O 'o f E O 'O 'O O .-•N V V L�a o ;o .0 o LL a v v 0- 0-2 O 'O 'co 00 2 M '0 O O 'O 'N N O 'LO d O .O .0 O d .0 N O O O 'O 'O O O O 'LO LQ X d O O O O X d O N N W W 9 9 6) O 'O 'N N a o ;o ;o o a co 00 Li Li N O 'O 'O O Q O 'O 'O O Q O O U) O O O O U) O O tl Q D) a) O 'O 'N N a) Q � ' Q O .O i+ Q .M M - O O x o o x L () Z O O O O O Z O W 7 F_ f+ c 0 O 'O r 0 'N N O Q O O N Q 'rn a)L U Cr O O O O d' Lo ll-1 O 0 Q ...t...p.. V ..�.. CL O F O ++ a N ++ O C a y R f3 O O R ,/ — > A Q U ES) F M LL M LD N O .O O () o m rn rn N ° '° O an N O 'W 00 0 O 'O . 0 O r` C) O .0 C) O '.0 0 0 Z Z V O 'O V '(O O 0 O .0 .0 O 0 0 9 0 9 O 0 m O O H H O O O O N O 'O , m0 ° '° m0 Lo 0 zC) O ;O z0 .0 00 N N O O N N 0 0 O_ O_ 07 07 — — �0 O O �0 M 'LO a� o ;o ;o _ O 'O O 'LO rn (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O 'LO ll'l a o ;o ;o o w a o w ?`n o 'o ?`n E• O 'O 'O O .-•N M ' M LL a O O O O a M LL M 02 O 'O 'co 00 ° 2 r 'O N O ° '° 'N N O O 'LO a� o ;o .0 O a� .0 O O 'O 'O O O O 'LO LQ X d O O O O X d O T W W 9 9 6)� O 'O 'N N (O O a o ;o ;o o a co 00 ri ri N O 'O 'O O N O O 0 O 'O 'O O 0 (n O O O O U) O O t,^' +�+ O O 'O 'N N v/ 0 ,.0 O 'O 'N N r 'N cq ° '° [) C-4 ' C 'LO Lfl 1 r � O 0 x O 'O O x N C O O O +, 0 r O z o ;o ;o o U z ;0) rn U O M v1 i y 0 O 'o O O O � o 'o 'o o N U O 0 , CL V ..t...P.. ..�.. CL 0 N fC a 0 o m 0 M 0 le D 0 � 'O M M LD N O O .O O r 0) rn (4 j ° '° .LO N N O ..0 00 C) O .0 M M p O .0 00 N N O O O O Z Z V O 'O V '(O LO O O .0 .0 0 O O 9 O 9 O O m O O H H O LO O O N O 'O ,N Cl! O N ,Lo L p]O ° '° O 0 W 00 LO pj O LO z(� O O M M z(� ' DD 'N N �O O N N 0 0 O O O_ O O O 07 07 �0 O' O 'O O �0 V 'T a� o ;o ;o n _ n O O 'O O O 'M M (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O 'V a o ;o ;o o a o ;ri 0 w w ?L� o 'o rn .-•N O 'O 'O O .-•N V V a o .o .0 o a LL LL 00 O' O 'M M 0 'V M a� o;o ;o o O O 'O 'O O O O 'V X d O O O O X d O M M W W 9 9 ° O 'O 'O O ?° O o 6)� O 'O 'M ci O CA ii a o ;o o ; o ii a ri ri N O 'O 'O O N O O p O 'O 'O O p (n O O O O U) O O t. O O 'O 'M M O O Ln LIl O ° ° i+ O LCOO l(On 0 O x O 'O ' C-4 O O O 0 ++ 'O c 'N N u Z O O O O O Z .0 0 i-. U M U) 7 T- C 0 O 'O 'N � +`+ 0 'rn a)O O O O 'O U) p '� r, N a O N ..r...p. V ..p. ++ O 0 R le D LL M LD N O r r N ° '° 'LO IQ N O O O 'O LO O O ° N N O O O V O O N N Z Z V O 'O V (O O O O .0 .0 O O O O O 9 O 9 0 0 O O H H N N O N O 'O ,N Cl! O N O O 0 p 'p 0 O O m 0 O O 'M M m 0 V V N N O O V � O O U 0 O_ O_ 07 07 — — 0 O 'O 'N N 0 CO 00 0 O 'O 'O O 0 N N d~ O �O �O O d~ N N O O 'O O O 00 (6 N O 'O O O O a O N a N W W O 'O E O 'O 'O O .•N a o ;o LL LL °m o 'o °m .0 00 0 O 'O 'M M 0 N Cl! d O .O O O d N N !6 O O '0 'O O !6 O N N X d O O O O X d N N W W 9 9 iia o ;o ;o o iia N O 'O 'O O N V 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O (n O O O O (n O O --4---4-- � - +�+ O O '0 'M M O O 0 ° ° N C 0 N N O 0 O 'O '� � O O x CO w O O Z O O O O 0 U Z co M +� 0 7 M j F___F +L+ y r +L+ CJ 0 0 'N CJ P.-O y O ° '° C O O N c 0 '0 :0 o V () a LO 0 O R C le C) LO = O O M M LD N O N 'O O O .O Cl) N O M M 0 0 0 .N W M 0 LO 0 C) O ,O O p O O O O N N Z Z V O 'r N W V (O (D C) O .0 .6 O p O O O 9 O 9 C) C) O O H H Co W N N p N O 'V .0 N O N (D LD 0]p O LO CO M 07 p V z C) O O .0 O Z p O O N N 0 O O O O_ O O O 07 07 - - 0 O O 'm 0 r ll'l 0 O W �0 'M d ll'l � r a� o ;o ;o o a� �LO �LC) O O 'N ' a O O a) (6 N O 'M 'O M (6 N r W a o ,o ,o o W a L� O 'Lo ;O LO >Ln a o .o .0 o a LL LL 0- a)O 'Lo 'N O 46 O W d O N M d O O 'M 'O M O X d O O O O X d W W 9 9 >O O 'N 'Lo P >O O� O O MOB L l a O O N M LL a N O p O 'O 'O O p O O (n O O O O (n O O C U1 p 00 N O rn rn N w C) o v C) v v 4- N N N � O 1 0 0 X O 'LC) 'O LO O X M M 4+ ira O O 'N M c 0 LO LQ U U Z O N 0 z ON N U --- N N 7 0 O 'O 'O O +L+ 0 LO LO 0 0 p O 'M a N p LO Ln U U Cr O N c Cr M M 0 ++ O C , O O R 0 O O R L(� C) S > ~ C) 0 ~ M LD N O co 'O O O 'O 'Cl) N N LO 111 0 0 0 .N W M 0 V V (� O .0 O () O O 0 0 N N Z Z V O r N W V N N 0 O .0 .6 O 0 O O 0 9 0 9 0 0 O O H H W a) pN O 'V '.0 N ON O LD m0 O M m0 V z 0 O O .0 O Z 0 O O N 'T V 0 0 0 0 O_ O_ 07 07 n— n— �0 O 'M LQ LO� 0 O O d~ O O O O d~ N N LO LC) O O N a) O N N (6 N O 'M 'O M (6 N O O a O O O O N a N W W O Lo O LO j LO a o ;o .0 o a LL LL O (p O Lo N t` O (p N N �0 O 'O 'r r` �0 O O d O N M d N N O O 'M 'O M O O O X d O O O O X d N N W W 9 9 >O O 'N 'Lo P >O O� O O MOB L l a O O N M LL a N O N N N V 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O (n O O O O (n O O t' Q N O oo '0 r` C 0 ° Cl! N ,^ 0 O ' N 04 C 0 N N 1 ^ 1 0 0 O X O 'LO 'O Lf) 0 0 x CO f0 0 O 'N M 0 O O U0 Z O N U Z M M U U) U) r 0 O 'O 'O O c CJ V 0 0 O 'ch v, 0 0 O r` 0 d O N U d V v o of U ..r...p.. S O R ) 0 F C 0 O M M LD N O V co rn r O .O N N Ln lA 0 00 :100 LIT) M 0 V V C) .O .0 O C) O O 0 0 N N Z Z V O r 00 V N N 0 O .0 .0 O 0 O O 0 9 0 9 0 0 O O H H pN O 'O O a) ON O f0 m 0 O O .V O 070 T V z 0 O .O .0 O Z 0 O O N N 0 O O O O_ O O O 07 07 LO LO - �� O W 0 O M 0 r t` a o ;o ;o o a LO LC)O O r` rn rn (6 N O 'M 'O M (6 N r t wa o ;o ;o o wa > 0 LO ;O LO >L� a o .o .0 o a LL LL O (p O N N V O (p O W O O 'O 'r t` 0 r t` d O N M d O O 'OM 'O M O X d O O O O X d W W 9 9 >O O 'N ' P >O O O O MOB L l a O O N M LL a N O N N N V 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O (n O O O O (n O O le Q n 0 0 .o r` N 0 rn q N w 0 0 04 0 v v 4- . . N N N r O r O0 0. M .0 M O O LM YM7 U U Z o 'O 0 z oN N U --- N N 7 0 O 'N M +L+ 0 LO LO O 0 0 O 'N 'O Cl! y 0 LO LQ U U Cr O N c Cr M M 0 N ..r...p.. U ++ O C , O O R O O R L(� C) S > ~ C) 0 ~ M LD N O LD co rn �o 00 N O O N Cl! N O Q O � V M Q N 'O N C) O O O O Q O O a N ' N N - Q Q Z Z V O r W V r P.- U O .0 .0 O U O O Q 9 Q 9 Q Q m O O H H pN O 'O .0 LD ON O LD mQ O O V O 070 r z U O O O O Z Q O W N ' N N N N Q Q Q Q O_ O_ 07 07 LO— LO— (p O LO r N (p V .O V �0 O 'M LP �0 r 'O fl d~ O O O O d~ N O N - 0 n 0 n O O O r P, O V O V (6 N O 'M 'O M O fl a O O O O N a N O W I O LO O LO j LO .•N O 'O � r .-•N ' a o ;o .0 o a LL LL 0—2 O N N V 0— 2 V .O V O O 'O 'r 0 r 'O P-: d O N M d N O N O O 'OM 'O M O 'O X d O O O O X d N .0 N W W > 9 9 >O O 'N ' P >O O O O MOB L l a O O N 0 LL a N O N N N M M Q O 'O 'O O Q O O (n O O O O (n O O le - �L r O 'W W O O N Q O N C Q ON N ' 0 O O 0 0 O rn rn V 0 Z O U Z M M +, U r CJ O 'N M le 0 O 'O O O Q O 'N 'O N r 0 Q N 'O N U d O N Q U d 0 LPl O 04 0) U ..r...p.. , ..�.. $ � T � (C O C O N f6 '> ++ O O R m +' U = > ~ d C U O 'a ~ Lf� to D M M LD N O Cfl M M co 00 N O 'O ,M M N 'O 0 0 '0 P.- 0 0) '0 a N N - O O Z Z V O 'O V r P.- U O .0 .0 O U O O 0 9 0 9 C) 0 m O O H H Lo 0 p N O 'O 'V r 0' N O O 0 p 'p O r m C) O O r � m C) p) ' p) N N N N 0 O O O O_ O O O 07 07 �0 O '00 'O O �0 LL '00 LQ a o ;o ;o o a ;o n _ n o 'O v 'o v (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N LO 'O LP) a o ;o ;o o a ;o w w - ?Ln o 'o ?Ln .•N O 'O 'O O .•N ' a o .o .0 o a LL LL 0- 0— 2 O 'O 'M M 2 V 'O �0 O 'O 'N N �0 0 'O a o .o .o o a ;o O O 'O 'O O O LO 'O LQ X d O O O O X d O W W > 9 9 >O O 'o 'N N >O 6) O 'O iia o ;o o ; o iia N O 'O 'O O N M ' M 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O U) O O O O U) O O - t' O O O 0 O '0 m W N O O U 0)0 O O O O CA 0 0 0 X O 'O 'co 00 0 u Z O O O O 0 Z U U) 7 0 O 'O 'O O y 0 n 'O LO 0 U Cr O 'O 'O O c d' N 'O N 04 O ..t...P.. U ..�.. .> i-' O cc M LD N O I— r N O 'O ,M M N O ,O O O O .o M M O O N N O O O ,I� O O W 00 'N N O O Z Z V O 'O V V O O .0 .0 o O .0 o O 9 O 9 O C) m O O H H V V O 0A O N O 'O r O N — r 0 O 'o 0 mO O ;O �� � mC) 'co 00 N N N N O O O U O_ O_ 07 07 — — ' 0 O O 'O O 0 O a� o ;o ;o o a� o ;0 0 _ O 'O O 'v v (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O W a o ,O ,O o W a o :d O .•N O 'O 'O O .•N ' a o ;o ;o o a LL LL 0- 0— 2 O 'O 'M M 2 O 'V 0 O 'O 'N N 0 O a o ;o ;o o a o ;0 0 O O 'O 'O O O O 'N N X d O O O O X d O .0 O W W 9 9 >O O 'o 'N N >O 6� O 'O iia o ;o ;o o iia N 0 0 '' 'O O N 'O O O O 'O O O O O O (n O O O O (n :0 O tL O 'O 'M M r (n 'N N O O o 'rn rn , O 'rn rn CJ o ;o ;o o 04 CJ Ox O 'O 00 0 x P.-O 'O :co'O O '++ O '� rl� O Z O :d :d O u Z N N ++ cc y ---F-- L �•/ M 00 }� CJ O 'O 'D) CA CJ .0 'Ln N O O 'O 'O R l3 O O co a)Q d' O 'O 'O O L U d' LO 'O 0 04 O n n U ..r...p.. v ..�.. CL r L ,o co r� 2 ri ri LD N O 00 r N O 0 ,. O ,O Q 0 0 Q 0 N N Q O O '0 0 O W O 0 V N N - Q Q Z Z V O 0 N N V V C) O .0 .0 o C) .0 0 Q 9 Q 9 C) C) m O O H H 0 0A 0 0A O N O 0 0 q O N — r Q 0 'o Q m Q O .0 .O O m Q ..0 0 0 V N N N N 0 0 'O O O_ O O O 07 07 — — �0 O O O �0 O d~ o ,o ,O o d~ o ,O O - �� _ o �0 o ;Ln (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O a o ;o ;o o o a ;0 0 w w O O N N .•N O 'O 'O O .•N ' a o ;o .0 o a LL LL 0—2 00 .0 'L uV7 0— 2 00 'V, V a o ;o ;o o a o ;0 0 O O '0 'O O O O - r X d O O O O X d O .0 O W W 9 9 >O 0 '0 'N N >O iia o ;o ;o o iia N 0 0 ':0 O N :0 O Q O '0 0 O Q 0 O (n O O O O (n :0 O - tl fn Q O ,O Q D D _ 00 0 L Q O O N Q N 4— 0 X O 0 0 O O X .0 00 ..+ Q O '0 'N Cl! c Q 'V u Z O O O O 0 Z cc 0 , U W 7 F_ ' ' M 00 L O [7 O O O O r 0 .0 'Ln O Q 0 '0 'N Cl! N Q W 'N Cn LO 'O LO LO V "a P.. V ..�.. N (� i+ - 'a 'Y R O O R Q Q S > ~ Cj L 0 F M LD N O r N M M N O O V Q O 0 Q O O o O o O 'V � Q Z V O O N N Q O .0 .0 O T Q 9 Q mo H O a) O N O O 0 Q O 'O m Q O O O O 'V � - N Q Q O_ 07 N -F 0 O 'O 'O O O O O :d O O O m� o 'o L O O O O wa � O �'O �N N O� O .0 .0 O LL La O 2 00 '00 'L ll� a o ;o ;0 0 w O _ O L O 'O X O O O O LU m � 9 >O O O N N LL a o ;o ;0 0 N O O ':O O Q O 'O O O (n O O O O 0 ' O O O CO 00 O 'O N O O N N O QX O :O :O O V! O 'O 'N Cl! 4 0 Z O O O O L cc U u F___F U) L C J O 'O 'O O (� +) Q O 'O 'N N C L d' O 'O 'O O •� C v U ..r...p.. O a) T O ri O � LD N O O O O O OO O Q 0 Z O (0 (0 0) > O Q 01 (0 r N 00 00 4 Q Z O ; O v o 'co U o Z 0 p 0) U O O 0 T N 9 ' U Q o Z U F- ° U O ' OO a O oN T ' T H (n O ; v m0 Z C) co co m > N rn rn O Q 0 Z Q U 0 : 00 m o 0 p ' ri O o o Z N cNO ;(D Q 0. - �j O ; O L� O �0 Z p. M G M wa 0. CF) CF) 0 r- r- __4__ -O N N 0 ° 2 > +• Q d U N O .O Z (6 LLs 0 _ '0 O, M M O U O , O Q T j ' 06 06 d F- )co co Z 0 O, V V O 2 _F' X O .0 w Z Q a > a 4_' m 9 -O O. U O ; O j 0 N O' N N O U ' U� O In In O) O) O) O) LL = N 0 0 O 'O Z U) O .0 O 'O 0 W 'W Q 0 C C O • O 0 Q L 0 ) ' 0) O Z ui ui Z O N i• N > Oi • �.p o E F c of o6 H L c rn;o3 0 � � � J u O J Y . 0 — r r (h .(h Z Y.0• N Cu 0 ' N •�IL • N • N ..�.. E :W Q :� p . � A U � C N M LU � � O O O N Q 0 W Q N LD N N Q O V 0 N O 'O O r Z O ;O O N O o ._ Q Q �_ Z 4 N V O V Q O ;O O O M 6 N O 'O Z O ;O Z 0 9 Q 4 5 O O .0 O O O N 'O O O a ---4--- 0�0 ° r N 9 Z Q O r (o — N N mo Z 4 N O O O (D O_ O N .0 m m 0 0) ; Z z � n— � N d~ O ;O O O Q Z 4 O_ m • • L O .0 0 O O xa o ;o O n w (N 2 Q 4_ ao o ;o Z 0 O� ' O wa (6 N O 'O Q --4-- X O O Z wa o_ m O ;v --4-- �° o ;0 0 > a� Q Z LL d ; w O O o --4-- L O 'O O xa o ;0 0 o w Q �0 d o ;o Z >o L �O w L� O 'O Z X o ;o w a > N o Q O '0 0 9 U) o ;o 0 >o La LL O N N -4-- 0 O 'L(? ll'l O N Q Q U) __4 (n O ;O Z ,c V X Q O --4-- O 'CO o0 N L Z O cc W O O 'N N d O 'O O J Q V 'CO Q ) N U F t3 U O ' N V W 0 (o o c3 m m � N W ° ° Z J m cc N (6 (6 0 02;(7 m R X (n (n c6 m, c6.°� O a In c6 O O L UW ' N z zz N D 'moo Ln Ln a O O N O U o O O r L(7 --4--- N O oo 'o o N Z o ,o o N V O M M = O 'O O (� O O O 0 9 U 75 H .o O o N O m0 o , a)z U O rn,O O -- N 0 U O_ 07 V 2 O 0 O r d o ,o O U a o ;0 0 w , N� > !_N O� , La LL o- 2 O O O O O a w O O m O 'O O W a T O O O N 9 >O O� LL N O 0 (n O O O 0 o '°) a) U O N 4 c , V X O O 'V L OZ O cc+' c3 z 0 -o (O L • O 'O O U) U) N • • L m o) N m m o °v (6 cc J m Y c z •� ) c W ' 2 N ` Q r ! = I a n , 6 O W > L Z N Ln a C Cfl LD N O (o N O O '00 Z O 00 '00 '00 O O o ;o O o o 0 0 O Q O N N Z Z Z V O O V O O = O 'O Q = O O Q O O Z Q O o T � T O 9 O 9 Q — Q Q p Z mp O O H H O N O O O N .O O m Q O 'O Q m Q O O z Q O O Z z Q .O O N N Q Q Q Q Q Z O_ O_ 07 07 — — N0 O 'O Q ND O O O O d~ o ,O Z d~ o ,O ,o o 0 0 O O O O (6 N O 'O Q (6 N O 'O 'O O wa o ;o w Z a o o 0 0 > >� E N ' Q O)cC ZO)cC La La O m 00 '0 Q 0 ° m o0 00 00 Oo a o ;o Z a o ;o ;0 0 m O 'O Q m O O 'O 'O O x a O .0 Z X d O O O O W W > 9 9 La La N O O N O O Q O 'O Q Q O O U) O O Z U) O O O O 'O Q O O O Q O O Z Q O O Q O 'O Q Q Q ' 'O O Z O O Z Z :0 O (� 0 0 '0 ". 0 co M O °) O M .M Q O 0 .M .0 M �. co 'co Z 0 a f3 T o T a ° w' R c U c: E (6 R N '.- p L C o� c o. O 9 �O� Oa�a F N U) Q O LD N O V N O 'O 'O O N O O O O 0 O ;O :d O 0 Z V O O U ;O O 0 9 0 mo H O N O O O 0 0 O_ 07 V O 'O 'O O O O ;O ;O O � o 'o '0 0 m O O 'O O L O ;O ;O O wa LLO� La 0 m 00 00 .0 0 00 a o ;o ;0 0 w O O L O 'O 'O O X O ;O ;O O LU m (1) 9 >o a� LL N 'O O 0 O O U) ;O O CO 0 '00 00 L (6 +O+ (� 0 ;O O � U) O cc CO cc E --F---F-- C O O O °o °o N N _0 o E! i c y 7 (D 7 ca N cn N 0) U cc c cc c 0 O .M '0 M C� O C� U 'cc C U cc cc cc L 2 N(6' E a O R C= Q N C= Q 0 L O S C O:- F C Q C 9 EU Ca m N U) Q > co O ti O op O 1� 00 d7 LD N O LD N a \_ \ 0 a / / 0 cu 2 d \ 2 e 3 cu § 3 U � k � c � ■ § § a � m ; \ a) 04 g / ƒ 4 \ L 0 ) G = E > n 2 � k 2 d \ U) CO .3.. @ Of _ g \ U) 7 y ■ 2 \ / , 0 ± ' \ ° 2 § ) 7 0 § . \ Q u Q E @ 2 3 � '+ \ q \ \ D o @ f e _ @ 2 t / = E E E \ o - E a a a $ 3 $ \ � } 2 § w k k \ w w w 7 2 ) . k \ \ 7 7 7 \ 2 / = 7 f \ / / / / o 04 D 0 m E u o 0 0 0 \ » a 0- _ / ( \ k ® f k § w o » . \ ? E E n .k = / 2 m \ g \ g ■ \ §w w w _0 _0 _0 S S S 7 f & = 2 m & _ % E 2 + & / a n + / « \ \ / 0 $ i ƒ / / \ i \ \ Uj 0 C4 LD N O (o co (1) bo O 0 � Z O 0)Z O ° O ° C0 O O O O O 'O N O 'O Q N O 'O Q Z O .0 Z Z V o 'O V I� 'O = O (O Q = O (O Q O ;O Z O ;O z 0 0 9 _ O :O Q _ O O Q (6 O ;O z (6 O ;O z O O LO LO H H -4--- ---4-- 0) . 0) O .M O .M m0 0 .NO Q m0 0 .Np Q Z 0 ° Z Z 0 ° .0 Z N N 0 O :0 0 O :0 0 O O Q 0 O O Q O_ O 'O z O_ O 'O Z LO mo 07 07 W Ln M ' z 0 O 'M z �LO Lc) (6 N (Op Q (6 N V .(,2 Q W a 'N Z W �N O Q N I ' Q iia 0) o z iia v o z O 5 �o Q Om Q z a� N �� z (60 O Q (6O Q 0 w a T T N z w a T M :N z a --4-- a --4-- O co Q :O M, c Q LU a co z a o c, z �a N c, �a cc co co O O Q 0 O Q E co O ;O Z co O ,O z c0 Lo V O x O co Lo Q O o N c O M �� z (� N �m z (o .v (o .v O x M x v rn (o Q c0 Q ++ V z 0) Z O n cN z U ++ y O i O (n c 0 � 'Ln ++ 0 N 'M 'O♦ 0 °) Z y 0 ° °) Z 0 ' ' c ' L ++ r � � N LD N O O o N N Ln N O LO LQ 0 ° W ' W 0 ° 'V 0A 0 ° ,O O 0 O ,O r ,O LD 0 �v a 0 Z .0 o Z .0 o V O r M f. V O M M w = O 'O 'N N = O 'O 'N C'! U O ;O .0 o U O ;O .0 o 0 9 0 9 C) U m O O H H 'O 'M M 'O 'M M pN O 'O O LD ON O 'r O M ED 0 ° r O 00 0 ° O O O C) O ,O O m z0 O ,(O O f0 N LO 00 LO f.- N N 0 0 U U O_ O_ 07 07 0 O' 'LN f00 0 O 'LO fM0 a~ o ;o ;o o a~ o ;o ;o 0 n n O �O �co m O �O �co m (6 N O 'O 'N N (6 N O 'O wa o ;o ;o o wa o ;o ;0 0 m co m N Cl! N N a o a 0 � � 0— y0 O Cl! y0 O Cl! a� o ;o ;co 00 a o ;o ;co 00 O O '0 'N N O O '0 'N N X a o ;o ;o o X a o ;o ;0 0 W W 'co Do co Do LL LL r� N O O O 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O 'O 'O O (n O ;O ;O O (n O ;O ;O O 0 0 L (O r 0 0 O O 00 0 ° 0 ° .M M (4 X O 'O X O O 0 O 'W O 0 O r_ 0 Z O ;LO f. Z O ;LO __F---F__ 0 __F---F__ 0 0) 0 L Q C r j M 'o 'rj O O . � 4a O O _ ' N ' O O N V N C M LD N O LD 0 ° N N C) O , O lfl O Z V O O _ CO 00 U .O O O 9 C) mo H O N W W m p O O Z p O r rz N O U O_ 07 N 0 p 'OO LQ O O M M O 'O O LQ m 0 wL O ' U a o ;r i o o N O O °a o 0 LL o_2. O �� T M 0 a w O O_ L O 'OO LQ x O M M w a m >° rn rn N v v, E is _Q r_ W N r.- C p 'O O U) O O ++ O C V U N _Q H! (A p Cj v O U U F 0 0 N O M 7 z P, 7 N L c3 0) c Q C y F W U _0 N O O (D w W c U co co o 0 O CW x _ O ...�.. N W W , U p C _ E _ o o r N p LL M M LD N O v 0 N (O O 'y) LQ N O Ln LQ 0 m o �� LNfi N N r P, - 0 0 Z Z V N O M V O O 'co W U O .0 .0 O U .0 O 0 9 0 9 0 0 m O O H H m0 V v �0 O 07 Z U c ° LD Z U Ln lA N r rz N N 0 0 'O O O_ O O O 07 07 — — 0 LO 'O 'O N 0 O 'V d~ O O O O d~ O N N O c0 O W O O r (6 N V 'O O a O O O O N a O N W W O) 'o O O O .•N O 'O 'O r .-•N O O a o ;o .0 o a o 0 LL LL �0 O 'N � 0 M 'V cq O T 'O 'O (6 O O 'V X d O O .0 O X d O N N W W 9 9 >O O �a CO ;o o ; m LLa ri M N N O O N N r P.- 0 O 'O 'O O 0 'O O U) O O O O U) O O - tl 0 M 'O '0) M a) 0 'r 0 ON ° ° N i+ 0 °v V 0 - 0 x LC) 'O O LO O x .0 W ++ 0 O) •O O c 0 •r M V z O ° ° 0 z M M 0 +L+ U N 0 0 O 'O 'O 0 'M M.0 0 N c d' 'Lo LPl 0 •1 0 °a = °o ) R f3 °a o m ' p 0 S > > .� 'O F N D ii M LD N O v 0 co 00 N (O O Y) LQ N O M M N O O O f, N O .(b O 0 Ln ,O O � O O N N co 00 - O O Z Z V N O M V O) W S 'O 'O S 'co 00 O O .0 .0 O O .0 0 O 9 O 9 0 0 m O O H H N N V D a) le Fn 0 V '0 0 V 0 ' P, m D CA C) LO �O �O O ZU �O) W N N N N O O 0 0 O_ O_ 07 07 LO _ LO O N 0 LO 'O' O LQ 00 N O OM) 'OM) 00 d~ O O O O d~ 0) m M n n O T O CA O O M M (6 N V 'O O 'D) CA a o ;o ;o o m 0 a o ; w w O) 'o O M M a o ;o ;o a)o a of � LL O 5 'O 'c) p Om 'M p (O O N W 0 O O d O O O O d M N O T 'O 'O O O 'O) W X d O O .0 O X d O M M W W 9 9 >O O � N V '-' 0 O O a co 'o 'o ma co 00 LL LL N N O O N P.- 0 O 'O 'O O 0 'O O U) O O O O U) O O - tL +�+ O M '0 �0) M fn 0 M M 1 0 ON .O .O N C 0 V V LO O Q C x 0) 'O ;O ^ O O x o a) M O z o ;o ;o U z ;(1) a) O 0 y N i 0 co 'O 'O 00 ++ c U) O O. 'o l3 O O 'm q ' O N L'O) W cc 0 0 CV ..t...p.. ..p.. a L f+C CL E f3 0 °� a ' p Cl) C Ua) 0 F N M D ii M M LD N O .0 00 00 N O O O O N O M M 0 O 'O M M O O O .O �O 0A O O �O O co 00 - 0 0 Z Z V O 'O V 'O 0A S O 'O 'O O S 'co 00 O O .O .0 O O .0 O 0 9 0 9 O O m O O H H O 0A O N O O W 00 O N '(O LD 0 p .0 0 r m0 O ;O ;rn rn m0 �O) °) O 0A N N 0 0 'O O O_ O O O 07 07 — — �0 O O �0 V 'LLO O d~ O O O O d~ V N L.- n n O O 'O O O 'LO ll-1 (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O 'LO IQ a O O O O O N a N W W - I O 'O f E O 'O 'O O .-•N V V L�a o ;o ;o o LL a v v - O 2 O O co 00 O 2 M LO O O 'O 'N N O 'LO d O O O O d .0 N O O O 'O 'O O O O 'LO LQ X d O O O O X d O N N W W 9 9 >O p 'p M r 6) O 'O 'N N �� a o ;o ;o o a co 00 Li Li N O O O O 0 O 'O 'O O 0 'O O U) O O O O U) O O tl 0 ' a) 0 D) a) O O ' ' 0 O .O i+ 0 .M M - O O x O 'O 0 0 x n n N +, 0 O 'O 0 L () Z O O O O 0 Z O W 7 F_ f+ c 0 O 'O 'N r 0 'N N l3 O O O 'O 0 '0) a)i () � o :6 N'o o U) 0 n O 0 Q ...t...p.. V ..�.. d F ) +�+ a N ++ O C a y R f3 O O R ,/ — > A O U .� 'O F M LL M LD N O 'O O () N O O o rn 0 0 ,0 .0 00 0 ' 'M M 0 r 0 O .O O 0 0 O .0 00 �O O 0 0 Z Z V O 'O V '(O w 0 O .0 .0 0 0 0 9 0 9 O 0 m O O H H O LD O ON O 'O .0 00 ON ,Cp Lp Fn 0 ° '° N N pj O LO 0 C) O �O 'O a) z0 'W 00 �O O N N 0 0 0 0 O_ O_ 07 07 n— n— �0 0 00 'O O �0 M 'LO a� o ;o ;o n _ n O 'O O 'LO rn (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O 'LO ll'l a o ;o ;o o w a o w ?Ln o 'o ?Ln E• O 'O 'O O .-•N M ' M LL a O .O O O LL a M M 02 O 'O 'co 00 ° 2 r 'O N O ° '° 'N N O O 'LO a� o ;o .0 O a� .0 O O 'O 'O O O O 'LO LQ X d O O O O X d O T W W 9 9 6)� O 'O 'N N (O f0 a o ;o ;o o a co 00 ii ii N O 'O 'O O N O O 0 O 'O 'O O 0 (n O O O O U) O O t,^' 0 O 'O co 00 v/ 0 '.0 00 C] ° '° 'LN IN r � O 0 x O 'O 0 N C O O 'O ++ O L O z o ;o ;o o U z ;0) rn U -__F___F O M v1 L O O 'O 'N_ O O O eq ++ O 'O 'o o N U O 0 , CL V ..t...P.. ..�.. CL a) 0 N fC 0 0 o m 0 M 0 le D 0 � 'O M M LD N O O .O O r �LO 0 ,rn rn N ° ° .LO LQ N O .W 00 C) O O p O 'W O O Z Z V O 'O V '(O O O O O O O O O 9 O 9 O O m O O H H O O O O N O 'O . N p]O ° .° V p]O LO N zp O O zp W 00 N N O O N N 0 0 O O O_ O O O 07 07 — — �0 O O O �0 V 'T a� o ;o ;o _ O O 'O O O 'M M (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O 'V � a o ;o ;o o a o ;ri 0 w w o 'o rn .•N O 'O 'O O .-•N V V a o .o .0 o a LL LL 00 O' O 'M M 0 'V M a� o;o ;o o O O 'O 'O O O O 'V X d O O O O X d O M M W W 9 9 ° O 'O 'O O ?° O o 6)� O 'O 'M ci O CA ri a o ;o o ; o ri a ri ri N O 'O 'O O N O O p O 'O 'O O p (n O O O O U) O O t. O lr7 O '0 O '(D O O ° ° i+ O LCOO (D 0 +O x O 'O O O O 0 + ' 'N N u Z O O O O O Z .0 0 i-. U M U) 7 T- C 0 O 'O 'v � +`+ 0 'rn a)O O O O 'O U) p '� r` N r a O ++ O 0 R le D LL M LD N O r r �O uQ N O O ' N M M LQ 0 0 ;0 V 0 LO y07 N N O O V � O O N N Z Z V O 'O V (O O O O .0 .0 O O O O O 9 O 9 O O m O O H H N N O O ON ' N N ON (O O O O 'O O O O m 0 o 0'v V m v V 0 N N O O V V O O O O O_ O_ 07 07 LO— LO— (p O 'O 'N N (p CO 00 0 O 'O 'O O 0 N N d~ O O O O d~ N N 0 0 O O 'O O O 00 (6 N O 'O O O O a O N a N W W 0 O 'O .•N O 'O 'O O .•N a o ;o LL LL °m o 'o °m .0 00 00 O 'O 'M M y0 N Cl! d O .O O O d N N !6 O O 'o 'O O !6 O N N X d O O O O X d N N W W 9 9 iia o ;o ;o o iia N O 'O 'O O N V 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O Cn O O O O Cn O O LO LO --4---4-- � - +�+ O o 'O 'M M O O 0 ° ° N C 0 N N O 0 ° '° �� O O x CO w O O Z O O O O 0 U Z co M +� 0 7 M j F___F +L+ y +`+ (7 0 'o ' c v (7 O y O ° '° C O O 04 o 'o 'o o V () Lo LO 0 cmV ..r...P.. cm O R C le C) LO = O O M M LD N O N .co v O O r r Cl! O M M Q 00 V M a 0 OO 0 Q O W R Q O O M V � Q Q N N Z Z V O .0 W V (O (D Q O .0 .0 O Q O O Q 9 Q 9 C) C) O O H H LO '(O N N pN O '.0 V M ON O LD m Q O .V .O V m Q V V Z Q O O .0 W Z Q O O M V � N N 0 O O O O_ O O O 07 07 n- n- 0 O O m 0 r ll'l 0 O W �0 'M d ll'l � r a� o ;o ;o o a� LO LC) O O N a O O a) (6 N O 'M 'O M (6 N r wa o ;o ;o o wa > 0 LO ;O LO >L� a o .o .0 o a LL LL O 46 O Lo N O 46 O W d O N M d O O 'M 'O M O X d O O O O X d W W 9 9 >O O 'N 'Lo P >O O� O O MOB L l a O O N M LL a N O N N N V Q O 'O 'O O Q O O (n O O O O (n O O Q fn Q °o o LO Q rn rn N L- C) o 'v m C) v v 4- N N N L O L -- 0 0 X O 'N 'M LO O X M M 4+ ira Q O 'LO .N c Q LO LQ U u Z O N 0 Z ON N U --- N N 7 0 O 'N M +L+ 0 LO LO O 0 Q O 'V 'N fp N Q LO LA U U Cr O N c Cr M M 0 ++ O C , O O R 0 O O R C) 0 ~ M LD N O co o co v r O O r 'r Cl! N LO ll l O oo 'v 'M a O v a O O W R O O O M V � O O N N Z Z V O '.0 W V N N O O .0 .0 O O O O O 9 O 9 0 0 O O H H Ln O pN O '.0 'V M ON O LD m 0 O 'V O V m 0 V V z 0 O O .0 W Z U O O M V � O O U 0 O_ O_ 07 07 n— n— �0 O 'M LQ LO� 0 O O d~ O O O O d~ N N LO LC)O O 'N ' a) O N N (6 N O 'M 'O M (6 N O O a O O O O N a N W W >� O 'Lo O LO j LO a o ;o .0 o a LL LL O (p O Lo N f, O (p N N �0 O 'O 'r 1` �0 O O d O N M d N N O O 'M 'O M O O O X d O O O O X d N N W W 9 9 >O O 'N 'Lo P >O O� O O MOB L l a O O N M LL a N O N N N V 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O (n O O O O (n O O - t' Q LO r O O Q N O O 'r 'O M Q O N Cl! N i+ 0 O ' N 04 C 0 N N 1 ;^ 1 O O O x O 'N 'M Ln O O x o m ++ O O 'LO 'c� ++ '++ O o 0 UO Z O N U Z M M U U) U) r 0 O 'N M c 0 V O 0 O 'v 'N m O O O r� 0 o N U U v v o of U ..r...p.. N S O R ) 0 F C O O M M LD N O V c .�o m r 0 N O M N Ln lA 0 00 .0 0 co N O V V C� O W R C) O O M V � 0 0 N N Z Z V O r O N C) O .0 .6 O U O O 0 9 0 9 C) C) O O H H p N O 'r �O rl� pi N O O m 0 O .O .O N m 0 T z 0 O O .0 W Z U O O M V � N N 0 O O O O_ O O O 07 07 -F — O LO r N (6 O W 0 O 'M 0 r a o ;o ;o o a n n (6 N O 'M 'O M wa o ;o ;o o wa > 0 LO ;O LO >L� a o .o .0 o a LL LL 0— a)O M N ll'l O (p O W d O N M d O O 'OM 'O M O X d O O O O X d W W 9 9 >O O 'N 'Lo P >O O O O MOB L l a O O N M LL a N O N N N V 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O (n O O O O (n O O 0 0 00 . .LO M 0 0 O W N L- C) o C) v v LF N N N L O L -- 0 0 X O 4+ ira 0 O 'LO f0 0 LO ll'l U U Z O 'O p Z 0 N U --- N N 7 0 O 'N M +L+ 0 LO LO 0 0 0 O 'ch v, y 0 LO Ln U U Cr O N c Cr M M 0 ++ O C , O O R 0 O O R L(� C) S > ~ C) 0 ~ M LD N O LD 'c '�o (D co 00 N O N O M N O Iq O O .0 0 co N O N 'O N C� O 0) .0 00 C) 0) ,O a M N N - O O Z Z V O r O V r P, C) O .0 .6 O U O O O 9 O 9 C) U m O O H H M LO 0 p N O 'r 0) fl pi N O O m 0 O O O N m 0 Z U O ,0) ,c0 W Z D 0) W M N N N N 0 0 U U O_ O_ 07 07 n- n O N V- 0 O �") �r l 0 � 0 V 'M d Pl �0 r 'O O fl d~ O �O �O O d~ N �O N n n O O O r P, O V O V (6 N O 'M 'O M O fl a O O O O N a N O W I O LO O LO j LO .•N O 'O � r .-•N ' a o ;o .0 o a LL LL O 2 O M N LO O 2 V .O O O 'O 'r P-: 0 r 'O d O N M d N O N O O 'OM 'O M O 'O X d O O O O X d N .0 N W W > 9 9 >O O 'N ' P >O O O O MOB L l a O O N 0 LL a N O N N N M M 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O U) O O O O U) O O le - �L r O '.0 'r LO O O Q 0 O 'r Ln M 0 r 04 i+ 0 O '�2 N C 0 ON N - 0 0 X O 'V 'N (0 0 x 0) W (� 0 Z O b- U Z M M +, U r 0 O 'N M l 0 O 'O O 0 0 O 'M V T- 0 0 N 'O N U C Cr O N Q U Cr 0 O N U ..r...p.. , ..p.. $ � T � (C O C O N f6 '> ++ O O R m +' U = > ~ d C U O 'a ~ Lf� CO D M M LD N O Cfl ,rn a) co 00 N O O .W W N O O 'O ,� 'O 0 0 '0 LO 0 0 � '0 a N N - O O Z Z V O 'O V r P.- U O .0 .0 O U O O 0 9 0 9 C) 0 m O O H H _ LO ll'l ON O 'O r ON O f0 0 p 'p ED O r C) O .0 Lo L m C) p) ' W N N N N 0 O O O O_ O O O 07 07 - - �0 O O O �0 LO '00 LQ a o ;o ;o o a ;o n _ n o 'O v 'o v (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N LO 'O LQ a o ;o ;o o a ;o w w - ?Ln o 'o ?Ln .•N O 'O 'O O .•N ' a o .o .0 o a LL LL 0- 0- 2 O 'O 'M M 2 V 'O �0 O 'O 'N N �0 LO 'O a o .o .o o a ;o O O 'O 'O O O LO 'O LQ X d O O O O X d O W W > 9 9 >O O 'o 'N N >O 6� O 'O iia o ;o o ; o iia N O 'O 'O O N M ' M 0 O 'O 'O O 0 O O (n O O O O (n O O - t' O O O 0 O '0 '0 W N O O U 0)0 O O O O W 0 0 0 O X O 'O O ,O O O OX O O ++ ' c ' u Z O O O O 0 Z U U) 7 le O 0 O 'O 'O o � 0 � 'O r.- 0 O 'O y 0 n 'O LO 0 U Cr c d' N 'O N 04 0 ..r...p.. U ..p.. cc +�+ a M LD N O r N O) 0R N .M M N O 'O ,W 00 N O ,O O O O .o LO 0 O O N N O O O ,LO 0 O O W 00 'N N O O Z Z V O 'O V V O O .0 .0 o O .0 o O 9 O 9 O C) m O O H H O) 0A O N O 'O ,r O N — r p O 'o 0 mO O ;O ;Li LO mC) 'co 00 N N N N 0 0 O U O_ O_ 07 07 — — ' 0 O O 'O O 0 O a� o ;o ;o o a� o ;0 0 _ O 'O O 'v v (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O I a o ;o ;o o w a o :d 0 .•N O 'O 'O O .•N ' a o ;o ;o o a LL LL 0- 0— 2 O 'O 'M M 2 O 'V 0 O 'O 'N N 0 O a o ;o .0 o a o ;0 0 O O 'O 'O O O O 'N N X d O O O O X d O .0 O W W 9 9 >O O 'o 'N N >O 6� O 'O iia o ;o ;o o iia N 0 0 '' 'O O N 'O O O O 'O O O O O O (n O O O O (n :0 O tl O 'O 'O O r (n 'N N O O o 'O) 0 , O '0)04 CJ o ;o ;o o 04 CJ 0 O x O 'O ;O O 0 x r� O 'o ++ O O Z O O O O u Z N N ++ cc y ---F-- L �•/ M 00 }L 0 O 'O 'O O CJ W 'Lo N r O O 'O l3 O O co 'T a;Q d' O 'O 'O O L U d' LO 'O LO 04 0 n n U ..r...p.. v ..�.. cc E CL r L ,o co r� DI Q ri ri LD N O 00 r M M N O .0 , r N O .0 O 0 O 'O W 00 0 0 ,N N 0 O O 0 f0 0 O W 00 M M N N - 0 0 Z Z V O 0 N N V V C) O .0 .0 o C) .0 0 0 9 0 9 C) C) m O O H H .0 00 O 0A O N O 0 0 q O N - r ( 0 0 '0 0 m C) O .0 CO (D m C) .0 00 M M N N N N 0 0 'O O O_ O O O 07 07 - - �0 O O O �0 O d~ o ,o ,O o d~ o ,O O - �� _ o �0 o ;Ln (6 N O 'O 'O O (6 N O a o ;o ;o o o a ;0 0 w w O O N N .•N O 'O 'O O .•N ' a o ;o .0 o a LL LL 0-2 00 .0 9 'L uV7 0- 2 00 'V, V a o ;o ;o o a o ;0 0 O O '0 'O O O O - r X d O O O O X d O .0 O W W 9 9 >O 0 '0 'N N >O iia o ;o ;o o iia N 0 0 ': '0 O N :0 O 0 O '0 0 O 0 0 O (n O O O O (n :0 O - t,^l v/ O O .0 0 '0 O +�+ 0 '.0 W 0 L 0 0 O O _ N 4- N N 0 X O 0 N N O X .0 00 �.+ 0 O 'O 'N Cl! c 0 u Z O O O O 0 Z cc 0 , U W 7 F_ M 00 L O (7 O 'O 'N N JLj 0 .0 'Ln O 0 0 '0 'N Cl! N 0 W 'N CA LO 'O LO LO V "a P.. V ..�.. N (� i+ - 'a 'Y R O O R Q C) Cj L 0 F M LD N O r O O ;r v N O 'O 0 W W 0 O O O O 'M M 0 Z V O O N N U O .0 .0 O T 0 9 C) mo H .0 00 O N O O 0 0 O 'O C) O .O �( CO (D 'M M - N 0 U O_ 07 N o 'O O 'O O O O O O O O O m� o 'o L O O O O wa O O N N O� O .0 .0 O LL La O 2 00 '00 'L ll� a o ;o ;0 0 w O _ O L O 'O X O O O O LU m � 9 >O O O N N LL a o ;o ;0 0 N O O :0 O 0 O 'O O O (n O O O O 0 ' O O O 0 W O 'O 'O O N O O N N O OX O :O �N N V! O 'O 'N Cl! 4 0 Z O :d :d O L cc U u F___F U) L C J O 'O 'N N (� +) 0 O 'O 'N Cl! C L d' O 'O 'O O •� C v U ..r...P.. O a) T O ri O � LD N O O O 'O N O Z O °) 0) O Q rn m N 3 00 00 4 ¢ Z O ; O Z 0 p 0) U O O O T N 9 0 Q o Z U a o O N (D (D H (n O , V m0 0 o Q Z O 0) .0) Z d c° (° _ n n m > _4__ °-) 70I� N = : OD OD O Q 0 Z ¢ U p Op m o 0 N 0 'N Q = O o o Z N cNO ;(D Q o. — �j O ; O Z p- � (I G M wa 0. CF) CF) 0 r- r- __4__ -O N N O ° 2 > +• Q d (� N O .O Z (6 LL _ '00 O, M M U O , O O Q T j ' 06 06 d F- )co co Z 0 O, V V O 2 _F' L ' Q X O .O w Z Q a > a 4_' m 9 -O O. U O O >O Z U � O) O) .0 0 O) O) LL = •Y• •Y• N 0 '0 Q 0 O 'O Z U) O .0 N 'N • • O O 'O Q 0 M .M Z O C C • 0 O 0) Q O 0) O Z ui ui Z O N i• N O i • > �.p o E F c of o6 H L c rn;o3 m cwt m S; 0 (O .O Q J Y• i 0 0 O p Z O 0' (6 0 • (6 •� M 'M a• N d • N ..�.. E :W Q :� Q . � A N M W � � O LO O O N Q 0 W Q N LD N N Q O V 0 N O 'O O r Z O ;O O N O o ._ Q Q �_ Z 4 N V O V Q O ;O O O M 6 N O 'O Z O ;O Z 0 9 Q 4 5 O O .0 O O O N 'O O O a ---4--- 0�0 ° r N 9 Z Q O r (o — N N mo Z 4 N O O O (D O_ O N .0 m m 0 0) ; Z z � n— � N d~ O ;O O O Q Z 4 O_ m • • L O .0 0 O O xa o ;o O n w (N 2 Q 4_ ao o ;o Z 0 O� ' O wa (6 N O 'O Q --4-- X O O Z wa o_ m O ;v --4-- �° o ;0 0 > a� Q Z LL d ; w O O o --4-- L O 'O O xa o ;0 0 o w Q �0 d o ;o Z >o L �O w L� O 'O Z X o ;o w a > N o Q O '0 0 9 U) o ;o 0 >o La LL O N N -4-- 0 O 'L(? ll'l O N Q Q U) __4 (n O ;O Z ,c V X Q O --4-- O 'CO o0 N L Z O cc W O O 'N N d O 'O O J Q V 'CO Q ) N U F t3 U O ' N V W 0 (o o c3 m m � N W ° ° Z J m cc N (6 (6 0 02;(7 m R X (n (n c6 m, c6.°� O a In c6 O O L UW ' N z zz N D 'moo Ln Ln a O O N O U o O O r L(7 --4--- N O oo 'o o N Z o ,o o N V O M M = O 'O O (� O O O 0 9 U 75 H .o O o N O m0 o , a)z U O rn,O O -- N 0 U O_ 07 V 2 O 0 O r d o ,o O U a o ;0 0 w , N� > !_N O� , La LL o- 2 O O O O O a w O O m O 'O O W a T O O O N 9 >O O� LL N O 0 (n O O O 0 o '°) a) U O N 4 c , V X O O 'V L OZ O cc+' c3 z 0 -o (O L • O 'O O U) U) N • • L m o) N m m o °v (6 cc J m Y c z •� ) c W ' 2 N ` Q r ! = I a n , 6 O W > L Z N Ln a C Cfl LD N O (o N O O '00 Z O 00 '00 '00 O O o ;o O o o 0 0 O Q O N N Z Z Z V O O V O O = O 'O Q = O O Q O O Z Q O o T � T O 9 O 9 Q — Q Q p Z mp O O H H O N O O O N .O O m Q O 'O Q m Q O O z Q O O Z z Q .O O N N Q Q Q Q Q Z O_ O_ 07 07 — — N0 O 'O Q ND O O O O d~ o ,O Z d~ o ,O ,o o 0 0 O O O O (6 N O 'O Q (6 N O 'O 'O O wa o ;o w Z a o o 0 0 > >� E N ' Q O)cC ZO)cC La La O m 00 '0 Q 0 ° m o0 00 00 Oo a o ;o Z a o ;o ;0 0 m O 'O Q m O O 'O 'O O x a O .0 Z X d O O O O W W > 9 9 La La N O O N O O Q O 'O Q Q O O U) O O Z U) O O O O 'O Q O O O Q O O Z Q O O Q O 'O Q Q Q ' 'O O Z O O Z Z :0 O (� 0 0 '0 ". 0 co M O °) O M .M Q O 0 .M .0 M �. co 'co Z 0 a f3 T o T a ° w' R c U c: E (6 R N '.- p L C o� c o. O 9 �O� Oa�a F N U) Q O LD N O V N O 'O 'O O N O O O O 0 O ;O :d O 0 Z V O O U ;O O 0 9 0 mo H O N O O O 0 0 O_ 07 V O 'O 'O O O O ;O ;O O � o 'o '0 0 m O O 'O O L O ;O ;O O wa LLO� La 0 m 00 00 .0 0 00 a o ;o ;0 0 w O O L O 'O 'O O X O ;O ;O O LU m (1) 9 >o a� LL N 'O O 0 O O U) ;O O CO 0 '00 00 L (6 +O+ (� 0 ;O O � U) O cc CO cc E --F---F-- C O O O °o °o N N _0 o E! i c y 7 (D 7 ca N cn N 0) U cc c cc c 0 O .M '0 M C� O C� U 'cc C U cc cc cc L 2 N(6' E a O R C= Q N C= Q 0 L O S C O:- F C Q C 9 EU Ca m N U) Q > co O ti O op O 1� 00 d7 LD N O LD N UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS 475 ECCLES AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA for BioMed Realty Trust, Inc. Attn: Mr. Andrew Richard 7677 Gateway Blvd., Suite 100 Newark, CA 94560 by Cleary Consultants, Inc. 900 N. San Antonio Road Los Altos, California 94022 December 2011 cc ®CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. J.Michael Cleary,CEG,GE Christophe A.Ciechanowski,GE Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists Grant F.Foster, GE December 23,2011 Project No. 1327.1 Ser. 3478 BioMed Realty Trust,Inc. Attn: Mr. Andrew Richard,Project Manager Development 7677 Gateway Blvd., Suite 100 Newark, CA 94560 RE: UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS PROJECT 475 ECCLES AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr.Richard: As requested, we have performed an updated/supplemental geotechnical engineering report to the Donald E. Banta and Associates, Inc. geotechnical report for this project dated October 26, 2006, for the planned Life Science Campus project at 475 Eccles Avenue in South San Francisco, California. The accompanying report presents the results of our supplemental field investigation, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses. The site and subsurface conditions are discussed and recommendations for the soil and foundation engineering aspects of the project design are presented. The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of the grading and foundation plans for the proposed new construction and observation/testing of the earthwork and foundation installation phases of the project. P�FESSIONq� We refer you to the text of the report for detailed recommendations. If you have a e e t )a F� concerning our fmdings,please call. Very truly yours, QFOFESSi w Flo.22 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, IN �FOS r6.2662 m; +, sTgFOTECNN�FOQ oster 9rFOF CAL%FCPa\Qael Cleary Geotechnical Engineer 2 2 gi 66 Engineering Geologist 352 Geotechnical Engineer 222 GF/JMC:cm Copies: Addressee(2) CAS Architects(3)Attn: Jose Cotto Rinne and Peterson(1)Attn: Aaron Kvamme LE, Watry Design(1)Attn: Matt Davis e w Kier and Wright(1)Attn: Stephen Reynolds CERTIFEEID EIMIFEEFWA 900 N.SAN ANTONIO ROAD • LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA 94022 • (650)948-0574 • FAX(6 ) 8-7 _ www.ciearyconsuitantsinc.com ��� OF CAS,�' TABLE OF CONTENTS Pate No. Letter of Transmittal INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 1 SCOPE.......................................................................................................................... 2 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION............................................................................. 4 SITECONDITIONS................................................................................................... 5 A. Surface.......................................................................................................... 5 B. Subsurface..................................................................................................... 6 C. Groundwater................................................................................................. 7 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY................................................................................ 7 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS EVALUATION..................................... 11 A. Fault Offset Hazards..................................................................................... 11 B. Ground Shaking Hazards..................................................... ........................ 11 1. Strong Ground Shaking........................................................................... 11 2. Soil Liquefaction..................................................................................... 11 3. Soil Densification.................................................................................... 12 4. Other Seismic Hazards ............................................................................ 12 C. Flooding........................................................................................................ 13 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 13 A. Earthwork ..................................................................................................... 15 1. Stripping and Site Preparation..................................:. 2. Overexcavation and Recompaction of Surface Soils .............................. 15 3. Slope Gradients and Fill Placement......................................................... 16 4. Fill Placement and Compaction............................................................... 16 5. Temporary Cutslopes and Shoring.......................................................... 17 6. Trench Backfill........................................................................................ 17 7. Surface Drainage ..................................................................................... 18 8. Construction Observation........................................................................ 19 B. Spread Footing Foundations......................................................................... 19 C. Seismic Design Parameters........................................................................... 21 D. Landscape Retaining Walls.......................................................................... 21 E. Slabs-on-Grade.............................................................................................. 23 F. Flexible Pavements........................................................................................ 24 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION................................. 26 LIST OF REFERENCES CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. TABLES Page No. TABLE 1 - Summary of Significant Earthquake Faults Capable of Generating Strong Ground Shaking at the Life Science Campus, 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California.............................. 10 TABLE 2 -Recommended Flexible Pavement Sections............................................. 24 DRAWINGS Drawing No. SITEVICINITY MAP................................................................................................ 1 LOCALGEOLOGIC MAP........................................................................................ 2 REGIONAL EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER MAP ................................................ 3 SITEPLAN.................................................................................................................. 4 KEY TO EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS .......................................................... 5 SUMMARY OF FIELD SAMPLING PROCEDURES........................................... 6 LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES........................................................... 7 LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS ONE THROUGH FIVE...................... 8-13 PLASTICITYCHART............................................................................................... 14 R-VALUE TEST RESULTS....................................................................................... 15 Appendix A- Logs of Exploratory Borings 1 through 8 Drilled by Banta Associates for Life Science Campus,475 Eccles Avenue, September 2006 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the planned Life Science Campus project to be located at 475 Eccles Avenue in South San Francisco, California (see Drawing 1, Site Vicinity Map). The purpose of this investigation was to perform supplemental exploration of the soil and foundation conditions in the general area of the planned new buildings and other site improvements, and to develop updated recommendations for the geotechnical engineering aspects of the project design. This reports updates and supplements the geotechnical investigation report prepared by Donald E. Banta and Associates (October 25, 2006) for this project, utilizing the current information and available data and observations presented in the Banta report. As shown on the site plan prepared CAS Architects,November, 2011, the project will include the on-grade construction of two new four story office buildings, with footprints of approximately 36,200 square feet(Building A) and 29,400 square feet(Building B), and a five level parking structure(approximately 40,000 square feet) on the property, as indicated on the Site Plan, Drawing 4. The office buildings will be steel frame construction, and the parking structure will be reinforced concrete. Office building and parking structure column loads are anticipated to be on the order of 550 kips maximum(DL+LL)and 1000 kips maximum(DL+ LL), respectively. Seismic loads at braced frame columns are anticipated to range from 350 to 500 kips. The project will also include the construction of a new retaining wall at the rear of the property, storm drain infiltration areas,AC pavements, concrete flatwork and underground utilities. 1 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. SCOPE As outlined in our proposal agreement dated September 26, 2011,the scope of our services for this investigation has included: 1. A site reconnaissance by our staff and review of relevant published and unpublished geologic literature and maps, including the 2006 Banta report. 2. A supplemental subsurface investigation including the drilling and sampling of five borings in the general location of the planned new buildings. 3. Engineering analysis of the field and laboratory data. 4. Preparation of this supplemental geotechnical investigation report for use in the project design and construction. The report includes findings and recommendations for the following: a. Site geology and seismic setting, 2010 CBC seismic design criteria and evaluation of potential geologic hazards including liquefaction. b. Soil and groundwater conditions. C. Site preparation and grading. d. Building foundation type with allowable bearing pressures and minimum foundation dimensions, including seismic ground anchor design values. e. Estimated foundation settlements. 2 CLEARY CONSULTANTS,INC. f. Support of interior and exterior concrete slabs-on-grade (including subgrade/pad preparation). g. Treatment of expansive soils (as required). h. Backfill and compaction of utility trenches. i. Lateral earth pressures and equivalent fluid pressures for landscape walls and recommendations for retaining wall back drainage. j. Surface drainage and storm drain infiltration trenches. k. Flexible pavement design. 1. Any other unusual design or construction conditions encountered in the investigation. This report has been prepared for the specific use of BioMed Realty Trust and their consultants in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. No other warranty,either expressed or implied,is made. In the event that any substantial changes in the nature of the project are planned, the conclusions and recommendations of this report shall not be considered valid unless such changes are reviewed and the conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing. Any use or reliance of this report or the information contained herein by a third party shall be at such party's sole risk. . It should also be recognized that changes in the site conditions may occur with the passage of time due to environmental processes and/or acts of man, and that changes in building codes,the state of the practice or new information may require modifications in the recommendations 3 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. presented herein. Accordingly, neither the client, nor any other parry should rely on the information or conclusions contained in this report after three years from its date of issuance without the express written consent of Cleary Consultants, Inc. The recommendations presented in this report are intended to supplement/update those presented in the 2006 Banta report. The information in the Banta report including but not limited to site conditions, excavatability and ground water conditions should be reviewed by the design consultants and prospective contractors. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION A site reconnaissance and the supplemental subsurface investigation were performed on December 1 and December 5, 2011, using a truck-mounted, hollow-stem auger drill rig and a portable electric powered Minuteman drill rig equipped with solid-stem auger. Five exploratory borings were drilled under the guidance of our field geologist, Jennifer Hedvall,to a maximum depth of 34.5 feet at the locations shown on Drawing 4. A key describing the soil classification system and soil consistency terms used in this report is presented on Drawing 5 and the soil sampling procedures are described in Drawing 6. Logs of the borings are presented on Drawings 8 through 13. The logs of eight exploratory borings performed in 2006 by Donald E.Banta and Associates for the project are included in Appendix A. The borings were located in the field by pacing/tape measurements and interpolation of the features shown on the site plan provided us. These locations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. Samples of the soil materials from the borings were returned to our laboratory for classification and testing. The results of moisture content, dry density,percent finer than No. 4 and No. 200 sieves, plasticity index and free swell testing are shown on the boring logs. The laboratory testing procedures followed during this investigation are summarized on Drawing 7. Drawing 4 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. 14,Plasticity Chart,presents additional data on the plasticity index testing. Drawing 15 presents the results of R-value testing on a composite sample of the surficial soils collected from the borings. A list of references consulted during the investigation is included at the end of the text. SITE CONDITIONS A. Surface The site of the planned new Life Science Campus is presently occupied by a large tilt-up office/warehouse building(300 feet by 360 feet)which will be demolished and removed,along with the surrounding concrete flatwork and parking lot/driveways. The 6.1 acre site is bordered on the south by Eccles Avenue,on the north by a vacant gravel/dirt area strip,and on the east and west by commercial building sites. An estimated 20 to 30 foot high by 1 '/2:1 (horizontal:vertical)downhill cutslope is located 60 to 70 feet north of the property. Franciscan Formation bedrock outcrops on the cutslope. These materials consist of hard greenstone in a matrix of sheared shale with clay, classified as Franciscan melange. The gravel/dirt strip behind the building is approximately five feet lower in elevation relative to floor level, and is accessed by a small staircase; the rear portion of the building site was apparently filled to create a level building pad. The actual extent of the fill was not determined in the investigation and should be further evaluated during the site grading phase of work. Minor displacement of the exterior flatwork and uneven sections were observed around the building,and moderate longitudinal cracking was present in the interior building slab,which was exposed throughout the ground floor level of the two-story high structure. 5 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. Vegetation at the site is isolated to irrigated landscaping areas at the front of the building. The asphalt pavements in the parking lot/driveway areas on the east and west sides of the site were in fair to good condition. B. Subsurface The exploratory borings drilled in the area of the proposed new buildings and parking structure encountered one to four feet of medium dense to dense silty sand and clayey sand fill overlying locally medium dense to predominantly very dense Franciscan melange bedrock to the maximum depth explored of 34.5 feet. Drilling refusal was met in EB-4 and EB-5,which were drilled with the Minuteman equipment inside the building,at depths of 8.5 feet and 14.5 feet,respectively,in very dense Franciscan bedrock. Approximately four feet of medium dense fill consisting of relatively clean sand was present in EB-4 below the six inch building slab. The eight exploratory borings drilled by Donald E. Banta and Associates (logs included in Appendix A)encountered dense to very dense Franciscan bedrock within three to five feet of the ground surface,with the exception of their Boring 5 which encountered"possible fill"to a depth of seven feet. All of the borings encountered a surficial layer of loose to medium dense clayey sand material overlying bedrock. Three 150-foot long seismic refraction lines performed by Donald E.Banta and Associates along the north side of the property reported a wide range of compressional wave velocities,ranging from 3,175 to 15,833 feet per second, indicating a wide variability in rock hardness in the Franciscan bedrock. The upper clayey sand soils are considered to have a low to moderate expansion potential based on their plasticity characteristics (Plasticity Index = zero to 16 percent) and the free swell test data(Free Swells of zero to 50 percent). 6 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. The attached boring logs and related information depict subsurface conditions only at the specific locations shown on Drawing 3 and on the particular dates designated on the logs. Soil conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these boring locations. Also, the passage of time may result in a change of soil conditions at these boring locations due to environmental changes. C. Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in the exploratory borings during drilling;however,the Banta report noted that groundwater seepage was observed at the base of the cutslope north of the site, as well as in their Boring 2 and Boring 8 during drilling. It should be noted that the borings were only open for a period of a few hours and this may not have been sufficiently long to establish the stabilized water table conditions. It should also be noted that fluctuations of localized perched groundwater and the regional groundwater level can occur due to such factors as variations in rainfall, temperature, runoff, irrigation, and other factors not evident at the time our measurements were made and reported herein. GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY The Life Science Center project site is located near the San Francisco Bay on an easterly projecting bedrock extension of San Bruno Mountain, which lies about one mile to the northwest. In the site vicinity, the area is comprised of Holocene age slope wash (Qsr), Pleistocene age Colma Formation(Qc),and Jurassic-Cretaceous age sandstone and shale(KJs), chert (KJc) and Franciscan Assemblage sheared rocks (KJu) consisting of greenstone and sheared melange rocks,the rock type mapped at the site(Bonilla, 1971), (See Drawing 2, Local Geologic Map). 7 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. The San Francisco Bay Area is recognized by geologists and seismologists as one of the most active seismic regions in the United States. The three major fault zones which pass through the Bay Area in a northwest direction have produced approximately a dozen earthquakes per century strong enough to cause structural damage. The faults causing these earthquakes are part of the San Andreas fault system,a major rift in the earth's crust that extends for at least 450 miles along the California Coast and includes the San Andreas, San Gregorio,Hayward and Calaveras faults. The site is located approximately 3.4 miles northeast of the San Andreas fault, 8.8 miles northeast of the San Gregorio fault, 14.7 miles southwest of the Hayward fault, and 23.7 miles southwest of the Calaveras fault, respectively. In addition, the site is located about 14.7 miles northwest of the potentially active Monte Vista-Shannon fault. Also,mapped traces of the Hillside fault,San Bruno fault and Serra fault zone lie approximately 400 feet southwest, 2.0 miles southwest and 3.5 miles southwest of the site,respectively. The Hillside fault zone separates a coherent block of unnamed sandstone of the Jurassic and Cretaceous age and an extensively deformed sandstone and shale of the Franciscan assemblage (Jurassic and Cretaceous age). Earl Brabb and Jean Olson concluded that the information for the Hillside fault zone is insufficient to determine the present seismic activity(Brabb, 1986.) The San Bruno fault was proposed by Lawson in 1914 to explain the juxtaposition of the Merced Formation against the Franciscan assemblage on San Bruno Mountain;this fault is inferred and may not exist. Although late Quaternary time movement has been observed on the Serra fault, no evidence that it has been active during Holocene time has been found(Smith, 198 1) and the fault was removed from the State of California Special Studies Zones, San Francisco South Quadrangle, 1982. Since the early 1800's,major earthquakes have been recorded along the San Andreas,Hayward and Calaveras fault zones (Toppozoda et al, 2000). In 1861, an earthquake having a Richter magnitude of approximately 6.5 was reported on the Calaveras fault. The presumed epicenter of this earthquake was located approximately 25 miles northeast of the site. In 1984,an earthquake having a Richter magnitude of approximately 6.1 was reported on the Calaveras fault near Mt. 8 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. Hamilton. The epicenter of this earthquake was located approximately 46 miles southeast of the site. In 1868,an earthquake having a Richter magnitude of approximately 7.0 was recorded along the Hayward fault. This earthquake opened fissures at random locations along the fault, from San Pablo to Mission San Jose. The presumed epicenter of the 1868 earthquake is located approximately 16 miles northeast of the site. The San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 had a Richter magnitude of approximately 8.3 and the epicenter of this earthquake(Toppozoda et al, 2000)was located approximately seven miles northwest of the site; also,the San Andreas fault produced earthquakes having approximate magnitudes of 7.4 and 6.6 in 1838 and 1865, the presumed epicenters of which are located about 28 miles southeast and 41 miles southeast of the site. An earthquake with Richter magnitude 5.4 experienced on the Concord fault in 1955 had its epicenter approximately 29 miles northeast of the site. Another damaging earthquake with Richter magnitude 5.3 occurred in 1957 on the San Andreas fault in Daly City, causing approximately one million dollars in damage. The epicenter of this earthquake was about seven miles northwest of the site. Two earthquakes in 1980, along traces of the Greenville fault,had their epicenters approximately 36 miles northeast of the site. These 1980 earthquakes had Richter magnitudes of 5.5 and 5.8. In addition, numerous earthquakes of magnitudes 4.0 or greater have been recorded throughout the Bay Area along the San Andreas, Hayward and Calaveras faults. On October 17, 1989,the Loma Prieta earthquake,which had its epicenter 51 miles southeast of the school site and a Moment Magnitude of 6.9, produced damage at widespread locations throughout the Bay Area. The distances between the site and the capable segments of the above faults, as well as other significant faults within a radius of 60 miles from the site was determined using the EQ Fault Program, Version 3.0 (2000) of Blake, as presented below in Table 1: 9 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. TABLE 1 - Summary of Significant Earthquake Faults Capable of Generating Strong Ground Shaking at the Life Science Campus,475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco(1),(2) Approximate Distance and Direction to Generating Fault Maximum Earthquake(Moment Earthquake Generating Fault (miles) Magnitude) San Andreas 3.4 SW 7.9 (SAS+SAP+SAN+SAO) San Gregorio(SGS+SGN) 8.8 SW 7.4 Hayward(HS+HN+RC) 14.7 NE 7.3 Monte Vista-Shannon 17.2 SE 6.7 Calaveras(CS+CC+CN) 23.7 NE 6.9 Mount Diablo(MTD) 24.5 E 6.7 Concord/GV 27.7 NE 6.7 (CON+GVS+GVN) Point Reyes 31.1 NW 7.0 Greenville(GN) 34.4 E 6.7 West Napa 35.9 NE 6.5 Great Valley 39.8 NE 6.5 Zayante-Vergales 45.6 SE 7.0 Monterey Bay-Tularcitos 53.1 SE 7.3 Hunting Creek-Berryessa 55.9 NE 7.1 (1)EQ Fault Program,Blake,Vers.3.0 (2)Site Latitude:37.6595°N;Site Longitude: 122.3933°W The historical seismicity of the greater San Francisco Bay area and surrounding regions is presented on Drawing 3, Regional Earthquake Epicenter Map. Similar to most of the San Francisco Bay Area,it is reasonable to assume that the new buildings will be subjected to a moderate to large earthquake from one of the above-mentioned faults during their lifetime. During such an earthquake,strong ground shaking is likely to occur at the site. 10 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS EVALUATION A. Fault Offset Hazard Based on the findings of this investigation, we conclude that there are no known active or potentially active faults crossing the proposed new Life Science Campus site. The site is also not within an Earthquake Fault Zone of the State of California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Therefore, the hazard resulting from surface fault rupture at the site is considered low. B. Ground Shaking Hazards 1. Strong Ground Shaking Strong ground shaking is likely to occur during the lifetime of the planned new buildings as a result of movement along one or more of the regional active faults discussed above. The new buildings and other proposed improvements will need to be designed and constructed in accordance with current standards of earthquake-resistant construction. Ground shaking during an earthquake could cause furnishings which are not rigidly attached(such as bookshelves and file cabinets)to undergo movement with respect to the building. Design measures that minimize such potential movement and also minimize the adverse effects of such movement where they cannot be prevented should be utilized. 2. Soil Liquefaction Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated, essentially cohesionless soils lose strength during strong seismic shaking and may experience horizontal and vertical movements. Soils that are generally most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, 11 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. saturated,uniformly graded,fine-grained sands and silts that lie within roughly 50 feet of the ground surface. Our investigation found that the areas of new construction are generally underlain by a non-saturated layer(approximately one to seven feet)of medium dense to dense clayey sand and silty sand,overlying relatively shallow greenstone and melange bedrock of the Franciscan Assemblage. Based on these conditions, we believe the likelihood of soil liquefaction during strong ground shaking at the site is remote. 3. Soil Densification The recognized procedures for evaluation of seismically-induced settlement in dry sandy soils (Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987; Pradel, 1998) are considered most applicable to non- cohesive loose clean sands with less than 5 percent fines(Day,2002). The clayey sand and silty sand layers encountered within the upper few feet of the borings are not considered to be susceptible to seismically-induced dry soil settlement due to their medium dense to dense consistency and fines content(18 to 20 percent). The relatively clean sand fill layer encountered in EB-4 from below the slab to a depth of about four feet will require removal during construction of the new buildings. Based on the above information,we conclude that the likelihood that the new buildings will be damaged by earthquake-induced soil densification is very low. 4. Other Seismic Hazards We have also considered the possibility of other seismically induced hazards at the site. Because of the gentle slope across the site and the generally high relative densities associated with the subsurface soils and shallow bedrock, soil lurching and lateral spreading are considered unlikely. 12 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. The free face cutslope in Franciscan bedrock located 60 to 70 feet south of the site appears to be globally stable;due to the planned location of the new buildings,which are set back from the top of the slope greater than about 75 feet, the slope does not pose a hazard to the planned new construction. Ground cracking may be caused by any of the phenomena discussed above. Since there is a low potential for liquefaction-induced settlement, soil densification or lateral spreading of the soils underlying the site, it is also considered unlikely that significant ground cracking will occur at the site. C. Flooding FEMA Flood Insurance Mapping(198 1) indicates the project site is within Flood Hazard Zone C, "areas of minimal flooding." The site is outside of the runup zone resulting from a seismically generated tsunami as shown on the Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, State of California, San Francisco South Quadrangle, July 15, 2009. The site is also not within the vicinity of any lakes or reservoirs, therefore there is not a hazard at the site from dam failures or seiches. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings of our investigation, we judge that there are no geologic hazards or constraints which would preclude the construction of the proposed new Life Science Campus at 475 Eccles Avenue in South San Francisco. Our analysis indicates that the potential for liquefaction-induced settlement and seismically-induced dry soil settlement is very low to remote 13 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. due to the relatively shallow bedrock and absence of a static groundwater table. From a soil and foundation engineering standpoint,we also conclude that the improvements can be constructed as planned provided the recommendations of this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. The new buildings can be supported on continuous and isolated spread footings which obtain support in the dense to very dense Franciscan Melange bedrock which underlies the site at depths generally ranging from about one to five feet. Deepened footing excavations,ranging up to 12 feet in depth, will likely be required to reach competent(very dense)bedrock in some building areas as indicated in the exploratory borings. We recommend that additional subsurface investigation be performed at the site following demolition of the existing building and pavements to further characterize the depth to supporting bedrock for foundation excavations and extent of existing fill and disturbed soil that will require removal/reworking as the basis for cost analysis and supplemental foundation recommendations (if required). Due to the variable rock hardness, difficult excavation may be encountered in the bedrock, locally requiring heavy ripping and/or the use of a hoe-ram to accomplish the mass grading and footing excavations. The new building and exterior slabs-on-grade should be supported on a nominal cushion of imported fill (aggregate base material) to minimize expansive soil movements. The recommendations presented in the remainder of this report are contingent on our review of the earthwork and foundation plans for the project and our observation of the grading,foundation installation,retaining wall, concrete slab and pavement installation phases of the construction. 14 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. A. Earthwork 1. Striupin2 and Site Preparation Existing pavements, concrete slabs, surface vegetation, underground utilities, trees designated to be removed,old foundations,underground obstructions,tree roots and other site improvements not designated to remain should be removed to their full depth and extent and hauled from the site. Holes resulting from the removal of underground obstructions (such as old concrete footings, abandoned utilities or tree root bulbs) that extend below the planned finished grade should be cleared of loose soil and debris, and backfilled with suitable material compacted to the requirements discussed below for engineered fill (see Section 4, Fill Placement and Compaction). 2. Overexcavation and Recompaction of Surface Soils After the building sites have been prepared, the condition of the surface soils should be checked by our representative. Over-excavation and replacement of any remaining fill materials with properly compacted engineered fill(i.e. stockpile material,place in thin lifts and recompact to at least 90 percent relative compaction) within the building pad areas should be performed; the over-excavation and fill reworking/replacement should extend five feet beyond the building perimeters and outermost edge of building foundations. The surface soils in the new building and parking lot areas should be properly moisture conditioned and recompacted prior to placing fill. This work should consist of ripping the upper twelve inches, thoroughly moisture conditioning the soils to one to two percent above optimum moisture, and compacting them to at least 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Test Designation D 1557. Compaction should be performed using heavy compaction equipment such as a self-propelled sheepsfoot compactor. 15 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. In order to achieve satisfactory compaction in the subgrade and fill soils, it may be necessary to adjust the soil moisture content at the time of compaction. This may require that water be added and thoroughly mixed into any soils which are too dry or that scarification and aeration be performed in any soils which are too wet. 3. Slope Gradients and Fill Placement New permanent cut slopes,and any fill slopes,should be no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Fill placed on slopes steeper than 6:1 (horizontal to vertical)should be benched a minimum of two feet horizontally for every two vertical feet of new fill. Any old fills encountered in new construction areas should be removed and replaced as properly engineered fill. Cut and fill slopes should be planted to minimize erosion and surface runoff should be diverted away from the top of slopes and carried to a suitable drainage collection system. 4. Fill Placement and Compaction On-site soils having an organic content of less than three percent by volume and which are free of construction debris can be used as fill. Fill material should not contain rocks or lumps greater than six inches in greatest dimension with not more than 15 percent larger than 2.5 inches. Any imported fill required in building areas should be predominantly granular with a plasticity index of 12 or less. Engineered fill in building areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Fill material should be spread and compacted in lifts not exceeding eight inches in uncompacted thickness. 16 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. 5. ' Temporary Cutslopes and Shoring Excavations for the new building foundations are expected to be up to 12 feet deep. Temporary slopes in the sandy clay soils and bedrock encountered during the site investigation are anticipated to be reasonably stable at inclinations of 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter and 1:1, respectively. Where excavations adjoin existing buildings,parking areas,roadways,sidewalks orutility easements,and there is not sufficient area for slope flattening,temporary shoring should be used. In these areas, shoring should be provided wherever foundation excavations extend below an imaginary 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane extending down from the building foundation,parking area, roadway, sidewalk or utility easement. There are a number of factors which can influence the stability of temporary excavations, some of which the contractor can control. The contractor, therefore, should be solely responsible for designing and constructing stable temporary excavations and should shore, slope or bench the excavations as required to maintain their stability and comply with all applicable safety standards,including CAL-OSHA requirements. The temporary shoring system design and performance should be the responsibility of the contractor. 6. Trench Backfill The presently available subsurface information indicates that utility trenches can be excavated with conventional backhoe equipment,however, zones of less weathered hard bedrock should be anticipated which will require the use of hoe-rams and jackhammers. Trenches deeper than five feet should be properly braced or sloped in accordance with the current requirements of CAL-OSHA or the local governmental agency,whichever is more stringent. 17 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. Utility trenches should be backfilled with engineered fill placed in lifts not exceeding eight inches in uncompacted thickness,except thicker lifts may be used with the approval of the soil engineer provided satisfactory compaction is achieved. If on-site soil is used, the material should be compacted to at least 85 percent relative compaction by mechanical means only. Imported sand can also be used for backfilling trenches provided it is compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. In building, slab, and pavement areas, the upper three feet of trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction for on-site soils,and 95 percent where imported clean sand backfill is used. In addition,the upper six inches of all trench backfill materials under pavement areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Water jetting to achieve the required level of backfill compaction should not be permitted. 7. Surface Drainage Positive surface gradients of at least two percent on porous surfaces and one percent on impervious surfaces should be provided adjacent to the new buildings and other site improvements so that surface water is directed away from foundations and towards suitable discharge facilities and planned storm drain infiltration areas. Ponding of surface water should not be allowed on slabs or adjacent to the buildings. Water from roof downspouts should be collected into closed pipes which carry the runoff away from the building and discharge into approved drainage facilities or discharged onto hardscape surfaces which drain toward collection basins or surface collectors. The performance of the planned storm drain infiltration areas at the site will dependent on the permeability of the underlying soil and bedrock. A low to very low permeability rate should be considered for the design of the trenches due to the relatively shallow,dense to very dense bedrock encountered at the site which can"perch"water. We recommend that the trenches be designed as temporary storage for a staged release system, rather than as infiltration trenches. 18 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. 8. Construction Observation The grading and earthwork operations should be observed and tested by our representative for conformance with the project plans/specifications and our recommendations. This work includes site preparation, selection of satisfactory fill materials, and placement and compaction of the subgrade and fill. Sufficient notification prior to commencement of earthwork is essential to make certain that the work will be properly observed. B. Spread Footing Foundations After the site has been properly prepared,the new buildings and parking structure can be supported on conventional continuous and isolated spread footings which bear in the dense to very dense Franciscan Formation bedrock underlying the site. Footings should be founded at least 36 inches below lowest adjacent finished grade and be embedded at least 12 inches into supporting competent bedrock. Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches and isolated footings should be at least 24 inches square. Footings located adjacent to utility trenches should have their bearing surfaces below an imaginary 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical)plane projected upward from the edge of the bottom of the trench. Care should be taken to keep the footings moist by lightly spraying the sidewalls and bottom prior to the concrete pour. At the above depths, an allowable bearing pressure of 4000 psf due to dead loads with a one-third increase for dead plus live loads(5320 psf)and a 50 percent increase for total design loads including wind and seismic(6000 psf) can be used for design of footings bearing in bedrock. All continuous footings should be provided with at least two number four reinforcement bars top and bottom to provide structural continuity and to permit spanning of local irregularities. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 250 pci may also be used for design of the spread footing foundations. 19 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction between the foundation bottoms and the supporting bedrock. A friction coefficient of 0.35 is considered applicable. Alternatively, an equivalent fluid pressure of 350 pcf in can be taken against the side of footings embedded in bedrock poured neat. If additional lateral resistance is required, 50 percent of the friction value(0.18)in kinetic resistance may be used in combination with the 350 pcf passive resistance. This condition assumes some footing displacement under dynamic loading. Footings located adjacent to utility trenches should have their bearing surfaces below an imaginary 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical)plane projected upward from the edge of the bottom of the trench. All continuous footings should be provided with at least two number four reinforcement bars top and bottom to provide structural continuity and to permit spanning of local irregularities. Footing excavations in hard greenstone or sandstone zones may require jack hammering or the use of a hoe-ram locally to achieve the required grades. The excavation of footing trenches should be scheduled so that the trenches are left open for the minimum practical length of time prior to the placement of concrete. Footing trenches should be kept moist so that any drying- shrinkage cracks are closed prior to placement of concrete. Moisture should be added in a light mist spray. Settlements under the anticipated loads are expected to be on the order of 1/2-inch or less for the proposed construction. Ground anchors can be used to supplement uplift resistance in conjunction with the recommended spread footing foundations. Ground anchors should have a minimum diameter of 12 inches and be drilled to a minimum depth of 12 feet into Franciscan Formation bedrock; ground anchors drilled to this depth will likely achieve 125 kip allowable and 250 kip ultimate uplift resistance values. The minimum depth calculation is based on a bond stress in bedrock of 50 psi. These values should be confirmed through field performance testing of the proposed rock anchor system in order to determine the final design values and depth requirements. 20 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. C. Seismic Design Parameters Seismic design values for the project were determined using the USGS Earthquake Ground Motion Parameter Java Application, and the subsurface information obtained from the exploratory borings which was used for determining the site classification. Using the site Latitude(37.6595°N)and Longitude(122.3933 °W) and the site classification as input, the computer application provides Seismic Hazard Curve information, Site Coefficients and Uniform Hazard Response Spectra for both"short"(0.2 seconds)and long period(1-second) durations as detailed in the 2010 CBC. Based on the results of our investigation, the tables provided in Section 1613.5.2 of the 2010 CBC,and our analysis using the USGS Earthquake Ground Motion Parameter Java Application, the following seismic design parameters can be used in lateral force analyses at this site: Site Classification B—Rock, Shear Wave Velocity of 2,500 to 5,000 feet per second Site Coefficient Fa= 1.0 Site Coefficient Fv= 1.0 Mapped Spectral Acceleration Values; Ss = 1.767, SI = 0.905 Spectral Response Accelerations; SMs = 1.767, SMI =0.905 Design Spectral Response Accelerations; SDs= 1.178, SDI= 0.603 Seismic Design Category: E (SI > 0.75) D. Landscape Retaining Walls Detached landscape walls required for the project must be designed to resist lateral earth pressures and any additional lateral loads caused by surcharge loading. Landscape walls can be supported on spread footings bearing in medium dense native soil or properly engineered fill and can be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 1500 psf due to dead loads and a 50 percent increase for total design loads(2250 psf)including wind and seismic.Prior to placing reinforcing steel, the footing bottoms should be probed and any loose zones densified with a jumping 21 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. wacker. Footings should be embedded at least 18 inches and have a minimum width of 18 inches. Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the foundation bottoms and the supporting subgrade. A friction coefficient of 0.30 is considered applicable. As an alternative, an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pcf starting one-half foot below the ground surface can be taken against the sides of footings poured neat. We recommend that unrestrained walls with level or gently sloping backfill conditions be designed to resist an equivalent fluid pressure of 45 pcf and that restrained walls be designed to resist an equivalent fluid pressure of 45 pcf plus an additional uniform lateral pressure of ten H psf where H=height ofbackfill above wall foundation in feet. Wherever walls will be subjected to surcharge loads,they should be designed for an additional lateral pressure equal to one-third or one-half the anticipated surcharge load depending on whether the wall is unrestrained or restrained, respectively. The preceding pressures assume that sufficient drainage is provided behind the retaining walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures from surface or subsurface water infiltration. Adequate drainage may be provided by means of clean,3/4 inch drain rock material enclosed in a filter fabric, such as Mirafi 140, and a four-inch diameter perforated pipe (Schedule 40 or stronger)placed at the base of the wall. The perforated pipe should be tied into a closed pipe and carried to a suitable drainage system. Backfill material placed behind retaining walls should be non-expansive and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction using lightweight compaction equipment. If heavy compaction equipment is used,the walls should be appropriately braced during the backfilling. An 18-inch cap of impervious native clay soil should be placed over the top of the retaining wall backfill to minimize surface water infiltration. If old fill is encountered in the retaining wall footing excavations, these materials should be removed and replaced with properly engineered non-expansive fill. The actual required extent of 22 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. overexcavation and replacement of unsuitable fill materials in new retaining wall footing areas should be determined in the field by our representative. E. Slabs-on-Grade Slab-on-grade construction will be used for building and exterior slabs. Just prior to final slab preparation, the slab subgrade should be checked to determine that the upper 12 inches of prepared subgrade soils are at least at optimum moisture content and proof-rolled to provide firm,uniform support. Interior building slabs should be underlain by a minimum 15 mil vapor retarder of permeance less than or equal to 0.01 perms(as tested by ASTM El 249)placed over 12 inches of 3/4-inch clean, free draining crushed rock. Care should be taken to prevent wear, punctures and/or tearing of the membrane during the construction phase (such as could result from the placement of rebar) subsequent to its installation; any tears or punctures should be tightly sealed. Exterior concrete flatwork, sidewalks and curb and gutters should be underlain by at least six inches of Class 2 aggregate baserock placed on the prepared subgrade soil. Reinforcement of slabs should be provided in accordance with their anticipated use and loading, but as a minimum, slabs should be reinforced with No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center,both ways, or No. 4 bars at 24 inches on center, both ways. Concrete slabs should be articulated with a maximum joint spacing of ten feet in both directions. Prior to final construction of slabs, the subgrade surface should be proof rolled to provide a smooth, firm non-yielding surface. The baserock and upper 12 inches of underlying subgrade should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction; subgrade and baserock sections below mechanical slabs should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. 23 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. The moisture content of the compacted subgrade should be maintained at, or slightly above, optimum moisture prior to placing the required baserock materials. F. Flexible Pavements The average pavement section encountered within the existing parking lot area consisted of three to four inches of AC over eight inches of baserock. (The actual thickness of AC and baserock measured in the exploratory borings is shown on the boring logs.) The existing asphaltic concrete and aggregate baserock can be reused as a portion of the new pavement section provided it is properly ground up, mixed and stockpiled, and not contaminated with soil. The results of laboratory R-Value testing performed on a representative bulk sample of the near surface soils indicate these materials have an R-Value of 14. Utilizing an R-Value of 14, the estimated Traffic Indices presented below, and design procedure 301-F of the California Department of Transportation, we have prepared the following minimum flexible pavement sections for vehicular traffic areas: Table 2 -Recommended Flexible Pavement Sections Asphaltic Class 2 Total Traffic Concrete Aggregate Thickness Condition (inches) Base (inches)* (inches) Automobile Parking Areas and Driveways 3.0 8.0 11.0 (T.I. =4.5) Bus Traffic/Fire Lanes 4.0 10.0 14.0 (T.I. =6.0) *Properly ground-up AC/AB materials can be substituted for the initial four inches of Class 2 aggregate base. The AC/AB grindings should have a minimum R-Value of 70 based on testing of the stockpiled materials. The upper six inches of soil subgrade in vehicular pavement areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Any fill required below the upper six inches of subgrade 24 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. should be compacted to at least 90 percent. The subgrade should be proof rolled with a heavy, smooth drum roller to provide a smooth firm surface. Any unstable or pumping subgrade areas should be subexcavated and plugged with baserock or overlain with a stabilizing fabric,such as Mirafi 600X. Fabric installation should be performed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. The method and extent of any required stabilization work should be evaluated by our representative. Class 2 aggregate base should have an R-Value of at least 78 and conform to the requirements of Section 26, State of California "CALTRANS" Standard Specifications, latest edition. The aggregate base material should be placed in thin lifts in a manner to prevent segregation, and should be uniformly moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction to provide a smooth,unyielding surface. Concrete curbs should be embedded at least two inches below the soil subgrade (below the bottom of the aggregate base section) in any areas where irrigated landscape areas are planned adjacent to AC pavements. If development plans require one or more dumpster sites for waste disposal,consideration should be given to using a PCC slab rather than asphaltic concrete in the area where the dumpster service truck will operate. The concrete slab should have a minimum thickness of six inches and should be placed on at least six inches of compacted Class 2 aggregate base material. Slab reinforcement should consist of No. 4 bars placed at 12 inches on center, both ways. This concrete section may also be used for vehicular concrete paving section in truck/bus traffic areas. The slab thickness, however, can be reduced to five inches for automobile only traffic areas. The asphaltic concrete should conform to and be placed in accordance with the requirements of Section 39 in the State of California CALTRANS Standard Specifications, latest edition. 25 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION We should be provided the opportunity to review the foundation and grading plans and the specifications for the project when they are available to confirm that the updated design parameters contained in this report have been incorporated into the design documents. We should also be retained to provide soil engineering observation and testing services during the grading and foundation installation phases of the project. This will provide the opportunity for correlation of the soil conditions found in our investigation with those actually encountered in the field, and thus permit any necessary modifications in our recommendations resulting from changes in anticipated conditions. 26 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. LIST OF REFERENCES Association of Bay Area Governments, 1983, Plate 1. Fault Traces Used as Sources of Ground Shaking, San Francisco Bay Region. Blake, Thomas, 2000, EQFAULT Program for Determination of Ground Acceleration Values for Earthquakes in California. Blake, Thomas, 2000, New Fault-Model Files For EQFAULT, Modified from California Division of Mines and Geology fault Database for 183 Late-Quaternary California Faults. Bonilla, M.G., 1971, Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7.5' Quadrangle and Part of the Hunters Point 7.5' Quadrangle: U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 98-354, scale 1:24,000. Bonilla, M.G., 1998, Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South and Part of the Hunters Point Quadrangles: U.S. Geological Survey, Misc. Field Studies Map MF- 311, scale 1:24,000. Borcherdt, R.D., 1975, Studies for Seismic Zonation of the San Francisco Bay Region: U.S. Geologic Survey, Professional Paper 941-A. Brabb, E.W., 1993, Preliminary Geologic Map of the On-Shore Part of the Palo Alto 1:100,000 Quadrangle, California, USGS OFR 93-271. Brabb, E.E., and Olson, J.A., 1986, Map Showing Faults and Earthquake Epicenters in San Mateo County, California, U.S. Geological Survey Map I-1257-F. Brabb, E.E., and Pampeyan, E.H., 1972, Preliminary Geologic Map of San Mateo County, California: U.S. Geological Survey, Misc. Field Studies Map MF-328. California Building Code, 2010 California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California Special Publication 117. Committee on Earthquake Engineering, Housner Chen, 1985, Liquefaction of Soils During Earthquakes,National Research Council,National Academy Press. Day, R.W., Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Handbook, 2002, Mc Graw-Hall. Donald E. Banta and Associates, 2006, Geotechnical Report Life Science Campus, 475 Eccles Avenue, South Sand Francisco, California. CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. LIST OF REFERENCES, CONTINUED Donald E. Banta and Associates, 2007, Geotechnical Report Shell and Site Upgrade, 475 Eccles Avenue, South Sand Francisco, California. Federal Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, City of South San Francisco, California, Panel 2 of 12, September 2, 1981. Ishihara, Kenji, 1985, "Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes," Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, CA, Volume 1,p. 321-376, August. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map No. 6. Pradel, Daniel, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, April 1998, P364 - 368. Real, Charles R,, Toppozada, Tousson T., and Parke, David L., 1978, Earthquake Epicenter Map of California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 39, scale 1:1,000,000. Seed, H. Bolton, and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, EERI Monograph. Smith, T.C., 1981, CDMG Fault Evaluation Report 119, Serra Fault,No. San Mateo County. Sorg, D.H., and McLaughlin, R.J., 1975, Geologic Map of the Sargent-Berrocal Fault Zone Between Los Gatos and Los Altos Hills, Santa Clara County, California: U.S. Geological Survey, MF-643. Southern California Earthquake Center, March 1999, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117. State of California, June 15, 2009, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, County of San Mateo, San Francisco South Quadrangle. Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B., Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, August 1987, Volume 113, pages 861 - 878. Toppozada, T. et al, 2000, Epicenters of and Areas Damaged by M>5 California Earthquakes, 1800-1999, CDMG Map Sheet 49. CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. LIST OF REFERENCES, CONTINUED Youd, T.L., 1997, Updates in the Simplified Procedure: An Overview of NCEER Workshop in Salt Lake City on Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Third Seismic Short Course on Evaluation and Mitigation of Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Hazards, San Francisco, CA. CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. ro '��^v ri'..'"f Ir �, ( ,f✓ ^;1 i�� a� 0; fP 4,"�rv"" °� d. �,,.,w,, Uii,�„ w.; y..�.,��/, �% "/// ////%7i'/i�^'�^1�,�,,,, r d' / �+ c.ar 1, ��r "f aP; `.;��� ✓ &� f V � � �i(�uw— �"'i,�h* (" �"�i �d /J� b •� �� r "SO UT /��� m a a , �� � An / i �� * M:� v.. � `� I ro e✓elr,;a �.n„, niuwuauru °�'^°. 4h ew run NR �'4N eve Aiji Creek POT�� ` � s W fm n odY I lei A ( r C i�i'� yJ��'����/ ��z at""y,�'r~a a v/✓//% I i r � r da J�kt r r� �+ ✓ � '4 a iS ,�, III R • � 2 V OR Ta � ��m�„� ��. � _,; m�, w ".a 9.' ;'�-�'...��" �.,.„i/%0///ids�., ”L�,✓i BASE: U.S. Geological Surve�r, South San Francisco 7.5' uadran le, South San Francisco, California SITE VICINITY MAP "MA LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. 475 Eccles Avenue Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists South San Francisco, California APPROVED BY SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE I DRAWING NO. GF 1” =2000' 1327.1 December 2011 1 rOUT�- I—08T �'e �'l—!I' 4.' 00 . ( •I / o , yster - ce 'E`---ter:'"-�• � � / .� K� - 4z o I of _ ud i t .. J3�. •• 'Wreck EXPLANATION Qafs/Qaf Artificial Fill 30 Bedding Strike and Dip Q1 Landslide Deposits / Vertical Fracture Qb Beach Deposits QM Bay mud - -'—� Fault, dashed where inferred, Qsr Slope Debris dotted where concealed QC Colma Formation KJs/KJsk Franciscan Formation Sandstone and Shale KJc Franciscan Formation Chert KJu Franciscan Formation Sheared Rocks BASE: Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South Quadrangle, California, 1971 (NE-31 1) LOCAL GEOLOGIC MAP LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS D"CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. 475 Eccles Avenue Geotechnica/ Engineers and Geologists South San Francisco, California APPROVED BY SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE DRAWING NO. GF 1" = 2000' 1327.1 December 2011 2 ,r W 38 0 �' SAN FRANCISM * SITE STANkSLAUS 410 IS r v ti//v s ® , • "4i°�"vwrry� �✓d. "'I '"'a. r 9 '%'"''94„�,y� ,d d @F ..:•� ��„�i�:�nA, ""^�- a l,, kp, a • AN .�"rM�� `� "� 'fib°d S r� � r 2 d '✓lVy, �s" , .emu fly J, EPICENTER MAP LEGEND Z4,j,� M W Period 1600. 1869- 1932- 1 866 1931 1 555 ® >7'.0 ldr sir ��r a �--, 0 s , 6,5 6.9 IS 121, 6.0-6.4 5.5-5.9 5.0-5.4 Historical Faulting Holocene Faulting Highways(Major) Highways(Minor) � ...._ Lakes Iuu 0 Last two digits of M>_6.5 earthquake year BASE: CDMG Map Sheet 49; Toppozada et al, 2000.Magnitude 5.0 and greater earthquakes plotted through 1999; subs uent epicenters through 2009 plotted in yellow REGIONAL EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER MAP LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS �'CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. 475 Eccles Avenue Geotechn/cal Engineers and Geologists South San Francisco, California APPROVED BY SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE DRAWING NO. GF 1" =25 miles f 1 1327.1 December 2011 1 3 d z cQ Z a w N U W w Q o a o z Z � z � N z � nM m Z ACE ci +i c $ 08 oc ox qi DO F _ V Q q N -- -- _ I A _ �O z c u � 5 n Q W z I C-0 W a U � W °o cv 4 A O o bn OU W � Pa �' W � ; to $ _ of _ - lllil 111111 � � o (VIII w �- o • K � _ a W � A bn ...xf 'J"" • z "_ MV•. w O O 4 Q O 7C YC O O G C O O u U U O O cl � z C) wW w PRIMARY DIVISIONS GROUP SECONDARY DIVISION SYAMOL CLEAN GRAVELS GRAVELS GW Well graded gravels,gravel-sand mixtures,little or no fines (LESS THAN GP Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures,little or no fines pg MORE THAN HALF 5%FINES) H N OF COARSE GRAVEL Zn C FRACTION IS WITH GM Silty gravels,gravel-sand-silt mixtures,non-plastic fines gz Z QQZ LARGER THAN FINES a F w NO.4 SIEVE GC Clayey gravels,gravel-sand-clay mixtures,plastic fines a > CLEAN W SW Well graded sands,gravelly sands,little or no fines SANDS SANDS a (LESS THAN a ° SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands,little or no fines MORE THAN HALF 5/o FINES) UO 4 OF COARSE SANDS 0 0 SM Silty sands,sand-silt mixtures,non-plastic fines FRACTION IS WITH SMALLER THAN FINES NO.4 SIEVE SC Clayey sands,sand-clay mixtures,plastic fines Inorganic silts and very fine sands,rock flour,silty or clayey x w SILTS AND CLAYS ML fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity dO Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity,gravelly clays, � a � LIQUID LIMIT IS CL sandy clays,silty clays,lean clays q W LESS THAN 50% W r%] OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity z � o a N NM Inorganic silts,micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty U z E" O SILTS AND CLAYS soils,elastic silts � w W C) SILTS LIMIT IS CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity,fat clays E" GREATER THAN 50% OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity,organic silts HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt Peat and other highly organic soils UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D-2487) . U.S.STANDARD SERIES SIEVE CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS 200 40 10 4 3/4" 3" 12" SILTS AND CLAYS FINE MSAND I EDIUM COARSE FINE RAVCOARSE COBBLES BOULDERS GRAIN SIZES SANDS AND GRAVELS BLOWS/FOOT SILTS AND CLAYS STRENGTH * BLOWS/FOOT VERY LOOSE 0-4 VERY SOFT 0-1/4 0-2 SOFT 1/4-1/2 2-4 LOOSE 4-10 FIRM 1/2-1 4-8 MEDIUM DENSE 10-30 STIFF 1-2 8-16 DENSE 30-50 VERY STIFF 2-4 16-32 VERY DENSE OVER 50 HARD OVER 4 OVER 32 RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY Number of blows of 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2 inch O.D.(1-3/8 inch I.D.)split barrel(ASTM D-1586). Unconfined compressive strength in tons/sq.ft.as determined by laboratory testing or approximated by the standard penetration test (ASTM D-1586),pocket penetrometer,torvane,or visual observation. KEY TO EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS 475 Eccles Avenue �'CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. South San Francisco, California Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists PROJECT NO. DATE DRAWING NO. 1327.1 December 2011 5 FIELD SAMPLING PROCEDURES The soils encountered in the borings were continuously logged in the field by our representative and described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D-2487). Representative soil samples were obtained from the borings at selected depths appropriate to the soil investigation. All samples were returned to our laboratory for classification and testing. In accordance with the ASTM D1586 procedure, the standard penetration resistance was obtained by dropping a 140 pound hammer through a 30-inch free fall. The 2-inch O.D. Standard split barrel sampler was driven 18 inches or to practical refusal and the number of blows were recorded for each 6-inch penetration interval. The blows per foot recorded on the boring logs represent the accumulated number of blows, or N-value, required to drive the penetration sampler the final 12 inches. In addition, 3.0 inch O.D. x 2.42 inch I.D. drive samples were obtained using a Modified California Sampler and 140 pound hammer. Blow counts for the Modified California Sampler were converted to standard penetration resistance by multiplying by 0.6. The sample type is shown on the boring logs in accordance with the designation below. 6" x 2.42" Liner Modified California Sampler Bag Sample Standard Split Barrel Sampler Where obtained, the shear strength of the soil samples using either Torvane (TV) or Pocket Penetrometer (PP) devices is shown on the boring logs in the far right hand column. SUMMARY OF FIELD SAMPLING PROCEDURES C LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS C 475 Eccles Avenue 'CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. South San Francisco, California Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists PROJECT NO. DATE DRAWING NO. 1327.1 December 2011 6 LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES The laboratory testing program was directed toward a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the physical and mechanical properties of the soils underlying the site. The natural water content was determined on 53 samples of the materials recovered from the borings in accordance with the ASTM D2216 Test Procedure. These water contents are recorded on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths. Dry density determinations were performed on 31 samples to measure the unit weight of the subsurface soils in accordance with the ASTM D2937 Test Procedure. The results of these tests are shown on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths. Atterberg Limit determinations were performed on four samples of the subsurface soils in accordance with the ASTM D4318 Test Procedure to determine the range of water contents over which the materials exhibited plasticity. The Atterberg Limits are used to classify the soils in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and to evaluate the soil's expansion potential. The results of these tests are presented on Drawing 14 and on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths. The percent soil fraction passing the #4 and #200 sieves was determined on four and six samples, respectively, of the subsurface soils in accordance with the ASTM D1140 Test Procedure to aid in the classification of the soils. The results of these tests are shown on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths. Free swell tests were performed on four samples of the soil materials to evaluate the swelling potential of the soil. The free swell tests were performed by slowly pouring 10 ml of air dried soil passing the No. 40 sieve into a 100 ml graduated cylinder filled with approximately 90 ml of distilled water. The suspension was stirred repeatedly to ensure thorough wetting of the soil specimen. The graduated cylinder was then filled with distilled water to the 100 ml mark and allowed to settle until equilibrium was reached (approximately 24 hours). The free swell volume of the soil was then noted. The percent free swell was calculated by subtracting the initial soil volume from the free swell volume, dividing the difference by the initial volume, and multiplying the result by 100 percent. The results of these tests are presented on the boring logs. An R-Value test was performed by Cooper Testing Laboratory on a representative sample of the subgrade soil to provide data for the pavement design. The test was performed in accordance with California Test Method 301-F and indicated an R-Value of 14 at an exudation pressure of 300 pounds per square inch. The results of the tests are presented on Drawing 15. DRAWING NO. 7 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. EQUIPMENT 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Au er*ELEVATION --- LOGGED BY JH DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER Not Enc. I DEPTH TO BEDROCK 2.0'± DATE DRILLED 12/1/2011 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION o w > W DEPTH a a F 3 % z w u a z DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS COLOR CONSIST. (feet) 0 `3 z A a F x o a AC Parking Lot: 4" AC Over 8" AB Dark Dense SC a CLAYEY SAND, moist, fine to medium grained y sand,.subangular gravel up to 1 1/2" diameter, — — — — 1 occasional iron staining Very X 30/6 8 @ 1.0': Liquid Limit = 27%1 Dense Plasticity Index = 11 / - — 2 Finer than#4 = 75% (SC) Fmer than#200 = 20% / X 50/5" 5 Free Swell = 40 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 Fill_ _ _ _ Very 3 ense) FRANCISCAN MELANGE, moist fine grained Dark inclusions fr shale,e, occasional basa is Gray 4 ZZ 50/2" 4 5 @5.5' no recovery 6 50/5" @7.0': no recovery 7 50/3" 4 Grayish 8 to Light X 5 Grayish 9 XI 50/3" 3 10 11 X 4 12 X 3 13 @13.5': no recovery 50/0" 6 Bottom of Boring = 14.0' 15 16 17 18 19 * Drilled with a B56 Truck Mounted Rig 20 THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY BETWEEN SOIL TYPES AND THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 1 �' LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. 475 Eccles Avenue Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists South San Francisco, California APPROVED BY SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE DRAWING NO. GF ---- 1327.1 December 2011 8 EQUIPMENT 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Au er*ELEVATION --- LOGGED BY JH DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER Not Enc. I DEPTH TO BEDROCK 2.5'± DATE DRILLED 12/1/2011 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION W e } W DEPTH Q a F z w E ` z DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS COLOR CONSIST. (feet) W 3 o a a x 0 a U A AC Parking Lot: 3" AC Over 8" AB Brown Dense SC CLAYEY SAND, moist, fine to medium grained to sand, subangular to angular gravel up to 1/2 1 diameter, occasional iron staining 30/5" 10 103 (Ver (SC) 2 5 133 FRANCISCAN MELANGE, njoist finurained Dark Dense) sand, sheared shale, occasional bas is Gray inclusions, friable 3 50110" @ 1.5': Finer than#4 = 81% 5 Finer than#200 = 24% 4 PP>0.5 30/4" 3 98 - - - - 5 Darrk Gray 6 X 50/5" 3 Y 7 8 9 30/6" 4 131 10 11 12 13 14 50/1" 3 15 16 17 18 * Drilled with a B56 Truck Mounted Rig PP = Pocket Penetrometer 30/2" 3 Bottom of Boring = 19.0' 20 THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY BETWEEN SOIL TYPES AND THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 2 �' LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. 475 Eccles Avenue Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists South San Francisco, California APPROVED BY SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE DRAWING NO. GF i 1327.1 December 2011 9 . ....._._...___.. . EQUIPMENT 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger*j ELEVATION --- LOGGED BY JH DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER Not Enc. DEPTH TO BEDROCK 1.0'± DATE DRILLED 12/1/2011 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION o w Y DEPTH w < F 3 f z w a z DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS COLOR CONSIST. (feet) `a o x AC Parking Lot: 3" AC Over 8" AB Brown Dense SC CLAsand SAND, moist, fine to medium grained to _ 1 Fill � � ( (SC) 30/6" 6 126 FRANCISCAN MELANGE, moist fine rained Dark Dense) sand, sheared shale, occasional basaAic Gray 2 inclusions, friable to Gray 3 XI 50/4" 3 4 @4.5': 1 pid Limit = 26% Plasticity Index = 1070 5 133 Finer than#4 = 87% _ _ _ _ 5 Finer than#200 = 35% ree Swell 35 (Dense) 49 5 130 F = 6 49 7 6 8 9 47 7 125 10 4 140 11 12 13 14 (&14.5': green inclusions 44 15 7 16 17 — — 18 Very ense) 19 30/6" 5 120 * Drilled with a B56 Truck Mounted Rig 5 117 20 THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY BETWEEN SOIL TYPES AND THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 3 �' LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. 475 Eccles Avenue Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists South San Francisco, California APPROVED BY SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE DRAWING NO. GF I ---- 1327.1 December 2011 1 10 EQUIPMENT 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Au er*ELEVATION --- LOGGED BY JH DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER Not Enc. I DEPTH TO BEDROCK 1.0'± DATE DRILLED 12/1/2011 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION o W o > DEPTH W a a w F z u^ a DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS COLOR CONSIST. (feet) FRANCISCAN MELANGE, moist, continued .... Dark Very (SC) Gray ense) to Gray 21 22 23 24 43/6" 7 119 25 26 27 28 29 30/4" 5 116 30 31 32 33 34 78/10" 5 Bottom of Boring = 35.0' 35 36 37 38 39 * Drilled with a B56 Truck Mounted Rig 40 THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY BETWEEN SOIL TYPES AND THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 3 �' LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. 475 Eccles Avenue Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists South San Francisco, California APPROVED BY SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE DRAWING NO. GF ---- 7 1327.1 I December 2011 11 EQUIPMENT 3.5" Diameter Continuous Flight Au er ELEVATION --- LOGGED BY JH DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER Not Enc. I DEPTH TO BEDROCK 4.5't DATE DRILLED 12/5/2011 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION o d F e w DEPTH ua a < 3 v w a DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS COLOR CONSIST. (feet) < W o a 0 a s U A Interior Building Slab: 6" Thick Slab Yellowish Medium SP SAND, moist, fine grained sand Brown Dense 1 @1.5': L'qu;d Limit = Non-Plastic , 20 10 111 PP-2 0 P astic'ty Index = Nom-Plastic 6 109 Finer than#200 = 6% 2 Free Swell = 0% 3 11 5 6 99 - - - - - - - - ! Fill- - - - - - - 4 GRAVELLY SAND, moist, fine to medium grained Gray (Dense) (SC) 4 126 sand, subangular gravel up to 2" diameter 28 6 127 (Franciscan Melange) 5 (- - - - 6 32 4 @6.5': increased moisture content D ensye) 4 7 50/3" 13 9 163 @8.5': practical drilling 8 120/6"refusal 11 Bottom of Boring = 8.5' 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 * DFilled with a as powered minuteman and 19 try od with 14�pound weight PIS= Pocket Penetrometer 20 THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY BETWEEN SOIL TYPES AND THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 4 n, LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. 475 Eccles Avenue Geotechnlcal Engineers and Geologists South San Francisco, California APPROVED BY SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE DRAWING NO GF ---- 1327.1 1 December 2011 12 EQUIPMENT 3.5" Diameter Continuous Flight Au er ELEVATION --- LOGGED BY JH DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER Not Enc. I DEPTH TO BEDROCK 11.5'± JDATE DRILLED 12/5/2011 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION w DEPTH a a ¢ a v a a a DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS COLOR CONSIST. (feet) N o ° 3` x w o a h a a U A Interior Building Slab: 5" Thick Slab Yellowish Medium SM SAND, moist, fine grained sand Brown Dense 1 2 115 PP-1.0 @ 1.5': Finer than#200 = 18% 21 10 112 PP>4.5 * 2 Fill 3 25 4 110 CLAYEY SAND, moist, fine to medium grained sand, Dark Medium SC 8 126 subang ar to angular gravel up to 2 diameter, Gray Dense sheared shale fragments, occasional greenstone inclusions — — — — 4 Gray 11 123 (Completely Weathered Greenstone) to 22 Brown 5 11 123 @6.0': L'qu Limit = 35 6 12 11 122 P asticl;d,ty Index ;= 16y 12 129 Finer than#4 = 66 0 Finer than #200 = 25% Free Swell = 50% 7 14 100 5 8 14 113 9 10 16 98 10 16 103 11 FRANCISCAN MELANGE, mist, fine to medium Dark (Very (SC) rained sand, angular to supangular gravel up Gray Dense) 12 0 2" diameter, greenstone inclusion to Olive @13.0': increased moisture content Brown 13 X " @14.5': ractical drilling 14 refusal XT 50 15 Bottom of Boring = 8.5' 15 16 17 18 * DFilled with a as powered minuteman and 19 trI od with 14�pound weight Ply= Pocket Penetrometer 20 THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXDAATE BOUNDARY BETWEEN SOIL TYPES AND THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 5 �' LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. 475 Eccles Avenue Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists South San Francisco, California APPROVED BY SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE I DRAWING NO. GF ---- 13 27.1 December 2011 1 13 60 50 0 CH X 40 W A CL z 30 A00/ MH 20 or 04 000or 00 • OH 10 • 7 4 ML or OL • ML 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT(%) NATURAL PASSING UNIFIED KEY BORING SAMPLE WATER LIQUID PLASTICITY NO. LIQUIDITY SOIL SYMBOL NO. DEPTH CONTENT LIMIT INDEX 200 SIEVE INDEX CLASSIFICATION (feet) % % % % SYMBOL 0 1 1.0 8 27 11 20 -0.7 SC* ❑ • 3 4.5 5 26 10 35 -1.1 (SC)* O4 1.5 6 0 0 6 --- SP* 5 6.0 12 34 16 25 -0.4 SC* *Classified as coarse-grained soil since less than 50%passes#200 sieve PLASTICITY CHART C LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS C 475 Eccles Avenue 'CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. South San Francisco, California Geotechnica/ Engineers and Geologists PROJECT NO. DATE DRAWING NO. 1327.1 December 2011 14 CQU)PE R R-value Test Report (Caltrans 301) Job No.: 018-621 Date: 12/19/11 Initial Moisture, 7.8% Client: Cleary Consultants Tested MD R-value by 14 Project: Life Science Center 475 Eccles Ave- 1327.1 Reduced JC Stabilometer Sample 1, 2, 3 Checked DC Expansion 70 psf Soil Type: Dark Gray Clayey SAND w/Gravel Pressure Specimen Number A B C D Remarks: Exudation Pressure, psi 190 394 492 Prepared Weight, grams 1300 1300 1300 Final Water Added, grams/cc 32 7 4 Weight of Soil &Mold, grams 3235 3192 3343 Weight of Mold, grams 2077 2110 2077 Height After Compaction, in. 2.58 2.34 2.61 Moisture Content, % 10.5 8.4 8.2 Dry Density, pcf 123.0 129.2 135.8 Expansion Pressure, psf 0.0 129.0 180.6 Stabilometer @ 1000 Stabilometer @ 2000 147 114 114 Turns Displacement 3.4 3.11 2.41 R-value 6 22 32 100 1000 ♦R-value 90 —...■Expansion Pressure, _ — _. 900 psf _ — —...- -....._—.. 80 - _ 800 70 - _...._ ._. 700 _ .. _....._ _. _ ... ......-.... _.. Q. 60 _ 600 - � is 50 - - -- d > - 500 _ c 40 400 w CL _... 30 - _ 300 W 20 _._ 200 10 — - - -- - 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Exudation Pressure, psi DRAWING NO. 15 APPENDIX A Logs of Exploratory Borings 1 through 8 Drilled by Donald E. Banta Associates for Life Science Campus Project, 475 Eccles Avenue, September 2006 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. Drill Rig Mobile 8-61 with Hollow Flight Auger Surface Elevation -+68 feet Logged By GC Groundwater Not Encountered I Boring Diameter 8 inches Date Drilled 9/11/06 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION Depth S SAMPLE DATA (Feet) P Plasticity Percent DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS COLOR CONSIS soil E Blows Percent Dry index Passing shear` TENCY TYPE Par Moisture Density Liquid #200/#4 Strength R Foot (Pcf) (Ksf) 4 inches of Asphalt CLAYEY SAND,with gravel-sized rock dark medium SC 1 fragments POSSIBLE FILL green dense 2 12 16/34 30/87 78 10 125 30/90 4.5+(p) Franciscan Melange,sheared clayey shale, dark dense 3 with some serpentinite inclusions gray to 4 x 77/11» 8 36/93 4.5+(p) with very green dense 5 6 7 8 (Drilling rate from 9 to 13 feet= 1 foot/min.) 9 x 50/4" 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 x 50/3" Bottom of Boring = 15.0 feet 16 Note: "(p)"indicates shear strength by pocket 17 penetrometer. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 DONALD E. BANTA & ASSOCIATES, INC, LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS Consulting Geotechnical 475 ECCLES AVENUE Engineers South San Francisco, California 700-5 October 2006 Sheet 1 of 1 Drill Rig Mobile B-61 with Hollow Flight Auger Surface Elevation —+63 feet Logged By GC Groundwater Depth Not Established Boring Diameter 8 inches Date Drilled 9/11106 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION Depth M SAMPLE DATA (Feet) 'p' Percent DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS COLOR CONSIS SOIL a Blows Percent Dry index Passing Shear* TENCY TYPE R Per Moistura Density Liquid #`200 strength Foot (Pcf) (Ksf) Gravel(railroad ballast) gray loose GP — — ?— — — — — —? — — — — 1 SANDY CLAY orange very CH brown stiff 2 28 20 103 37/53 64 4.0(p) ?— — — — — —? — — — 3 CLAYEY SAND,with sandstone fragments orange de liSe SC brown to 4 17 102 41 ?— — — — —? — — — dense 5 41 15 107 41 Franciscan Sandstone brown dense to 6 50/5" 12 very 7 dense 8 (Drilling rate from 10 to 14 feet=4 feet/min.) 9 x 50/5" 4 10 11 12 13 14 x 50/3" 4 15 16 17 18 (minor seepage noted at 19 feet) 1 g 3Z (seepage ATD) X 50/4.5' 5 20 (easier drilling at 22 feet) 21 — — ?— — — — — —? Franciscan Melange,sheared clayey shale dark dense 23 gray 24 —25—ix 35 9 4.5(p) (harder drilling at 27 feet) 26 — — ?— — — — — —? — — — — 27 Franciscan Sandstone(graywacke) gray very 28 dense 29 50/3" 1 30 DONALD E. BANTA & ASSOCIATES, INC. LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS Consulting Geotechnica! 1 475 ECCLES AVENUE Engineers South San Francisco, California 700-5 October 2006 Sheet 1 of 2 Drill Rig Mobile B-61 with Hollow Flight Auger Surface Elevation --+63 feet Logged By GC Groundwater Depth Not Established I Boring Diameter 8 inches Date Drilled 9/11/06 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION Depth S SAMPLE DATA (Feet) P Blows percarrt Plasticity Percent DESCRIPTION AND REMARK COLOR CoNSiS- SOIL E Dry Index Passing Shear* TENCY TYPE Per Moisture Density Liquid #200 Strength R Foot (Pct) (Ksf) Franciscan Sandstone(graywacke) (contd.) gray very (Drilling rate from 30 to 33 feet=0.3 feet/min.) dense 31 32 (Drilling rate from 33 to 34 feet=0.2 feet/min.) 33 (Drill Rig refusal at 34.2 feet) 34 50/2" Bottom of Boring =34.2 feet 35 Note: "(p)"indicates shear strength by pocket 36 penetrometer. 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 DONALD E. BANTA & ASSOCIATES, INC. LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS Consulting Geotechnical 475 ECCLES AVENUE Engineers South San Francisco, California 700-5 October 2006 Sheet 2 of 2 Drill Rig Mobile B-61 with Hollow Flight Auger Surface Elevation -+64 feet Logged By GC Groundwater Not Encountered Boring Diameter 8 inches Date Drilled 9/11/06 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION S Depth a SAMPLE DATA (Feet) P L TBI.-. p:,..t.nt D Plasticity Percent Shear' DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS COLOR CONSiS- SOIL e Dry Index Passing TENCY TYPE ure Density Li uid #2pp Strength R (Pcf) 9 (Kell Limit M Sieve Franciscan Greenstone olive dense to 1 50/2" 2 Very 2 dense 3 4 x 50/3" 4 5 6 (harder drilling at 7 feet) 7 8 (Drilling rate from 7 to 9 feet=1 foot/min.) 9 x 50/2" (no sample recovery) 10 11 12 13 14 x 50/3" 6 15 16 17 18 19 x 50/3" Bottom of Boring = 19.3 feet 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 DONALD E. BANTA & ASSOCIATES, INC. LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS Consulting Geotechnical 475 ECCLES AVENUE Engineers South San Francisco, California 700-5 October 2006 Sheet 1 of 1 .._....... _.__... .. Drill Rig Mobile B-61 with Hollow Flight Auger Surface Elevation ,-+61 feet Logged By GC Groundwater Not Encountered Boring Diameter 8 inches Date Drilled 9111/06 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION Depth M SAMPLE DATA (Feet) P Blows PerceT(,ry Plasticity Percent Shear` DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS cotoR CONSIS soli E Index Passing TENCY TYPE R Par Moistunsity Liquid #200 Strength Fool cii (Ks f)I Sieve GRAVEL(railroad ballast) gray loose GP Franciscan Greenstone(basalt-like) olive dense 50/3" 4 4.5+(p) and to 2 gray very 3 dense 4 50/6" 8 5 6 7 (Drilling rate from 7 to 9 feet=2 feet/min.) 8 9 50/3" 4 10 11 12 13 14 x 50/5" 4 15 (Drilling rate from 15 to 18 feet=3 feet/min.) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 (Drilling rate from 19 to 24 feet=2 feet/min.) 23 24 x 50/3" --- 25 26 Note: "(p)"indicates shear strength by pocket 27 penetrometer. 28 Bottom of Boring =29.3 feet 29 50/3" 5 30 `l EJDrFIJ!Jai LJsi DONALD E. BANTA & ASSOCIATES, INC. LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS Consulting C,eotechnical 475 ECCLES AVENUE Engineers South San Francisco,California 700-5 October 2006 Sheet 1 of 1 Drill Rig Mobile B-61 with Hollow Flight Auger Surface Elevation -+67 feet Logged By GC Groundwater Not Encountered Boring Diameter 8 inches Date Drilled 9/11/06 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION S Depth A SAMPLE DATA (Feet) P Blows percent Dry plasticity PLimit M DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS COLOR cortsts soa E index TENCY TYPE R Per Moisture Density Liquid Foot (Pcf) 3 inches of Asphaltic Concrete CLAYEY SAND,with gravel-sized rock dark medium- SC 1 fragments gray dense 2 22 7 135 14/28 20 3 4 9 124 41 5 24 9 122 46 POSSIBLE FILL 6 ?— — — — — —? — — — — 7 Franciscan Melange,sheared clayey shale dark medium- gray dense 8 9 _10— 23 8 42 11 12 13 dense 14 67/12" 8 121 46 15 16 17 18 19 —20— 65 5 Bottom of Boring =20.5 feet 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 DONALD E. BANTA & ASSOCIATES, INC. LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS Consulting Geotechnical 475 ECCLES AVENUE Engineers South San Francisco, California 700-5 October 2006 Sheet 1 of 1 Drill Rig Mobile B-61 with Hollow Flight Auger Surface Elevation -+67 feet Logged By GC Groundwater Not Encountered Boring Diameter 8 inches Date Drilled 9/11/06 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION Depth A SAMPLE DATA (Feet) P Blows percent Dry Plasticity Percent jShear*DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS co�oR corisls soli a Index Passing TENCY TYPE R Per Moisture Density Uquid #200 Foot (PCf) 3 inches of Asphaltic Concrete CLAYEY SAND,with gravel-sized rock dark medium- SC 1 fragments gray dense 2 13 11 121 41 3.0(p) POSSIBLE FILLf 1 11 129 34 ?- — — — — —? — — — — 3 Franciscan Melange,sheared clayey shale dark dense 4 gray 5 61 4 137 12 4.5(p) 6 7 8 9 -10—TX 58 5 38 11 12 13 14 15 77/11^ 5 16 17 dark gray 18 with 19 green 20 x 47 4 Bottom of Boring =20.5 feet 21 Note: "(p)"indicates shear strength by pocket 22 penetrometer. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 DONALD E. BANTA & ASSOCIATES, INC. LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS Consulting Geotechnical 475 ECCLES AVENUE Engineers South San Francisco, California 700-5 October 2006 Sheet 1 of 1 Drill Rig Mobile B-61 with Hollow Flight Auger Surface Elevation -+68 feet Logged By GC Groundwater Not Encountered Boring Diameter 8 inches Date Drilled 9/11106 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION Depth A SAMPLE DATA (Feet) P Plasticity Percent DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS COLOR CoNSIS- sou_ E slows Percent Dry Index Passing shear' TENCY TYPE R Per Moisture Density Liquid #200 Strength Foot (Pcf) (Ksf) 3 inches of Asphaltic Concrete over 4 inches of Aggregate Base ravel-sized rock dark loose SC CLAYEY SAND,with 1 9 gray to fragments and medium- green dense 2 9 119 32 4.5+(p) 21 17 108 57 SANDY CLAY/CLAYEY SAND brown medium- CL/ 3 dense SC 4 5 38 12 107 37 4.5+(p) — ?— — — — — —? — — — — 6 SANDY CLAY brown very CL 7 stiff 8 9 10 X 58 9 62 Bottom of Boring = 10.0 feet 11 Note: "(p)"indicates shear strength by pocket 12 penetrometer. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 DONALD E. BANTA & ASSOCIATES, INC. LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS I/off Consulting Geotechnical 475 ECCLES AVENUE Engineers South San Francisco, California 700-5 October 2006 Sheet 1 of 1 Drill Rig Mobile B-61 with Hollow Flight Auger Surface Elevation -+68 feet Logged By GC Groundwater Depth -6 feet Boring Diameter 8 inches Date Drilled 9/11/06 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION Depth ^ SAMPLE DATA (Feet) P Plasticity Percent DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS COLOR CONSIS- SOIL E Blows Percent Dry Index Passing Shear* TENCY TYPE Per Moisture Density Liquid g20D Strength R Foot (Pd) l (Ksf) 4 inches of Asphaltic Concrete CLAYEY SAND,with gravel-sized rock fragments gray- medium SC 1 ?_ _ _ _ _? _ _ brown dense 2 9 8 83 113 9 127 8 Franciscan Chert red- dense 3 brown 4 5 87 8 30 4.5(p) 6 Q(5 min.AD) 7 8 Q ATD very 9 50/5' 17 dense 10 11 12 13 14 x 50/5" 7 Bottom of Boring = 14.0 feet 15 Note: "(p)"indicates shear strength by pocket 16 penetrometer. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 EM--P:L JFjA?Jr11Y �EDDr l-!Nr; i..J(-� DONALD E. BANTA & ASSOCIATES, INC. LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS Consulting Geotechnical 475 ECCLES AVENUE Engineers South San Francisco, California 700-5 October 2006 Sheet 1 of 1 COTTON, SHIRES ANE) ASSCK�JXITS, INC-'. (A)MAJI,TING ENGIM',"11;,16 AN 1)C111,101 0(1")STS .............. ................ ............................... May 18, 2012 J,'0 77A TO: &un BaUtista Senior Civil Engineer CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.0, Box 71. South San Francisco, California 94083 SUBJECT: Geotechnical Peer Review RE� BioMed Realty'l"rust, Life Science Carnpus 475 Eccles Avenue We have coinpleted a geotechnical peer review of pern-Lit applications for the proposed construction using: Updated Geotechnical Investigatiori Report - Life Science Cainpu.s prepared by Clear), Consultants, dated December 23, 2011. In addition, we have reviewed pei:tment teclu-iical niaps from our office files, reviewed site photographs, and inspected site conditions. DISCUSSION 'Fhe referenced geotechrrical report indicates that the applicant is proposing to construct two, four-story buildings and a multi-level parking StrUd-Ure at the subject property. We also understand that construction of a retaining Wall is proposed in the northwestern portion of the property (near to Lop of an existing cut slope). The project includes various drainage improvements and areas of asphaltic concrete (AC) pavement and concrete flatwork. The Project Geotechnical Consultant has recoi-nniended, removal a.nd replacement of existing fill inate•ial within the building pad areas. Foundations have been recommenckcl to consist of footings that are deeped., as necessary, to bear in competent bedrock. Tlie deptli of competent bedrock is variable across the site and the Project Geotechrdcal Consultant indicates that it is likely some fow-idation footings may reach up to -12 feet in depth, SITE CONDITIONS poring, logs generally indicate the 1:)resence of relatively shallmv Franciscan Complex bedrock materials including hard greenstone (altered %7olcanic rock), sandstone, chert, and sheared clayey shale (rn6larige). Up to 7 feet of fill materials have —------------ —------- Northern California Office Ceottal California Office Southern California Office 330 Village Lane 6417 Doglown Road 550 a,.Chades Prive,quite 108 Lo,Gatos,CA 91"7030-721.1; "_roan A nd roas,CA 95249-9640 1 hoosand Oaks,CA 91360-3995 (408),374-5q-12- Fax(408)351 1852 200)7364232 - Fax 1 209�731)-l2 G 2 (SC 5)497-7999 - F-,iN(805)497-7933 www,cottonshires.coin Sam Batistista. May 18, 20]2 Pa,p,e 2 F0077A been identified in front of the existi.ng buildhig. Groun.dw ate r seeltiage was noted at [he base of a cutslope in the northwestern portion of the property. Exposures of Franciscan bedrock were observed along [lie top and face of this cut slope. 'I"he active San Andreas fault is located approximately 4 miles soutliNvest of the site. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION Proposed project construction is constrained by expansive earth materials, seepage, areas of undocumented fill materials, variable depths to competent bedrock, and anticipated strong seismic ground shaking. In general, it appears that the Project Geotecl-Lnical Consultant has adequately characterized site geotechilical conditions and recorninerided satisfactory desigii measures consistent with prevailing standards of geotechnical practice. The consultant notes that the depth of fill material has not been determrined at the rear portion of the building site and recommends that the extent of fill should be further evaluated during site g ,rading. We recom-mend geotechi'lical approval of permit applications for project grading .and building construction with the following conditions: I Fill Depth CIlaracterization - The Project Geotechnical Consultant should outline the scope of additional exploration recommended to determine fill depths during the grading phase of the project. Supplemental information should include the type of equipment needed for additional exploration along with the length of time that may be required. We understand this information is desired for project environmental review purposes. Appropriate documentation to address the above should be submitted to the City of revievr by City Plannhig, 2. Geotechnical Plan Review -- The Project Geotechnical Consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building, plans (i.e,, including design parameters for foundations, retaining walls and pavement/slabs on grade) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. 'The results of the plan review should be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of permits for building construction. 3, Geotechnical Construction —Inspections - The Project Geotechnical Consultant should inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechilical aspects of the project constl-LIC6011. 'The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvernents, excavations for building foundation, and retaining CO'TTON, Sf-flRf,,',I; j1Ni--) AssoCIA'I'ES, INC Sain Batistista Nd ay -18, 20]2 Page 3 F0077A nvalls prior to placement of steel and concrete. The consLiltaunt shoLild inspect final site surface drainage iniprovemenk for conformance with recomniendations and sLandards of good geotechnical practice. The results of these inspections and as-built conditions of the project should be described by the Project Geotec.1-inical Consultant in a letter and subinitted to the City Engineer for review prior tofiiial (as-bidlt) project approval. LIMITATIONS This geotechnical peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the City y with discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been lin-Lited. to review of the docu-n-terits previous]), identified and a visual review of the pi-operty. Our opinions and, conclusions are made in accordance xvith generally accepted principle's and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other Nivarranties, either expressed or irnplied. Respectfully subn-fitted, COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CFI-Y GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT Ted Sayre Principal Engineering Geologist CEG 1795 z David T. Schrie"r Principal Geotechnical. Engineer GE 2334 TS:DTS:kd CO'l.'-rON,SHIItESA Nth AsSOCIAT'E i, INC cc 'CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. J.Michael Cleary, CEG, GE Christophe A. Ciechanowski,GE Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists Grant F.Foster, GE June 15, 2012 Project No. 1327.1 Ser. 3660 BioMed Realty Trust, Inc. Attn: Mr. Andrew Richard, Project Manager Development 7677 Gateway Blvd., Suite 100 Newark, CA 94560 RE: RESPONSE TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT REVIEW LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS PROJECT 475 ECCLES AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Richard: This letter responds to the questions included in your email dated May 24,2012,following a review of our geotechnical engineering report update submitted December 23, 2011, for the planned Life Science Campus project at 475 Eccles Avenue in South San Francisco, California. The original geotechnical engineering report was prepared by Donald E.Banta and Associates,Inc.dated October 26,2006. Our response to the review questions are as follows,with the response to Question#3 also addressing Cotton Shires comment(Fill Depth Characterization)from their geotechnical peer review letter dated May 18, 2012: Question 1: The report notes a three year sunset clause(p4). What are the reasons behind this, and the salient issues identified and briefly stated? Specifically, since BMR will be applying for a 10 year sunset in our DA and it is conceivable that we may not construct the entire project in one phase or within three years. It may be prudent to identify the potential issues that Cleary Consultants believes may be relevant in three years and devise a demolition, site preparation and finishing and building construction schedule that can accommodate the concerns. (For example,if your concerns are centered on site work then BMR may potentially be able to complete the site work within the first three years. If they are farther reaching I would like to characterize and address future actions w/in the 10 years). This would be vetted in the CEQA document to be able to disclose "all reasonably foreseeable actions" that could result from the Project. 900 N.SAN ANTONIO ROAD • LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA 94022 • (650)948-0574 • FAX(650)948-7761 www.cleatyconsultantsinc.com BioMed Realty Trust, Inc. Attn: Mr. Andrew Richard, Project Manager Development - June 15, 2012 Page 2 Response: The three year time period is primarily to account for building code/seismic design requirement updates, which we cannot predict. After three years we would recommend that we review the most current plans for any changes and update our report should the building design be affected by code changes. The standard of engineering practice may also change over longer periods such as a decade. Question 2: Is there any way to characterize or identify the level of groundwater in particular in light of the Phase I ESA and noted cleanup of the Homart Development Corporation site to the north at Oyster Point Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard? Response: Groundwater was not encountered in our exploratory borings,however,there was water observed in two of the Banta borings(heavy seepage at six to eight feet in Boring 8)and at the base of the slope to the north 20 feet lower than the site. Based on the available information, groundwater is likely perched locally on the Franciscan bedrock underlying the site (or is seeping through fractures locally)vs. a static groundwater level that could be monitored or sampled as would be done in a Phase II ESA. Question 3: Page 5 notes the need to characterize more fully the fill on the site behind the building. Page 14 notes the need to perform additional subsurface exploration following the demolition of existing improvements. To this end,would you please characterize the equipment needed,length of time, in general terms? Subsequently the demolition, additional subsurface exploration and characterization, site improvements and building construction can be characterized a little more fully for the Air Quality analysis. This would not pin you down to exact dates and times,but can represent the scope of work that needs to be conducted. We want to reasonably characterize project activities and time frames,not over state and definitely not understate potential environmental issues and have a CEQA document that will take BMR through the term of the DA. Response: The fill behind the building would be best characterized by potholing with a backhoe (after the building is demolished)at various locations to determine the depth and extents of the fill. This work could be performed over one to two days. Our response to the above review questions was made from a geotechnical engineering viewpoint;no review was made of other aspects of the project design, such as project civil, environmental, architectural, or structural engineering. The information in this letter has also been provided in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. No other warranty is implied. CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. BioMed Realty Trust, Inc. Attn: Mr. Andrew Richard, Project Manager Development June 15, 2012 Page 3 We appreciate the opportunity to have provided this response, and we ask that you call if you have any questions regarding this letter. Very truly yours, CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. r Oster Geotechnical Engineer 2662 GF:cm Copies: Addressee (2) CAS Architects (email)Attn: Jose Cotto Rinne and Peterson(email) Attn: Aaron Kvamme Watry Design(email)Attn: Matt Davis Kier and Wright(email) Attn: Stephen Reynolds CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT BMR 475 Eccles Avenue LLC 475 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California Prepared for BMR 475 Eccles Avenue LLC 7677 Gateway Blvd Suite 100 Newark, CA 94560 August 2012 Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, California 94104 28068142 TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFT 1. Section 1 Introduction....................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Purpose..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Detailed Scope-of-Services...................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Limitations and Exceptions...................................................................... 1-2 1.4 User Reliance........................................................................................... 1-3 2. Section 2 Property Description and Subject Property Environment..........................2-1 2.1 Location and Property Description..........................................................2-1 2.2 Site Characteristics...................................................................................2-1 2.3 Current and Historical Uses of the Site....................................................2-1 2.4 Local Geology and Hydrogeology...........................................................2-1 2.4.1 Geology........................................................................................2-1 2.4.2 Hydrology....................................................................................2-2 2.4.3 Surface Water...............................................................................2-2 2.4.4 Wetlands ......................................................................................2-2 3. Section 3 Subject Property History/Historic Review...................................................3-1 3.1 Site and Adjoining Property Historical Use Information ........................ 3-1 3.1.1 Aerial Photographs and Topographic Maps ................................ 3-I 3.1.2 City Directories............................................................................3-3 3.1.3 SanbornTM Fire Insurance Maps .................................................. 3-4 3.1.4 Environmental Lien and Activity Use Limitation Search............ 3-4 3.2 Previous Reports......................................................................................3-4 4. Section 4 Records Review.............................................................................................4-1 4.1 Regulatory Records..................................................................................4-1 4.1.1 Regulatory Database Search Report............................................4-1 4.2 User-Provided Information......................................................................4-9 5. Section 5 Agency Contacts ...........................................................................................5-1 5.1 Local Government/Regulatory Agency Representatives......................... 5-1 5.1.1 San Mateo County Environmental Health................................... 5-1 5.1.2 South San Francisco Fire Department......................................... 5-1 5.13 Cal-EPA DTSC............................................................................ 5-1 5.1.4 Regional Water Quality Control Board ....................................... 5-1 5.1.5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District................................ 5-1 5.1.6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency....................................... 5-1 6. Section 6 Subject Property Reconnaissance...............................................................6-1 6.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions.................................................... 6-1 6.2 General Setting......................................................................................... 6-1 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM i TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFT 6.3 Interior and Exterior Observations...........................................................6-1 6.3.1 Strictures, Grounds, and Subject Property Access...................... 6-1 6.3.2 Water, Utilities, Pipelines............................................................ 6-1 6.3.3 Wells............................................................................................6-2 63.4 Wastewater Discharge ................................................................. 6-2 6.3.5 Stormwater Drainage/Discharge..................................................6-2 63.6 Drains and Sumps........................................................................ 6-2 63.7 Solid Waste Disposal...................................................................6-2 6.3.8 Process Equipment.......................................................................6-2 63.9 Underground Storage Tanks........................................................6-2 63.10 Aboveground Storage Tanks........................................................ 6-2 63.11 Other Hazardous Materials/Waste Storage..................................6-2 6.3.12 Pits, Ponds, and Lagoons.............................................................6-3 6.3.13 Stained/Discolored Soil or Pavement..........................................6-3 6.3.14 Evidence of Fill or Illegal Dumping............................................ 6-3 63.15 Transformers/PCB Items ............................................................. 6-3 63.16 Air Emissions...............................................................................6-3 63.17 Asbestos-Containing Materials....................................................6-3 63.18 Lead-Based Paint......................................................................... 6-4 63.19 Radon...........................................................................................6-4 7. Section 7 Findings and Opinions..................................................................................7-1 8. Section 8 Conclusions...................................................................................................8-1 9. Section 9 Recommendations.........................................................................................9-1 10. Section 10 References................................................................................................10-1 11. Section 11 Qualifications of Environmental Professionals ......................................11-1 11.1 Corporate................................................................................................ 11-1 11.2 Individual............................................................................................... 11-1 List of Figures Figure I Site Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site Plan List of Tables Table 3-1 Historic Site Information Table 4-1 Databases Searched by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. Table 9-1 Mitigation Measures List of Appendices Appendix A Curricula Vita Appendix B Subject Property Reconnaissance Photographs Phase I Environmental Site Assessment U 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFT Appendix C Property Parcel Map Appendix D Environmental Reports Appendix E Historical Research Documentation Appendix F Regulatory Database Search Report Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 111 ACRONYMS APN Assessor's Parcel Number AST aboveground storage tank ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials BMR BMR 475 Eccles Avenue LLC CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention Program Cal-EPA California Environmental Protection Agency CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System COC Contaminant of Concern CORRACTS Corrective Action RCRA TSDFs DDT total dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc. ERNS Emergency Response Notification System ESA Environmental Site Assessment ESL Environmental Screening Level FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act FINDS Facility Index System HIST historical LQG Large-quantity generator LUST leaking underground storage tank mg/kg milligrams per kilogram NPL National Priorities List PCB polychlorinated biphenyl pCi/L picocuries per liter PEA Preliminary Endangerment Assessment RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act REC Recognized Environmental Condition RSL Regional Screening Level RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SLIC Statewide Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanup SMCEHD San Mateo County Environmental Health Department SQG Small-quantity generator SVOCS Semi-volatile organic compounds TSDF treatment, storage, and disposal facility U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency URS URS Corporation UST underground storage tank VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program VOCS volatile organic compounds Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM iv SECTION One introduction 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is to provide a professional opinion on the potential presence of current recognized environmental conditions (RECs) at the subject property, which is more fully defined in Section 2.1, Location and Property Description. The subject property is defined as the property at 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California, and consists of approximately 6.1 acres. Figure 1, Site Vicinity Map, and Figure 2, Site Plan, illustrate the location and features of the subject property. The subject property Assessor's Parcel Number(APN)is 015-071-330. REC, as defined by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Designation E 1527-05, means "the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into strictures on the property or into the ground, ground water, or surface water of the property. The term includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with laws. The term is not intended to include de niininiis conditions that generally do not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. Conditions determined to be de mininiis are not recognized environmental conditions." This ESA was performed according to the recommended guidelines established by ASTM Designation E 1527-05, "Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process." Because there are multiple federal and state definitions of hazardous materials, for the purpose of this report, hazardous substances and petroleum products are jointly referred to as "hazardous materials." 1.2 DETAILED SCOPE-OF-SERVICES URS Corporation (URS) was retained by BMR 475 Eccles Avenue LLC (BMR) to conduct a Phase I ESA for the subject property. URS performed the following work: 1. Reviewed available geologic maps and literature for information on the physical and hydrogeologic settings of the subject property. 2. Contracted with Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) to conduct a regulatory database search of known aboveground storage tanks (ASTs); underground storage tanks (USTs); landfills; hazardous waste generation or treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs); and subsurface contamination in the surrounding area up to within 1 mile of the subject property(see Appendix D). Based on ASTM Practice, the following search distances from the subject property boundaries were used to assess potential environmental impacts: • 0.25-mile radius for registered ASTs, underground storage tanks (USTs), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA) waste generators, and mines. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 1-1 SECTION One introduction • 0.5-mile radius for leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTS); landfills; Non- Corrective Action RCRA TSDFs; and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) sites. • 1-mile radius for Corrective Action RCRA TSDFs (CORRACTS), state sites with potential or confirmed hazardous substance releases, and United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Superfund sites. 3. Researched the history of the subject property by reviewing a chronological series of historical aerial photographs and a chronological series of historic topographic maps for the subject property and surrounding properties. Copies of these documents are presented in Appendix E. 4. Performed a reconnaissance of the subject property and publicly accessible adjacent areas on June 13, 2012 for obvious evidence of potential contamination sources such as current hazardous materials storage or use; unusually stained soils, slabs, and pavements; drains, sumps, drums, tanks, and electrical transformers; stressed vegetation; and discarded hazardous materials containers. Photographs taken during subject property reconnaissance are included in Appendix B of this report. 5. Interviewed Mr. Scott Stang, facilities manager for BMR during the site visit and received answers to follow up questions from Ms. Jennifer Williams of BMR. 6. Reviewed previous environmental reports prepared for the subject property. 7. Conducted inquiries in person, by telephone, or in writing to the appropriate regulatory agencies for information regarding environmental permits, violations or incidents, and/or the status of enforcement actions at the subject property. 8. Evaluated the information collected to prepare this report. 9. Prepared this report. 1.3 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS This report and the associated work have been provided in accordance with the principles and practices generally employed by the local environmental consulting profession. This is in lieu of all warranties, expressed or implied. No evaluation for the presence of asbestos-containing building materials, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation, or other hazardous building materials; mold; methane; radon gas; lead in drinking water; wetlands; industrial hygiene and health and safety; ecological resources and endangered species; indoor air quality; or high-voltage power lines is included in this assessment. These findings and opinions are based on information available from public sources on specific dates (historical photographs, maps, and regulatory agency files, lists, and databases), more Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 1-2 SECTION One introduction specifically set forth in Appendix D and Appendix E. Although this information is updated continually, it can be incomplete. Information obtained from interviews or provided to URS by Mr. Scott Stang, Ms. Jennifer Wood, or BMR. is assumed to be correct and complete. URS does not assume any liability for information obtained that has been misrepresented, or for items not visible, accessible, or present on the subject property at the time of the field reconnaissance. With the exception of a potential vault or lift in the main warehouse area covered with a metal plate, two locked rooms on the lower floor of the building, and the elevator equipment room, all areas of the subject property were accessible during the June 13, 2012 site visit. There is no investigation that is thorough enough to preclude the presence of materials on the subject property that currently, or in the future, may be considered hazardous. URS cannot warrant or guarantee that not finding indicators of hazardous materials means that hazardous materials do not exist on the subject property. Opinions and judgments expressed herein, which are based on our understanding and interpretation of current regulatory standards, should not be construed as legal opinions. 1.4 USER RELIANCE This report has been prepared for the sole use of BMR. This report shall not be relied upon by any other party without written authorization from BMR, and URS. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 1-3 SECTION Two Property Description and Subject Property Environment 2.1 LOCATION AND PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The subject property is situated in the City of South San Francisco in San Mateo County California, as shown on Figure 1. The subject property is South of Oyster Point Boulevard and East of Bayshore Freeway. The street address of the subject property is 475 Eccles Avenue. The subject property consists of one building, parking lots surrounding the building on three sides, and some landscaping areas. Figures 1 and 2 show the subject property location and layout. The subject property is bounded by the following: • North: Undeveloped land, with commercial development beyond. • South: Yasumoto warehouse at 490 Eccles Avenue, and other unnamed warehouses across Eccles Avenue. • East: Dimero Express and Universal Freight warehouse at 451-455 Eccles Avenue. • West: Avis at 515 Eccles Avenue. The subject property APN is 015-071-330. According to Ms. Jennifer Williams of BMR, the subject property was first developed in 1965, and renovated in 1995. The property has always been used as an office and warehouse. 2.2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS The subject property consists of 6.1 acres of land currently developed with a one-story 152,145- square-foot warehouse building that encompasses approximately 113,454 square feet of warehouse area, and 38,691 square feet of mezzanine office space. 2.3 CURRENT AND HISTORICAL USES OF THE SITE According to historical aerial photographs and topographic maps, the subject property has historically been and currently remains an office and warehouse since the area was developed in 1965. 2.4 LOCAL GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY The USGS topographic map (South San Francisco, CA, 1993) indicates the site to be at an elevation of approximately 63 feet above mean sea level (msl). The immediate site vicinity is moderately hilly, and slopes downward to the north-northwest. The nearest mapped surface water appears to be the San Francisco Bay, approximately 2,000 feet to the north of the subject property. 2.4.1 Geology The site is near the San Francisco Bay on an easterly projecting bedrock extension of San Brno Mountain, which lies about 1 mile to the northwest. In the site vicinity, the area is comprised of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 2-1 SECTION Two Property Description and Subject Property Environment Holocene-age slopewash, Pleistocene-age Colma Formation, and Jurassic-Cretaceous—age sandstone and shale, chert, and Franciscan Assemblage sheared rocks consisting of greenstone and sheared melange rocks. Geotechnical borings installed at the site encountered 1 to 4 feet of medium dense to dense, silty sand and clayey sand fill overlying locally medium-dense to predominantly very dense Franciscan melange bedrock to the maximum depth explored of 34.5 feet(Cleary Consultants Inc. 2011). 2.4.2 Hydrology Based on a review of available hydrogeologic documents from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), San Francisco Bay Area Region, and the California Department of Water Resources, the Subject Property is in the Visitation Valley Hydrologic Area (232). According to the RWQCB, groundwater in the Visitation Valley Hydrologic Area has regulatory-designated beneficial uses for process and industrial supply purposes, and potential municipal and agricultural supply purposes (URS, 2005). There are no other designated beneficial uses of groundwater in this hydrologic area. Because the water table gradient is anticipated to mimic, in subdued fashion, the topography of the overlying land surface, the direction of groundwater flow beneath the subject property and its immediate vicinity is anticipated to be towards the north-northwest. Groundwater flow direction at a site approximately 1,000 feet southeast of the subject property varies from northeast to northwest (TEC Environmental 2011). However, because the Subject Property sits on a small ridgeline and the point on which the site is located is surrounded by San Francisco Bay on three sides, there is a high degree of variability in groundwater flow direction in the area surrounding the site. The depth to groundwater at the subject property is unknown. The groundwater is present at approximately 10 feet below ground surface at the site 1,000 feet southeast of the subject property (TEC Environmental 2011). However, this site lies at a lower elevation than the subject property. Geotechnical borings completed at the subject property to 34.5 feet below ground surface did not encounter groundwater(Cleary Consultants Inc. 2011) 2.4.3 Surface Water The closest surface water to the subject property is San Francisco Bay, approximately 2,000 feet to the northwest of the subject property. 2.4.4 Wetlands According to the National Wetland Inventory map included in the EDR report, there is federally listed wetland to the south and north of the subject property within a 1-mile radius. The closest wetland is approximately 2,000 feet northwest of the subject property. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 2-2 SECTION Three Subject Property History/Historic Review 3.1 SITE AND ADJOINING PROPERTY HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION URS performed a review of historical information to identify past site activities and prior land uses that might have created recognized environmental conditions at the subject property or in the surrounding vicinity. Documents researched included historic aerial photographs and archival topographic maps. URS also conducted interviews with available persons with knowledge of the site. 3.1.1 Aerial Photographs and Topographic Maps URS reviewed historical aerial photographs provided by EDR from 1943, 1956, 1965, 1973, 1982, 1993, 1998, 2005, and 2006. Topographic maps provided by EDR from 1899, 1915, 1947, 1950, 1956, 1968, 1973, 1980, 1993, and 2005 were also reviewed. A summary of our relevant interpretation of these photographs and maps is presented below. 1899 The subject property and adjacent land is undeveloped, hilly terrain. There are no strictures or roads in the immediate vicinity. San Francisco Bay surrounds the general area on the north, south, and east. 1915 The subject property and adjacent land has not changed significantly since the 1899 topographic map, with the exception of a rail line encircling the base of the hill on which the subject property appears to be located. 1943 The subject property remains undeveloped with any strictures. The surrounding area to the south is developed with what appears to be industrial buildings. The area immediately adjacent to the north and east is the land has been cleared and graded, but not developed with strictures. To the west, the land appears to have been graded and has been developed with roads and strictures further west, including a railroad yard adjacent to the northwest. A large tank stricture approximately 500 feet northwest of the subject property appears to be part of the rail yard. The area to the north of Oyster Point Boulevard is developed with industrial buildings on what appears to be in-fill, based on the difference in the shape of the shoreline from the 1915 topographic map. 1947 The subject property remains undeveloped. Three tanks appear to be immediately adjacent to the southeast of the subject property. A railroad yard is adjacent to the subject property to the northwest. North of the railroad yard is an east-west—oriented road in the approximate current alignment of Oyster Point Boulevard. 1950 The subject property remains undeveloped. A road extends to the approximate area and then stops. The tanks seen in the 1947 topographic map are not shown on this map. To the north of the subject property there is increased development of rail lines leading from the Southern Pacific Railroad to the Bay, and large strictures near the Southern Pacific Line. The area to the south of the subject property is developed with buildings and a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 3-1 SECTION Three Subject Property History/Historic Review cluster of tanks just north of the San Brno Canal. There is a single tank a few hundred feet to the south of the subject property, and no structures in the immediate vicinity. 1956 The graded area previously noted adjacent to the south of the subject property now extends across the entire subject property, and a swath of land extending northeastward in the aerial map. The topographic map shows a gravel pit approximately 100 feet to the south of the subject property. The aerial photo and topographic map show increased development in the surrounding areas. 1965 The subject property appears to be developed with the current square-shaped structure and at least a partially paved parking area adjacent to the northeastern side of this building. In the surrounding area, railroad tracks are aligned northeast-southwest adjacent to the northwestern perimeter of the subject property. Beyond this, the previously noted railroad yard now appears to be mostly dismantled. Land adjacent to the northeast appears to remain undeveloped. Eccles Avenue is present and paved adjacent to the southeast, beyond which are two smaller industrial-appearing structures. Another, smaller, industrial-appearing structure is adjacent to the southwest of the subject property. 1968 The 1968 topographic map clearly shows the subject property structure with a railroad line immediately adjacent to the north. Areas under development to the southeast in the 1965 map are now developed with structures. A large building is shown immediately adjacent to the northeast. The area immediately to the northwest continues to have rail lines, but no structures. To the northeast of the subject property, a marina has been developed extending into the Bay next to Oyster Point. Further north, Sierra Point appears to have been built up, with infill extending into the Bay. 1973 The subject property appears similar than in the previous document reviewed. In the immediately surrounding area, the previously noted undeveloped land adjacent to the northeast now appears to have been developed with a current large industrial structure. To the northeast, Oyster Point has been built up with infill. 1980 The subject property and surrounding areas appear unchanged since the 1973 topographic map and aerial photo. 1982 The subject property appears unchanged since the 1980 Topographic map. The area immediately adjacent to the north, northwest, and northeast appear to have been cleared of rail lines and structures. 1993 The previously noted, partially paved parking area adjacent to the northeastern side of this building appears to have been completely paved. In the vicinity of the subject property, the area previously developed with a railroad yard to the northwest of the subject property now appears to be developed with the current complex of industrial- appearing structures. In the vicinity of the subject property, the previously noted railroad yard to the south has been replaced with the current complex of industrial-appearing structures. North of the subject property, beyond Oyster Point Boulevard, the previously Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 3-2 SECTION Three Subject Property History/Historic Review noted large industrial building, and what appeared to be a shipyard along the coast of San Francisco Bay, have been removed and the area cleared and graded. 1995 The subject property and surrounding areas appear unchanged from the 1993 topographic map. 1998 The subject property and surrounding areas appear unchanged from the 1995 topographic map, with the exception of increased development in the area north of the subject property. 2005 The subject property appears unchanged from the 1998 aerial photo. The surrounding area to the north is now fully developed with strictures. 2006 The subject property and surrounding areas appear unchanged from the 2005 aerial photo. In summary, based on this review, the site property appears to have been undeveloped until at least 1947. By 1956, it appeared to have been graded, along with a large area of surrounding land. By 1965, the subject property was developed with its current stricture and at least a partially paved parking area. By 1993, the parking area was completely paved. Other than the grading at the subject property noted in the 1956 document, and the adjacent industrial land uses, including a railroad yard, obvious indications of potential environmental impacts were not observed. 3.1.2 City Directories Based on a review of city directories compiled by EDR, which encompass the years 1970 through 2010, the occupancy of the subject property address of 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California is summarized in the following table. Table 3-1 Historic Site Information 1970 William Volker&Company 5419 Other Professional, Scientific,and Technical Services 1975 William Volker&Company 5419 Other Professional, Scientific,and Technical Services 1980 Ota iri Mercantile 4543 Direct-Selling Establishments 1985 Otagiri Mercantile 4543 Direct-Selling Establishments 1990 ATC Partners 5419 Other Professional, Scientific,and Technical Services 1995 ATC Partners 5419 Other Professional, Scientific,and Technical Services 2000 Ocular Sciences Incorporated 5419 Other Professional, Scientific,and Technical Services 2005 Ocular Sciences Incorporated 5419 Other Professional, Scientific,and Technical Services 2010 No listing Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 3-3 SECTION Three Subject Property History/Historic Review 3.1.3 Sanborn T111 Fire Insurance Maps No SanbornTM Fire Insurance Maps are available for the subject property. 3.1.4 Environmental Lien and Activity Use Limitation Search URS requested an environmental lien search from EDR(2012b), and the results of this search are provided in Appendix C. No environmental liens or Activity Use Limitations were recorded for the subject property, according to EDR (2012b). According to the Lien Search report, the subject property is currently owned by BMR 475 Eccles LLC. 3.2 PREVIOUS REPORTS URS reviewed the following previous reports in preparing this Phase I ESA. All of the documents were either provided by the property owner, or located on the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Enviorstor website. URS Corporation, Phase I ESA of the 475 Eccles Avenue Site, dated November 11, 2005 (URS, 2005). This report for the subject property identified that the subject property potentially may be impacted by contaminants associated with former industrial activities in the area: these could constitute potential RECs, and would require additional investigation to further assess these potential conditions. Additionally, the report identified that there are two nearby facilities with reported releases from USTs. However, based on the distance and closed regulatory status, the report identified that they were unlikely to have impacted the subject property. The report identified that it is unlikely that the subject property owner(s) or operator(s) would be held responsible for on-site impacts, if any, from identified off-site sources. Other potential environmental conditions or RECs associated with the subject property were not identified. The report also identified that the current site stricture is reported to contain some non-friable asbestos-containing building materials that should be managed to minimize disturbance and would require special handling if removed. With this exception, the report identified that the current building and its tenant activities do not indicate significant potential environmental concerns, and the subject property is not reported on regulatory database listings. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 3-4 SECTION Four Records Review 4.1 REGULATORY RECORDS 4.1.1 Regulatory Database Search Report An EDR Radius Map Report was prepared for the subject property on April 23, 2012, in accordance with ASTM recommended guidelines, and is included as Appendix F (EDR, 2012a). The EDR report presents the results of a search of federal and state databases, along with a description of each database, that list addresses of sites with known USTs, landfills, hazardous waste generation or TSDFs, and subsurface contamination in the surrounding area. The goal of reviewing the database report is to identify facilities that have known and documented environmental conditions that may negatively impact the subject property. Table 4-1 summarizes the database information provided by EDR with respect to hazardous substances and wastes on or near the subject property. Appendix F includes the complete regulatory database search report, which presents larger search radii because additional coverage was requested from EDR to provide additional information about the subject property vicinity. Table 4-1 lists sites within the ASTM search radii from the boundary of the subject property identified in the respective databases searched by EDR. Each database searched by EDR is referenced in Appendix F. The results of the records review are presented in the EDR report and are summarized below. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 4-1 SECTION Four Records Review Table 4-1 Federal Databases Searched by EDR Type of Search Number of Database Description of Data Date Radius Sites Identified NPL NPL of uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites 1 mile 0 identified for priority remedial actions under the U.S. EPA Superfund program. CORRACTS RCRA TSDF ordered to implement corrective actions. 1 mile 2 CERCLIS The CERCLIS database identifies hazardous waste sites 0.5 mile 3 that require investigation and possible remedial action to mitigate potential negative impacts on human health or the environment. FINDS The Facility Index System (FINDS)database contains Target 0 both facility information and pointers to other sources that Property contain more detail. RCRA Identifies RCRA TSDFs. 0.5 mile 0 TSDFs ERNS U.S. EPA's ERNS list contains reported spill records of oil Target 0 and hazardous substances. Property RCRA RCRA regulated hazardous waste generator list; both 0.25 mile 19 Generators Large-and Small-Quantity Generators are included in this list. MINES Federal database containing all mine identification 0.25 mile 0 numbers issued for mines opened since 1971. DOD Federal database for Department of Defence sites 1 mile 0 consisting of federally owned or administered lands, administered by the Department of Defence, that have any area equal to or greater than 640 acres. LUST List of information pertaining to reported LUST 0.5 mile 39 investigations. UST State database of active USTs. 0.25 mile 9 AST State database of registered ASTs. 0.25 mile 2 CA BOND Bond Expenditure Plan—Department of Health Services 1 mile 1 EXP. PLAN expenditure plan for appropriation of Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond Act funds. HIST UST Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database— 0.25 mile 5 historical listing of UST sites. SWEEPS Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System 0.25 mile 11 UST —underground storage tank listing updated and maintained by a State Water Resources Control Board contractor in the early 1990s. SCH School Property Evaluation Program—proposed and 0.25 mile 0 existing school sites evaluated by California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)for possible hazardous materials contamination. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment TYRS 4-2 SECTION Four Records Review Table 4-1 Federal Database Searched by EDR (Continued) Type of Search Number of Database Description of Data Date Radius Sites Identified TOXIC PITS Toxic Pits Cleanup Act Sites—identifies sites suspected of 1 mile 0 containing hazardous substances where cleanup has not yet been completed. SWF/LF State inventory of solid waste disposal facilities or landfill 0.5 mile 0 sites, includes both active and inactive historical landfills. WMUDS/ Waste Management Unit Database System—used by the 0.5 mile 0 SWAT State Water Resources Control Board staff and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards for program tracking and inventory of waste management units. CA WDS Waste Discharge System—addresses sites which have Target 0 been issued waste discharge requirements. Property CORTESE Hazardous Waste &Substances Sites List—listed sites 1 mile 20 are designated by the State Water Resource Control Board (LUST), the Integrated Waste Board (SWF/LS), and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (Cal-Sites). SWRCY Recycler Database—listing of recycling facilities in 0.5 mile 0 California. CA FID UST Facility Inventory Database—contains a historical listing of 0.25 mile 9 active and inactive underground storage tank locations from the State Water Resource Control Board. SLIC Statewide SLIC Cases(Spills, Leaks, Investigations and 0.5 mile 8 Cleanup)—designed to protect and restore water quality from spills, leaks, and discharges. ENVIRO- EnviroStor Database DTSC's subject property Mitigation 1 mile 13 STOR and Brownfields Reuse Program—database that identifies sites that have known contamination or sites for which there may be reasons to investigate further. LIENS Environmental Liens Listing—listing of property locations Target 0 with environmental liens for California. Property CHMIRS California Hazardous Material Incident Report System— Target 0 information on reported hazardous material incidents Property (accidental releases or spills). Notify 65 Proposition 65 Records—facility notifications about 1 mile 3 releases that could impact drinking water. DEED Deed Restriction Listing subject property Mitigation and 0.5 mile 1 Brownfields Reuse Program—sites cleaned up under the program's oversight. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment TYRS 4-3 SECTION Four Records Review Table 4-1 Federal Database Searched by EDR (Continued) Type of Search Number of Database Description of Data Date Radius Sites Identified VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program Properties—low threat level 0.5 mile 2 properties with confirmed or unconfirmed releases and requested that DTSC oversee investigation and/or cleanup activities. DRY Cleaner Facilities—drycleaner related facilities with 0.25 mile 0 CLEANERS U.S. EPA ID numbers. WIP Well Investigation Program Case List. 0.25 mile 0 CDL Clandestine Drug Labs—drug lab locations. Target 0 Property RESPONSE State Response Sites—identifies confirmed release sites 1 mile 3 where DTSC is involved in remediation. HAZNET Facility and Manifest Data—data extracted from Target 2 hazardous waste manifests received by the DTSC. Property EMI Emissions Inventory Data—toxics and criteria pollutant Target 0 emissions data collected by the Air Review Board and Property local air pollution agencies. FTTS FIFRA(Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Target 0 Act)/TSCA(Toxic Substances Control Act)Tracking Property System. Tracks administrative cases and pesticide enforcement Actions and compliance activities related to FIFRA and TSCA NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Target 1 Permits Property San Mateo San Mateo County Business Inventory: includes 0.25 62 Co. BI Hazardous Materials Business Plan, hazardous waste generators, and underground storage tanks. Source: EDR Report,2012a. Subject Property The subject property was included in two of the databases from the EDR report. HAZNET The subject property is included in the HAZNET database for two former tenants or owners: Copper Vision Inc. and Ocular Science Inc., who disposed of hazardous waste from the subject property. This waste consisted of oil and mixed oil, off-specification organics, and unspecified solvents. The disposal of this material in the absence of any reported releases does not represent an ongoing environmental issue to the subject property. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment TYRS 4-4 SECTION Four Records Review NPDES The subject property is included in this database as Copper Vision Inc., and was enrolled in the NPDES program for constriction activities. This listing does not represent a significant environmental concern to the subject property. Surrounding Properties National Priorities List The U.S. EPA's National Priorities List of uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites was reviewed for sites within 1 mile of the subject property. To appear on the NPL, sites must have met or surpassed a predetermined hazard ranking system score, been chosen as a top priority site, pose a significant health or environmental threat, or be a site where the U.S. EPA has determined that remedial action is more cost-effective than removal action. The database search identified no NPL sites within 1 mile of the subject property. CERCLIS Sites The U.S. EPA's CERCLIS list was reviewed to determine if site(s) within 1/2 mile of the subject property are under investigation. The CERCLIS database identifies hazardous waste sites that require investigation and possible remedial action to mitigate potential negative impacts on human health or the environment. The database search identified no CERCLIS sites and 3 CERCLIS NFRAP sites within 1/2 mile of the subject property. The three CERCLIS-NFRAP sites identified were determined to be downgradient from the subject property, and therefore do not represent an environmental concern to the subject property. Federal RCRA Lists The current RCRA Notifiers List was reviewed to determine if RCRA TSDFs are within 1 mile of the subject property. The database search identified no TSD facilities within a 1/2-mile radius of the subject property. The CORRACTS is a list of hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity. Two CORRACTS sites were identified within 1 mile of the subject property. Both sites were determined to be more than '/z-mile downgradient of the subject property and therefore, do not represent a significant environmental concern to the subject property. The RCRA-regulated hazardous waste generator notifiers list was reviewed to determine whether RCRA generator facilities are on or adjoining the subject property. The database search identified five RCRA large-quantity generators (LQG) and 14 RCRA small-quantity generators (SQGs) within 1/4 mile of the subject property. Based on either cross- or downgradient locations from the site or the absence of violations, none of these sites are expected to pose an environmental concern to the subject property based on a RCRA generator status. Envirostor Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 4-5 SECTION Four Records Review The DTSC's Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program's Envirostor database identifies sites that have known contamination or sites for which there may be reasons to investigate further. The database includes the following site types: Federal Superfund Sites (NPL); State Response, including Military Facilities and State Superfund; Voluntary Cleanup; and School sites. Envirostor provides similar information to the information that was available in CalSites, and provides additional site information, including, but not limited to, identification of formerly contaminated properties that have been released for reuse, properties where environmental deed restrictions have been recorded to prevent inappropriate land uses, and risk characterization information that is used to assess potential impacts to public health and the environment at contaminated sites. The database search identified 13 Envirostor sites within a I-mile radius of the subject property. All of the 13 sites were determined to be down- or crossgradient from the subject property, and are therefore not expected to pose a potential environmental concern to the subject property. This included the Homart Development Corp site at Gateway Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard, which was identified as a REC in the 2005 Phase I ESA. Based on new available data from sites in the vicinity of this property, groundwater flow direction in that portion of Oyster Point is east or northeast, away from the subject property; therefore, it is not expected to pose an environmental concern to the subject property. State Hazardous Waste Voluntary Cleanup Program Sites The California Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) list was reviewed to determine if any sites are located within I mile of the subject property. The VCP identifies hazardous waste sites that are under voluntary investigation or remedial action under state jurisdiction. The database search identified two VCP site within 1/2 mile of the subject property. Both sites were determined to be downgradient, and are therefore not expected to pose a potential environmental concern to the subject property. Leaking Underground Storage Tank List The California LUST database list was reviewed to assess whether any LUSTS are on or adjoining the subject property. The database search identified 39 LUST sites within a 1/2-mile radius of the subject property. Of these sites, 28 currently have a case-closed status, and seven of the sites are cross- or downgradient from the subject property. Therefore, these sites are not expected to pose an environmental concern to the subject property. The remaining four sites are discussed below: • Monfredini Property, 477 Forbes Boulevard: This property is approximately 0.2 mile southeast of the subject property. Groundwater flow direction at this property varies from northeast to northwest towards the subject property. Groundwater is impacted with benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX), and total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH-g). Free product is present in one of the site wells. The site is under a groundwater monitoring program, and a workplan for free product recovery is being prepared. Groundwater impacts appear to be limited to the source area at the site, and there have been no detections above regulatory action levels in the monitoring well Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 4-6 SECTION Four Records Review closest to the subject property. Given that there are no offsite impacts associated with this release, and that a monitoring and remediation program is in place, it is unlikely that this site poses a significant environmental concern for the subject property. • Gallo Sales Company, 440 Forbes Boulevard (two listings): This site is approximately 0.14 mile south-southeast of the subject property, which is likely upgradient of the site under normal conditions. The site is impacted with TPH-g and BTEX. The site is currently operating a dual-phase extraction system and a monitoring program. While the system is operating, groundwater flow direction at this site is towards the southwest, which is preventing contamination from migrating towards the subject property. Because groundwater is not flowing towards the subject property and remediation is being completed, this site is not expected to pose a significant environmental concern to the subject property. • Tularik Inc. 317 Roebling Boulevard: This facility is located approximately 0.25 mile southwest of the subject property, which could be potentially upgradient of the subject property based on topography. Groundwater in the monitoring well closest to the subject property is impacted with cis-1,2-dichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, and vinyl chloride. However, during monitoring events at the site, groundwater flow has been consistently to the southwest, away from the subject property; therefore, this site is not expected to pose a significant environmental concern to the subject property. Underground Storage Tank Lists and Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System UST Lists The UST lists were reviewed to assess whether any USTs are located on or within a '/z-mile radius of the subject property. The database search identified 11 UST sites within a '/z-mile radius of the subject property. Of these sites, seven are located either cross-gradient or downgradient from the subject property, and are therefore not expected to pose an environmental concern to the subject property. Four of the UST sites are potentially upgradient, or in very close proximity to the subject property: • Avis Rent-a-Car System Inc./ Mercedes Benz of North America, 513 Eccles Avenue: Adjacent to the east of the subject property, and listed as a known LUST site with a case closed status. Therefore, this site is not expected to pose a significant environmental concern. • Pacific Agri Products, 551 Eccles Avenue: 0.14 mile east-northeast of the subject property, not included in any databases indicative of release. Therefore, this site is not expected to pose a significant environmental concern. • Gallo Sales Company, 440 Forbes Boulevard: 0.135 mile south-southeast of the subject property, and listed as a known LUST. This site is not expected to pose a significant environmental concern, as discussed above. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 4-7 SECTION Four Records Review Columbus Salami Inc. San Francisco Sausage Co., 493 Forbes Avenue: approximately 0.22 mile east-southeast of the subject property; not included in any databases indicative of release. Therefore, this site is not expected to pose a significant environmental concern. Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanup (SLIC)Database Statewide Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanup a Review of the SLIC database identified eight sites within 1/2 mile of the subject property. Of these sites, three had a case-closed status, and four were either cross-gradient or downgradient from the subject property. Therefore, these sites are unlikely to present an environmental issue to the subject property. The remaining property, Tularik Inc., 317 Roebling Road, is discussed above, and is not expected to pose an environmental concern to the subject property. CA Bond EXP. Plan The CA Bond Plan database identified one site within 1 mile of the subject property. This site is downgradient from the subject property, and is therefore not expected to represent a significant environmental concern to the subject property. Notify 65 A review of the Notify 65 database identified three sites within 1 mile of the subject property. These sites were all more than 0.25 mile cross- to downgradient of the site, and are therefore not expected to pose a significant environmental concern to the subject property. DEED A review of the Deed Restriction Listing Subject Property Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program database was conducted to identify sites within 1/2 mile that are subject to a deed restriction. The database search identified one site which was determined to be downgradient of the subject property, and therefore, is not considered to pose a significant environmental concern to the subject property. RESPONSE A review of the RESPONSE database was performed to identify sites where the DTSC is involved in remediation either in lead or oversight capacity. This search identified three sites within 1 mile of the subject property. All of these sites were more than 0.25 mile cross-to downgradient of the subject property, and therefore do not pose a significant environmental concern to the subject property. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 4-8 SECTION Four Records Review San Mateo BL. List The Contra Costa County Sites List was reviewed to assess whether any sites within 1/4 mile of the subject property were included in San Mateo County's Underground Tank Program, Hazardous Waste Generator Program, or Business Plan Program. Sixty-two sites were identified within 1/4 mile of the subject property. The listing in this database is not indicative of a release or violation. If a release or violation had occurred at any of these sites, they should also appear in other agency databases that are indicative of release, as discussed above. Orphan Sites Due to poor or inadequate address information, EDR is not always able to map all sites that have environmental concerns. These listed, but unmapped, properties are referred to as orphan sites. Although the orphan sites are not mapped, EDR searches the same databases that they do for mapped sites, and provides relevant information if an orphan site is found on one of the databases. EDR identified 21 orphan sites in the database report. URS attempted to locate the orphan sites listed and measure their distance from the subject property. Based on partial address information, URS concluded that nine orphan sites identified by EDR were located outside the ASTM recommended survey radius in reference to the subject property. Nine of the listings were determined to be within the search radius, all of which were determined to be cross or down gradient and not an environmental issue. The three remaining sites could not be located, based on partial information. 4.2 USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION As part of the ASTM 1527-05 standard, the following additional inquiries were made to BMR representatives as the report"users": 1. Identification of environmental cleanup liens against the subject property; 2. Activity and land use limitations that are in place on the site or that that have been filed or recorded; 3. Specialized knowledge or experience regarding the subject property; 4. Relationship of the purchase price to the fair market value if the subject property was not contaminated; 5. Commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information regarding the subject property; and 6. Degree of obviousness of the presence or likely presence of contamination at the subject property. According to BMR representatives, no environmental issues, environmental cleanup liens, or previous reports exist except for those discussed in this Phase I ESA. No information about fair market price was provided. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 4-9 SECTION Five Agency contacts 5.1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT/REGULATORY AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES URS requested files from Cal-EPA, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTCS), RWQCB, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the South San Francisco Fire Department, and the San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health, and performed searches of the online site databases for the Cal-EPA DTSC and RWQCB to identify any files regarding the subject property. 5.1.1 San Mateo County Environmental Health URS contacted the San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health concerning any information regarding hazardous materials and hazardous waste activity at the subject property. URS received a phone call on June 20, 2012 stating that no records exist for the subject property. 5.1.2 South San Francisco Fire Department URS contacted the South San Francisco Fire Department concerning any information regarding hazardous materials and hazardous waste activity at the subject property. On June 20, 2012, the agency replied stating that no files exist for the subject property. 5.1.3 Cal-EPA DISC URS contacted the Cal-EPA DTSC and searched the online EnviroStor database for any records on the subject property. There were no records found for the subject property. 5.1.4 Regional Water Quality Control Board URS contacted the RWQCB concerning any files for the subject property. URS received a reply on June 22, 2012, that the only report on file for the subject property is a current stormwater permit for constriction. URS also searched the RWQCB GeoTracker database for any records on the subject property; there were no records found. 5.1.5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District URS contacted the BAAQMD concerning files for the subject property. URS received a response on June 19, 2012, stating that no files exist for the subject property. 5.1.6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency URS contacted the U.S. EPA concerning any files for the subject property. URS received a response on June 28, 2012 stating that no records exist for the subject property. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 5-1 SECTION Six Subject Property Reconnaissance 6.1 METHODOLOGY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS URS performed a site reconnaissance at the subject property on June 13, 2012, and interviewed Mr. Scott Stang during the site visit. URS staff were accompanied during the majority of the site visit. The site reconnaissance was performed by Mr. Iain Baker and Ms. Kali Futnani-Billet, whose curricula vita are provided in Appendix A. The subject property was observed by walking the perimeter and internal areas. With the exception of a potential vault or lift in the main warehouse area covered with a metal plate, two locked rooms on the lower floor of the building, and the elevator equipment room, all areas of the subject property were accessible during the June 13, 2012, site visit. Appendix B includes photographs taken during site reconnaissance. 6.2 GENERAL SETTING The subject property is at 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. The subject property consists of 6.1 acres of land currently developed with a one-story, 152,145- square-foot warehouse building that encompasses approximately 113,454 square feet of warehouse area, and 38,691 square feet of mezzanine office space. The building is surrounded on three sides by a paved parking area with some landscaping. The elevation of the subject property is approximately 63 feet above mean sea level. The properties surrounding the subject property include several warehouses to the south, a shipping warehouse to the west, Avis rent-a-car to the northeast, and commercial buildings to the northwest. Land use in the area surrounding the subject property is generally commercial/industrial. 6.3 INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR OBSERVATIONS 6.3.1 Structures, Grounds, and Subject Property Access Access to the subject property is via Eccles Avenue. There is one 113,454-square-foot building on the subject property. The remainder of the site consists of paved parking and some landscaping. 6.3.2 Water, Utilities, Pipelines Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity to the subject property. At the time of the site visit, five dry transformers were observed within the building, and one PG&E transformer was observed outside the building within the property boundary on the eastern edge. California Water Service provides water to the subject property. No wells are on the subject property. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 6-1 SECTION Six Subject Property Reconnaissance 6.3.3 Wells As noted in Section 63.2, no wells are on the subject property. 6.3.4 Wastewater Discharge Wastewater discharge is limited to sanitary water, which is discharged to the municipal sewer system 6.3.5 Stormwater Drainage/Discharge The parking area of the subject property has six stormwater drains that drain to the municipal storm sewer system. 6.3.6 Drains and Sumps One potential sump was observed on the subject property during the site reconnaissance. The potential sump is on the warehouse floor, and was covered with a metal cover. This cover was coated with significant oil staining. Subsequent to the site reconnaissance, facility personnel attempted to remove the cover and photograph the area below. There was an additional metal cover present below that could not be removed. This metal cover was also stained with oil, and the area below could not be assessed. 6.3.7 Solid Waste Disposal There are no designated waste storage areas established in the subject property. The subject property is currently vacant, generating no waste. 6.3.8 Process Equipment No process equipment was present on the subject property. 6.3.9 Underground Storage Tanks As described in the "Subject Property" subsection of Section 4.1.1, the EDR report did not identify any existing or historical USTs associated with the subject property. According to Mr. Scott Stang, the subject property never housed USTs. 6.3.10 Aboveground Storage Tanks No ASTs were present on the subject property at the time of the site visit. 6.3.11 Other Hazardous Materials/Waste Storage With the exception of small quantities of paint stored in an interior closet, no hazardous materials were noted on the subject property during the URS 2012 site visit. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 6-2 SECTION Six Subject Property Reconnaissance 6.3.12 Pits, Ponds, and Lagoons There are no pits, ponds, or lagoons on the subject property. 6.3.13 Stained/Discolored Soil or Pavement Several stained areas were observed during the June 2012 site visit. There was minor staining on the floor of the former hazardous materials and equipment and storage room, as well as on the warehouse floor. The cover for the potential sump on the ground floor of the warehouse area was stained with oil. The pavement near the landscaped grassy area to the southeast of the subject property, near the entrance, was stained. With the exception of the oil staining on the cover of the potential sump area, all of the staining was minor, and does not represent a significant environmental concern. 6.3.14 Evidence of Fill or Illegal Dumping No evidence of potential fill was observed on the subject property. There were several household items (television, children's toys, etc.) in the former hazardous waste storage area that were reported to be the result of unauthorized or potentially illegal dumping. 6.3.15 Transformers/PCB Items Five dry transformers were found inside the building, and one PG&E pad-mounted transformer outside the building was observed during the site visit. Dry type transformers do not represent a potential polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) issue as they do not contain oil. The PG&E pad mounted transformer appeared to be in good condition and no staining was observed on the pad. Additionally, no stickers or signage indicating the presence of PCBs were observed on the transformer. If the transformers are to be removed from the site during development, the work should be completed by appropriately trained PG&E personnel or an appropriately trained and certified hazardous materials contractor. The ballasts for all of the interior fluorescent lights were removed prior to the site visit. No other potential PCB-containing items were observed on the subject property. 6.3.16 Air Emissions No air emission sources were noted at the facility. 6.3.17 Asbestos-Containing Materials URS did not conduct an asbestos survey at the subject property. The property owner provided an asbestos survey that was completed for the facility by Environmental Constriction Services Inc. in 2011. This report identified asbestos in several areas of the site. According to the property owner, with the exception of one small area in the electrical room at the site, all asbestos has been abated in the facility. Maps were provided showing the areas abated, but at the time this document was prepared, a formal abatement report was not available. According to the property owner, the remaining area will be abated when the transformer is removed from this room. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 6-3 SECTION Six Subject Property Reconnaissance 6.3.18 Lead-Based Paint Based on the age of the building, there is the potential for lead-based paint. 6.3.19 Radon There are no federal or state standards regulating radon exposure; however, the U.S. EPA recommends a maximum exposure level of 4.0 picocuries per liter (pCi/L). The subject property is in San Mateo County within U.S. EPA Radon Zone 2, according to the EDR. Properties in U.S. EPA Radon Zone 2 have a moderate potential to have radon concentrations greater than 2, but less than 4 pCi/L. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 6-4 SECTION Seven Findings and Opinions The subject property consists of approximately 6.1 acres of land at 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California, as described in Section 2.1. In performing this ESA, and based on the site reconnaissance, review of available documents, and interviews with Mr. Scott Stang and Ms. Jennifer Williams of BMR, URS identified the following REC in connection with this subject property: • During the site visit, significant oil staining was present on a metal lid that appeared to be covering a potential sump or lift pit in the main warehouse area. The facility removed this lid and encountered another metal lid that also had significant oil staining on it. Because this could be a potential conduit to the subsurface, this represents REC until the interior of this area can be assessed. URS did not encounter any other RECs or significant data gaps at the subject property. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 7-1 SECTION Eight conclusions URS has performed an ESA of the subject property described in Section 1, located at 475 Eccles Avenue in South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. Our work was conducted in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527-05. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 13, Limitations and Exceptions. This ESA identified the following RECs: • During the site visit, significant oil staining was present on a metal lid that appeared to be covering a potential sump or lift pit in the main warehouse area. The facility removed this lid and encountered another metal lid that also had significant oil staining on it. Because this could be a potential conduit to the subsurface, this represents a REC until the interior of this area can be assessed. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 8-1 SECTION Nine Recommendations URS recommends that further assessment be conducted at the subject property to determine the presence and/or extent of potential environmental contamination associated with the REC detailed in Section 8. The investigation should address potential contamination arising from the REC listed above, including the following: • Remove the metal cover on the vault or sump and inspect the interior for the presence of oil or oil staining, as well as the integrity of the concrete in the vault. If there is significant staining and there are any issues with the concrete integrity, further subsurface investigation may be required to assess if there was a release to the subsurface. • If the transformers present at the site are to be removed from the site during development, the work should be completed by appropriately trained PG&E personnel or an appropriately trained and certified hazardous materials contractor. Based on the findings of this Phase I ESA the following mitigation measures should be employed prior to or during demolition or constriction at the site if contamination is discovered. As the specific nature of any contamination potentially present at the subject property from the REC is unknown, mitigation measures for multiple types of contaminants and scenarios have been provided. Table 9-1 Mitigation Measures Media Hazardous Approach Materials Vault/pit interior concrete All • Mobilize equipment to remove metal cover Investigation • Inspect interior concrete for the presence of liquid or significant staining and integrity of the concrete. • Collect sample of any liquid material present or concrete chip sample. Soil - Investigation All • If staining/liquid are present and concrete is in poor condition soil sampling should be conducted. • Apply for boring permit from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department(SMCEHD). • Advance one soil boring below the pit using a direct push drill rig to 20 feet below ground surface. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 9-1 SECTION Nine Recommendations • Collect soil samples at 1, 5, 10 and 20 feet bgs. • Analyze samples for VOCs, total petroleum hydrocarbons, semi volatile organic compounds (SVOCs)PCBs, and metals. • Report results to the SMCEHD and consult for remediation requirements. • Remediation of contaminated soils can be completed during the demolition stage of the proj ect. Soil Remediation (ex-situ) Fuels • Reuse on Site(if concentration is less than 100 ppm). • Haul and Dispose at appropriate landfill. • Capping and vapor barrier. • Treat on site (see below). Soil Remediation VOCs (gasoline • Consult the SMCEHD for requirements. (ex-situ) fuels, solvents) • Haul and Dispose. • Aeration—requires a notification to BAAQMD, daily volumes are limited. • Vapor Stripping— apply vacuum system to covered piles, notify BAAQMD. • Bioremediation - apply bio-treatment materials, moisture and "work" soil piles. • Thermal Desorption—various vendors provide mobile treatment units. • Capping and vapor barrier. Soil Remediation Inorganics • Consult BAAQMD and SMCEHD for (ex-situ) (metals) requirements. • Haul and Dispose. • Chemical Stabilization. • Sorting—reduce waste volume by screening to target contaminant particle size. Soil Remediation VOCS • Consult SMCEHD for requirements. (in-situ) • Soil Vapor Extraction— apply vacuum to vapor wells, notify BAAQMD. • In-situ chemical oxidation. • In-Situ Vitrification—use electricity to melt waste and surrounding soils. Soil Remediation SVOCS • Consult SMCEHD for requirements. (in-situ) • Bioremediation— saturate soils with bio- Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 9-2 SECTION Nine Recommendations treatment materials. • Chemical Stabilization— saturate soils with chemicals to immobilize contaminants. • In-Situ Vitrification. • Capping . Groundwater - All • If contaminants are detected in the 20 foot Investigation below ground surface soil sample an additional boring should be completed to groundwater. • Analyze sample for contaminants detected in soil. • Report results to the SMCEHD and consult on remedial alternatives. Groundwater Remediation VOCs • Consult BAAQMD and SMCEHD for requirements. • Pump and Treat—pump from wells, treat and discharge treated water. • Air Sparging—inject air to volatilize contaminants and create aerobic groundwater conditions suitable for natural boremediation. Generally applied in conjunction with Soil Vapor Extraction to control released volatiles. • Bioremediation—inject bio-treatment materials into affected groundwater. • Chemical Oxidation—inject oxidation chemicals into affected groundwater. Groundwater Remediation SVOCs • Consult BAAQMD for requirements. • Pump and Treat. • Bioremediation. • Chemical Oxidation. Groundwater Remediation Inorganics • Consult BAAQMD for requirements.* pump and Treat. • Chemical Immobilization—inject chemicals to precipitate or chemically fix contaminants to soil particles. 9- Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 3 SECTION Ten References Cal-EPA Envirostor database. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/. Accessed on June 14, 2012 2012. Cal-EPA GeoTracker database. http://www.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Searched on June 14, 2012. Cleary Consultants, Inc. 2011. Updated Geotechnical Investigation Report Life ,Sciences Campus 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California. December 23. ECS Environmental Construction Services. 2011. Asbestos Survey Report for 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 9 1080. August 12. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2012. Historic Topographic Map Report: Report Number 33 l39 l0.4. EDR, Inc., Milford, Connecticut. June 13. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2012. Sanborn Map Report: Report Number 33 l39 10.3. EDR, Inc., Milford, Connecticut. June 13. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2012. Aerial Photograph Decade Package: Report Number 3343940.5. EDR, Inc., Milford, CT. June 18. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2012. Lien Search: Inquiry Number: 33 l39 10.7 EDR, Inc., Milford, Connecticut. June 13. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2012. Radius Map with GeoCheck": Inquiry Number: 3343940.2s, EDR, Inc., Milford, Connecticut. June 13. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2012. City Directory Abstract: Report Number 2785218.6 EDR, Inc., Milford, Connecticut. June 27. TEC Environmental. 2011. 2011 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report Pacific Agri Products Inc. 477 Forbes Avenue, South San Francisco California 94080 ,M'o - 550129. August 29. URS Corporation. 2005. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, l75 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California. November 11. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 10-1 SECTION Eleven Qualifications of Environmental Professionals 11.1 CORPORATE URS, a Nevada Corporation, provides professional services in engineering and sciences applied to the earth and its environment. One of the main areas of practice is Environmental Property Investigation and Remediation, which involves the application of science and engineering to contamination assessment and cleanup; the management, minimization, treatment, and disposal of hazardous, solid and industrial waste; and regulatory compliance. Phase I ESAs are a part of this practice area and have been conducted by URS globally for several decades. 11.2 INDIVIDUAL The qualifications of the Project Manager and of the other Environmental Professionals involved in this ESA meet the ASTM and URS corporate requirements for performing ESAs. Mr. Iain Baker and Ms. Kali Futnani-Billet of the URS San Francisco office performed the site reconnaissance, and Mr. Baker authored the Phase I ESA report. Ms. Kali Futnani-Billet is an Environmental Scientist with more than 2 years of professional experience. Mr. Baker is an Environmental Scientist with more than 13 years of environmental compliance and due diligence experience. He has conducted more than 250 Phase I ESAs in California and the U.S. Mr Baker meets the requirement for an Environmental Professional as defined in the ASTM E1 527-05 standard. Iain Baker, REA 07963 August 14, 2012 Project Manager Phase I Environmental Site Assessment UM 1 1-1 Figure Subject Property Location Map URS Figure 2 Site Plan URS Appendix A Curricula Vita URS URS lain Baker, R.E.A., C.H.M.M. Environmental Scientist Overview Ian Baker has over 13 years of diverse experience in the environmental industry supporting both government and private-industry clients with applied technical and project management services.He has managed project staffing, scheduling,cost estimating,contracting,change order requests,and subcontractors for environmental assessment and remediation projects in California,Nevada,Idaho,Arizona,Washington, Areas of Expertise Guam,Saipan, CNMI,and British Columbia and Ontario,Canada. Hazardous Materials Management Project-Specific Experience Site Assessment Emergency Response Project Manager, Environmental Site Assessments (Phase I ESAs Vapor IntrUSlon and Due Diligence), 1998-ongoing: Managed and performed more Indoor Air than 250 ES As for private and public clients. He conducted ES As for Remediation buyer and vendor sides,in the U.S.and abroad including numerous fast- Years of Experience turnaround multi-site projects. In addition to Phase I ES As,:NLr. Baker has performed numerous Phase II investigations and in the U.S. and With URS: 6 Years abroad targeting specific issues and working under a variety of regulatory With Other hums: 7 Years regimes. A brief listing of some representative projects includes: Education BA/Environmental Studies/1998/ Managed numerous multi-site Phase I and II ES As and limited Connecticut College compliance audits of industrial and commercial site portfolios across the U.S.and abroad; Registration/Certification 3005/Certified Hazardous Materials ' Managed Phase I and II ES As of petroleum storage sites, �\Isuiager/CA/#1 )1) manufacturing plants, chemical plants, and warehouses and distribution facilities 300-}/Registered Environmental ' assessor/C A/#07963 ■ Performed due diligence assessments in California, Nevada, Idaho, Washington,and British Columbia, Canada. Project Manager, Environmental Assessment,Alhambra CA, International Aluminum, 2009—2011, $400K: :N lanaged the Phase II investigation at an aluminum foundry,anodizing,painting and manufacturing facility.As part of a large industrial facility closure and sale, URS completed a soil and soil gas investigation at the facility. Based on the presence of volatile organic compounds in soil and deep soil gas,the next proposed phase of investigation is performing additional investigation to determine if contamination from the site has impacted groundwater. Project tasks have included agency consultation (USEP A and RWQCB),creating an investigation sampling plan and quality assurance plan,oversight of field sample collection and interpretation of the analytical results. The site is currently under investigation to determine if it is a potential contributor to the San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site groundwater plume Project Manager, Brownfields Assessment Harris Dry Cleaners, California Environmental Protection Agency,Department of Toxic Substances Control(DTSC),Oakland, CA, 2008—Present, $400K: Ihi FILian i'PE CI3IJI:.-5.1;[srt P,1-rt., l nh.iFr;Bl E'.�_ 11 Lx 1 URS Ian Baker, R.E.A., C.H.M.M. Managed a soil,groundwater and soil investigation a former dry cleaners site as part of the DTSC orphan sites prograrn.Project work included writing multiple work plans for the various phases of the project, oversight and coordination of the field sampling program,interpretation of the laboratory analytical data,authoring a final remedial investigation report,completing a remedial pilot study work plan,and implement an insitu chemical oxidation pilot study.Project work for this site is ongoing. Project Manager,Targeted Site Assessment at Blanken Avenue, San Francisco CA, California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control(DTSC),2010, $50K:Project Manager for a soil and soil gas investigation of a parking area associated with a former lock manufacturing site. Responsibilities included coordination of field sampling activities,review of laboratory data,and completion of a final assessment report. Project Manager,McNamara& Peepe, California Environmental Protection Agency,Department of Toxic Substances Control(DTSC), Glendale, CA, 2010—Present, $200K:Managed a soil and groundwater investigation at a former wood treatment facility in Glendale California. Project tasks included,preparation of a soil and groundwater investigation work plan,installation of one groundwater monitoring well and multiple soil boring,analysis of soil and groundwater samples for pentachlorophenol,documentation of the investigation in a technical memorandum. Ongoing groundwater monitoring and the installation of an additional well at the site are anticipated in late 2010. Project Manager/Project Scientist, Bayview Plume, California Environmental Protection Agency,Department of Toxic Substances Control(DTSC),San Francisco, CA,2009—2010, $80K: Project scientist for a soil,groundwater,and soil gas investigation for an undefined solvent contaminant plume in San Francisco. Project tasks included drafting the initial sampling work plan and project coordination. Project Manager, Phase II Environmental Assessment,Vernon CA, International Aluminum, 2008—2009, $120K: :N lanaged the Phase II investigation at an aluminum,anodizing,painting and manufacturing facility. The Phase II determined that the site was constructed on top of historical contaminated fill material and the manufacturing activities at the site had not caused significant impacts. Tasks included working with the local environmental agency to develop an approved cap management plan so that continued activities at the site would not pose a threat to workers or the public.A`No Further Action'letter was issued. Project Manager, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment/Vapor Intrusion Evaluation,Trammell Crow Residential,2008—2010 $100K: E-aluated analytical data generated during a Phase II environmental site assessment to evaluate if formaldehyde present in site soil and groundwater from mortuary operations could be a-apor intrusion concern for a proposed residential development. 11—,11 1-1, -TE HRJI:.L IliattF,I—t., I n 111-- B 1 E'�_,III Ix URS Kali Futnani-Billet En vironmental Planner-Sustainability Overview GIs. Futnani-Billet has more than five years of experience in sustainable development and environmental audits. Project experience includes San Francisco Green Business environmental audits in the areas of energy, water conservation, solid waste,and toxics,and development of Green Business program standards,performing Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ES As). She has experience working on remediation projects Areas of Expertise performing groundwater purging and sampling,and technical report writing,including development of site specific Health and Safety Plans Sus tainabilitV (FIASP s). Green Business_auditing and Program Development Project Experience Research and Training Phase I ESAs Environmental and Urbun Plunnujg Survey Development and Analysis Project Scientist, Hydrogen Energy California Application for Site Investigations Certification, Kern County, CA, Hydrogen Energy International, Groundwater Suppling 2008—Present, $1.8M+:Assisted with the Phase I ESA. Tasks include RegLdatoty Compliance historical document review;review of local, state,and federal records for any reports of hazardous substance releases in the site or site vicinity,and Years of Experience a review of pertinent,available documents and maps regarding local With URS: 2 Years hydrogeological conditions. With Other Firms: 3 Years Project Scientist,Arlon Chatsworth Phase I ESA, Chatsworth, CA, Education Confidential Client,2010, $5K: GIs. Futnani-Billet conducted a Phase I MCP/City and Regional Pluming ESA of this site located in Los Angeles County. Tasks include historical /3006/University of California at document review;review of local,state,and federal records for anv Berkelev reports of hazardous substance releases in the site or site vicinity,a review B A/Sociology and Economics/ of pertinent,a-ailable documents and maps regarding local 3004/Mills College hydrogeological conditions,and coordination of site reconnaissance. BF A/Duke and Dninaturgy/ Los Vasqueros Reservoir Expansion, Phase 1 Environmental Site 1993/halakshetra College Assessment,2010:As project scientist,GIs. Futnani-Billet conducted a Training Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and completed the report 4 Da�T Green Business Training, of the Etchelet Ranch and Jess Ranch in Tracy., CA, City and County of San Francisco, Cornerstone Real Estate Advisors, LLC, Phase I Environmental Site Department of the Environment Assessment, 795 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA,2011:As a project scientist,GIs. Futnani-Billet conducted a Phase I Environmental Site 40-Hour OSHA 1 AZWOPER Assessment (ESA) and completed the report for an office building in downtown San Francisco. inericui Red Cross Adult CPR City of Oakland,MacArthur Improvement Project, Phase 1 and First Aid Environmental Site Assessment,2011: GIs. Futnani-Billet conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of three portions of the IacArthur Boulevard public right-of-way in Oakland,CA. Tharco Packaging, Inc., Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Faifield, CA,2011: GIs. Futnani-Billet conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the Tharco Packaging,Inc. warehouse in San Lorenzo, CA. c--F-1=D16F,,,un, ,,,Fi-1-1 F,ia,,,,,.,FitnaluBmFr 2012 ESA.docx 1 URS Kali Futnani-Billet Dunn Edwards Paint Co., Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Rohnert Park, CA, 2011:As aproject scientist,GIs. Futnani-Billet conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of a Dunn Edwards paint store in San Jose,CA. Environmental Remediation SFPUC Upper Alameda Creek Filter Gallery Project, Sunol, CA, 2011:As a project scientist at U ACFG site in Sunol,California,GIs. Futnani-Billet conducted groundwater sampling and helped compiled monthly monitoring reports. Chevron NPDES Monthly Monitoring—Port Costa, CA, 2011: Project Scientist for operation and maintenance of hydrocarbon-impacted groundwater pump and treat system,collection of quarterly NPDES and Groundwater samples,free-phase hydrocarbon recovery,design of treatment system containment berm,and monthly treatment system sample collection. Project Scientist, Peter Pan Cleaners,DTSC, Santa Rosa, CA,2011: Performed a soil and groundwater investigation of a former dry cleaners site as part of the DTSC orphan sites prograrn. Project work included writing multiple Work-plans for the various phases of the project, oversight and coordination of the field sampling program,and interpretation of the laboratory analytical data. Project work for this site is ongoing. Project Scientist, Former Lane Metals Facility,DTSC, Oakland, CA,2011: As a project scientist at the former Lane Metals site in Oakland, California,GIs. Futnani-Billet conducted groundwater sampling and helped compile semi-annual monitoring reports. Project Scientist, Former Cerro Metals Site, Newark, CA,2011: As a project scientist at the former Cerro Metals site in Newark,California,GIs. Futnani-Billet conducted semi-annual groundwater sampling and compiled semi-annual monitoring reports. Project Scientist,McNamara& Peepe, California Environmental Protection Agency,Department of Toxic Substances Control(DTSC), Glendale, CA, 2010—Present, $200K: Updated the Health and Safety Plan for a groundwater investigation at a former wood treatment facility in Glendale California. 1 LAB,1=D 16 F—u m Fi uu.i.— Futnuu`.F ti ani Bill,t 1-- Appendix R Subject Property Reconnaissance Photographs URS URSPHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client Name: Site Location: Project No. BioMed Realty, Inc 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 28068142 Photo No. Date: 1 6/13/2012 Direction Photo Taken: North Exterior of subject property, front of the building IMlJ��rrr Photo No. Date: 6/13/2012 Direction Photo Taken: South Description: Exterior of subject property, back of the building URSPHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client Name: Site Location: Project No. BioMed Realty, Inc 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 28068142 Photo No. Date: 3 6/13/2012 Direction Photo Taken: East i r / i i i / r, 1 i Exterior of the building, west side I Y9 fir; II li Y Photo No. Date: 4 6/13/2012 Direction Photo Taken: South P Description: Former Hazardous Materials and Equipment Storage Room URSPHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client Name: Site Location: Project No. BioMed Realty, Inc 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 28068142 Photo No. Date: 5 6/13/2012 Direction Photo Taken: West Description: Ground floor, interior of subject property Photo No. Date: 6 6/13/2012 Direction Photo Taken: West Description: 2nd floor, interior of subject property URSPHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client Name: Site Location: Project No. BioMed Realty, Inc 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 28068142 Photo No. Date: 7 6/13/2012 Direction Photo Taken: Southeast »" \liiu III 111111 ' Description: Rooftop of subject propertyw showing the cell tower in the northwest corner « 111911M�NNMNNN1111 I Photo No. Date: 8 F6/13/2012 Direction Photo Taken: South i Description: i lj%Jy ,, 1y111 1111 Sump located on the ground floor of the subject l ro e rt II p p Y V Appendix C Property Parcel Map URS BioMed 475 Eccles Ave i �o�h,3aio,,anc � �,oaoao 800 352'0050 CEDIR, 1'.)a1a [Resouirces linc vyww edrnel[c,�:)nn EDR Property Tax Map Report Environmental Data Resources, Inc.'s EDR Property Tax Map Report is designed to assist environmental professionals in evaluating potential environmental conditions on a target property by understanding property boundaries and other characteristics. The report includes a search of available property tax maps, which include information on boundaries for the target property and neighboring properties, addresses, parcel identification numbers, as well as other data typically used in property location and identification. Thank you for your business. Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050 with any questions or comments. Disclaimer-Copyright and Trademark Notice This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED,IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC.SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE.ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES,INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE,WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE,INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION,SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,CONSEQUENTIAL,OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report"AS IS".Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction orforecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property.Additionally,the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice. Copyright 2008 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part,of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc.or its affiliates is prohibited without prior written permission. EDR and its logos(including Sanborn and Sanborn Map)are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc.or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. N N 0) co d co O N CF) w N CM a M � F e m 2 � o n � _ x a a 0 2 2 O ® ? h W y O � m ZZ Q g a OZZ o $R Ed irk tj ®.s, p O 9 V & x � a I Appendix D Environmental Reports URS REPORT PHASE ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 475 ECCLES AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 PREPARED FOR: DOMED REALTY TRUST, INC. URS PROJECT No. 27705055.01000 NOVEMBER 11, 2005 REPORT PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 475 ECCLES AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94080 Prepared for BioMed Realty Trust, Inc. 17140 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 195 San Diego, CA 92128 URS Project No. 27705055.01000 Julian Granirer, P.G., R.E.A. Senior Project Geologist Robert K. Scott,P.G., C.Hg. Vice President November 11, 2005 Tills 1615 Murray Canyon Road, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92108-4314 619.294.9400 Fax: 619.293.7920 November 11, 2005 Mr. Gary Kreitzer BioMed Realty Trust, Inc. 17140 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 222 San Diego, CA 92128 Subject: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 475 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080 URS Project No. 27705055.01000 Dear Mr. Kreitzer: Please find enclosed Nvith this letter a copy of our report titled"Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080."The assessment of this property Nvas conducted pursuant to your authorization of the scope of Nvork outlined in our proposal submitted to now BioMed Realty Trust, Inc. on October 12, 2005. We trust that this report provides you Nvith the information required at this time. Should you have any questions regarding the content of this submittal, please do not hesitate to call. It has been a pleasure to be of assistance. Sincerer*, URS CORPORATION Julian Granirer, P.G., R.E.A. Senior Project Geologist JLG:rlg W:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-05\SDG TABLE OF CONTENTS Section1 Introduction.................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Scope of Services .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 Significant Assumptions.................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Deviations ......................................................................................................... 1-2 Section 2 Site Description.............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Location............................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Current Site Use and Site Improvements............................................................2-1 2.3 Environmental Setting .......................................................................................2-1 2.3.1 Site TopographN ....................................................................................2-1 2.3.2 Regional Geology and Hydrogeolog).....................................................2-1 2.4 Title Records.....................................................................................................2-2 2.5 Environmental Liens or Use Limitations............................................................2-2 Section 3 Records Review............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Regulatory Database Search Report...................................................................3-1 3.1.1 Subject Propert......................................................................................3-1 3.1.2 Surrounding Area..................................................................................3-1 3.2 Agency Files......................................................................................................3-3 3.3 Historical Use Information.................................................................................3 4 3.3.1 Aerial Photographs and Topographic Maps............................................3-4 3.3.2 Fire Insurance Maps..............................................................................3-5 -.-.-1 AN Directories.....................................................................................-1 3.3.4 Previous Investigations..........................................................................3-6 Section 4 Site Reconnaissance..................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Site Reconnaissance...........................................................................................4-1 4.1.1 Hazardous Substances ...........................................................................4-1 4.1.2 Hazardous Waste...................................................................................4-1 4.1.31 Storage Tanks........................................................................................4-1 4.1.4 Pol chlorinated Biphenv1s.....................................................................4-2 4.1.5 Waste Disposal......................................................................................4-2 4.1.6 Wetlands, Floodplain, and Coastal Zone................................................4-2 4.1.7 Dumping...............................................................................................4-2 4.1.8 Pits,Ponds, Lagoons, Septic Systems, Cisterns, Sumps, and Drains.......4-2 4.1.9 Staining and Discolored Soils................................................................4-3 4.1.10 Stressed Vegetation...............................................................................4-3 4.1.11 Unusual Odors.......................................................................................4-3 4.1.12 Onsite Wells..........................................................................................4-3 4.1.13 Nearbv Environmentallv Sensitive Sites ................................................4-3 4.2 Current Uses of Adjacent Property......................................................................4-3 Section5 Interviews....................................................................................................... 5-1 UMW:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-05\SDG i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 6 Conclusions ................................................................................................... 6-1 Section 7 References ..................................................................................................... 7-1 Section 8 Limitations and Exceptions........................................................................... 8-1 Section 9 Qualifications of Environmental Professionals ........................................... 9-1 9.1 Corporate...........................................................................................................9-1 9.2 Individual..........................................................................................................9-1 UMW:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-05\SDG ii List of Figures and Appendices Figures Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Site Plan Appendices Appendix A Site Reconnaissance Photographs Appendix B Regulatory Database Search Report Appendix C Prior Report and Other Documents Appendix D Qualifications MW:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-05\SDG 111 SECTIONONE Introduction SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is to identIA- the potential current presence of recognized environmental conditions at the property located at 475 Eccles Avenue in South San Francisco, California 94080 (subject property or site), including potential impacts from known releases in the surrounding area. This ESA Nvas performed according to the recommended guidelines established by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Designation E 1527-00, "Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process."The term "recognized environmental conditions,"as defined by ASTM Designation E 1527-00,means: The presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of anv hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, ground Nvater, or surface Nvater of the property. The term includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance Nvith laws. The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally Nvould not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. Conditions determined to be de minimis are not recognized environmental conditions. For the purpose of this report, hazardous substances and petroleum products are Jointly referred to as "hazardous materials." The extent of research to identIA- recognized environmental conditions is limited by the scope of services. 1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of Nvork for the ESA Nvas outlined in the URS Corporation(URS) October 12, 2005 proposal to BioMed Realty Trust, Inc. The folloNving scope of services Nvas conducted: 1. Contracted Nvith Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) to conduct a regulatory database search of known underground storage tanks (USTs); landfills; hazardous Nvaste generation or treatment; storage and disposal facilities; and subsurface contamination in the surrounding area up to Nvithin one mile of the center of the site (or site boundaries). Search radii are in conformance Nvith the ASTM Standard Designation E1527-00. Selected regulatory agencies Nvere contacted to research pertinent files for the site. Letters of inquiry Nvere sent to the folloNving: South San Francisco Fire Department; Regional Water Quality Control Board; California Department of Toxic Substances Control; Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the San Mateo County Department of Health. 2. Performed site a reconnaissance of the property located at 475 Eccles Avenue in South San Francisco, California 94080 on October 19, 2005 for obvious indications of recognized environmental conditions such as current hazardous materials storage or use; unusually stained Ulm W:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-05\SDG 1-1 SECTIONONE Introduction soils, slabs, and pavements; drains, sumps, drums, tanks, and electrical transformers; stressed vegetation; and discarded hazardous materials containers. Site photographs are provided in Appendix A. 3. IntervieNved a representative of the site ovmer, Ms. Emily Benton of ATC Partners, LLC, to inquire about past and present uses of the site. 4. Revievyed geologic maps and literature on file in our office for information on the physical and hydrogeologic setting of the site. 5. Researched past and present land use to evaluate potential issues of concern. 6. Revievyed the Munger Map Book of California and Alaska Oil and Gas Fields, dated 1999, indicating locations of knoN-,n drilled oil and gas Nyells on and in the vicinity of the site. 7. Researched site history by: (a)revieNving a chronology of five aerial photographs covering the site and adjacent area provided by the EDR-Aerial Photography Print Service, and an additional four aerial photographs available on terraserver.com, (b)revieNving historic topographic maps; and (c) contracting Nyith EDR to research the availability of fire insurance maps of the site and vicinity. 8. Evaluated the information collected and prepared this report summarizing our findings, opinions, and conclusions. 1.3 SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS No significant assumptions other than those described beloNy in the next section apply to this ESA. 1.4 DEVIATIONS No deviations from the ASTM standards for Phase I ESAs Nyere required. Photographs Nyere not permitted inside the Nyarehouse area of the subject property during our site visit. Other limiting conditions Nyere not encountered. MW:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-05\SDG 1-2 SECTIONTWO Site Description SECTION 2 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 LOCATION The site is approximately located at 37.6593° north latitude, and 1223935° Nvest longitude, Nvithin the City of South San Francisco, California. The site address is 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080. The County of San Mateo Assessor's office reports that the site includes 6.1002 acres of land developed Nvith a Nvarehouse, has been assigned assessor's parcel number (APN) 015-071-330, and is ov ned by 475 Eccles Associates whose mailing address is 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080. 2.2 CURRENT SITE USE AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS The subject property consists of 6.1002 acres of land currently developed Nvith a one story 152,145 square-foot Nvarehouse building that encompasses approximately 113,454 square feet of Nvarehouse area and 38,691 square feet of mezzanine office space. The subject property is situated in the Cabot, Cabot& Forbes Industrial Park. At the time of URS' visit, the Nvarehouse portion of the site building Nvas occupied by Cooper Vision, also knoN-,n as Ocular Science, Nvhich receives contact lenses, repackages then in saline solution and ships them for distribution. The mezzanine area is occupied by Expeditor, which uses this area for administrative offices. 2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2.3.1 Site Topography The USGS topographic map (South San Francisco, CA, 1993) indicates the site to be at an elevation of approximately 63 feet above mean sea level (msl). The immediate site vicinity is moderately hilIv, and slopes doN-,award to the north-northNvest. The nearest mapped surface Nvater appears to be the San Francisco Bav located approximately 2,000 feet to the north of the site. 2.3.2 Regional Geology and Hydrogeology The site is underlain by Mesozoic-age eugeosynclinal deposits. Based on a review of available hvdrogeologic documents from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), San Francisco Bay Area Region, and the California Department of Water Resources, the site is located in the Visitation Vallev Hydrologic Area(232). According to the RWQCB, groundwater in the Visitation Valley Hydrologic Area has regulatory-designated beneficial uses for process and industrial supply purposes, and potential municipal and agricultural supply purposes (RWQCB, 2005). There are no other designated beneficial uses of groundNvater in this hydrologic area. Because the Nvater table gradient is anticipated to mimic, in subdued fashion, the topography of the overlying land surface, the direction of groundNvater flow beneath the site and its immediate vicinity is anticipated to be towards the north-northNvest. GroundNvater flow at a location about 1,000 feet north of and about 40 feet loNver than the subject property is reported by others to be directed slightly Nvest of MW:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-05\SDG 2-1 SECTIONTWO Site Description north, and to be present at a depth of about 5 to 12 feet below the local ground surface (Conor Pacific/EFW, 2005). Because this nearby location is topographically loNver than the subject property, Nve anticipate that the Nvater table beneath the site may be deeper. 2.4 TITLE RECORDS Chain-of-title records for the subject property Nvere not provided for our review. HoNvever, title records for this property are reported not to include deed-recorded land use restrictions (Kreitzer, 2005). 2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL LIENS OR USE LIMITATIONS Based on our review of a regulatory database report (Section 3.1.1), the site is not listed as having a recorded use limitation. Additional information regarding environmental liens or limitations to the site usage Nvas not provided to URS. Ulm W:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-05\SDG 2-2 SECTIONTHFEE Records Review SECTION 3 RECORDS REVIEW 3.1 REGULATORY DATABASE SEARCH REPORT The regulatory database search Nvas conducted by EDR. Information gathered by EDR included available summaries from regulatory agency files pertaining to the subject property and suspected or confirmed hazardous materials sites Nvithin specified search distances. This information is reported as URS received it from EDR, Nvhich in turn reports information as it is provided in the government databases. It is not possible for either URS or EDR to verIA-the accuracy or completeness of information contained in these databases. HoNvever, the use of, and reliance on, this information is a generally accepted practice in the conduct of Phase I ESAs. URS revieNved the EDR database search report of federal, state, and local lists for knoN-,n or potential hazardous Nvaste sites, landfills, permitted activities, and sites currently under investigation for environmental violations. The EDR report includes a complete list and description of the databases searched. A copy of the report, Nvhich includes maps shoN ing locations of listed sites in relation to the subject property, is included in Appendix B. Sites located adjacent to or hydrologically up-gradient Nvith respect to inferred groundNvater flow direction Nvith reasonable potential to impact the subject property are discussed below. Properties identified beyond the requested search radii, those interpreted as hydrologically dov'n-gradient or cross-gradient, and other sites that in our opinion are unlikely to impact the site Nvith hazardous substances or Nvastes are excluded from the folloN ing discussion. 3.1.1 Subject Property The subject property is not reported on regulatory database listings. 3.1.2 Surrounding Area The EDR report listed numerous facilities in the site vicinity. Information including maps Nvith plotted locations of these facilities is presented in the EDR report included in Appendix B. Some of these listings are simply for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)-listed generators of Nvaste and the cross-referencing Facility Index System (FINDS) or other similar listing without reported chemical releases or for facilities that based on their distance from the site, hydrologic relationship or regulatory status are not anticipated to have the potential to have impacted the subject property. Several nearby facilities Nvith a reported history of a chemical releases that appear to have a potential to impact the subject property Nvere identified. These are discussed below. Homart Development Corporation, located at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and Gatevmv Boulevard, about 1,278 feet northNvest of the subject property, is included on the California State Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) and Deed Restrictions (DEED) lists for releases of lead, zinc, nickel, chromium, petroleum hydrocarbons and polvehlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to soil and acidic pH in groundNvater. After completion of a Final Remedial Action, Nvhich included removal and disposal of some soil and, to minimize potential contact N ith residual soil contaminants, covering affected areas Nvith clean UMW:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-O5\SDG 3-1 SECTIONTHREE Records Review soil, the pH of groundNyater is reported to have returned to neutral. Additionally, it is noted that in the late 1990s contamination Nyas consolidated and the area of restricted land use Nyas re-evaluated. This facility appears to be one of the local properties Nyith deed-recorded land use restrictions noted in a 1995 environmental report. This prior report recommended that these land use restrictions should be used as guidelines for the subject property (see Section 3.3.4). HoNyever, title records for the subject property are reported (Kreitzer, 2005) not to include deed-recorded land use restrictions (see Section 2.4). EDR also reports another listing for the Homart Development Corporation located at 480 Industrial Way, about 1,510 feet Nyest-nortiNvest of the subject property*, Nyhich is included on California State database of potential or confirmed hazardous substances release properties (Cal-Sites) list, but this appears to be a cross-reference to the previously* noted regulator* listing for the Homart Development Corporation. The Homart Development Corporation, N ith no location information, is also reported to be included on the StateN ide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System Underground Storage Tank (SWEEPS UST) list. Detail of this listing is not reported. Based on the reported information, this facility* appears to have the potential to have impacted the subject property*. However, it is unlikely* that the subject property* ovmer(s) or operator(s) Nyould be held responsible for on site impacts, if any*, from identified off-site sources. Avis Rent A Car, Inc., 513 Eccles Avenue, is described in the EDR report as being located 1,492 feet northeast of, and topographically*higher than, the subject property*. This facility*is included on the RCRA- Small Quantity* Generator and the cross-referencing FINDS lists, and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST), Cortese, California Facility* Inventory* Database (CA FID), Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) and San Mateo County*Hazardous Materials Business Plan (San Mateo County*BL) lists. RCRIS- SQG and cross-referencing FINDS listings describe this facility*as a small quantity*generator of less than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous Nyaste per month Nyith a reported administrative violation that Nyas reported and complied Nyith during 1988. There are no EDR-reported RCRA violations for releases at this facility*. The LUST list describes a release (case number 550157) of an unreported material that Nyas discovered during operation and maintenance in 1965 and affected groundNyater. The gasoline oxygenate additive methyl-tertian-butyl-ether Nyas detected in groundwater at a maximum concentration of 0.005 parts per billion (ppb). The regulatory* status of this release case is listed as "closed" as of 2000. Details of the Cortese listing are not reported. The CA FID listing describes this facility* (ID 41004753) as an active underground storage tank location. San Mateo County*Hazardous BL list describes this facility*as a small quantity*generator and recyTcler of Nyaste oil and solvents Nyith an underground storage tank. The AST list notes that a 1,585-gallon capacity* aboveground storage tank is located at this facility*. Based on its distance from the site and closed regulatory status of the only reported release at this facility*, it appears unlikely* to have impacted the subject property*. Additionally*, it is unlikely* that the subject property* ovmer(s) or operator(s) Nyould be held responsible for on site impacts, if any*, from identified off-site sources. Berkeley*Farms, 561 Eccles Avenue, is described in the EDR report as being located 1,667 feet northeast of, and topographically*higher than, the subject property*. This facility*is included on the LUST, Cortese, San Mateo County*BL and StateN ide Environmental Evaluation and Planning Underground Storage Tank (SWEEPS UST) lists. The LUST list describes a release (case number 550137) of miscellaneous motor vehicle fuels that occurred in 1994 Nyhich affected groundNyater that is used for other than drinking Nyater. The gasoline oxygenate additive methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether (MTBE) Nyas detected in groundNyater at a maximum concentration of less than 0.005 ppb. The regulatory status of this release case is listed as UMW:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-O5\SDG 3-2 SECTIONTHREE Records Review "closed" as of 2001. Details of the Cortese listing are not reported. San Mateo County Hazardous BL list describes this facility as a small quantity generator and recycler of Nvaste oil and solvents Nvith a UST. The SWEEPS UST lists notes that in 1994 this facility had a 7,500-gallon capacity underground storage tank for regular unleaded gasoline, but does not report a release. Based on its distance from the site and closed regulatory status of the only reported release at this facility, it appears unlikely to have impacted the subject property. Additionally, it is unlikely that the subject property ovmer(s) or operator(s) Nvould be held responsible for on-site impacts, if any, from identified off-site sources. Other facilities that EDR could not accurately locate do not appear to be located in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. In summary, there is a potential that the subject property may be impacted by contaminants associated Nvith the Homart Development Corporation. Additionally, there are two nearby facilities Nvith reported releases from USTs. HoNvever, based on the distance and closed regulatory status, these appears unlikely to have impacted the subject property. It is unlikely that the subject property ovmer(s) or operator(s) Nvould be held responsible for on site impacts, if any, from identified off-site sources. 3.2 AGENCY FILES State and local regulatory agencies Nvere contacted to obtain information on file concerning the subject property. A summary of agency responses is presented below. • South San Francisco Fire Department — The South San Francisco Fire Department has not yet responded to our request for information. • San Mateo County Department of Health — The San Mateo County Department of Health has not yet responded to our request for information. • Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board — The Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board reports that it does not have records pertaining to the subject property address. • Bay Area Air Quality Management District - The Bay Area air Quality Management District has yet to respond to our request for information. • California Environmental Protection Agency, Berkley Office - On October 14, 2005 the California Environmental Protection Agency responded to our request for information by reporting that our request had been routed to the appropriate program/project staff for review, and that upon completion of the review URS Nvould be contacted to schedule a review of files available in this agency's office. As of the date of this report, URS has not been contacted regarding this. URS has not received responses from all agencies contacted. Should URS obtain additional information that Nvould indicate the potential for a recognized environmental condition on the subject property, our revised conclusions Nvould be provided separately. UmW:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-O5\SDG J—J SECTIONTHFEE Records Review 3.3 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION URS performed a review of historical information to identify past site activities and prior land uses that might have created recognized environmental conditions at the subject property or in the surrounding vicinity. Documents researched included historic aerial photographs and archival topographic maps. URS also conducted interviews Nvith available persons Nvith knowledge of the site. 3.3.1 Aerial Photographs and Topographic Maps URS revieNved historical aerial photographs provided by EDR from 1946, 1956, 1965, 1982, 1993 and 1998. Six topographic maps provided by EDR from 1913, 1947, 1956, 1968, 1973 and 1993 Nvere also revieNved. A summary of our relevant interpretation of these photographs and maps is presented below. 1913 The subject property and adjacent land is not shoN-,n to be developed. There Nvere no visually obvious structures or roads in the immediate vicinity. The San Francisco Bay appears to be located a very short distance to the north of the site. 1946-1947 The subject property remains developed. In the immediate site vicinity the area adjacent to the south appears to have been graded, and a railroad yard is located adjacent to the northNvest. North of the railroad yard is an east-Nvest oriented road in the approximate current alignment of Oyster Point Boulevard. Beyond that is a very large industrial-appearing building that may be associated Nvith Nvhat appears to be a shipyard along San Francisco Bay. San Francisco Bay now appears to be several hundred feet north of the site than shov'n in the previous document revieNved, suggesting that the shoreline has extended northNvard since 1913. 1956 The graded area previously noted adjacent to the south of the site now extends across the entire subject property and a swath of land extending northeastward. It is not clear Nvhat the purpose of this grading Nvas. 1964 The subject property appears to be developed Nvith the current square-shaped structure and at least a partially paved parking area adjacent to the northeast side of this building. In the site vicinity, railroad tracks are aligned northeast-southwest adjacent to the northNvest perimeter of the subject property. Beyond this, the previously noted railroad yard now appears to be mostIv dismantled. Land adjacent to the northeast appears to remain undeveloped. Eccles Avenue is present and paved adjacent to the southeast, beyond which are N'-o smaller industrial-appearing structures. Another, smaller industrial appearing structure is located adjacent to the southNvest of the subject property. 1973 The site appears similar to the previous document revieNved. In the immediate site vicinity, the previously noted undeveloped land adjacent to the northeast now appears to have been developed Nvith the current large industrial appearing structure there. 1982 The site appears similar to the previous document revieNved. The previously noted railroad yard northNvest of the subject property appears to have been cleared and graded. Several hundred feet to the north of the site the property at 180 Oyster Point Boulevard appears to UMW:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-O5\SDG 3-4 SECTIONTHREE Records Review have been developed vyith a square-shaped industrial-appearing structure interpreted to be a former waster transfer facility. 1993-1998 The roof of the subject property building appears to have been resurfaced vyith a lighter than previously colored material. Additionally, the previously noted partially paved parking area adjacent to the northeast side of this building appears to have been completely paved. In the site vicinity, the area previously developed vyith a rail road yard to the northvyest of the subject property now appears to be developed vyith the current complex of industrial appearing structures. In the site vicinity, the previously noted railroad yard to the south has been replaced vyith the current complex of industrial appearing structures. North of the site, beyond ONTster Point Boulevard, the previously noted large industrial building and N-,-hat appeared to be a shipyard along the coast of San Francisco Bay have been removed and the area cleared and graded. In summary, based on this revievy, the site property appears to have been undeveloped until at least 1947. BST 1956 it appeared to have been graded along vyith a large area of surrounding land. And by 1964, the subject property Nyas developed Nyith its current structure and at least a partially paved parking area. By 1993 the parlcing area Nyas completely paved. Other than the grading at the site noted in the 1956 document and the adjacent industrial land uses, including a railroad yard, obvious indications of potential environmental impacts Nyere not observed. 3.3.2 Fire Insurance Maps EDR reported that historical fire insurance maps of the site Nyere not available in the Sanborn archives (EDR, 2005). 3.3.3 City Directories Based on a revievy of city directories compiled by EDR, v hich encompass the Nears 1970 through 2005, the occupancy of the subject property address of 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California is summarized in the folloNving table. Year Occupant North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 1970 William Volker&Company 5419 Other Professional, Scientific,and Technical Services 1975 William Volker&Company 5419 Other Professional, Scientific,and Technical Services 1980 Otagiri Mercantile 4543 Direct Selling Establishments 1985 Otagiri Mercantile 4543 Direct Selling Establishments 1990 ATC Partners 5419 Other Professional, Scientific,and Technical Services 1995 ATC Partners 5419 Other Professional, Scientific,and Technical Services UM 5 W:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-O5\SDG 3— SECTIONTHREE Records Review Year Occupant North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 2000 Ocular Sciences Incorporated 5419 Other Professional, Scientific,and Technical Services 2005 Ocular Sciences Incorporated 5419 Other Professional, Scientific,and Technical Services Based on URS' review of the EDR-provided information, these occupants and uses do not appear to present obvious environmental concerns. Additionally, based on our review of the EDR-provided information, identified occupants of surrounding properties on Eccles Avenue do not appear to present obvious environmental concerns. A cop)-of the EDR-provided information is included in Appendix B. 3.3.4 Previous Investigations URS was provided with the folloNving reports of previous environmental investigations of the subject property, copies of which are presented in Appendix C: "Asbestos Analvsis Results, 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California" prepared by Environmental Engineering Consultants, Inc. on December 22, 1994. This report presented the analytical results of testing samples of floor tiles from the subject property building for potential asbestos content. Asbestos was detected in five of seven samples. The total area of floor covered Nth asbestos-containing tiles was reported to be 4,500 square feet and included portions of the warehouse entrance, electric room, second floor storage room, photocop)- room and mezzanine. It was suggested that these material may require abatement or implementation of an operation and maintenance plan. "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Office Warehouse, 475-479 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California"prepared by Ecldand Consultants, Inc. on October 23, 1995. This report noted that based on the age of the site building it may include asbestos-containing building material (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP), but noted that the suspect materials appeared in good condition and did not recommend additional action. This report did not appear to identify recognized environmental conditions associated Nvith the subject property's contemporary use, but concluded that because local properties Nvith deed-recorded land-use restrictions to manage capped in-place residual contamination, Nvere reported to be located up-gradient from the subject property that soil and groundNvater are likely to be contaminated. This report did not clearly indicate if the subject property was thought to be impacted by this contamination or subject to the land-use restrictions. HoNvever, the report recommended that the land-use restrictions be used as guidelines for the subject property, and that regulatory agency records be periodically reviewed for significant changes. The report identified three local properties with deed- recorded land-use restrictions: U.S. Steel Corporation and Oyster Point Inter Area 1, both located 035 miles to the nort iNvest; and Homart Development Corporation Lot 9, located 0.2 miles to the north. Of these properties, only the Homart Development Corporation, but in a different direction and distance from the subject property is currently reported by EDR (see Section 3.1.2) to have a deed-recorded land use restriction. The current EDR-reported Homart Development Corporation listing describes that in the late 1990s contamination Nvas consolidated and the area of restricted land was re-evaluated. Additionally, UMW:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-O5\SDG 3-6 SECTIONTHREE Records Review current title records for the subject property are reported (Kreitzer, 2005) not to include deed-recorded land use restrictions (see Section 2.4). "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California 04080" prepared by National Assessment Corporation on March 25, 2003. This report concluded that no recognized environmental conditions associated Nvith the subject property Nvere identified. It cautioned that based on the age of the site building there is a potential for non-friable Nvall board, flooring and roofing materials to contain asbestos. HoNvever, these materials Nvere reported to be in good condition Nvith a low potential for disturbance. UMW:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-O5\SDG 3- SECTIONFOUR Site Reconnaissance SECTION 4 SITE RECONNAISSANCE Mr. Gustav Raggambi of URS' San Francisco, California office conducted a reconnaissance of the subject property on October 19, 2005. The reconnaissance consisted of the observation and documentation of existing site conditions and the nature of neighboring property development Nvithin 0.25 miles of the site. Site photographs are provided in Appendix A. 4.1 SITE RECONNAISSANCE The subject property is located adjacent to the northNvest of Eccles Avenue in South San Francisco, California (Figures 1 and 2). The subject property consists of 6.1002 acres of land currently developed Nvith a one story 152,145 square-foot Nvarehouse building, reported to have been constructed in 1964, that encompasses approximately 113,454 square feet of Nvarehouse area and 38,691 square feet of mezzanine office space. At the time of URS' visit, the Nvarehouse portion of the site building Nvas occupied by Cooper Vision, also knoNsn as Ocular Science, which receives contact lenses, repackages then in saline solution and ships them for distribution. The mezzanine area is occupied by Expeditor which uses this area for administrative offices. The site is reported to have been occupied by these tenants for 10 Nears. 4.1.1 Hazardous Substances PotentialIv hazardous substances currentIv located on the subject property appear to be limited to 24 5- gallon capacity containers of lubrication and mineral oils, used for machinery including two air- compressors inside the Nvarehouse and a hydraulic compactor, and some 55-gallon capacity drums of Nvaste lubrication oil, oily rags and oil-Nvater separator sludge. All of these containers are all stored on secondary containment devices inside three exterior storage sheds. Obvious indications of significant releases of these substances Nvere not observed or reported. Hvdraulic oil is also used in an elevator system. Some discoloration of underIving concrete Nvas noted around the base of the hydraulic pump for this elevator system. HoNvever, the discolored concrete appeared to be in good condition Nsith no obvious cracks, and this discoloration appeared to be a de minimis condition. Other indications of current potentially hazardous substances Nvere not noted or reported. 4.1.2 Hazardous Waste Hazardous Nvastes generated appear to be limited to Nvaste lubricants and soiled rags from Nvarehouse machinery and sludge from an oil-Nvater separator located inside an exterior storage shed (see Photograph no. 18, Appendix A). It is our understanding that the subject property generates about one drum per Near of these combined Nvastes Nvhich are removed from the subject property for off-site disposal. 4.1.3 Storage Tanks VisualIv obvious indications of current storage tanks, other than 55-gallon capacity drums for Nvaste storage, Nvere not observed at the site. MW:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-05\SDG 4-1 SECTIONFOUR Site Reconnaissance 4.1.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls URS observed no obvious evidence of use or disposal of PCBs on site. Potentially PCB-containing equipment appear limited to a single Nvet-type electrical transformer and fluorescent light ballasts. URS observed one exterior pad-mounted Nvet-type electrical transformer on the subject property. The transformer is reportedly the property and responsibility of Pacific Gas &Electric (PG&E), Nvhich Nvould be responsible for its equipment. No labeling regarding PCB content Nvas observed on the transformer. Obvious indications of releases of potentially PCB-containing fluid from this transformer Nvere not noted. Three other electrical transformers Nvere noted at the subject property but these appeared to be dry-type units that are not anticipated to include potentially PCB-containing dielectric fluids. Fluorescent lights Nvere observed throughout the site building. Fluorescent light ballasts manufactured prior to 1979 may contain small quantities of PCBs. Therefore, based on the reported 1964 construction date of the site building, there is a potential for fluorescent light ballasts manufactured before 1979, if anv, to contain PCBs. URS did not observe evidence of damaged or leaking ballasts during the property visit. During routine maintenance the ballasts should be checked for "non-PCB" labels. If labels are not observed, the manufacturer should be contacted to ascertain the presence/absence of PCBs. As a precaution, leaking or large numbers of ballasts Nvhose PCB content cannot be determined Nvithout testing should be handled and disposed of according to local Nvaste handling requirements for PCB units. 4.1.5 Waste Disposal Solid non-hazardous waste generated onsite is stored in an exterior container. This Nvaste is removed by a private contractor and disposed of offsite as municipal Nvaste. There Nvere no obvious indications of unusual odors or discoloration associated Nvith the area. Water from the oil-Nvater separator is discharged to the municipal seNver system. Oiler sludge recovered from the oil-Nvater separator is drummed Nvith the Nvaste lubricants and oily rags and is periodically removed from the site by Pacific Resource&Recovery. 4.1.6 Wetlands, Floodplain, and Coastal Zone Wetlands Nvere not observed on the subject property. The EDR report indicates that the subject property is not located in a 100-Near flood zone. The subject property is about one thousand feet from the shore line of the San Francisco Bav, located to the north of the site. 4.1.7 Dumping No indication of dumping Nvas observed. 4.1.8 Pits, Ponds, Lagoons, Septic Systems, Cisterns, Sumps, and Drains No ponds, lagoons, lagoons, septic systems, cisterns or sumps Nvere noted on subject property. A sealed floor drain, reported to be used as a clean-out, Nvas noted in a bathroom. This appears to drain to the municipal seNver system, but URS Nvas not able to ascertain this. MW:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-05\SDG 4-2 SECTIONFOUR Site Reconnaissance 4.1.9 Staining and Discolored Soils Significant areas of obviousIv stained or discolored soils Nvere not observed on the subject property. 4.1.10 Stressed Vegetation An approximately 10 foot by 10 foot area of distressed vegetation Nvas noted on the east side of the site building near a handicapped parking stall. The cause of this apparent distress Nvas not apparent. Other obvious indications of stressed vegetation Nvere not noted at the site. 4.1.11 Unusual Odors Unusual odors Nvere not encountered on the subject property. 4.1.12 Onsite Wells No indication of on site Nvells Nvas observed on the site property. Based on the Munger Map Book of California/Alaska Oil and Gas Fields (1999), no exploration or production Nvells Nvere identified Nvithin approximately 1 mile of the subject property. 4.1.13 Nearby Environmentally Sensitive Sites EnvironmentalIv sensitive sites such as daveare centers, schools or nursing homes, Nvere not observed Within 0.25 miles of the subject property. 4.2 CURRENT USES OF ADJACENT PROPERTY The subject property is located Nvithin an area that consists mainly of commercial properties (Figure 2). Prominent adjoining land uses are as follows: North Open Space. This is the area that appears as a railroad yard in historical photographs and maps (see Section 3.3.1). East Eccles Avenue, beyond which as a structure at490 Eccles Avenue occupied by Avis Rent A Car and Yzsumoto &Company. South Eccles Avenue and an adjacent industrial structure at 472 Eccles Avenue. West Industrial structures occupied by Universal Freight Fonvard and the Dimereo Express (USA) Corporation. Ulm W:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-O5\SDG 4-3 SECTIONFIVE Interviews SECTION 5 INTERVIEWS URS intervieNved Ms. Emily Benton of ATC Partner, LLC., the subject property owner, and Mr. Rick Hill a Facility Manager Nvith the site tenant Cooper Vision. Ms. Benton reported that ATC Partners, LLC has ov ned the subject property for the past 10 Nears since 1995. She has been familiar Nvith the property for the past two Nears, and is not aNvare of environmental liabilities associated Nvith it including land-use limitations or deed restrictions (Benton, 2005). Mr. Hill Nvas also not aNvare of environmental liabilities associated Nvith the subject property(Hill, 2005). MW:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-05\SDG 5-1 SECTIONSIX conclusions SECTION 6 CONCLUSIONS URS has performed a Phase I ESA Update in conformance Nvith the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527-00 of the property located at 475 Eccles Avenue in South San Francisco, California 94080. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in the Limitations and Exceptions section of this report. The subject property consists of 6.1002 acres of land currently developed Nvith a one story 152,145 square-foot Nvarehouse building that encompasses approximately 113,454 square feet of Nvarehouse area and 38,691 square feet of mezzanine office space. The subject property is situated in the Cabot, Cabot& Forbes Industrial Park. At the time of URS' visit, the Nvarehouse portion of the site building Nvas occupied by Cooper Vision, also knoN-,n as Ocular Science, Nvhich receives contact lenses, repackages then in saline solution and ships them for distribution. The mezzanine area is occupied by Expeditor which uses this area for administrative offices. PotentialIv hazardous substances currentIv located on the subject property appear to be limited to small quantities of lubrication and mineral oils, Nvaste oil, Nvaste oily sludge and oily rags. Obvious indications of significant releases of these substances Nvere not observed or reported. The current site structure is reported to contain some non-friable asbestos-containing building materials that should be managed to minimize disturbance and Nvould require special handling if removed. HoNvever, these materials could likely be disposed of as demolition debris and Nvould not require disposal as hazardous Nvaste. Othenvise the current building and its tenant activities do not indicate significant potential environmental concerns, and the subject property is not reported on regulatory database listings. There is a potential that the subject property may be impacted by contaminants associated Nvith former industrial activities in the area. These could constitute potential Recognized Environmental Conditions, and Nvould require additional investigation to further assess these potential conditions. Additionally, there are two nearby facilities Nvith reported releases from underground storage tanks. HoNvever, based on the distance and closed regulatory status, these appear unlikely to have impacted the subject property. It is unlikely that the subject property ovmer(s) or operator(s) Nvould be held responsible for on site impacts, if ariv, from identified off-site sources. Other potential or Recognized Environmental Conditions associated Nvith the subject property Nvere not identified. We have not vet received responses from all agencies contacted for this ESA. Should URS obtain additional information that Nvould indicate the potential for a recognized environmental condition on the subject property, our revised conclusions Nvould be provided separately. MW:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-05\SDG 6-1 SECTIONSEVEN References SECTION 7 REFERENCES American Society for Testing Materials, 2000, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process: Designation E 1527-00, 27 p. Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2005, telephonic communication from Ms. Melinda Wong, telephone 510 622-2430, August 10. Benton, Emily, 2005, ATC Partner, LLC, 1000 Samsone Street, Suite 180, San Francisco, California 94111,telephone 415.951.0500, extension 135, October 20. Environmental Date Resources, Inc., 2005, Sanborn "No Coverage" Map Report, 6500 Kaiser Drive, Fremont, California 94555, Inquiry-No. 1466 10313, July 14. Hill, Rick, 2005, Facility Manager, Cooper Vision, 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080,telephone 650.583.1400, extension 3528, October 19. Maslonkowski, 1984, Hydrology and Geochemistry of Aquifers Underlying the San Lorenzo and San Leandro Areas of the East Bav Plain, Alameda County, California, U.S. Department of Interior, Geologic Survey, Water-Resources Investigation Report 02-4251. Kreitzer, Gan-, 2005, BioMed Realty Trust, Inc., Executive Vice President, telephone 858 485-9840. Maslonkowski, Dennis P., 1984. GroundNvater in the San Leandro and San Lorenzo Cones of the East Bav of Alameda County, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Ha-,A ard, California. Munger Map Book, 1999, California-Alaska Oil&Gas Fields. The San Mateo County Department of Health, 2005, telephonic communication from Mr. Charles Ice, telephone 650 363-4565, August 10. U.S. Geological Survey, 1980, 7%-Minute Topographic Map of the NeNvark, California Quadrangle, California, 1959 Base Map,photorevised 1980. Ulm W:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-05\SDG 7-1 1 SECTIONEIGHT Limitations and Exceptions SECTION 8 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS This report and the associated Nvork have been provided in accordance Nvith the principles and practices generally employed by the local environmental consulting profession. This is in lieu of all Nvarranties, express or implied. This ESA is not a regulatory compliance audit or an evaluation of the efficiency of the use of any hazardous materials at the site. No evaluation for the presence of asbestos-containing building materials, urea-formaldehN-de foam insulation, lead-based paint, or other hazardous building materials; methane; radon gas; lead in drinking Nvater; wetlands; cultural and historic resources; industrial hygiene and health and safety, ecological resources and endangered species; indoor air quality, or high-voltage poNver lines is included in our assessment. Our findings and opinions are based on information available from public sources on specific dates (historical photographs, maps, and regulatory agency files, lists, and databases); this information is changing continually and is frequently incomplete. Unless Nve have actual knowledge to the contrary, information obtained from interviews or provided to us by the Client has been assumed to be correct and complete. URS does not assume any liability for information that has been misrepresented to us or for items not visible, accessible, or present on the site at the time of the site reconnaissance. URS cannot Nvarrant or guarantee that not finding indicators of hazardous materials means that hazardous materials do not exist on the site. There is no investigation that is thorough enough to preclude the presence of materials on the site that presently, or in the future, may be considered hazardous. Because regulatory evaluation criteria are constantly changing, concentrations of contaminants present and considered to be acceptable may, in the future, become subject to different regulatory standards and require remediation. Where records indicate that prior remedial Nvork or tank removals have occurred, there is a risk that the Nvork may not have been performed correctly or completely. In these cases, if the regulatory agency has approved the closure of the tank or other Nvork done, Nve have assumed that the Nvork Nvas done correctIv and completely. Opinions and judgments expressed herein, Nvhich are based on our understanding and interpretation of current regulatory standards, should not be construed as legal opinions. This report has been prepared for use solely by BioMed Realty Trust, Inc., its undery niters and assignees. This report shall not be relied upon by or transferred to anv other party, or used for any other purpose, Nvithout the expressed, v ritten authorization of URS. Ulm W:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-05\SDG 8-1 SECTIONNINE Qualifications of Environmental Professionals SECTION 9 QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS 9.1 CORPORATE URS Corporation is a publicly held corporation listed on the New York and Pacific Stock Exchanges. URS provides professional planning, architectural and engineering design, and program and construction management services for infrastructure projects involving surface and air transportation, facilities, and Nvater resources. In addition, URS offers a full range of environmental services, including environmental management, pollution control, natural resource management, and solid and hazardous Nvaste management. Utilizing staff resources of 26,000 employees in a network of offices Nvorldwide, URS serves a variety of public-sector clients at the local, municipal, state, and federal levels and private-sector clients in the oil, petrochemical, natural gas, chemical, forest products,mining, poNver, and manufacturing industries. 9.2 INDIVIDUAL The qualifications of the Project Manager and of the other Environmental Professionals involved in this Phase I ESA meet the URS corporate requirements for performing ESAs. Information related to the qualifications and experience of the environmental professionals who prepared this report is included in Appendix D. Ulm W:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-05\SDG 9-1 Figures URSW:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-05\SDG IIIII Ill..... I 11 J ll l I L l//!/1/1, 111 , I II 0 l l 11 III + I I �� IIIL Z Pill r%! rya,- N r7 Lo 1C) } rrt} Q N o Z V it CL W a NN W w Y Jai y ? V Z = a / W LL ----------- V/ LUI JJ N IN vbry t D, IN "+A. x J�rf r r�1't www,51,✓- �aa. �1! wl a 'l. a 'u Y� rr � • ,� _ � sib _ N 7 r'L- I d I' Et r� `1 j +�+� I�I� r .. '�1 1�... m r 1 r ,.. y f 1f J �'f �ry may, 1` 7 Y� r N �'+t'�Yw'1 d 1+ I` I + 1� V Ld + R / 4 "1 4 1,. +1a +a 7 �� Lf) + 1 fl N II I II } 6 z U'5 C44 0 Ltj :3 CL ui 0 z > 0 ou 4 :5 LU CL CO uj U, -i z CL ROM PLACE w U uilz F- —lz- '- to Z cn 1 0 1 6 :)0)w z a,m 'I'L Q a w FE Ho� z Ul z 0 <0) CD ui 0 z uj > < uj Z) IL 0) z Wi 04 LLI --f �11 > cn w co U) LU w z EU W Z) w T ot LZLLJ cv APPENDIXA Site Reconnaissance Photographs URSW:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-05\SDG APPENDIXA Site Reconnaissance Photographs Photograph 1 Date: October 19,2005 Comments: Portion of southeastern side of subject property. 1 building with main y entrance. Perspective is towards the west. uu i V uuu u � Photograph 2 Date: October 19,2005 Comments: Portion of northeastern side of subject property building with site parking area. Perspective is towards the south. URS W:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-05\SDG A-1 APPENUMA Site Reconnaissance Photographs Photograph 3 Date: October 19,2005 Comments: Portion of y northwestern,rear side of subject property building shoeing roll-up l i doors. Perspective is towards the southwest. Photograph 4 Date: October 19,2005 Comments:� -estern a 1. corner of subject property building �r showing cellular communication equipment on roof. Perspective is towards the east. URS W:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-05\SDG A-2 APPENUMA Site Reconnaissance Photographs Photograph 5 ate' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,j, //% ,, October 19,2005 Comments: Portion of southeastern corner of subject property building shoArng � adjacent site parking area on south side of building Perspective is towards the � northwest. r' Photograph 6 Date: October 19,2005 �..,. Comments: / Northeastern corner of subject property adjacent to Eccles Avenue at right.Note discoloration of r� I sidewalk. 6 Perspective is towards the northeast. URS / IIII IiIV II illlll III ail I I I W:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-05\SDG —J APPENUMA Site Reconnaissance Photographs Photograph 7 i Date: October 19,2005 Comments: Detail of staining on sidewalk -� adjacent to Eccles Avenue shown in ., previous photograph. This s J appears to be associated with r �l�d landscape J �l maintenance and not indicative of a potential environmental condition. Perspective is downward towards the northwest. Photograph 8 r � a Date: October 19,2005 .m r � Comments: Detail of landscaped area at northeastern corner 111 r// of subject property shown in f Photograph 6.Note area of distressed vegetation. This appears to be associated with landscape maintenance and not indicative of a potential environmental condition. Perspective is towards the r northeast. URS W:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-05\SDG A-4 APPENDIXA Site Reconnaissance Photographs r Photograph 9 Date: l� October 19,2005 Comments: Portion of soutfi�estern side of subject property building shoeing roll-up doors at f 0,0 loading docks. Perspective is f toAi ands the northwest. f Photograph 10 j i� 1 Date: October 19,2005 Immrtwoo �, ���i II��•.. Comments: 6, Portion of administrative area �lo�l(III on mezzanine level of subject property building. URS I W:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-05\SDG A—J APPENDIXA Site Reconnaissance Photographs �f Photograph 11 Date: October 19,2005 � j / Comments: Detail of did-type electrical transformer in electric room of subject property building. . J � Photograph 12 Date. October 19,2005- j/ f Comments: My-type electrical / o transformer f � nsformer i ad acentto i l southwest side of j r� subject property building. Per spectr`e is towards the northwest. URS W:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-05\SDG A-6 APPENDIXA Site Reconnaissance Photographs r�:. Photograph 13 „ Date: �i October 19,2005 Comments: Detail of elevator pump and underlying discolored concrete floor. f N,I//, j Photograph 11 Date: October 19,2005 r Comments: VieAi of exterior m .e hash compactor �r located along southwestern side of subject building. Perspective is towards the northeast. URS W:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-05\SDG A- APPENDIXA Site Reconnaissance Photographs �ml Photograph 15 Date: October 19,2005 Comments: Utility company- owned wet-type electrical transformer located �cI � m adjacent to southwestern side „ of subject building. �� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII a f � flu� ��I�IjIWI uVhtlullill Photograph 16 Date: October 19,2005 Comments: Storage shed located adjacent to northeast of subject �{ building. Perspective is towards the west. URS 1 W:\27705055\01000-a-r.doc\15-Nov-05\SDG A—O APPENDIXA Site Reconnaissance Photographs Photo