Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout475 Eccles 2012 DEIR + Appen CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 475 ECCLES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SC IIIdI ff 201111208211 01I 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 October 26, 2012 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH#2012082101 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 October 11, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS 475 ECCLES DEIR CHAPTER PAGE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Introduction 1-1 1.2 Purpose of this Draft EIR 1-1 1.3 Scope of this Draft EIR 1-1 1.4 Report Organization 1-2 1.-) Environmental Review Process 1-3 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2-1 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.2 Project Summary 2-1 2.3 Areas Of Controversy And Issues To Be Resolved/Comments On 2-3 The Notice Of Preparation 2.4 Summary Of Project Impacts,Recommended Mitigation Measures 2-5) And Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program CHAPER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-1 3.1 Introduction 3-1 3.2 Project Location And Site Conditions 3-1 3.3 General Plan and Zoning Designations 3-2 3.4 Project Objectives 3-5) 3.5) Project Description 3-6 3.6 Environmental Measures Incorporated Into The Project 3-14 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND 4-1 MITIGATION 4.1.1 Introduction 4-1 4.1.2 Format of the Environmental Analysis 4-1 4.1.3 Levels of Significance 4-2 4.1.4 Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis 4-3 4.2.1 Traffic and Circulation 4-3 4.2.2 Traffic Impact Study 4-4 4.2.3 Setting 4-5) 4.2.4 Impacts and Mitigations 4-36 4.2.5 Impact Analvsis 4-38 CHAPTER 5: ALTERNATIVES 5-1 5.1 Introduction -1 5.2 Project Objectives 5-1 �.3 )ver�Tiew of Significant and Unavoidable Impacts �-2 5.4 Alternatives Analysis 5-4 �.� Environmentally Superior Alternative �-10 CHAPTER 6: EFFERCTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 6-1 6.1 Introduction 6-1 6.2 Initial Study Process 6-1 1 6.3 Effects Found Not to Be Significant 6-1 CHAPTER 7: CEQA REQUIRED CONCLUSIONS 7-1 7.1 Introduction 7-1 7.2 Growth Inducing Impacts 7-2 7.3 Cumulative Impacts 7-2 7.4 Significant Environmental Effects 7-3 7.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Change 7-3 CHAPTER 8: REPORT PREPARATION 8-1 CHAPTER 9: REFERENCES 9-1 LIST OF FIGURES 2.1 Proposed Water Feature 2-5) 3.1 Project Location 3-2 3.2 Existing Conditions 3-7 3.3 Proposed Conditions 3-9 4.1 _area flap 4-50 4.2 Existing Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control 4-51 4.3 Public Transportation Routes 4-52 4.4 Existing_ :NI Peak Hour Volumes 4-53 4.5) Existing PSI Peak Hour Vol unes 4-54 4.6 Year 201 Without Project AEI Peak Hour Volumes 4-55 4.7 Year 201 Without Project P:N I Peak Hour Volumes 4-56 4.8 Year 201 Lane Geometrics and Intersection Controls 4-57 4.9 Year 203 Without Project_ :NI Peak Hour Vol unes 4-58 4.10 Year 203 Without Project P:N I Peak Hour Volumes 4-59 4.11 Year 203 Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control 4-60 4.12 Existing&201 Project Increment AEI Peak Hour Volumes 4-61 4.13 Existing&201 Project Increment PSI Peak Hour Volumes 4-62 4.14 Existing+ Project AM Peak Hour Volumes 4-63 4.15) Existing+ Project Pal Peak Hour Vol unes 4-64 4.16 Year 201 With Project AEI Peak Hour Volumes 4-65) 4.17 Year 201 With Project PSI Peak Hour Volumes 4-66 4.18 203 Project Increment AEI Peak Hour Volumes 4-67 4.19 203 Project Increment PSI Peak Hour Volumes 4-68 4.20 Year 203 With Project AEI Peak Hour Volumes 4-69 4.21 Year 203 With Project PSI Peak Hour Volumes 4-70 4.22 Year 201-):N litigations 4-71 4.23 Year 203 5 Mitigations 4-72 4.24 Project Driveway Sightline Mitigation 4-73 4.25) Project Internal Circulation System Mitigation 4-74 LIST OF TABLES 2.1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures and Mitigation 2-8 A Ionitoring and Reporting Program 3.2 Hazardous Materials Remediation Measures 3-17 4.1 Public Transportation Service 4-9 4.2 Caltrain/Bart Shuttle Service 4-10 4.3 Signalized Intersection Level Of Service Criteria 4-11 ii 4.4 Unsignalized Intersection Level Of Service Criteria 4-12 45 Existing Intersection Levels Of Service 4-16 4.6 93t11 Percentile Vehicle Queues Existing&Existing+ Project 4-17 Intersections At Or Near U.S.101 Interchanges Potentially Impacted By The 473 Eccles Project With Signal Timing For Optimized Level Of Service 4.7 Off-Raurnp Capacity And Volumes Existing,Year 2013&Year 2033 4-18 4.8 On-Ramp Capacity and Volumes 4-19 4.9 Summary Of Existing U.S. 101 Freeway Operation 4-20 4.10 Existing FreeN ay Mainline Levels Of Service 4-20 4.11 Year 2013 Without Project Trip Generation 4-21 4.12 Year 2013 Intersection Levels Of Service Year 2013 ern&Pm Peak 4-12 Hour 4.13 93th Percentile Vehicle Queues -Year 2013,Intersections At Or 4-23 Near U.S.101 Interchanges Potentially Impacted By The 473 Eccles Project With Signal Timing For Optimized Level Of Service (1 of 2) 4.13 93th Percentile Vehicle Queues -Year 2013,Intersections At Or 4-26 Near U.S.101 Interchanges Potentially Impacted By The 473 Eccles Project With Signal Timing For Optimized Level Of Service (2 of 2) 4.14 Freeway Mainline Levels Of Service—Year 2013 4-27 4.13 Year 2033 Without Project Trip Generation 4-29 4.16 Intersection Levels Of Service—Year 2033 A:N I&RN I Peak Hour 4-30 4.17 93th Percentile Vehicle Queues -Year 2033 Intersections At Or 4-32 Near U.S.101 Interchanges Potentially Impacted By The 473 Eccles Project With Signal Timing For Optimized Level Of Service 4.18 Freeway:N Iainline Levels Of Service—Year 2033 4-34 4.19 Project Trip Generation 4-37 4.20 Project Trip Distribution 4-38 421 Year 2033 Mitigated Intersection Levels Of Service 4-43 APPENDIX A A-1 Initial Study Checklist and Evaluation with all attachments: LA fir Quality Assumptions and Methodologies LB Air Quality Annual 1.0 fir Quality St comer 1.D_fir Quality Winter LE Air Quality Model Output 2.A Cleary Geotechnical Report 2.B CS A 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 APPENDIX B B-1 Comments on Notice of Preparation 111 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION BMR-475 Eccles Avenue LLC (13MR), (Applicant) proposes to redevelop approximately 6.1 acres of land in the City- of South San Francisco's "East of 101" area into a research and development (R&D) complex. The Project site is located at 475 Eccles Avenue, between Oyster Point and Forbes Boulevards within the Business Teclinol<<gy Parr Zone District and the `Business and Teclinolo Park" General Plan Land Use designation which supports R&D projects. 1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS DRAFT EIR The _applicant proposes to demolish an approximate 152,145 square foot vacant warehouse and office building and reconstruct a life science campus consisting of tvo buildings totalling 262,287 square feet, a fire level parking structure, limited surface parking and landscaping. The EIR for the Project has four purposes pursuant to Section 15002 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3i*: 1. Inform property owners, residents, tenants, members of the City Council, and members of the Planning Commission of the City- of South San Francisco of the potential environmental impacts of the Project prior to the Commission and Council taping action on the Project. 2. Identifv wars that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. 3. Prevent significant, unavoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible. -l. Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the Project (if approved) in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved. 1.3 SCOPE OF THIS DRAFT EIR An initial study and Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) was prepared for the Project.An initial study is intended to assist in the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) by focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, identifying the effects determined not to be significant, explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant and identifying the type of EIR to be prepared (CCR Section 15063 (c) (3)). The IS/NOP was legally- noticed and distributed to the State Clearinghouse on Atiqust 27, 2012, State Clearinghouse (SCH) # 2012082101 (attached in Appendix A). The initial study identified traffic and circulation as being a potentially significant and unavoidable impact. As a result, pursuant to CCR Section 15161 this Project EIR focusing on traffic and circulation was prepared and circulated for review. This Draft I All citations in this EIR refer to California Code of Regulations,Title 14,Chapter 3 and will subsequently be referred to as CCR unless otherwise noted,commonly referred to as CEQ A Guidelines. ADMINISTRATIVE DRIFT EIR/1.0 INTRODUCTION 475 ECCLES_ VENI_?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION EIR examines all the phases of the Project including planning, construction and operation. Comments on the NOP are identified and incorporated into the Draft EIR. The IS/NOP and background studies are contained in the_appendix of this Draft EIR. This Draft EIR has been prepared on behalf of the City- of South San Francisco in accordance with the California Environmental Quality- _pct (CEQA). This chapter outlines the purpose of and overall approach to the preparation of the EIR on the Project. 1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION This Draft EIR is organized into the following chapters. 1 INTRODUCTION summarizes the purpose and organization of the Draft EIR. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY summarizes environmental consequences that would result from the implementation of the Project, provides a summary- table that identifies any significant environmental impacts, describes mitigation measures, and indicates the level of significance of impacts before and after mitigation. 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION describes the Project and related legislative, adjudicative and ministerial approvals and actions required including the agencies involved in the actions. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION describes the environmental setting, including applicable plans and policies, provides an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project and cumulative impacts, and identities mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts. Section 4.0 focuses on traffic and circulation only. 5 ALTERNATIVES summarizes three alternatives to the Project and the comparative environmental consequences and benefits of each alternative. The No Project Alternative, and tvo reduced density-alternatives both consisting of reduced floor area ratios (FAR); a 0.5 FAR_alternative and a 0.75 FAR_alternative are analyzed. 6 EFFECT'S FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT summarizes the environmental effects found not to be significant and therefore not analyzed based upon the analysis contained in the initial study. 7 CEQA REQUIRED CONCLUSIONS contains the discussion on cumulative and growth inducing impacts and significant irreversible environmental changes. 8 REPORT PREPARATION identifies the Lead Agency and consultants involved in the preparation of this Draft EIR. 9 REFERENCES contains a brief identification of references and people contacted in the preparation of this EIR. _additionally, all references, organizations, and persons consulted during preparation of this Draft EIR and initial study are contained within the text of the documents and the appendices. OCTOBER,2012 DRIFT EIR/1.0 INTRODUCTION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 1-2 1.0 INTRODUCTION APPENDICES to this Draft EIR include the IS including its appendices and the comments on the NOP. 1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS The City, as noted above, has filed an NOP with the State Clearinghouse, indicating that this Draft EIR has been completed and is available for review and comment. Tliis Draft EIR will be available for review I)y the public and interested parties, agencies, and organizations for a review period of at least 45 days, as required 1)v California law. Pursuant to state law (Public Resources Code Section 21091(d)(3)) the City will accept e-mail comments in lieu of mailed or hand-delivered comments; however, reviewers are encouraged to follow up any email comments with letters. Reviewers should focus on the document's adequacy in identifying and analyzing the Project's significant effects on the environment and wars in which the significant effects of the Project miglit be avoided or mitigated (CCR Section 15204(a)). Comments may be submitted in writing during the 45-day public review period to: Mr. Billy Gross Associate Planner 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080 Billy.gross@ss£net Responses to comments will be prepared and published in a Final EIR. The Final EIR will be available to all commenting agencies at least 10 days prior to certification, in accordance with CEQ A requirements. The City will review the Final EIR (which includes the Draft and Final documents including the initial saidy) for adequacy and will exercise its independent judgment regarding certification pursuant to the requirements of CCR Section 15090. The City will consider certification of the Final EIR and then consider the Project separately for approval or denial. Findings on the feasibility of avoiding or reducing the Project's significant environmental effects will be made and, if necessary, a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be prepared should the City choose to approve the Project. A Notice of Determination (NOD) will be prepared and filed with the State Clearinghouse if the City approves the Project. The NOD will include a description of the Project, the date of approval, and an indication of wlietlier Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared. The NOD will also provide the address where the EIR and record of Project approval are available for review. ADMINISTRATIVE DRIFT EIR/1.0 INTRODUCTION 475 ECCLES_ VENI_?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 1-3 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 INTRODUCTION This section summarizes the information and analyses presented in this Draft EIR. CCR Section 13123 requires an EIR to include a brief summary of the information presented in an EIR in language as clear and as simple as reasonably- practical. Therefore, this section presents a brief description of the proposed 475 Eccles _venue Project and a discussion of the potential environmental impacts of the Project and the measures recommended to mitigate these impacts. 2.2 PROJECT SUMMARY LOCATION The Project site is located in the Cit< of South San Francisco, south of the Cit< of Brisbane and north of the City- of San Brno. The City- of South San Francisco is built on the Bay- plain and on the northern foothills of the Coastal range. The City- is located along major transportation routes including U.S. 101, Interstate 380, Interstate 280, and the Union Pacific Railroad. The Project site is within the City's East of 101 _area. This area consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land, and is bounded by San Francisco Bad- on the east side, U.S. 101 and railway- lines on the west, the City of Brisbane on the north, and San Francisco International Airport on the south. The East of 101 Area is mostly- developed and has a mix of land uses, including industry-, warehousing, retail, offices, hotels, marinas, and bioscience research and development (R&D) facilities. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS' The Project site is a 6.1 acre parcel currently- developed with an approximate 152,000 square foot concrete tilt-up office/warehouse building consisting of a 114,000 square foot building footprint and a mezzanine. The building was constrcted in the 1960's and has been occupied by professional, scientific and technical services and direct selling establishments since being constrcted. _asphalt pared driveways, parking lots accommodating approximately 276 vehicles and Nvalkway areas surround the building. The frontage of the parcel along Eccles Avenue is sparsely- landscaped and the parking areas are minimally- landscaped. The site is relatively level with surface elevations ranging from +68 feet above mean sea level (1ISL) in the north eastern parking lot area to +63 feet 1ISL 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. The _applicant is requesting various approvals to demolish an existing building and associated parking, to constrct a new life science campus (R&D) consisting of tvo ' The Project is more fully defined in Chapter 3 the Project Description. ADMINISTRATIVE DRIFT EIR/2.0 E_-,,-ECLTTIti E SLT�,PdARY 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 2-1 2.0 EXECUTIVE SU1IILARY buildings that together would comprise 262,287 square feet, and a fire-level parking structure with limited surface parking Both R&D 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. The parking garage would accommodate 551 parking spaces and an additional 104 surface parking spaces would initially- be provided (a ratio of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building space). Up to 53 additional surface level landscaped parking spaces may be added at a later date based upon City-review and approval. 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- fibre feet for overall site grading. The maximum depth of cut for deepened footing excavations would be approximately-20 feet. The site is currently developed. Approximately 87 percent of the site is impervious surface consisting of building footprint and surface parking. The Project would reduce impervious surface an additional 14 percent resulting in 27 percent of the site being porous. 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). Environmental mitigations are proposed as part of the Project. The mitigations include construction and operational design elements addressing environmental sustainability. The Project proposes LEED Silver level design and operational elements. The Project, in addition to the City- required Bad- Area _fir Quality- Management District Tier 1 and 2 air quality and dust control measures proposes additional measures addressing architectural coatings and finishes. The Project applicant is requesting approval of a Transportation Demand Management Program targeting a 30 percent mode shift. The Project will characterize and remediate as required by law oil found in a concrete sump area inside the building (see the attached initial stud-). DRAFT FIR/2.0 E_-,,-ECLTTIVE SLR\,PdARY 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 2-2 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUNLVARY 2.3 AREAS OF CONTROVERSYAND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED/COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION Responses to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this EIR, which was prepared and circulated for review I)y the City- of South San Francisco, identified key issues to be addressed during the environmental review of the Project. Fibre letters were received on the NOP,are summarized below and included in appendix B. Four were received within the 30 dap period commencing on august 31, 2012 and ending on September 30, 2012, and one outside the review period. As noted in Chapter I, Introduction: _fin initial stud- and Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) was prepared for the Project. _fin initial stud- is intended to assist in the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) by focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, identifying the effects determined not to be significant, explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant and identifying the type of EIR to be prepared (CCR Section 15063 (c) (3)). The IS/N()P was legally noticed and distributed to the State Clearinghouse on _ tigList 27, 2012, State Clearinghouse (SCI) # 2012082101 (attached in Appendix A). The initial stud- identified traffic and circulation as being a potentially significant and unavoidable impact. As a result, pursuant to CCR Section 15161 this Project EIR focusing on traffic and circulation was prepared and circulated for review. Comments on the NOP 1. Caltrans, Erik Alm, District Branch Chief, September 6, 2012. Mr. _elm provides comments on the district's expectations for the traffic analysis. Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigations addresses the traffic impact analysis scope requested. 2. San Francisco International Airport (SFO), John Bergener, Airport Planning Manager, September 19, 2012. Mr. Bergener requests that the EIR address airport land use compatilbility safety- and noise impacts of the Project with respect to its proximity- to SFO. The initial study addresses these potential impacts and found them to be less than significant, as summarized below. Tlierefore, these impacts will not be addressed in the EIR. Initial Studp, Section 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 3.12 Noise address the safety- and noise issues raised by 1fr. Bergner. The Project would be 142 feet below the 300 foot height limit for safety-. The wireless antenna,which is no longer included in the proposed Project, would have been located on the fifth level of the parking garage. The maximum height would have been 126 feet alboye mean sea level, or 174 feet below the 300 foot height limit. Chapter 6, Effects DRAFT EIR/2.0 E_-,,-ECLTTIVE SLR\,PdARY 475 ECCLES_ VENI_?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 2-3 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUNLVARY found not to be Significant, summarizes the initial study findings. The initial study is also included in Appendix A of this EIR. Noise impacts were evahiated and found to be less than significant, see page 3-20 of the initial saidy. FAA Form 7460-1 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration is required as a condition of Project approval (Mr. Bill-Gross,_associate Planner). 3. City/County Association of Government, San Mateo County (C/CAG), Dave Carbone, C/CAG Staff, September 24, 2012. Mr. Carbone requests that both the wireless antenna and the building be disclosed on the FAA Form 7460-1 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration. Mr. Carbone expressed concern that the water feature for the Project may attract birds that could pose a hazard to the airport and cited the Federal _aviation _administration (FAA) _advisory Circular 150/5200-33B "Hazardous Wildlife_attractions on or Near_airports" as a reference. Circular 150/5200-33B provides recommendations for separation of certain types of land uses and aircraft activit<. %arious t<pes of water facilities are defined in the circular. Water management facilities are defined as drinking water intake and treatment facilities, storm water and wastewater treatment facilities, associated retention and settling ponds, ponds built for recreational use, and ponds that result from mining activities are noted as often attracting large numbers of potentially hazardous wildlife (Section 2-3 of the circular). The Project does not propose arty such features. Other FAA recommendations address aquaculaire, agriculture, wetlands, golf courses and airport-related landscaping. The circular notes that depending on its geographic location, landscaping can attract hazardous wildlife. The FAA recommends that airport operators approach landscaping with caution and confine it to airport areas not associated with aircraft movements, but does not appear to speak on non-airport owned landscaping Section 2-8 of the circular addresses synergistic effects of surrounding land uses. The guidelines note that: There may be circumstances where tvo (or more) different land uses that would not, I)v themselves, be considered hazardous wildlife attractants that are in such an alignment with the airport as to create a wildlife corridor directly through the airport and/or surrounding airspace. _fin example noted in the circular is a lake located on one side of an airport and a hayfield located on another that together could create a flyway for Canada geese directly across the airspace of the airport. The circular does indicate that there are numerous examples of synergistic land uses. The circular seems to focus on larger scale water and land use features. The Project would construct a water feature six feet in height and width surrounded on three DRAFT EIR/2.0 E_-,,-ECLTTIVE SLR\,PdARY 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 2-4 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUNBIARY sides 1)y slate. The feature would be surrounded on three sides 1)y tvo four-story- office buildings and one fire-level parking garage. The proposed water feawre does not seem to match the scale of concerns identified in the circular, see Figure 2.1 below. As a result the Project would not have a significant impact related to attraction of wildlife that could interfere with aircraft fliglit zones. l w v- FIGURE 2.1 Proposed Water Feature 4. San Mateo County Department of Public Works, Mark Chow, Principal Civil Engineer, October 3, 2012. Mr. Chow requests that the EIR address stormwater infiltration into the Colma Creek. Mr. Chow is concerned that the Project is outside the fiscal District and flood Zone boundaries. Therefore the Project would not be required to provide fees for flood Zone maintenance. Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality of the initial study (page 3-56) fully describes the requirement levied 1)y the City- to filter and retain stormwater on site. Stormwater from the Project would not enter Colma Creek. Hydrology and water quality- were found to be less than significant impacts and are not addressed in the EIR. 3. C/CAG, Mr. Hoang, September 26, 2012. Mr. Hoang requests the traffic impact stud- address Congestion Management Plan (C1IP) intersections. In summary- C/CAG submitted the following specific comments: C/C.AG requires evalhiation of arty impacted C1IP freeway, roadNvav or intersection location. Resl2onse: There are no C1IP intersections in South San Francisco. The only C1IP roadway in the City- is El Camino Real, which would receive no significant impact from the Project due to its distance from the site. U.S. 101 is a CMP facility- and would receive a measurable amount of Project traffic, as summarized liere and described in detail in Chapter 4 of this EIR U.S. 101 Freeway Expected Impacts DRAFT EIR/2.0 E_-,,-ECLTTIVE SLR\,BfARY 475 ECCLES_ VENI_?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 2_5 2.0 EXECUTIVE SU:NBIARY Response: The minimum acceptable CMP level of service (LOS) on the U.S. 101 freeway- from the San Francisco Count- line to I-380 is LOS E. All segments of the U.S. 101 freeway- evaluated in the 475 Eccles Draft EIR have AM and RNI pear hour LOS D or better operation for existing and 2015 conditions (with or without the Pro)ect). For 2035 conditions, the freeway-would have acceptable LOS E or better operation at all locations during the P1I pear hour, but unacceptable LOS F northbound and southbound operation during the AM peak hour north of the Oyster Point interchange (with or without the Pro)ect). However, the 475 Eccles Project should not have a significant C/CAG-related impact on any C1IP facility- for the following reasons: a) In 2035 the Project would be generating less than 100 net new trips on the U.S. 101 freeway- during both the AM and P1I pear hours (95 AM pear hour trips and 78 PSI peak hour trips). Please note that the C/C AG criteria for evaluation is 100 or more net new trips on a CMProadway, not just 100 or more net new trips. While the Project will be generating more than 100 net new trips during the AM peak hour, less than 100 will be traveling on the C1IP facility-. b) C1IP enabling legislation allows the reduction in vohime on a C1IP freeway- segment those trips that are interregional (i.e. trips that originate outside San Mateo County) in the determination of level of service. The C/C AG LOS and Performance Monitoring Project, Table -1 (2011) indicates that the interregional trips on the U.S. 101 freeway- in South San Francisco are more than 99 percent southbound during the PSI peak hour. While no interregional percentages are presented for either direction on the freeway during the AM peak hour or northbound during the PNI peak hour a reasonable estimate for these other periods would have the interregional component on the 101 freeway in South San Francisco well over 90 percent. Removal of 90 plus percent of vehicles from the determination of year 2035 freeway level of service north of the Oyster Point interchange during the AM peak hour operation would result in an acceptable LOS A. Therefore, based upon these criteria, the 475 Eccles Project should not have a significant C/CAG-related impact on any C1IP facility. 2.4 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS, RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 2.1 Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, summarizes the impacts associated with the Project, recommended mitigation measures, the level of significance after mitigation and the timing and person/agency- responsible for the mitigation. The table summarizes Project impacts within three categories: Less Than Significant with Mitigation; Significant and Unavoidalble; and Less Than Significant and No Mitigation Required. Project related and cumulative DRAFT EIR/2.0 E_-,,-ECLTTIVE SLR\,BfARY 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 2-6 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUABIARY impacts relate to traffic and circulation only. Chapter 6, Effects found not to be Significant, contains a brief summary-of the Initial Sthidv. DRAFT FIR/2.0 E�ECLTTIVE SLR\,PdARY 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 2-7 4 4 7E 0 z o o � zH o ci u u U U °3 u °3 u o � � � .Fo � � o O C u U . z F W u .� v� .y W .� v� .y W u u U CU u U H ' • • • • • • • • • z 0 u � U � Z � 141 a) tp z � y [� u �C i° ° ° ° ° p O b�A b�A W (� u u C7 N U u N U u Q W O n V Q ° U u a W 0.-i' ti u y" bO O- U p� �O a O •� U 0 O bq O .; C V - O w U z o u � O bJ O GQ�B . aj .u. cl 0 u . o u o w 7� '� u `+=' C Oi aui °� ' O N u B a) B O — U a p 7� O u u 0 W° ay' o o W W u W U a.. u ' a a - u o O o bO oo u '� O ^— ay' N u u ,u, i C ° TI. O ° W CA � W �1 loo z o u u W W a O a O a O Z H C7 � Qw � Qw � Qw U L U C7 Poll � o o ao o ao o 4 w a a o w w Q y Z O a o y o Zt CIA H N � m m IT y cl,, Nly U U W W N U U s-i W °u p U -It u It O a �O d U .0 Q rW Ln � U ; o o � 'a") �T- u Cl) � 0. xa O ap _C) O U O 0. U U N y �+" U U s,, z p U y U o 0.� u R b �S N ' 'a o a) w v B _o . o w O Z °' W B a a a Cl, o o ° a o U �, U U '� Ora `+-� U � �' � U o "5 oLr, ° a U o CJJ B U B u 14-1 u O '0. 0. O b!J �-^ Cl, bb r O b!J U U v C ^6, � v .0 0. Ln a" �� .0 U v ti U i .0 U C/1 U O 0. u p U m U �' O u U '�' U U m U U U +' U zo7E IS �UL) � N L". w U " �-- a r. � U O 4 a � o Z E0 C7 g o O w7w Poll ,4 aas a o U ° " a a C O C o U C) tc 0 U 142 ° [� b1J 'Qb'o �: O a o O o�N � °� w, � � " � a � a, ti a � w o [� U 0 7 � � � � o � a) z � C7 a) N a apo aap °' u W o ap 'map o w �U a) z x N ° j y� J U W w H i u ob w U o U M bq, c� 'U U U W U,at U E� z Z ° 7� U Bro o O o a a a o y o m o v u map -° CA ao o w o p y w ° u b1 w U U W � x w 0 N v, a, ap u ¢ y ° 7a N Z a C7 a� r O Z O Ll ° Q 141 U CA O W a a v o o o N CS— Poll o y o� o ,y o p w a�i O N � aaB O O v a' -t: u �Ov, N u y.a z FBI • • • y,�' .�' V� � a) � c� � O O '-� a � 7� Z w o °' B . o U ° o ° p y w u o x° u p B w UW W U U It ) "5 b!J u 1401 141 w .v, O w U o O Ln v a) m 'S o qa �N .- Q �)- U B " Ln a B a y o � a °' p Z �° x� o 0 0 0 N o �, o o C � o U � �T, N g � U -i U U +' O U u ONTO a a � o � o O � t° o a o r C N a U bO a U N U A 7E 7� w Iw.l W bl 6 bO y U N u W x w � U o x V d C' ° ZR ° . u � a H B a r �' O Z H u m "u O - � � � u � y O � y � x u u u u rW � i� � a � aaaaaa � aa � U W W 0 N 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 INTRODUCTION Chapter 3 provides a description of the proposed 475 Eccles venue R&D Project and the related actions that comprise the Project analyzed in this EIR. CCR Section 15124 requires that the project description in an EIR contain the following information but should not provide extensive detail beyond that needed for evahiation and review of the environmental impact. The Project Description shall contain the/a: 1. Precise location and boundaries of the project on a detailed map and regional map. 2. Statement of the objectives of the project. 3. General description of the characteristics of the project, including the principal engineering proposals and supporting public service facilities. 4. Statement briefly describing the intended use of the EIR to the extent that the information is known by the Lead_agency including a list of agencies expected to use the EIR; permits and other approvals required to implement the project; related environmental review and consultation requirements required by federal , state, or local laws, regLilations, or policies and to the fullest extent possible the lead _agency should integrate CEQA review with these related review and consultation requirements. 3.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CONDITIONS PROJECT LOCATION The Project site is located in the Cit< of South San Francisco, south of the City of Brisbane and north of the City- of San Bruno. The City- of South San Francisco is located on the San Francisco Bay plain and the northern foothills of the Coastal range. The City-is located along major transportation routes including U.S. 101, Interstate 380, Interstate 280, and the Union Pacific Railroad (see Figure 3.1 Project Location). The Project site is located within the City- of South San Francisco's East of 101 _area. The East of 101 Area consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land, and is bounded by San Francisco Bay on the east and south sides, U.S. 101 and railway lines on the west, and the City- of Brisbane on the north. San Francisco International _airport is located approximately- 1.75 miles south of the Project site. The Plan Area is mostly- developed and has a mix of land uses, including industry,warehousing, retail, offices, hotels, marinas, and bioscience research and development facilities. Regionally the Project site is accessible from the north west via the US 101 Oyster Point Boulevard off- and on-ramps and from the south west by the 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. ADMINISTRATIVE DRIFT EIR/3.0 PROTECT DESCRIPTION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 3-1 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION i r w m �a m a wA G% Colima Y��rare n io m ?w Fil antll 'W San Bruno SGkND U-hairNdmwr'icu r FIGURE 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION ADMINISTRATIVE DRIFT FIR/3.0 PROTECT DESCRIPTION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 3-2 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION LAND USE ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT SITE Surrounding land uses are a mix of light industrial, manufacturing and R&D. _adjacent land uses include open space owned by Southern Pacific Railway- that previously- contained rail tracks to the north, north-west. 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- (an art supply- distributor) are located at 490 Eccles _venue, east of the site. Industrial strictures 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. 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 manv transformations. Pioneering industrial uses, such as steel manufacturing, and meat packaging gave way- to industrial park and warehousing and distribution uses that came to dominate the area in the 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 strictures 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 constnict new mixed office and R&D developments 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 the past half dozen rears the East of 101 Area has witnessed expansion of the Genentech R&D 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 rears throughout the area. Some examples include office and R&D in Oyster Point; and office/ R&D on three sites along East Grand _venue; 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 2035.1 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. In summary, the East of 101 Area represents a transition from the historic industrial use of the area as witnessed by the mix of bioscience R&D, industry-, warehouse, retail, office, marina, and hotels uses. Two child care centers are located in the Project area: one at 599 Gateway Boulevard 0.3 miles from the site and one at 444 Allerton Avenue 0.4 miles from 1 These figures are for R&D Crane Transportation Group, Jule, 3013 and are identified in the Traffic and Circulation Section and in the initial study contained in the Appendix. '-East of 101 Traffic Model land use classifications and square footage for 2015. ADMINISTRATIVE DRIFT FIR/3.0 PROTECT DESCRIPTION 475 ECCLES_ VENI_?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 3-3 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION the Project site. There are no sensitive receptors located within a 0.25 mile radius of the Project site. SITE CONDITIONS The Project site is a 6.1 acre parcel currently- developed with an approximate 152,145 square foot building consisting of an 114,000 square foot building footprint and a mezzanine. _asphalt pared driveways, parking lots and walkway areas surround the site. The frontage of the parcel along Eccles Avenue is sparsely- landscaped and the parking areas are minimally- landscaped. The single building on the site is a concrete tilt-up office/warehouse structure that was constructed in the 1960's is located on the site. The site is relatively level with surface elevations ranging from +68 feet above mean sea level (1ISL) in the north eastern parking lot area to +63 feet 1ISL along the abandoned railroad spur area at the rear (north) of the existing building. A fill slope approximately- fire feet in height separates the parking lot from the former railroad spur area. The Project site has been occupied by professional, scientific and technical services and direct selling establishments since 1970 according to various City- directories. Users include William Volker & Company-, _ETC Partners, Ocular Sciences Incorporated identified as professional, scientific and technical services and Otagiri Mercantile a direct selling establishment. 3.3 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. 1laimum 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 (TD:N ), off-site improvement, or specific design standards. ADMINISTRATIVE DRIFT FIR/3.0 PROTECT DESCRIPTION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 3-4 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 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 (Nvww.ssfnet/). 3.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The Applicant has identified objectives of the Project. Specifically the Applicant states that their objective is to "maximize implementation of General Plan policies and provisions that: ➢ Encourage redevelopment and intensification of development to accommodate land uses such as Research&Development. ➢ Encourage opportunities for the continued evolution of the City's economy, from manufacturing and warehousing/distribution to high technology and biotechnology. ➢ Promote small business incubation. ➢ Encourage the creation of a campus environment in the East of 101 area that targets and accommodates the biotech/R&D industry. ➢ Promote campus-style biotechnology uses. ➢ Maximize building heights in the East of 101 area. ➢ Encourage the use of Transportation Demand Management measures designed to achieve environmental goals by permitting an increased Floor Area Ratio when such measures are included in a project. ➢ Maximize opportunities for strong and sustainable economic growth that results in high quality jobs, in a manner that respects the environment by redeveloping an infill site that is close to major arterials and existing utilities. ➢ Feasibly support the provision of environmental enhancements that exceed standard building requirements, such as qualifying for LEED certification." ADMINISTRATIVE DRIFT FIR/3.0 PROTECT DESCRIPTION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 3_5 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SITE DESCRIPTION BMR-475 Eccles Avenue LLC (13MR) is the Applicant for the life science campus and owner of the 6.1 acre' Project site. The site is currently developed with an approximately 1,52,14'54 square foot building consisting of an 114,000 square foot footprint with a mezzanine. _asphalt pared driveways, parking lots and walkway areas surround the site consisting of approximately 152,000 square feet° of paved area (see Figure 3.2 Existing Conditions). The concrete tilt-up office/warehouse stricture was constricted in the 1960s and was originally designed to house freight forwarding uses. The remainder of the site is primarily surface parking with small sparsely landscaped areas along the Eccles _venue frontage and edges of the site. _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 thick 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-, based on review of City building permit records. 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 1ISL 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 (Clear- Geoteclinical and Cotton Shires Geotechnical consultants). PROPOSED PROJECT The _applicant is requesting various approvals to demolish the existing building and associated parking, and to constrict a new life science campus consisting of tvo buildings that together would comprise 262,287 square feet, a fire-level parking stnicaire and limited surface parking (see Figure 3.3 Proposed Conditions). Following is a list of the required approvals. 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. The analysis contained in the initial study rounded up to 1,55,000 square feet for geology-,hydrology-,air quality-and other impact analyses. approximately 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. ADMINISTRATIVE DRIFT FIR/3.0 PROTECT DESCRIPTION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 3-6 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION i l I 1 i i li i i f i 1 i h I � 1 FIGURE 3.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ADMINISTRATIVE DRIFT FIR/3.0 PROTECT DESCRIPTION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 3-7 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION REQUIRED APPROVALS LEAD AGENCY LEGISLATIVE ➢ Development Agreement. BMR seeks a Development Agreement to vest the approvals of the Project for seven rears with a live-rear extension (i.e., up to 12 years), provided BMR 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 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 located on the site. ➢ Design Review approval. MINISTERI U ➢ Grading and Building permits. ➢ Encroachment permits to work in the public right-of-way. OTHER AGENCY REQUIRED PERMITS ➢ Bap Area Air Quality Management District "J Permit" as described in Chapter 1, Introduction, Section 1.2.13 of the initial study (see Appendix A) 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) for site remediation (if necessary-) 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 _venue. Vehicular access to the Project site would be obtained via three existing locations off of Eccles _venue; one driveway would be replaced ADMINISTRATIVE DRIFT FIR/3.0 PROTECT DESCRIPTION 475 ECCLES AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 3-8 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION with curb, knitter and sidewalk. _access points would be midpoint and at the eastern and western edges of the site (see Figures 3.2 and 3.3). 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 and is also required by the City- Engineering Division and NVater Quality- Plant. The plan proposes 20 planted water treatment and retention areas. i 4e r " ' � 4 )y' � i bi`,, r i ,,,, y u .,.,;wl,;� .✓ L r- FIGURE 3.3 PROPOSED CONDITIONS NEW CONSTRUCTION BUILDINGS The Project would constnict 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 skinned stnicture 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 ADMINISTRATIVE DRIFT FIR/3.0 PROTECT DESCRIPTION 475 ECCLES_ VENI_?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 3-9 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION metal finish and insulation are proposed at opaque areas above ceiling line and from floor level to a height of Y-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 saslies within eacli stnictural bav at eacli floor. Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete (GFRC`') 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 will contain recycled materials. The buildings may be connected by an enclosed bridge. Lastly, the tvo buildings would have one loading zone eacli. 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 stricture and 104 would be provided in surface parking lots. 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. hi order to constrict the additional 53 parking spaces, 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. The fibre-level parking stnicture would feature colored screens and sculptural stair canopies. A bridge from the parking stricture, extending across the central drive, would provide pedestrian access to the central cotirtvard. Landscaping and screening at the lower level of the parking stricture are proposed in addition to the City- code required green roof on parking strictures (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- fibre feet of overall site grading. The maximum depth of cut for deepened footing excavations is approximately- 20 feet, althotigli the geoteclinical report indicates most footings would be one to fire feet in deptli J,: dated Geoteckiiull Inr ertigrtioli Report 4f ,Va'elaee Capper, 475 Eccles Ar elaue, ,South ,Vali Fialiti.reo, Ca iforliz'a' Clear- 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. See Initial Study, Chapter 3, Section 3.7 Geology and Soils in Appendix A. 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. 6 GFRC panels are reinforced with glass fiber to create lightweight panels for the cladding of opaque surfaces on buildings. ADMINISTRATIVE DRIFT FIR l 3.0 PROTECT DESCRIPTION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 3-10 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 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. 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 15-gallon tree to be planted for every fibre parking spaces. The Project would be required to plant 142 trees (assuming 708 parking spaces) 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 (hap, laurel, oak, juniper and others) 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 small area of turf. 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. DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION PHASING The Project may proceed in a single phase or in tvo phases depending on market demand. The parking stnucture providing 551 spaces and 55 of the surface parking spaces would be built in the first phase should the Project be constructed in tvo phases. The remaining 49 surface parking spaces would be built as part of the second phase of construction. 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 construction schedule would consist of an initial phase of seventeen months for Building A and the parking garage, ADMINISTRATIVE DRIFT FIR/3.0 PROTECT DESCRIPTION 475 ECCLES_ VENI_?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 3-11 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION and second phase of seventeen months for Building B. These phases may be separated by a few months or several years depending upon market demand. The CEQ A analysis (contained in the initial study and represented in Chapter 4, Traffic and Circulation of this EIR) assumes one phase of construction. The assumption represents a reasonable worst case analysis of potential Project impacts with respect to the level of intensity-on the site at and given time. SITE DEMOLITION AND PREPARATION Site demolition and preparation would follow the same process regardless of wliether the Project is constructed in one or tvo phases and would 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\TTPP) would be implemented to provide erosion control measures. A temporary construction site fence would be erected. During this time additional site characterization would be conducted to assess the oil staining inside the building. A licensed hazardous materials contractor would be on site to conduct the work. Up to fire workers would be on site during this process, which would take approximately-a week. Two liydraulic excavators and tvo skid steer bobcat loaders would start the building; demolition process. Site characterization would be completed during the building demolition phase, and if needed a remediation plan developed and approved by the City- (As advisory and informational) throtigli the San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health (see Section 3.6.D, below for additional information). One water truck would be on site at all times to minimize construction 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-fibre to thirty hauling trucks would enter and exit the site daily- to off haul waste debris. This process would take approximately one month. 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 catcli 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 catcli basin surveving, 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 witli the civil drawings. Chie 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. ADMINISTRATIVE DRIFT EIR/3.0 PROTECT DESCRIPTION 475 ECCLES_ VENI_?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 3-12 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 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. CONSTRUCTION' The following describes a reasonable schedule for constniction in tvo phases and in one phase. Constniction is dependent upon market demand and therefore could be delayed substantially. The demolition schedule would be the same for either constnuction schedule. ONE PHASE CONSTRUCTION Under the one-phase construction 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 structural engineer. Any site remediation would follow the protocol identified in Section 3.6.D below. Similarly, testing and an ilysis of ground water conditions would determine the proper approach to address any perched and/or static groundwater. Constriction of Building A and the parking structure would precede constnuction of Building B. Constniction of Building A is estimated to start in May or June, 2013. Building B would be constricted after Building A, with constniction starting approximately five weeks later, in July, 2013. The completion of the parking stnicture 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 year. TWO PHASE CONSTRUCTION If construction proceeds in tvo phases, Building A on the northeast corner of the Project site and the parking stricture would be constricted 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 geoteclinical site characterization would be performed by 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. Stnzctural fill and compaction work would be done according to recommendations of the structural 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. The estimated start and completion titres for construction are illustrative and should be construed as to provide an overall schedule of events. Actual start titres would likely vary 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. ADMINISTRATIVE DRIFT FIR/3.0 PROTECT DESCRIPTION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 3-13 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Construction Phase 2: Commencement of constniction of Building B is projected to follow the completion of Building A by 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. 3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT The following measures are proposed as part of the Project, are shown on the arcliitectural drawings (sheet P.A.L I a), in application materials and identified in the initial stud- for the Project (Appendix). These measures are in addition to the City's standard requirements identified in Chapter I of the initial study satire for Air Quality items 1-3 and are desigY�ed to reduce the environmental affect of the Project. A. AIR QUALITY AND GREEN HOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTION MEASURES 1) BASIC FUGITIVE DUST EMISSIONS REDUCTION MEASURES. The construction contractor shall reduce construction-related air pollutant emissions by implementing B AQ:NID's basic fugitive dust control measures. Therefore, the Project shall include the following requirements in constniction 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 tnicks 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 publically visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead _agency regarding dust complaints. Tliis 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 construction- 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 Regilations). Clear sigiiage shall be provided for constriction workers at all access points. ADMINISTRATIVE DRIFT FIR/3.0 PROTECT DESCRIPTION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 3-14 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ➢ 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 running in proper condition prior to operation. 3) COMPLIANCE WITH BAAQMD REGULATION 11, RULE 2 DURING DEMOLITION. Demolition of existing buildings and structures would be subject to B_ AQ1ID Relnilation 11, Rule 2 (_asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing). B_ AQ1ID Regulation 11, Rule 2 is intended to limit asbestos emissions from demolition or renovation of structures 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 structures 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_ AQ1ID Regulation 11, Rule 2, including specific requirements for surveying, notification, removal, and disposal of material containing asbestos. 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 Regilation 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) (473 Eccles venue Transportation Demand Management Program, Fehr&Peers, October, 2011). The TD:NI Program is aimed at a 30 percent mode shift compared to projects that do not include a TD:NI, to qualify for a 1.0 FAR. The TD:NI 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 TD1l 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/Vanpool hatching services (TD1l coordinator responsibility). 8. Guaranteed ride home (through Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance). ADMINISTRATIVE DRIFT FIR/3.0 PROTECT DESCRIPTION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 3-15 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 9. Information Board for TD:NI Program (in lease agreement). 10. Promotional programs including new employee orientation and TD1I Programs (TD1I coordinator responsibility). 11. Shuttle bus service to Caltrain and BART and downtown Dasher, coordinated with Alliance (TD:NI coordinator responsibility.) 12. Membership in Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance. C. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL DESIGN ELEMENTS ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY The LEED design and constriction 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. 3. A TD1I Program that includes the use of public/privates shuttles providing access to major public transportation hubs. In addition to the requirements for bike parking the Project will include shower/changing room amenities for bike users. 4. The Project will provide adequate preferred parking for low-emitting and alternative fuel vehicles. The Project will 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 constniction 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 (CY) of MEP energy systems, including a requirement for tenant improvement Enhanced Cx and a 10 month post-occupancy return to verify equipment warranty and operational efficiencies. Current energy model targets anticipate a greater than 15°% reduction in ener,y 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 Constniction Waste Management plan that targets at least 75 0'o diversion of landfill waste, with a goal of 95 0'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. ADMINISTRATIVE DRIFT FIR/3.0 PROTECT DESCRIPTION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 3-16 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 11. The Project«%ill 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«%ill conduct, and require tenants to conduct, and Indoor Air Quality- Management Plan for Constniction _activities that requires contractors to comply with S1LACNA LAQ guidelines for best practices during constniction. 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 Services, Inc., March-April, 2012, see Appendix A). During Project demolition minor amounts of asbestos would be removed as electrical equipment is removed providing access to the location of the material. 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 obstructed 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 cover present below that could not be removed. This metal corer was also stained with oil, and the area below could not be assessed. As noted above, this area would be characterized during demolition activities. The _applicant as shown on the plans will conduct the following remediation which is largely standard procedure. The work would be done during the demolition and site preparation phase of the Project. TABLE 3.2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REMEDIATION MEASURES Media Material(s) 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 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 Countv Environmental Health Department(SMCEHD). • 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 SMCEHD and consult for remediation requirements. • Remediation of contaminated soils can be completed during the demolition stage of the Project. ADMINISTRATIVE DRIFT FIR/3.0 PROTECT DESCRIPTION 475 ECCLES_ VENI_?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 3-17 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Media Material(s) Approach 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 • Consult the S:NICEHD for requirements. (ex-situ) (gasoline • Haul and Dispose. fuels, • Aeration—requires a notification to B AAQNID,daily volumes solvents) are limited. • Vapor Stripping—apply vacuum srstern to covered piles,notify B AAQ�,ID. • 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 B AAQNID 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 B AAQ�,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. • Ca in . Groundwater- All • If contaminants are detected in the 30 foot below ground Investigation 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 roundwater. Groundwater SVOCs • Consult B AAQNID for requirements. Remediation • Pump and Treat. ADMINISTRATIVE DRIFT FIR/3.0 PROTECT DESCRIPTION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 3-18 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Media Material(s) Approach (continued) • Bioremediation. • Chemical Oxidation. Groundwater Inorganics • Consult B AAQNID for requirements. Remediation • Pump and Treat. • Chemical Immobilization—inject chemicals to precipitate or chemically fix contaminants to soil particles. 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«%ill be noted on the plans submitted to the City-for issuance of a demolition permit. ADMINISTRATIVE DRIFT FIR/3.0 PROTECT DESCRIPTION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 3-19 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT, AND MITIGATION 4.1.1 INTRODUCTION Chapter 4 corers issue areas that were determined to have impacts that were potentially- significant and therefore require further analysis in this Draft EIR. The impact areas are based upon the analysis contained in the initial study (see Appendix A) conducted for the Project in compliance with the CCR Section 13063 (c)(3)(A). These impact areas include Traffic and Circulation and are further analyzed in this Chapter. Chapter 4 of this Draft EIR contains a discussion of the potential environmental effects as a result of implementation of the Project. Chapter 4 includes information related to existing conditions for traffic and circulation, method of analysis, summary- of impacts, and detailed analysis of the type and magnitude of individual and/or cumulative environmental impacts. 4.1.2 FORMAT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS SETTING PHYSICAL SETTING The Physical Setting subsection describes the existing physical environmental conditions on the Project site and in the Project area to provide the baseline condition against which Project-related impacts are compared. REGULATORY SETTING The Renilatory Setting subsection describes general and regional plans or local, State or federal agency regulations applicable to the Project. This section only includes plans and regulations related to the identified impacts, and does not include a comprehensive list of all the plans and regulations that pertain to each environmental issue area addressed. IMPACT ANALYSIS The Impact_analysis subsection includes analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Project. The impact analysis in this Draft EIR assumes implementation of the Project within 12 rears and contains an analysis of existing year 2011, year 2013, and rear 2033 traffic and circulation conditions. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS This subsection identifies the methodology and major assumptions used to analyze potential environmental impacts. DRIFT EIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,E\]TACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION SUMMARY OF IMPACTS This subsection summarizes the analysis and finding of significance for each issue area. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Each impact is identified by a number and statement of the impact followed by the finding of significance in parentheses. The level of significance is determined by considering the predicted magnitude of the Project's potential for significant impacts in each area. Following the discussion of each stated impact, feasible mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce the severity of identified impact(s) are identified as appropriate. If an impact is not identified for specific significance criteria listed in the section, a brief explanation is provided within the Summary- of Impacts section. Citations for this chapter are contained within the relevant discussion. 4.1.3 LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE Thresholds of significance, beyond which impacts are considered to be significant, are established for each environmental issue analyzed and in the case of the Project are traffic and circulation. The thresholds of significance are based on generally- accepted standards for environmental review, pursuant to CEQ_A, Guidelines and Statutes and federal, state, regional and local significance criteria. While the criterion for determining significant impacts is unique to each environmental topic, the classification of the impacts is uniformly-applied in accordance with the following definitions: NO IMPACT —The Project does not result in an impact. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT - The Project impact would not result in a substantial and adverse change in the environment or does not surpass thresholds of significance, and would not require mitigation. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION - The Project impact may result in a substantial or potentially- substantial, adverse change in the environment and the incorporation of the identified mitigation measures would reduce the potentially- significant impact to a less than significant level. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT - The Project impact may result in a substantial or potentially- substantial, adverse change in the environment, which cannot be reduced to a less than significant level even with implementation of feasible mitigation measures. CUMULATIVELY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, PROJECT CONTRIBUTION LESS THAN CONSIDERABLE - The Project impact exceeds the defined threshold of cumulative based on projected growth for the region; however, analysis indicates that the Project's contribution to the impact is less than considerable. DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-3 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 4.1.4 APPROACH TO CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS CEQA, requires that EIRs identify cumulative impacts, in addition to project-specific impacts. In accordance with CEQ_A,, the discussion of cumulative impacts must reflect the severity of the impacts and the likelihood of their occurrence; however, the discussion need not be as detailed as the discussion of environmental impacts attributable to the project alone. CCR Section 15355 states: "Cutlulatire impacts" ref r to m,o or More inulilidual effects ))hick, »hell eoliSidwedl together, ar e eolifl'do able or»hiClr eompowul or increase other elir z.roliplel&il impacts. (a) The ilidilidual effects P1q), be chal ges resllltiil, fio l a .tingle frfeet or a lauplber of separ ate fr feetr. (b) The euplulatire impact f otl sere al fr jeetr i.r the chali,e ili the eliril'olrt�lelit»hi�lr re.iulti f nl the z.litn lel&il iplpact of the frfeet »hell added, to other closely related past, perelit, alul reasoliably for ereeable f r obable fitur e f r f eetr. Cutlulatir e impacts uxli result fi opl inulil idllar ly Minor but eollectrely Si*gliifzcalitfrfeetr 1�ikin,flare orera poiodl of title. CCR Section 15130(a)(1) further states that "a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts." CCR Section 15130(a) also requires that EIRs discuss the cumulative impacts of a project when the project's incremental effect is "cumulatively considerable.I" N\Iiere a Lead _-gency is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not cumulatively considerable, it need not consider the effect significant but must briefly describe the basis for its conclusion. If the combined cumulative impact associated with the project's incremental effect and the effects of other projects is not significant, CCR Section 15130(a)(2) requires a brief discussion in the EIR of why the cumulative impact is not significant and why- it is not discussed in further detail. CCR Section 15130(x)(3) requires supporting analysis in the EIR if a determination is made that a project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact is rendered less than cumulatively considerable and, therefore, is not significant. CEQ_A, recognizes that the analysis of cumulative impacts need not be as detailed as the analysis of project-related impacts, but instead should "be guided by the standards of practicality- and reasonableness" (CCR Section 15130(b)). The discussion of cumulative impacts in this Draft EIR focuses on whether the impacts of the proposed project are cumulatively considerable. 4.2.1 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION INTRODUCTION This section presents the traffic and circulation impacts resulting from development of the 262,287- square-foot research and development project at 475 Eccles Avenue in the City- of South San i Under Section I5065(n)(3) of the State GEOA Guidelines, "cunmdntivelp considerable" means flint "flee increnentnl effects of nn individual project nre SO, when viewed in comiection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable hiture projects." DRIFT EIR l 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRyNCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-3 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION Francisco (see Traffic Figure 1). Existing (2011), year 2015, and rear 2035 conditions were evaluated by Crane Transportation Group at 16 nearby- intersections and at the nearby- U.S. 101 interchanges that serve the Project that would be most affected by Project traffic. Traffic operations along the U.S. 101 freeway- were also evaluated. Project impacts to intersection level of service, signalization needs, and vehicle queuing as well as impacts to U.S. 101 freeway- mainline operation were estimated and evaluated, as were impacts due to Project access, internal veliicular circulation, and pedestrian circulation. N\Iiere appropriate, excerpts and findings from the following EIRs or traffic studies have been included in this section: Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR (Lamphier- Gregory and Crane Transportation Group, 2011), the Revised Draft Report of the Traffic Stlidv for the East of 101 Area (TJI�1f Transportation Consultants, April, 2012) and the 494 Forbes EIR (Impact Sciences and Crane Transportation Group, 2012). 4.2.2 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Traffic operations were evaluated at 16 intersections during weekday-AM and P1I Pear Hours. Four mainline segments and fire on-and off-ramps of U.S. 101 were also evaluated. Locations of these intersections are shown in Traffic Figure 2, Study Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. All figures referred to follow at the end of Chapter 4. The stady locations are identified below. INTERSECTIONS 1. _airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Ouster Point Boulevard (Signal) 2. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque venue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp (Signal) 3. Dubuque venue/U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp and Southbound On-Ramp (Signal) 4. Ouster Point Boulevard/Gatewav Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp Flyover (Signal) 5. Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue (Signal) 6. Forbes Boulevard/Eccles venue (Signal) 7. Airport Boulevard/Miller venue/U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp (Signal) 8. Airport Boulevard/Grand venue (Signal) 9. Grand venue Overcrossing/Dubuque venue (Signal) 10. East Grand Avenue/Grand Avenue Overcrossing (Signal) 11. East Grand Avenue/Gateway-Boulevard (Signal) 12. East Grand Avenue/Forbes Boulevard/Harbor Way (Signal) 13. U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp/East Grand venue/Executive Drive (Off-Ramp not Signal or Stop Sign Controlled, East Grand Avenue stop sign controlled riglit tarn) 14. Airport Boulevard/San Mateo venue/Produce venue (Signal) 15. Gateway Boulevard/South airport Boulevard/Mitchell venue (Signal) 16. South airport Boulevard/U.S. 101 Northbound Hook Ramps/Wondercolor Lane (Signal) MAINLINE SEGMENTS OF U.S. 101 1. North of Oyster Point Boulevard, northbound direction 2. North of Oyster Point Boulevard, southbound direction 3. North of I-380, northbound direction 4. North of I-380, southbound direction DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,L\]TACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-4 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION U.S. 101 OFF-RAMPs 1. Southbound off-ramp flyover to Oyster Point Blvd./Gatewav Blvd. 2. Southbound off-ramp to Airport Boulevard/Miller venue 3. Northbound off-ramp to South Airport Boulevard/W'ondercolor Lane 4. Northbound off-ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive 5. Northbound off-ramp to Dubuque venue U.S. 101 ON-RAMPs 1. Southbound on-ramp from Dubuque venue 2. Southbound on-ramp from Produce venue 3. Northbound on-ramp from South Airport Boulevard/W'ondercolor Lane 4. Northbound on-ramp from Grand venue 5. Northbound on-ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque venue METHODOLOGY This evahiation analyzed six scenarios of operating conditions which include Existing Conditions; Existing with Project Conditions; 2015 Without Project Conditions; 2015 With Project Conditions; 2035 Without Project Conditions; and 2035 With Project Conditions The Existing Conditions scenario was used to describe the current operating conditions in the Project area. The Project is not anticipated to be completely constructed until 2014 and fully occupied until 2015. Therefore traffic impacts from the Project were evaluated by comparing 2015 "Without Project" Conditions to 2015 "With Project" Conditions. Cumulative impacts resulting from Project traffic is evaluated for 2035 with and without the Project. Also an Existing with Project scenario is presented and compared to existing conditions in order to satisfy CEQ_A, requirements. 4.2.3 SETTING The Setting Section describes the transportation network in the Project area and linking to the Project. Existing operating conditions are also identified. A. 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 Galtrain. San Francisco International _airport is approximately 1.75 miles south of the Project site and U.S. 101 is approximately 1 mile east of the site (see Traffic Figure 1,Area Map). The Project site is served directly by Eccles Avenue, while regional access is provided by the U.S. 101 freeway. Four driveway connections currently exist and three are proposed to be retained to Eccles Avenue. _access to U.S. 101 is provided by a variety of major streets connecting directly or DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-5 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION indirectly- to Eccles _venue, with several route options available. Each roadway is briefly described below, while a schematic presentation of existing intersection approach lanes and controls are presented in Traffic Figure 2. 1. MAJOR REGIONAL ROADWAYS U.S. 101 FREEWAY U.S. 101 is an eight-lane freeway that provides access to the Project area and extends from downtown San Francisco and Northern California to Los Angeles and Southern California. Within the stud- area, U.S. 101 has northbound on-ramps at Grand _venue, South _airport Boulevard (between Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue), and at Ouster 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 Oyster 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, Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway 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 E=ESAVENUE Eccles _venue is a tvo-lane local street that extends in a general southwest to northwest direction between Oyster Point Boulevard and Forbes Boulevard. It 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. For description purposes in this EIR, it is referenced as a north-south 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. DRIFT EIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,L\]TACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES_ VENI_?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-6 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION EAST GRAND A VENUE 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 Way 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 BO ULEVARD 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-. HARBOR 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. This roadway- 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. GATEWAYBOULEVARD Gateway Boulevard is a four-lane major arterial street connecting East Grand _venue with South Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. SOUTHAIRPORT 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. DUBUQUEAVENUE 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. MITCHELL A VENUE Mitchell Avenue is a tvo-lane street running in an east-west direction. Mitchell Avenue connects South_airport Boulevard/Gateway?Boulevard with Harbor Way. DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES_ VENI_?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-7 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Transit service in the stud-area includes local bus service, shuttle service, and regional rail service. Traffic Figire 3,Public Transportation Routes, and Traffic Table 1, Public Transportation Service, show the tv e and frequency-of transit service east of the U.S. 101 freeway-in the Project vicinity, while Traffic Table 2, Caltrain/BART Shuttle Service,lists the shuttle services available in the Project vicinity. 1. Bus SERVICE The San Mateo Count- Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service to South San Francisco. However, currently- there is no SamTrans service east of U.S. 101. Bus routes ruining just west of the U.S. 101 are described below. Bus ROUTE 34 Tanforan Shopping Center—Genera operates along Bayshore Boulevard and _airport Boulevard between Brisbane and the San Bruno BART station in the stud- area. This route operates during; midday- only on weekdays with headways of about 2 hours. BUSROUTE130 Daly- City/Colma BART—South San Francisco operates along Linden Avenue and Grand Avenue in the stud-area. It connects central South San Francisco with the Colma BART station and Daly- City-. This route operates with 20-minute peak period headways and 30- to 60-minute non-peak headways on weekday-s, 30-minute headway-s on Saturdays and 60-minute headway-s on Sundays. Bus RouTE 132 Airport/Linden Arroyo/El Camino operates along Hillside venue and Grand venue connecting to the South San Francisco BART station. Bus Route 132 operates on 30-minute peak period headways and 60-minute non-peal;headways on weekdays and 60-minute headways on Saturdays. Bus Route 292 San Francisco—SF Airport—Hillsdale Shopping Center operates along Airport Boulevard. Bus Route 292 operates with 20- to 30-minute peak headways and 23- to 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 30- to 60-minute headways on Saturdays and Sundays. DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,L\]TACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-8 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION TRAFFIC TABLE I PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICE Frequency AM/PM Services Route Peak Hour Midday Area Served Airport/Linden-Dale Citv and Colma 30/30 30 Airport Blvd./Linden Ave BART Stations (130) South SF BART Station (133) 30/30 '50 Airport Blvd./Linden Ave Sam Trans airport/Linden-Serramonte(133) 30/30 60 Airport Blvd./Linden Ave Palo Alto-Daly City-(390) 30/30 30 South SF BART Bar 3 Redwood City-Cohna BART Station 15/30(a) 1,5(a) El Camino Real/South SF (391) BART Station San:Mateo-SF(393) 30 Airport Blvd./Baden Ave. Caltrain Gilroy-SF 30/30 60 South SF Caltrain Station BART Pittsburg-Daly Cit\ 1,5/1,5 15 Daly City BART Station Fremont-Daly City 1,5/1,5 15 Daly Citv BART Station Richmond-Daly City 1,5/1,5 — Daly City BART Station Dublin-Millbrae 1,5/1,5 15 South SF BART Station Gateway Area 1,5/1,5 — 1000 Gateway,Genentech Bldgs B9,B5 Caltrain Oyster Point Area 30/30(x) — Gull/Oyster Point and 384 Shuttle to Oyster Point SSF Station Sierra Point Area 30/30(x) — 5000 Shoreline Court Utah Grind Area 30/30(x) — Cabot/Allerton Sierra Point Area 35/35 5000 Shoreline Court BART Genentech 1,5/1,5 — Genentech Bldgs B5,B54 Shuttle to Oyster Point Area 33/33(a) — Gull/Oyster Point and 384 SSF Station (Oester Point Utah-Grand Area 33/33(a) — Cabot/Allerton Sollne: J1etopolitarr Tnw,.p watior[ 601)vlvis': orr (511.0,;), PelzilzsIlla Tq#c C:orrsestiorr Relief Alliarrce (colvlvllte.w , C:altnairr 2009.F egrrerrc),of t arr.,t senice is p eserrted in willutes. SF=San Fra116iseo (a) =aze(x;e f ecrrerac), e iod DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES_ VENI_?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-9 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION TRAFFIC TABLE 2 CALTRAIN/BART SHUTTLE SERVICE Shuttle Station Served Schedule Area Served BART eight M&nine Pi\I trips Oyster Point Blvd.,Gull Dr.,Eccles Ave.,Forbes Oyster Point ' Caltrain seven M&seven Pi\I trips Blvd.,Veterans Blvd. BART nine Ai\I&nine Pi\I trips E. Grand Ave.,Utah Ave.,Harbor Way, Utah-Grand Caltrain seven M&seven Pi\I trips Littlefield Ave. Gateway Millbrae BART ten M&twelve Pi\I trips Gateway Blvd.,BART Caltrain six M&five Pi\I trips Gateway Blvd.,Genentech Office BART four AM&four P\I trips Sierra Point Sierra Point,Shoreline Caltrain four M&four Pi\I trips �Volln'e:PelzilzsIda Traffic(:olz;estiola BeliefAlliame(GommZlte.ogo), Caltrain 2009. Both skittles alternate beti)een 95-and 30-minute headir,ays dxing both peak hours. 2. CALTRAIN Caltrain provides train service between Gilroy-, San Jose, and San Francisco. There is a station located on the corner of Dubuque venue and Grand venue Overcrossing in South San Francisco. Trains operate every 15 to 20 minutes during commute periods and hourly-during midday-. 3. CALTRAIN/BART SHUTTLES The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance provides bran shuttle service between the South San Francisco Caltrain station and employment centers east of U.S. 101 during commute hours. Separate shuttles also provide service to and from the Colma BART station. As shown in Traffic Figure 3, a shuttle stop is located along the east side of Eccles venue near the north end of the Project site. All shuttle service is fixed-route, fixed-schedule, and provided at no cost on weekdays during the commute periods. Seventy-fibre percent of operating costs are borne by the Joint Powers Board UPB), SamTrans, the Bad- Area _fir Quality- Management District, and the City-/Count- _association of Governments. Twenty-tire percent of operating costs are borne by area employers. C. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES Sidewalks are in place along the west (Pro)ect frontage) side of Eccles _venue and along the north side of Forbes Boulevard in the Project vicinit<. There are no bicycle lanes striped or signed along Eccles Avenue. Proposed future bike lanes, routes, and paths are designated in the General Plan Transportation Element and the Bicycle Master Plan (February, 2011). The Bicycle Master Plan updated and amended the Transportation Element of the General Plan in 2011 to include new routes and facilities. The Bicycle Master Plan is on a t vo-rear, as needed, update schedule and is anticipated to be updated in 2013 (Dennis Chuck, August 8, 2012). Numerous bicycle facilities are available in the DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-10 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION studv area. Bike lanes are available along Sister Cities Boulevard, Ouster Point Boulevard (east of GateNvav _venue), Gull Drive, and Gateway Boulevard (south of East Grand _venue). Bike routes are designated on South _airport Boulevard and on East Grand _venue betveen Executive Drive and the East Grand Overcrossing. Bike paths are available along Executive Drive and Shoreline Court. Future bike lanes are planned along Gateway- Boulevard, East Grand _venue and Forbes Boulevard. D. VOLUMES Existing traffic counts were obtained from the City- Public Works Department for all but one anal ysis location. Counts were conducted in March 2008 or June 2009. Counts at the U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp/East Grand Avenue-Executive Drive intersections were conducted by Crane Transportation Group in June 2009. Traffic Figures 4 and 5 present existing weekday AEI and P1I Peak Hour volumes. E. INTERSECTION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 1. LEVEL OF SERVICE A. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Intersections, rather than roadway segments betveen intersections, are almost always the capacity- controlling locations for arty circulation system. Signalized intersection operation is graded based upon tvo different scales. The first scale employs a grading system called Level of Service (LOS) which ranges from LOS A, indicating uncongested flow and minimum delay- to drivers, to LOS F, indicating significant congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches. The LOS scale is also associated with a control delay tabulation (TRB 2000) at each intersection. The control delay- designation allows a more detailed examination of the impacts of a particular project Greater detail regarding the LOS/control delay relationship is provided in Traffic Table 3, Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria. TRAFFIC TABLE 3 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA Level of Average Control Delay Service Description (Seconds Per Vehicle A Operations with very-low delay occurring with favorable progression <_ 10.0 and/or short cycle lengths. B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or 10.1 to 20.0 short cycle lengths. C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or 20.1 to 35.0 longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. D Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable 35.1 to 55.0 progression,long cycle lengths,and/or high volume-to-capacity- ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression,long 55.1 to 80.0 cycle lengths,and high V/C ratios. Individual ci-cle failures are frequent occurrences.This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to > 80.0 oversaturation,poor progression,or vei--long cycle lengths. Source:2000 Hi,ol»>,ay Ca acatj Manual(Trans ortation Research Board). DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,L\]TACT AND i,IITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-11 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION B. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Unsignalized intersection operation is also ty ically graded using the LOS _� through F scale. LOS ratings for all-wad stop intersections are determined using a methodology outlined in the rear 2000 TRB Highway- Capacity Manual. Under this methodology, all Nvay stop intersections receive one LOS designation reflecting operation of the entire intersection. Average control delay values are also calculated. Intersections with side streets only- stop sign controlled (tvo-wad- stop control) are also evaluated using the LOS and average control delay scales using a methodology outlined in the year 2000 TRB Highway- Capacity Manual. However, unlike signalized or all way stop anal-sis where the LOS and control delay- designations only- pertain to the entire intersection, in side street stop sign control anal ysis LOS and delay- designations are computed for only- the stop sign controlled approaches or individual turn and through movements. Traffic Table 4, Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria, provides greater detail about unsignalized analysis methodologies. C. MYNIMUMACCEPTABLE STANDARD LOS D is the minimum acceptable operation for signalized or all Nvay stop intersections,while LOS E is the minimum acceptable operation for stop sign controlled approaches or turn movements at a side street stop sign controlled intersection. TRAFFIC TABLE 4 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA Level of Description Average Control Delay Service (Seconds Per Vehicle) A Little or no delays <_ 10.0 B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0 C average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0 E Very-long traffic delays 35.1 to X0.0 Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity-exceeded (for F an all-way stop),or with approach/turn movement capacity- > 50.0 exceeded(for a side street stop controlled intersection) Source:2000 Hi,oh»ay Ca acatj Manual(Trans ortation Research Board). All operating conditions were evaluated using the SY NCHRO software program. 2. VEHICLE QUEUING METHODOLOGY The Synchro software program has been used to determine 9th percentile vehicle queues at the following four signalized freeway off-ramp intersections and at the adjacent intersections that need to accommodate flow from the off-ramp intersections: • U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp/Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue intersection and the adjacent Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue intersection • U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp/South Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane intersection • U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp/Ouster Point Boulevard/GateNvav Boulevard intersection DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,L\]TACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-12 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION • U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp/Dubuque venue intersection and the adjacent Ouster Point Boulevard/Dubuque venue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection Off-ramp queuing; was also evaluated on the U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp connection to East Grand venue/Executive Drive. NVhile this off-ramp is not controlled on its approach to this first intersection, East Grand Avenue is signal controlled at its next major intersection to the east (at Grand Avenue OvercrossinQ. Queuing results for this signalized location were evaluated to see if any queuing extended back to the off-ramp. Projections are provided for each off-ramp as well as for turn lanes and other surface street approaches. In addition to Svnchro software queuing evaluation, the SI V Traffic anal-sis program was utilized to determine if freeway off-ramp queues would extend to the freeway mainline. For locations where an auxiliary- lane becomes the off-ramp lane, the storage distance to the freeway-mainline is based upon the location where the auxiliary-lane separates from the adjacent mainline travel lane. QUEUING STANDARDS The standard adopted by the City- of South San Francisco and Caltrans is that the 95"' percentile vehicle queue must be accommodated within available storage for each off-ramp and on the approaches to intersections adjacent to off-ramp intersections that accommodate a significant amount of off-ramp traffic. In addition, no off-ramp traffic is allowed to back up to the freeway- mainline during the entire AEI or PSI peak traffic hour. The 95"' percentile queue indicates that vehicle backups will only extend beyond this length 5 percent of the time during the analysis hour. Queuing analysis is presented in this stud- for Existing, year 2015, and rear 2035 without and with Project conditions. Off-ramp queuing was evaluated using both the Synchro software output,which details queuing for one of the signal cycles during the peak traffic hour, as well as using the SIM traffic feature of the Synchro program,which evaluates off-ramp operation and backups during the entire peak traffic hour. F. U.S. 101 FREEWAY RAMP OPERATION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY OFF-RAMP CAPACITY Caltrans uses a volume of 1,500 vehicles per hour as the maximum acceptable limit that can be accommodated by a single lane off - ramp at its divergence from the freeway-. This threshold was used in this EIR. ON-RAMP CAPACITY On-ramp operation has been evaluated using planning-level methodology contained in HCNI 2000. Capacity is dependent upon the free - flow speed of on-ramp traffic. For single- and double-lane diamond on-ramps with higher speeds, capacity has been set at 2,200 and 3,300 vehicles per hour, respectively. For single-lane button hook or curving on - ramps, capacity has been set at 2,000 vehicles per hour. DRIFT EIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-13 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION G. FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY U.S. 101 freeway- segments were evaluated based on the Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual as specified I)v Caltrans and the San Mateo Count- Congestion Management Program (C1IP). U.S. 101 existing traffic conditions were evaluated for the weekday- AM and P1l Pear Hours. Existing traffic vohimes used for the analysis were derived from year 2009 U.S. 101 mainline counts from Caltrans as pro�-ided I)v TJK1l Associates as part of their wort; for the updating of the City's East of 101 Traffic Modeling. Freeway-mainline analysis was performed using the HCS software based upon the HC1l methodole<� for freeway mainlines. STANDARD LOS E is the minimum acceptable operation for the freeway mainline. H. EXISTING CIRCULATION SYSTEM OPERATING CONDITIONS 1. INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Traffic Table 5, Existing Intersection Levels of Service, shows that all analyzed intersections currently operate at good to acceptable (LOS D or better) levels of service during both the AM and PM peal; traffic hours. 2. INTERSECTION QUEUING Traffic Table 6, 951h Percentile Vehicle Queue, shows that only one intersection currently has 95tI percentile queues exceeding availalble storage: • airport Boulevard/Grand venue: AEI Peak Hour queues in the left turn lane on the southbound_airport Boulevard approacli exceed availalble storage. 3. OFF-RAMP OPERATION Traffic Table 7, Off-Ramp Capacity and Volumes, shows that currently all U.S. 101 freeway off- ramps serving Soutli San Francisco and the East of 101 area are operating acceptalbly and have volumes below 1,500 vehicles per hour during the AEI and Pal peak traffic hours, with the exception of the northbound off-ramp to East Grand venue/Executive Drive during the AEI Peak Hour (with 1,618 vehicles per hour). 4. ON-RAMP OPERATION Traffic Table 8, On-Ramp Capacity and Volumes, shows that currently all U.S. 101 freeway on- ramps serving Soutli San Francisco and the East of 101 area are operating acceptalbly and have vohimes well below capacity-during the AM and P1l Peak Hours. 5. FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION Existing LOS on the freeway- segments in Soutli San Francisco were based on anal ysis of year 2009 vohimes. Traffic Table 9 shows a summary- of existing U.S. 101 freeway operation, while Traffic Table 10 shows details of the existing freeway LOS results. Currently, all U.S. 101 freeway segments are operating at an acceptable LOS D or better during the weekday- AM and P1l Peak Hours. Conditions are generally poorer along U.S. 101 to the north of Oyster Point Boulevard, in both the DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,L\]TACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-14 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION northbound and the southbound directions during the AM Peak Hour, and in the northbound direction during the PSI Peak Hour. 1. YEAR 2015 WITHOUT PROJECT OPERATING CONDITIONS Year 2015 without Project conditions include traffic generated 1)y existing, approved, and proposed development in the stud- area, as well as traffic generated I)v projects that are under constriction. Projects and their associated trip generation are provided in Traffic Table 11, 2015 Without Project Trip Generation, and have been utilized by TJhM associates to develop local area intersection and freeway vohimes for use in the City's updated East of 101 Transportation Capital Improvement Program study. Year 2015 without Project Pear Hour conditions were developed by adding traffic expected to be generated 1)y all the approved and proposed developments in the greater East of 101 Area to the existing; traffic network. Year 2015 projections include traffic from several recently approved background projects such as Gateway Business Parr, Ouster Point Redevelopment Phase 1, 213 East Grand, 328 Roebling Road, Lowe's, Home Depot, Terrabay, the ferry terminal that is currently under construction, and the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan. Year 2015 Without Project AM and P1I Peak Hour intersection vohimes are presented in Traffic Figures 6 and 7. (Tliis area is intentionally left blank) DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES_ VENI_?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-15 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION TRAFFIC TABLE 5 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Existing Existing t Existing Existing Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. G35.6 (1) G35.6 G33.4 G33.5 (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque Aye./ C-31.4(1) C-31.4 G33.1 G33.1 ITS 101 NB On-Ram (Signal) Dubuque Aye./US 101 NB Off-Ramp&SB On-Ramp B-13.0 (1) B-13.0 D-46.1 D-47.0 (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway Blvd./ C-27.9 (l) C-37.9 G33.6 G33.5 L S 101 SB Flyover Off-Ram (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Eccles Ave. (Signal) B-11.1 (1) B-13.7 8-19.8 G33.3 Forbes Blvd./Eccles Ave. (Signal) B-13.4(1) B-17.5 B-16.5 B-16.9 Airport Blvd./Miller Aye./US 101 SB Off-Ram (Signal) G38.5 (1) G38.6 B-17.5 B-17.6 Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. (Signal) D-40.1 (1) D-40.1 C-31.7 C-31.7 E. Grand Ave. Oyercrossing/Dubuque Ave. A-6.4(1) A-6.4 A-3.4 A-3.4 (Signal) E. Grand Aye./E. Grand Ave. Oyercrossing B-18.6 (1) B-19.0 B-13.5 B-13.5 (Signal) E. Grand Aye./Gateway Blvd. C-34.9 (1) C-34.9 G33.4 G33.4 (Signal) E. Grand Aye./Forbes Aye./Harbor Way B-18.3(1) B-19.1 C-33.9 D-36.0 (Signal) NB ITS 101 Off-ramp/Executive Dr./ C-17.7(3) C-18.0 B-10.3 B-10.3 E. Grand Ave (E. Grand stop sign controlled ri ht turn) Airport Blvd./San:Mateo Aye./ D-37.6 (1) D-37.8 C-34.9 C-34.9 Produce Ave. (Signal) Gateway Blvd./S.Airport Blvd./ C-31.4(1) C-31.4 D-46.3 D-47.1 Mitchell Ave. (Signal) S.Airport Blvd./US 101 NB Hook Ramps/ C-31.3(1) C-31.3 G37.1 G37.3 Wondercolor Lane(Signal Signalitied level of senice-rehide control delay in seconds. -' L'n.,;nalitied level of se�rce-reh�le control delay in second,. 1k%estbolrrad E. G�arad Areralre st��s;ra�orat�olled�;ht trr�ra. I-e(ir 2000 Hi;h)r,a7,Cc aeit Jlanual Analy,�is Jlethodolo,oy/Solace:Crane Trans or7ation Grou, Oetober 2011 DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-16 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION TRAFFIC TABLE 6 95TH PERCENTILE VEHICLE QUEUES EXISTING& EXISTING+ PROJECT INTERSECTIONS AT OR NEAR U.S.101 INTERCHANGES POTENTIALLY IMPACTED BY THE 475 ECCLES PROJECT WITH SIGNAL TIMING FOR OPTIMIZED LEVEL OF SERVICE Existing Intersection Storage _-\AI Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Distance* E-xisting E-xisting Existing +Project Eustuhg +Project Airport Blvd./Grand Avenue SB Left Time 300 332 337 161 161 SB Thra 300 219 219 154 154 SB Right Tum 300 31 31 58 58 O ster Point Blvd./Dubuque Avenue EB Tlmi 250 131 132 66 67 NN'B Tlmi 840 27 30 168 171 NN'B Lett 840 58 61 373 378 NN'B Right 840 39 45 443 47.3 NB Lett Turn 270 112 112 111 11.3 NB Lett/Thru 150 112 112 11.3 114 NB Right Tum 1 270 97 101 <25 <25 Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 SB On/NB Off-Ramps Off-Ramp/Lett/Thru 975 136 139 209 209 Ovster Point Blvd./Gatewav Blvd./U.S.101 SB Off-Ramp/Commercial Access SB Off-Ramp Tlmi 330 307 325 72 75 SB Off-Ramp Right Time Lane 400 293 293 46 46 EB Tlmi 900 271 287 70 73 E.Grand Ave./Grand Ave.Overcrossing NB E. Grand Right Tum Lane 800 441 X17 52 52 NB E. Grand Left Tum Lane 800 115 115 243 243 Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. NN'B Lett Turn 250 76 77 121 12.3 NN'B Thu-ti 250 90 91 221 221 NN'B Right Turn 250 <25 <25 <25 <25 S.Airport Blvd./U.S.101 NB On and Off/Wondercolor Lane NB Ott Lett/Thai/Right 825 _31 i 317 164 164 Airport Blvd./Miller Ave./U.S.101 SB Off SB Ott Lett/Tlu-u TO 206 207 21 i 21 i Bolded results= sib hdicant project impact The proposed Project woidd not result ill sib hificant impacts to vehicle queuing for ally other approach lane or lanes experiencing unacceptable Base Case 911'percentile queuing as Project traffic contributions would be less than I percent of the total. * Storage and queues measured in feet per lane. Synchro software used for all analysis. Source: Crane Transportation Group,October 2011 DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-17 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION TRAFFIC TABLE 7 OFF-RAMP CAPACITY AND VOLUMES EXISTING,YEAR 2015 &YEAR 2035 `volumes Fear 2015 Fear 203:1 Capacity" Existing Nv/O + Nv/O E:E U.S. 101 Off-Ram ( -eh/Hr) Existin +Project Project Project Project AEI Peak Hour SB Off-Ramp Flyover to Oyster Point/Gateway 1,500 1249 1290 1762 1803 244 2488 SB Off-Ramp to Airport Blvd./Miller Ave. 1:500 :531 :531 779 779 1025 1025 NB Off-Ramp to S. Airport Blvd./ 1001', 1195 1201 1764 1770 2171 2176 Wondercolor Lane NB Off-Ramp to E. Grand Aye./Executive 1001', 1618 1649 1729 1760 21,55 2184 Drive NB Off-Ramp to 1,500 716 729 1,524 1,537 196 1967 Dubuque Ave. PSI Peak Hour SB Off-Ramp Flyover to Oyster Point/Gateway 1:500 1:54 160 344 3:50 443 447 SB Off-Ramp to Airport Blvd./Miller Ave. 1:500 :532 :532 640 640 749 749 NB Off-Ramp to S. Airport Blvd./ 1001', 5,59 560 783 784 811 812 Wondercolor Lane NB Off-Ramp to E. Grand Aye./Executive 1:5001'~ 536 541 534 539 664 668 Drive NB Off-Ramp to 1:500 494 496 6:53 655 804 806 Dubuque Ave. Caltrans desired volume limit that can be accommodated by a single off-ramp lane connection to the freeway mainline. Programmed provision of second off-ramp lane connection to the freeway mainline by 2015 will increase capacity to 2,300 vehicles per hour. Bolded results = significant Project impacts Source: Crane Transportation Group,October 2011 DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 47:5 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-18 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION TRAFFIC TABLE 8 ON-RAMP CAPACITY AND VOLUMES `rohunes Year 201:5 Fear 203:1 Capacity" Existing Nv/O + Nv/O + U.S. 101 On-Ram ( -eh/Hr) Existing +Project Project Project Project Project AM Peak Hour SB On-Ramp from 2000 495 498 619 622 1203 1205 Dubuque Ave. SB On-Ramp from 3300"" 1026 1034 1099 1107 1281 1288 Produce Ave. NB On-Ramp 2000 269 269 334 334 381 381 from S.Airport Blvd./ Wondercolor Lane NB On-Ramp 2000 6:50 6:50 7:51 7:51 8:53 8:53 from Grand Ave. NB On-Ramp 2200 746 755 922 931 1245 12:52 from Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque Ave. PSI Peak Hour SB On-Ramp from 2000 1263 1273 1663 1673 2092 2101 Dubuque Ave. SB On-Ramp from 3300"" 1836 1868 2192 2224 3089 3118 Produce Ave. NB On-Ramp 2000 476 476 608 608 897 897 from S.Airport Blvd./ Wondercolor Lane NB On-Ramp 2000 839 839 1286 1286 1213 1213 from Grand Ave. NB On-Ramp 2200 1184 1219 1967 2002 2,572 2601 from Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque Ave. Planning level capacity: Year 2000 Highway Capacity-Manual,TRB Report 209. Produce Avenue on-ramp has two travel lanes. One on-ramp lane merges to the freeway mainline,while the other on- ramp continues as an auxiliary lane to the I-380 off-ramp. Bolded results = significant Project impacts Compiled bv: Crane Transportation Group DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 47:5 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-19 4.0 ENVIR()NMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION TRAFFIC TABLE 9 SUMMARY OF EXISTING U.S. 101 FREEWAY OPERATION AM Peak Hour Southbound LOS D North of the Oyster Point interchange southbound off-ramps LOS B South of the Produce Avenue on-ram (just north of I-380) Northbound LOS C South of the S.Airport Blvd. off-ramp (just north of I-380) LOS D North of the Oyster Point interchange&northbound off-ramp to Bayshore Blvd. PM Peak Hour Southbound LOS C North of the 0yster Point interchange southbound off-ramps LOS C South of the Produce Avenue on-ram just north of I-380 Northbound LOS C South of the S.Airport Blvd. off-ramp (just north of I-380) LOS D North of the Oyster Point interchange&northbound off-ramp to Bayshore Blvd. LOS=Level of Service Source: Crane Transportation Group TRAFFIC TABLE 10 EXISTING FREEWAY MAINLINE LEVELS OF SERVICE Existing Existing+Project Segment Volume LOS Density Vohune LOS Densitt- AM Peak Hour North of Oyster Point Boulevard Northbound 743 D 30.1 7461 D 30.1 Southbound 6774 D 36.3 6815 D 36.E North of 1-380 Northbound 9713 C 34.9 9763 C 35.0 Southbound 6431 B 16.1 6433 B 16.3 PSI Peak Hour North of Oyster Point Boulevard Northbound 7,530 D 30.E T565 D 30.8 Southbound 6314 C 34.1 6330 C 34.3 North of 1-380 Northbound 7605 C 19.1 7613 C 19.1 Southbound 8377 C 31.1 8419 C 31.3 LOS=Level of Service Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile. Year 3000 Highway Capacity-Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group,October 3011 DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES_ VENI_?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-30 z M c M M O � o M M cc O M ur c-I C1i cy c-I M M O O � M cl N M M M co c, lJ, 'D c, " Hc-I N c-I c-I M M c-I c-I c-IV c-I c M c-I A U H O J�cl CD Ln tr) 0 N N I � O � M O cl M h M cl M M M c0 V' l� A cl cq O M Vr Ln oo N M O -t- cq M Ln cc h M c-I Ln "o Ln O M O N h M M p 0 W c0 c0 M M c0 c! V ' Ln O cl oo M Ln 0 H o M c-I c-I c-I o Ln z � b � a wLn h cl h O N M MV � c-I c-I M M � O Vr � 0 0 0 0 0 Rio o o cl Ln z z O o O h cc ti N cl cc cc M W O M c, c, O cc V h M o M h 1 \n Ln M M c-I M z a, Fz O W Ln N co c, co c, y cc M N I—I .--iV NV c0 VV c0 N Ln M Ln O Lr� +� o Z a M ti � Wp cc "o cc cc ti N O r cl O cc cc cl N cc N c, ""I "o M -u M "o N M cl O O M N Q W H M M N N M F Z �M1 o z C �--i ) M � M 11) 66 cc o to oo oo oo cl) to to "o cc cc 00 -d �o co co co M �o Ln �o co co t-- G Vr ti N h W ti cq Ln h M N u u W sa ca M M W M O cl N Ln In O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -° o Z Ln o a N ti h h W W N O Ln O c0 c�-I c-I Ln h �^ �^ M Ln N .L' O cq co cq r, N N cli cl C W & o oC7 cn c c N O ti ci In lu O co cq cri i N co cri r--: 11) c, O O O cl s-i N M O h Q 0 � .+L-'' p O O cl O cl O O O p � 1-- O Ln Q c" I a Ln M h m E cc o o W C'y p O N O ca P. O OHO bA b.0 w C-. O U O O O 0 p O cq .3 O'p j E Q 0 cq °O ti 0 0 u r. 0 a p 0.� G o o o c c �? o � Q � ,`�" � -d � ° -moo o b b 0 O O !" o a c7 C7E O aO Q V E �� FU 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 1. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PLANNED BY 2015 The City's East of 101 capital improvement program funds certain roadway and intersection impro�-ements in the Citv's East of 101 area through the collection of la�vfiilly adopted impact fees. In accordance with the 1litipation Fee _pct, impact fees are imposed on and collected from development projects in the East of 101 area, field in a separate account, and used to fund improvements benefiting the area and the projects from which the fees «%ere collected. Like other projects in the East of 101 area, the Project would pad- a proportionate share towards these improvements. The City is in the process of updating its capital improvement program list for the East of 101 area; a new list is tentatively- scheduled to be available in late-2012. Based on currently ayailalble funding, projected growth rates, and the pending update, the City- of Soutli San Francisco Public Works Department expects that the following intersection improvements will be funded and constructed I)v 2015. Accordingl� the impro�-ements ha�-e been factored into the year 2015 Base Case traffic modeling conducted I)y TJK1f _associates for the 2011 Updated East of 101 Capital Improvement Program. The improvements are: 1. South Airport Boulevard/U.S. 101 Northbound Hook Ramps/Wondercolor Lane a. Add a second northbound off-ramp right turn lane. 2. Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp-Southbound On-Ramp a. Eliminate the exclusive left turn lane on the southbound Dubuque approach. b. Restripe the Northbound Off-Ramp approach to provide tvo exclusive left turn lanes and a combined through/right turn lane. 3. Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard a. _add a second lane to the northbound (private driveway-) approacli. Stripe as one left turn lane and a combined through/right turn lane. 4. Oyster Point Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Airport Boulevard a. _add an exchisiye riglit turn lane on the southbound_airport Boulevard approach and restripe the existing combined through/right turn lane as an exclusive through lane. 5. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp a. Widen the northbound Dubuque Avenue approach and provide tvo exclusive left turn lanes, one through lane and tvo exchisiye riglit turn lanes. _also, provide a second exchisiye riglit turn lane on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approacli (extending parnvav to Gatewav Boulevard). 6. East Grand Avenue/Grand Avenue Overcrossing a. Provide a second riglit turn lane on the northbound East Grand_ venue approacli. 7. East Grand Avenue/U.S. 101 a. Widen existing northbound off ramp to add an additional lane. Traffic Figure 8, Year 2015 Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control, provides a schematic presentation of year 2015 intersection approacli lanes and control. 2. YEAR 2015 WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Traffic Table 12, Year 2015 Intersection Levels of Service shows that all intersections with year 2015 without Project volhunes would operate at acceptable Levels of Service with the following exceptions. DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-22 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION AM Peak Hour • Oyster Point Boulevard/Gatewav Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound (Flyover) Off-Ramp (Signal) —LOS F • Airport Boulevard/Grand venue (Signal) —LOS E • East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard (Signal) —LOS E PM Peak Hour • Oyster Point Boulevard/Gatewav Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound (Flyover) Off-Ramp (Signal) —LOS E • East Grand Avenue/Forbes Boulevard/Harbor Way (Signal) —LOS E • Gateway Boulevard/South Airport Boulevard/Mitchell venue (Signal) —LOS E 3. YEAR 2015 WITHOUT PROJECT VEHICLE QUEUING AT INTERSECTIONS Traffic Table 13, Year 2015 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues, shows that the following off-ramp intersections and/or approaclies to adjacent intersections would have 95th percentile year 2015 without Project queuing exceeding availalble storage as determined using the Syncliro software program. AM Peak Hour • Airport Boulevard/Grand venue southbound approach left turn and through movements would have 95`"percentile queue demands greater than availalble storage. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque venue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp eastbound approach through movement would have 95th percentile queue demands greater than availalble storage. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Gatewav Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp approach right turn movement would have 95th percentile queue demands greater than availalble storage. PM Peak Hour • airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard through and through/riglit turn lanes on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approacli would have 95th percentile queue demands greater than available storage. DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-23 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION TRAFFIC TABLE 12 YEAR 2015 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE YEAR 2015 AM & PM PEAK HOUR AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Year 2015 Year 2015 Intersection Nv/O + Nv/O + Project Project Project Project Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. (Signal) D-35.2(1) D-35.5 D-40.3 D-40.4 Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque Aye./ C-23.1 (1) C-23.4 C-24.9 C-24.9 ITS 101 NB On-Ram (Signal) Dubuque Aye./US 101 NB Off-Ramp&SB On-Ramp (Signal) C-21.8 (1) C-22.1 C-24.7 C-24.7 Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway Blvd./ F-137(1) F-144 E-62.8 E-65.7 J_S 101 SB Flyover Off-Ram (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Eccles Ave. (Signal) C-34.3 (1) D-50.0 B-17.9 C-20.7 Forbes Blvd./Eccles Ave. (Signal) A-7.7(1) A-8.1 B-10.5 B-11.0 Airport Blvd./Miller Aye./US 101 SB Off-Ramp (Signal) C-28.2(1) C-28.2 B-19.1 B-19.2 Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. (Signal) E-60.8 (1) E-61.2 D-45.5 D-45.7 E. Grand Ave. Oyercrossing/Dubuque Ave. A-8.6 (1) A-8.6 B-10.7 B-10.7 (Signal) E. Grand Aye./E. Grand Ave. Oyercrossing B-19.8 (1) C-20.1 B-13.7 B-13.9 (Signal) E. Grand Aye./Gateway Blvd. E-59.9 (1) E-60.7 D-39.3 D-39.4 (Signal) E. Grand Aye./Forbes Aye./Harbor Way C-34.8 (1) D-37.0 E-67.8 E-73.2 (Signal) NB ITS 101 Off-ramp/Executive Dr./ C-21.6 (2) C-22.1 B-10.1 B-10.1 E. Grand Ave. (E. Grand stop sign controlled right turn) Airport Blvd./San:Mateo Aye./ C-28.2(1) C-28.4 D-42.7 D-42.9 Produce Ave. (Signal) Gateway Blvd./S.Airport Blvd./ C-34.2(1) C-35.0 E-65.9 E-70.3 Mitchell Ave. (Signal) S.Airport Blvd./US 101 NB Hook Ramps/ C-32.4(1) C-32.4 C-34.2 C-34.2 Wondercolor Lane(Signal) 1 ii Signalized level of service-vehicle control delay in seconds. !' Unsignahzed level of service-vehicle control delay in seconds.Westbound E. Grand Avenue stop sign controlled right turn. Year 2000 Highway Capacity-Manual Analysis Methodology- Source: Crane Transportation Group,October 2011 DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-24 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION TRAFFIC TABLE 13 95TH PERCENTILE VEHICLE QUEUES*-YEAR 2015, INTERSECTIONS AT OR NEAR U.S.101 INTERCHANGES POTENTIALLY IMPACTED BY THE 475 ECCLES PROJECT WITH SIGNAL TIMING FOR OPTIMIZED LEVEL OF SERVICE 1 OF 2 Storage Demand (in feet) Intersection Storage AEI Peak Hour PSI Peak Hour Distances 201 201 301:1 301:1 Project +Project Project +Project Project Project Airport Blvd./Grand Avenue SB Left Turn 300 394 398 237 237 SB Thnu 300 335 336 186 186 SB Right Turn 300 32 32 '51 '51 Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque Ave. EB Thnu 2,50 336 341 163 167 N\_B Thru 840 106 108 144 144 N\_B Left 840 113 114 :586 :586 NAB Right 840 38 38 248 248 NB Left Turn 270 88 88 92 92 NB Left/Thnu 270 24 25 176 176 NB Right Turn 270 114 122 1 1 Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 SB On/NB Off-Ramps Off-Ramp/Left/Thnu 975 504 '515 309 310 Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway Blvd./U.S.101 SB Off-Ramp/Commercial Access SB Off-Ra np Thnz 33:50 822 8:57 149 1:53 SB(Off-Runp Right Turn Lane 400 :573 :573 104 104 EB Thnu 900 8,50 868 241 243 E. Grand Ave./Grand Ave. Overcrossing NB E. Grand Right Turn Lane 800 265 273 37 37 NB E. Grand Left Turn Lane 800 148 149 301 301 DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 47:5 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-25 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION TRAFFIC TABLE 13 95TH PERCENTILE VEHICLE QUEUES*-YEAR 2015, INTERSECTIONS AT OR NEAR U.S.101 INTERCHANGES POTENTIALLY IMPACTED BY THE 475 ECCLES PROJECT WITH SIGNAL TIMING FOR OPTIMIZED LEVEL OF SERVICE 2 OF 2 Storage Demand (in feet) Intersection Storage AEI Peak Hour PSI Peak Hour Distances 201 201 3011 301:1 N\-/(-) +Project N\-/(-) +Project Project Project Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. N\-B Left Turn 2:50 115 115 182 182 N-B Thnu&Thra/Right 2,50 103 103 292 291 S.Airport Blvd./U.S.101 NB On and Off/Wondercolor Lane NB Off Left/Thnu/Right 825 4,50 453 226 227 Airport Blvd./MillerAve./U.S.101 SB Off SB Off Left/Thru 1 7,50 309 309 227 227 Bolded results=signifrcant Project impact.The Proposed Project)r,ould not esult in signific ant i pacts to rehide queuing for any other����oa�h lane or lanes e.��e�zenczns rrnacce�table Base(:ase��'�e��entile yzrelcirz as P�oje�t t�offi��ont�zbrrtions»olrld be less than 9 penent of the total. Storgoe and querns—ra feetperlane. Syn�hro softirare used for all analysis. Solace: Crane Trar[.�pwatior[Grob 4. YEAR 2015 WITHOUT PROJECT OFF-RAMP QUEUING BACK TO FREEWAY MAINLINE The following off-ramps would have year 2015 without Project queuing extending back to the U.S. 101 mainline one or more times during the peak traffic hours as determined using the SI_.\1 traffic software program (unless noted). • U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque venue- AEI Peak Hour: Backups to mainline. • U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway- Boulevard AM Peak Hour: Backups to mainline. 5. YEAR 2015 WITHOUT PROJECT OFF-RAMP OPERATION AT DIVERGE FROM FREEWAY MAINLINE Traffic Table 7 shows that the following off-ramps would have year 2015 without Project volumes exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour on a one-lane off-ramp connection to the freeway mainline. • U.S. 101 Southbound (Flyover) Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway-Boulevard Intersection-AEI Peak Hour: 1,762 vehicles per hour using off-ramp. • U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque venue-AEI Peak Hour: 1,524 vehicles per hour using off-ramp. 6. YEAR 2015 WITHOUT PROJECT ON-RAMP OPERATION Traffic Table 8 shows that no on-ramps would have year 2015 without Project volumes exceeding ramp capacities. DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,L\]TACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-26 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 7. YEAR 2015 WITHOUT PROJECT U.S. 101 FREEWAY MAINLINE Traffic Table 14 shows that no mainline freeway- segments with year 2015 without Project vohimes would be operating at unacceptable LOS. TRAFFIC TABLE 14 FREEWAY MAINLINE LEVELS OF SERVICE—YEAR 2015 Year 2015 Year 2015 WHO Project +Project Segment Volume LOS Density Volume LOS Density --\AI Peak Hour Northbound 18110 I D 1 34.0 18119 1 D 134.1 Southbound 17388 1 D 1 29? 1 7429 1 D 1 29.E North oFI--380 Northbound 1 11337 D 30.2 11387 D 30.E Sowlibound 6710 B 16.7 6721 B 16.7 PSI Peak Hour North of Oyster Point Boulevard Northbound 8173 D 34.E 8208 D 34.8 Southbound 6801 D 26.1 6807 D 26.1 North oFI--380 Northbound 8369 C 20.9 8377 C 20.9 Sowlibound 9637 C 24.3 9679 C 24.E *unacceptable freeway segment operating conditions. LOS=Level of Service Density is shown iii passenger cars per lane per mile. Yea:2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Grou p,October 2011 8. YEAR 2035 WITHOUT PROJECT OPERATING CONDITIONS The year 2035 without Project conditions include traffic generated by all development detailed in the 2015 analvsis, the last half of the Genentecli master plan, the last part of the Oyster Point Redevelopment area, the remaining half of the Gateway- Master Plan as well as other increases in manufacturing, commercial, office, and R&D uses. The daily- and Pear Hour trip generation potential of all developments expected in the East of 101 area by 2035 is presented in Traffic Table 15,Year 2035 Without Project Trip Generation. In addition to these specific developments, traffic on airport Boulevard to/from Brisbane to the north as well as on Sister Cities Boulevard and otlier surface streets to the west of the U.S. 101 freeway were projected to grow from 2016 to 2035 at rates projected in the C/C AG regional model (after allowance for traffic to/from new development east of the 101 freeway-). Year 2035 intersection AM and P1I Pear Hour as well as U.S. 101 freeway- segment traffic volumes were developed I)y TJK1f _associates for the City's Update of the East of 101 Capital Improvements Program. Year 2035 Without Project AM and P1I Pear Hour intersection vohimes are presented in Traffic Figures 9 and 10. DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,L\]TACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES_ VENI_?E,S()IJTH S AN FRANCIS(;(),CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-27 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 1. Roadway Improvements Planned by 2035 All roadway- improvements currently- listed in the Citv's July- 2007 Traffic Impact Fee Stud- Update for the East of 101 Area were assumed to be built and in operation for year 2035 without Project and Plus Project evaluation. Traffic Figure 11, Year 2035 Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control, provides a schematic presentation of year 2035 intersection approach lanes and control. 2. Year 2035 Without Project Intersection Level of Service Traffic Table 16, 2035 Intersection Levels of Service shows that all intersections with year 2035 without Project volumes would be operating at acceptable levels of service with the folloNvlllg exceptions. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp (Signal) P1I Pear Hour: LOS E • Ovster Point Boulevard/GateNvav Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound (Flyover) Off-Ramp (Signal)-AM Pear Hour: LOS F and P1I Pear Hour: LOS F • Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue (Signal)- AEI Peak Hour: LOS F • Airport Avenue/Grand Avenue (Signal)AM Peak Hour: LOS F and PSI Peak Hour: LOS E • East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard (Signal)-AM Peak Hour: LOS F and P1I Peak Hour: LOS E • East Grand Avenue/Forbes Boulevard/Harbor Way (Signal)- AM Peak Hour: LOS F and P1I Peak Hour: LOS F • Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue (Signal)-PSI Peak Hour: LOS E • S. Airport Boulevard/U.S. 101 Northbound Hook Ramps/Wondercolor Lane (Signal)AM Peak Hour: LOS E DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-28 z 00 oo Lr) N O Lr) o1, cl I-- "o "o N wl 0 oc O M 4 N M M M oo c, Lr� O c, N N c-I c-I c-I M c-I c-I N V c-I M c-I "o N cl c7 p H M Lr) to h M c-I Ln c-I c' N cti c0 C1i M "o M M y� z ° Ln o L h O �--� N co O M co M N N N In co r;M r;In N " a O ti ~ h M In O N h In Ur" o O cc oo oo Ln Ln oo o.o � G, 00 c1) L lo IH o M lo In c-I c-I M O C � b W .a Ol h co N Ol M h Ol N h N u cC M M M c-I M M Ln coV V] H Pti O O O O O M N O O O O Z N "o h 0 O ICI o OM cl h c o "o h r-- "o oc M cn hH N ti c-I ti c-I M c-I �n M c-I C1i �J N 5 a O M O C O O M h M N N Vr N M ti ti h h ti ri Q W N O G U W cc cc o ° '> I U oc O cc h M N oo ti c, M h M M Vr 'o O O I�1 C1i N4 D `� M M C1i C1i O N H c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I N c-I c-I N N c-I M co Ln c-I O G r-i c1) L� c1) c1) ti N ti 11) 00 cc w ° "o W cc cc M V Ln V co co h O u "o cc I-- N oo cl "o "o N "o N E w' o00 0 00 - 00 0 CD a ° C Ln oo a W ti n Ln n Qpc, p W W xo co cq oo ticqtititi o � E B h cq cq oo NN "oNN "o M � C N C o O u U cq o in M n \ U M � � � N I-- N oo � N Q pti c0 c1) N M N oo c1) c1) W �' p to o Q W u o0o c N � 000 i `n u E cl p OO O p OM Ln Ln o r-: w 7 b a O N co O u o cn O co O M N N bA A' Ln h cc ti G1 G1 M Ln N �--� +�' u uu V] M M N V c-I h D N cn o c-I c-I Q G c b o C O V O � p O ca N u ti clC''"; C F Oti � a cn , F o O o Q .b O oN0 o ° o a C w ,:� 5 O A aw ao a b b �"0 c7 �o c7 E O O A V T T O N OE E a x x E U 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION TRAFFIC TABLE 16 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE -YEAR 2035 AM & PM PEAK HOUR AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Fear 2035 Fear 2035 Intersection «/o + Nv/O + Project Project Project Project Sister Cities Blvd./Ouster Point Blvd./ D-51.9 (1) D-52.3 D-54.1 D-54.1 Airport Blvd. (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque Aye./ D-44.8 (1) D-46.3 E-66.0 E-68.6 ITS 101 NB On-Ram (Signal) Dubuque Aye./ITS 101 NB Off-Ramp&SB On-Ramp C-21.5 (1) C-21.5 D-42.5 D-42.5 (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway Blvd./ F-224(1) F-235 F-134 F-136 LTS 101 SB FIvover Off-Ramp (Signal) Oyster Point Blvd./Eccles Ave. (Signal) F-181 (1) F-194 C-21.4 C-23.0 Forbes Blvd./Eccles Ave. (Signal) A-8.3 (1) A-8.8 B-16.2 B-17.4 Airport Blvd./Miller Aye./US 101 SB Ramp C-27.1 (1) C-27.1 C-21.4 C-21.4 (Signal) Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. (Signal) F-86.8 1 F-87.5 E-63.8 E-64.3 E. Grand Ave. Oyercrossing/Dubuque Ave. A-8.2(1) A-8.3 B-11.2 B-11.1 (Signal) E. Grand Ave. Oyercrossing/E. Grand Ave. C-21.1 (1) C-21.5 B-15.0 B-15.1 (Signal) E. Grand Aye./Gateway Blvd. F-178 (1) F-180 E-55.1 E-55.5 (Signal) E. Grand Aye./Forbes Aye./Harbor Blvd. F-1,52(1) F-1,54 F-91.5 F-95.0 (Signal) NB ITS 101 Off-ramp/Executive Dr./ D-25.3 (2) D-26.1 B-10.6 B-10.6 E. Grand Ave. (E. Grand stop sign controlled right turn) Airport Blvd./San:Mateo Aye./ C-33.4(1) C-33.5 E-63.4 E-65.4 Produce Ave. (Signal) Gateway Blvd./S.Airport Blvd./ C-20.8 (1) C-20.8 C-34.3 C-34.3 Mitchell Ave. (Signal) S.Airport Blvd./US 101 NB Hook Ramps/ E-61.1 (1) E-61.4 D-49.0 D-49.1 Wondercolor Lane(Signal) Bold results = significant Project impacts. Base Case+Project LOS E or F results not bolded would not be significant since Project traffic would not increase Base Case volumes by 2%or more. I Signalized level of service vehicle control delay in seconds. tTnsignalized level of service-vehicle control delay in seconds.Westbound E. Grand Avenue stop sign controlled right turn. I ear 2000 H;1u).xy Cpacaty Jltlwal-4&xIy oisMeModolt;y Sollne: Cnwe T txrrs ottatior[Gtntt DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-30 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 3. YEAR 2035 WITHOUT PROJECT VEHICLE QUEUING Traffic Table 17 Year 2035 951h Percentile Vehicle Queues, shows that the following off-ramp intersections and/or approaclies to adjacent intersections would have 95`" percentile rear 2035 Without Project queuing exceeding availalble storage as determined using the SYNCHRO software program. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway?Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flvover Off-Ramp: The flyover off-ramp riglit turn lane and the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approacli through lanes would have 95`" percentile queue demands greater than availalble storage during the Ail Peak Hour. • Airport Boulevard/Grand venue: The Airport Boulevard southbound approach left turn movement would have a 95th percentile queue demand greater than available storage during the Ail Peak Hour. • Ovster Point Boulevard/Dubuque venue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp: The Dubuque venue northbound approach right turn movement and the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach through movement would have 95th percentile queue demands greater than availalble storage during the AM Peak Hour. The Dubuque venue northbound approach left turn movement, the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach through movement and the Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach right tarn would have 95t" percentile queue demands greater than availalble storage during the P1l Peak Hour. • Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Owter Point Boulevard: The left tarn lane on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach would have a 95th percentile queue demand greater than available storage during the AM Peak Hour. The left tarn lane and the through lanes on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach would have 95`" percentile queue demands greater than available storage during the P1l Peak Hour. DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-31 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION TRAFFIC TABLE 17 95TH PERCENTILE VEHICLE QUEUES -YEAR 2035 INTERSECTIONS AT OR NEAR U.S.101 INTERCHANGES POTENTIALLY IMPACTED BY THE 475 ECCLES PROJECT WITH SIGNAL TIMING FOR OPTIMIZED LEVEL OF SERVICE Fear 2035 Storage Intersection Distance AM Peak Hour PSI Peak Hour ft/lane «/() +Project N\-/(-) +Project Project Project Airport Blvd./Grand Avenue SB Left Turn 300 408 409 138 138 SB Thnr 300 227 227 194 194 SB Right Turn 300 <25 <25 <25 <25 Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque Ave. EB Thnr 2,50 638 640 376 378 N-B Thru 840 107 109 178 178 N\_B Left 840 194 194 656 656 NAB Right 840 44 44 1148 1156 NB Left Turn 270 87 87 335 336 NB Thar 270 90 90 187 188 NB Right Turn 270 353 361 187 187 Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 SB On/NB Off-Ramps Off-Rarnp/Left/Thar 975 780 787 640 640 Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway Blvd./U.S.101 SB Off-Ramp/Commercial Access SB Off-Rarnp Thar 330 1261 1302 235 237 SB Off-Rarnp Right Turn Lane 400 9,57 964 120 120 EB Thnr 900 1163 1187 415 415 E. Grand Ave./Grand Ave. Overcrossing NB E. Grand Right Turn Lane 800 346 361 43 43 NB E. Grand Left Turn Lane 800 1,58 1,58 303 303 Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. N\_B Left Turn 2:50 278 278 540 543 N\_B Tliru 2:50 86 86 447 4:50 N-B Right Turn 2,50 81 81 89 89 S.Airport Blvd./U.S.101 NB On and Off/Wondercolor Lane NB Off Left/Thar 825 830 834 326 327 Airport Blvd./MillerAve./U.S.101 SB Off SB Off Left/Thar 7,50 278 279 302 302 Bolded results=significant Project impact.The Proposed Project)r,ould not result in szgnificant ilwpacts to z ehicle queuing for any other na h lane or lanes e. e zenczrz rrna etahle Base Case 9 'per entile yuelcirz as P nje t traffi out zhrrtions»olrld he less than 9 penent of the total. Synchro softirare used for all alu ly,�is unless noted. Sollne: Crane Tnw,p watiolz Grob DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-32 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 4. YEAR 2035 WITHOUT PROJECT OFF-RAMP QUEUING BACK TO FREEWAY MAINLINE The following off-ramps would have year 2035 without Project queuing extending back to the U.S. 101 mainline one or more times during the peak traffic hours as determined using the SI_.\I traffic software program. • U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to South Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane (AM Peak Hour) • U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque venue (AM and PSI Peak Hours) • U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway-Boulevard ( M Peak Hour) • U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Airport Boulevard/Miller venue (AEI Peak Hour) 5. YEAR 2035 WITHOUT PROJECT OFF-RAMP OPERATION Traffic Table 7 shows that the following off-ramps would have year 2035 without Project volumes exceeding 1,500 vehicles/hour on a one-lane off-ramp connection or 2,200 vehicles per hour on a t«%o-lane off-ramp connection to the freeway mainline in the AEI Peak Hour. • U.S. 101 Southbound (Flyover) Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway-Boulevard Intersection • U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque venue 6. YEAR 2035 WITHOUT PROJECT ON-RAMP OPERATION Traffic Table 8 shows that the following on-ramps would have year 2035 without Project volumes exceeding ramp capacities during the P1I Peak Hour. • U.S. 101 Southbound On-Ramp from Dubuque venue • U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard at Dubuque venue 7. YEAR 2035 WITHOUT PROJECT FREEWAY OPERATIONS Traffic Table 18 shows the following mainline freeway segments with year 2035 without Project volumes would be operating at unacceptable levels of service. • U.S. 101 Southbound (North of the Oyster Point Interchange —AEI Peak Hour) • U.S. 101 Northbound (North of the Oyster Point Interchange —AEI Peak Hour) DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-33 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION TRAFFIC TABLE 18 FREEWAY MAINLINE LEVELS OF SERVICE —YEAR 2035 k�colurne ar 203:1 W/O Project Year 203:1 +Project Segment LOS Densit\- Vohune LOS Density AM Peak Hour North of Oyster Point Boulevard Northbound 9440 F 9447 F Southbound 10061 F 1009 F North of 1-380 Northbound 13603 E 41.3 13648 E 41.6 Southbound 9605 C 21.0 8614 C 21.0 PSI Peak Hour North of Oyster Point Boulevard Northbound 8921 E 39.7 890 E 40.0 Southbound 7926 D 31.6 7930 D 31.6 North of 1-380 Northbound 8769 C 21.4 8776 C 21.9 Southbound 1187 D 31.4 11895 D 31.6 Density beyond theoretical limits. LOS=Level of Service Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile. Year 2000 Highway Capacity-Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group,October 2011 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Plans and policies that pertain to the traffic conditions affecting and affected by the Project include: (1) the San Mateo Count- Congestion Management Program (C1IP) Standards; and (2) the City- of South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management Program. A. SAN MATEO COUNTY CMP STANDARDS FOR REGIONAL ROADS AND LOCAL STREETS The LOS standards established for roads and intersections in the San Mateo Count- C1IP street network; vary- based on geographic differences. For roadway segments and intersections near the count-line, the LOS standard was set as LOS E in order to be consistent with the recommendations in the neighboring counties. If the existing Level of Service in 1990/91 was F, the standard was set to LOS F. If the existing or future LOS was or will be E, the standard was set to E. For the remaining roadways and intersections, the standard was set to be one letter designation worse than the projected LOS in the year 2000. If a proposed land use change would either cause a deficiency (to operate below the standard LOS) on a C1IP-designated roadway system facility-, or would significantly affect by using LOS F in the 1991 C1IP baseline LOS, mitigation measures are to be developed so that LOS standards are maintained on the C1IP-designated roadway system. If mitigation measures are not feasible (due to financial, environmental, or other factors), a Deficiency Plan must be prepared for the deficient facility-. The Deficiencv Plan must indicate the land use and infrastructure action items to be implemented by the local agency to eliminate the deficient conditions. A Deficiency Plan may not be required if the deficiency would not occur if traffic originating outside the County were excluded from the determination of conformance. DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,L\]TACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-34 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION B. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The City of South San Francisco requires that all nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily- trips, based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus implement Transportation Demand Management (TD:N ) measures to reduce vehicle traffic (Chapter 20.400 Transportation Demand Management). The purposes of the TD1I ordinance are as follows: ➢ Implement a program designed to reduce the amount of traffic generated by new nonresidential development, and the expansion of existing nonresidential development pursuant to the City's police power and necessary in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. ➢ Ensure that expected increases in traffic resulting from growth in employment opportunities in the City-of South San Francisco will be adequately mitigated. ➢ Reduce drive-alone commute trips during peak traffic periods by using a combination of services, incentives, and facilities. ➢ Promote the more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure that new developments are designed in wars to maximize the potential for alternative transportation usage. ➢ Establish minimum TD:NI requirements for all new nonresidential development. ➢ Willow reduced parking requirements for projects implementing the requirements of this section. ➢ Establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure that the measures are implemented. Calibration of the City's traffic model for existing; traffic conditions indicated that land uses to the east of the U.S.101 freeway- in South San Francisco are now generating Peak Hour traffic at levels well below those that would be expected using fitted curare equation trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (Try Geiae� rtio a, 8th Edition 2008). Based upon this data and the CIt requirement of an aggressive TD:NI Program for the Project, it was projected that Project Peak Hour trip generation would be 20 percent below fitted curare equation trip rates for year 2015 conditions and 25 percent below fitted curve equation trip rates for year 2035 conditions. These conservative reductions are smaller than the 33 to 35 percent below average Peak Hour fitted curare trip rates found for existing model calibration. The objective of TD:NI programs will be to reduce vehicle trips at research and development, office and manufacturing developments by incorporating program components such as having a TD1I coordinator, encouraging increased transit use, carpooling, and pro�-iding facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians. South San Francisco has a "menu" of potential TD1I programs, each with a specific number of points that relate to the program's effectiveness. Examples of TD1I programs include bicycle racks and lockers, free carpool parking, shuttle services, and on-site amenities. DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-35 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 4.2.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS A. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA In accordance with _appendix G of the ,Vltme (;E/�A Guidelines (Environmental Checklist Form) and the City of South San Francisco and C/CAG gtiidelines, implementation of the Project could have a significant effect on the environment if it would result in any of the following conditions: ➢ The Project would exceed 100 net new Peak Hour trips on the local roadway system (C/('.AG criteria only). ➢ Signalized intersection operation and all-wav-stop intersection operation would change from Level of Service (LOS) A, B, C or D to LOS E or F and total volumes passing through the intersection would be increased by at least tvo percent. ➢ Uncontrolled turn movements or stop sign controlled approaches at side street stop sign controlled intersections would change from LOS A, B, C, D or E to LOS F and total volumes passing through the intersection would be increased by at least tvo percent. Side street criteria are applicable only for stop sign controlled approaches with more than 25 trips during any pear traffic hour. ➢ The Project would increase total volumes passing through an intersection by tvo percent or more with signalized or all-way stop operation already at a Base Case LOS E or F, or when the intersection is side street stop sign controlled and the stop sign controlled Base Case operation is at LOS F (and there are more than 25 vehicles on the stop sign controlled approach). ➢ Project traffic would increase Base Case volumes at an unsignalized intersection to meet Pear Hour volume signal warrant criteria levels, or to meet pedestrian/school crossing signal warrant criteria levels. ➢ The Project would increase traffic entering an unsignalized intersection by tvo percent or more with Base Case traffic levels already exceeding Pear Hour volume signal warrant criteria levels. ➢ Project traffic would increase acceptable Base Case 95t" percentile vehicle queuing on a freeway off-ramp and/or also on the approaches to adjacent intersections leading away from Off-ramp intersections to unacceptable levels (as determined by the Synchro software program), or if Base Case 95th percentile queuing on the freeway off-ramps or on the approaches to adjacent intersections leading away from off-ramp intersections is already projected at unacceptable lengths, the Project would increase queuing volumes by one percent or more. ➢ Project traffic results in queues exceeding off-ramp storage capacity based upon SIM traffic software evaluation. If base case traffic already exceeds the storage capacity of the off-ramp, then a one-percent addition in traffic due to the Project is considered a significant impact. ➢ Project traffic would degrade operation of the U.S. 101 freeway or freeway ramps from LOS E to LOS F with at least a one percent increase in volume, or would increase volumes by more than one percent on a freeway segment or a freeway ramp with Base Case LOS F operation. DRIFT FIR l 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,L\]TACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES_ VENI_?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-36 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION ➢ If on-site circulation would be confiising to drivers and result in excessive traffic flow through various parts of the Project site. ➢ Project development or Project traffic would produce a detrimental impact to local transit or shuttle service. ➢ If, in the opinion of the registered traffic engineer conducting the EIR analvsis, a significant traffic, pedestrian or bicvcle safety-concern would be created or worsened. B. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Traffic Table 19, Project Trip Generation, shows that in 2015 the Project total of 262,287 square feet of research and development space would be likely to generate 123 inbound and 27 outbound trips during the AEI Peak Hour,with 19 inbound and 103 outbound trips during the PSI Peak Hour. This assumes a 20.0 percent reduction in Peak Hour trips due to a City--mandated TD1I Program. The Project, I)v 2035,would be expected to generate 113 inbound and 24 outbound trips during the AM Peak Hour, with 16 inbound and 95 outbound trips during the PM Peak Hour with the City- mandated 25 percent reduction TD:NI Program in place and operational. Trip generation projections for the Project have been developed using Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation - 8"'Edition. TRAFFIC TABLE 19 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AEI Peak Hour Trips PSI Peak Hour Trips Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Use Size(Sq. Rate Volume Rate Volume Rate Volume Rate Volume Ft. Year 2011 and 201 R&D 1 262,287 0.47" 123 0.10", 27 0.07 , 19 0.40 i, 105 Year 2035 R&D 1 262,287 0.43" 113 0.09" 24 0.06" 16 0.36" 9,5 ii ITE peak hour fitted curve equation trip rate reflecting all R&D development in Project area reduced by 20"/o, reflecting City--mandated TDM program requirements in 2015 to reduce Project trip generation and increased congestion. ITE peak hour fitted curve equation trip rate reflecting all R&D development in Project area reduced br 25"/o, reflecting City--mandated TDM program requirements in 2035 to reduce Project trip generation and increased congestion. Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation,8th Edition,br the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 2008. Fitted curve equations applied to total R&D development in East of 101 area. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group C. PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Project traffic was distributed to the regional roadway- network based on East of 101 development traffic patterns contained in the 2001 EIR for the South San Francisco General Plan amendment and Transportation Demand Ordinance, the 2008 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR, and recent traffic modeling for the East of 101 Traffic Modeling update traffic stud- (see Traffic Table 20, Project Trip Distribution). Drivers, associated with the Project destined to/from the U.S. 101 freeway- either north or south would likely- choose to access the freeway- via several routes and interchanges. The Existing and Year 2015 AM and PM Peak Hour Project traffic increment is shown distributed to the local roadway network in Traffic Figures 12 and 13,with Traffic Figures 14 and 15 presenting resultant Existing + Project AM and PM Peak Hour vohimes at major intersections, and Traffic Figures 16 and 17 presenting resultant year 2015 AEI and PSI Peak Hour DRIFT EIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,h]TACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-37 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION with Project vohimes at major intersections. The Year 2035 AM and P1I Pear Hour Project traffic increment is shown distributed to the local roadway network in Traffic Figures 18 and 19, with Traffic Figures 20 and 21 presenting resultant year 2035 AEI and PSI Peak Hour with Project volumes at major intersections. TRAFFIC TABLE 20 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Year 201:1 Fear 203:1 Direction AM Peak Hour PSI Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PSI Peak Hour I_.S. 101 North/San 37 35 343 32 Francisco/Brisbane I_T.S. 101 South 1 48 48 48 48 South San Francisco (central area) 6 6 6 6 Daly City-/Cohna via Sister Cities 6 6 6 6 Blvd. Local East of U.S. 101 3 6 8 TOTAL 100'% 100% W(P to W(P to !11 also includes use of S.Airport Blvd. to/from I-380 interchange. Source: City of South San Francisco,Draft Supplemental Environmental hnpact Report,South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance,April 2001 and Genentech Central Cunpus Master Plan FIR 4.2.5 IMPACT ANALYSIS Please refer to Tables 5 tlirotigli 9 for trip generation information. Figires appear at the end of Chapter 4 while the tables are integrated throughout the text. Impact 1: Trips generated by the Project would exceed 100 net new trips during AM and PM Peak Hours and the applicant is submitting a Transportation Demand Management Program for approval as part of the Project. (Less than Significant) Traffic Table 19, Project Trip Generation shows that under existing and 2015 conditions, the Project would result in 150 new trips during the AM Pear Hour and 124 new trips during the P1I Peak Hour, which is greater than 100 net new trips. In 2035, the Project would result in 137 new trips during the AM Pear Hour and 111 new trips during the P1I Pear Hour, which is also greater than 100 net new trips. C/C AG Agency Guidelines for implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program (C/(.AG Guidelines) specify that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants would mitigate all new Peak Hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development. Since the Project exceeds this threshold, the applicant has created and will implement a Transportation Demand Management (TD1I) Program as a component of the Project as described in the initial study in Appendix A and in Chapter 3 Section 3.6.11 of this EIR. The TD:NI Program will be consistent with the City- of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management (or its successor), and acceptable to C/C AG. This program, once implemented, will be ongoing for the occupied life of the development as required by City-Ordinance. Mitigation Measure: None required. DRIFT EIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES_ VENI_?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-38 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION EXISTING WITH PROJECT IMPACTS Impact 2: The Project would not result in any intersection level of service significant impacts under Existing with Project conditions. (Less than Significant) Traffic Table 5, Existing Intersection Levels of Service shows that the addition of Project traffic would not result in an unacceptable level of service at arty of the saidy intersections under Existing with Project conditions. Tliis impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. Impact 3: The Project would not result in any 95th percentile vehicle queuing impacts under Existing with Project conditions. (Less than Significant) Traffic Table 6, 951h Percentile Vehicle Queues shows that the addition of Project traffic to existing volumes would not result in any unacceptable 95th percentile vehicle queuing at any available location. At this one intersection with existing unacceptable queuing, Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue southbound left turn, Project traffic would increase existing left turn volumes by less than 1 percent (0.60/o). Mitigation Measure 3: None required. Impact 4: The Project would increase existing AM Peak Hour volumes on the U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive by 1.9 percent, where current volumes already exceed capacity limits. The off-ramp volume of 1,618 vehicles under Existing without Project conditions would be increased to 1,649 vehicles under Existing with Project conditions at a location with an off-ramp diverge capacity of 1,500 vehicles per hour. (Potentially Significant, Less Than Significant with Mitigation) Refer to Traffic Table 7, Off-Ramp Capacity and Volumes. Mitigation Measure 4: The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer for a second off-ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 freeway at the U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive. The full fair-share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Impact after Mitigation: The City has determined that the improvement in Mitigation Measure 4 is feasible and would restore off-ramp diverge operation to an acceptable level, and therefore the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-39 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION Impact 5: The Project would not increase the Peak Hour volumes at any study on-ramp above acceptable capacity limits under Existing with Project conditions. (Less than Significant) Traffic Table 8, On-Ramp Capacity and Volumes shows that the addition of Project traffic would not increase Pear Hour volhunes albove acceptable capacity- limits at anv studv on-ramps under Existing with Project conditions. Tliis impact would be less than significant Mitigation Measures: None required. Impact 6: The Project would not degrade the level of service of any U.S. 101 freeway mainline segments under Existing with Project conditions. (Less than Significant) Traffic Table 10, Existing Freeway Mainline Levels of Service shows that the addition of Project traffic would not result in an unacceptable level of service at arty of the study freeway mainline segments under Existing with Project conditions. Tliis impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. YEAR 2015 WITH PROJECT IMPACTS Impact 7: The Project would not increase traffic volumes above acceptable capacity limits at any study intersection under 2015 with Project conditions. (Less than Significant) Traffic Table 12, Year 2015 Intersection Levels of Service shows that the addition of Project- related traffic would not result in an unacceptable level of service at and- intersection. In addition, projected traffic would not increase volumes by 2 percent or more at anv intersection experiencing unacceptable `without Project" operation. This impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure 7: None required. Impact 8: The Project would increase vehicle queuing at Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp during the AM Peak Hour by 1.7 percent in the through lanes on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to Dubuque Avenue at a location with unacceptable 2015 Without Project 95th percentile queuing. These levels are determined to be unacceptable by the City of South San Francisco and Caltrans under 2015 with Project conditions. The eastbound through movement queue per lane would increase from 336 up to 341 feet in a location with only 250 feet of storage per lane. (Potentially Significant;Less than Significant with Mitigation) Refer to Traffic Table 13,Year 2015 951h Percentile Vehicle Queue Analysis. DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-40 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION Mitigation Measure 8: The applicant shall provide a fair-share contribution as determined by the City- Engineer to go towards adjusting the signal light timing at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue intersection as shown in Traffic Figure 22, Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. The full fair-share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy 1)v the City. Mitigation Measure 8 would reduce `with Project" vehicle queuing in the eastbound approach through lanes to a shorter distance than `without Project" conditions (313 feet 95th percentile mitigated `with Pro)ect" queue versus 336 feet`without Project" unmitigated queue). Impact after Mitigation: The City has determined that the intersection improvements described in Mitigation Measure 8 are feasible and would restore intersection operations to an acceptable level. The City- has a traffic impact fee program pursuant to which the City- will collect funds from all future development in the East of 101 area to construct these improvements. With the payment of the Project's fair share of the cost of this improvement, the Project's impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact 9.A: The Project would increase year 2015 AM peak hour without Project traffic volumes by 2.3 percent at the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Intersection which would increase backups extending to the freeway mainline. There would be more frequency with vehicles backing up to the freeway mainline. (Potentially Significant; Less Than Significant with Mitigation) Mitigation Measure 9.A: The applicant shall provide a fair-share contribution as determined by the City- Engineer to adjust the signal timing and restripe the Oyster Point Boulevard/GateNvav Boulevard intersection eastbound approacli from a left, tvo through lanes and a combined throtigli/riglit turn lane to a left, tvo through lanes and an exchisive riglit turn lane. The full fair-share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City- The improvements are shown in Traffic Figure 22. All of the improvements are included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and will be funded via the proposed Project's traffic impact fee contribution to this program. Impact after Mitigation: The City has determined that the intersection improvements described in Mitigation Measure 9A are feasible and would restore intersection operations to an acceptable level. The City-has a traffic impact fee program pursuant to which the City-will collect funds from all future development in the East of 101 area to construct these improvements. With the payment of the Project's fair share of the cost of this improvement, the Project's impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES_ VENI_?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-41 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION Impact 9.B: The Project would increase year 2015 AM peak hour without Project traffic volumes by 2.3 percent at the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp (Flyover) diverge to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Intersection. The Project would increase off-ramp volumes from 1,762 up to 1,803 vehicles with 2015 without Project volumes already exceeding the 1,500 vehicles per hour diverge capacity limit. (Potentially Significant; Significant and Unavoidable) Refer to Traffic Table 7 Off-Ramp Capacity and Volumes. Mitigation Measure 9B: No mitigation is available. City Public Works staff has determined that providing the necessary- mitigation to provide a second U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 freeway mainline would not be feasible due to the limited distance between the flyover off- ramp diverge and the southbound off-ramp diverge to Airport Boulevard. Impact after Mitigation: Due to technical and financial considerations, Mitigation Measure 9.11 which applies to the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp diverge to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection, cannot be completed. Therefore, Impact 9.11 would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 10: The Project would increase traffic volumes on the U.S. 101 freeway, but would not result in unacceptable operation on any study freeway mainline segment under 2015 with Project conditions. (Less than Significant) Traffic Table 14, Year 2015 Freeway Mainline Levels of Service, shows that the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on freeway- operations. All freeNvav segments would remain with LOS E or better operation with the addition of Project traffic. Therefore, the impact would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure: None required. YEAR 2035 WITH PROJECT IMPACTS Impact 11: The Project would increase year 2035 without Project traffic volumes by 2.1 percent at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue intersection. The increase would occur during the AM Peak Hour and would result in a significant impact at an intersection projected to operate unacceptably at LOS F during year 2035 without Project conditions. (Potentially Significant; Less than Significant with Mitigation) Traffic Figure 18, Year 2035 With Project AM Peak Hour Volumes, Traffic Figure 19, Year 2035 With Project PM Peak Hour Volumes and Traffic Table 16, 2035 Intersection Levels of Service, shows that the intersection would be significantly- affected 1)v the addition of Project traffic DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES_ VENI_?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-42 4.0 ENVIRON\MENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND\MITIGATION to 2033 without Project volumes. The intersection is projected to operate at unacceptable levels in 2033 without the Project and the Project would increase the impact above sigrtificance criteria levels. Mitigation Measure 11: The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City- Engineer to provide an exchisive riglit turn lane on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach at the Oyster Point Boulevard /Eccles Avenue intersection. The full fair share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. The improvements noted in Mitigation Measure 11 are shown in Traffic Table 21 and Traffic Figure 23. The improvements would reduce the M Peak Hour delay to LOS F-101.1 seconds control delay- from projected conditions at LOS F-181 seconds control delay for 2035 without Project conditions. Impact after Mitigation: Mitigation Measure 11 is feasible and would reduce the Project's impact to the Oyster Point Boulevard / Eccles Avenue intersection to a less than sigrtificant level. TRAFFIC TABLE 21 YEAR 2035 MITIGATED INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 203:1 203:1 'Mitigated 203:1 203:1 203:1 Mitigated 203:1 Without Project With Project With Project Without Project With Project With Project elan- Delay elan elan elan Delay LOS OS LOS LOS LOS (seconds OS Intersection (seconds) (seconds) (seconds) (seconds) (seconds) Oyster Point Blvd./Eccles F 181", F 194 F 101.1' C 21.2 C 22.8 C 22.8" Ave. Source: Crane Transportation Group,October 2011 Note:Year 2000 Highway Capaciti-Manual analysis methodology-. I Signalized level of sere ice vehicle control delay in seconds. Provide an exclusive right turn lane on the eastbound Ovster Point Boulevard approach. Impact 12.A: The Project would unacceptably increase year 2035 without Project AM peak hour vehicle queuing at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp intersection in the through lanes on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach. Project traffic would increase volumes by 1.5 percent, which would already be experiencing unacceptable 2035 without Project 951h percentile queuing. The eastbound queues would increase from 1,163 up to 1,187 feet in a location with only 900 feet of storage in the existing through lanes. The increase is above levels determined to be acceptable by the City of South San Francisco. (Potentially Significant;Less Than Significant with Mitigation) Mitigation Measure 12.A: The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City- Engineer to adjust the signal timing; restripe the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approacli to provide an exchisive left turn lane, tvo exchisive through lanes and an exchisive riglit turn lane; and restripe the exclusive right turn lane on the eastbound U.S.101 flyover off-ramp approacli to allow throtigli movements. Tliis will also require provision of a third eastbound departure lane for eastbound through traffic from the off-ramp. The full fair-share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occtipancy by the CltV. DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-43 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION Impact after Mitigation: The City has determined that the intersection improvements described in Mitigation Measure 12A are feasible and would restore intersection operations to an acceptable level. The City-has a traffic impact fee program pursuant to which the City-will collect hinds from all future development in the East of 101 area to construct these improvements. With the payment of the Project's fair share of the cost of this improvement, the Project's impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact 12.B: The Project would unacceptably increase year 2035 without Project AM peak hour vehicle queuing at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue /U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp intersection in the through lanes on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach. Project traffic would increase volumes by 1.4 percent, which would already be experiencing unacceptable 2035 without Project queuing. The eastbound queues would increase from 638 up to 640 feet in a location with only 250 feet of storage. The Project would also unacceptably increase volumes by 1.3 percent during the PM Peak Hour in the right turn lanes on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to the U.S. 101 northbound on-ramp at a location with unacceptable 2015 "without Project" queuing. The westbound right turn queue would increase from 1,148 up to 1,156 feet in a location with only 840 feet of storage. The increase is above levels determined to be acceptable by the City of South San Francisco. (Potentially Significant; Less Than Significant with Mitigation) Mitigation Measure 12.B: The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to restripe the exclusive through lane on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach adjacent to the dual riglit turn lanes to also allow riglit turn movements; and to adjust signal timing at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp. The full fair-share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Impact after Mitigation: The improvements described under Mitigation Measure 12.A are feasible and would reduce the Project's impacts to a less than significant level at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection. Mitigation Measure 12.11 which applies to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp is also feasible. This impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. The improvements are planned for and shown in Traffic Figure 23. IMPACTS 13.A-D (FREEWAY RAMPS) The following four impacts would be significant and unavoidable and would impact the mainline at tvo U.S. 101 off-ramps and result in operational impacts to one U.S. 101off-ramp and one U.S. 101 on-ramp under 2035 with Project Conditions. Please refer to Traffic Tables 7 and 8. Off-Ramp Queuing Impacts Impact 13.A: The Project would increase the frequency of backups extending to the freeway mainline at the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Intersection during the AM Peak Hour. The Project would increase volumes at this off-ramp by 1.4 percent compared to Year 2035 without Project volumes. Traffic would DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-44 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION backup to the freeway mainline more frequently. (Potentially Significant;Significant and Unavoidable) Impact 13.B: The Project would increase the frequency of backups extending to the freeway mainline at the U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive Intersection during the AM Peak Hour. The Project would increase volumes at this off-ramp by 1.3 percent compared to Year 2035 without Project volumes. Traffic would back up to the freeway mainline more frequently. (Potentially Significant; Significant and Unavoidable) Freeway Off-Ramp Diverge Impacts Impact 13.C: Implementation of the Project would increase year 2035 AM peak hour without Project traffic volumes by 1.4 percent at the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp (Flyover) diverge to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Intersection. The Project would increase off-ramp volumes from 2,454 up to 2,488 vehicles with 2035 without Project volumes already exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour capacity of the off-ramp. (Potentially Significant; Significant and Unavoidable) Freeway On-Ramp Impacts Impact 13D: The Project would increase PM peak hour on-ramp volumes by more than 1 percent on the U.S. 101 Northbound One-Lane On-Ramp from the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. Volumes would be increased by 1.1 percent (from 2,572 up to 2,601 vehicles) with Year 2035 without Project volumes already exceeding the on-ramp capacity of 2,200 vehicles per hour. (Potentially Significant;Significant and Unavoidable) Mitigation Measure 13.A-D: No mitigation available. The improvements that would be necessary to mitigate the potentially significant impacts to the off-ramps identified albove are not feasible for the reasons discussed below. • 13.A. U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Intersection In light of economic, environmental, and technological coticertis, there are no other mitigation measures considered feasible by South San Francisco Public Works staff that would reduce 95t1i percentile off-ramp queuing within available storage beyond those recommended for 2035 unacceptable surface street queuing (Mitigation Measure 12.A). _additional measures would potentially include widening Oyster Point Boulevard an additional tvo to four lanes between Veterans Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard (throtigli the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange) as well as widening the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp 1)y an additional lane on its approacli to Oyster Point Boulevard. Widening Oyster Point Boulevard through part of the interchange area would be infeasible due to the limitations imposed by the location of the support columns for the southbound DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-45 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION flyover off-ramp. Oyster Point Boulevard and off-ramp widening would also require expansion of bridge stnictures, which would be prohilbitively expensive. Provision of additional lanes would require acquisition of additional riglity-of-way along Oyster Point Boulevard. _also, provision of additional eastbound lanes on the Oyster Point and Flyover off-ramp intersection approaclies would not be feasible due to the complexity- of merging the departure lanes on the eastbound (departure leg) of the intersection. • 13.B. U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive Intersection There are no additional improvements considered financially feasible by Soutli San Francisco Public Forks staff that could be provided at either the off-ramp intersection with the surface street system or at adjacent surface street intersections that would provide enotigh increased capacitV to prevent off-ramp queuing from backing up to the U.S. 101 freeNvav mainline. • 13.C. U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp (Flyover) Diverge to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Intersection No improvements are considered feasible I)y South San Francisco Public Works staff to mitigate the impact. Should it be desired to provide a second off-ramp lane connection from the freeway mainline to the Southbound Off-Ramp (flyover) to Oyster Point Boulevard, it would likely be necessary to motive the Southbound Off-Ramp connection to Airport Boulevard further north to provide more separation between the tvo southbound off- ramps. A second off-ramp lane connection to the freeway mainline would require a long (1,000-foot or longer) deceleration lane with only 300 feet of available space. This would be infeasible given the restrictions imposed bw the location of the northbound off-ramp overpass connection to Bawshore Boulevard. There is no room for provision of this lane. • 13.D. U.S. 101 Northbound One-Lane On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection Provision of a second on-ramp lane would increase capacity- to about 3,000 to 3,100 vehicles per hour. lwhile this measure would accommodate the 2033 with Project volume of about 2,601 vehicles per hour, it would require the approval of Caltrans,which is not guaranteed. Impact after Mitigation: For reasons presented above, these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 14: The Project would not result in operational impacts to any of the study U.S.101 freeway mainline segments under 2035 with Project conditions. (Less than Significant) Traffic Table 18, Year 2035 Freeway Mainline Levels of Service shows that the Project would not result in a significant impact to freeway- operation. The addition of Project traffic would increase volumes by less than 1 percent on freeway segments with unacceptable LOS F operation under Year 2035 without Project conditions. Tliis would be a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: None required. DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-46 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION Impact 15: Project-related traffic would access Eccles Avenue via three driveways where safety impacts would result at the southern and central driveway connections due to sight line issues. (Potentially Significant;Less than Significant with Mitigation) The Project would be accessed via three driveway connections to Eccles Avenue. Ail and Pal Peak Hour turn movement projections for each driveway are presented in Traffic Figures 16 and 17 for 2015 AM & P1l Pear Hour conditions, and in Traffic Figures 20 and 21 for 2035 AM & P1l Pear Hour conditions. Siglit lines at the Project's Eccles Avenue driyeNvay intersections would be as follows. • North Driveway (opposite Rozzi Place) 0 350 feet to the north along Eccles Avenue o 450 feet to the south along Eccles _venue • Central Driveway 0 575 feet to the north along Eccles Avenue 0 230 feet to the south along Eccles Avenue (This would be increased to ± 425 feet if no landscaping taller than 2 feet were planted in siglit line patli.) • South Driveway 0 200 feet to the north along Eccles Avenue (This would be increased to ± 300 feet if no landscaping taller than 2 feet were planted in siglit line patli.) 0 700 feet to the south along Eccles Avenue Minimum stopping siglit distance for a veliicle speed of 35 miles per hour (five miles greater than the posted speed limit) is 250 feet. Tliis is a realistic evaluation of speed for north and southbound traffic at all three driveways. Tlierefore, siglit lines would be acceptable at the north driveway, but potentially not acceptable at the central driveway (to the south), or at the south driveway (to the north) if bushes, trees or any otlier type of tall landscaping that would block siglit lines is provided along the site frontage between the central and south driveways. Mitigation Measure 15: The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining landscaping along the Eccles Avenue Project frontage between the central and south driveways that will allow exiting drivers to maintain the minimum required 250-foot siglit lines at the central and south driveways. The landscape plan shall be revised to show staggered tree planting along this frontage to allow siglit lines tlirotigli the trees as tliey grow and reacli maturity-; or, the trees and landscaping shall be maintained to provide a view from 2.5 to 6 feet above grade. The landscape plan shall be revised to note either requirement, show the line-of-sight triangles and not the requirement. These notes shall be on the building plans that are a part of the building permit issuance. The note shall be made on the plans in conformance with the lines of sight required as set forth in Traffic Figure 24 to insure that the mitigation is permanently maintained. DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-47 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION The Project shall maintain landscaping along the Eccles _venue Project frontage between the central and south driveways that will allow exiting drivers being able to maintain the minimum required 250-foot siglit lines listed albove at the central and south driveways. Tliere are several methods to achieve the desired result. One is to limb the trees up to silt feet in height and restrict slinibs to 2.5 feet in height along the frontage to retain a clear sight distance within a 3.5 foot window. mother method is to stagger the tree planting to avoid a line of trees that could result in blocking line-of-sight. The applicant shall note the landscape maintenance requirement on the plans for issuance of a building permit, or revise the landscape plans showing the trees in a staggered configuration. Impact after Mitigation: Implementation of the improvements listed above in Mitigation Measure 15,which are feasible,would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Impact 16: On-site circulation would adequately conform to City guidelines and good traffic engineering practice with the exception of the first internal intersection at the southern driveway which could result in right-of- way conflicts. (Potentially Significant; Less than Significant with Mitigation) As part of this analysis, the Novemlber 15, 2011 internal circulation plan developed 1)y CAS Arcliitects, Inc. was evalhiated. The central and south Project drlveways would be channelized about 35 feet internal to the site, while the north driveway would be channelized for about 28 feet. The north and central driveways would be 25 feet wide at Eccles _venue, while the south driveway would be 30 feet wide at Eccles _venue. All surface lot and garage parking aisles are shown to be 25 feet wide. All dimensions meet City- code criteria and good traffic engineering practice. Two sidewalks would be provided across the internal parking aisle separating the garage from the tvo buildings at the garage's pedestrian access locations. Tliis should consolidate the vast majority of pedestrian flow between the garage and building entrances at tvo well-defined locations. These parts of the internal circulation plan are adequate. The lavout of internal parking aisles also appears acceptable, with the exception of the first intersection internal to the site at the south driveway. Without stop sign control on the southbound parking aisle approacli, there could be right-of-way issues between southbound and eastbound parking aisle traffic, as the garage would block sight lines between drivers on these tvo approaclies. In addition, drivers in the southbound parking aisle would not have the best sight line to see southbound traffic on Eccles Avenue taming right into the site. This would result in a potentially significant safety-impact. Mitigation Measure 16: The applicant shall provide stop sign control on the southbound parking aisle approacli to the south driveway adjacent to the southeast corner of the garage, show the stop sign on the building permit plans and install the sign prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Impact after Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 16 shown in Traffic Figure 25 is feasible and would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Impact 17: The Project would provide internal sidewalks connecting the parking garage with the two buildings as well as connecting both buildings. In DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-48 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION addition, a walkway would be provided connecting Project buildings with Eccles Avenue. Pedestrian infrastructure appears adequate. (Less than Significant) Internal wall ways are shown on the site plan connecting both buildings and the parking garage. Chie wall way would extend to Eccles Avenue, where a sidewalk is already- provided along the entire site frontage. Mitigation Measure 17: None required. DRIFT FIR/4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 4-49 4.0 ENSTTR _)N`�E i 1"AI.,SE"I'17NG,INIPAC`C"ANIa MITIGATION rwlo.t T.Sale NORTH �fl a 101 S'S" ,poirli 8Wd G �Project Site �V e q E Grand r e�n� Pym Mit h B AV m a v v ch SUP 0 4 101 cn �c e. 360 �r 475 Eccles Ave EIR :'source: Crane Transportation Group FIGURE 1 AREA MAP DRAFT EIR /4.0 fl"INN'IlRC.7N?vfJ,IN'1 %;9,SI',"C 1'[NC;,IMI)AC"F AND MJ'I'If:;A N)N 475 E(,(i,l s AvLN LIF,SOUH I SAN Fr ANC ISCO,C.11 dU MNIA I?AGi.?4-50 4.0 EINVIRONNIENTAL SETTING,nNTACTAND-Nif-flGATION Srsf+:r.. gC7 slew Nul l'o S�3�e QV,5ter ov,,,,,Pt opter NORTH '98 TO I 41 Offramp Forbes + NS Wi %Offrcmp Z, Grand Cran V E 0?1W ------------ cro,mp -)ttr-F J%govProloss r, "7 "V J Blvd F Orano tt- Ll ,,Project Site ro,-bes Mille I A v -4 ml fl r J)L G")'IdAv E s� �71—A,,,,, e EO Gr�wd Av t I- MdcheflAv Signal 0,% 'd— us Pal 1� ww lr Side Street NB Ramps% cf o", ControHed Stop Sign 101 475 Ecdes Ave EIR Source: Crane Transportation Group FIGURE 2 EXISTING INTERSECTION LANE GEOMETRICS AND CONTROL DRAFT EfR/4.0 ENVIRONMI XI'Al. I\TAC 475 Ec'(],e�s Avi�1NUP',SOUT]I SAN FRANCISCO,CALJ FORNT A PA(A 4-51 4,0:I NVIRO)NMENT_ L SETTING,I\1I'AC:T AND MITIGATION Nct'ra Scalar NORTH 4 miles to west 101 �1 .SFS7E,✓-CiYiPS.��V�tiwaw..w�a4 u? *�`a� �,,✓' . wa�w�a.+�wa,a�a�aww„aa d31Vd Iar oyster Point � ♦r.rawww ap, p Project aw pr. Q ?? . site Furfac.;81vd' .............. MlllErAv � East ""a Grand It Ave E ®—CalTrain Shuttle ..........BART Oyster Point Shuttle SaalTrans Routes 101 SOUTH SANG FRANCISCO BART STATION! Between Mission/El Cam' i,no at LawnsialelMcSlellJn SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO O'ALTRAIIN STATION tf3Y Shutbe strop nearest Project Site(Eccles at Rozzi) 475 Eccl s Ave E.VR Sonrce: Crane Transportation Groi:zp FIGURE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ROUTES TAI :^F' EII /4.0 ENVIIZ0NMJ,'N Al-Si: 475 Ec cu, s Avt,Nul,.,St1UI I I SAN Fi ANCaSCO,CALfFORNIA 17x G( 4-52 4.0 ENVIRON.IM ✓NT-AL SETTING,BIPACT AND AIFTIGATION 204 42 21 D 176 258 177 302 242 N 10 Scale 107 25 162 58 137 r��,rrrrr+r C7 star cihes Point -0 OyVer Pt oul NORTH 41) 2913 rp gV lul 8 53 17 997 27 281 626 274 413 894 152 104 1,98 —T L7� - It 38 27 qq 4-12 355 482 64 3 3 112 61 '2�7 J�j 394 �61 0 52 —128 49 1 38 26 403 6 1 Ig 171 mWer SB 101 0 12 0 -0 Of(ramp 45 N8 10 1 102 51 <)ffi Imp 556 M 114 3 471 IL 67 306, ill 56 95 45 22 a 12 ")2�'3 a 255 266 —102 6' 214 183 52 15- 191 64 '35 4-12 495 1 E Gjandg Grandi.4k E 01M,C E otand 40 hfi ("and 233 ov, 672 162,E lr"' 515 174 35 161 37 j 121 1,080 59 94 22 2224 764 3 T47 286 74 86 337 630 — 5. 71 155-� 101 7Z, 7Z, 7Z, 14 Blvd U t-Grant 1 556 062 Casa F"beq 6fvd ", Site o t-7 667 t-177 129 ft/lilfe1 50 142 134 C, o 95 j —21 2 t 24 Sari Malec) East 177p777 Gran d Ave fp LlI, , E 5o 5,j '1-(2 423 332 106 3n 34 "M 42 3") Wchp;lAv 392 104 I 35 11 ardercok'r LIS t01 woo Y- 00 r- 154 26 101 366 249 475 Eccles Ave EIR Source: Crane Transportation Group FIGURE 4 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES DRAT,i,EIR/4.0 EN vi RON SFITTIN(3,INIPACIT ANY)W11(;ATION 475 ECCLES A\1.'N1'1%,SOUTI I SAN FRANCIS,(-(),CALDURNIA PAC it 4--53 4.0 ENVIRONNIENTAL SETTING,IMPAC."I'AND MYTIGATION 337 64 m 906 1582 1214 416 158 720 625 a N ot To Scapc Li- 229 45 13 Sister OvsW 0 sler 1002 0 S16r Cities poml poin 223 's NORTH 61 178J U -n) 46 301 41 127 140 388 129 et 127 i� 951 76 [o22 118 268--� 27 m. \1 39 39 11226 5 'L 2 L. —2 �1+2 2 2 278 39�of 0 288 'R 42 75 0 15 n, 64 244 467 �) _J 481 SS 101 0 ► 35 35 1!4 0 Forbes Offrarnp 13 134 NB 107 217 J 4 0 112 222 + 306 "N 145 160 186 U 1'109 340 ill 342 131 19 40 7 93 1070 Big 177 6�7 12 §-- �j 34 _ _I 1 0 ') � �, 159 J L� g5 574 1359 E Grand -- E Grand Grand Iran I I - 't 1 --.0 F Granc) 23 178 49 6 45 110 29 J 71 U4, 290 222 286 197 a 79 28 Grad 1� r��6 6 54 0 7 533 290— 74 45 63 36 Sister, 101 gpvd E Grand 0 star 65 471 S ire 1004 200 389 355 7 76 162 350 rAv 178 103 I 6K3 2 "d GrandAL, East D.I=77P.rl 3 Airport Grand Ave 121 J E 34 J 134 101 494 6 200 n 8 29 342 191 124 Michel Av 476 12 153 16 oodercolor 0S 1021 Won er- Ne F,,17— Colm 356 t CL 3 15 16 10 I 33 289 47:5 Focles Aye E I R Source: Crane Transportation Group FIGURE 5 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES DRAFT EJR/4.0 ENVIRONWNTAL SEITING,Imi)Ac'i,AND NflTIGATION 475 EccLYS AVI,"NUE,SOU TI I SAN F'RANCISC ),CALIFORNTA .1 X Rv,,i?:4-54 4.0 ENVIRONNIENTAL SETTING,INIPACTAND MITIGATION T� 286 349 51 20 11 176+389 � 219 74 344 -7 oy'to r m To Scale 24 477 Qt le 196 L. 39 204 0 StOr Sister vs 61 star C C I it &es Point poml 266 Oyster 60Y NORTH 102 523 J 1255,— 60Y 59 32 2 2 10,7 4� 480 927 359 1131 537 �L 243 45 W86 1332 5 6 z.� 4C) '3 4 9 226 ck 50 /11—101 604 3 3 L* 114 Q 114 65 489 Sp TO 52 —142 129 12 .j I Q, �-572 4 4 5�,� —243 ra miflor SB 101 1-1 a 14 0 Forbes 79 92 Offramp 107 NB I I 0 95 fframp -1 671 152 3 0 481 145 110 452 _70 —363 152 56 112 183 84 —144 S' 4 216 25,5 30'5 275 96 85 'S L4 15 23 157 548 1 231 1157 22 48 vs E Grand E Grando .rand r7rq,ysol�ri 248 41 D,03 231 632 3 lt 1601 4 34 1623 131 10.3 318 3� 214 1 72 25 22C 925 g5 '4,6 235 114 6 86 42 1 942 S'lly cvlo, 101 14 6 7e o Fter E3[vd E Grano -2 1178 Project Site Forbes 656 177 172 7 Ui%I.Av 74 142 ' ._ 193 C, R� 88 212 322 24 Sig mVej,0 Gr,5ndAv En�sl krpurl r Mieyvortl Lo Grand Ave 9 E(� 184— 430 340 a. 21,206 361 196 1015 so 400 Au 416 25 104 76 —60 �d I � I �- 18 andercoior Ln NB Ramp,% �Cb, 1254 di 80 r 0170 15 2 101 64 475 Ave EIR Source: Crane Transportation Group FIGURE 6 YEAR 2015 WITHOUT PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES DkAP'i'EIS./4.0 ENVIRONMENTA].SF,1"VING,IMPACT AND NKITIGA'riON 475 Avj:.Nt11,7,,S0j_j'fj I SAN ftiz,vw-lisco,CALIF()RNIA PAGF 4-55 4.0 ENVIRONINTEN't'AL SETFING, 1'N,,fPA.CT :`iND MTTIGATION 490 t 204 '1652 55 ��22 4 22 446 85 2272 1673 No�To Scale 285 776 4) 50 110� Sister A (7 star f- 1279 �Ls Pr 421 NORTH Cities IN OF �1111671101 poin 75 Oyster r1i tarn 63 202 :31h 1" c "7, � V` 380 p -3 74 278 33' 472 221 163 120 96 80 288 20 313 23y 128 �502 149 1626 6 +-2 ) I L,� �2 +b2 6 t-2- 97 0 340 .38 0 1 f-0 46 —292 236 2 is 47 tltl 374 251 605J SB 10 1 0 3 5 0 Forbes Offramp 48 1 , 89 NB 101 199 167 230 288 2 w 4 0 1 352 183 � B3 + 213 '1675 673 95 478 11 182 145 1349 —448 '107 93 1487 729 30,0 34 7 43 L. 544 105 Grand 18,6 E Grand E Grand 4h.............. G rqq r F G—d �V— "= 'cilo'ssing 173 19 '169 217J �Z7 71r- r- 41ZPOvercross 321 n r- 114 45 138 99 J 45 383 357 299 31 76 522 336 300 330 103 75 166 196 98 161 -- - - - ---------------------- 1011 4�-9 13(vd E Grand ,31er P00 67 467 C7 a7" aN Project Site Fcrbes 918 382 367 3 rA v so 168 , , i :!"'5 839 3 325 223 1' 11 D3 GrRndAv East San mldpo 1060 M't' 'hef� Mitr Grand Ave SAirpnit 7—A i 7�170 1.1 100 '5 2136 E 167—+ 60 149 501 123 214 142 248 1 00— 286 191 405--� Wch0Av 5S8 +_ 40 153 105 —88 k- 76 ondexcior US 101 0 oncip" q, Ln NB Ramos COW 503 J 101 70 ��367 3,03 15 210 475 Eccles Ave EIR Source: Crane Transportation Group FIGURE 7 YEAR 2015 WITHOUT PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES IRA 7 EIR/4.OEN\�lt�ONNII,N'I'A],Sl�l"t'INC,,Imi),"(."i'AN[ )7VIt'll(',)\'I'ION 475 SAN PA(.;j-�4-56 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,INIPACTAND MT-11GATION Nn�-Fa Smale Oyster 03t, 111, NORTH Sister A V� ovVer yster Cities irrP 11 3 P P0 Oysfer Tj ax7 -rr MY r SB 101 rbes Oltramp -4 f T NB t0l �5 Tj '01tramp Tj E�Gmnd E G rand Gt'-w r E rran�l c osspng (-F WOvercross -4 f- Z 101 Ste, P&t BfVj F G'and e' u5-- Project Site maruerAv Son 77 7 W'-0� GlaOdAv East ro Graiid AvP t MitcheliAv, 7 fceor Signal � 2 Le =Side Street ND Ramps. COMIT o Controlied Stop Sign t 101 475 Eccles Ave EIR Source: Crane Transportation Group FIGURE 8 YEAR 2015 LANE GEOMETRICS,AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS DRM'r EIR/4.0 ENVI RON Nll;,NTA T,SF F"FING,IMPAC'TAND A11TIGATION 475 Ecci,i"s Av I P N Ul,",SO[ITI I SAN FRANCISCO,C,ALI FORNIA PAGi"4-57 4.0 ENVIRONNIENTAL SETTING,IMPACT AND MITIGATION, 323 187 + 06 54 12 177 850 —220 74 25 575 �240 loot'To SrMe 21:3 —703 58 4 lster Gvste ovslar 105 OLI 1- 110 0 slor '1 --, —tv'r1f 71-717 Point Point 266 oyster pf ;3J7 NORTH 104 629 1614-� 2626 J 89 51 337 2 380 1821 108 691 683 97 1479 971 274 98 �e 40 'e 54 264 -., 10'15 �E 110 6373 /1 129 1168 3 529 6,5 J I 58 139 1 32 51 " —321 794 'Q-1)4 9C 1' 10, Std 101 1864 M'11 er Forbes 0 —'amp Q"14 0 F� 124 92 F§ 102 132 nt 101 854 36 140 I 3 0 167 527 -7 +-43 145 204 6' IL 108 129 7911 2� 151,7 439 98 49 6 -*-352 382 J-27 3 257 241 105 98 �) 256 30►Gram i Q —618 Gran E Grand )LIZ g I T '� E G,A�d ossing ove(cross 1405�- *) r� -) t rti cros, 249 J 4) 237 927 J 85 421 35 220 40 2D72 986 2141 121 517 86 454 1347— 226 9q4 90 79 111 247--x, 157 sister Crtr 101 9/vy t-23 L31vd E Grand to poW 853 1302 ---*,_Project Site Fufbes Blvd 723 182 178 E? 7 lillerAv 74 163 Fa ?97 6 —99 4- —220 24 429 GJ-,iadAv East San Mateo Mitchell ErD Grand Ave 135 J S Aitporl 711-111---,( 121 --� 217 t r' x'435 783 242 129--+ 2213 515 160 525 968 Mitche)l A v " 547 k 28 105 94 —57 ondexcior 27 < Ln NS Panlp3 Galan CO 1640 87 x214211...5 101 475 Eccles Ave EIR Source: Crane Transportation Group FIGURE 9 YEAR 2035 WITHOUT PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES DRAJ'"i,EIR/4.0 ENVHl()NM]XFAL Sh"ITINC,INIPAM'AND MFFK;ATION 475 Ec,(J,i s Avi,,Nui,:,Soun i SAN FRNN(.IS(:O,CALIFORNIA PAC;j-'14-58 4.0 EN TI SETTING, INIII.ACT AND MITIGATION 594 396 2220 e-. 262 52 16 25 435 609 —761 23,65 Nov�To Saitle 29 85 1117 —2963 443 4 - r 'er 1624 4 8�7 0 ster lster C]suer Ste( -_r, S pant "'e, cftie 07' 0'-1 752 1) NORTH 6 ""?' 0i It 75 0 Sy M 00 224 752 4821 '182 172 "3 333 92 328 5e, -2 483 382 3 70 1722 1 15? 103 365 58 14,3 26 143 588 128 3 13 73 ,2055 152 5 �-2 a) 1 —2 407 108 SILS[0 2 62 —395 455 34 1115 �j I �u —777 24'6 755J -) I mWe r SB 101 0 c 3,5 0 Forbes Offrarrrp 49 236 93 10� 295 NB m t 487 T 112319 2 0 365 L 234 w ;3a 1-323 1876 8�2 583 175 138 243 . 4 t-154 114 203 96 1562 1539 f-853 333 55 0 48 '2 22 -731 254 Go E E Gavido G ya 'r v,�"re, 4:�9 291 192 Ove r ss 1,94 - Z, 154 45 170 118 5 515 7 F�159 12B 413 268 52 6 300 490 117 239 F'76 --� 529 449 8 217 / 11 Val 0 310 Project Site F(ybes 3 .1.185 597 443 01/ey,A V 95 189 61 7 728 267 1' 1 11659 1Z 103 GrIJIWAv East w Sao rdaCeo efl cc Grano Ave A,13 ,,,,7ol< E(� 179 n T r 502 13 2 182 101 16'35 5 3 28G 45 2D6 AddchellAv /1 732 45 324 117 105 ro ondea -.j � - 76 xior Ln U5ial L-le On, NO Ramps CNor 516 CL ?0 468 15 101 328 475 Ercles Ave EIR Source: Crane Transportation Group FIGURE 10 YEAR 2035 WITHOUT PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES DRAFrEIR/4,0 ENVTR.0NNfL.,N'l'A.L Sl-TIINC,INIPACTAND MITICATI ON 475 ZWj,,NUF,SOUTIJ SAN FR,"'N(-,'lsCO3 CAL11'ORN IA PA(& 4-59 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, INIPACT ANID ,"'ITTIGA"I'TON NoL To Scq�e -47 Oyster 0,star NORTH ,tar ovllf�ll P� r Y`0� , 1N Cities W oyster M 00 S a Q dufirf.r 7, SB 101 1 Offram, t3q Forbe8 -4 t J ; 101 r � � crrrra�,v m. JL�k. JJ Grand E Cirand C 1144 1.)t 7 r,,,, Grad E Grand cro ing -)t t F Vercro 88 tl r Seller f.{fry 101 E Grand PoMf 4 Project For!)OS f3fv site "S lLflJle,Av Grand& East Saran ate SAir vrt Grand Ave m S Aorl W E c� t�- -5 MitcheflAv Sc =SignaV w S > ondercobr U15101t%—VAnde� < -- w La Side Street NB Runup? COor Controlled t n t t Stop Sign 101 475 Eccles Ave ER Source: Crane Transportanon Group FIGURE 11 YEAR 2035 LANE GEO METRIC AND INTERSECTION CONTROL Dj�,tiFr EIR/4.0 ENVfR0NW',NTAl,SF,TFTN(R,IMP AC"],AND MITIGATION 475 E(l-(,,i,i-;,,,,-AVJ,NU �.,SOU'll f SAN FRANCI�(',O,C,,U,11,'01rMA PA(;U4-60 4f)EN VIRON MENTAL SE,"I'TING,IMPACT AND �,IITIGATION ------------ 151. NoL To Scale t' fstc'r ovste ()slev -�el A 28� -%r- Cities point (e17f:T OyVw F11 77777 &�] N�ORTH rr r* 74 z /Tm4 7 3 15 13 c 41 3 s 14 1 1 j Mdh r SB 101 13 Forbes Offramp N8 Mi Rrarnp 48 2 3 2 j Grand E Grand F Grano' overrresa 5 33 2 5 ci� 26 31 2 14 101 8 r Point E Gwid Dwy I O'SM r- 3 26 1 -� ITI roject 45 V& Site Z Dwv 2 es 9 FQ(b u 'wy' 31-) 45 f'w�2 J Miller A V 1 2 �6 7 22 Gra,CIAP Fast Sao mme.0 - ------------ dc e y Dwy 3 Grand Ave "u, SAirpon' tSAwpoa 3 29 4 '3 1 5 3 1 iR VitcheflAv ondercoior US 10 1 Woo6e,- Ln NS Pamp.7% C,,,, 101 475 EcOes Ave F IR Sokjrce: Crane Transportation Group FIGURE 12 EXISTING & 2015 PROJECT INCREMENT AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Di�-m,'i'.FTR/4.0 ENVIRON%1 FNTALS1,171NG,IMPAC I AND MITICA'110N 475 Ecci,9-;5 AviNuv,SOUTI i SAN FRAN(-BCO,CAI,11?01ZNIA PAG,r 4-61 4.0 ENV1R0NM1,NTzNL SF MING,l�,,,IPAC'[':%NDNfl'f'ICT,\'['ION 2 F t_ 35 10 —55 Not To Scale 10 0 0 ster () 10'r Hnt -411-1111' .41 oystvr Pt Gill cffies NORTH sill- 11 2 2 6 rb, 1 55 1C1 Ir I nm 48 1 R SB 101 2J fflamp NB 101 m J 2 �1 6 31 1 2 6 6 r? v 10 Gland A L Grand E GrandO C7vercrees 1! ,r14 5 J 3 '101 9W % E Grano Dwy 1 10 J 0 Ste 1 - 15 � 4 7 Q) Project 'Z Dwy 2 Site 2 34 d- Li 2 Estes C) 19 A4W0tAv 3 �r 25 3 GfaOdAv ZJ fast 32 w Dwy 3 12 Grand AVe. =,,"poft A7,77-t 5 E F lUrtchePd ondermior Ln to 101 475 Eccles AvL FIR Source: Cr-aneTransportatiota Group FIGURE 13 EXISTING & 2015 PROJECT INCREMENT PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Drtm^ 'i'EIR/4.O ENVI RON NIFNTAL S1:TIIN(,IMPACT AN I.)'LAI'n C",%Tl ON 475E(,(,j-j,,�A\/iaNui,.,SOU'1'11 SAN FRANCISC0,CA11FORNIA R%(',1;4-62 4.0 FIN VIRONMINTAL SF,'TTING',IMPACT AND MIT1GATION 204 #_.43 ., 219 176 ff 253 —17H 317 242 Not T.Scile t'- F 163 w—110 n sistor C7 ster CT Yet 140 0 ster 7 01605 poynt 771 NORTH 7"� 101, 498 t 29F, 289 68 �7 1004 27 284 641 —52. 274 4 2Ci �36 152 109 272 3 6 412 w. 27 99 L 355 "1 64 48,6 3 4-3 IN j 39 fa m" —128 0 1 27jr �52 61 39 27 F 403 —1,71 �j 684 ,jj., SB 101 0 1,2 0 Offramp 45--+ 51 log , I N8 10 150 "l artR F 4 3 471 1 67 53 112 114 307 ill .96 98 22 13 103 12 8 255, 267 214. 163 19 64 3' 4 64 15 of 4 9 6 Cram � E 6rx E Grando Grand 2.53 162j 548 j 677 176 35 162 37 j 1244 1 F�47 288 1080 59 94 22 224 790 2 71 BB B6 337 1 635 61 155--+ /VIP, 101 14 to ster P Ot 561 1088 roject Site Forbes Biv 657 L) t-7 " t-177 129 50 142 136 6 �E 1012 "Nef A v 213 '271 1_ 24 -randA, San pdalee, i ChOf East 7 S'AFrport 11 S Agrpo�I Grand Aue 50 j C E - 1 79 j 1176 1 423 337 34 2180 3 183 4 390 2 MitcheflAv 392 104 35 11 18 ondpxoior US I fTl .0 Ln N7 Ra�m,, r 26 1,54 15 366 249 4715 Eccles Avo EIR Source: Crane Trai-isportafioli Group FIGURE 14 EXISTING + PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES DRAFTEIR/4.O ENV IRONMI�NTAL SEATIN6,INIPACTAND MIT G, 0 475 Ecu-1:s Avi,,'NU1,,,SOUTI I SAN FjRANCISC'(-),CAU I URNIA PAGF"4-63 4.0 ENVIRONNIENTAL SETVINC3, INIPACTAND MITIGATION 337 t 66 941 419 159 a )637 1214 .J 1 6 —726 —635 Not To Scale 2 f- 221 48 13 Wer 0 vs it-r 1012 0 ster 'All-I aystor oy citre$ Point Point 227 qystw Pr oin NORTH 'te t � -*) (I n (I 61 46 251 rn 178--t 337 11 302 41 127 142 131J 951 7,6 50 388 133 2 118 21 1 6 22 118 26 -4 100 27 Z �T 1236 39 5 �-2 —2 +231 2 6 "�'' _ � L'� 2 qD 01 (� 278 2,88 ", ' F- 0 0 6 64 42 Dnaml 123 244 467 4 Q 133 1 Milipr SB 101 0 35 0 35 0 Fofbe Pr 34 13 134 108 NB 101 61 7 -) I 77 217 113 223 1 4 0 0 306 N, 145 160 > 188 4D 1115 340 111 358162 5 19 .J I � 179 41 �34 7 93 1076 819 67 12 57,5 41'3 364 16,9 # 95 Grand d ' L J k. m 1r r E Grano E Grand crossing cfassing 71ve 1,65 J 93 183 so m 232 50 45 110 29 J 71 290 226 291 197 1799 2B 76 333 2911 74 66 45 54 63 101 cel7oss 9 p Blvd E Grand G+star oint r 47 8L 66 5 Project 4% Site Forbes t31v 1004 38 200 0 t- 3 76 152 9 36 375 4 5 7 u I Miller A v e 18 J 103 fend San Mweo M fill t Fast SAirp7d- skrpoa Grand Ave 121 -� I (- E 135 n 34 102 494 62 124 R 200 78 191 29 MilrheYAv 476 12 153 16 8 !F ondercolor L-r. 16-4-0 C D? NR Ramps I amps Color 359 J 13 188 89 101 2 475 Eccles Ave EIR Source: Craric Transportation Group FIGURE 15 EXISTING + PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES DRA I�'r EIR/4.0 ENVIROMWNTAL SIV1TJNG,IMPAcr AND Nff'�ICATION 475 Ecclj,t:s Sown SAN FRANUSCO,CALIFORNMA 4-64 4.0 T',NVI]?,OMNIENTAL 51 I'I[^G,iMI'r\C'1".:.ND MITIGATION Noi To Su Mc, .��3 5657p C:r,$+:u 6'1 ua a ster pc�ii7P 8W c1 ��z Py� ray Project a y ctie5 Site ,,m fiF�r, f a Dr E'Granci Va Ca steF T ve Q `m c v 4 ti9�s d 4 4] C oa) 3eo' ,r 475 Lrdes Ave LIFT Source; Crane"T'ransportataon Group FIGURE 1( YEAR 2015 WITH PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Dt�-,ur 1 EIR f 4.0 ENVIRC)N v1t°.NTAL�I,t"d"INCa,I1tPAC.°t AND Mt't 1caA'l ION 475 L''f C.T,1�S `� I NI�i.T,,SO U'll T SAN FRANC SCO,C;NLII9,ORNTA P:Gv,,4-65 4.0 RNMON-Nf ENTAL SETTING,1MPACTANDNfJ'1'JGAT10N 490 1 I c, �-206 16187N' 55 10 4-22 422 447 78 6 766 6 262 1673 —2327 Not To Scale 287 ) 1 50 1289 ov L..O sle,F f 421 Oster Din "in Crtis 1- P I -min, 75 J Oyster Pt 7a NORTH 63 202 319 190 314 -§ 4721, 223 203 97 q'i 323 21 74 278 335 163-),�0, 277 23 -4 128 3 �,502 3 'a 7371 149 1636 6 12 1--2 2 0 2 1 47 374 7� t 63`4 I" f-W 1� 2 340 W1 F 0 2 47 46 284 19 —292 251 07J t NL—374 mille t SB 101 35 0 Forbes Oftramp 48 199 5 NB 101 17, J r 2 3 ► Q0 +--*. - 0 0 1 '12 28 2 �-s 4 1 0 352 215- 95 214 11.3 145 183 U 494 182 L� 450 108 1681 673 J93 �1493 L. 1349 300 34 C 1-43 7 30 1872 E Grand t-11. 554 E G.,d.0 crossIng 6 222 173 J Overcross 326 159 T 300 138 99 J 45 388 75 196 357 299 31 115 45 300 334 76 522 337 103 166 98 164 t 101 ser B vd E Grand Dwy I 8 471 6 6 ---.,.,,,Project 5 M 7 Site 1 7 Forbes 0 J�d N " 'N Dwy 2 918 382 367 C) t-3' A A010 r qv 80 168 8,19 13 1350 34 —226 2 ,) i L. ) I (►I F 103 19 -+ GraPdAv East San Mated J0 f-1092 10 Mit phelf 3 E(D 167 Grand Ave -% 5,4;rpoa Skrporf'% CIL J t b 150 60 501 124 daw v 3 214 m14213248 405 101 286 11 5 1 25 ✓ rhefl 588 40 1L 88� n o 76 dercoor J ilk I&- "I I W-d- _ Lo NB Ramps fi 77., A a 504 70 0367 15 101 210 4 303 475 Eccles Ave EIR Source: Crane Transportation Group FIGURE 17 YEAR 2015 WITH PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES r EIR/4.0 EN\1 I IZOMfl-NTAJ,S1'11 "1 NG,I\4 PACT AND MITTGAT]ON' 475 Eccu'S Avi:.N U I?,SO(JTI I SAN FRANC➢SCO,CALI I U RN I A PAU. 4-66 4.0 ENVIROKMENTJU,SE'T'TING, IMP ACTAND NITTIGATION 7 5 12 Not To ScMe 'F 100� Sister Ovster Oyster 2 'm" 0 star T' Oyster '�s Or Cities paint p 25— Pi "'! NORTH 64 12 1 7 2 :14 �314 �i 5 T 2 j 56 taf pram 10 1 rT, Miller 5B 101 0(framp Forbes I NO 101 fire m 47 T z T - ------ t 2 8 t- 2 Grand Grand Ov Grand E Grando ------- cr"oss"ing I-E 31 2 1 5 29— 2 Lu 24 14 Srst 101 7 1�7 S Dwy I Blvd E_Grar7d Grar, 1 2 star W 39 24 39 roject Dwy 2 Site 8 J u 14 Forbes Q 0v v 4 rA 7 -t 19 0andAv 1 C East an Mateo 0).Witghell Dwy S 3 1) E Grand Ave S A,,p j , 28 (L 6 4 1 4i MitcheflAv ndercOor us-101--o onder- Ln )-V-B Ta-,-p-s' Colnr 5 CL 101 475 Eccles Ave'SIR. Source: Crane Transportation Group FIGURE 18 2035 PROJECT INCREMENT AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES DR.Al-,'r EIR/4.0 EN1,1X0NM.14NTAL SPA'TING,LNIIJACT NND MITIGATION 475 Ecui.'-, Soum SAN FRANCISCO,CALTFOIWA Rv;is 4-67 4.0 EN VIRONINTENTAL SE'ITING,ENIPACT ,'AND MIT]Grk'HON 29 6 6 .-48 Not To Scale 2 � -1ster vster Oyster 0 e" O y$ivr NORTH ',Cities o" 4 Oyster Pt 9 I'R4 49 2 1 2 ,E 2 et 4 9 So 10� 43 1 mrilpf S8101 2J +111111 �4& Forbes `ramp N6 i01 Offramp 14 28 1 -1 12 Ic 5 4-1 4 II � L.�, Grand Gr E Grand _j F gramy, Overcross 4 1 3 4 81 2 S, 101 a ster point Blvd E Grand Dwy I 4 m aG dye 1a D t c b 4"a Site Dwy 2 Forbes B11 d- 31 18 MTtierAv a 3 9 23 29 Grand A Grand Ave &-Milchell z East -,,port 7777777< Dwy 3 E(D 2 11 22-1 in 221-1 4 Mitchell ondercatof n NB I Hr", Z_ 1'.....a1 475 Ecxles Ave EIR Source: Crane Transportation Group FIGURE 19 2035 PROJECT INCREMENT PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES DRAi-;'rT-',IR 4.0 ENV1R0N,%,11-'NT.AJ.SEATING,IMPAC r ND M 111G:1' I ON 475 E c, s AN,E'N U h",S 0 U'VI I S,A N FR(NC]S C,0,CA]Iii ,fl Z IN I A PAC,i 4-68 4,()EN VI RON M f1".'N'Fyk,1,,SETTING,INLIPACTAND MITIGATION 323 y. .188 If 513 74 54 25 12 575 177 855 —221 0 243 715 Not To Scale -J � �- f-214 110 59 S� A k_QLS-ter Oysteril Q P i I 'J -7� ciltes I P—Poirtl point Oyster Pf Mn 7 NORTH 7 r* 2121 1 101 104 529,J 1,639 52 C 274 1090 69 80 1490 571 203 401-4 685 986 1855 54 264 J 1()15- 110 40 633 129 0 1190 3 530 t-65 58 SE lot 33 —166 f-o 149 52 I 872� P-) 8_ 0 i-14 0 "Jr 92 179, .J —321 F 794 1 l- Miller SB 101 Forbes ramp 102 NS 101 t offramp 854 125 14 0 35 140 3 527 IL 76 r, 1-43 '1, 175 f-110 121 ItIl 58 tz) 440 198 150 204 49 36 257 —353 & 382 27 ,�241 10698 , C T� ) '19 257 f-30 —619 E Grand' E Granddo _u F GrAnd 273 7T crossing 249 237 G) 958 141 0 t 423 35 221 85 40 8 10 2101 — 79 988 2.141 8-121 517 86 454 1352 228 101 go -7� ill 247- 171 2 3 101 0 stor Porn Blvd E Grarvd 7 0. Dwy I 1326 858 ---%*,,,Project Site 39 FlrbBs Btv - 'N 3 0) 723 182 178 +-7 Z Owy2 7 39 Ck Mlt!lerAv 74 163 �P-' 6 rg 8 -221 '9'8 10" 41 14 24 J 24 Q 4 ,F 436 an Mateo f 19 GrandrA, East 19 Grand Ave S Airport S Airport 4 E 135 (n"i, I 122 on r Dwy 3 435 713 221 435 787 969 2 5 2+:—� ' 3 2213 515 .. -1 969 28 160 --- 6 6 MgrheliA 547 t-28 105 94 a 57 o J L. ondercolor f-27 W i 4 U N6 aar"Pa 1� Innr c� 1645 87 ---o. 0219 15 101 444 281 475 Eccles Ave,EIR Source: Crane Transportation Group FIGURE 20 YEAR 2035 WITH PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES DRA.Iri'EIR/X4.0 ENV1R0N,%,1F,NN'1'A1.SH,ITINC,,IMPACT AND-MITIGATION 475 E(:cT,i.;s-A\7i-:,Nu,Soun a SAN FILANCISCO,CAJAI()R IA Pz\c-,i,"4-69 4.O ENV IRON MENT.0 SET"TING,BWAC'TAND MITIGATION 62 594 397) t 2249 16 25 435 610 767 262 3011 2365 —1126 Not To Scale 445 8 jF 86 �i 1634 487 Oster "At" Sister Oyster Oyster Cities point poin 75 Oyster Pi oin NORTH 64 t r- 224 J 544 752 rn 'T 5�1 " 414 60 334 112 92 328 460 RK 483 384 225 374 l�1722 '15E, 14! 58,9 128 53 26 -T-� \j 73 4 2064 4153 ,5 2 (2 'IT '4 loB �J,1 2 407 �01,1 F 0 2 1o5 57J 41 1 0 _ 1-35 49 236 0 62 >—395 on"n 498 35 --) I r246 57J 4) —777 Miller SB 101 1 "irt2e.. 0 &35 D Forbes Flr,, 0777777, 49 NIB 101 301 Q-1tramp 487 7-+ 112 320 2 --+Tn I/ 614 N —1681 597 5 4235 +-97 170 +_323 13838243� :� - 892 L. 58, 1155 203 96 1567 1519 a 333 55 -5 48 740 F 864 j-740 254 �j Lw 2026 E Grand E Grand _ rand 40 _4 194 :� ` 9 28 160 194 29,5j q"5 IY2 170 118 601 159 128 413 268 52 +7 r45 60 5(,' 11's � 15 20 0 493 76 529 450 158 217 117 rV, 2 4 1 S. As 101 G star Point Blvd E Grand I 'N Dwy I roj 600 4 ect 68 e 6 Silite t2l Dwy 2 1185 4-397 443 31 "Ner A v 95 189 111D 7 F� 751 270 ) 1 L.t 103 18 ndAv East mitill 0 Grand Ave S Airpert r7r(-) E 179 rn') 182— a ;93 T a-) 1 11502 135 Dwy3 n—z4r 101� J 245--+ -185 364 , 286 11 \"541 -� FL 4 22 Mitchell v 732 t 45 324 117 105 odercolor 76 < ri US 107 jo onds Lo 7B Ramp;% C=111 70 4458 15 101 225 328 475 Ecces Ave EIR Source: Crane Transportation Group FIGURE 21 YEAR 2035 WITH PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Dini-r f-,,IR/4.0 ENviRONNIH.-NTAL,SH'1't']N(,,, AND MITIGATION 47-5 Ec(,U s A\'I-;NL)I,.,SOU TI I SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PA(,&4-70 4.0 ENVIRONNIENTAL SETTING,TNIPACTAND-N,1T'1'1GA'110N Not To Scale 'Al--, NORTH Z 4L oysler point CDVM�, ter eomr trr FS rps 101 int Bivd 0 po Existing Lanes Exisflng Signab r oj e c t Mitigation Site c as a°� Tarbes F31VCL- (2D=Mitigated Lanes UVerAv FSJ =Fadr Share Contribution F GrandAv East Adjust signal timing Grand AVP to accomodate,specific E queue6ng wssues as opposed to optimizing intersection(level of service WchetlAv wondercolor to A 0. i0i 475 Ecde5 Ave EIR Source! Crane Transportation Group FIGURE 22 YEAR 20,15 MITIGATIONS 17t RA ri'EIR/4.0 EN VI RONNIINTAL S1 TINGJ,1IMPAC I i I AN 1)Al]TI G ATI ON 475 Eccj-j."q AVI.-NUE,SOTI'l I SAN NtANCISCC),CAJ,1 Fo]tN]A Pm;i.4-71 4.0 1?NVIROMMIATAL Sf,'TTTNG,1.\,fP.:\C'f,AND ,\Il'fiG,\'T'ION Not To Scaie ,A, NORTH FFSJ oft Ov.;tpr k 75— 7 Add a third Eastbound departure lane for 017ramp traffic sister Yfies 101 C, stet POO Blvd Existing Lanes Existing Signal so a� CQ A cc --.- Project =Mitigation Site Forbes siv (2D=Witigated Lanes 'AWQle A v FF_S1 =Fair Share Contribution G",MdAv East Adjust signal tiering Grand Ave to accomodate,si queueing issues as opposed to optimizing aPtersectjor level of service MilcheffAv We ndercoiar < n CL 101 475 Eccles Ave EIR Source: Crane Transportation Group FIGURE 23 YEAR 2035 MITIGATIONS Di�Ar EIR/4.0 ENV IRON Nil,'NTAI,SE 171N(a,INIPACTAND 411TIGATION 475 EcIct.i.,'S.AVI NU H,SOUTI I SAN,FRANCISCO,CAI�IFORNIA PAGIA-72 4.O ENV IRON MENTAL SL;'1"'I:ING,MRAC T Vii° D N\IITIGATION ROZZI PL. ,y' I i 1 0 {dl LL L' i I I i k d 4 —�►=Provide&ghthne of at least 250 feet. =Project Central Driveway =IPrgect South Driveway 475 EccGos Ave E I R Source: Crane Transportation Group-) FIGURE 24 PROJECT DRIVEWAY SIGHTLINE MITIGATION DRAi,.t,LII2/4.0 EWt ONNIr°a TAL S171'�11N(;,IltiV>"'.Cr AM)Mri,iCATION 475 A ENLI F,Srrua'R I SAN Fit,%NtIKO ,C,"tt,IFORaNI A I?.-tc&4-73 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL-4L SETTING,IMPACT.IND NIITIC .VIION i p FQZZI PL .. r� III IV I I _ r , 4 7 � u y ►�Y '.�r=Provide Stop Sign 475 Eccles Ave E'.IR Source: Crane Transportation Group FIGURE 2 PROJECT INTERNAL CIRCULATION SYSTEM MITIGATION LILf1Fr EIR/4.O EN%,IIZONMI� N I''A],SI.TI`IN4t,I'113AC 1•AND i lrl,i(iA ION 47.5 EC-,C.I,I?S.Avi,,,NUk,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,C;ALIFORMA PA(A:1,4-74 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 5.1 INTRODUCTION Alternatives are evaluated in an EIR to provide information on whether or not a variation of a proposed project would reduce or eliminate the project's significant impacts within the basic framework of the objectives. CCR Section 15126.6(a) specifies that the range of reasonable alternatives to be included in an EIR must consist of alternatives that "would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project." The range of alternatives studied in the EIR must be broad enough to permit a reasoned choice by decision-makers when considering the merits of the project. CCR Section 15126.6(1) specifies that the range of alternatives is governed by the "rule of reason," requiring the evaluation of only those alternatives "necessary to permit a reasoned choice." Further, an EIR "need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative." CCR Section 15126.6(e) requires the analysis of a "No Project Alternative." The purpose of describing and analyzing a No Project_alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. The No Project Alternative is the circumstance under which the Project would not proceed. The No Project Alternative shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published as well as what is reasonably- expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Project were not approved based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure. In both cases, the consequences of not approving the project must be discussed. Alternatives that are remote, infeasible or speculative should not be discussed in the alternatives analysis (CCR Section 15126.6(x)). The alternatives analysis shall focus on reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts associated with the project as proposed "even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly' (CCR Section 15126.6(b)). The 475 Eccles Project is described and evaluated for its environmental impacts in Section 4.0 and the initial study contained in Appendix A of this EIR. The EIR analysis identifies potentially significant impacts, mitigation measures to avoid these impacts and significant unavoidable impacts related to traffic and circulation. The alternatives selected for analysis in this section were identified based on the ability- of these alternatives to avoid or lessen the significant environmental impacts of the Project, while attempting to meet the basic objectives of the Project and the No Project alternative required by law. Therefore, the evaluation of alternatives provided herein address traffic and circulation impacts. 5.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES _alternatives in the EIR should be feasible, and should attain most of the basic project objectives. Objectives of the 475 Eccles Project originates, in part, from the development goals contained in City's General Plan including the East of 101 Area Plan. The land use DRIFT EIR/5.0 ALTERNATIVES 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA P AGE 54 5.0 ALTERNATIVES framework of the General Plan is gilded by several key principles. The designation of the Project site in 2010 to Business and Technology Parr was intended to provide opportunities for continued evolution of the City's economy, from manufacturing and warehousing/distribution to high technology and biotechnology. The Project would convert from freight forwarding type building historically housing industrial-type uses and direct uses to a life sciences campus. The goals of the Project are to: ➢ Encourage redevelopment and intensification of development to accommodate land uses such as R& D. ➢ Encourage opportunities for the continued evolution of the City's economy, from manufacturing and warehousing/distribution to high technology and biotechnology. ➢ Promote small business incubation. ➢ Encourage the creation of a campus environment in the East of 101 area that targets and accommodates the biotech/R&D industry. ➢ Promote campus-style biotechnology uses. ➢ Maximize building heights in the East of 101 area. ➢ Encourage the use of Transportation Demand Management (TD:NI Program) measures designed to achieve environmental goals by permitting an increased Floor Area Ratio when such measures are included in a project. ➢ Maximize opportunities for strong and sustainable economic growth that results in high quality jobs, in a manner that respects the environment by redeveloping an infill site that is close to major arterials and existing utilities. ➢ Feasibly support the provision of environmental enhancements that exceed standard building requirements, such as qualifying for LEED certification." 5.3 OVERVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT Development of the 475 Eccles Project would result in eight significant impacts that would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation and fire significant and unavoidable impacts to traffic and circulation. Impacts related to traffic back-ups on the freeway- and vehicle queues at intersections would remain significant and unavoidable due to the infeasibility of mitigation measures. The analysis below presents the alternatives that were considered for this Project. Each alternative is examined for its ability- to reduce environmental impacts relative to the Project, feasibility of implementation, and ability to meet Project objectives. The following fire impacts associated with the Project are significant and unavoidable. • 9B The Project would increase year 2015 AEI peak hour without Project traffic volumes by 2.3 percent at the U.S. 101 Southbound Off - Ramp (Flyover) diverge to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Intersection. The Project would DRIFT FIR/5.0 ALTERNATIVES 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA P AGE -2 5.0 ALTERNATIVES increase off - ramp volumes from 1,762 up to 1,803 vehicles with 2013 without Project volumes already exceeding the 1,300 vehicles per hour diverge capacity limit. Reasoning: No mitigation is available. City-Public Works staff has determined that providing the necessary mitigation to provide a second U.S. 101 Southbound Off- Ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 freeway mainline would not be feasible due to the limited distance between the flyover off-ramp diverge and the southbound off- ramp diverge to Airport Boulevard. • 13.A The Project would increase the frequency of backups extending to the freeway mainline at the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ouster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Intersection during the AEI Peak Hour. The Project would increase vohimes at this off-ramp by 1.4 percent compared to Year 2035 without Project volumes. Traffic would backup to the freeway mainline more frequently. Reasoning: In light of economic, environmental, and technological concerns, there are no other mitigation measures considered feasible by South San Francisco Public Work, staff that would reduce 95th percentile off-ramp queuing within available storage beyond those recommended for 2035 unacceptable surface street queuing (Mitigation Measure 12.A). Additional measures would potentially include widening Oyster Point Boulevard an additional tvo to four lanes between Veterans Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard (through the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange) as well as widening the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp by an additional lane on its approach to Oyster Point Boulevard. Widening Oyster Point Boulevard through part of the interchange area would be infeasible due to the limitations imposed by the location of the support columns for the southbound flyover off-ramp. Oyster Point Boulevard and off-ramp widening would also require expansion of bridge structures,which would be prohibitively expensive. Provision of additional lanes would require acquisition of additional righty-of way along Oyster Point Boulevard. _also, provision of additional eastbound lanes on the Ouster Point and Flyover off-ramp intersection approaches would not be feasible due to the complexity of merging the departure lanes on the eastbound (departure leg) of the intersection. • 13B. The Project would increase the frequency of backups extending to the freeway mainline at the U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive Intersection during the AEI Peak Hour. The Project would increase volhunes at this off - ramp by 1.3 percent compared to Year 2035 without Project volumes. Traffic would back up to the freeway mainline more frequently. • Reasoning: There are no additional improvements considered financially feasible by South San Francisco Public Work, staff that could be provided at either the off- ramp intersection with the surface street system or at adjacent surface street intersections that would provide enough increased capacity to prevent off-ramp queuing from backing up to the U.S. 101 freeway mainline. DRIFT FIR/5.0 ALTERNATIVES 475 ECCLES_ VENUE,SOliTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA P AGE -3 5.0 ALTERTNAM ES • B.C. Implementation of the Project Would increase year 2033 AEI peak hour Without Project traffic volumes by 1.4 percent at the U.S. 101 Southbound Off - Ramp (Flyover) diverge to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Intersection. The Project Would increase off - ramp volumes from 2,454 up to 2,488 vehicles with 2035 without Project volumes already exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour capacity-of the off-ramp. Reasoning: No improvements are considered feasible by South San Francisco Public Work, staff to mitigate the impact. Should it be desired to provide a second off-ramp lane connection from the freeway mainline to the Southbound Off-Ramp (flyover) to Oyster Point Boulevard, it would likely- be necessary- to more the Southbound Off-Ramp connection to Airport Boulevard further north to provide more separation between the two southbound off-ramps. A second off-ramp lane connection to the freeway mainline would require a long (1,000-foot or longer) deceleration lane with only-300 feet of available space. This would be infeasible given the restrictions imposed by the location of the northbound off-ramp overpass connection to Bayshore Boulevard. There is no room for provision of this lane. • B.D. The Project would increase PSI peak hour on-ramp volumes by more than 1 percent on the U.S. 101 Northbound One-Lane On-Ramp from the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque venue Intersection. Volumes would be increased by 1.1 percent (from 2,572 up to 2,601 vehicles) with Year 2035 without Project v umes already exceeding the on-ramp capacity of 2,200 vehicles per hour. Reasoning: Provision of a second on-ramp lane would increase capacity- to about 3,000 to 3,100 vehicles per hour. N\11le this measure would accommodate the 2035 with Project volume of about 2,601 vehicles per hour, it would require the approval of Galtrans,which is not 1niaranteed. 5.4 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Three alternatives to the Project are evaluated in this EIR. The alternatives are: ➢ No Project_alternative-Existing Conditions ➢ 0.75 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)- 196,715 square feet ➢ 0.50 FAR-131,143 square feet ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROJECT Description The "No Project" analysis focuses on the existing conditions as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Project was not approved (CCR Section 15126.6(e) (2) and (3) (B)). The unoccupied No Project Alternative would DRIFT EIR/5.0 ALTERNATIVES 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA P AUE 5 4 5.0 ALTERNATIVES result in a vacant building. The site would remain in its current condition as a vacant industrial warehouse building and ancillary-office with 276 surface parking spaces. The occupied No Project _alternative assumes reuse of the site as office and warehousing (153,000 square feet). Impact Analysis • None of the impacts associated with the Project would occur under the Vacant No Project Alternative (see Executive Summary Table 1). The Occupied No Project _alternative assumes reuse of the site as office and warehousing (133,000 square feet). The Occupied No Project Alternative would result in four of the fibre significant unavoidable impacts being eliminated. • 13.A The Project would increase the frequency of backups extending to the freeway mainline at the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ouster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Intersection during the AEI Peak Hour. The Project would increase vohimes at this off-ramp 1)y 1.4 percent compared to Year 2035 without Project volumes. Traffic would backup to the freeway mainline more frequently. • 13B. The Project would increase the frequency of backups extending to the freeway mainline at the U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand venue/Executive Drive Intersection during the AEI Peak Hour. The Project would increase volumes at this off - ramp by 1.3 percent compared to Year 2035 without Project volumes. Traffic would back up to the freeway mainline more frequently. • B.C. Implementation of the Project would increase year 2035 AEI peak hour without Project traffic volumes by 1.4 percent at the U.S. 101 Southbound Off - Ramp (Flyover) diverge to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Intersection. The Project would increase off - ramp volumes from 2,454 up to 2,488 vehicles with 2035 without Project vohimes already exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour capacity of the off-ramp. • B.D. The Project would increase PSI peak hour on-ramp volumes by more than 1 percent on the U.S. 101 Northbound One-Lane On-Ramp from the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque venue Intersection. Volumes would be increased by 1.1 percent (from 2,572 up to 2,601 vehicles) with Year 2035 without Project volumes already exceeding the on-ramp capacity of 2,200 vehicles per hour. _additionally, significant and mitigalble impacts 4, 8, 12.A and B would not occur with the Occupied No Project Alternative (see the discussion of the 0.50 FAR Alternative). Moreover, both the Vacant and Occupied No Project Alternative would decrease the diversity of businesses in the area and as a result, would not increase employment opportunities in the area, as would occur under the Project. The No Project Alternative development scenario would not fulfill the East of 101 Area Plan's stated purpose of DRIFT FIR/5.0 ALTERNATIVES 475 ECCLES AVENUH,SOliTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA P AUE,5-5 5.0 ALTERNATIVES maximizing the potential of underdeveloped or undenised properties in the City's East of 101 Area. The No Project Alternative would prevent the site from contributing to the development of research and development (R&D) uses and the campus style character which is promoted 1)y the City's General Plan. The No Project Alternative would not result in LEED Silver construction and operational measures being implemented. The No Project Alternative would also forgo the opportunity to bring the site into compliance with current NPDES C-3 permitting requirements benefitting water quality. New and increased landscaping would not be planted; pared area would not be reduced; site porosity would not be increased; and surface parking would not be decreased as would occurwitli the Project. The No Project Alternative would leave the site as a vacant industrial warehouse building; or reused as a warehouse and industrial building and as a result would not be consistent with the aesthetic values of the East of 101 Area Plan. The No Project Alternative would not be consistent with the City's General Plan designation of Business and Teclinology Park and the City's 2010 rezoning of the site from Industrial to Business and Teclinology Park in order to implement the 1999 General Plan. The vacant No Project Alternative would not increase traffic and circulation impacts in the area or regionally. Tlerefore, there would be no significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the Project. The East of 101 Traffic Impact fees are based upon a fee per square foot of development. The fee is used to construct area-wide traffic improvements in the East of 101. The No Project Alternative would result in no impact fees and would not assist the City-in improving the circulation system in the East of 101 area. Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives, including increasing quality employment opportunities, providing quality R&D facilities for the East of 101 _area, generating net property taxes and sales taxes, or creating campus-sty-1e office and higli-quality office and R&D uses. The No Project _�lternatiye would not maximize opportunities for strong and sustainable economic growth that results in high quality jobs, in a manner that respects the environment by redeveloping an infill site that is close to major arterials and existing utilities. Alternative 2: 0.75 Floor Area Ratio Description The 0.73 FAR Alternative would reduce the size of the Project by 23 percent from 267,287 to 196,713 square feet. The Project would likely result in most of the site improvements identified with the Project. Therefore, the LEED Silver level construction and operational measures would be in place along with the TDI Program and the site characterization and remediation and water quality measures would be in place. Landscaping and site porosity DRIFT FIR/5.0 ALTERNATIVES 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA P AGE -6 5.0 ALTERNATIVES would be increased but likely to a lesser extent than that associated with the Project. Surface parking and paving decreased. The 23 percent reduction in development intensity would result in fewer employees at the site. The estimated number of employees under this alternative would be 673. The overall site square footage would be reduced although the footprint of the Project would not change. Bioteclinology/R&D requires about a 30,000 square foot building footprint for optimal efficiency that also includes minimum floor to ceiling heights and desired floor plates. Impact Analysis The following tvo significant and unavoidable impacts would not occur under the 0.73 FAR Alternative: • 13B. The Project would increase the frequency of backups extending to the freeway mainline at the U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive Intersection during the AEI Peak Hour. The Project would increase volumes at this off - ramp by 1.3 percent compared to Year 2033 without Project volumes. Traffic would back up to the freeway mainline more frequently. • 13.1). The Project would increase Pal peak hour on-ramp volumes by more than 1 percent on the U.S. 101 Northbound One-Lane On-Ramp from the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. Volumes would be increased by 1.1 percent (from 2,372 up to 2,601 vehicles) with Year 2033 without Project volumes already exceeding the on-ramp capacity of 2,200 vehicles per hour. Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives The 0.73 FAR Alternative, similar to the Project, would support the Project objectives of increasing quality employment opportunities in the area, providing quality research and development facilities for the East of 101 Area, and converting the under-utilized parcel to a higher and better use. The 0.73 FAR Alternative would still eencourage opportunities for the continued evolution of the City's economy, from manufacturing and warehousing/distribution to liigli teclinol<<gy and biotechnology; promote small business incubation; result in a campus-like development; utilize a TD:NI Program; and support provision of environmental enhancements that exceed standard building requirements, such as qualifvitig for LEED certification. The albility to maximize opportunities for strong; and sustainable economic growth resulting in lii�li quality jobs would be reduced somewhat because the reduction in floor area would accommodate 223 less employees than the Project. Tliis alternative would also result in decreased property taxes and sales taxes due to the reduced square footage. DRIFT FIR/5.0 ALTERNATIVES 475 ECCLES_ VENI_?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA P AGE -7 5.0 ALTERNATIVES Alternative 3: 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Description The 0.30 FAR Alternative would reduce the size of the Project by 50 percent, from 262,287 to 131,143 square feet. The resulting project would be smaller than the 152,145 square feet that currently exists on the site. Site development would likely consist of one R&D building and surface parking. _approximately 328 parking spaces would be necessary for the 0.50 FAR Alternative based upon the 2.5 spaces/1,000 square feet proposed by the Project. The 0.50 FAR Alternative would likely employ approximately half that expected with the Project, or 430 people. A project reduced by half would likely result in a dramatically different project on the ground. Structured parking would likely give way to surface parking; similar to the current development on the site. The site improvement measures that the City requires by law would be required to be incorporated into the construction and design of the 0.50 FAR _alternative. The measures include landscaping to code (but not likely beyond); and NPDES C-3 water quality improvements. A TD:NI Program may not be required (if Project trips do not exceed 100 during the peak period). Other Project enhancements such as additional landscaping and LEED Silver level measures would be at jeopardy as "value engineering" or reductions in development costs would likely take effect. This alternative would also result in decreased property-taxes and sales taxes due to the reduced square footage. Impact Analysis The 0.50 FAR _alternative would eliminate four of the fire significant unavoidable impacts associated with the Project. These impacts would be: • 13. A The Project would increase the frequency of backups extending to the freeway mainline at the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Intersection during the AEI Peak Hour. The Project would increase vohumes at this off-ramp by 1.4 percent compared to Year 2035 without Project volumes. Traffic would backup to the freeway mainline more frequently. • 13B. The Project would increase the frequency of backups extending to the freeway mainline at the U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand venue/Executive Drive Intersection during the AEI Peak Hour. The Project would increase volumes at this off - ramp by 1.3 percent compared to Year 2035 without Project volumes. Traffic would back up to the freeway mainline more frequently. • B.C. Implementation of the Project would increase year 2035 AEI peak hour without Project traffic volumes by 1.4 percent at the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp (Flyover) diverge to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Intersection. The Project would increase off-ramp volumes from 2,454 up to 2,488 DRIFT FIR/5.0 ALTERNATIVES 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA P AGE -8 5.0 ALTERNATIVES vehicles with 2035 without Project volumes already exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour capacity of the off-ramp. • B.D. The Project would increase PSI peak hour on-ramp volumes by more than 1 percent on the U.S. 101 Northbound One-Lane On-Ramp from the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque venue Intersection. Volumes would be increased by 1.1 percent (from 2,572 up to 2,601 vehicles) with Year 2035 without Project v umes already exceeding the on-ramp capacity of 2,200 vehicles per hour. The 0.50 FAR_alternative would eliminate four of the eight significant and mitigable impacts associated with the project. The impacts are: • 4. The Project would increase existing AEI Peak Hour volumes on the U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand venue/Executive Drive by 1.9 percent, where current volumes already exceed capacity limits. The off-ramp volume of 1,618 vehicles under Existing without Project conditions would be increased to 1,649 vehicles under Existing with Project conditions at a location with an off-ramp diverge capacity of 1,500 vehicles per hour. • 8. The Project would increase vehicle queuing at Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp during the AEI Peak Hour by 1.7 percent in the through lanes on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to Dubuque Avenue at a location with unacceptable 2015 Without Project 95th percentile queuing. These levels are determined to be unacceptable by the City of South San Francisco and Caltrans under 2015 with Project conditions. The eastbound through movement queue per lane would increase from 336 up to 341 feet in a location with only 250 feet of storage per lane. • 12.A. The Project would unacceptably increase year 2035 without Project AEI peak hour vehicle queuing at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp intersection in the through lanes on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach. Project traffic would increase volumes by 13 percent,which would already be experiencing unacceptable 2035 without Project 95", percentile queuing. The eastbound queues would increase from 1,163 up to 1,187 feet in a location with only 900 feet of storage in the existing through lanes. The increase is above levels determined to be acceptable by the City- of South San Francisco. • 12.B. The Project would unacceptably increase year 2035 without Project AEI peak hour vehicle queuing at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque venue /U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp intersection in the through lanes on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach. Project traffic would increase volumes by 1.4 percent, which would already be experiencing unacceptable 2035 without Project queuing. The eastbound queues would increase from 638 up to 640 feet in a location with only 250 feet of storage. The Project would also unacceptably increase volumes by 1.3 percent during the PSI Peak Hour in the right turn lanes on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to the U.S. 101 northbound on-ramp at a location DRIFT FIR/5.0 ALTERNATIVES 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA P AGE -9 5.0 ALTERNATIVES with unacceptable 2015 `Without Project" queuing. The westbound right turn queue would increase from 1,148 up to 1,156 feet in a location with only- 840 feet of storage. The increase is albove levels determined to be acceptable I)y the City- of South San Francisco. Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives The 0.50 FAR Alternative would considerably limit the ability of the Project to be competitive in the market place. The 0.50 FAR Alternative would not result in intensification of research and development opportunities on the site or in the area;would not encourage opportunities for the continued evolution of the City's economy, from manufacturing and warehousing/distribution to high teclinol<<gy and bioteclinol<<gy or encourage the creation of a campus environment in the East of 101 area that targets and accommodates the biotech/R&D industry. The 0.50 FAR Alternative would not promote campus-style biotechnology uses. Opporairtities to promote strong and sustainable economic growtli resulting in high quality- in a manner that respects the environment by redeveloping an infill site that is close to major arterials and existing utilities would be seriously-compromised. The 0.50 FAR Alternative would not likely support the provision of environmental enhancements that exceed standard building requirements, such as qualiffing for LEED certification and would likely-, as noted albove,give wad-to valhie engineering. 5.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE An EIR is required to identify an environmentally superior alternative. CCR Section 15126.6(e)(2) notes "if the environmentally superior alternative is the `no project' alternative, the EIR shall also identify an etivironmentallp superior alternative among the other alternatives" The environmentally superior alternative is intended to minimize adverse impacts to the environment,while still achieving the basic project objectives. The No Project Alternative would avoid all of the significant environmental impacts of the Project which are related to traffic and circulation. The site was developed in the mid-1960's as noted throughout this EIR and in the initial study. The No Project Alternative would not result in the environmental benefits of site redevelopment that would occur under new laws and re nilations designed to improve environmental quality and sustainability that have come into effect since the 1960's. The measures the City requires are indentified in Chapter I of the initial study. The No Project Alternative would not result in implementation of the measures the Project proposes to foster environmental sustainability and improve environmental quality. These measures are identified in Chapter 3, Project Description of this EIR. The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the key objectives of the Project. The 0.5 Floor Area Ratio Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative as it would avoid some of the Project's significant impacts with regards to traffic and circulation. The 0.5 FAR Alternative would accommodate a proportionally smaller Project population, and would in turn result in decreased vehicle trips to the Project site. DRIFT EIR/5.0 ALTERNATIVES 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE -10 6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 6.1 INTRODUCTION CCR Section 1,5128 requires an EIR to summarize the environmental effects found not to be signilicant and therefore not analyzed in an EIR. The statement may be attacled in the initial study or summarized within the EIR. Tliis EIR contains a brief summary- of the effects found not to be significant and a detailed anal ysis is contained in the initial stud- attached in Appendix A. 6.2 INITIAL STUDY PROCESS An initial study, contained in Appendix A, was prepared for the Project that determined topics for which there could be potentially- new or increased impacts associated with the Project. Following is a brief summary- of the effects found not significant based upon the analysis contained in the initial stud-. The full analysis supporting the findings is contained in the initial study. 6.3 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 1.AESTHETICS The Project would have no impact with respect to scenic vista impacts. The Project is not located within a formally- designated public vista, nor would it result in the obstruction of a formally designated public vista. The Project would not conflict with an adopted planning policy- regarding scenic vistas. The Project would not obstnict views of the wind harp located on San Brno Iuioll nor of San Brno Mountain. Views would continue to be available between on-site buildings, public streets, private access easements and between buildings on adjacent parcels. The Project would have no impact on visual character. The Project would be located in an area whose visual characteristics consist of research and development (R&D), industrial and manufacturing buildings with surface parking typically adjacent to the buildings and strcaired parking in newer developments. The City's efforts over the rears have been to improve both site and building layout and desigii on properties undergoing redevelopment in the East of 101 Area. The Project would replace a building void 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 accompanving 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 scenic resources. The Project would not be visible from a state or local scenic liighway. The Project site does not contain Historic buildings or trees or significant rock outcroppings. Light and glare resulting from the Project site would be considered less than significant. The site is developed with a building, surface parking and lighting. The site is DRAFT EIR/6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 475 ECCLES_VENUE,SOliTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 6-1 6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT actively liglited for safety and security purposes although the building is vacant. Pole lighting in the parking areas and building lights are on during evening and niglit-time hours. The existing lighting was designed and installed on the site in the mid-1960s. Project implementation would install new liglit futures designed to cast liglit in a downward task-oriented direction. Foot candle levels would reduce 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-whites), sunscreens for glazing, minimal use of reflective materials and the amount of landscaping (24 percent of the site area) proposed on the site. 2.AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES The Project site is not nearby or adjacent to any agricultural use and as such would have no impact to farmland. 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 is not nearby or adjacent to timberland or forest lands and would have no impact on timberland production or resources or forest lands. 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(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section51104(g)). The Project would not adversely affect any- existing agriculairal operations. The site was developed in the mid-1960s with office atid warehouse uses. The Project would not impact agricultural resources individually or cumulatively and is not in any 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)). 3.AIR QUALITY The Project would be consistent with the 2010 Bay Area CAP, and thus, would have a less than significant impact with respect to implementation of a Clean Air Plan. Construction Related Impacts: Project impacts that would be associated with construction related exhaust emissions would be less than significant with implementation of the measures the City-requires by law and proposed by the Project. The B AAQID C,(-')A Air Ou rizty Guidelines recommend quantification of construction- related exhaust emissions andd comparison of those emissions to significance tlresholds. The air quality- analysis includes quantification of construction emissions and comparison of the emissions to the B_ AQ1fD's construction significance thresholds. The CalEEllod ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FIR/6.0 EFFECTS FOtTND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 475 ECCLES_VENUE,SOliTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 6-2 6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT (California Emissions Estimator Model was used to quantify Project constriction emissions of criteria pollutants for emissions estimate assumptions. 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_ AQID's thresholds for constriction exhaust emissions. As the demolition and constriction phases would be sequential, the average daily- constriction period emissions are compared to the B_ AQ1ID significance thresholds. All constniction-related emissions would be below the B AQ:NID 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 Significatice Thresholds 54 54 82 54 --- Significant Impacts No No No No No Notes:Refer to Appendix A for all emission assumptions. There is no B_VAQID Significance Threshold for CO for construction activities. Operational Impacts: The CalEEllod 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 estimated operational emissions that would be associated with the Project would be below the B_ AQ1ID's significance thresholds and would be less than significant. Impacts that would be associated with long-term operational CO exhaust emissions would be less than significant (see Air Quality Tables 3 and 4). The Project would facilitate approximately 894 employees. Operational emissions associated with employees, visitors, and deliveries were also estimated. The Project proposes to meet the constniction and operational standards of a LEED Silver classification. AIR QUALITY TABLE 3 PROJECT DAILY OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS (pounds per day) Area 13.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 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 Significance 54 54 82 54 Thresholds Significant Impacts No No No No No Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all emission assumptions. Values reflect rounding. B AAQID Significance Threshold for CO for operational activities pertains to a screening roadway intersection analysis. DRAFT FIR/6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 475 ECCLES_ VENUE,SOliTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 6-3 6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT AIR QUALITY TABLE 4 PROJECT ANNUAL OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS (tons per year) Elm / / Area 2.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.04 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.28 Mobile 0.34 0.83 0.04 0.04 3.29 Total Proposed 3.02 1.18 0.04 0.04 5.57 Significance 10 10 13 10 --- Thresholds Significant Impacts No No No No No Notes:Refer to Appendix A for all emission assumptions. Values reflect rounding.B AAQID Significance Threshold for CO for operational activities pertains to a screening roadway intersection anah-sis. A project is potentially significant if it results in CO concentrations of 9.0 ppm (8-11our average) and 20.0 ppm (1-hour average) at roadway intersections. The B_ AQ1fD has identified preliminary- screening criteria for determining whether CO emissions would be significant. The screening criteria provide a conservative indication of wliether 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 county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. • Project traffic would increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. • Project traffic would increase traffic volumes 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 volumes. Cumulative Impacts. The Project would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The B AAQ D CEQ A Air Quality Guidelines recommend that cumulative air quality effects from criteria air pollutants also be addressed by- comparison to the B_ AQ1fD's mass daily and annual significance thresholds. Air Quality Tables 2 through 4 show that 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 in the initial study,Appendix A) and proposed by the Project. The Project would have a less than significant impact on sensitive receptors. Tlie closest sensitive receptors to the site are tvo cliild 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 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FIR/6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 475 ECCLES_VENUE,SOliTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 6-4 6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT miles) to the east (west of Route 101). There are no sensitive receptors located within a 0.23 mile radius of the Project site. Cancer Risk. Construction Related Impacts. The unmitigated cancer risk due to construction activities is below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per million and would be less than significant. The unmitigated maximum cancer risk for a residential-adult receptor from Project constniction activities would be 0.04 per million and for a residential-child would he 0.44 per million. The unmitigated maximum cancer risk for a school child receptor would be 0.03 per million. Cancer Risk. Operational Related Impacts. The health impacts from Project operations would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per million and less than significant. 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. Non-Cancer Health Impacts. The chronic HI for DPM would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than significant. The Project's chronic HI for DP:NIwould be less than 0.03. The Project's acute HI for acrolein would be less than 0.01. The acute HI for acrolein would be below the B AAQ:NID threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than significant. PM2.5 Concentration. The unmitigated maximum annual PM2.5 concentration as a result of Project construction would be less than 0.01 µg/m3. The annual PM2.5 concentration due to implementation of the Project would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 0.3 µg/m3, and hence is considered less than significant. Cumulative Impacts-Health Associated. The cumulative impacts are below the BAAQMD significance thresholds. The Project would not result in increased health impacts exceeding the Project-level thresholds therefore 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. Odor impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project would be less than significant. The Project operations include a biomed research and development facility,which would not be expected to create or increase odors. 4. GREENHOUSE GAS The Project is below the threshold of 4.6 metric tons per service population, therefore the generation of GHG for operations would be considered less than significant. GHG construction impacts would be less than 1,100 metric tons and considered a less than significant impact. GalEElfod was used to quantify GHG emissions associated with Project constriction activities (for informational purposes), as well as long-term operations associated with natural gas space and water heating, electricity, landscape maintenance, and veliicles. Estimated constriction GHG emissions that would be associated with the Project are presented in GHG Emissions Table 2. The estimated constriction GHG emissions are 1,002 and 388 metric tons in 2013 and 2014, respectively. DRAFT FIR/6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 475 ECCLES_VENUE,SOliTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 6_5 6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT The 30 year amortized annual constriction related GHG emissions would be 46 metric tons. 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 TD:NI Program measures. As part of the Project, the TD:NI Program is required to reach a 30 percent mode shift I)y City- ordinance to qualify for a 1.0 FAR. On an efficiency basis, the Project would generate 2.4 metric tons of CO,e per service population (894 employees) per year. GHG EMISSIONS TABLE 2 PREFERRED PROJECT RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS MNII Construction (30-year amortized) 46 B_4-4OIID B c ht Iiize Th e.,1)o1W 1,100 Potentially Significantr No Operations Area Sources 0.0 Enerp- 997 Mobile 818 Solid Waste 9.07 Water 319 Total Emissions 2,142 Total Emissions per Service Population 2.4 B_44OIID Effleuizg Th e.,1)o1W 4.6 Potentially Significantr No Total Emissions (LEED Silver) 1,842 Total Emissions per Service Population 2.1 B_4-4OIID Effleuizg Th e.,1)o1W 4.6 Potentially Significantr No Additional Reduction due to tree planting 113 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. ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FIR/6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 475 ECCLES_ VENUE,SOliTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 6-6 6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 5. BIOLOGY The Project would have no impact on any endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, or to any federally protected wetlands or wildlife corridors. The Project is located in a largely industrial area, on a site that was previously developed. There is very little to no habitat valhie to the site (no water source and small trees). 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 Bnuio Mountain Count-and State Parr. The Project is not located on ecologically sensitive lands and would have no impact on General Plan policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The Project site is located in a largely industrial area interspersed with R&D land use. The site was completely graded by 1956 and developed in the mid-1960's. There are no protected trees on the site as defined I)y City- ordinance. No Habitat or Conservation Plan governs the site, as the site does not contain habitat. There are no wetlands or riparian habitat on the site 6. CULTURAL RESOURCES The Project site does not contain cultural resources. Holman & Associates, _archaeologists Mr. Miley Holman an arcliival search and site inspection at the request of the City- I)y Iuiapp Consulting. Mr. Holman presented his findings in a report dated July 30, 2007 (Cultural Resources Sthidv of the 475 Eccles Property-, Soutli San Francisco, San 1lateo Count-, California. Holman & _associates. July 30, 2007). Mr. Holman states 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 Project site does not contain historic resources. 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). The building was constnicted in 1965, 47 rears ago. Tenant improvements ensued immediately thereafter and have also occurred over the years. Site improvements are in a diminished state of repair and the architecture is lacking in 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 Figure 7-3 De S'Bated Histonie Resources in the City's General Plan (page 241). There are no Historical resources or stnuctures on the Project site. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Seismicity. The Project would have a less than significant impact on exposing people or structures to danger from surface rupture of a known earthquake fault. There are no active faults underlyflig the site and the nearest one is the San Andreas Fault, located about 3.4 miles southwest. DRAFT FIR/6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 475 ECCLES_VENUE,SOliTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 6-7 6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT Groundshaking. Conformance with the latest CBC would reduce the impact of seismic ground-shaking to a level that is than significant. Liquefaction. The Project would have no impact with respect to liquefaction of subsurface materials. The Project site is underlain by a non-saturated laver, approximately one to seven feet in deptli, of medium dense to dense clavev sand and silt- sand, overlving relatively shallow greenstone and a melange bedrock of the Franciscan Assemlblage. The potential for liquefaction is remote. Landslides. There is no threat of landslides on the Project site. The Association of Bay Area Governments indicates that Project site is "flatland." (_association of Bay Area Governments, lltt:ZZ/ !lis.abat7 �!0I-/«-ebsite/Landslides/-\-ie«er.1-ittl-t). Erosion or Loss of Topsoil. Erosion control measures are required as a matter of law and as a result this impact is considered to be less than significant. Geologic Instability. 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. Expansive Soils. The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to expansive soils. The Project is not located on expansive soils (PI of 15 or more) and expansive soils are not permitted for fill material. Capability of Soils to Support Septic Tanks. The Project would have no impact on soils due to septic systems. The Project is connected to the City's sanitary system. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. The Project would have a less than significant impact on the release and transport of hazardous materials. The Project as proposed would characterize the area stained by oil and conduct clean-up activities as prescribed by law. The Project through the entitlement process and routine inspection, by both the City and San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health, is required as a matter of law to operate under all applicable, federal, state and local gLiidelines 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. The Project would have a less than significant impact to sensitive receptors. 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. Potential safety impacts associated with airports and airstrips is considered to be less than significant. 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 have no impact on the implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. There are no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Project vicinity. The Project is also required to have ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FIR/6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 475 ECCLES_VENUE,SOliTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 6-8 6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT Emergency Responder Radio Coverage (Fire Marshal, Luis DeSll`"a letter to Plannilig Department,January 10, 2012). The Project would have no impact with respect to wildland fires. There is no wildland in the vicinity of the Project site or area. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Violation of Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements. 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. The Project as a matter of law is required to comply with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SNUPP). The City requires the implementation of low impact development measures (LIDS) and best management practices (131fPs) for new development and constriction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City- conditions of project approval by the Water Quality Control Division of the Public Works Department. Deplete or Interfere Substantially with Groundwater. The Project would improve conditions on the site and would have no impact with regards to groundwater depletion. The Project would receive its water supply from existing local infrastructure, not groundwater. The project would increase porosity of the site over existing conditions. Approximately 13 percent of the site is landscaped and pervious. The Project would reduce impervious surfaces on the site by 11 percent, resulting in 24 percent of the site in pervious landscaped area. Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Erosion and Siltation Effects. 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. 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\TTPP measures which are more stringent than what was in effect in the 1960's. 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;otlier items. The Project would result in no impact related to an increase in surface water runoff. The Project would improve the existing drainage pattern of the site and decrease the amount of surface runoff. Runoff Exceeding Drainage System Capacity/Increase Polluted Runoff. Implementation of the measures required as a matter of law would reduce the Project's impact runoff to a level of less than significant. The Project, as a matter of law, is required to submit and obtain approval of a SN\TTPP and an Erosion Control Plan to the City Engineer and the Water Quality Control Division prior to the commencement of any grading or constriction of the Project. Otherwise Degrade Water Quality. 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. 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. DRAFT FIR/6.0 EFFECTS FOtTND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 475 ECCLES_VENUE,SOliTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 6-9 6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT Flood 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 of people or structures to a flood hazard, or a structure in such a way that it would impede or redirect flood flows. Tsunami Hazards. The Project is not within an inundation zone therefore the impact of potential inundation by tsunami or seiche is considered to be less than significant. The Cltv'S General Plan estimates that potential ware run-up of a 100-year tsunami would be approximately- 4.3 feet above mean sea level (msl) and approximately- 6.0 feet above msl for a 500-year tsunami (Dy-ett and Bhatia, ,Bout'. ,S r a Fialicz*reo Gelmal Phyla, adopted October 1999, page 250). The Project site, with an elevation of 63 to 88 feet above MSL would be outside the runup zone subject to inundation by- a 500-rear tsunami and would be outside the any- potential tsunami hazard zone'. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING Division of an Established Community. The Project would have no impact on dividing an established community and would continue the goals of the City to encourage quality research and development campus-like development in the East of 101 Area. The Project is located within the Business and Teclitiolog gy 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. Conflicts with Land Use Plan and Zoning. The Project would not conflict with the land use designation or zoning classification. The General Plan land use designation and zoning classification for the Project site is Business and Teclinology- Parr. The Project would implement the intended use of the site and would be in conformance with the planning and zoning designations. Conflict with Conservation Plan. The Project would have no impact on conservation plans. There are no conservation or natural community-conservation plans that govern the Project site. 11.MINERAL RESOURCES Loss of Mineral Resources. The Project would have no impact on any known mineral resource, or result in the loss of availability of any locally important resource recovery site. The Project Site does not contain any local or regionally sigmt—icant mineral resources. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to mineral resources. 12. NOISE 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. The Project would not have individually significant or cumulatively significant impacts with respect to noise. i Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, State of California South San Francisco Quadrangle, full- 15,2009. ADMINISTR ATIVE DRAFT FIR/6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 475 ECCLES AVENUH,SOliTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 6-10 6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 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 dad- 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 veliicle, loading and unloading operations are infrequent and intermittent which would I)y nature not expose people to excessive amounts of noise. Additionally, 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. Aircraft Noise. The Project would have no impact with respect to excessive aircraft noise exposure as it is not located within the 65 dB contour. The site is not within an aircraft insulation area as shown on Figire 9-1 _aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program (page 279, General Plan). 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING Population and Growth. The Project would not indirectly induce population growth though additional employment because it would not exceed the development parameters outlined in the City's General Plan. 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. The Project proposes a 1.0 FAR and is within the analysis and density- assumed in the General Plan. The Soutli 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 2013 and 8.3 million by 2033,as noted in Chapter 2 of the initial study in Appendix A. Displacement of Housing or People. 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 of housing or people. There are no residential units on the Project site. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES Increased Demand on Public Services which could require the construction or drop service ratios. Redevelopment of the Project site would not increase the demand for public services individually or cumulatively. The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan and the City's provision of services is based upon the development assumptions contained in the general plan. 15. RECREATION Recreation Facilities and Services. The Project would not result in an individual or cumulatively considerable impact on parks and recreation. Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from the development assumptions contained in the South DRAFT FIR/6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 475 ECCLES_VENUE,SOliTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 6-11 6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 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. 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Regional Wastewater Treatment Standards. The Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB, resulting in a less than significant impact. The City's storm drain outfalls operate under NPDES permits granted I)y the RN QCB. The South San Francisco Municipal 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 in the initial study in Appendix A as a matter of law, projects are required to implement B:NIPs and LID measures and comply with SN\T'PP regulations. Wastewater Treatment Facilities. 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. All wastewater produced within the City- of South San Francisco is treated at the City's Water Qtiality Control Plant (N QCP), which is located at the end of Belle _fir Road, near the edge of San Francisco Bay. 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 (1IGD), is currently generating 5.6 1fGD 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). Wastewater generated by the Project is within the General Plan growth projections and associated wastewater treatment capacity-allocations. Storm Water Drainage Facilities. The Project would not require the construction of new or expanded storm drainage facilities, resulting in a less than significant impact. 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. Water Treatment Facilities and Supply. 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. Potable water is provided for the City of South San Francisco I)y the California Water Service Company (CN SC) and the Westborotigli County Water District ( VCNVD). provides water to the area east of Interstate 280 (I-280) in South San Francisco, including 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. receives water from the City- and Count- of San Francisco, through the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. C�ti'SC drafted and adopted an Urban Water Management Plan (UNti'1IP) in 2006. The UN\'1IP was established in accordance with the California Urban Water Management Planning _pct, (Division 6 Part 2.6 of the Water Code, Section 10610-10656). Water Code ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FIR/6.0 EFFECTS FOtTND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 475 ECCLES_VENUE,SOliTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 6-12 6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 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 gLiaranteed by a settlement agreement and the purchase of the Los Trancos County Water District C.N SC has a total Supply-_assurance _allocation of 35.5 million gallons a day- (MGD) of water indelinitely.2 The UN\'1IP 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 pear. The population of the C.N SC service area is projected to be 64,050 1)v 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. Tlierefore, in 2020 it is anticipated that the C.N SC service population area will be 57,678 providing adequate water supply for existing and projected development.' 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 Regilations, Section 15083.5 directing further assessment of potential impacts. 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\'1IP which builds upon the development and growth assumptions in planning documents in the entire service area. Solid Waste. 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. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (('.IN\'1IB) manages the waste generation and disposal data for Soutli San Francisco. Non-recyclable 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 Soutli 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 1lountain 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.' 17. Findings The initial study for the Project resulted in the following findings: '-( 'SC,2006 urban Water Management Plan for South San Francisco,December 15,2006. 3 i TN\':NIP, 2006 and South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment and FIR, City of South San Francisco, Dvatt and Bhatia,November,2009. 4 South San Francisco's existing and projected waste stream generation include an approximate 50 percent demonstrated diversion rate. DRAFT FIR/6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 6-13 6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ➢ All environmental impacts associated with aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, air quality-, greenhouse gas emissions, health risks biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous and hazardous materials, livdrology 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. ➢ The Project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FIR/6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 475 ECCLES_VENUE,SOliTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 6-14 7.0 CEQA REQUIRED CONCLUSIONS 7.1 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS The Draft EIR must examine the potential growth-inducing impacts of the project. CCR Section 15126.2(d) requires that the EIR "discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly'. The analysis must also consider the removal of obstacles to population growth, such as improvements in the regional transportation system. Growth-inducing impacts such as those associated with job increases that miglit affect housing and retail demand in otlier jurisdictions over an extended time period are difficult to assess with precision, since future economic and population trends may be influenced by unforeseeable events, such as nawral disasters and business development cycles. Moreover, long-term changes in economic and population growth are often regional in scope; tliev are not influenced solely by changes in policies or specific development projects. Business trends are influenced by economic conditions throtigliout the state and country- as well as around the world. mother consideration is that the creation of growth-inducing potetitial does not automatically- lead to growth. Growth occurs throtigli capital investment in new economic opportunities by the private and/or public sector. Investment patterns reflect, in turn, the desires of investors to mobilize and allocate their resources to development in particular localities and regions. A combination of these and other pressures serve to fashion polio-. The regulator- authority- of local governments, serve to mediate the growth-inducing potential or pressure created by a project or plan. Despite these limitations on the analvsis, it is still possible to gtialitatively assess the general potential growth-inducing impacts of the Project. PROJECTED GROWTH The initial study included in Appendix A made the following findings: ➢ 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 research and development (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 by 2015 and 83 million by 2035, as noted in Chapter 2 of the initial study in Appendix A. ➢ The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. DRIFT EIR/7.0 CEQ A RE01-ITIRED CONCLUSIONS 475 ECCLES_VENUE,SOliTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 7-1 6.0 CEQA REQJ_IRED CONC I SIGNS The Project is not anticipated to result in growth inducing impacts outside the development projections contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. 7.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS An EIR is required to examine cumulative impacts. CCR Section 15130(a)(1), defines a cumulative impact as consisting "of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts." The analysis of cumulative impacts need not provide the level of detail required of the analysis of impacts from the project itself, but shall "reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence" (CCR Section 15130(b)). The EIR must anal yze eitlier a list of past, present, and probable future projects or a summary-of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document. The initial stud- analyzed the potential for cumulative impacts and as a result identified cumulative impacts relating to traffic and circulation. Chapter 4, Setting Impacts and Mitigations identifies projects that are anticipated in the East of 101 area 2035 horizon (see Table 15 in Chapter 4). Chapter 4 identifies the cumulative impacts that cannot be reduced to a less than significant level associated with the Project's contribution to cumulative development. These impacts are: • Impact 9.13: The Project would increase year 2015 ANI peak hour without Project traffic volumes by 2.3 percent at the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp (Flyover) diverge to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Intersection. The Project would increase off-ramp volumes from 1,762 up to 1,803 vehicles with 2015 without Project volumes already exceeding the 1,500 vehicles per hour diverge capacity-limit. • Impact 13.A: The Project would increase the frequency of backups extending to the freeway mainline at the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Intersection during the ANI Peak Hour. The Project would increase volumes at this off-ramp I)y 1.4 percent compared to Year 2035 without Project volumes. Traffic would backup to the freeway mainline more frequently. • Impact 13.13: The Project would increase the frequency of backups extending to the freeway mainline at the U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand venue/Executive Drive Intersection during the ANI Peak Hour. The Project would increase volumes at this off-ramp by 1.3 percent compared to Year 2035 without Project volumes. Traffic would back up to the freeway mainline more frequently. • Impact 13.C: Implementation of the Project would increase year 2035 ANI peak hour without Project traffic volumes by 1.4 percent at the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp (Flyover) diverge to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard ADMINISTRATIVE DRIFT EIR/7.0 CEQ A REQUIRED CONCLUSIONS 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 7-2 6.0 CEQA REQJ_IRED CONC I SIGNS Intersection. The Project would increase off-ramp volumes from 2,454 up to 2,488 vehicles with 2035 without Project volhunes already exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour capacity-of the off-ramp. • Impact 131): The Project would increase PSI peak hour on-ramp volumes by more than 1 percent on the U.S. 101 Northbound One-Lane On-Ramp from the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. Volumes would be increased by 1.1 percent (from 2,572 up to 2,601 vehicles) with Year 2035 without Project volumes already exceeding the on-ramp capacity- of 2,200 vehicles per hour. The initial study did not identify any other potential cumulative impacts that could not be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. A summary- of these findings is contained in Chapter 6 Effects Found Not To Be Significant and the full analysis is contained in the initial study in Appendix A. 7.3 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CCR Section 15126(b) requires that EIR discuss arty significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided under full implementation of the Project. Chapter 4, Setting Impacts and Mitigations identities the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the Project in detail which are also identified in 6.2 above. The EIR must discuss why the Project is being proposed, not withstanding such impacts and Chapter 5 Alternatives contains this analysis. 7.4 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE The EIR is required to consider whether "uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources mares removal or non use thereafter unlikely" (C(.R Section 15126.2(c)). "Nonrenewable resource" refers to the physical features of the natural environment, such as land, waterways, etc. The initial study did not identify areas of significant irreversible environmental change. Chapter 6 Effects Found Not To Be Significant summarizes these findings and the initial saidy provides the full analysis. Construction and implementation of the Project would not result in a large commitment of natural resources, require highway improvements to previously inaccessible areas; or irreversible damage due to environmental accidents. ADMINISTRATIVE DRIFT EIR/7.0 CEQ A REQUIRED CONCLUSIONS 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 7-3 8.0 REPORT PREPARATION LEAD AGENCY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION 315 Maple Avenue City-of South San Francisco, California 94080 Bill-Gross,_associate Planner CONSULTING TEAM ALLISON KNAPP WOLLAM CONSULTING 511 Linden Street, Suite B San Francisco, CA 94102 _Alison Knapp,Principal/Project Manager In consultation«%ith: CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP 2621 East Windrim Court Elk Grove, California 95758 Mark Crane, Managing Principal KB ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, INC. PO Box 385 Indianola,Washington 98342 Michael Ratte, Senior_fir Quality- Scientist DRIFT FIR/8.0 REPORT PREPARATION 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 8-1 9.0 REFERENCES Following is a list of documents reviewed in the preparation of this EIR. These references are in addition to the ones contained in the initial study contained in Appendix A. 9.1 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS General Plan, 1999 General Plan EIR, 1999. Zoning Ordinances, 2010. South El Camino Real General Plan amendment Draft and Final EIR (20 10) 2007 Initial Stlidv 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, 2007. 2012 Initial Stlidv 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, 2012. East of 101 Traffic 1lodel, DKS DRIFT EIR/9.0 REFERENCES 475 ECCLES AVENL?E,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA PAGE 9-1 APPENDIX A INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST AND EVALUATION Initial Stud-Checklist and Evaluation Chapters 1-3 Technical Appendices 1.A_fir Quality-_assumptions and Methodole<gles 1.B _fir Quality_annual I.C.fir Quality Summer 1.D _fir Quality Winter 1.E_fir Quality-Model Output 2.A Cleary Geotechnical Report 2.B CS A Peer Review Geotechnical 2.0 Clean-Geotechnical Response 3.A Phase IESA 3.B Asbestos Report 4.A Traffic Projections for_fir Quality and Noise APPENDI-x A A-1 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- identifies 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; 1latt 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 Cultlwal 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,atioa 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 veliicle 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 Berrie Eugitire Dust ENIZ'Sfl'olis Redlictioli leaslires, &ISie ENI)alwt ENIZ'Sfl'olis Redli tioli leaslires and some of the Additiolial Fu,itire Dust ENIZ'Sfl'olis Redlictiola leasllres 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. I) 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 Di`islOn 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 consmzcted 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 constriction 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 Di`islOns. 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. I) 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`"iS1011. 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'o' e 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 stricture 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, Caiforliz'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 constriction 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 constriction 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 constriction 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 1)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 l3 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 20 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 1lunicipal Code (fI TIL/ Ocode.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 rears), 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 Pla iNluNl 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 Model(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 Monitoring 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-agricultural 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 agricultural operations. The site was developed in the mid-1960s with office and warehouse uses. The Project would not impact agricultural 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 March 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 BAAQNID'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 AAQNID 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 (N(-),), sulfur dioxide 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 Management District. October 4, 2010, Bar Area Climatology- htt ://w«w.haacind.Tov/Divisions/Coinmmiications-and-Outreach/fir-Chiility-in-the-Bay_Srea�Bav_Srea- Climatoiogv.asux,accessed Febnuan-4,2011. Western Regional Climate Center, Local Clzlwate Data S111;v1;varies for San Fnwtisco International _4h o;7' California. htt �«.wrcc.dri.edu/cPi-bill/c1i1cd.UEca23234,accessed Febnuai- 4,2011. Bar area fir Qualit Management District. October 4, 2010, Bar area Chinatology- htt ://w«w.haacind.Tov/Divisions/Coinmmiications-and-Outreach/fir-Chialit�-iii-the-Bay_Brea/Bay_Srea- Climatoiogv.asux,accessed Febniary 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 (;E/�A Air ()II ality 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 f' 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 cumulative 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 cumulatively- 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 discussed 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 stricture 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 CE/�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 CE/�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 Oucrli y 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. OPERATION AL REL TED Ism-- 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 (;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 / 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()L SE GAS EMISSIONS 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 N,() 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�ionnlin�-entor�-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 Aetioa leasll�es To Reduce Geeiahollse Gas Euli.i.ioll 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«�y arb.ca. oy/cc/facts/scolitig ilan 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- usti al 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 (: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. GalEElfod 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 TD1f 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 1,1(o(o 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 cultural 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 occurred 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 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:NIap 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 Geotecllaiurlliale.itio�itioa Report, 4f ,Vcielaee Caplplls, 475 Eccles Ar elaue, ,South ,Vali F-ialitl'Sco, Ca ifoiai�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, cut 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 Ar elaue, ,Vouth ,Vali Fialit'Sco, Ca iforiai�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 stricture 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 Di`islOn. • _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 BAQNID for requirements. • Pump and Treat. • Bioremediation. • Chemical Oxidation. • Consult B D�QNI 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 1 12 feet below the _�LUC 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 Map 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 hvdrole<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 many 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 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 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 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 biotechnology 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 Model 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, livdrologic 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. Constriction 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 1-max 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 safet< 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 '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 UNVNIP 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 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\'11B 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 Guidelines.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 Program Guidance_llalntal forPreparatiorr of Health Risk Assessnzerrts,littp://w��w.oehlia.or�/air/liot spots/pdf/HKA,uidefinaL 2 Bav Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD),2005.B.140 11)Health Risk Sereerrirrg.4rral3sis Guidelines (http: w11'11%boa rrtd.gov prntair to ics risk procedures policies hrsa �,,nidelhws.p(1f),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 Guidelines3 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 Quality Management District(BAAQMD),2005.B.140 11)Health Risk Scr°eerrirrg.4rral3sis Guidelines (httL': wII'II%boa rrtd.gor prntair to ics risk procedures policies hrso �nidelines.pol),June 2005. 4 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA),2003.Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance_llarrnal forPreparatiorr of Health Risk Assessnzerrts,littp://w��w.oehlia.or�/air/liot spots/pdf/HKA,uidefinaL 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://N�-y�-\v.oehha.ca.gov//. 6 Provides for a speciation faction of 1.3 percent of acrolein per DPM emission rate.http://N�-\�-\�-.epa.gov////.htlill. California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment Toxicity Criteria Database,2010. http://N�-y�-\v.oehha.ca.gov//. 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 BAAQMD on April 12,2012 Stationary Source Inquiry Form Request-Life Sciences Campus. 9 BAAQMD Countv Surface Street Screening Tables,May 2011 and C E H T P T r a f f i c L i n k a g e S e r v i c e Demonstration, http://N�-\�w.ehib.or,/traffic tooLjsp 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