Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout127 W Harris DEIR + AppendicesCITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH #2015012006 PREPARED FOR: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION 315 MAPLE AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO , CA 94083 www.ssf.net PREPARED BY: KNAPP PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING Allisonknappconsulting.com April 10, 2015 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH#2015012006 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 315 MAPLE AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94083 Mr. Billy Gross, Senior Planner Billy.gross@ssf.net April 10, 2015 i 127 WEST HARRIS TABLE OF CONTENTS 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 1.5 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 the Notice of Preparation 2-2 2.4 Summary of Project Impacts, Recommended Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program 2-7 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 3-5 3.4 Project Objectives 3-6 3.5 Project Description 3-7 3.6 Environmental Measures Incorporated into the Project 3-8 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT AND MITIGATION 4-1 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 Transportation and Circulation 4-4 4.2.2 Methodology 4-5 4.2.3 Setting 4-7 4.2.4 Circulation System Evaluation Methodology and Standards 4-7 4.2.5 Impacts and Mitigations 4-31 CHAPTER 5: ALTERNATIVES 5-1 5.1 Introduction 5-1 5.2 Project Objectives 5-2 5.3 Overview of Significant and Unavoidable Impacts 5-3 5.4 Alternatives Analysis 5-6 5.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative 5-11 CHAPTER 6: EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 6-1 6.1 Introduction 6-1 6.2 Initial Study Process 6-1 ii 6.3 Effects Found Not to Be Significant 6-1 CHAPTER 7: CEQA REQUIRED CONCLUSIONS 7-1 7.1 Growth Inducing Impacts 7-1 7.2 Cumulative Impacts 7-2 7.3 Significant Environmental Effects 7-5 7.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Change 7-5 CHAPTER 8: REPORT PREPARATION 8-1 CHAPTER 9: REFERENCES 9-1 LIST OF FIGURES 3.1 Project Location 3.2 Downtown Station Area Plan Boundaries 3.3 Proposed Site Plan 4.1 Area Map 4.2 Existing Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control 4.3 Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour Volumes 4.4 Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes 4.5 Transit and Shuttle Routes 4.6 Year 2017 Without Project AM Peak Hour Volumes 4.7 Year 2017 Without Project PM Peak Hour Volumes 4.8 Year 2017 Lane Geometrics and Intersection Controls 4.9 Year 2035 Without Project AM Peak Hour Volumes 4.10 Year 2035 Without Project PM Peak Hour Volumes 4.11 Year 2035 Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control 4.12 AM Peak Hour Project Increment Volumes 4.13 PM Peak Hour Project Increment Volumes 4.14 Existing + Project Weekday AM Peak Hour Volumes 4.15 Existing + Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes 4.16 Year 2017 With Project Weekday AM Peak Hour Volumes 4.17 Year 2017 With Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes 4.18 Year 2035 With Project Weekday AM Peak Hour Volumes 4.19 Year 2035 With Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes 4.20 Mitigated 2017 Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control for Level of Service and Sim Traffic Queue Reduction 4.21 Mitigated 2035 Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control for Level of Service and Sim Traffic Queue Reduction 4.22 Year 2015 Mitigations 4.23 Year 2035 Mitigations 4.24 Project Driveway Sightline Mitigation 4.25 Project Internal Circulation System Mitigation LIST OF TABLES 2.1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3.2 Hazardous Materials Remediation Measures 4.1 Signalized Intersection Level Of Service Criteria 4.2 Unsignalized Intersection Level Of Service Criteria 4.3 Intersection Level of Service Existing and Existing + Project iii 4.4 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing Demand Existing + Project 4.5 Do Peak Hour Off-Tamp Volumes Back Up to the U.S. 101 Mainline? Existing, Year 2017 & 2035 4.6 Off-Ramp Capacity And Volumes Existing, Year 2017 & Year 2035 4.7 On-Ramp Capacity and Volumes Existing, Year 2017 & Year 2035 4.8 Freeway Mainline Levels of Service Existing, Year 2017 & Year 2035 4.9 Public Transportation Service 4.10 Caltrain/BART Shuttle Service 4.11 Year 2017 Without Project Trip Generation 4.12 Intersection Levels Of Service Year 2017 AM & PM Peak Hour With and Without Project 4.13 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues Year 2017 AM & PM With and Without Project 4.14 Freeway Mainline Levels Of Service – Year 2017 With and Without Project 4.15 Year 2035 Without Project Trip Generation 4.16 Intersection Levels Of Service – Year 2035 AM & PM Peak Hour 4.17 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing Demand - Year 2035 4.18 Freeway Mainline Levels Of Service – Year 2035 With and Without Project 4.19 Project Trip Generation 4.20 Project Trip Distribution 4.21 Sight Lines at Project Driveway Connections to West Harris Avenue 4.22 Traffic Table Project Trip Generation Used in TKJM 2035 Model APPENDIX A Initial Study Checklist and Evaluation with all attachments: • Air Quality Assumptions and Methodologies, Construction and Operational Emissions, CALEEMOD Output Files, June, 2014. RCH Group, Mike Ratte. • Biological Resource Assessment, 127 West Harris Street, South San Francisco, California, West Harris SSF.SMa, 21 April 2014. Marangio Biological Consulting, Michael Marangio. • Engineering Report, Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites, 127 West Harris Avenue, South San Francisco, California. April 15, August 21, and October 7, 2014. Terracon. • Geotechnical Peer Review, Kuber Development Proposed Fairfield Inn and Suites. May 6, September 2, and October 16, 2014. Cotton Shires Associates. • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites, 127 West Harris Avenue, South San Francisco, California. March 18, 2014. Terracon. • Limited Stockpile Characterization and Sampling, Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites, 127 West Harris Avenue, South San Francisco, California. March 19, 2014. Terracon. Comment Letters on the Notice of Preparation Town of Colma, Michael P. Laughlin, January 5, 2015 San Francisco International Airport, John Bergener, January 14, 2015 California Department of Transportation, Patricia Maurice, January 30, 2015 DRAFT EIR / 1.0 INTRODUCTION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION The property owner and applicant (Applicant) is KUBER Hotels, represented by Shane Kuber, principal of the firm. The Applicant is seeking conditional use permit and design review approvals to construct a 128 room, 65,136 square foot select service hotel with 93 surface parking spaces. The 1.47 acre site at 127 West Harris Avenue (APN: 015-123-600), South San Francisco, California has never been developed (Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Terracon. March 18, 2014). The hotel would be five stories in height. The Project is also identified as Fairfield Inn and Suites and is a Marriott product. 1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS DRAFT EIR The Applicant proposes to grade the site, construct a hotel with surface parking and landscaping. The EIR for the Project has four purposes pursuant to Section 15002 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 1: 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 taking action on the Project. 2. Identify ways 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. 4. 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 (SCH) on January 5, 2015 SCH #2015012006 and is attached in Appendix A along with all background documents referenced therein. The IS/NOP review period commenced on January 5, 2015 and concluded on February 4, 2015 (Appendix A). The Initial Study identified traffic and circulation as potentially resulting in one or more 1 All citations in this EIR refer to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 and will subsequently be referred to as 14 CCR unless otherwise noted, commonly referred to as CEQA Guidelines. 1.0 INTRODUCTION DRAFT EIR / 1.0 INTRODUCTION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2014 PAGE 1-2 significant and unavoidable impacts. As a result, pursuant to CCR Section 15161 this Project EIR focusing on traffic and circulation was prepared and circulated for review. This Draft 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 (see Chapters 2 and 4). This Draft EIR has been prepared on behalf of the City of South San Francisco in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (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 identifies 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 two 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 EFFECTS 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 1.0 INTRODUCTION DRAFT EIR / 1.0 INTRODUCTION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 1-3 during preparation of this Draft EIR and initial study are contained within the text of the documents and the appendices. APPENDICES to this Draft EIR include the IS/NOP including its appendices and the NOP and comments thereto. 1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS The City, on April 10, 2015 filed an NOC with the State Clearinghouse, indicating that this Draft EIR has been completed and is available for review and comment. This Draft EIR will be available for review by the public and interested parties, agencies, and organizations for a review period of at least 45 days, as required by 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 ways in which the significant effects of the Project might 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, Senior Planner 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080 Billygross@ssf.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 the certification hearing, in accordance with CEQA requirements. The City will review the Final EIR (which includes the Draft and Final documents including the Initial Study) 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 whether Findings and Statements of Overriding Considerations were prepared. The NOD will also provide the address where the EIR and record of Project approval are available for review. DRAFT EIR / 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 2-1 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 INTRODUCTION This section summarizes the information and analyses presented in this Draft EIR. CCR Section 15123 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 Project located at 127 West Harris Avenue 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 City 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 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 Bay 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. The Project site is located at 127 West Harris Avenue southern portion of the East of 101 planning area. West Harris Avenue is located south of East Grand Avenue and north of Mitchell Avenue. San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is approximately 0.8 miles south of the site. The Colma Creek channel is approximately 250 feet south and U.S. 101 is approximately 850 feet west of the site. Mitchell Avenue provides access to West Harris Avenue. Gateway Boulevard to the west and Harbor Way to the east provide access to Mitchell Avenue PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1 The Applicant proposes a 128 room limited-service hotel. The hotel would include an indoor swimming pool and breakfast area. All parking would be at grade (i.e., no subgrade or structured parking) in front of the building and along the south and west property lines. Two shuttle vans and 93 surface parking spaces are proposed. Site access would be via two 30 foot wide two-way driveways along the south and north property lines 1 The Project is more fully defined in Chapter 3 the Project Description. 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT EIR / 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 2-2 The 64,117 square foot (1.47 acre) vacant site is approximately 13 feet above mean sea level. Historical information indicates that the site and surrounding area were submerged swamp land from the late 1890s to the early 1950s. The site has never been developed. Periodically the site was used for parking. The adjacent Focus Hotel was constructed in 1980. According to City finance records The Focus Hotel contains 180 rooms and is identified as an “economy hotel”, meaning one that is less expensive to rent and with little or no additional amenities. The site is covered with invasive and native grasses and shrubs. The site is relatively flat, with a slight surface gradient towards the east. Evidence of illegal dumping is present on the site. There is approximately a nine foot layer of undocumented fill consisting of sandy, gravely, cobble and boulders on the site. Bay Mud appears below the undocumented fill. (Geotechnical Engineering Report, Terracon, April 15, 2014). Metal concentrations (arsenic and chromium) above California Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for shallow soils are present on the site. Additionally low levels of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) below ESLs are also present in shallow soils (Phase I ESA, Terracon, March 18, 2014 and Limited Stockpile Characterization and Sampling, Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites, 127 West Harris Avenue, South San Francisco, California. March 19, 2014. Additional testing found soil samples above the reporting limits for: TPH-ORO 8.8 mg/Kg, 19 mg/Kg and 7.8 mg/Kg from TP-1, SP-5 and SP-6, respectively; naphthalene concentration of 0.085 mg/Kg from TP-3, and phenanthrene concentrations of 0.061 mg/Kg and 0.12 mg/Kg from TP-3 and TP-4 respectively; and various metals from stockpiles soils, including: arsenic, barium, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, vanadium and zinc were at concentrations above the laboratory method reporting limits. Environmental mitigations are proposed as part of the Project. Noise and vibration; hazardous materials; geology and soils and cultural resource mitigations are proposed. 2.3 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED AND COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION Responses to the NOP for this EIR identified questions or issues to be addressed during Project environmental review. Three letters were received on the NOP, are summarized below and included in Appendix A As noted in Chapter I, Introduction: 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 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT EIR / 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 2-3 prepared (CCR Section 15063 (c) (3)). The IS/NOP was legally noticed and distributed to the State Clearinghouse on January 5, 2015, State Clearinghouse (SCH) # 2015012006 (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. Comments on the NOP The State Clearinghouse (January 5, 2015) provided the City with a copy of the NOP transmittal. The review period began on January 5, 2015 and commenced on February 4, 2015. The comments are: 1. Town of Colma (Michael P. Laughlin, January 5, 2015) stating that the Initial Study appears to cover the areas of analysis and the Town will be reviewing the EIR traffic section. 2. San Francisco International Airport (John Bergener, January 14, 2015) requesting an evaluation of policies on safety and noise, described more fully below. 3. California Department of Transportation (Patricia Maurice, January 30, 2015) identifying the expected Traffic Impact Study contents and recommendations, described more fully below. San Francisco International Airport (SFO), John Bergener, Airport Planning Manager. Mr. Bergener requests that the EIR address Project impacts associated with airport land use compatibility, safety and noise with respect to its proximity to SFO including an analysis of Noise Policies NP-1 through NP-4 and Safety Policies SP-1 through SP3. Mr. Bergener also requests that the EIR address freeway noise. The Initial Study (included in Appendix A) addresses safety and noise impacts associated with the airport and noise associated with U.S.101. The potential impacts were found to be less than significant. Therefore, these impacts will not be addressed in the EIR. Specifically, the Initial Study notes on: Page 3-77 The Project site is located in the southern area of the City, within an industrial area. SFO property is 0.80 miles south of the site. The area is dominated by aircraft and roadway noise. The site is within the 65-70 dB noise contour for roadway noise (Figure 9-2 Projected Rail and Road Noise, page 283, and below the 60 dB contour for airport-related noise exposure Figure 9-1 Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program page 279, South San Francisco General Plan). SFO’s website shows the site below the 65 dB contour. The airport’s contours were updated in 2012 (Comprehensive Airport Land Use 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT EIR / 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 2-4 Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, Ricondo Associates. 2012). Page 3-83 The Project area is dominated by roadway traffic from U.S. 101 and Interstate 380, South Airport Boulevard and other surface streets. 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 running in the north-south direction. U.S.101 is approximately 0.38 miles west of the Project site. In 2012, U.S. 101 carried an annual average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 220,000 vehicles south of Produce Avenue, 218,000 vehicles south of Oyster Point Boulevard, and 213,000 vehicles just north of Oyster Point Boulevard. A traffic study was prepared for the Project as a part of the scope of services for this Initial Study. The Project would likely generate about 1,152 daily two- way trips (576 in and 576 out), with 51 inbound and 36 outbound trips during the AM peak hour as well as 44 inbound and 47 outbound trips during the PM peak hour (Crane Transportation Group, October, 2014). The incremental increase of traffic in the Project area does not represent a doubling of background traffic volumes. Traffic to and from the site is not expected to increase noise levels by 3 dB. The Project site is under the 65 dB noise contour interval identified as acceptable for commercial land uses. The hotel is a freeway commercial land use. A 70 dB or less noise environment is acceptable for commercial uses while 70 to 80 dBA is conditionally acceptable for commercial land uses. The Project use would be in conformance with the noise standards identified in the City’s General Plan. Additionally, the California Building Code requires noise insulation assemblies in the walls of residential uses (such as hotel rooms and multifamily housing) to attenuate sound to a 45 dB maximum. Page 3-83 and 84 e) and f) Aircraft Noise Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were located within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport) or in the vicinity of a private airstrip and were to expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. The site is located under the 65 dB contour, therefore under the 70 dB maximum permitted for commercial land uses. The interior ambient noise levels would likely be 20-25 dB less due to the construction assembly resulting in a noise level of 45 dB. The Project is not within two miles of a 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT EIR / 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 2-5 private airstrip. The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to excessive aircraft noise exposure. Table IV-2 Noise /Land Use Compatibility Criteria page IV-19 of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, (CAG City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, California. Rincondo Associates, 2012) (ALUCP) shows hotels (transient lodging) as a permitted use below 65 dB. Safety Comment Page 3-63 of the Initial Study e) and f) Safety Hazards Due to Nearby Airport or Airstrip Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were located within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport), if it would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area; or if it were located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, if it would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. San Francisco International Airport is approximately 0.8 miles south of the site and within the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC) and ALUC Plan Area jurisdiction. The ALUC allows development within its plan boundaries, provided that development is below a prescribed height limit. The City, in concert with the ALUC and in coordination with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), established height limits in the South San Francisco General Plan (1999) in compliance with the ALUC and FAA. SFO’s Interactive Airspace Tool identifies updated height information based upon the updated 2012 Airport Land Use Plan. The maximum height allowed at the Project site is 150 above msl. The maximum height of the Project would be 65 feet. The Project would be 85 feet below the maximum permitted height in order to avoid conflicts with aircraft operations. Potential safety impacts associated with airports and airstrips is considered to be less than significant. Mr. Bergener requests an evaluation of the Project in light of the 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport San Mateo County. We understand that all of San Mateo County is within the airport’s land use influence Zone B. The Project is not within any safety compatibility zones. The closest Safety Compatibility Zones identified on Figure IV-7 page 23 of the Airport Land Use Comprehensive Plan (ALUCP) are Zones 3 and 4. The Project is approximately 0.5 miles outside Safety Zone 3 and 2.0 miles outside Safety Zone 4. The use restrictions identified in the ALUCP would not apply to the Project. Additionally, the Project is proposing a hotel, not uses identified as 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT EIR / 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 2-6 unpermitted within the Safety Zones 3 and 4 shown on Table IV-2, page IV-31 of the ALUCP, such as: “ children’s schools; large child day care centers; hospitals, nursing homes; hazardous uses other than Biosafety Level 3 and 4 facilities; critical public utilities; and nursing homes” Exhibit A in Appendix A contains a summary of the tables and policies referenced in the airport’s letter. The plan can also be downloaded by on line searching 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport San Mateo County. California Department of Transportation-Caltrans (Patricia Maurice, Acting District Branch Chief) The traffic and circulation analysis contained in Chapter 4 of this EIR includes the maps, diagrams, driveways, trip generation, distribution and assignment, assumptions and methodology and average daily trip for AM and PM. The analysis includes impacts on bicyclists, pedestrians and public transportation. The Project proposes vehicle trip reduction methods by providing two shuttle buses and 93 parking spaces for a 128 room hotel. The significance criteria used is Level of Service (LOS) D/E and not the LOS C/D. The City has been consistently using the LOS D/E criteria for approximately 10 years and recognizes that the suggestions in the Caltrans letter are recommendations based upon 2002 Guidelines. 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 Unavoidable; and Less Than Significant and No Mitigation Required. Project related and cumulative impacts relate to traffic and circulation only. Chapter 6, Effects Found not to be Significant, contains a brief summary of the initial study. DRAFT EIR / 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 2-7 TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WITH MITIGATION MITIGATION MONITORING IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS IMPLEMENTATION /MONITORING # IMPACT MITIGATION PARTY/ AGENCY/TIMING 6 Project traffic would, increase volumes by more than 2 percent at S. Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue an intersection already experiencing unacceptable operation. The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to go towards provision of a third lane on the westbound Mitchell Avenue approach to the S. Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection. Applicant/City Engineer/ The full fair share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. 12 Project traffic would increase volumes on the US 101 southbound off-ramp to Produce Avenue by more than 1 percent during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours where Without Project off-ramp traffic is projected to be backing up to the freeway mainline. No mitigation is available to completely reduce this impact to less than significant. However the Mitchell Avenue improvements are feasible and will alleviate conditions in the immediate Project area but not reduce Impact 12 to less than significant. Provide a left turn lane on the eastbound Mitchell Avenue approach to West Harris Avenue. This will just require restriping the existing 40-foot curb-to- curb width in order to provide a 12-foot- wide left turn lane as well as 14-foot- wide east and westbound thru travel lanes. Paint a “Keep Clear” message on the pavement on westbound Mitchell Avenue at West Harris Avenue. Applicant to fund or restripe eastbound Mitchell Avenue approach to West Harris and paint the keep clear signage. Improvement to be shown on the plans for issuance of a building permit. /City Engineer to review. Improvements to be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Note that this is a mitigation measure that is required but will not reduce impacts to less than significant. 19 Project-related traffic would access West Harris Avenue via two driveways where safety impacts may result due to potential limited sight line issues. Prohibit truck parking along the entire Project frontage. Prohibit all on-street parking along the Project frontage at least 80 feet north of the south Project driveway, and at least 40 feet south of the north Project driveway. Applicant to show on plans/City Engineer to review and approve Improvements required to be constructed and signed-off by engineering prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT EIR / 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 2-8 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS IMPACTS WITH NO MITIGATION AVAILABLE # IMPACT 7 The Project would increase off-ramp volumes by more than 1 percent on the Northbound Off-ramp to S. Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane, where Without Project volumes would be backing up to the freeway mainline (2017). The proportional amount of the City’s East of 101 traffic impact fair share contribution would still be required to adjust signal timing at Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue. However, the remainder of Mitigation 7 which is restriping the northbound intersection approach and associated signalization equipment changes along with the widening of the on-ramp departure to two lanes are not on the City’s Traffic Improvement Program (TIP) and the cost would be excessive for the Project to fund. The City has determined that the intersection improvements described in Mitigation Measure 7 are infeasible for the Project to fully fund and freeway off-ramp backups to the freeway mainline would not be mitigated toless than significant. The individual measures, by themselves, would not eliminate the significant impact. While the low cost signal timing adjustment could be provided and would provide some improvement, by itself it would not reduce the impact to a less than significant. The City will need to incorporate these new improvements into the East of 101 TIP. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 12 Project traffic would increase volumes on the US 101 southbound off-ramp to Produce Avenue by more than 1 percent during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours where Without Project off-ramp traffic is projected to be backing up to the freeway mainline (2035). Mitigation Measure 12 would eliminate AM and PM peak hour backups to the freeway mainline (with or without the Project) during the AM and PM peak hours (as shown in Traffic Figure 21, Year 2035 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control). Measures at the Mitchell Avenue/West Harris Avenue intersection while not on the City’s TIP for this area are low cost and could be implemented by the Project, and are required for the Project. However, at the Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue intersection, the added right turn lane and dual right turn lane signalization are not on the City’s Traffic Improvement Program (TIP) and the cost would be excessive for the proposed Project to fund. Therefore, the City has determined that the intersection improvements described in Mitigation Measure 12 for the Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue intersection are infeasible. The Project could not fully fund all the mitigations therefore freeway off-ramp backups to the freeway mainline would not be mitigated to an acceptable level. The City will need to incorporate these new improvements into the East of 101 TIP. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT EIR / 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 2-9 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND NO MITIGATION REQUIRED IMPACTS WITH NO MITIGATION REQUIRED # IMPACT 1 The Project would not result in any significant intersection level of service significant impacts under Existing “With Project” conditions. 2 The Project would not result in any significant vehicle queuing impacts at any analyzed location under Existing “With Project” conditions. 3 The Project would not increase peak hour volumes at any study off-ramp above acceptable diverge capacity limits under existing with Project conditions. 4 The Project would not increase Peak Hour volumes at any study on-ramp above acceptable capacity limits under Existing with Project conditions. 5 The Project would not degrade the level of service of any U.S. 101 freeway mainline segments under Existing with Project conditions. 6 The Project would not increase traffic volumes above acceptable capacity limits at any study intersection under 2017 with Project conditions. 7 The Project would not result in any significant vehicle queuing impacts at any analyzed intersection based upon Synchro software methodology for 2017 With Project conditions. 8 The Project would not increase peak hour volumes at any study off-ramp above acceptable diverge capacity limits under 2017 With Project conditions. 9 The Project would not increase Peak Hour volumes at any study on-ramp above acceptable capacity limits under 2017 with Project conditions. 10 The Project would not degrade the level of service of any U.S. 101 freeway mainline segments under 2017 with Project conditions. 11 The Project would not increase traffic volumes above acceptable capacity limits at any study intersection under 2035 with Project conditions. 12 The Project would not result in any significant vehicle queuing impacts at any analyzed intersection based upon Synchro software methodology for 2035 With Project conditions. The addition of Project traffic would not result in unacceptable 95th percentile vehicle queuing between intersections under 2035 “With Project” conditions. 13 The Project would not increase peak hour volumes at any study off-ramp above acceptable diverge capacity limits under 2035 With Project conditions. 14 The Project would not increase Peak Hour volumes at any study on-ramp above acceptable capacity limits under 2035 with Project conditions. 15 The Project would not degrade the level of service of any U.S. 101 freeway mainline segments under 2035 with Project conditions. 16 The Project would not measurably increase use of local or regional transit facilities. 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT EIR / 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 2-10 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND NO MITIGATION REQUIRED IMPACTS WITH NO MITIGATION REQUIRED # IMPACT 17 The Project would not measurably increase use of local pedestrian or bicycle facilities. 18 Trips generated by the Project would be less than 100 net new trips during the AM or PM Peak Hour. 20 On-site circulation would adequately conform to City guidelines and good traffic engineering practice. 21 Project Access will be provided by two driveway connections to West Harris Avenue. Access between driveways internal to the site would be provided via parking aisles around all sides of the hotel. This would provide acceptable emergency access for the site. 22 The Project would provide a sidewalk connection between the hotel lobby entrance and the sidewalk along West Harris Avenue. Sidewalks would be provided along all four sides of the hotel building and serve hotel access doorways along each building frontage. Walkways are clearly marked and vegetation does not appear to block line of sight. On-site pedestrian infrastructure appears adequate. 23 There are no transit routes or bicycle routes in operation or planned adjacent to the Project site along West Harris Avenue, a dead end street. The Project would not conflict with any policies or decrease the performance of any nearby transit or bicycle facilities. DRAFT EIR / 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 3-1 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 INTRODUCTION Chapter 3 provides a description of the proposed Project and the related actions that comprise the Project analyzed in this EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 (14 CCR § 15124) requires that the project description in an EIR contain the following information but should not provide extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation 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, regulations, 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 eastern area of the City of South San Francisco, known as the “East of 101 Planning Area,” south of East Grand Avenue and north of Mitchell Avenue at 127 West Harris Avenue. San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is approximately 0.8 miles south of the site. The Colma Creek channel is approximately 250 feet south and U.S. 101 is approximately 850 feet west of the site. Mitchell Avenue provides access to West Harris Avenue. Gateway Boulevard to the west and Harbor Way to the east provide access to Mitchell Avenue (See Figure 1 Project Location). LAND USE ADJACENT TO AND NEARBY THE PROJECT SITE The Project site is vacant. As noted the Project would construct a hotel on the site. Adjacent to and south of the site is the Focus Hotel and to the north a food wholesaler, CTC Food Industries, Inc. Properties in the area are developed with vacant and occupied office space, freight forwarding, building materials and food wholesalers. Land uses outside of West Harris Avenue are a mix of light industrial, manufacturing and research and development (R&D). The hill containing the “‘South San Francisco the Industrial City’” sign is visible to the northwest. The hill is known locally, as “Sign Hill” and is listed as a National Historic Resource (1996). Buildings along West Harris are one to three story structures. Denser 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DRAFT EIR / 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 3-2 development patterns including the Embassy Suites Hotel, R&D and office buildings located on Gateway Boulevard can be seen from the Project area. These buildings are two to eight stories in height. FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION EAST OF 101 AREA LAND USE HISTORY The East of 101 Area was part of the first industrial development in South San Francisco over 100 years ago. The area has undergone many transformations as industrial uses, such as steel manufacturing, and meat packaging, gave way to industrial park, warehousing and distribution uses that came to dominate the area in the 1950s and 1960s. The City adopted 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DRAFT EIR / 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 3-3 the East of 101 Area Plan (July, 1994) to direct land use, design and resource conservation. In 1999, the City updated its General Plan and in 2010 its zoning ordinance. These documents reflect the third wave of development in the East of 101 Area: the emergence of modern office buildings and life science campuses, predominately north of East Grand Avenue. Older manufacturing uses, industrial park structures, warehousing, freight forwarding, car rental services and airport serving hotels and parking structures are predominately located south of East Grand Avenue, within the vicinity of the Project. Blocks throughout the East of 101 Area are generally very large in size and the area has a stark industrial look. Abandoned railroad spurs and dry docks are also present. Since the late 1990s, developers have preferred to redevelop the older industrial park blocks and construct 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. The East of 101 Area has and continues to witness expansion of R&D and airport- and visitor-serving land uses. R&D is anticipated to reach approximately 12 million square feet in the East of 101 Area by 2035, in addition to the 200 acre Genentech Research and Development Facility Master Plan.1 Office space not associated with R&D is anticipated to reach 1.23 million square feet, by 2035. Other land uses include or are anticipated to include by 2035 approximately 11.3 million square feet of manufacturing; 1 million square feet of commercial/retail/home center retail; and 3,650 hotel rooms. Water related uses include a ferry terminal and 716 berths for privately owned boats. DOWNTOWN STATION AREA PLAN A significant planning effort addressing the East of 101 Area south of East Grand Avenue is the Draft Downtown Station Area Plan which can be reviewed on the City’s website (http://www.ssfdowntownplan.org/background), or Google City of South San Francisco Official Website. The Draft Plan was released for public review July, 2014; EIR was released on October 10, 2014 for the 45-day public review period; and hearings and study sessions were conducted in January, 2015. On January 28, 2015 the South San Francisco City Council certified the EIR and adopted the Plan. The Project site is approximately 100 feet from the southeastern edge of the Downtown Station Area Plan, which is identified as the “Eastern Neighborhood” (See Figure 2 Draft Downtown Station Area Plan and Project Location). The Eastern Neighborhood is bounded by East Grand Avenue to the north; Gateway Boulevard to the east; South Airport Boulevard to the south; and the U.S. 101 to the west. The Eastern Neighborhood, as planned, will experience land use changes including re-designating and rezoning properties from Industrial to R&D as shown in Figure 2. Abandoned rail spurs and the Colma Creek 1 The East of 101 Traffic Model is based upon these R&D figures. The R&D figures reflect the recent Britannia Cove at Oyster Point and the 475 Eccles EIRs, and they represent a combination of entitled and built as well as entitled and un-built projects. Crane Transportation Group, August, 2014. 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DRAFT EIR / 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 3-4 channel will be designated Open Space. Land currently designated as Business Commercial, Mixed Industrial and Auto-Oriented Commercial will become Office /R&D. An area along East Grand Avenue includes a ‘Retail Focus’. As a result, the East of 101 Area south of East Grand Avenue could witness an increase of R&D up to 1.185 million square feet (Table 1 Existing and Proposed Land Uses, South San Francisco Downtown Station Area, Initial Study, page 7, Atkins. 2013 and page 3.9 of the Draft Downtown Station Area Plan). Excerpted from Draft Downtown Station Area Plan Figure 3 of the Draft Downtown Station Area Plan, prepared by BMS Design Group and Atkins, 2013 and site location added by Knapp Consulting FIGURE 2 DRAFT DOWNTOWN STATION AREA PLAN AND PROJECT LOCATION . PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS The 64,117 square foot (1.47 acre) vacant site is approximately 13 feet above mean sea level. Historical information indicates that the site and surrounding area were submerged swamp land from the late 1890s to the early 1950s. The site has never been developed. Periodically the site was used for parking. The adjacent Focus Hotel was constructed in 1980. The site is covered with invasive and native grasses and shrubs. The site is relatively flat, with a slight surface gradient towards the east. Evidence of illegal dumping is present on the site. The materials include pipes, cardboard boxes, glass, tires, metal fencing and plastic oil bottles. These materials, consisting of approximately one dump truck in volume, have been 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DRAFT EIR / 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 3-5 removed from the site. Undocumented fill is present throughout the site and more pronounced in the middle of the site. There is approximately a nine foot layer of undocumented fill consisting of sandy, gravely, cobble and boulders on the site. The boulders are 12 to 42 inches in diameter (Geotechnical Engineering Report, Terracon, April 15, 2014). Bay Mud appears below the undocumented fill. Metal concentrations (arsenic and chromium) above California Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for shallow soils are present on the site. Additionally low levels of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) below ESLs are also present in shallow soils (Phase I ESA, Terracon, March 18, 2014 and Limited Stockpile Characterization and Sampling, Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites, 127 West Harris Avenue, South San Francisco, California. March 19, 2014). The additional testing found soil samples above the reporting limits for: TPH-ORO 8.8 mg/Kg, 19 mg/Kg and 7.8 mg/Kg from TP-1, SP-5 and SP-6, respectively; naphthalene concentration of 0.085 mg/Kg from TP-3, and phenanthrene concentrations of 0.061 mg/Kg and 0.12 mg/Kg from TP-3 and TP-4 respectively; and various metals from stockpiles soils, including: arsenic, barium, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, vanadium and zinc were at concentrations above the laboratory method reporting limits. The geologic formation is sandstone, shale and conglomerate. Groundwater was encountered at eight feet below ground surface (bgs). The hydrological gradient varies seasonally from southeast to southwest as does the level of groundwater (Phase I ESA, Terracon, March 18, 2014). 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 “Business Commercial” (BC); a use intended for business and professional office and visitor service establishments and retail. Permitted uses include administrative, financial, business, professional, medical and public offices, and visitor-oriented and regional commercial activities. The General Plan (page 42) specifically notes: This category is intended for the emerging commercial and hotel district along South Airport, Gateway and Oyster Point Boulevards, and South Spruce Corridor. Maximum FAR for hotel developments shall be 1.2 with increases to a maximum total FAR of 2.0 for development meeting specified criteria. 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DRAFT EIR / 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 3-6 ZONING CLASSIFICATION The Project site is zoned Freeway Commercial (FC). The FC zoning is one of a group of four zoning districts identified under Chapter 20.110 Employment Districts. FC zoning is intended for regional-serving retail uses, commercial lodging, visitor services and similar uses that benefit from proximity to the Bayshore Freeway [i.e., U.S. 101]. Hotels are a permitted use within this zoning classification. The FC designation identifies a 1.2 FAR for hotels; a minimum lot size of one acre; minimum lot width of 50 feet and a minimum front setback of 20 feet. A complete list of permitted and conditional uses is identified in Chapter 20.110, Table 20.110.002 Land Use Regulations-Employment Districts of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (http://qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/). 3.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The Applicant has identified the following objectives of the Project. 1. Develop the project site with a high quality hotel use by partnering with a high quality hotelier, Marriott Hotels. 2. Develop a hotel use to own and operate for the long term. 3. Develop a hotel use that serves both business and leisure travelers and the City of South San Francisco. 4. Develop a project that is close to and connects with nearby transportation hubs such as SFO Airport, Caltrain, BART and Ferry service to give guests many options to meet their business and leisure travel needs. 5. Develop a hotel use with 128 guest rooms, the minimum number of rooms to insure the project’s economic feasibility. 6. Incorporate high-quality architecture, landscaping and sustainable design elements that are in line with the East of 101 Area guidelines. 7. Provide bus transportation for our guests, to the airport, local businesses and public transportation stations helping to reduce the local traffic burden. 8. Provide an indoor swimming pool so that guests can enjoy the amenity all year long. 9. Meet or exceed Marriott and California State Green energy initiatives. 10. Provide an exceptional working environment for more than 50 employees. 11. Become a partner and work closely with the local Chamber of Commerce to make the City of South San Francisco a better place to work and live. 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DRAFT EIR / 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 3-7 3.5 PROPOSED PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant proposes a 128 room limited-service hotel. The hotel would include an indoor swimming pool and breakfast area. All parking would be on surface in front of the building and along the south side and west side property lines. Two shuttle vans and 93 surface parking spaces are proposed. Site access would be via two 30 foot wide two-way driveways along the south and north property lines (see Figure 3 Site Plan). The Project proposes a 1.02 floor area ratio (FAR). The building would be 63 feet in height and setback approximately 50 feet from the southern property line; 20 feet from the northern; 45 from the western; and 65 to 75 from the eastern property lines. The building would be fire sprinkled. There are three PG&E towers constructed in the southwest corner of the Focus Hotel parking area. The lines traverse in a relative north/south direction. The lines (in plan dimension) are approximately 120 to 140 feet from the western façade of the Project, and approximately 180 feet from the southwestern corner of the proposed building. The PG&E towers were emplaced in the 1940s (Phase I ESA, Terracon, March 18, 2014). LANDSCAPING Landscaping would include 57 trees consisting of Raywood Ash, Flowering Gum Eucalyptus, Date Palm, Mexican Fan Palm, Mediterranean Fan Palm and Cajeput trees. Additional landscaping includes seven varieties of shrubs and four varieties of groundcover and various placements of boulders to appear as rock outcroppings. The Raywood Ash trees may be replaced with London Plane Trees, Platanus acerifolia ‘Columbia’ or Ginkgo biloba trees as recommended by the City’s Design Review Board. Bioswales and retention areas are proposed on the north, east, and southern property lines. The front elevation would include more detailed landscaping framing the building and the entry walkway. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE The overall construction schedule is anticipated to take 15-16 months. The heaviest portion of construction, site clearing, grading, drilling, driving and emplacing piles, structural steel and foundation work would require approximately three months. Wood framing, rough plumbing, electrical and mechanical, emplacement of block walls, and roofing would require approximately 16 to 18 weeks (4.5 months). Interior work and finishes would require approximately 12 to 14 weeks. The stages of work overlap and are rounded up to provide a conservative construction schedule.2 In summary, the most intense part of site preparation and construction would require three months. 2 Schedule is based upon information provided by Covent Construction, Inc., May 23, 2014 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DRAFT EIR / 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 3-8 Provided by Gerald R. Kessler, Architect FIGURE 3 SITE PLAN 3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED AS PART OF THE PROJECT The following measures are included as part of the Project, and are shown on the architectural drawings (sheet G0007) and in the Project application materials. These measures are in addition to the City’s standard requirements identified in Chapter 1. Therefore, the following measures are considered part of the Project for the CEQA evaluation, and omission of any of these measures may result in a significant environmental impact and may require further CEQA analysis. A. Archaeology A licensed archaeologist shall be on site during grading and pile driving to inspect site soils. Should site soils appear culturally significant the archaeologist shall call a halt to grading operations in the potentially affected areas until the potential significance of the find is evaluated. A mitigation program to preserve the cultural resource in situ, remove and preserve in a museum or university, photograph and catalogue, or other method(s) deemed appropriate by the archaeologist if warranted, shall occur. The protocols of Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and section 15065.5(c)-(f), California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines) shall be followed, as appropriate. 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DRAFT EIR / 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 3-9 B. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Applicant retained Terracon to conduct a limited sampling soil on the Project site, as prompted by the Phase I ESA findings and the Limited Stockpile Characterization and Sampling (127 West Harris Avenue, South San Francisco, CA, March 19, 2014. Terracon). Activities consisted of the collection of representative samples from the test pits and stockpiles on March 3, 2014. See Figure 3 Boring and Sampling Locations, above. In summary, no odors, discoloration or staining was observed on the site. The soil samples were collected from bottom of the test pits TP-1, TP-2, TP-3 and TP-4 and composite soil samples were collected from the onsite stockpiles SP-5 and SP-6. The samples were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), gasoline range organics (GRO), diesel range organics (DRO) and oil range organics (ORO) by United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 8015B, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260B, PAHs (Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) by EPA Method 8270C and Title-22 Metals by EPA Method 6010B. Based on laboratory analysis of the soil samples collected from test pits and stockpiled materials, the samples did not exhibit TPH or VOCs concentrations above the laboratory method reporting limits, except for a TPH-ORO concentrations of 8.8 mg/Kg, 19 mg/Kg and 7.8 mg/Kg from TP-1, SP-5 and SP-6, respectively. Additionally, the samples did not exhibit PAH compounds above the laboratory method reporting limits, except for naphthalene concentration of 0.085 mg/Kg from TP-3, and phenanthrene concentrations of 0.061 mg/Kg and 0.12 mg/Kg from TP-3 and TP-4 respectively. The stockpiled materials additionally exhibited various metals, including: arsenic, barium, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, vanadium and zinc at concentrations above the laboratory method reporting limits. The soil will be tested to determine the suitable disposal or reuse procedures pursuant to Hazards Table 1 (see blue shaded area). Permits from the San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health (SMCDEH), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and South San Francisco Fire Department will be secured. A soil management plan may be required and chain of custody shall be followed. HAZARDS TABLE 1 STANDARD REMEDIATION PRACTICES Media Hazardous Materials Approach 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). 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DRAFT EIR / 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 3-10 Media Hazardous Materials Approach Soil Remediation (ex-situ) VOCs (gasoline fuels, solvents) • Consult the SMCEHD for requirements. • Haul and Dispose. • Aeration – requires a notification to BAAQMD, daily volumes are limited. • Vapor Stripping – apply vacuum system to covered piles, notify BAAQMD. • Bioremediation - apply bio-treatment materials, moisture and “work” soil piles. • Thermal Desorption – various vendors provide mobile treatment units. • Capping and vapor barrier. Soil Remediation (ex-situ) Inorganics (metals) • Consult BAAQMD and SMCEHD for requirements. • Haul and Dispose. • Chemical Stabilization. • Sorting – reduce waste volume by screening to target contaminant particle size. Soil Remediation (in-situ) VOCs • Consult SMCEHD for requirements. • Soil Vapor Extraction – apply vacuum to vapor wells, notify BAAQMD. • In-situ chemical oxidation. • In-Situ Vitrification – use electricity to melt waste and surrounding soils. Soil Remediation (in-situ) SVOCs • Consult SMCEHD for requirements. • Bioremediation – saturate soils with bio-treatment 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 SMCEHD and consult on remedial alternatives. Groundwater Remediation VOCs • Consult BAAQMD and SMCEHD for requirements. • Pump and Treat – pump from wells, treat and discharge treated water. • Air Sparging – inject air to volatilize contaminants and create aerobic groundwater conditions suitable for natural 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 Remediation SVOCs • Consult BAAQMD for requirements. • Pump and Treat. 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DRAFT EIR / 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 3-11 Media Hazardous Materials Approach • Bioremediation. • Chemical Oxidation. Groundwater Remediation Inorganics • Consult BAAQMD for requirements. • Pump and Treat. • Chemical Immobilization – inject chemicals to precipitate or chemically fix contaminants to soil particles. C. Geology and Soils 1. Geotechnical Clarifications and Plan Review The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical design aspects of the project construction plans. The Consultant shall also address the following items: o Consideration shall be given to the benefits of an indicator pile testing program to confirm driving capabilities, embedment depths, and pile capacity prior to selecting final pile depths. o Planned pre-drilling for the upper portions of piles may create voids that could impact lateral resistance. The Consultant shall consider appropriate measures to address voids prior to forming pile caps. o Appropriate documentation to address the above will be submitted to the City for review by the City Engineer prior to issuance of permits for project construction. 2. Vibration Monitoring Vibration monitoring and pre- and post- construction monitoring of nearby structures shall be undertaken to evaluate and document vibration related impacts. A specific plan to address construction period vibrations should be submitted to the City for review by the City Engineer. 3. Geotechnical Construction Inspections The geotechnical consultant will inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project will be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DRAFT EIR / 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 3-12 submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final (as-built) project approval. The piles would extend to a minimum depth of 48 feet. The structural engineer may add some additional depth to obtain sufficient bearing. Due to the properties of strata below about 35 feet, it seems credible that piles may be in the range of 50 to 60 feet (Ted Sayre, Principal Engineering Geologist, Cotton Shires Associates, e-mail November 6, 2014). In summary, the geotechnical report (Terracon, October 7, 2014 and Cotton Shires Associates peer review October 16, 2014) states the pile holes would be pre-drilled, and consequently, the forces needed to drive piles will be reduced. Cast-in-place piles may not be feasible with the very weak, squeezing bay muds. A rigid pile would be inserted from the surface into pre-drilled holes. Because the holes would likely squeeze in after they are drilled, there is still a need to drive the piles to get them into place. It may be necessary to place additional compacted fill around the tops of the piles to address voids that may form near the tops of the pre-drilled holes after pile insertion and to obtain the design lateral resistance near the top of the piles. D. Noise and Vibration The Applicant includes the following as part of the Project to reduce the annoyance of construction noise and to comply with the city’s permitting requirements: 1. Emplace noise reduction technologies (such as sound blankets or other temporary noise barriers) to limit noise at the southern and northern and as needed on the western and eastern property lines to not greater than 90 dB. 2. Secure a waiver to permit more than 90 dB noise levels at the property line during grading and pile driving, in the event that the noise limit is momentarily exceeded. 3. Notify property and business owners in writing within West Harris Avenue of the construction schedule and contact person for the Project for questions, complaints and comments. 4. Consider and to the extent feasible provide some periods during the day (i.e., lunch, breaks) when pile driving does not occur. 5. Instrumentation would be in place on nearby buildings to monitor vibrations during pile driving so that buildings are not exposed to harmful vibrations. Pile driving would need to be modified to reduce vibrations if measured accelerations exceed a designated threshold. Vibration reduction might include use of a smaller driving hammer, or reduced travel of the hammer to lesson impact vibrations caused by the hammer hitting the top of pile. This 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DRAFT EIR / 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 3-13 would be like switching to more extended shallow pounding instead of a shorter duration of more forceful pounding. 3.6 REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS LEAD AGENCY REQUIREMENTS  Conditional Use Permit to allow an airport related business serving hotel to provide less parking that required by City Ordinance 3.  Design Review approval.  Grading and Building permits.  Encroachment permits to work in the public right-of-way. OTHER AGENCY REQUIRED PERMITS  Local and State approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.  Bay Area Air Quality District.  San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health. 3 This EIR does not address parking conformance with the City’s ordinance. The City uses the conditional use permit process to determine if special provisions are included in the project to warrant less parking. Shuttle buses and hotels that are airport serving are evaluated under this process. This EIR does evaluate (Chapter 4) any potential safety impacts associates with circulation patterns that could arise from lack of parking and pedestrian or vehicular conflicts. The Initial Study (Appendix A) evaluated the impacts associated with vehicular use based upon traffic counts, maneuvering and traffic volumes for the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Health Risk Analysis and Noise evaluations. Impacts were considered less than significant. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT AND MITIGATION 4.1.1 INTRODUCTION Chapter 4 covers 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 15063 (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 Regulatory 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 years and contains an analysis of existing year 2011, year 2015, and year 2035 traffic and circulation conditions. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-2 METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS This subsection identifies the methodology and major assumptions used to analyze potential environmental impacts. 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 CEQA 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. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-3 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. 4.1.4 APPROACH TO CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS CEQA requires that EIRs identify cumulative impacts, in addition to project-specific impacts. In accordance with CEQA, 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: “Cumulative impacts” refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. (a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. (b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. CCR Section 15130(a)(l) 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.1" Where a Lead Agency 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(a)(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. CEQA 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 1 Under Section 15065(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "cumulatively considerable" means that "the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-4 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. However, since only cumulative impacts have been determined to be significant, they are discussed in detail. 4.2.1 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION INTRODUCTION This section presents the traffic and circulation impacts resulting from development of the 128- room Fairfield Inn and Suites hotel along the west side of the West Harris Avenue cul-de-sac north of Mitchell Avenue in the City of South San Francisco (see Traffic Figure 1, all figures appear at the end of this Section). Existing, year 2017, and year 2035 conditions were evaluated by Crane Transportation Group at four nearby intersections and at the nearby U.S. 101 freeway interchanges that would be most affected by Project traffic. Project impacts to intersection level of service and vehicle queuing as well as impacts to U.S. 101 freeway ramps and mainline operation were determined, as were impacts due to Project access, internal vehicular circulation, and pedestrian/bicycle circulation. Where appropriate, excerpts and findings from the following EIRs or traffic studies have been included in this section: The Revised Draft Report of the Traffic Study for the East of 101 Area (TJKM Transportation Consultants, April, 2012), the 475 Eccles Avenue EIR (Knapp Planning and Environmental Consulting and Crane Transportation Group, ongoing), the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point EIR (URS Corporation and Crane Transportation Group) and the Downtown Specific Plan EIR (certified January 28, 2015). DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS EVALUATED This analysis evaluated six scenarios of local circulation system operation. • Existing Conditions • Existing With Project Conditions • 2017 Without Project Conditions • 2017 With Project Conditions • 2035 Without Project Conditions • 2035 With Project Conditions INTERSECTIONS Traffic operations were evaluated at four intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Locations of these intersections are shown in Traffic Figure 2, Study Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. All four intersections are listed below. 1. Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue (Signal) 2. Gateway Boulevard/South Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue (Signal) 3. South Airport Boulevard/U.S. 101 Northbound Hook Ramps/Wondercolor Lane (Signal) TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-5 4. Mitchell Avenue/West Harris Avenue (West Harris Avenue stop sign controlled) FREEWAY MAINLINE AND RAMPS In addition to the study intersections, this analysis evaluated traffic operations along four mainline segments of the U.S. 101 freeway, two U.S. 101 off-ramps, and two U.S. 101 on-ramps. Locations analyzed were: 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 U.S. 101 Off-Ramps 1. Southbound off-ramp to Produce Avenue/S. Airport Boulevard 2. Northbound off-ramp to S. Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane U.S. 101 On-Ramps 1. Southbound on-ramp from Produce Avenue 2. Northbound on-ramp from South Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane 4.2.2 METHODOLOGY The Existing Conditions scenario was used to describe the current operating conditions in the Project area. Although the Project is not expected to be completed and in full operation for nearly a year, an Existing + Project scenario was developed and compared to existing conditions in order to satisfy CEQA requirements. A near term horizon analysis was then conducted to evaluate conditions based upon a realistic project completion schedule. Since the Project is not anticipated to be completely constructed until late 2015 and fully occupied until 2016, project traffic impacts were evaluated by comparing 2017 “Without Project” Conditions to 2017 “With Project” Conditions. Finally, cumulative impacts resulting from Project traffic were evaluated for year 2035 conditions. 4.2.3 SETTING EXISTING CONDITIONS A. ROADWAY SYSTEM The Project site is located in the City of South San Francisco, which is located along major transportation routes including the U.S. 101 freeway, Interstate 380 freeway, Interstate 280 freeway, and Caltrain. San Francisco International Airport is approximately 1.5 miles south of the Project site and U.S. 101 is less than a quarter mile east of the site (see Traffic Figure 1, Area Map). The Project site is served directly by West Harris Avenue, a cul-de-sac street which connects to Mitchell Avenue, while regional access is provided by the U.S. 101 freeway. Two driveway TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-6 connections are proposed to the west side of West Harris Avenue. Access to U.S. 101 is provided by Mitchell Avenue and then S. Airport Boulevard, which provides direct or indirect connections to north and southbound freeway ramps. Each roadway is briefly described below, while a schematic presentation of existing intersection approach lanes and controls are presented in Traffic Figure 2. MAJOR REGIONAL ROADWAYS U.S. 101 Freeway U.S. 101 is an eight-lane freeway that provides access to the Project area. U.S. 101 extends from downtown San Francisco and Northern California to Los Angeles and Southern California. Within the study area, U.S. 101 has a northbound on-ramp at S. Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane and a southbound on-ramp from Produce Avenue. A northbound off-ramp is provided at the S. Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane intersection (between Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue) and a southbound off-ramp is provided to Produce Avenue and S. Airport Boulevard. U.S. 101 has four southbound travel lanes at its southbound off-ramp to Produce Avenue and six travel lanes to the south of the Produce Avenue southbound on-ramp. U.S. 101 has six northbound travel lanes south of Wondercolor Lane (one of which exits to S. Airport Boulevard) and five travel lanes north of Wondercolor Lane. In 2012, U.S. 101 carried an annual average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 220,000 vehicles south of Produce Avenue, 218,000 vehicles south of Oyster Point Boulevard, and 213,000 vehicles just north of Oyster Point Boulevard. LOCAL STREETS South Airport Boulevard South Airport Boulevard is a four-lane divided roadway extending easterly and then 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 runs parallel to and east of U.S. 101. West Harris Avenue West Harris Avenue is a two-lane industrial street that intersects the north side of Mitchell Avenue at a Tee. The West Harris Avenue southbound approach is stop sign controlled. West Harris Avenue extends northeasterly and then easterly from Mitchell Avenue before ending at a cul-de-sac. It is 40 feet wide, level and straight along the site frontage, although there are horizontal curves just north and south of the site. Curb, gutter and sidewalk line the west (Project) side of the street. Two-hour on-street parking is permitted between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM along both sides of the street. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-7 Mitchell Avenue Mitchell Avenue is a two-lane industrial street running in an east-west direction connecting S. Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard with Harbor Way. Curb, gutter and sidewalk line the north side of the street and a sidewalk is in place along the south side of the street. VOLUMES Existing traffic counts were obtained from the South San Francisco Downtown Specific Plan EIR Circulation Analysis and reflect year 2013/2014 conditions. In addition, counts at the Mitchell Avenue/West Harris Avenue intersection and the U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp to Produce Avenue/S. Airport Boulevard were conducted by Crane Transportation Group in April 2014. Traffic Figures 3 and 4 present existing weekday AM and PM Peak Hour volumes at all analysis intersections. 4.2.4 CIRCULATION SYSTEM EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND STANDARDS INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Signalized Intersections Intersections, rather than roadway segments between intersections, are almost always the capacity controlling locations for any circulation system. Signalized intersection operation is graded based upon two different scales. The first scale employs a grading system called Level of Service (LOS) which ranges from Level A, indicating uncongested flow and minimum delay to drivers, down to Level F, indicating significant congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches. The Level of Service scale is also associated with a control delay tabulation (year 2000 Transportation Research Board [TRB] Highway Capacity Manual [HCM] operations method) at each intersection. The control delay designation allows a more detailed examination of the impacts of a particular project. Greater detail regarding the LOS/control delay relationship is provided in Traffic Table 1. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-8 Traffic Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria Level of Service Description Average Control Delay (Seconds Per Vehicle) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle lengths. ≤ 10.0 B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. 10.1 to 20.0 C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. 20.1 to 35.0 D Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and/or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. 35.1 to 55.0 E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. 55.1 to 80.0 F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to oversaturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80.0 Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board). Unsignalized Intersections Unsignalized intersection operation is also typically graded using the LOS A through F scale. LOS ratings for all-way stop intersections are determined using a methodology outlined in the year 2010 TRB Highway Capacity Manual. Under this methodology, all-way stop intersections receive one LOS designation reflecting operation of the entire intersection. Average control delay values are also calculated. Intersections with side streets only stop sign controlled (two-way stop control) are also evaluated using the LOS and average control delay scales using a methodology outlined in the year 2000 TRB Highway Capacity Manual. However, unlike signalized or all-way stop analysis where the LOS and control delay designations only pertain to the entire intersection, in side street stop sign control analysis LOS and delay designations are computed for only the stop sign controlled approaches or individual turn and through movements. Traffic Table 2, Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria, provides greater detail about unsignalized analysis methodologies. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-9 Traffic Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria Level of Service Description Average Control Delay (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 50.0 F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded (for an all-way stop), or with approach/turn movement capacity exceeded (for a side street stop controlled intersection) > 50.0 Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board). MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE STANDARD LOS D is the minimum acceptable operation for signalized or all way stop intersections in the City of South San Francisco, while LOS E is the minimum acceptable operation for stop sign controlled approaches or turn movements at a side street stop sign controlled intersection. INTERSECTION VEHICLE QUEUING Analysis Methodology The Synchro software program has been used to determine 95th percentile vehicle queues for select approaches or movements at the S. Airport Boulevard signalized intersections with Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue, Produce Avenue/San Mateo Avenue and the U.S. 101 Northbound Hook Ramps/Wondercolor Lane. The Synchro software output details queuing for one signal cycle during the peak traffic hour. In addition to Synchro software queuing evaluation, the SIM Traffic analysis program was utilized to determine if freeway off-ramp queues at the northbound off-ramp to S. Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane and the southbound off-ramp to Produce Avenue would extend to the freeway mainline. The SIM traffic program evaluates operation during every signal cycle of the peak hour. For the northbound off-ramp 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 95th percentile vehicle queue must be accommodated within available storage for each off-ramp and on the approaches to intersections adjacent to or near off-ramp intersections that accommodate a TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-10 significant amount of off-ramp traffic. In addition, no off-ramp traffic is allowed to back up to the freeway mainline during the entire AM or PM peak traffic hour. The 95th percentile queue indicates that vehicle backups will only extend beyond this length 5 percent of the time during the analysis hour. FREEWAY RAMPS OFF-RAMP DIVERGE FROM FREEWAY MAINLINE Analysis Methodology and Minimum Acceptable Standards 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 study. ON-RAMPS On-ramp operation has been evaluated using planning-level methodology contained in the Year 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. 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. FREEWAY MAINLINE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY U.S. 101 freeway mainline segment AM and PM peak hour conditions were evaluated using the Year 2010 Highway Capacity Manual as specified by Caltrans and the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Existing U.S. 101 mainline traffic volumes used for the analysis were obtained from the ongoing South San Francisco Downtown Specific Plan EIR Circulation analysis and reflect year 2013 conditions. MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE STANDARD LOS E is the minimum acceptable operation for the freeway mainline. EXISTING CIRCULATION SYSTEM OPERATING CONDITIONS Intersection Level of Service Traffic Table 3, 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 peak traffic hours. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-11 Traffic Table 3 Intersection Level of Service Existing & Existing + Project Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Existing Existing With Project Existing Existing With Project S. Airport Blvd./Produce Ave./San Mateo Ave. (Signal) D-38.3(1) D-38.2 D-51.6 D-52.1 S. Airport Blvd./Gateway Blvd./ Mitchell Ave. (Signal) D-37.4(1) D-37.8 D-43.0 D-42.7 S. Airport Blvd./ US 101 NB Hook Ramps/ Wondercolor Lane (Signal) C-30.4(1) C-29.8 C-33.1 C-33.7 Mitchell Ave./W. Harris Ave. (W. Harris Stop Sign Controlled) A-10.0(2) B-10.3 B-12.2 B-13.1 (1) Signalized level of service – control delay in seconds. (2) Unsignalized level of service – control delay in seconds. W. Harris stop sign controlled approach. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology – Synchro software program. Source: Crane Transportation Group NOTE: Occasionally, average vehicle delay will decrease at an intersection due to the addition of traffic. The reason is that vehicles are being added to movements that have an excess of green time, typically to facilitate clearing vehicle queues, and have no impact on overall intersection operation. However, because there are more vehicles entering the intersection, the average vehicle delay will decrease. INTERSECTION 95TH PERCENTILE VEHICLE QUEUING Traffic Table 4, Percentile Vehicle Queue, shows that no intersections evaluated in this study currently have 95th percentile queues exceeding available storage based upon the Synchro software program. OFF-RAMP VEHICLE QUEUING TO FREEWAY MAINLINE Traffic Table 5, 95th Percentile SIM Traffic Off-Ramp Queuing Evaluation, shows that no off-ramps evaluated for this study currently have off-ramp 95th percentile queues extending to the freeway mainline. OFF-RAMP OPERATION AT DIVERGE FROM FREEWAY MAINLINE Traffic Table 6, Off-Ramp Capacity and Volumes, shows that currently all U.S. 101 freeway off- ramps evaluated in this study serving the Project area are operating acceptably and have volumes below 1,500 vehicles per hour during the AM and PM peak traffic hours. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-12 Traffic Table 4 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing Demand Existing & Existing + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Street or Off-Ramp Movement Storage (ft.) Existing (ft.) With Project (ft.) Existing (ft.) With Project (ft.) S. Airport Blvd. WB Approach to Combined Left/Thru 1640 525 550 1225 1250 Produce Ave. Right Turn Free 100 100 250 275 S. Airport Blvd. EB Approach to Left Turn 170 100 100 75 75 Gateway/Mitchell Combined Thru/Right 960 450 475 325 325 US 101 SB Off- Ramp to Produce Ave. Off-Ramp Left Turn Lane 105 25 25 25 25 US 101 NB Off- Ramp to S. Airport Blvd./Wondercolor Lane All Off-Ramp Lanes 1500 850 850 600 600 Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology – Synchro software program. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group Traffic Table 5 Do Peak Hour Off-Ramp Volumes Back Up To The U.S. 101 Mainline? Existing, Year 2017 & Year 2035 Year 2017 Year 2035 U.S. 101 Off-Ramp Existing Existing + Project W/O Project + Project W/O Project + Project AM Peak Hour SB Off-Ramp to Produce Ave./ S. Airport Blvd. No No No No Yes Yes (1.3%) NB Off-Ramp to S. Airport Blvd./ Wondercolor Lane No No Yes Yes (1.1%) Yes Yes (0.8%) PM Peak Hour SB Off-Ramp to Produce Ave./ S. Airport Blvd. No No No No Yes Yes (1.5%) NB Off-Ramp to S. Airport Blvd./ Wondercolor Lane No No Yes Yes (1.8%) No No Bolded – significant impact Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual SIM Traffic Analysis Source: Crane Transportation Group TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-13 Traffic Table 6 Off-Ramp Capacity and Volumes Existing, Year 2017 & Year 2035 Volumes Diverge Year 2017 Year 2035 U.S. 101 Off-Ramp Capacity* (Veh/Hr) Existing Existing + Project W/O Project + Project W/O Project + Project AM Peak Hour SB Off-Ramp to Produce Ave./ S. Airport Blvd. 1500 535 550 594 609 1149 1164 NB Off-Ramp to S. Airport Blvd./ Wondercolor Lane 1500** 1216 1236 1791 1811 2357 2377 PM Peak Hour SB Off-Ramp to Produce Ave./ S. Airport Blvd. 1500 379 392 635 648 850 863 NB Off-Ramp to S. Airport Blvd./ Wondercolor Lane 1500** 763 779 910 926 945 961 * 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 2017 will increase capacity to 3,000 vehicles per hour. Source: Crane Transportation Group ON-RAMP OPERATION Traffic Table 7, On-Ramp Capacity and Volumes, shows that currently all U.S. 101 freeway on- ramps evaluated in this study serving the Project area are operating acceptably and have volumes well below capacity during the AM and PM Peak Hours. FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION Existing LOS on the freeway segments in South San Francisco were based on analysis of year 2013 volumes. Traffic Table 8 presents details of the existing freeway LOS results. Currently, all analyzed U.S. 101 freeway segments are operating at an acceptable LOS E or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, with the exception of the southbound direction between the Produce Avenue On-Ramp and I-380 (LOS F for this weave section during both the AM and PM peak hours) and the northbound direction between the Oyster Point Boulevard on-ramp and the Bayshore Boulevard off-ramp (LOS F for this weave section during both the AM and PM peak hours). TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-14 Traffic Table 7 On-Ramp Capacity and Volumes Existing, Year 2017 & Year 2035 Volumes Year 2017 Year 2035 U.S. 101 On-Ramp Capacity* (Veh/Hr) Existing Existing + Project W/O Project + Project W/O Project + Project AM Peak Hour SB On-Ramp from Produce Ave. 3300** 1062 1074 1136 1148 1506 1518 NB On-Ramp from S. Airport Blvd./ Wondercolor Lane 2000 246 259 311 324 404 417 PM Peak Hour SB On-Ramp from Produce Ave. 3300** 2194 2209 2591 2606 3741 3756 (0.4%)*** NB On-Ramp from S. Airport Blvd./ Wondercolor Lane 2000 420 434 553 567 974 988 * 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. *** Percent Project traffic added. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-15 Traffic Table 8 Freeway Mainline Level of Service Existing & Existing + Project Existing Existing + Project Vol LOS Density* V/C** Vol LOS Density* V/C** % Project Traffic AM PEAK HOUR Southbound SB U.S. 101 North of Oyster Point (Basic) 8605 E 44.3 -- 8620 E 44.4 -- 0.17 SB Produce Ave. On-Ramp to I-380 Off-Ramp (Weave) 8730 F -- 1.15 8742 F -- 1.15 0.14 Northbound NB U.S. 101 North of I-380 (Basic) 9480 D 26.9 -- 9500 D 27.0 -- 0.21 NB U.S. 101 North of Oyster Point (Weave) 7573 F 43.5 0.97 7586 F 43.6 0.97 0.17 PM PEAK HOUR Southbound SB U.S. 101 North of Oyster Point (Basic) 6494 D 27.9 -- 6507 D 27.9 -- 0.20 SB Produce Ave. On-Ramp to I-380 Off-Ramp (Weave) 9006 F -- 1.33 9021 F -- 1.34 0.17 Northbound NB U.S. 101 North of I-380 (Basic) 7281 C 20.2 -- 7297 C 20.3 -- 0.22 NB U.S. 101 North of Oyster Point (Weave) 7920 F -- 1.04 7934 F -- 1.04 0.18 * Density = passenger cars/mile/lane. ** V/C = volume to capacity ratio. Year 2010 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group TRANSIT AND SHUTTLE SERVICE Transit service in the East of 101 area includes local bus service, shuttle service, ferry service and regional rail service. Traffic Figure 5, Public Transportation Routes, and Traffic Table 9, Public Transportation Service, show the type and frequency of transit service east of the U.S. 101 freeway in the project vicinity, while Traffic Table 10, Caltrain/BART Shuttle Service, lists the shuttle services available in the study area. The closest Caltrain and BART shuttle routes have stops along S. Airport Boulevard at the Wondercolor Lane intersection two blocks from the Project site. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-16 BUS SERVICE The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service to South San Francisco. There are SamTrans bus routes running along S. Airport Boulevard one block west of the Project site. Traffic Table 9 Public Transportation Service Services Route Frequency Area Served AM/PM Peak Hour Midday SamTrans Palo Alto-San Francisco (397) 0/0 0 S. Airport Blvd. Colma/S. San Francisco BART (38) 60/60 0 S. Airport Blvd. San Mateo‐SF (292) 15/15(a) 30 S. Airport Blvd./Baden Ave. Caltrain Gilroy‐SF 30/30 60 South SF Caltrain Station BART Pittsburg-Daly City 15/15 15 Daly City BART Station Fremont-Daly City 15/15 15 Daly City BART Station Richmond-Daly City 15/15 — Daly City BART Station Dublin-Millbrae 15/15 15 South SF BART Station Caltrain Shuttle to SSF Station Gateway Area 15/15 — 1000 Gateway, Genentech Bldgs B9, B5 Oyster Point Area 30/30(a) — Gull/Oyster Point and 384 Oyster Point Sierra Point Area 30/30(a) — 5000 Shoreline Court Utah Grand Area 25/30(a) — Cabot/Allerton/Utah BART Shuttle to SSF Station Sierra Point Area 35/35 5000 Shoreline Court Genentech 15/15 — Genentech Bldgs B5, B54 Oyster Point Area 23/23(a) — Gull/Oyster Point and 384 Oyster Point Utah-Grand Area 30/30(a) — Cabot/Allerton/Utah Alameda/ Oakland Ferry Utah – Grand Area 30-60 mins (3 runs AM) / 1 run PM 1 run AM/60 min (3 runs PM) -- -- From Alameda/Oakland To Alameda/Oakland Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission (511.org), Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (commute.org), Caltrain 2014. Frequency of transit service is presented in minutes. San Francisco Bay Ferry Schedule 2014. SF = San Francisco (a) = average frequency period. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-17 Traffic Table 10 Caltrain/BART Shuttle Service Shuttle Station Served Schedule Area Served Oyster Point BART eight AM & nine PM trips Oyster Point Blvd., Gull Dr., Eccles Ave., Forbes Blvd., Veterans Blvd. Caltrain seven AM & seven PM trips Utah‐Grand BART eight AM & seven PM trips E. Grand Ave., Utah Ave., Harbor Way, Littlefield Ave., Gateway Blvd., S. Airport Blvd. Caltrain eight AM & seven PM trips Gateway Millbrae BART ten AM & twelve PM trips Gateway Blvd., BART Caltrain six AM & five PM trips Gateway Blvd., Genentech Office Sierra Point BART four AM & four PM trips Sierra Point, Shoreline Caltrain four AM & four PM trips Source: Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (Commute.org), Caltrain 2013 Both shuttles alternate between 15‐ and 30‐minute headways during both peak hours. Bus Route 292 San Francisco CBD-San Mateo operates along S. Airport Boulevard. It connects southeast South San Francisco with the San Francisco International Airport BART station and the Burlingame Caltrain station. This route operates with 15- to 20-minute peak period headways and 30- to 60- minute non-peak headways on weekdays, 30- to 60-minute headways on Saturdays and 30- to 60- minute headways on Sundays. Bus Route 397 San Francisco CBD to Palo Alto operates along S. Airport Boulevard in the Project Area. There are four southbound and three northbound runs on one-hour headways all seven days per week. Service is between about 2:00 and 5:00 AM. Bus Route 38 Colma BART Station/South San Francisco BART Station & Oyster Point Boulevard operates along S. Airport Boulevard. Bus Route 38 on weekdays has one AM run and two PM runs along S. Airport Boulevard. On Saturday and Sunday there is one AM run, and three PM runs on Saturday and one PM run on Sunday. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-18 CALTRAIN Caltrain provides train service between Gilroy, San Jose, and San Francisco. There is a station located on the corner of Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue Overcrossing in South San Francisco. During the AM commute period there are northbound trains at 7:05, 7:25, 8:05, 8:25, 9:05 and 9:25 (then hourly), while all trains southbound are on an hourly schedule. During the PM commute period there are northbound trains hourly, while southbound there are trains at 4:48, 5:08, 5:48, 6:08, 6:18, 7:08 and 7:48 (then hourly). SAN FRANCISCO BAY FERRY The San Francisco Bay Ferry provides weekday service between South San Francisco and Alameda & Oakland (Jack London Square). During the AM commute period there are three ferries to South San Francisco (leaving the East Bay at 6:25, 7:25 and 7:55 AM) and one ferry from South San Francisco (leaving at 7:20 AM). During the PM commute period there are three ferries from South San Francisco (leaving at 4:20, 5:20 and 6:20 PM) and one ferry to South San Francisco leaving the East Bay at 4:55 PM). There is also tourist service between South San Francisco and downtown San Francisco and Fisherman’s Wharf on Wednesday and Friday. CALTRAIN/BART/SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FERRY SHUTTLES The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance provides van 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 South San Francisco or Colma BART stations. There are no shuttle stops in the immediate project vicinity. The closest stop to the Project site for both Caltrain and BART shuttles is at the S. Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane intersection two blocks to the south of the site. The Utah/Grand BART and Caltrain Shuttles provide service on S. Airport Boulevard (Wondercolor Lane to Utah Avenue), Utah Avenue, Littlefield Avenue, E Grand Avenue (Gateway to Harbor) and on Gateway Boulevard north of E. Grand Avenue. There are eight morning trips and seven afternoon trips on the BART shuttle, with eight morning trips and seven afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle. There is also scheduled shuttle service between the Utah/Grand area and the South San Francisco ferry terminal. The AM schedule has one trip to the ferry and three trips from the ferry, while the PM schedule has two trips to the ferry and one trip from the ferry. The ferry shuttle runs mostly the same route through the project area as the BART and Caltrain shuttles, although it does continue along S. Airport Boulevard and Gellert Boulevard just north of the site. All shuttle service is fixed-route, fixed-schedule, and provided at no cost on weekdays during the commute periods. Seventy-five percent of operating costs are borne by the Joint Powers Board (JPB), SamTrans, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the City/County Association of Governments. Twenty-five percent of operating costs are borne by area employers. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-19 PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE FACILITIES A sidewalk extends along the Project site’s West Harris Avenue frontage and along the north and south sides of Mitchell Avenue to the south of the Project. The Mitchell Avenue sidewalks lead to sidewalks along S. Airport Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard to the west, and the vast majority of the distance to sidewalks along Harbor Way to the east. S. Airport Boulevard and Utah Avenue in the Project vicinity currently are Class III signed bicycle routes, while Gateway Boulevard north of the S. Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue intersection currently have Class II signed and striped bicycle lanes. 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. A Class I bicycle path is proposed along the south side of Mitchell Avenue that would ultimately connect with the Bay Trail, while Class II striped and signed bicycle lanes are proposed along S. Airport Boulevard. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Plans and policies that pertain to the traffic conditions affecting and affected by the project include: (1) the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP) Standards; and (2) the City of South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management Program. SAN MATEO COUNTY CMP STANDARDS FOR REGIONAL ROADS AND LOCAL STREETS The LOS standards established for roads and intersections in the San Mateo County CMP street network vary based on geographic differences. For roadway segments and intersections near the county 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 CMP-designated roadway system facility, or would significantly affect the 1991 CMP baseline LOS, mitigation measures are to be developed so that LOS standards are maintained on the CMP- 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 Deficiency 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 by eliminating from the evaluation the traffic volume that is traveling on the route between San Mateo County and an adjacent county, operating conditions would be acceptable on a CMP route and the deficiency would not occur. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-20 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 (TDM) measures to reduce vehicle traffic (Chapter 20.400 Transportation Demand Management). The purposes of the TDM ordinance are as follows: • Implement a program designed to reduce the amount of traffic generated by new nonresidential development, and the expansion of existing nonresidential development pursuant to the City’s police power and necessary in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. • Ensure that expected increases in traffic resulting from growth in employment opportunities in the City of South San Francisco will be adequately mitigated. • Reduce drive-alone commute trips during peak traffic periods by using a combination of services, incentives, and facilities. • Promote the more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure that new developments are designed in ways to maximize the potential for alternative transportation usage. • Establish minimum TDM requirements for all new nonresidential development. • Allow reduced parking requirements for projects implementing the requirements of this section. • Establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure that the measures are implemented. FUTURE “WITHOUT PROJECT” OPERATING CONDITIONS The Project’s traffic impacts have been evaluated in relation to existing, year 2017 and year 2035 Base Case conditions. Year 2017 reflects a horizon year that the Fairfield Inn & Suites hotel would be completed and in full operation, while year 2035 reflects the most distant horizon year currently utilized by the City Public Works Department and Caltrans for analysis purposes. This section details the process to determine Base Case traffic operation for year 2017 and 2035 conditions. YEAR 2017 “WITHOUT PROJECT” CIRCULATION SYSTEM OPERATION Year 2017 “Without Project” conditions include traffic generated by existing, approved, and proposed development in the study area, as well as traffic generated by projects that are under construction. Projects and their associated trip generation are provided in Traffic Table 11, 2017 “Without Project” Trip Generation, and have been utilized by TJKM Associates2 to develop local area intersection and freeway volumes for use in the City’s updated East of 101 Transportation Capital Improvement Program study. Year 2017 “Without Project” Peak Hour conditions were 2 Land use projections have been updated to reflect different development assumptions than those used by TJKM for the 328 Roebling Road, 475 Eccles, 494 Forbes and Britannia Cove at Oyster Point projects. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-21 developed by adding traffic expected to be generated by the approved and proposed developments in the greater East of 101 Area to existing traffic volumes. Year 2017 projections include traffic from several recently approved background projects such as the first part of the Gateway Business Park, Oyster Point Redevelopment Phase 1, Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Phase 1, 213 East Grand, 328 Roebling Road, 494 Forbes Boulevard, Home Depot, Terrabay full development, the ferry terminal and the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan. Year 2017 “Without Project” AM and PM Peak Hour intersection volumes are presented in Traffic Figures 6 and 7. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-22 Traffic Table 11 Year 2017 Without Project Trip Generation Lane Use (ITE Code) Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Size/Unit Rate Total Trip Rate In/Out % In Out Total Trip Rate In/Out % In Out Total Genentech(1) 1,988 318 2,306 271 1,613 1,884 Oyster Point Redevelopment Phase 1 R&D/ Office 369* 48* 417* 55* 343* 398* Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Phase I 242 73 315 94 204 298 Oyster Point Non- Redevelopment Area R&D(2) Ferry Terminal(3) (010) Marina (420) 680,499 sf 1 berth 716 berths 3.62 2.96 2,464 814 2,119 0.57 0.08 83:17 33:67 322 138 19 66 26 38 388 164 57 0.47 0.19 15:85 60:40 48 54 82 272 101 54 320 155 136 Commercial(2) (820) 364,502 sf 43:19 15,741 0.91 61:39 202 129 331 4.15 49:51 741 772 1,513 Home Center(2) (862) 290,794 sf 23.29 6,774 1.26 57.43 209 158 367 2.37 48:52 331 358 689 Hotel (310) 3,385 rooms 8.17 27,655 0.56 61:39 1,156 739 1,895 0.59 53:47 1,058 939 1,997 R&D(2) (760) 7,690,317 sf 3.62 27,840 0.57 83:17 3,638 746 4,384 0.47 15:85 542 3,073 3,615 Office(2) (710) (20% TDM Reduction) 360,000 sf 7.10 2,554 1.05 88:12 333 45 378 1.00 17:83 61 300 361 Manufacturing (140) (15% TDM Reduction) 7,955,717 sf 3.25 25,856 0.62 78:22 3,848 1,085 4,933 0.62 36:64 1,776 3,157 4,933 Total Trips 12,463 3472 15,935 5113 11,186 16,299 * Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase 1 Project Draft EIR. (1) Trips based on existing land use as published in the Genentech EIR. (2) Rates developed from ITE equations (3) Trips based on SF Bay Area Water Transit Authority (WTA) ridership forecast. Trip rate source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (8th Edition) Compiled by: TJKM Associates TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-23 The TJKM near term horizon projections with specific project updates were originally for the year 2015. However, due to economic conditions and lack of development over the past four years, the City Planning and Public Works Department determined that the original 2015 projections would now better reflect year 2017 conditions based upon current development schedules for approved and pending projects. City staff also determined that it was unlikely that any significant components of the Downtown Specific Plan would be built and in operation by 2017. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PLANNED BY 2017 The City’s East of 101 capital improvement program funds certain roadway and intersection improvements in the City’s East of 101 area through the collection of lawfully adopted impact fees. In accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act, impact fees are imposed on and collected from development projects in the East of 101 Area, held in a separate account, and used to fund improvements benefiting the area and the projects from which the fees were collected. Like other projects in the East of 101 Area, the project would pay a proportionate share towards these improvements. The City has just updated its capital improvement program list for the East of 101 Area. Based on currently available funding, projected growth rates, and the pending update, the City of South San Francisco Public Works Department expects that the following intersection improvements in the Project area will be funded and constructed by 2017. Accordingly, the improvements have been factored into the year 2017 Base Case traffic modeling. The improvements are: 1. S. Airport Boulevard/U.S. 101 Northbound Hook Ramps/Wondercolor Lane a. Add a second northbound off-ramp right turn lane. b. Add a second off-ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 mainline. Traffic Figure 8, Year 2017 Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control, provides a schematic presentation of expected year 2017 intersection approach lanes and control. YEAR 2017 “WITHOUT PROJECT” INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Traffic Table 12, Year 2017 Intersection Levels of Service shows that all intersections with year 2017 “Without Project” volumes would operate at acceptable Levels of Service with the following exceptions. PM Peak Hour • S. Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue/San Mateo Avenue (signal) – LOS F • S. Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue (signal) – LOS F • S. Airport Boulevard/U.S. 101 Northbound Hook Ramps/Wondercolor Lane (signal) – LOS F TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-24 Traffic Table 12 Intersection Level of Service Year 2017 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Without Project With Project Without Project With Project S. Airport Blvd./Produce Ave./San Mateo Ave. (Signal) D-37.9(1) D-38.1 F-137.7 F-141.8 (1.01%)* S. Airport Blvd./Gateway Blvd./ Mitchell Ave. (Signal) D-45.2(1) D-51.1 F-143.6 F-145.1 (2.5%)* S. Airport Blvd./ US 101 NB Hook Ramps/ Wondercolor Lane (Signal) D-37.3(1) D-37.3 F-162.5 F-164.2 (1.1%)* Mitchell Ave./W. Harris Ave. (W. Harris Stop Sign Controlled) B-10.1(2) B-10.5 B-12.6 B-13.6 * Percent Project traffic added. Bolded = Significant Impact (1) Signalized level of service – control delay in seconds. (2) Unsignalized level of service – control delay in seconds. W. Harris stop sign controlled approach. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology – Synchro software program. Source: Crane Transportation Group YEAR 2017 “WITHOUT PROJECT” VEHICLE QUEUING AT INTERSECTIONS Traffic Table 13, Year 2017 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues, shows that no analyzed intersections would have 95th percentile year 2017 “Without Project” queuing exceeding available storage as determined using the Synchro software program. YEAR 2017 “WITHOUT PROJECT” OFF-RAMP QUEUING BACK TO FREEWAY MAINLINE Traffic Table 5 shows that the following off-ramp would have year 2017 “Without Project” queuing extending back to the U.S. 101 mainline one or more times during the peak traffic hours as determined using the SIM traffic software program. • U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to S. Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane (AM & PM peak hours) YEAR 2017 “WITHOUT PROJECT” OFF-RAMP OPERATION AT DIVERGE FROM FREEWAY MAINLINE Traffic Table 6 shows that neither of the evaluated off-ramps would have year 2017 “Without Project” volumes exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour on a one-lane off-ramp connection or 3,000 vehicles per hour on a two-lane off-ramp connection to the freeway mainline. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-25 Traffic Table 13 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing Demand Year 2017 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Street or Off-Ramp Movement Storage (ft.) Without Project (ft.) With Project (ft.) Without Project (ft.) With Project (ft.) S. Airport Blvd. WB Approach to Combined Left/Thru 1640 600 600 1400 1400 Produce Ave. Right Turn Free 100 100 150 150 S. Airport Blvd. EB Approach to Left Turn 170 125 125 100 100 Gateway/Mitchell Combined Thru/Right 960 500 525 350 375 US 101 SB Off- Ramp to Produce Ave. Off-Ramp Left Turn Lane 105 25 25 25 25 US 101 NB Off- Ramp to S. Airport Blvd./Wondercolor Lane All Off-Ramp Lanes 1930 1550 1575 700 700 Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology – Synchro software program. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group YEAR 2017 “WITHOUT PROJECT” ON-RAMP OPERATION Traffic Table 7 shows that no evaluated on-ramps would have year 2017 “Without Project” volumes exceeding ramp capacities. YEAR 2017 “WITHOUT PROJECT” U.S. 101 MAINLINE FREEWAY OPERATION Traffic Table 14 shows that the following mainline freeway segments would be operating at an unacceptable LOS with year 2017 “Without Project” volumes. • Southbound north of Oyster Point Boulevard (LOS F during the AM peak hour) and between the Produce Avenue on-ramp and I-380 (LOS F for this weave section during both the AM and PM peak hours). • Northbound between the Oyster Point Boulevard on-ramp and the Bayshore Boulevard off- ramp (LOS F for this weave section during both the AM and PM peak hours). TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-26 Traffic Table 14 Freeway Mainline Level of Service Year 2017 Without & With Project Year 2017 Year 2017 + Project Vol LOS Density* V/C** Vol LOS Density* V/C** % Project Traffic AM PEAK HOUR Southbound SB U.S. 101 North of Oyster Point (Basic) 9552 F 57.6 -- 9567 F 57.9 -- 0.16 SB Produce Ave. On-Ramp to I-380 Off-Ramp (Weave) 9486 F -- 1.25 9498 F -- 1.25 0.13 Northbound NB U.S. 101 North of I-380 (Basic) 10,358 D 30.3 -- 10,378 D 30.3 -- 0.19 NB U.S. 101 North of Oyster Point (Weave) 8192 F -- 1.05 8205 F -- 1.06 0.16 PM PEAK HOUR Southbound SB U.S. 101 North of Oyster Point (Basic) 6890 D 30.2 -- 6903 D 30.2 -- 0.19 SB Produce Ave. On-Ramp to I-380 Off-Ramp (Weave) 9697 F -- 1.5 9712 F -- 1.50 0.15 Northbound NB U.S. 101 North of I-380 (Basic) 7474 C 20.8 -- 7490 C 20.8 -- 0.21 NB U.S. 101 North of Oyster Point (Weave) 8467 F -- 1.12 8481 F -- 1.13 0.17 * Density = passenger cars/mile/lane. ** V/C = volume to capacity ratio. Year 2010 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group YEAR 2035 “WITHOUT PROJECT” CIRCULATION SYSTEM OPERATION The year 2035 “Without Project” conditions include traffic generated by all development detailed in the 2017 analysis, the last half of the Genentech master plan, the last part of Britannia Cove at Oyster Point, 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 as determined by the City Planning Department. The daily and Peak Hour trip generation potential of all developments expected in the East of 101 Area by 2035 is presented in Table 15, Year 2035 “Without Project” Trip Generation. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-27 Traffic Table 15 Year 2035 Without Project Trip Generation Lane Use (ITE Code) Size/Unit Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Total Trip Rate In/Out % In Out Total Trip Rate In/Out % In Out Total Genentech(1) 1,988 318 2,306 271 1,613 1,884 Oyster Point Redevelopment R&D/Office/ Retail 1,158* 244* 1,402* 426* 1,195* 1,621* Oyster Point Non- Redevelopment Area R&D(2) 680,499 sf 3.28 2,232 0.52 83:17 294 60 354 0.42 15:85 43 243 286 Ferry Terminal(3) (010) 1 berth 814 138 26 164 54 101 155 Marina (420) 716 berths 2.96 2119 0.08 33:67 19 38 57 0.19 60:40 82 54 136 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point 541 130 671 180 536 716 Commercial(2) (820) 693,302 sf 34:14 23,671 0.69 61:39 291 186 477 3.33 49:51 1,130 1,176 2,306 Home Center(2) (862) 290,794 sf 23.29 6,774 1.26 57.43 209 158 367 2.37 48:52 331 358 689 Hotel (310) 3,385 rooms 8.17 27,655 0.56 61:39 1,156 739 1,895 0.59 53:47 1,058 939 1,997 R&D(2) (760) (25% TDM Reduction) 8,505,185 3.28 27,898 0.52 83:17 3,671 752 4,423 0.42 15:85 536 3,037 3,573 Office(2) (710) (25% TDM Reduction) 1,230,570 sf 4.94 6,079 0.76 88:12 825 112 937 0.87 17:83 181 886 1,067 Manufacturing (140) (15% TDM Reduction) 11,227,507 sf 3.25 36,490 0.62 78:22 5,430 1,531 6,961 0.62 36:64 2,506 4,455 6,961 Total Trips 15,720 4294 20,014 6798 14,593 21,391 * Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase 1 Project Draft EIR. (1) Trips based on existing land use as published in the Genentech EIR. (2) Rates developed from ITE equations. (3) Trips based on SF Bay Area Water Transit Authority (WTA) ridership forecast. Trip rate source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (8th Edition) Compiled by: TJKM Associates TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-28 In addition to these specific developments, traffic on Airport Boulevard to/from Brisbane to the north as well as on Sister Cities Boulevard and other surface streets to the west of the U.S. 101 freeway were projected to grow from 2017 to 2035 at rates projected in the C/CAG regional model (after allowance for traffic to/from new development east of the 101 freeway). Year 2035 intersection AM and PM Peak Hour as well as U.S. 101 freeway segment traffic volumes were developed by TJKM Associates for the City’s Update of the East of 101 Capital Improvements Program. Year 2035 “Without Project” AM and PM Peak Hour intersection volumes are presented in Traffic Figures 9 and 10. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PLANNED BY 2035 All roadway improvements currently listed in the City’s November 21, 2012 Traffic Impact Fee Update 3 were assumed to be built and in operation for year 2035 “Without Project” evaluation. Traffic Figure 11, Year 2035 Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control, provides a schematic presentation of year 2035 intersection approach lanes and control. 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 following exceptions. AM Peak Hour • S. Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue (signal) – LOS F • S. Airport Boulevard/U.S. 101 Northbound Hook Ramps/Wondercolor Lane (signal) – LOS F PM Peak Hour • S. Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue/San Mateo Avenue (signal) – LOS F • S. Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue (signal) – LOS F • S. Airport Boulevard/U.S. 101 Northbound Hook Ramps/Wondercolor Lane (signal) – LOS F YEAR 2035 “WITHOUT PROJECT” 95TH PERCENTILE VEHICLE QUEUING Traffic Table 17 Year 2035 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues, shows that only one analyzed intersection would have 95th percentile year 2035 “Without Project” queuing exceeding available storage as determined using the SYNCHRO software program. The northbound off-ramp to S. Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane would have AM peak hour off-ramp queuing exceeding available storage (2,325 95th percentile queue and 1,930 feet of storage). 3 Willdan Financial Services. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-29 Traffic Table 16 Intersection Level of Service Year 2035 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Without Project With Project Without Project With Project S. Airport Blvd./Produce Ave./San Mateo Ave. (Signal) D-39.4(1) D-39.3 F-205.6 F-208.4 (0.7%)* S. Airport Blvd./Gateway Blvd./ Mitchell Ave. (Signal) F-147.2(1) F-156.8 (1.9%)* F-182.0 F-182.0 (1.8%)* S. Airport Blvd./ US 101 NB Hook Ramps/ Wondercolor Lane (Signal) F-118.9(1) F-121.3 (0.9%)* F-176.7 F-177.7 (1.1%)* Mitchell Ave./W. Harris Ave. (W. Harris Stop Sign Controlled) B-12.8(2) B-13.7 C-17.4 C-19.8 * Percent Project traffic added. (1) Signalized level of service – control delay in seconds. (2) Unsignalized level of service – control delay in seconds. W. Harris stop sign controlled approach. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology – Synchro software program. Source: Crane Transportation Group Traffic Table 17 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing Demand Year 2035 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Street or Off-Ramp Movement Storage (ft.) Without Project (ft.) With Project (ft.) Without Project (ft.) With Project (ft.) S. Airport Blvd. WB Approach to Combined Left/Thru 2350 700 725 1925 1950 Produce Ave. Right Turn Free 125 125 100 100 S. Airport Blvd. EB Approach to Left Turn 850 675 700 250 250 Gateway/Mitchell Combined Thru/Right 1560 350 375 250 275 US 101 SB Off- Ramp to Produce Ave. Off-Ramp Left Turn Lane 105 25 25 25 25 US 101 NB Off- Ramp to S. Airport Blvd./Wondercolor Lane All Off-Ramp Lanes 1930 2325 2350 (.85% volume increase) 675 675 Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology – Synchro software program. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-30 YEAR 2035 “WITHOUT PROJECT” OFF-RAMP QUEUING BACK TO FREEWAY MAINLINE Traffic Table 5, Off-Ramp Queuing Back to the Freeway Mainline, shows that 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 SIM traffic software program. AM Peak Hour • U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to S. Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane • U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Produce Avenue PM Peak Hour • U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Produce Avenue YEAR 2035 “WITHOUT PROJECT” OFF-RAMP OPERATION AT DIVERGE FROM FREEWAY MAINLINE Traffic Table 6, Off-Ramp Operation, shows that neither of the analyzed off-ramps would have year 2035 “Without Project” volumes exceeding 1,500 vehicles/hour on a one-lane off-ramp connection or 3,000 vehicles per hour on a two-lane off-ramp connection to the freeway mainline. YEAR 2035 “WITHOUT PROJECT” ON RAMP OPERATION Traffic Table 7, On-Ramp Operation, shows that only one analyzed on-ramp would have year 2035 “Without Project” volumes exceeding ramp capacities. The southbound on-ramp from Produce Avenue would have a PM peak hour volume of 3,741 vehicles with a capacity of only 3,300 vehicles per hour. YEAR 2035 “WITHOUT PROJECT” U.S. 101 FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION Traffic Table 18 shows the following mainline freeway segments with year 2035 “Without Project” volumes would be operating at unacceptable levels of service (LOS F). • Southbound north of Oyster Point Boulevard & between the Produce Avenue on-ramp and I-380 (LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours). • Northbound between the Oyster Point Boulevard on-ramp and the Bayshore Boulevard off- ramp (LOS F for this weave section during both the AM and PM peak hours) and north of I-380 (LOS F during the AM peak hour). TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-31 Traffic Table 18 Freeway Mainline Level of Service Year 2035 Without & With Project Year 2035 Year 2035 + Project Vol LOS Density* V/C** Vol LOS Density* V/C** % Project Traffic AM PEAK HOUR Southbound SB U.S. 101 North of Oyster Point (Basic) 13,816 F > 60 -- 13,831 F > 60 -- 0.11 SB Produce Ave. On-Ramp to I-380 Off-Ramp (Weave) 12,888 F -- 1.69 12,900 F -- 1.69 0.09 Northbound NB U.S. 101 North of I-380 (Basic) 14,312 F 57.4 -- 14,332 F 57.7 -- 0.14 NB U.S. 101 North of Oyster Point (Weave) 10,073 F -- 1.30 10,086 F -- 1.30 0.13 PM PEAK HOUR Southbound SB U.S. 101 North of Oyster Point (Basic) 8672 F 45.1 -- 8685 F 45.2 -- 0.15 SB Produce Ave. On-Ramp to I-380 Off-Ramp (Weave) 12,806 F -- 2.24 12,821 F -- 2.24 0.12 Northbound NB U.S. 101 North of I-380 (Basic) 8344 C 23.3 -- 8360 C 23.3 -- 0.19 NB U.S. 101 North of Oyster Point (Weave) 10,928 F -- 1.67 10,942 F -- 1.67 0.13 * Density = passenger cars/mile/lane. ** V/C = volume to capacity ratio. Year 2010 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group 3.2.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION A. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The significance of Project traffic impacts has been evaluated based upon state CEQA guidelines (environmental checklist form, Appendix G) as well as City of South San Francisco and C/CAG guidelines. Each set of guidelines is listed below. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-32 1. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Would the Project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant 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 management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel 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, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 2. C/CAG Guidelines Implementation of the Project could have a significant effect on the environment if the Project would exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the local roadway system. 3. City of South San Francisco Guidelines Implementation of the Project could have a significant effect on the environment if the Project would result in any of the following conditions: • Signalized intersection operation and all-way-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 two 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 two percent. Side street criteria are applicable only for stop sign controlled approaches with more than 25 trips during any peak traffic hour. • The Project would increase total volumes passing through an intersection by two percent or more with signalized or all-way stop operation already at a Base Case LOS E or F, or when the intersection is side street stop sign controlled and the stop sign controlled Base Case operation is at LOS F (and there are more than 25 vehicles on the stop sign controlled approach). • Project traffic would increase Base Case volumes at an unsignalized intersection to meet Peak Hour volume signal warrant criteria levels, or to meet pedestrian/school crossing signal warrant criteria levels. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-33 • The Project would increase traffic entering an unsignalized intersection by two percent or more with Base Case traffic levels already exceeding Peak Hour volume signal warrant criteria levels. • Project traffic would increase acceptable Base Case 95th 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 to the off-ramp 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. • If on-site circulation would be confusing 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 analysis, a significant traffic, pedestrian or bicycle safety concern would be created or worsened. For evaluation purposes, C/CAG and City of South San Francisco evaluation results have been grouped under the appropriate state CEQA guidelines criteria. B. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Traffic Table 19, Project Trip Generation, shows that the 129-room Fairfield Inn & Suites hotel would be expected to generate about 1,150 daily two-way trips (575 in and 575 out), with 51 inbound and 36 outbound trips during the AM peak hour as well as 44 inbound and 47 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. While all trips would be newly added to the South San Francisco surface street system and to the U.S. 101 freeway ramps, a small proportion of guest trips would likely be attracted from traffic already traveling on the U.S. 101 freeway. Trip rates utilized in the analysis have come from the traffic engineering profession’s standard source of trip rate data, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012. It should be noted that year 2035 traffic modeling for the East of 101 area had included traffic from development of a 25-unit hotel on the Project site.4 Traffic from this smaller development was removed from the 2035 modeling results in order to develop a true “without” Fairfield Inn & Suites 4 See Appendix for trip generation projections from a 24-unit hotel. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-34 Project site development scenario. Traffic from the proposed 129-unit Project was then added to the system in order to provide “With Project” 2035 conditions. Traffic Table 19 Project Trip Generation Daily AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips 2-Way Trips In Out In Out Use Size Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Hotel with Suites 129 rooms 8.92 1152 .39 51 .28 36 .34 44 .36 47 Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012 Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group B. PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Project traffic was distributed to the regional roadway network partially 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 research for the East of 101 Traffic Modeling update traffic study (see Traffic Table 20, Project Trip Distribution). Minor adjustments were then made reflecting that most guests associated with the proposed Project would likely be destined to/from the U.S. 101 freeway and would access the freeway via the S. Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane ramps for northbound traffic and the S. Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue ramps for southbound traffic. Some hotel employee traffic would also be destined to/from the freeway, although some would also be expected to use the surface street system west of the freeway and live in the local area. The AM and PM peak hour Project traffic increment would be distributed to the local roadway network as shown in Traffic Figures 12 and 13. Resultant Existing “With Project AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Traffic Figures 14 and 15, year 2017 “With Project” AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Traffic Figures 16 and 17, while year 2035 “With Project” AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Traffic Figures 18 and 19. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-35 Traffic Table 20 Project Trip Distribution AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Direction In Out In Out U.S. 101 North/San Francisco/ Brisbane 32 36 30 32 U.S. 101 South(1) 41 36 41 36 South San Francisco (Central & West Areas)(2) 21 6 9 19 Local East of U.S. 101(3) 6 22 20 13 TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% (1) Also includes use of S. Airport Blvd. to/from I-380 interchange. (2) Primarily employees. (3) Primarily guests to/from East of 101 businesses. Source: City of South San Francisco, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact report, South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001, Genentech Central Campus Master Plan EIR, Crane Transportation Group Projections of Hotel Guest & Employee Origins & Destinations IMPACT ANALYSIS CEQA TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC CRITERIA A Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? EXISTING WITH PROJECT IMPACTS Impact 1: The Project would not result in any significant intersection level of service significant impacts under Existing “With Project” conditions. (Less than Significant) Traffic Table 3, Existing Intersection Levels of Service shows that the addition of Project traffic would not result in an unacceptable level of service at any of the study intersections under Existing “With Project” conditions. All study area intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service. This impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure: None required. Impact 2: The Project would not result in any significant vehicle queuing impacts at any analyzed location under Existing “With Project” conditions. (Less than Significant) TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-36 Traffic Table 4, Existing 95th Percentile Queuing Demand, and Traffic Table 5, Off-Ramp Vehicle Queuing to the Freeway Mainline, show that the addition of Project traffic to existing volumes would not result in any unacceptable vehicle queuing at any analyzed location. The impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure: None required. Impact 3: The Project would not increase peak hour volumes at any study off-ramp above acceptable diverge capacity limits under existing with Project conditions. (Less than Significant) Traffic Table 6, Off-Ramp Capacity and Volumes, shows that the addition of Project traffic would not increase peak hour volumes above acceptable diverge capacity limits at any study off- ramps under Existing with Project conditions. This impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure: None required. Impact 4: The Project would not increase Peak Hour volumes at any study on- ramp above acceptable capacity limits under Existing with Project conditions. (Less than Significant) Traffic Table 7, On-Ramp Capacity and Volumes shows that the addition of Project traffic would not increase Peak Hour volumes above acceptable capacity limits at any study on-ramps under Existing with Project conditions. This impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. Impact 5: 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 8, Existing Freeway Mainline Levels of Service shows that the addition of Project traffic would not result in an unacceptable level of service at any of the study freeway mainline segments operating acceptably under Existing with Project conditions. In addition, Project traffic would not increase volumes by more than 1 percent on segments already experiencing unacceptable operation. This impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. YEAR 2017 WITH PROJECT IMPACTS Impact 6: The Project would not increase traffic volumes above acceptable capacity limits at any study intersection under 2017 with Project conditions. Project traffic would, however, increase volumes by more TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-37 than 2 percent at an intersection already experiencing unacceptable operation. (Potentially Significant; Less Than Significant with Mitigation) Traffic Table 12, Year 2017 Intersection Levels of Service shows that the addition of Project- related traffic would not result in an unacceptable level of service at any intersection. However, Project traffic would increase PM peak hour volumes by more than 2 percent (2.5%) at the S. Airport/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue intersection, which would already be experiencing unacceptable operation. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 6: Intersection Level of Service • S. Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to go towards provision of a third lane on the westbound Mitchell Avenue approach to the S. Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection (as shown in Traffic Figure 20, Year 2017 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 by the City. Impact After Mitigation: Measure 6 would improve “with Project” PM peak hour operation to LOS F-120.8 seconds control delay, which would be better than “without Project” operation (LOS F-143.6 seconds control delay). The City has determined that the intersection improvements described in Mitigation Measure 6 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 7: The Project would not result in any significant vehicle queuing impacts at any analyzed intersection based upon Synchro software methodology for 2017 With Project conditions. However, the Project would increase off-ramp volumes by more than 1 percent on the Northbound Off-ramp to S. Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane, where Without Project volumes would be backing up to the freeway mainline. (Significant and Unavoidable) Traffic Table 13, Year 2017 95th Percentile Queuing Demand shows that the addition of project traffic would not result in unacceptable 95th percentile vehicle queuing between intersections under 2017 “With Project” conditions. However, Traffic Table 5, Year 2017 Off-Ramp Vehicle Queuing Back to the Freeway Mainline, shows that the proposed project will increase off-ramp volumes by more than 1 percent on the northbound off-ramp to S. Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane where “Without Project” volumes would already be backing up to the freeway mainline. • Northbound Off-Ramp to S. Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane (AM & PM peak hours) TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-38 + 1.1 % during the AM peak hour + 1.8 % during the PM peak hour Mitigation Measure 7: The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to go towards the following measures. Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Product Avenue • Adjust signal timing. This measure is required to clear northbound/westbound S. Airport Boulevard traffic through this intersection and eliminate backups extending through the Gateway and Wondercolor intersections. S. Airport Boulevard/U.S. 101 Northbound Hook Ramps/Wondercolor Lane • Restripe the northbound S. Airport Boulevard approach to provide two left turn lanes and one combined through/right turn lane. • Widen the northbound on-ramp to provide two departure lanes, which will then merge to a single lane before merging to the freeway mainline. • Adjust signal timing. • Reconfigure the northbound off-ramp intersection approach to S. Airport Boulevard to provide two exclusive left turn lanes, one shared through/right turn lane and one exclusive right turn lane. Resultant 2017 With Project Operation would be: PM Peak Hour: LOS D-42.8 seconds control delay, which would be better than “Without Project” operation (LOS F-162.5 seconds control delay) Impact After Mitigation: Mitigation Measure 7 would eliminate AM and PM peak hour backups to the freeway mainline (with or without the Project) during the AM and PM peak hours (as shown in Traffic Figure 20, Year 2017 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control). However, the restriping of the northbound intersection approach and associated signalization equipment changes along with the widening of the on-ramp departure to two lanes are not on the City’s Traffic Improvement Program (TIP) and the cost would be excessive for the proposed Project to fund. The City has determined that the intersection improvements described in Mitigation Measure 7 are infeasible for the proposed Project to fully fund and freeway off-ramp backups to the freeway mainline would not be mitigated to less than significant. The individual measures, by themselves, would not eliminate the significant impact. While the low cost signal timing adjustment could be provided and would provide some improvement, by itself it would not reduce the impact to a less than significant level. The City will need to incorporate these new improvements into the East of 101 TIP. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-39 Impact 8: The Project would not increase peak hour volumes at any study off- ramp above acceptable diverge capacity limits under 2017 With Project conditions. (Less than Significant) Traffic Table 6, Off-Ramp Capacity and Volumes shows that the addition of Project traffic would not increase peak hour volumes above acceptable diverge capacity limits at any study off- ramps under 2017 “With Project” conditions. This impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. Impact 9: The Project would not increase Peak Hour volumes at any study on- ramp above acceptable capacity limits under 2017 with Project conditions. (Less than Significant) Traffic Table 7, On-Ramp Capacity and Volumes shows that the addition of Project traffic would not increase Peak Hour volumes above acceptable capacity limits at any study on-ramps under 2017 with Project conditions. This impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. Impact 10: The Project would not degrade the level of service of any U.S. 101 freeway mainline segments under 2017 with Project conditions. (Less than Significant) Traffic Table 14, 2017 Freeway Mainline Levels of Service shows that the addition of Project traffic would not result in an unacceptable level of service at any of the study freeway mainline segments operating acceptably under 2017 with Project conditions. In addition, Project traffic would not increase volumes by more than 1 percent on segments already experiencing unacceptable operation. This impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. YEAR 2035 WITH PROJECT IMPACTS Impact 11: The Project would not increase traffic volumes above acceptable capacity limits at any study intersection under 2035 with Project conditions. (Less than Significant) Traffic Table 16, Year 2035 Intersection Level of Service shows that the addition of Project traffic would not result in an unacceptable level of service at any intersection. In addition, Project traffic would not increase volumes by more than 2 percent at any intersection experiencing unacceptable “Without Project” operation. This impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-40 Impact 12: The Project would not result in any significant vehicle queuing impacts at any analyzed intersection based upon Synchro software methodology (95th percentile) for 2035 With Project conditions. However, Project traffic would increase volumes on the US 101 southbound off-ramp to Produce Avenue by more than 1 percent during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours where Without Project off-ramp traffic is projected to be backing up to the freeway mainline. (Significant and Unavoidable) Traffic Table 17, Year 2035 95th Percentile Queuing Demand shows that the addition of Project traffic would not result in unacceptable 95th percentile vehicle queuing between intersections under 2035 “With Project” conditions.5 However, Traffic Table 5, Year 2035 Off- Ramp Vehicle Queuing Back to the Freeway Mainline, shows that the proposed project will increase off-ramp volumes by more than 1 percent on the southbound off-ramp to Product Avenue where “Without Project” volumes would already be backing up to the freeway mainline. • Southbound Off-Ramp to Produce Avenue (AM & PM peak hours) + 1.3 % during the AM peak hour + 1.5 % during the PM peak hour Mitigation Measure 12: The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to go towards the following measures. Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue • Adjust signal timing. • Provide a second right turn lane on the northbound Produce Avenue approach to eastbound S. Airport Boulevard with the same curvature as the existing right turn lane. Signal control both right turn lanes and provide overlap phasing with the westbound left turn movement. S. Airport Boulevard/Gateway Avenue/Mitchell Avenue • Extend the left turn lanes on the eastbound S. Airport Boulevard approach to Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue to at least 225 feet. Mitchell Avenue/West Harris Avenue • Provide a left turn lane on the eastbound Mitchell Avenue approach to West Harris Avenue. This will just require restriping the existing 40-foot curb-to-curb width in order to provide a 12-foot-wide left turn lane as well as 14-foot-wide east and westbound thru travel lanes. 5 The percent increase for evaluation purposes is based upon volumes (found in Table 6), not the increase in queue length. The volume increase due to the Project for this movement is 0.85 and is included in Table 17. Also, all queue demand results are to the foot, but have been rounded upwards to the next 25-foot increment. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-41 • Paint a “Keep Clear” message on the pavement on westbound Mitchell Avenue at West Harris Avenue. Resultant 2035 With Project Operation at Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue/San Mateo Avenue would be: AM Peak Hour: LOS D-38.6 seconds control delay PM Peak Hour: LOS F-205.4 seconds control delay, which would be better than “Without Project” operation (LOS F-205.6 seconds control delay) Impact After Mitigation: Mitigation Measure 12 would eliminate AM and PM peak hour backups to the freeway mainline (with or without the Project) during the AM and PM peak hours (as shown in Traffic Figure 21, Year 2035 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control). Measures at the Mitchell Avenue/West Harris Avenue intersection while not on the City’s TIP for this area are low cost and could be implemented by the Project. However, at the Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue intersection, the added right turn lane and dual right turn lane signalization are not on the City’s Traffic Improvement Program (TIP) and the cost would be excessive for the proposed Project to fund. Therefore, the City has determined that the intersection improvements described in Mitigation Measure 12 for the Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue intersection are infeasible. The Project could not fully fund all the mitigations therefore freeway off-ramp backups to the freeway mainline would not be mitigated to an acceptable level. The City will need to incorporate these new improvements into the East of 101 TIP. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 13: The Project would not increase peak hour volumes at any study off- ramp above acceptable diverge capacity limits under 2035 With Project conditions. (Less than Significant) Traffic Table 6, Off-Ramp Capacity and Volumes shows that the addition of Project traffic would not increase peak hour volumes above acceptable diverge capacity limits at any study off- ramps under 2035 “With Project” conditions. Note that a second off-ramp line connection to the freeway mainline will be constructed by 2017, thereby raising diverge capacity to 3,000 vehicles per hour. Thus, while projected diverge capacities will exceed current capacity limits, they will be under future capacity thresholds. This impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. Impact 14: The Project would not increase Peak Hour volumes at any study on- ramp above acceptable capacity limits under 2035 with Project conditions. (Less than Significant) Traffic Table 7, On-Ramp Capacity and Volumes shows that the addition of Project traffic would not increase Peak Hour volumes above acceptable capacity limits at any study on-ramps under 2035 with Project conditions. In addition, at the one on-ramp where PM peak hour “without TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-42 Project” volumes would already exceed capacity (Southbound On-Ramp from Produce Avenue), the addition of Project traffic would only increase volumes by 0.4%, which is less than the 1% traffic added significance criteria level. This impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. Impact 15: The Project would not degrade the level of service of any U.S. 101 freeway mainline segments under 2035 with Project conditions. (Less than Significant) Traffic Table 18, 2035 Freeway Mainline Levels of Service shows that the addition of Project traffic would not result in an unacceptable level of service at any of the study freeway mainline segments operating acceptably under 2035 with Project conditions. In addition, Project traffic would not increase volumes by more than 1 percent along those segments of U.S. 101 projected to be experiencing unacceptable Without Project operation. This impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. Impact 16: The Project would not measurably increase use of local or regional transit facilities. (Less than Significant) Few Project guests would be expected to use bus, rail or ferry service to access the proposed hotel. Shuttle service to/from San Francisco International Airport would be expected for some people and these trips are included in the Project trip generation projections. In addition, a less than significant number of employees would be expected to use transit to access the Project site due to the lack of frequent bus service to the Project site vicinity and lack of normal shift times for a large number of the employees, when transit service would be less frequent than during normal commute times. Mitigation Measures: None required. Impact 17: The Project would not measurably increase use of local pedestrian or bicycle facilities. (Less than Significant) Few, if any Project guests would be expected to utilize local pedestrian facilities due to the industrial nature of the area. However, sidewalks and intersection crosswalks are in place between the hotel and downtown South San Francisco as well as restaurants in the immediate area. Also, few if any guests would be expected to bring bicycles to the hotel or, if they did, ride along local streets due to the industrial nature of the area and traffic congestion (including trucks) during commute periods. While the partially completed Bay Trail bicycle path is in the east of 101 area, it is doubtful if many guests would avail themselves of this facility. The hotel would be half a block from the US 101 freeway and in an industrial area. There is no suggestion that the hotel would be appealing to guests interested in extensive nearby bicycle or pedestrian facilities. A few employees may decide to commute by bicycle if they live in South San Francisco or San Bruno; however bicycling is TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-43 anticipated to be infrequent, due to the heavy traffic volumes on the local roadways. Minimal bicycle traffic was observed on local roadways during several field surveys. Mitigation Measures: None required. CEQA TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC CRITERIA B Would the Project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Impact 18: Trips generated by the Project would be less than 100 net new trips during the AM or PM Peak Hour. (Less than Significant) Traffic Table 19, Project Trip Generation shows that the Project would result in 87 new two-way trips during the AM Peak Hour and 91 new two-way trips during the PM Peak Hour, which is less than the C/CAG threshold of 100 net new trips. C/CAG Agency Guidelines for implementation of the 2011 Final Congestion Management Program (C/CAG 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 a development. Since the project would not exceed this threshold, the applicant will not be required to implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. Mitigation Measure: None required. CEQA TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC CRITERIA C Would the Project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The Project would produce no changes to air traffic patterns. As noted in the Initial Study (Attachment A) the Project would be 85 feet below the maximum permitted by the Airport Land Use Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration. This would be a less than significant impact. CEQA TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC CRITERIA D Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Impact 19: Project-related traffic would access West Harris Avenue via two driveways where safety impacts may result due to potential limited sight line issues. (Potentially Significant; Less than Significant with Mitigation) The Project site will be served via two driveway connections to West Harris Avenue, one at the north end of the site and one at the south end of the site. Sight lines at each location are as follows. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-44 Traffic Table 21 Sight Lines at Project Driveway Connections to West Harris Avenue North Driveway South Driveway Sight Line to South 420’ *, ** 200’ * Sight Line to North (and East) 350’ 350’ ** * To the Mitchell Avenue intersection. ** Assuming sight lines not blocked by on-street parking. Source: Crane Transportation Group Travel speeds along West Harris Avenue are about 20 to 25 miles per hour at the north end of the project site and about 20 miles per hour at the south end of the site. Based upon data from A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,6 the minimum stopping sight distance on a level street at 20 miles per hour is 115 feet, and at 25 miles per hour 155 feet. Therefore, sight lines for drivers exiting either Project driveway would be acceptable, assuming sight lines are not blocked by on- street parking, which is currently allowed today along the site frontage. In particular, trucks now park along the Project frontage, which can reduce site lines for an exiting driver down to 60 feet. Allowing on-street parking along the Project frontage (west side) of West Harris Avenue in close proximity to Project driveways could limit sight lines to unacceptable distances. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 19: The applicant and City shall be responsible for the following safety improvements. These improvements shall be provided before occupancy. • Prohibit truck parking along the entire Project frontage. • Prohibit all on-street parking along the Project frontage at least 80 feet north of the south Project driveway, and at least 40 feet south of the north Project driveway. Impact after Mitigation: Implementation of the measures listed above in Mitigation Measure 19, which are feasible, would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Impact 20: On-site circulation would adequately conform to City guidelines and good traffic engineering practice. (Less than Significant) Parking would be provided on three sides of the building; east, west and south. A 25 foot wide access aisle (i.e., interior roadway) would be provided around the building. The east and west parking areas would include parking on both sides of the aisle, while parking along the southern side would be single loaded (i.e., one side only). A pickup/drop off area would be provided adjacent to the lobby access. All proposed parking would be at 90 degrees. The aisles would be 25 feet wide adjacent to all parking spaces, which meets City criteria and provides standard and adequate back-up area for passenger vehicles. The access aisle along the north side of the building would be 20 feet wide with no adjacent parking. This also meets City 6 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2011. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-45 criteria. Both driveway connections to West Harris Avenue would be 30 feet wide, and meet City criteria. The design features of the internal circulation plan allow for one to two point back up movements and would not create significant operational or safety concerns for vehicles or pedestrians. The hotel is targeted for business and leisure travel patrons. Patrons would not be expected to all arrive and depart at the same time and would not have to circle for parking, as is typical when arriving or departing a movie theatre or other event that has specific arrival and departure times. Safety and circulation impacts associated with the site plan would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. CEQA TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC CRITERIA E Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Impact 21: Project Access will be provided by two driveway connections to West Harris Avenue. (Less than Significant) Access would be provided to the Project site via two driveway connections to West Harris Avenue, one on each side of the hotel structure. Access between driveways internal to the site would be provided via parking aisles around all sides of the hotel. This would provide acceptable emergency access for the site, as discussed in the Initial Study (Appendix A). Mitigation Measure: None required. CEQA TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC CRITERIA F Would the Project conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Impact 22: The Project would provide a sidewalk connection between the hotel lobby entrance and the sidewalk along West Harris Avenue. Also, sidewalks would be provided along all four sides of the hotel building and serve hotel access doorways along each building frontage. Walkways are clearly marked and vegetation does not appear to block line of sight. On-site pedestrian infrastructure appears adequate. (Less than Significant) Mitigation Measures: None required. Impact 23: There are no transit routes or bicycle routes in operation or planned adjacent to the Project site along West Harris Avenue, a dead end street. The Project would not conflict with any policies or decrease the performance of any nearby transit or bicycle facilities. (Less than Significant) Mitigation Measure: None required. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION DRAFT EIR / 4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 4-46 Traffic Table 22 Project Site Trip Generation Used in TJKM 2035 Model Daily AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips 2-Way Trips In Out In Out Use Size Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Hotel with Suites 25 rooms 8.92 224 .39 10 .28 7 .34 9 .36 9 Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012 Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group Figure 1 NORTH Not To Scale Area Map 101 Mitchell Ave S . A i r p o r t B l v d W a y H a r b o r Blvd Gate w a y Air p o r t B l v d Grand A v e Gr a n d A v e Grand view Dr Sa n M a t e o A v e Pr o d u c e A v e For b e s 101 Sister C i t i e s B l v d Bay s h o r e B l v d Oyster Point Blvd Exe c u t i v e D r B l v d Dub u q u e A v e Eccle s Ave G u l l Rd Alle r t o n Ave Li t t l e f i e l d A v e Utah A v e 380 East E Grand Roe b l i n g R d PROJECT SITE W Harris Ave = Signal Figure 2 Existing Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control STOP = Side Street Stop Sign Controlled Intersection STOP W H a r r i s STOPMitchell Ave NORTH Not To Scale STOP STO P STO P S T O P STO P STO P STOP STO P Mitchell Ave Driveways Gate w a y B l v d W H a r r i s A v e S Airpo r t B l v d A i r p o r t B l v d US 1 0 1 S B O f f r a m p US 1 0 1 N B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O n r a m p Wondercolor Ln S A i r p o r t B l v d P r o d u c e A v e San M a t e o A v e 101 101 101 101 PROJECT SITE STOP STOP STO P San Ma t e o Ave S Airpo r t B l v d P r o d u c e A v e A i r p o r t B l v d Gateway Blvd Airport Blvd Mitchell Ave S Airport Blvd S Airport Blvd S Airport Blvd US 101 NB Onramp US 101 NB Offramp Wonder- color NORTH Not To Scale = Signal Figure 3 Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour Volumes Mitchell W H a r r i s 6 7 82 440 27 73 STOP STO P STO P S T O P STO P STO P STOP STO P Mitchell Ave Driveways Gate w a y B l v d W H a r r i s A v e S Airpo r t B l v d A i r p o r t B l v d US 1 0 1 S B O f f r a m p US 1 0 1 N B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O n r a m p Wondercolor Ln S A i r p o r t B l v d P r o d u c e A v e San M a t e o A v e 101 101 101 101 PROJECT SITE Mitchell Ga t e w a y S A i r p o r t S Airport 7 98 25 344 330 438 6 134 139 81 186 404 Wonder-US 101 NB Ramps Color S A i r p o r t 12 10 13 6 17 12 76 339 261 164 364 842 S Airport San Mateo A i r p o r t P r o d u c e 52 183 220 272 34643186 147680 52 178 110 101 SB OfframpP r o d u c e 50 485 Figure 4 Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes NORTH Not To Scale = Signal STOP STO P STO P S T O P STO P STO P STOP STO P Mitchell Ave Driveways Gate w a y B l v d W H a r r i s A v e S Airpo r t B l v d A i r p o r t B l v d US 1 0 1 S B O f f r a m p US 1 0 1 N B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O n r a m p Wondercolor Ln S A i r p o r t B l v d P r o d u c e A v e San M a t e o A v e 101 101 101 101 PROJECT SITE Mitchell Ga t e w a y S A i r p o r t S Airport 8 121 4 418 123 73 424 239 148590 409 41 Mitchell W H a r r i s 12 11 130 949 105 147 Wonder-US 101 NB Ramps Color S A i r p o r t 36 13 11 8 17 26 130 595 435282 159 591101 SB OfframpP r o d u c e 44 335 S Airport San Mateo A i r p o r t P r o d u c e 465 213 755 22835 93 182120091 145 160 239 NORTH Not To Scale Figure 5 Transit and Shuttle Routes C C SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCALTRAIN STATION 1 2 Bus & Shuttle stops nearest Project Site 264 S Airport Blvd S Airport Blvd/Utah Ave 255 S Airport Blvd Mitchell Ave Gate w a y B l v d E G r a n d A v e Grand Ave Grand A v e W H a r r i s A v e A i r p o r t B l v d Utah A v e Ha r b o r B l v d S A i r p o r t B l v d Sa n M a t e o A v e PROJECT SITE P r o d u c e A v e Wonder- color Ln 101 101 = Caltrain = SamTrans Route 292 = Utah-Grand Area (BART) Shuttle = Utah-Grand Area Employer Shuttle = Utah-Grand Area (Ferry) Shuttle = SamTrans Route 397 = SamTrans Route 38 1 3 3 2 Figure 6 2017 (without Project) Weekday AM Peak Hour Volumes S Airport San Mateo A i r p o r t P r o d u c e 76 183 221 332 37351211 147689 121 196 115 Wonder-US 101 NB Ramps Color S A i r p o r t Mitchell W H a r r i s 7 9 82 457 32 88 53 64 27 55 17 9 76 286 512 180 428 1299 NORTH Not To Scale = Signal STOP STO P STO P S T O P STO P STO P STOP STO P Mitchell Ave Driveways Gate w a y B l v d W H a r r i s A v e S Airpo r t B l v d A i r p o r t B l v d US 1 0 1 S B O f f r a m p US 1 0 1 N B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O n r a m p Wondercolor Ln S A i r p o r t B l v d P r o d u c e A v e San M a t e o A v e 101 101 101 101 PROJECT SITE Mitchell Ga t e w a y S A i r p o r t S Airport 7 101 27 357 1026 445 6 173 190 97 205 414 101 SB OfframpP r o d u c e 56 538 Figure 7 2017 (without Project) Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes Mitchell W H a r r i s 2 2 420 222 130 20 NORTH Not To Scale = Signal STOP STO P STO P S T O P STO P STO P STOP STO P Mitchell Ave Driveways Gate w a y B l v d W H a r r i s A v e S Airpo r t B l v d A i r p o r t B l v d US 1 0 1 S B O f f r a m p US 1 0 1 N B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O n r a m p Wondercolor Ln S A i r p o r t B l v d P r o d u c e A v e San M a t e o A v e 101 101 101 101 PROJECT SITE Mitchell Ga t e w a y S A i r p o r t S Airport 14 121 4 427 130 136 918 278 308597 452 67 Wonder-US 101 NB Ramps Color S A i r p o r t 125 35 39 88 77 26 131 707 449334 175 700 101 SB OfframpP r o d u c e 50 585 S Airport San Mateo A i r p o r t P r o d u c e 458 261 1224 265197 157 1981114105 191 176 253 = Signal Figure 8 2017 Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control STOP = Side Street Stop Sign Controlled Intersection STOP W H a r r i s STOPMitchell Ave NORTH Not To Scale STOP STO P STO P S T O P STO P STO P STOP STO P Mitchell Ave Driveways Gate w a y B l v d W H a r r i s A v e S Airpo r t B l v d A i r p o r t B l v d US 1 0 1 S B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O n r a m p Wondercolor Ln S A i r p o r t B l v d P r o d u c e A v e San M a t e o A v e 101 101 101 101 PROJECT SITE STOP STOP STO P San Ma t e o Ave S Airpo r t B l v d P r o d u c e A v e A i r p o r t B l v d Gateway Blvd Airport Blvd Mitchell Ave S Airport Blvd S Airport Blvd S Airport Blvd US 101 NB Onramp US 101 NB Offramp Wonder- color NORTH Not To Scale = Signal STOP STO P STO P S T O P STO P STO P STOP STO P Mitchell Ave Driveways Gate w a y B l v d W H a r r i s A v e S Airpo r t B l v d A i r p o r t B l v d US 1 0 1 S B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O n r a m p Wondercolor Ln S A i r p o r t B l v d P r o d u c e A v e San M a t e o A v e 101 101 101 101 PROJECT SITE Figure 9 2035 (without Project) Weekday AM Peak Hour Volumes S Airport San Mateo A i r p o r t P r o d u c e Mitchell W H a r r i s 8 10 82 919 33 94 77 233 236 526 801160213 244838 137 278 142 Mitchell Ga t e w a y S A i r p o r t S Airport 6 106 24 787 1101 495 6 194 394 550 247 526 Wonder-US 101 NB Ramps Color S A i r p o r t 94 87 28 65 19 15 120 544 280 219 445 1825 101 SB OfframpP r o d u c e 85 1064 Figure 10 2035 (without Project) Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes Mitchell W H a r r i s 3 3 736 186 98 19 NORTH Not To Scale = Signal STOP STO P STO P S T O P STO P STO P STOP STO P Mitchell Ave Driveways Gate w a y B l v d W H a r r i s A v e S Airpo r t B l v d A i r p o r t B l v d US 1 0 1 S B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O n r a m p Wondercolor Ln S A i r p o r t B l v d P r o d u c e A v e San M a t e o A v e 101 101 101 101 PROJECT SITE Mitchell Ga t e w a y S A i r p o r t S Airport 7 101 3 750 103 135 1623 510 338582 541 242 Wonder-US 101 NB Ramps Color S A i r p o r t 117 70 45 105 76 15 401 722 327468 225 650 101 SB OfframpP r o d u c e 65 785 S Airport San Mateo A i r p o r t P r o d u c e 548 334 2073 475206 185 206 140899 183 205 260 = Signal Figure 11 2035 Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control STOP = Side Street Stop Sign Controlled Intersection STOP W H a r r i s STOPMitchell Ave NORTH Not To Scale STOP STO P STO P S T O P STO P STO P STOP STO P Mitchell Ave Driveways Gate w a y B l v d W H a r r i s A v e S Airpo r t B l v d A i r p o r t B l v d US 1 0 1 S B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O n r a m p Wondercolor Ln S A i r p o r t B l v d P r o d u c e A v e San M a t e o A v e 101 101 101 101 PROJECT SITE S Airport Blvd S Airport Blvd US 101 NB Onramp US 101 NB Offramp Wonder- color Mitchell Ave Gateway Blvd Airport Blvd S Airport Blvd A i r p o r t B l v d S Airpo r t B l v d P r o d u c e A v e San Ma t e o Ave STO P Figure 12 AM Peak Hour Project Increment S Airport San Mateo A i r p o r t P r o d u c e 1 1 12 15 8 3 Mitchell W H a r r i s 4 132 50 NORTH Not To Scale = Signal STOP STO P STO P S T O P STO P STO P STOP STO P Mitchell Ave Driveways Gate w a y B l v d W H a r r i s A v e S Airpo r t B l v d A i r p o r t B l v d US 1 0 1 S B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O n r a m p Wondercolor Ln S A i r p o r t B l v d P r o d u c e A v e San M a t e o A v e 101 101 101 101 PROJECT SITE Mitchell Ga t e w a y S A i r p o r t S Airport 3 26 4 14 14 21 Wonder-US 101 NB Ramps Color S A i r p o r t 13 1 1 20 101 SB OfframpP r o d u c e 15 Figure 13 PM Peak Hour Project Increment S Airport San Mateo A i r p o r t P r o d u c e 7 2 15 13 2 2 Mitchell W H a r r i s 2 245 42 NORTH Not To Scale = Signal STOP STO P STO P S T O P STO P STO P STOP STO P Mitchell Ave Driveways Gate w a y B l v d W H a r r i s A v e S Airpo r t B l v d A i r p o r t B l v d US 1 0 1 S B O f f r a m p US 1 0 1 N B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O n r a m p Wondercolor Ln S A i r p o r t B l v d P r o d u c e A v e San M a t e o A v e 101 101 101 101 PROJECT SITE Mitchell Ga t e w a y S A i r p o r t S Airport 7 17 5 24 16 18 Wonder-US 101 NB Ramps Color S A i r p o r t 14 2 2 16 101 SB OfframpP r o d u c e 13 NORTH Not To Scale = Signal Mitchell W H a r r i s 10 8 82 440 59 123 STOP STO P STO P S T O P STO P STO P STOP STO P Mitchell Ave Driveways Gate w a y B l v d W H a r r i s A v e S Airpo r t B l v d A i r p o r t B l v d US 1 0 1 S B O f f r a m p US 1 0 1 N B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O n r a m p Wondercolor Ln S A i r p o r t B l v d P r o d u c e A v e San M a t e o A v e 101 101 101 101 PROJECT SITE Mitchell Ga t e w a y S A i r p o r t S Airport 11 112 39 365 330 438 9 134 139 81 212 404 Wonder-US 101 NB Ramps Color S A i r p o r t 12 10 13 6 17 12 89 340 262 164 364 862 S Airport San Mateo A i r p o r t P r o d u c e 52 184 221 284 36143186 155680 52 181 110 101 SB OfframpP r o d u c e 50 500 Figure 14 Existing + Project Weekday AM Peak Hour Volumes NORTH Not To Scale = Signal STOP STO P STO P S T O P STO P STO P STOP STO P Mitchell Ave Driveways Gate w a y B l v d W H a r r i s A v e S Airpo r t B l v d A i r p o r t B l v d US 1 0 1 S B O f f r a m p US 1 0 1 N B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O n r a m p Wondercolor Ln S A i r p o r t B l v d P r o d u c e A v e San M a t e o A v e 101 101 101 101 PROJECT SITE Mitchell Ga t e w a y S A i r p o r t S Airport 15 138 9 442 139 91 424 239 148590 409 41 Mitchell W H a r r i s 14 13 130 949 150 189 Wonder-US 101 NB Ramps Color S A i r p o r t 36 13 11 8 17 26 144 597 437282 159 607101 SB OfframpP r o d u c e 44 348 S Airport San Mateo A i r p o r t P r o d u c e 472 215 770 24135 93 184120091 145 162 239 Figure 15 Existing + Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes S Airport San Mateo A i r p o r t P r o d u c e 76 184 222 344 38851211 155689 121 199 115 Wonder-US 101 NB Ramps Color S A i r p o r t Mitchell W H a r r i s 11 10 82 457 64 138 53 64 27 55 17 9 89 287 513 180 428 1319 NORTH Not To Scale = Signal STOP STO P STO P S T O P STO P STO P STOP STO P Mitchell Ave Driveways Gate w a y B l v d W H a r r i s A v e S Airpo r t B l v d A i r p o r t B l v d US 1 0 1 S B O f f r a m p US 1 0 1 N B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O n r a m p Wondercolor Ln S A i r p o r t B l v d P r o d u c e A v e San M a t e o A v e 101 101 101 101 PROJECT SITE Mitchell Ga t e w a y S A i r p o r t S Airport 11 115 41 378 1026 445 9 173 190 97 231 414 101 SB OfframpP r o d u c e 56 553 Figure 16 2017 With Project Weekday AM Peak Hour Volumes Mitchell W H a r r i s 4 4 420 222 175 62 NORTH Not To Scale = Signal STOP STO P STO P S T O P STO P STO P STOP STO P Mitchell Ave Driveways Gate w a y B l v d W H a r r i s A v e S Airpo r t B l v d A i r p o r t B l v d US 1 0 1 S B O f f r a m p US 1 0 1 N B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O n r a m p Wondercolor Ln S A i r p o r t B l v d P r o d u c e A v e San M a t e o A v e 101 101 101 101 PROJECT SITE Mitchell Ga t e w a y S A i r p o r t S Airport 21 138 9 451 146 154 918 278 308597 452 67 Wonder-US 101 NB Ramps Color S A i r p o r t 125 35 39 88 77 26 145 709 451334 175 716 101 SB OfframpP r o d u c e 50 598 S Airport San Mateo A i r p o r t P r o d u c e 465 263 1239 278197 157 2001114105 191 178 253 Figure 17 2017 with Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes NORTH Not To Scale = Signal STOP STO P STO P S T O P STO P STO P STOP STO P Mitchell Ave Driveways Gate w a y B l v d W H a r r i s A v e S Airpo r t B l v d A i r p o r t B l v d US 1 0 1 S B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O n r a m p Wondercolor Ln S A i r p o r t B l v d P r o d u c e A v e San M a t e o A v e 101 101 101 101 PROJECT SITE S Airport San Mateo A i r p o r t P r o d u c e Mitchell W H a r r i s 12 11 82 919 65 144 77 234 237 538 816160213 252838 137 281 142 Mitchell Ga t e w a y S A i r p o r t S Airport 11 120 38 808 1101 495 9 194 394 550 273 526 Wonder-US 101 NB Ramps Color S A i r p o r t 94 87 28 65 19 15 133 545 281 219 445 1845 101 SB OfframpP r o d u c e 85 1079 Figure 18 2035 with Project Weekday AM Peak Hour Volumes Mitchell W H a r r i s 5 5 736 186 143 61 NORTH Not To Scale = Signal STOP STO P STO P S T O P STO P STO P STOP STO P Mitchell Ave Driveways Gate w a y B l v d W H a r r i s A v e S Airpo r t B l v d A i r p o r t B l v d US 1 0 1 S B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O n r a m p Wondercolor Ln S A i r p o r t B l v d P r o d u c e A v e San M a t e o A v e 101 101 101 101 PROJECT SITE Mitchell Ga t e w a y S A i r p o r t S Airport 14 118 8 774 119 153 1623 510 338582 541 242 Wonder-US 101 NB Ramps Color S A i r p o r t 117 70 45 105 76 15 415 724 329468 225 666 101 SB OfframpP r o d u c e 65 798 S Airport San Mateo A i r p o r t P r o d u c e 555 336 2088 488206 185 208 140899 183 207 260 Figure 19 2035 with Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes = Signal Figure 20 NORTH Not To Scale STOP STO P STO P S T O P STO P STO P STOP STO P Mitchell Ave Driveways Gate w a y B l v d W H a r r i s A v e S Airpo r t B l v d A i r p o r t B l v d US 1 0 1 S B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O n r a m p Wondercolor Ln S A i r p o r t B l v d P r o d u c e A v e San M a t e o A v e 101 101 101 101 PROJECT SITE STOP STOP STO P San Ma t e o Ave S Airpo r t B l v d P r o d u c e A v e A i r p o r t B l v d T STOP Mitchell Ave S Airport Blvd S Airport Blvd US 101 NB Onramp US 101 NB Offramp Wonder- color T Restripe from through to left turn lane Provide 2nd departure lane = Timing optimized for queue reduction = Added or restriped lane T Mitigated 2017 Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control for Level of Service and SimTraffic Queue Reduction Restripe from left/through and right to left and through/right lanes Restripe from left/through and right to left and through/right lanes. Provide protected signal phasing Gateway Blvd Airport Blvd Mitchell Ave S Airport Blvd Add 2nd westbound through lane Mitigated for Level of Service Improvements for SimTraffic queue mitigation Improvements for SimTraffic queue mitigation = Signal Figure 21 Mitigated 2035 Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control for SimTraffic Queue Reduction STOP = Side Street Stop Sign Controlled Intersection STOP W H a r r i s STOP Mitchell Ave NORTH Not To Scale STOP STO P STO P S T O P STO P STO P STOP STO P Mitchell Ave Driveways W H a r r i s A v e S Airpo r t B l v d US 1 0 1 S B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O f f r a m p U S 1 0 1 N B O n r a m p Wondercolor Ln S A i r p o r t B l v d P r o d u c e A v e San M a t e o A v e 101 101 101 101 PROJECT SITE Mitchell Ave Gateway Blvd Airport Blvd T T = Timing optimized for queue reduction = Added or restriped lane A i r p o r t B l v d S Airpo r t B l v d P r o d u c e A v e San Ma t e o Ave Add secong right turn lane and sig- nalize approach to Airport Blvd (with right turn overlap) T Extend eastbound left turn lanes to 225’ Gat e w a y B l v d S Airport Blvd Add eastbound left turn lane Paint “KEEP CLEAR” on Pavement Mitigations recommended for 2017 assumed to be in place in 2035 KEEP CLEAR A i r p o r t B l v d DRAFT EIR / 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 5-1 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. CEQA Guidelines 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(f) 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 (14 CCR Section 15126.6(a)). 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)). Additionally, 14 CCR Section 15126.6 (f) Rule of Reason also states that the EIR: “…set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the Lead Agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project.” The 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 and 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 5.0 ALTERNATIVES DRAFT EIR / 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 5-2 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 ALTERNATIVES Alternatives in the EIR should be feasible, and should attain most of the basic project objectives. Objectives of the 127 West Harris Project originates, in part, from the development goals contained in City’s General Plan, including the East of 101 Area Plan. The General Plan designates the Project site “Business Commercial” (BC). The land use framework of the General Plan is guided by several key principles. Principals are intended to provide opportunities for continued evolution of the City’s economy, from manufacturing and warehousing/distribution to high technology and biotechnology opportunities and business serving commercial land uses. The BC designation is intended for business and professional office and visitor service establishments and retail. Permitted uses include administrative, financial, business, professional, medical and public offices, and visitor- oriented and regional commercial activities. The General Plan (page 42) specifically notes: This category is intended for the emerging commercial and hotel district along South Airport, Gateway and Oyster Point Boulevards, and South Spruce Corridor. Maximum FAR for hotel developments shall be 1.2 with increases to a maximum total FAR of 2.0 for development meeting specified criteria. The Project site is zoned Freeway Commercial (FC). The FC zoning is one of a group of four zoning districts identified under Chapter 20.110 Employment Districts. FC zoning is intended for regional-serving retail uses, commercial lodging, visitor services and similar uses that benefit from proximity to the Bayshore Freeway [i.e., U.S. 101]. Hotels are a permitted use within this zoning classification. The goals of the Project are to: 1. Develop the project site with a high quality hotel use by partnering with a high quality hotelier, Marriott Hotels. 2. Develop a hotel use to own and operate for the long term. 3. Develop a hotel use that serves both business and leisure travelers and the City of South San Francisco. 4. Develop a project that is close to and connects with nearby transportation hubs such as SFO Airport, Caltrain, BART and Ferry service to give guests many options to meet their business and leisure travel needs. 5. Develop a hotel use with 128 guest rooms, the minimum number of rooms to insure the project’s economic feasibility. 6. Incorporate high-quality architecture, landscaping and sustainable design elements that are in line with the East of 101 Area guidelines. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES DRAFT EIR / 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 5-3 7. Provide bus transportation for our guests, to the airport, local businesses and public transportation stations helping to reduce the local traffic burden. 8. Provide an indoor swimming pool so that guests can enjoy the amenity all year long. 9. Meet or exceed Marriott and California State Green energy initiatives. 10. Provide an exceptional working environment for more than 50 employees. 11. Become a partner and work closely with the local Chamber of Commerce to make the City of South San Francisco a better place to work and live. 5.3 OVERVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT Development of the Project would result in two significant and unavoidable impacts, excerpted below, with respect to traffic and circulation. The mitigation measures would reduce part of the impact but not wholly, and as a result, two impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The underlined portions of the mitigation measures identify the impacts that would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 7: The Project would increase off-ramp volumes by more than 1 percent on the Northbound Off-ramp to S. Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane, where Without Project volumes would be backing up to the freeway mainline. (Significant and Unavoidable) Mitigation Measure 7: The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to go towards the following measures. Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Product Avenue • Adjust signal timing. This measure is required to clear northbound/westbound S. Airport Boulevard traffic through this intersection and eliminate backups extending through the Gateway and Wondercolor intersections. S. Airport Boulevard/U.S. 101 Northbound Hook Ramps/Wondercolor Lane • Restripe the northbound S. Airport Boulevard approach to provide two left turn lanes and one combined through/right turn lane. • Widen the northbound on-ramp to provide two departure lanes, which will then merge to a single lane before merging to the freeway mainline. • Adjust signal timing. • Reconfigure the northbound off-ramp intersection approach to S. Airport Boulevard to provide two exclusive left turn lanes, one shared through/right turn lane and one exclusive right turn lane. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES DRAFT EIR / 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 5-4 Resultant 2017 With Project Operation would be: PM Peak Hour: LOS D-42.8 seconds control delay, which would be better than “Without Project” operation (LOS F-162.5 seconds control delay) Impact After Mitigation: Mitigation Measure 7 would eliminate AM and PM peak hour backups to the freeway mainline (with or without the Project) during the AM and PM peak hours (as shown in Traffic Figure 20, Year 2017 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control). The restriping of the northbound intersection approach and associated signalization equipment changes along with the widening of the on-ramp departure to two lanes are not on the City’s Traffic Improvement Program (TIP) and the cost would be excessive beyond the Project’s fair share contribution for the Project to fund entirely. The City has determined that the intersection improvements described in Mitigation Measure 7 are infeasible for the Project to fully fund and freeway off-ramp backups to the freeway mainline would not be mitigated to less than significant. The individual measures, by themselves, would not eliminate the significant impact. While the low cost signal timing adjustment could be provided and would provide some improvement, by itself it would not reduce the impact to a less than significant level. The City will need to incorporate these new improvements into the East of 101 TIP. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 12: The Project would not result in any significant vehicle queuing impacts at any analyzed intersection based upon Synchro software methodology for 2035 With Project conditions. However, Project traffic would increase volumes on the US 101 southbound off-ramp to Produce Avenue by more than 1 percent during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours where Without Project off-ramp traffic is projected to be backing up to the freeway mainline. (Significant and Unavoidable ) The Project would increase off-ramp volumes by more than 1 percent on the northbound off-ramp to S. Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane where “Without Project” volumes would already be backing up to the freeway mainline. • Northbound Off-Ramp to S. Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane (AM & PM peak hours) + 1.1 % during the AM peak hour + 1.8 % during the PM peak hour The Project would increase off-ramp volumes by more than 1 percent on the southbound off-ramp to Product Avenue where “Without Project” volumes would already be backing up to the freeway mainline. • Southbound Off-Ramp to Produce Avenue (AM & PM peak hours) + 1.3 % during the AM peak hour + 1.5 % during the PM peak hour Mitigation Measure 12: The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to go towards the following measures. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES DRAFT EIR / 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 5-5 Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue • Adjust signal timing. • Provide a second right turn lane on the northbound Produce Avenue approach to eastbound S. Airport Boulevard with the same curvature as the existing right turn lane. Signal control both right turn lanes and provide overlap phasing with the westbound left turn movement. S. Airport Boulevard/Gateway Avenue/Mitchell Avenue • Extend the left turn lanes on the eastbound S. Airport Boulevard approach to Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue to at least 225 feet. Mitchell Avenue/West Harris Avenue • Provide a left turn lane on the eastbound Mitchell Avenue approach to West Harris Avenue. • Paint a “Keep Clear” message on the pavement on westbound Mitchell Avenue at West Harris Avenue. Resultant 2035 With Project Operation at Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue/San Mateo Avenue would be: AM Peak Hour: LOS D-38.6 seconds control delay PM Peak Hour: LOS F-205.4 seconds control delay, which would be better than “Without Project” operation (LOS F-205.6 seconds control delay) Impact After Mitigation: Mitigation Measure 12 would eliminate AM and PM peak hour backups to the freeway mainline (with or without the Project) during the AM and PM peak hours. However, at the Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue intersection, the added right turn lane and dual right turn lane signalization are not on the City’s Traffic Improvement Program (TIP) and the cost would be beyond the Project’s fair share contribution to fund. Also, measures at the Mitchell Avenue/West Harris Avenue intersection are also not on the City’s TIP for this area and for the proposed Project. Therefore, the City has determined that the identified intersection improvements described in Mitigation Measure 12 are infeasible. The Project could not fully fund all the identified mitigation measures, and therefore freeway off-ramp backups to the freeway mainline would not be mitigated to less than significant level. The City will need to incorporate these new improvements into the East of 101 TIP. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES DRAFT EIR / 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 5-6 5.4 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Three alternatives to the Project are evaluated in this EIR. 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 alternatives analysis is consistent with other environmental impact reports prepared for the East of 101 Area. The alternatives are:  No Project Alternative-Existing Conditions Vacant Undeveloped and Variants  0.75 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)- 96-room hotel  0.50 FAR-64-room hotel The 0.75 and 0.50 FAR thresholds are analyzed to remain consistent with the alternatives analysis performed in other environmental documents in the East of 101 area. It should be noted that, the Project would have to be reduced by 55 percent to reach a less than significant impact in 2017. A reduction of 65 percent would be necessary to drop below a level of significance for 2035 impacts. Therefore 55 percent reduction (to 70 rooms) would be necessary to reduce traffic impacts to less than significant for both 2017 and 2035 impacts. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON Year 2017 Impact Year 2035 Impact Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impact (SU) NB US 101 off Ramp connection to S. Airport at Wondercolor Ln/ AM and PM Peak Hour 13 SB US 101 off ramp connection to Produce Ave. / AM and PM Peak Hour % of Project # of Rooms No Project 0 No Impact No Impact 0.75 96 Remains SU Remains SU 0.50 64 Less than Significant Less than Significant 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)). Three variants of the No Project Alternative are identified below. • The Undeveloped No Project Alternative would result in a vacant undeveloped site. The site would remain in its current condition as a vacant site. • A Reduced Development No Project Alternative assumes a smaller 70 room hotel. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES DRAFT EIR / 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 5-7 • A Retail Commercial Development Alternative assumes development of other types of uses permitted in the Freeway Commercial District (Chapter 20.110 Employment Districts). The types of uses could be pet stores, public safety facilities, full service restaurants, personal services, public utilities and large format retail. Impact Analysis None of the impacts associated with the Project would occur under the Undeveloped No Project Alternative or the Reduced Hotel Alternative. A low intensity Retail Commercial Development Alternative could reduce Project impacts to less than significant, if the specific intensity of use did not trigger traffic impacts. The No Project Alternative development variants would not fulfill the Project’s Objectives or any of the East of 101 Area Plan’s stated purpose of maximizing the potential of underdeveloped or underused properties in the City’s East of 101 Area. According to the City’s Finance Department there are 17 business serving hotels within the City of which 70 percent have 100 guest rooms or more, and 10 economy hotels within the City of which 80 percent have less than 100 guest rooms (Transit Oriented Tax [TOT] FY 2013-14, Angelia Teaupa). A few higher quality business and leisure serving hotels under 100 rooms include boutique products (Inn at Oyster Point) and specialized developers such as the Hampton Inn (99 rooms). Business serving hotels typically provide more amenities than economy hotels, and therefore a higher number of rooms are provided to offset increased costs. The types of services and amenities to be provided inform development and operational costs as well as the quality of construction, location, cost of site preparation and in some cases like the Project, hazardous material remediation. A smaller hotel would likely result in value engineering, which promotes the substitution of materials with less expensive alternatives and can result in a lesser quality project. The Applicant has indicated that a 128 room product is at the lowest threshold of guest rooms to insure the Project’s economic feasibility for a limited service Marriott Hotel product. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that a higher quality business serving hotel would not be feasible, and if a hotel were built it would be an economy hotel. All hotels are required to pay a conference center tax of $2.50 per room to support the City’s Conference Center at 255 Airport Boulevard. The conference center is approximately 0.75 miles from the Project site. The No Project and Reduced Project Alternatives would not be feasible for this developer and would not meet the Project objectives. The synergy of use and revenue to the City would likely remain unrealized for a longer period of time. Development of a smaller hotel on the site would likely not achieve the City’s goals identified in the Downtown Station Area Plan, as noted in Chapter 3.0 Project Description. The Project site is approximately 100 feet from the southeastern edge of the Downtown Station Area Plan, in what is identified as the “Eastern Neighborhood.” The Eastern Neighborhood, will experience land use changes from Industrial to Research and Development/Office and Commercial. Abandoned rail spurs and the Colma Creek channel 5.0 ALTERNATIVES DRAFT EIR / 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 5-8 will be converted to Open Space. A higher quality business serving hotel product would lend support to these land use changes, i.e., provide a quality hotel product for business and leisure travelers. A Retail Commercial Development Alternative would likely not provide for the needs of the traveling public with the exception of a full service restaurant. Pet stores, public safety facilities, personal services, utilities and large format retail are not business serving, nor are they proposed by the Applicant. 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. Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives The No Project Alternative variants would not meet the following Project objectives. 1. Develop the project site with a high quality hotel use by partnering with a high quality hotelier, Marriott Hotels. 2. Develop a hotel use to own and operate for the long term. 3. Develop a hotel use that serves both business and leisure travelers and the City of South San Francisco. 4. Develop a project that is close to and connects with nearby transportation hubs such as SFO Airport, Caltrain, BART and Ferry service to give guests many options to meet their business and leisure travel needs. 5. Develop a hotel use with 128 guest rooms, the minimum number of rooms to insure the project’s economic feasibility. 6. Incorporate high-quality architecture, landscaping and sustainable design elements that are in line with the East of 101 Area guidelines. 7. Provide bus transportation for our guests, to the airport, local businesses and public transportation stations helping to reduce the local traffic burden. 8. Provide an indoor swimming pool so that guests can enjoy the amenity all year long. 9. Meet or exceed Marriott and California State Green energy initiatives. 10. Provide an exceptional working environment for more than 50 employees. 11. Become a partner and work closely with the local Chamber of Commerce to make the City of South San Francisco a better place to work and live. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES DRAFT EIR / 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 5-9 The No Project Alternative variants would not meet Project feasibility thresholds. Alternative 2: 0.75 Floor Area Ratio Description The Project would be a 96 room hotel. Impact Analysis Both significant and unavoidable impacts would remain with the 0.75 FAR Alternative. However it is worthy to note that the significant and unavoidable impacts relate to the delay in traffic queuing and flow. The significant and unavoidable impacts do not increase air quality, greenhouse gas, health risks, noise exposure or hazards and hazardous materials impacts; these impacts would still remain less than significant. The impacts associated with the Project relate to traffic queuing and flow only. All environmental impacts associated with aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology 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. As identified in the Initial Study (see Appendix A) and Chapter 6 of this DEIR, the Project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The reduced project alternative would not eliminate the impacts associated with traffic. There would be no environmental benefit with this alternative. The Applicant has indicated that 128 rooms is the bright line for economic feasibility of the Project. Another hotel developer could apply for entitlements to construct a hotel and it would likely not be of the same quality as a Marriott product. Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives At a minimum the following Project objectives would likely not be met: 1. Develop the project site with a high quality hotel use by partnering with a high quality hotelier, Marriott Hotels. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES DRAFT EIR / 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 5-10 4. Develop a project that is close to and connects with nearby transportation hubs such as SFO Airport, Caltrain, BART and Ferry service to give guests many options to meet their business and leisure travel needs. 7. Provide bus transportation for our guests, to the airport, local businesses and public transportation stations helping to reduce the local traffic burden. 8. Provide an indoor swimming pool so that guests can enjoy the amenity all year long. 9. Meet or exceed Marriott and California State Green energy initiatives. The 96-room hotel would likely be value engineered and amenities would likely be reduced or eliminated, such as the indoor swimming pool. A hotel providing less amenities would likely not support the synergy of use supporting the Downtown Station Area Plan and the General Plan goals of intensifying development opportunities on vacant and underutilized properties to the extent that a hotel providing more services on the site would. Alternative 3: 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Description The Project would be a 64 room hotel. Impact Analysis Both significant and unavoidable impacts would be eliminated. The Applicant would likely not build the Project. As stated in the project objectives, 128 rooms is the bright linedefined by the Applicant for fiscal feasibility. The Project would likely be value engineered to provide no services and result in being an economy hotel. Another hotel developer could apply for entitlements to construct a hotel and it would likely be an economy hotel product. Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives Reducing the Project by half would likely not meet the following objectives: 1. Develop the project site with a high quality hotel use by partnering with a high quality hotelier, Marriott Hotels. 2. Develop a hotel use to own and operate for the long term. 3. Develop a hotel use that serves both business and leisure travelers and the City of South San Francisco. 4. Develop a project that is close to and connects with nearby transportation hubs such as SFO Airport, Caltrain, BART and Ferry service to give guests many options to meet their business and leisure travel needs. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES DRAFT EIR / 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 5-11 5. Develop a hotel use with 128 guest rooms, the minimum number of rooms to insure the project’s economic feasibility. 6. Incorporate high-quality architecture, landscaping and sustainable design elements that are in line with the East of 101 Area guidelines. 7. Provide bus transportation for our guests, to the airport, local businesses and public transportation stations helping to reduce the local traffic burden. 8. Provide an indoor swimming pool so that guests can enjoy the amenity all year long. 9. Meet or exceed Marriott and California State Green energy initiatives. 10. Provide an exceptional working environment for more than 50 employees. 11. Become a partner and work closely with the local Chamber of Commerce to make the City of South San Francisco a better place to work and live. The 96-room hotel would likely be value engineered and amenities would likely be reduced or eliminated, such as the indoor swimming pool. A hotel providing less amenities would likely not support the synergy of use supporting the Downtown Station Area Plan and the General Plan goals of intensifying development opportunities on vacant and underutilized properties to the extent that a hotel providing more services on the site would. 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 environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” The alternatives to a project are intended to minimize adverse impacts to the environment (CCR 14 Section 15126.6 (b). Public Resources Code, Division 13 Section 21002.1 (c) states that “if economic, social, or other considerations make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects on the environment of a project, the project may nonetheless be carried out or approved at the discretion of the public agency if the project is otherwise permissible under applicable laws and regulations.” The No Project Alternative would avoid all of the significant environmental impacts of the Project which are related to traffic and circulation. The No Project Alternative would not result in the environmental benefits of site development that would occur under new laws and regulations designed to improve environmental quality and sustainability that have come into effect over the years. The site would likely remain fenced with no trespassing signs, and would likely be periodically vandalized as it has been in the past. As noted in Chapter 3 Project Description and the Initial Study (Appendix A) the site has been broken into, fires have been built and dumping has occurred. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES DRAFT EIR / 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 5-12 The site would not contribute to the Downtown Station Area Plan planning efforts, would not generate tax revenue for the City and would not result in developing a business and leisure serving Marriott quality hotel. The No Project Alternative would not result in implementation of the measures the Project proposes to foster environmental sustainability, such as exceeding CalGreen Building Standards and improve environmental quality by remediating the hazardous materials located on the site. As noted in Chapter 3, Project Description the site contains metal concentrations (arsenic and chromium) above California Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for shallow soils are present on the site. Additionally low levels of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) above ESLs are also present in shallow soils. Various metals from stockpiles soils, including: arsenic, barium, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, vanadium and zinc were at concentrations above the laboratory method reporting limits. Site remediation is proposed as part of the Project. The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the key objectives of the Project. The 0.5 Floor Area Ratio Alternative (or 0.55 FAR) would not be developed by the Applicant. As identified in the Applicant’s objectives, to meet a Marriott quality hotel 128 rooms are necessary, provide an indoor swimming pool, breakfast service, shuttle service to the airport and exceed CalGreen Building standards. Another hotel developer could apply for entitlements to construct a hotel and it would likely be an economy product. A quality restaurant that conforms to the general plan and zoning specifications for the site could arguably be the superior environmental alternative, provided that the amount of traffic would not trigger the same circulation impacts associated with the Project. A restaurant would not have the opportunity to incorporate a TDM Program to reduce traffic trips. However a restaurant use could capture pass-by trips on Highway 101 and local patrons may choose to dine after the higher peak travel period from 5 to 7 PM. Employees in the East of 101 area could carpool to the site for lunch and an early dinner. The Project could also arguably be the environmentally superior approach to development of the site. The significant and unavoidable impacts relate to traffic delays would remain. As noted above, there would be no significant air quality, greenhouse gas, hazard risk or noise impacts as shown in the Initial Study Section 3.3 Air Quality and Section 3.12 Noise (see Appendix A, Chapter 6 and summarized above of this EIR). One safety impact (line of sight) is identified along with mitigation to reduce the impact to less than significant and is fully vetted in Chapter 4 of this EIR. Worthy of note, in 2016 the methodology to determine traffic impacts under CEQA will shift to vehicle miles traveled and away from Level of Service. These types of traffic impacts may become moot. 6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT DRAFT EIR / 3.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 6-1 6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 6.1 INTRODUCTION CCR Section 15128 requires an EIR to summarize the environmental effects found not to be significant and therefore not analyzed in an EIR. The statement may be attached in the initial study or summarized within the EIR. This EIR contains a brief summary of the effects found not to be significant and a detailed analysis is contained in the Initial Study 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 Study. The full analysis supporting the findings is contained in Appendix A. 6.3 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 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. AGRICULTURAL AND TIMBER RESOURCES: The Project would not adversely affect any existing agricultural operations as none exist on the site. The Project would not impact agricultural resources individually or cumulatively and does not contain any Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), or land in a Williamson Act 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)). AIR QUALITY/HAZARD RISKS: The maximum cancer risk for a residential-adult receptor would be 0.02 per million and for a residential-child would be 0.20 per million. The maximum cancer risk for a school child receptor would be less than 0.01 per million. Thus, the cancer risk due to construction activities is below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per million and would be less than significant. The health impacts from Project operations would be 0.01 below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per million and less than significant. 0.01. The chronic HI would be less than 0.01. The chronic HI would be well below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than significant. The acute HI would be 0.03. The acute HI would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than significant. 6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT DRAFT EIR / 3.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 6-2 The annual PM 2.5 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. 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. 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, PM 10 , and PM 2.5 ). The City’s building permit procedure captures the BAAQMD permitting regulations, as well as BAAQMD’s recommended emission control measures. The Project would not result in exceeding any Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines significance criteria. The Project would not introduce objectionable odors to the area. GREENHOUSE GAS: The GHG construction impacts would be 1,071 less than the BAAQMD GHG operational threshold of 1,100 metric tons. The Project has been reviewed relative to the AB 32 measures and South San Francisco Climate Action Plan and it has been determined that the Project would not conflict with the goals of AB 32 and the applicable Climate Action Plan. BIOLOGY: After review of California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) reports and map overlays for the general Project area, and field evaluations of the site, the habitat was found to be highly disturbed and isolated from other areas containing sensitive habitat. As a result, the site is considered to be of very low value for plants and wildlife in general, and as well for sensitive species of plants and animals. No significant biological impacts would result from full development of the Project site. CULTURAL RESOURCES: There are no structures on the Project site. There is a moderate chance that cultural resources may be present on the site. The project plans state that an archaeologist shall be present during site grading and pile driving. The archaeologist would follow the protocols of Public Resources Code Section 210832.2 and Section 15065.5(c)-(f), California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines). The Project would have a less than significant impact on cultural resources. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: There are no active faults underlying the site and the nearest one is the San Andreas Fault, located about three miles southwest. Implementation of the geotechnical measures required by law (the City’s standard permitting requirements for peer review of all geotechnical reports and the final recommendations to become part of the Project) would reduce geologic instability to less than significant. The Project would have no impact on soils due to septic systems as the Project would be connected to the City’s wastewater system. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: 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 Project would have no impact from the emission or handling of hazardous materials or wastes on schools within a quarter of a mile 6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT DRAFT EIR / 3.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 6-3 or from any environmental contamination posed by the sites listed on the Cortese List. The impact of the Project with regards to hazardous materials would be less than significant with respect to operational activities. The Project as proposed would have a less than significant impact with respect to the release of hazardous materials during construction. There are no existing or proposed schools or day care centers or facilities within a quarter mile of the Project site. The Project would be 65 feet in height and 85 feet below the 150 foot maximum permitted to avoid conflicts with aircraft operations. The Project would be well under the maximum permitted height determined by the ALUC and FAA. 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 through conditions of approval to provide a fair share financial contribution to the department’s study 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. 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 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 Study. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to hydrology or water quality resources. LAND USE AND PLANNING: The Project would not physically divide an established community. The site is planned for a hotel use 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: With the applicant complying with noise limits in the City Noise Ordinance, construction related noise impacts would be less than significant. Traffic associated with the Project would not increase noise levels in the area. The Project would not contribute to a cumulative noise impact. Noise impacts associated with the Project would result a less than significant impact. The Project would have a less than 6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT DRAFT EIR / 3.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 6-4 significant impact with respect to excessive aircraft noise exposure. The site is located under the 65 dB contour interval therefore 5 dB less than the 70 dBA maximum permitted (i.e., without additional mitigation) for commercial land uses. The interior ambient noise levels would likely be 20-25 dB less (i.e., 45 dB) due to the exterior-to-interior noise reduction from the building walls. POPULATION AND HOUSING: The Project site has been planned for a hotel use since the City adopted the 1999 General Plan. The site was analyzed in the East of 101 Traffic Model as containing a 25 room hotel. The Project would construct 128 rooms. The Applicant states there would be at least 52 employees for the Project and a total of three shifts. For CEQA purposes we assume 100 employees. The Project site does not include housing and would not displace housing units or residents. PUBLIC SERVICES: The Project was reviewed by Police and Fire Department representatives and staffing or facility needs were not identified as insufficient. Development of the Project site would not increase the demand for public services individually or cumulatively. RECREATION: The Project would be a freeway commercial land use, largely serving airport and business travel lodging needs. The Project would likely employ up to 100 persons and is not a major employer as identified in “Population and Housing”, above. The Project impact on recreational facilities and the need to construct new facilities would be less than significant. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION: Due to potential cumulative impacts associated with U.S. 101 an EIR shall be prepared focusing on traffic and circulation. 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 pay wastewater improvement fees to research the potential for future upgrades. The wastewater treatment plant has capacity to treat Project and cumulative projected wastewater. The UWMP, adopted in 2006, shows adequate water is available for the Project and projected cumulative development. CWSC developed an Integrated Long Term Water Supply Plan (ILTWSP) for its three peninsula districts in 2010. The findings of the ILTWSP recommend continuing with conservation and further evaluating desalination and water transfers. The Project would also be required to comply with the California Green Building Code which identifies measures to reduce water consumption, reduce building construction waste, and energy consumption in both the construction and operation of buildings and for the life of the building. The regulations prescribe methods to test, report, maintain, and improve the measures employed to promote environmental sustainability. The Project would not be a major employer (high estimate for CEQA is 100 persons), well below the threshold of significance of 1,000 employees for preparation of an Urban Water Management Plan. 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, 6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT DRAFT EIR / 3.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 6-5 construction and operations of the Project would be required to incorporated LIDs and BMPs for stormwater treatment; an improvement over existing conditions. 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. The Initial Study for the Project resulted in the following findings: 1. All environmental impacts associated with aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology 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. 2. The Project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. DRAFT EIR / 7.0 CEQA REQUIRED CONCLUSIONS 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 7-1 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 might affect housing and retail demand in other 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 natural disasters and business development cycles. Moreover, long-term changes in economic and population growth are often regional in scope; they are not influenced solely by changes in policies or specific development projects. Business trends are influenced by economic conditions throughout the state and country as well as around the world. Another consideration is that the creation of growth-inducing potential does not automatically lead to growth. Growth occurs through 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 policy. The regulatory authority of local governments, serve to mediate the growth-inducing potential or pressure created by a project or plan. Despite these limitations on the analysis, it is still possible to qualitatively 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 site has been planned as a freeway commercial land use, largely serving airport and business travel lodging needs (General Plan, 1999). The Applicant states there would be at least 52 employees for the Project in a total of three shifts to serve the 128 room hotel. For CEQA purposes we assume up to 100 employees. The hotel service industry typically does not conduct national employment recruitment efforts but relies on the local workforce. Therefore the Project would obtain its workforce from the local peninsula population. The Project is not anticipated to spur an increase in growth and population in the area but would serve the business needs of a traveling public and support the needs of the Research and Development uses in the East of 101 Area. 6.0 CEQA REQUIRED CONCLUSIONS DRAFT EIR / 7.0 CEQA REQUIRED CONCLUSIONS 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 2, 2015 PAGE 7-2 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 analyze either 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 Study (Appendix A) 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 following two impacts are transportation and circulation related. Impact 7: The Project would increase off-ramp volumes by more than 1 percent on the Northbound Off-ramp to S. Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane, where Without Project volumes would be backing up to the freeway mainline. (Significant and Unavoidable) Mitigation Measure 7: The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to go towards the following measures. Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Product Avenue • Adjust signal timing. This measure is required to clear northbound/westbound S. Airport Boulevard traffic through this intersection and eliminate backups extending through the Gateway and Wondercolor intersections. S. Airport Boulevard/U.S. 101 Northbound Hook Ramps/Wondercolor Lane • Restripe the northbound S. Airport Boulevard approach to provide two left turn lanes and one combined through/right turn lane. • Widen the northbound on-ramp to provide two departure lanes, which will then merge to a single lane before merging to the freeway mainline. • Adjust signal timing. • Reconfigure the northbound off-ramp intersection approach to S. Airport Boulevard to provide two exclusive left turn lanes, one shared through/right turn lane and one exclusive right turn lane. 6.0 CEQA REQUIRED CONCLUSIONS DRAFT EIR / 7.0 CEQA REQUIRED CONCLUSIONS 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 2, 2015 PAGE 7-3 Resultant 2017 With Project Operation would be: PM Peak Hour: LOS D-42.8 seconds control delay, which would be better than “Without Project” operation (LOS F-162.5 seconds control delay) Impact After Mitigation: Mitigation Measure 7 would eliminate AM and PM peak hour backups to the freeway mainline (with or without the Project) during the AM and PM peak hours (as shown in Traffic Figure 20, Year 2017 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control). The restriping of the northbound intersection approach and associated signalization equipment changes along with the widening of the on-ramp departure to two lanes are not on the City’s Traffic Improvement Program (TIP) and the cost would be excessive for the Project to fund. The City has determined that the intersection improvements described in Mitigation Measure 7 are infeasible for the Project to fully fund and freeway off-ramp backups to the freeway mainline would not be mitigated to an acceptable level. The individual measures, by themselves, would not eliminate the significant impact. While the low cost signal timing adjustment could be provided and would provide some improvement, by itself it would not reduce the impact to a less than significant level. The City will need to incorporate these new improvements into the East of 101 TIP. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 12: The Project would not result in any significant vehicle queuing impacts at any analyzed intersection based upon Synchro software methodology for 2035 With Project conditions. However, Project traffic would increase volumes on the US 101 southbound off-ramp to Produce Avenue by more than 1 percent during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours where Without Project off-ramp traffic is projected to be backing up to the freeway mainline. (Significant and Unavoidable) The Project would increase off-ramp volumes by more than 1 percent on the northbound off-ramp to S. Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane where “Without Project” volumes would already be backing up to the freeway mainline. • Northbound Off-Ramp to S. Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane (AM & PM peak hours) + 1.1 % during the AM peak hour + 1.8 % during the PM peak hour The Project would increase off-ramp volumes by more than 1 percent on the southbound off-ramp to Product Avenue where “Without Project” volumes would already be backing up to the freeway mainline. • Southbound Off-Ramp to Produce Avenue (AM & PM peak hours) + 1.3 % during the AM peak hour + 1.5 % during the PM peak hour 6.0 CEQA REQUIRED CONCLUSIONS DRAFT EIR / 7.0 CEQA REQUIRED CONCLUSIONS 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 2, 2015 PAGE 7-4 Mitigation Measure 12: The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to go towards the following measures. Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue • Adjust signal timing. • Provide a second right turn lane on the northbound Produce Avenue approach to eastbound S. Airport Boulevard with the same curvature as the existing right turn lane. Signal control both right turn lanes and provide overlap phasing with the westbound left turn movement. S. Airport Boulevard/Gateway Avenue/Mitchell Avenue • Extend the left turn lanes on the eastbound S. Airport Boulevard approach to Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue to at least 225 feet. Mitchell Avenue/West Harris Avenue • Provide a left turn lane on the eastbound Mitchell Avenue approach to West Harris Avenue. • Paint a “Keep Clear” message on the pavement on westbound Mitchell Avenue at West Harris Avenue. These two Mitchell and West Harris Avenue measures are feasible and are required of the Project but will not in and of themselves reduce project impact 12 to less than significant. Resultant 2035 With Project Operation at Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue/San Mateo Avenue would be: AM Peak Hour: LOS D-38.6 seconds control delay PM Peak Hour: LOS F-205.4 seconds control delay, which would be better than “Without Project” operation (LOS F-205.6 seconds control delay) Impact After Mitigation: Mitigation Measure 12 would eliminate AM and PM peak hour backups to the freeway mainline (with or without the Project) during the AM and PM peak hours. However, at the Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue intersection, the added right turn lane and dual right turn lane signalization are not on the City’s Traffic Improvement Program (TIP) and the cost would be excessive for the proposed Project to fund. Also, measures at the Mitchell Avenue/West Harris Avenue intersection are also not on the City’s TIP for this area and may not be financially feasible for the proposed Project. Therefore, the City has determined that the intersection improvements described in Mitigation Measure 12 are infeasible. The Project could not fully fund all the mitigations therefore freeway off-ramp backups to the freeway mainline would not be mitigated to an acceptable level. The City will need to incorporate these new improvements into the East of 101 TIP. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 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 6.0 CEQA REQUIRED CONCLUSIONS DRAFT EIR / 7.0 CEQA REQUIRED CONCLUSIONS 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 2, 2015 PAGE 7-5 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 any significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided under full implementation of the Project. Chapter 4, Setting Impacts and Mitigations identifies 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. Chapter 5 Alternatives contains this required 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 makes removal or non use thereafter unlikely” (CCR 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 study 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. DRAFT EIR / 8.0 REPORT PREPARATION 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 8-1 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 Billy Gross, Senior Planner CONSULTING TEAM KNAPP PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 511 Linden Street, Suite B San Francisco, CA 94102 Allison Knapp, Principal/Project Manager In consultation with: CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP 2621 East Windrim Court Elk Grove, California 95758 Mark Crane, Managing Principal RCH GROUP, INC. RCH Group, Inc. 11060 White Rock Road, Suite 150-A Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Paul Miller, Principal Environmental Services Michael Ratte, Senior Air Quality Scientist DRAFT EIR / 9.0 REFERENCES 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 7, 2015 PAGE 9-1 9.0 REFERENCES 9.1 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS 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. General Plan, 1999 General Plan EIR, 1999. Zoning Ordinances, 2010. South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft and Final EIR (2010). Downtown Station Area Plan and Environmental Impact Report (2015). Initial Study 127 West Harris, South San Francisco (2015). East of 101 Traffic Model, DKS APPENDIX A A-1 APPENDIX A Initial Study Checklist and Evaluation Chapters 1-3 with Technical Appendices including: 1. Air Quality Assumptions and Methodologies, Construction and Operational Emissions, CALEEMOD Output Files. June, 2014. RCH Group, Mike Ratte. 2. Biological Resource Assessment, 127 West Harris Street, South San Francisco, California, West Harris SSF.SMa, 21 April 2014. Marangio Biological Consulting, Michael Marangio. 3. Engineering Report, Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites, 127 West Harris Avenue, South San Francisco, California. April 15, August 21, and October 7, 2014. Terracon. 4. Geotechnical Peer Review, Kuber Development Proposed Fairfield Inn and Suites. May 6, September 2, and October 16, 2014. Cotton Shires Associates. 5. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites, 127 West Harris Avenue, South San Francisco, California. March 18, 2014. Terracon. 6. Limited Stockpile Characterization and Sampling, Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites, 127 West Harris Avenue, South San Francisco, California. March 19, 2014. Terracon. Comment Letters on the Notice of Preparation 1. Town of Colma, Michael P. Laughlin, January 5, 2015 2. San Francisco International Airport, John Bergener, January 14, 2015 3. California Department of Transportation, Patricia Maurice, January 30, 2015 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INITIAL STUDY FOR THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION 315 MAPLE AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO , CA 94083 www.ssf.net PREPARED BY: KNAPP PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING Allisonknappconsulting.com January 2, 2015 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INITIAL STUDY FOR THE PREPARATION OF 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, Senior Planner 315 MAPLE AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94083 January 2, 2015 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INITIAL STUDY 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, Senior Planner 315 MAPLE AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94083 January, 2015 i TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Initial Study/Legislative Framework 1-1 1.2 Project Applicant/Team/Contact 1-2 1.3 Documents Incorporated by Reference 1-3 1.4 City of South San Francisco Project Review Process 1-3 1.5 Standard Conditions of Approval Required by Law Addressing Environmental Impacts 1-4 1.6 Environmental Determination 1-13 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1 2.1 Project Location and Setting 2-1 2.2 Proposed Project 2-4 2.3 Environmental Mitigation Measures Proposed as Part of the Project 2-7 2.4 General Plan and Zoning 2-11 2.5 Required Entitlements 2-12 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3-1 3.1 Aesthetics 3-2 3.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources 3-7 3.3 Air Quality 3-9 3.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3-20 3.5 Biological Resources 3-30 3.6 Cultural Resources 3-42 3-7 Geology and Soils 3-45 3-8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3-55 3-9 Hydrology and Water Quality 3-65 3-10 Land Use and Planning 3-74 3-11 Mineral Resources 3-76 3-12 Noise 3-77 3-13 Population and Housing 3-84 3-14 Public Services 3-85 3-15 Recreation 3-88 3-16 Transportation and Traffic 3-89 3-17 Utilities and Service Systems 3-91 3-18 Mandatory Findings of Significance and Summary of Findings 3-96 LIST OF FIGURES Project Location 2-1 Draft Downtown Station Area Plan and Project Location 2-3 Boring and Sample Locations 2-5 Site Plan 2-6 APPENDIX A Air Quality Assumptions and Methodologies, Construction and Operational Emissions, CALEEMOD Output Files, June, 2014. RCH Group, Mike Ratte. A-1 ii Biological Resource Assessment, 127 West Harris Street, South San Francisco, California, West Harris SSF.SMa, 21 April 2014. Marangio Biological Consulting, Michael Marangio. Engineering Report, Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites, 127 West Harris Avenue, South San Francisco, California. April 15, August 21, and October 7, 2014. Terracon. Geotechnical Peer Review, Kuber Development Proposed Fairfield Inn and Suites. May 6, September 2, and October 16, 2014. Cotton Shires Associates. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites, 127 West Harris Avenue, South San Francisco, California. March 18, 2014. Terracon. Limited Stockpile Characterization and Sampling, Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites, 127 West Harris Avenue, South San Francisco, California. March 19, 2014. Terracon. 127 WEST HARRIS – CHAPTER 1 OF INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-1 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INITIAL STUDY/LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which can be found in the California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines found in California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, (CCR) Section 15000 et seq., as amended. This Initial Study identifies the potential environmental impacts associated with demolition, grading, construction and future occupancy of the Project which includes any reasonably foreseeable 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 any 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 seeking conditional use permit and design review approvals to construct a 128 room select service hotel with 93 parking spaces at 127 West Harris Avenue in South San Francisco, California. The ministerial actions include grading and building permits. The proposed project (Project) 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 may, after review of the entirety of the 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. The Planning Commission will hold a study session to take public comments and the City Council will make the final determination on the environmental document. These actions will take place in legally- noticed public hearings. This Initial Study, City Project Number P13-0057, UP13-0012 & DR13-0035 is for the project identified as Fairfield Inn and Suites at 127 West Harris Avenue in South San Francisco, California (APN: 015-123-600). The proposed project (Project) would construct a 128 room CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION PAGE 1-2 127 WEST HARRIS – CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK hotel on a vacant 1.47 acre lot. The 65,136 square foot hotel would be five stories in height and include 93 onsite parking spaces (Sheet G002 Architectural Drawings, Gerald D. Kessler, Inc., 10/30/13). The hotel would be airport serving. The site has never been developed (Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Terracon. March 18, 2014). 1.2 PROJECT APPLICANT/TEAM/CONTACT PROJECT APPLICANT AND TEAM The property owner and applicant (Applicant) is KUBER Hotels, represented by Shane Kuber, principal of the firm. The applicant has assembled a Project team consisting of Jerry Kessler of Gerald Kessler, Inc Architects; Mike Jackson of Tamad, Taylor and Gaines civil engineers; and, Islam R. Noaman, for the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Donald R. Clark and Fouad Abuhamdan for geotechnical services at Terracon Environmental, Facilities, Geotechnical and Materials Engineering. The contact for the Project is: Mr. Jerry Kessler 1823 Desert Lane Phoenix Arizona, 85042 (602) 466-1083 LEAD AGENCY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT The Lead Agency for this Initial Study 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 Manager for the Lead Agency: Mr. Billy Gross, Senior Planner Department of Economic and Community Development-Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 (650) 877-8535 The Environmental Document was prepared by: Allison Knapp Wollam, Environmental Consultant KNAPP PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 511 Linden Street, Suite B San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 902-3238 The environmental consulting team consists of Allison Knapp Wollam, Mr. Mike Ratte of KB Environmental Engineering for the air quality, greenhouse gas and hazard risk assessments, Mr. Michael Marangio of Marangio Consulting for the biological resource assessment, Mr. Paul Miller of RCH Group for the noise analysis and Mr. Mark Crane of Crane Transportation Group for the traffic modeling and analysis. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 127 WEST HARRIS – CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK PAGE 1-3 1.3 DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE GEOLOGY Engineering Report, Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites, 127 West Harris Avenue, South San Francisco, California. April 15, August 21, and October 7, 2014. Terracon. Geotechnical Peer Review, Kuber Development Proposed Fairfield Inn and Suites. May 6, September 2, and October 16, 2014. Cotton Shires Associates. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites, 127 West Harris Avenue, South San Francisco, California. March 18, 2014. Terracon. Limited Stockpile Characterization and Sampling, Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites, 127 West Harris Avenue, South San Francisco, California. March 19, 2014. Terracon. 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 levied through CEQA review. City of South San Francisco project processing requires that applications for projects are first reviewed by the City’s Technical Advisory Group (TAG). TAG is comprised of representatives from Planning, Building, Police, Fire, Engineering, Parks and Recreation, and Water Quality Control. TAG review identifies changes and additions that are required in a project to comply with local, state and federal laws that are implemented through the City’s Municipal 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 evaluate the application in light of their earlier comments and requirements. The process results in an application that can be certified ‘complete’ as well as identification of the Conditions of Approval (COAs) that are required should the Project be approved. Many of these COAs implement environmental mitigations that were historically identified through the environmental review process (California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA) and now have become a part of the City’s legislative requirements, through its general plan, specific, area, municipal code, special districts, or memoranda of understanding (i.e., its police power). CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION PAGE 1-4 127 WEST HARRIS – CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK 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 type of project, as defined by the Municipal Code of South San Francisco and state law. The COAs identified through 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 additional 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 are designed and implemented to reduce 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 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 may obviate the environmental document and require subsequent or supplemental CEQA review. In summary, the Project as proposed coupled with the required conditions of approval is the baseline from which environmental impacts are evaluated for the Project described in Chapter 2 Project Description. 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 compatibility with surrounding land uses is addressed and assured through this process. The City’s sign regulations are intended to preserve and improve appearance, protect from visual clutter and blight, protect property values and enhance community appearance, minimize diversion of vehicle operators’ attention and safeguard 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 by the City’s Design Review Board consisting of professional architects and landscape architects. The Planning Commission, and in some cases the City Council, adds design elements to projects. Projects that are within a state or local scenic corridor are further addressed through the CEQA process. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 127 WEST HARRIS – CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK PAGE 1-5 2. AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AIR QUALITY DUST CONTROL: All construction projects are required to comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) dust control measures. These measures are levied by the Engineering Division as a condition of building permit issuance and are monitored for compliance by staff and/or special City Engineering and/or Planning inspectors. The measures include all the Basic Fugitive Dust Emissions Reduction Measures, Basic Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures and some of the Additional Fugitive Dust Emissions Reduction Measures identified by the BAAQMD May, 2011. The City requires Projects to: a) Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. b) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. c) Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. d) Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. e) Sweep streets daily (with wet power vacuum sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. f) Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). g) Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiled materials. h) Install sandbags or other erosion-control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. i) Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. j) Watering should be used to control dust generation during the break-up of pavement. k) Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site. l) Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible. m) Water or cover 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 five minutes, and shall comply with applicable BAAQMD rules. p) Use alternative fueled construction equipment, if possible. q) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph and slower should wind and dust conditions necessitate. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION PAGE 1-6 127 WEST HARRIS – CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK r) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved 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 five (5) minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2484 of the California Code of regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 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 take corrective action within 24 hours. The Air District phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. AIR QUALITY TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS: The potential for toxic air contaminants (asbestos and lead based paint) to be released into the environment is regulated and monitored through the Building Division in compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 during Demolition. Any applicant requesting a building or demolition permit involving a structure suspected of containing asbestos (defined as a building constructed prior to 1978) and/or lead based paint (defined as a building constructed prior to 1960) is required to obtain a J-Permit from the BAAQMD. 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 BAAQMD and may be shut down by the City’s Building Division. Through this process, the BAAQMD 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 typically 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 BAAQMD and City supervision to ensure compliance. AIR QUALITY VEHICLE EMISSIONS: The potential for air quality degradation from vehicle emissions is regulated 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 day 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 TDM 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. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN: The City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) on February 12, 2014. The CAP identifies strategies and actions to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15 percent by 2020 (below 2005 GHG baseline). The City has and continues to implement GHG reduction measures. Some examples include the installation of solar facilities at City buildings; requiring bioswales in private development; adopting and enforcing a construction and demolition waste recycling ordinance; adopting and implementing a transportation demand management program and providing electrical car charging stations at City facilities. The City actively participates in the San Francisco International Airport noise insulation program which also reduces heat loss and hence GHG emissions in older buildings. The City also spearheads educational programs to reduce GHG emissions. Through conditions CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 127 WEST HARRIS – CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK PAGE 1-7 of approval development projects are required to implement a variety of GHG reduction measures. Some measures include use of renewable and alternate energy including solar and cogeneration, electric car facilities, water conservation and waste reduction. 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE TITLE 24: All construction projects are required to comply with the California Building Code (CBC), as periodically amended. Design specifications are identified and required for projects located on sites subject to liquefaction, differential settlement, severe groundshaking. These requirements are enforced and monitored by the Engineering Division. Compliance with the CBC 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 constructed on vacant land, for demolition and rebuilding and for 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 construction 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. Geotechnical approval is required prior to issuance of a building permit. The geotechnical professional of record is required to sign all project drawings. The City’s geotechnical consultant provides construction 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.b.ii and C.3.c.i.2 of the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (“Municipal Regional Permit” or “MRP.” 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 (filtering stormwater through vegetation and soils before discharging to the storm drain system). However, biotreatment will be allowed only where harvesting and reuse, infiltration and evapotranspiration are infeasible at a 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 C.3.c.i.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 are 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 structure, unless drainage from the uncovered portion is connected to the sanitary sewer (see Provision C.3.b.ii.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 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION PAGE 1-8 127 WEST HARRIS – CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK have the authority to require treatment to the maximum extent practicable for smaller projects. The new requirements are built into the following (see below) 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/CAG) of San Mateo County holding a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Discharge permit. The City requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for new development and construction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City COA’s. The requirements are implemented and monitored by the Engineering and Water Quality Control Divisions. The measures address pollution control and management mechanisms for contractor activities, e.g. structure construction, material delivery and storage, solid waste management, employee and subcontractor training. Stormwater pollution prevention measures also affect site development 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. Typical 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 biofilters (grassy swales), and landscaped infiltration/detention basins as feasible. c) Landscape design shall incorporate biofilters, 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 paved 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 (SWPPP). 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 SWPPP 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 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 127 WEST HARRIS – CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK PAGE 1-9 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 hydroseeding, 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 gutter to filter water before the drain inlets. 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) Construct temporary drainage systems to filter and divert water accordingly. h) Construct temporary rock and asphalt driveways and wheel washers to buffer public streets from dirt and mud. i) Use part and full time street sweepers that operate along public streets and roads. j) Cover all stockpiled soils to protect from erosion. Use berms around stockpiled soils. k) Cover and protect from erosion plaster, concrete and other powders which create large amounts of suspended solids. l) Store all hazardous materials (paints, solvents, chemicals) in accordance with secondary containment regulations and cover 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 15th. 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) Cover 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. q) Avoid roadwork and pavement stormwater pollution by following manufacturers’ instructions. 5. NOISE INTERIOR AMBIENT NOISE: The City of South San Francisco regulates noise exposure through state law and its General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan. A chapter of the CBC CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION PAGE 1-10 127 WEST HARRIS – CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK 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 dn ) in any habitable room with all doors and windows closed. The code 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 dBA (CNEL or L dn ). Title 24 requirements are enforced as a condition of building permit issuance by the Building Division. The City, through its General Plan, adopted the Noise Guidelines of the State Department of Health Services in its Noise Element (1999). Table 9.2-1, Land Use Criteria for Noise Impacted Areas, (General Plan, page 280) guides land use decisions based upon noise thresholds correlating to land use classifications, acoustical analyses and mitigations. The City implements the Federal Aviation Administration adopted noise contours, participates in an aircraft noise insulation program and City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) airport noise planning efforts. Figure 9-1 of the General Plan Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program (page 279) identifies the noise contours and program area for these planning efforts. C/CAG updated the San Francisco International Airport noise impact boundaries in October, 2012. The new boundaries for South San Francisco are on page 118 of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport for City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, Redwood City, California (Ricondo Associates, Jacobs Consultancy, Clarion Associates. October, 2012) (ALUP). Therefore the maps contained in the South San Francisco General Plan must be used in conjunction with the updated ALUP. The East of 101 Area Plan requirement for interior ambient noise for commercial, office and retail is 45 dBA, L eq , echoing state law. Residential land uses in the East of 101 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 identifies maximum noise exposure corresponding with land use and time of day. Low 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 db from 7 A.M. and 10 P.M. Higher density residential and commercial land use noise exposure is restricted to 55 dB from 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. and 65 db 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’s Code Enforcement Officer implements these regulations. The following text and table are excerpted from Section 8.32.030. (a) It is unlawful for any person to operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location within the city or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property to exceed: CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 127 WEST HARRIS – CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK PAGE 1-11 (1) The noise level standard for that land use as specified in Table 8.32.030 for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour; (2) The noise level standard plus five dB for a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any hour; (3) The noise level standard plus ten dB for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; (4) The noise level standard plus fifteen dB for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or (5) The noise level standard or the maximum measured ambient level, plus twenty dB for any period of time. Table 8.32.030 NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level (dB) R-E, R-1 and R-2 zones or any single-family or duplex residential in a specific plan district 10 p.m.—7 a.m. 50 7 a.m.—10 p.m. 60 R-3 and D-C zones or any multiple-family residential or mixed residential/commercial in any specific plan district 10 p.m.—7 a.m. 55 7 a.m.—10 p.m. 60 C-1, P-C, Gateway and Oyster Point Marina specific plan districts or any commercial use in any specific plan district 10 p.m.—7 a.m. 60 7 a.m.—10 p.m. 65 M-1, P-1 Anytime 70 Source: City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Construction noise exposure is also regulated by the Municipal Code (Section 8.32.050(d)). Hours of construction 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 construction and maximum temporary noise levels may be granted by the Chief Building Official. (a) Sound Performances and Special Events. Sound performances and special events not exceeding eighty dB measured at a distance of fifty feet from the loudest source are exempt from this chapter when approval therefore has been obtained from the appropriate governmental entity. (b) Vehicle Horns. Vehicle horns, or other devices primarily intended to create a loud noise for warning purposes, shall be CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION PAGE 1-12 127 WEST HARRIS – CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK used only when the vehicle is in a situation where life, health or property are endangered. (c) Utilities and Emergencies. Utility and street repairs, street sweepers, franchised garbage services and emergency response warning noises are exempt from this chapter. (d) Construction. Construction, alteration, repair or landscape maintenance activities which are authorized by a valid city permit shall be allowed on weekdays between the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of nine a.m. and eight p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of ten a.m. and six p.m., or at such other hours as may be authorized by the permit, if they meet at least one of the following noise limitations: (1) No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding ninety dB at a distance of twenty-five feet. If the device is housed within a structure or trailer on the property, the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to twenty-five feet from the equipment as possible. (2) The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed ninety dB. (Ord. 1088 § 1, 1990). 6. CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE New California Green Building Code Standards became effective on January 1, 2014. The mandatory and voluntary measures for residential, non-residential and mixed use buildings are designed to reduce our carbon footprint and promote environmental sustainability; i.e., decrease impacts incumbent upon the environment resulting from human activities. The collection of regulations is contained in the California Building Code. The regulations prescribe measures to reduce water consumption, reduce building construction waste, and energy consumption in both the construction and operation of buildings and for the life of the building. The regulations prescribe methods to test, report, maintain, and improve the measures employed to promote environmental sustainability. The Green Building Code also regulates the exposure (i.e., off gassing) of VOCs (volatile organic compounds), aerosols and formaldehyde and moisture and dust penetration in the use and application of building materials. Regulations address the types of as sealants, coatings, finishes, flooring (wood, carpet, particle board) and architectural finishes that are not permitted based upon the performance and potential toxicity of the substances. Design standards limit and as appropriate prohibit the amount of building heat loss and light pollution incident upon adjacent properties. Standards address the use of potable, grey and recycled water for interior and exterior, residential and non-residential uses. Maximum Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings are also identified and apply to interior exposure levels and noise levels at property lines. Distance thresholds are identified that trigger additional STC ratings for buildings within prescribed proximity to freeways, airports and 65dB exceedances at property lines. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 127 WEST HARRIS – CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK PAGE 1-13 Amenities to support people using bicycles are identified and include lockers, showers and secure lock-up areas. Provision of preferential parking spaces for low fuel vehicles at a percentage of overall parking provided on a site is also specified. 1.6 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED This Initial Study evaluates the Project which 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 that could exceed the impacts 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 CEQA and as described in Chapter 3, are listed below. Factors identified with sshhaaddiinngg have been determined to have the potential for significant impacts as discussed in Chapter 3. These factors will be addressed in an EIR. Factors which are unshaded have been determined to pose no potential for significant impacts. Aesthetics Hazards &Hazardous Materials Public Services Agriculture & Forest Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation Air Quality Land Use and Planning TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn Greenhouse Gas Mineral Resources Utilities &Service Systems Biological Resources Noise Cumulative Impacts Cultural Resources Population &Housing Geology &Soils CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION PAGE 1-14 127 WEST HARRIS – CHAPTER 1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK 1.7 LEAD AGENCY'S DETERMINATION On the basis of the analysis contained in Chapter 3: 127 WEST HARRIS – CHAPTER 2 OF INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-1 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING PROJECT LOCATION The Project site is located in the eastern area of the City of South San Francisco, known as the “East of 101 Planning Area,” south of East Grand Avenue and north of Mitchell Avenue at 127 West Harris Avenue. San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is approximately 0.8 miles south of the site. The Colma Creek channel is approximately 250 feet south and U.S. 101 is approximately 850 feet west of the site. Mitchell Avenue provides access to West Harris Avenue. Gateway Boulevard to the west and Harbor Way to the east provide access to Mitchell Avenue (See Figure 1 Project Location). FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 2-2 127 WEST HARRIS – CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION EAST OF 101 AREA LAND USE HISTORY The East of 101 Area was part of the first industrial development in South San Francisco over 100 years ago. The area has undergone many transformations as industrial uses, such as steel manufacturing, and meat packaging which gave way to industrial park, warehousing and distribution uses that came to dominate the area in the 1950s and 1960s. The City adopted the East of 101 Area Plan (July, 1994) to direct land use, design and resource conservation. In 1999, the City updated its General Plan and in 2010 its zoning ordinance. These documents reflect the third wave of development in the East of 101 Area: the emergence of modern office buildings and life science campuses, predominately north of East Grand Avenue. Older manufacturing uses, industrial park structures, warehousing, freight forwarding, car rental services and airport serving hotels and parking structures are predominately located south of East Grand Avenue, within the vicinity of the Project. Blocks throughout the East of 101 Area are generally very large in size and the area has a stark industrial look. Abandoned railroad spurs and dry docks are also present. 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 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. The East of 101 Area has and continues to witness expansion of R&D and airport- and visitor- serving land uses. R&D is anticipated to reach approximately 12 million square feet in the East of 101 Area by 2035, in addition to the 200 acre Genentech Research and Development Facility Master Plan.1 Office space not associated with R&D is anticipated to reach 1.23 million square feet, by 2035. Other land uses include or are anticipated to include by 2035 approximately 11.3 million square feet of manufacturing; 1 million square feet of commercial/retail/home center retail; and 3,650 hotel rooms. Water related uses include a ferry terminal and 716 berths for privately owned boats. DOWNTOWN STATION AREA PLAN A significant planning effort addressing the East of 101 Area south of East Grand Avenue is the Draft Downtown Station Area Plan which can be reviewed on the City’s website (http://www.ssfdowntownplan.org/background), or Google City of South San Francisco Official Website. The Draft Plan was released for public review July, 2014 and the EIR was released on October 10, 2014 for the 45-day public review period. The Project site is approximately 100 feet from the southeastern edge of the Draft Downtown Station Area Plan, in what is identified as the “Eastern Neighborhood” (See Figure 2 Draft Downtown Station Area Plan and Project Location). The Eastern Neighborhood is bounded by East Grand Avenue to the north; Gateway Boulevard to the east; South Airport Boulevard to the south; and the U.S. 101 to the west. The Eastern Neighborhood would experience land use changes 1 The East of 101 Traffic Model is based upon these R&D figures. The R&D figures reflect the recent Britannia Cove at Oyster Point and the 475 Eccles EIRs, and they represent a combination of entitled and built as well as entitled and un-built projects. Crane Transportation Group, August, 2014. CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 127 WEST HARRIS – CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 2-3 Excerpted from Draft Downtown Station Area Plan Figure 3 of the Draft Downtown Station Area Plan, prepared by BMS Design Group and Atkins, 2013 and site location added by Knapp Consulting FIGURE 2 DRAFT DOWNTOWN STATION AREA PLAN AND PROJECT LOCATION . including re-designating and rezoning properties from Industrial to R&D if the Plan is adopted as shown in Figure 2. Abandoned rail spurs and the Colma Creek channel would be designated Open Space. Land currently designated as Business Commercial, Mixed Industrial and Auto-Oriented Commercial would become Office /R&D. An area along East Grand Avenue would include a ‘Retail Focus’. As a result, the East of 101 Area south of East Grand Avenue could witness an increase of R&D up to 1.185 million square feet (Table 1 Existing and Proposed Land Uses, South San Francisco Downtown Station Area, Initial Study, page 7, Atkins. 2013 and page 3.9 of the Draft Downtown Station Area Plan). LAND USE ADJACENT TO AND NEARBY THE PROJECT SITE The Project site is vacant. As noted the Project would construct a hotel on the site. Adjacent to and south of the site is the Focus Hotel and to the north a food wholesaler, CTC Food Industries, Inc. Properties in the area are developed with vacant and occupied office space, freight forwarding, building materials and food wholesalers. Land uses outside of West Harris Avenue are a mix of light industrial, manufacturing and R&D. CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 2-4 127 WEST HARRIS – CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The hill containing the “‘South San Francisco the Industrial City’” sign is visible to the northwest. The hill is known locally, as “Sign Hill” and is listed as a National Historic Resource (1996). Buildings along West Harris are one to three story structures. Denser development patterns including the Embassy Suites Hotel, R&D and office buildings located on Gateway Boulevard can be seen from the Project area. These buildings are two to eight stories in height. PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS The 64,117 square foot (1.47 acre) vacant site is approximately 13 feet above mean sea level. Historical information indicates that the site and surrounding area were submerged swamp land from the late 1890s to the early 1950s. The site has never been developed. Periodically the site was used for parking. The adjacent Focus Hotel was constructed in 1980. The site is covered with invasive and native grasses and shrubs. The site is relatively flat, with a slight surface gradient towards the east. Evidence of illegal dumping is present on the site. The materials include pipes, cardboard boxes, glass, tires, metal fencing and plastic oil bottles. These materials, consisting of approximately one dump truck in volume, have been removed from the site. Undocumented fill is present throughout the site and more pronounced in the middle of the site. There is approximately a nine foot layer of undocumented fill consisting of sandy, gravely, cobble and boulders on the site. The boulders are 12 to 42 inches in diameter (Geotechnical Engineering Report, Terracon, April 15, 2014). Bay Mud appears below the undocumented fill. Metal concentrations (arsenic and chromium) above California Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for shallow soils are present on the site. Additionally low levels of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) below ESLs are also present in shallow soils (Phase I ESA, Terracon, March 18, 2014 and Limited Stockpile Characterization and Sampling, Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites, 127 West Harris Avenue, South San Francisco, California. March 19, 2014. Terracon, see Figure 3, Boring and Sampling Locations). The additional testing found soil samples above the reporting limits for: TPH-ORO 8.8 mg/Kg, 19 mg/Kg and 7.8 mg/Kg from TP-1, SP-5 and SP-6, respectively; naphthalene concentration of 0.085 mg/Kg from TP-3, and phenanthrene concentrations of 0.061 mg/Kg and 0.12 mg/Kg from TP-3 and TP-4 respectively; and various metals from stockpiles soils, including: arsenic, barium, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, vanadium and zinc were at concentrations above the laboratory method reporting limits. The geologic formation is sandstone, shale and conglomerate. Groundwater was encountered at eight feet below ground surface (bgs). The hydrological gradient varies seasonally from southeast to southwest as does the level of groundwater (Phase I ESA, Terracon, March 18, 2014). 2.2 PROPOSED PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant proposes a 128 room limited-service hotel. The hotel would include an indoor swimming pool and breakfast area. All parking would be on surface in front of the building and along the south side and west side property lines. Two shuttle vans and 93 surface parking spaces CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 127 WEST HARRIS – CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 2-5 are proposed. Site access would be via two 30 foot wide two-way driveways along the south and north property lines (see Figure 4 Site Plan). FIGURE 3 BORING AND SAMPLING LOCATIONS 2 The Project proposes a 1.02 floor area ratio (FAR). The building would be 63 feet in height and setback approximately 50 feet from the southern property line; 20 feet from the northern; 45 from the western; and 65 to 75 from the eastern property lines. The building would be fire sprinkled. There are three PG&E towers constructed in the southwest corner of the Focus Hotel parking area. The lines traverse in a relative north/south direction. The lines (in plan dimension) are approximately 120 to 140 feet from the western façade of the Project, and approximately 180 feet from the southwestern corner of the proposed building. The PG&E towers were emplaced in the 1940s (Phase I ESA, Terracon, March 18, 2014). 2 Excerpted from Terracon report to show location of sampling only. The full report is in Appendix A CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 2-6 127 WEST HARRIS – CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION LANDSCAPING Landscaping would include 57 trees consisting of Raywood Ash, Flowering Gum Eucalyptus, Date Palm, Mexican Fan Palm, Mediterranean Fan Palm and Cajeput trees. Additional landscaping includes seven varieties of shrubs and four varieties of groundcover and various placements of boulders to appear as rock outcroppings. The Raywood Ash trees may be replaced with London Plane Trees, Platanus acerifolia ‘Columbia’ or Ginkgo biloba trees as recommended by the City’s Design Review Board. Bioswales and retention areas are proposed on the north, east, and southern property lines. The front elevation would include more detailed landscaping framing the building and the entry walkway. Provided by Gerald R. Kessler, Architect FIGURE 4 SITE PLAN CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 127 WEST HARRIS – CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 2-7 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE The overall construction schedule is anticipated to take 15-16 months. The heaviest portion of construction, site clearing, grading, drilling, driving and emplacing piles, structural steel and foundation work would require approximately three months. Wood framing, rough plumbing, electrical and mechanical, emplacement of block walls, and roofing would require approximately 16 to 18 weeks (4.5 months). Interior work and finishes would require approximately 12 to 14 weeks. The stages of work overlap and are rounded up to provide a conservative construction schedule.3 In summary, the most intense part of site preparation and construction would require three months. 2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED AS PART OF THE PROJECT The following measures are included as part of the Project, and are shown on the architectural drawings (sheet G0007) and in the Project application materials. These measures are in addition to the City’s standard requirements identified in Chapter 1. Therefore, the following measures are considered part of the Project for the CEQA evaluation, and omission of any of these measures may result in a significant environmental impact and may require further CEQA analysis. A. Archaeology A licensed archaeologist shall be on site during grading and pile driving to inspect site soils. Should site soils appear culturally significant the archaeologist shall call a halt to grading operations in the potentially affected areas until the potential significance of the find is evaluated. A mitigation program to preserve the cultural resource in situ, remove and preserve in a museum or university, photograph and catalogue, or other method(s) deemed appropriate by the archaeologist if warranted, shall occur. The protocols of Public Resources Code Section 210832.2 and section 15065.5(c)-(f), California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines) shall be followed, as appropriate. B. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Applicant retained Terracon to conduct a limited sampling soil on the Project site, as prompted by the Phase I ESA findings and the Limited Stockpile Characterization and Sampling (127 West Harris Avenue, South San Francisco, CA, March 19, 2014. Terracon). Activities consisted of the collection of representative samples from the test pits and stockpiles on March 3, 2014. See Figure 3 Boring and Sampling Locations, above. In summary, no odors, discoloration or staining was observed on the site. The soil samples were collected from bottom of the test pits TP-1, TP-2, TP-3 and TP-4 and composite soil samples were collected from the onsite stockpiles SP-5 and SP-6. The samples were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), gasoline range organics (GRO), diesel range organics (DRO) and oil range organics (ORO) by United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 8015B, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by 3 Schedule is based upon information provided by Covent Construction, Inc., May 23, 2014 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 2-8 127 WEST HARRIS – CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION EPA Method 8260B, PAHs (Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) by EPA Method 8270C and Title-22 Metals by EPA Method 6010B. Based on laboratory analysis of the soil samples collected from test pits and stockpiled materials, the samples did not exhibit TPH or VOCs concentrations above the laboratory method reporting limits, except for a TPH-ORO concentrations of 8.8 mg/Kg, 19 mg/Kg and 7.8 mg/Kg from TP-1, SP-5 and SP-6, respectively. Additionally, the samples did not exhibit PAH compounds above the laboratory method reporting limits, except for naphthalene concentration of 0.085 mg/Kg from TP-3, and phenanthrene concentrations of 0.061 mg/Kg and 0.12 mg/Kg from TP-3 and TP-4 respectively. The stockpiled materials additionally exhibited various metals, including: arsenic, barium, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, vanadium and zinc at concentrations above the laboratory method reporting limits. The soil will be tested to determine the suitable disposal or reuse procedures pursuant to Hazards Table 1 (see blue shaded area). Permits from the San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health (SMCDEH), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and South San Francisco Fire Department will be secured. A soil management plan may be required and chain of custody shall be followed. HAZARDS TABLE 1 STANDARD REMEDIATION PRACTICES Media Hazardous Materials Approach 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 fuels, solvents) • Consult the SMCEHD for requirements. • Haul and Dispose. • Aeration – requires a notification to BAAQMD, daily volumes are limited. • Vapor Stripping – apply vacuum system to covered piles, notify BAAQMD. • Bioremediation - apply bio-treatment materials, moisture and “work” soil piles. • Thermal Desorption – various vendors provide mobile treatment units. • Capping and vapor barrier. Soil Remediation (ex-situ) Inorganics (metals) • Consult BAAQMD and SMCEHD for requirements. • Haul and Dispose. • Chemical Stabilization. • Sorting – reduce waste volume by screening to target contaminant particle size. Soil Remediation (in-situ) VOCs • Consult SMCEHD for requirements. • Soil Vapor Extraction – apply vacuum to vapor wells, notify BAAQMD. • In-situ chemical oxidation. • In-Situ Vitrification – use electricity to melt waste and surrounding soils. CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 127 WEST HARRIS – CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 2-9 Media Hazardous Materials Approach Soil Remediation (in-situ) SVOCs • Consult SMCEHD for requirements. • Bioremediation – saturate soils with bio-treatment 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 SMCEHD and consult on remedial alternatives. Groundwater Remediation VOCs • Consult BAAQMD and SMCEHD for requirements. • Pump and Treat – pump from wells, treat and discharge treated water. • Air Sparging – inject air to volatilize contaminants and create aerobic groundwater conditions suitable for natural 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 Remediation SVOCs • Consult BAAQMD for requirements. • Pump and Treat. • Bioremediation. • Chemical Oxidation. Groundwater Remediation Inorganics • Consult BAAQMD for requirements. • Pump and Treat. • Chemical Immobilization – inject chemicals to precipitate or chemically fix contaminants to soil particles. C. Geology and Soils 1. Geotechnical Clarifications and Plan Review The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical design aspects of the project construction plans. The Consultant shall also address the following items: o Consideration shall be given to the benefits of an indicator pile testing program to confirm driving capabilities, embedment depths, and pile capacity prior to selecting final pile depths. o Planned pre-drilling for the upper portions of piles may create voids that could impact lateral resistance. The Consultant shall consider appropriate measures to address voids prior to forming pile caps. CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 2-10 127 WEST HARRIS – CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION o Appropriate documentation to address the above will be submitted to the City for review by the City Engineer prior to issuance of permits for project construction. 2. Vibration Monitoring Vibration monitoring and pre- and post-construction monitoring of nearby structures shall be undertaken to evaluate and document vibration related impacts. A specific plan to address construction period vibrations should be submitted to the City for review by the City Engineer. 3. Geotechnical Construction Inspections The geotechnical consultant will inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project will be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final (as-built) project approval. The piles would extend to a minimum depth of 48 feet. The structural engineer may add some additional depth to obtain sufficient bearing. Due to the properties of strata below about 35 feet, it seems credible that piles may be in the range of 50 to 60 feet (Ted Sayre, Principal Engineering Geologist, Cotton Shires Associates, e-mail November 6, 2014). In summary, the geotechnical report (Terracon, October 7, 2014 and Cotton Shires Associates peer review October 16, 2014) states the pile holes would be pre-drilled, and consequently, the forces needed to drive piles will be reduced. Cast-in-place piles may not be feasible with the very weak, squeezing bay muds. A rigid pile would be inserted from the surface into pre-drilled holes. Because the holes would likely squeeze in after they are drilled, there is still a need to drive the piles to get them into place. It may be necessary to place additional compacted fill around the tops of the piles to address voids that may form near the tops of the pre-drilled holes after pile insertion and to obtain the design lateral resistance near the top of the piles. D. Noise and Vibration The Applicant includes the following as part of the Project to reduce the annoyance of construction noise and to comply with the city’s permitting requirements : 1. Emplace noise reduction technologies (such as sound blankets or other temporary noise barriers) to limit noise at the southern and northern and as needed on the western and eastern property lines to not greater than 90 dB. 2. Secure a waiver to permit more than 90 dB noise levels at the property line during grading and pile driving, in the event that the noise limit is momentarily exceeded. CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 127 WEST HARRIS – CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 2-11 3. Notify property and business owners in writing within West Harris Avenue of the construction schedule and contact person for the Project for questions, complaints and comments. 4. Consider and to the extent feasible provide some periods during the day (i.e., lunch, breaks) when pile driving does not occur. 5. Instrumentation would be in place on nearby buildings to monitor vibrations during pile driving so that buildings are not exposed to harmful vibrations. Pile driving would need to be modified to reduce vibrations if measured accelerations exceed a designated threshold. Vibration reduction might include use of a smaller driving hammer, or reduced travel of the hammer to lesson impact vibrations caused by the hammer hitting the top of pile. This would be like switching to more extended shallow pounding instead of a shorter duration of more forceful pounding. 2.4 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 “Business Commercial” (BC); a use intended for business and professional office and visitor service establishments and retail. Permitted uses include administrative, financial, business, professional, medical and public offices, and visitor-oriented and regional commercial activities. The General Plan (page 42) specifically notes: This category is intended for the emerging commercial and hotel district along South Airport, Gateway and Oyster Point Boulevards, and South Spruce Corridor. Maximum FAR for hotel developments shall be 1.2 with increases to a maximum total FAR of 2.0 for development meeting specified criteria. ZONING CLASSIFICATION The Project site is zoned Freeway Commercial (FC). The FC zoning is one of a group of four zoning districts identified under Chapter 20.110 Employment Districts. FC zoning is intended for regional-serving retail uses, commercial lodging, visitor services and similar uses that benefit from proximity to the Bayshore Freeway [i.e., U.S. 101]. Hotels are a permitted use within this zoning classification. The FC designation identifies a 1.2 FAR for hotels; a minimum lot size of one acre; minimum lot width of 50 feet and a minimum front setback of 20 feet. A complete list of permitted and conditional uses is identified in Chapter 20.110, Table 20.110.002 Land Use Regulations- Employment Districts of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (http://qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/). CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 2-12 127 WEST HARRIS – CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.5 REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS LEAD AGENCY REQUIREMENTS ADJUDICATIVE  Conditional Use Permit.  Design Review approval. MINISTERIAL  Grading and Building permits.  Encroachment permits to work in the public right-of-way. OTHER AGENCY REQUIRED PERMITS  Local and State approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.  Bay Area Air Quality District.  San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health. 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-1 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following checklist is consistent with CEQA 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 significance 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 significant impact” 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 significant, 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. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-2 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis 3.1 AESTHETICS Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X SETTING PROJECT SITE The Project site is located in the eastern area of the City of South San Francisco, known as the “East of 101 Planning Area,” south of East Grand Avenue and north of Mitchell Avenue at 127 West Harris Avenue. San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is approximately 0.8 miles south of the site. The Colma Creek channel is approximately 250 feet south and U.S. 101 is approximately 850 feet west of the site. Mitchell Avenue provides access to West Harris Avenue. Gateway Boulevard to the west and Harbor Way to the east provide access to Mitchell Avenue (See Figure 1 Project Location in Chapter 2). The Project site is vacant and covered with invasive and native grasses and shrubs. No trees are on the site. The site is relatively flat, with a slight surface gradient towards the east. Evidence of illegal dumping is present on the site. The 64,117 square foot (1.47 acre) site is approximately 13 feet above mean sea level. Historical information indicates that the site and surrounding area were submerged swamp land from the late 1890s to the early 1950s. The site has never been developed. Periodically the site was used for parking. Adjacent to and south of the site is the Focus Hotel and to the north is a food wholesaler, CTC Food Industries, Inc. Properties in the area are developed with vacant and occupied office space, freight forwarding, building materials and food wholesalers. Land uses outside of West Harris Avenue are a mix of light industrial, manufacturing and research and development. There are three PG&E towers constructed in the southwest corner of the Focus Hotel parking area. The lines traverse in a relative north/south direction. The lines (in plan dimension) are approximately 120 to 140 feet in distance from the western façade of the Project, and approximately 180 feet from the southwestern corner of the proposed building. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-3 The hill containing the “‘South San Francisco The Industrial City”’ sign is visible to the northwest. The hill is known locally, as “Sign Hill” and is listed as a National Historic Resource. Buildings along West Harris are one to three story structures. Denser development patterns such as the Embassy Suites Hotel and R&D and office buildings located on Gateway Boulevard can be seen from the Project area. These buildings are two to eight stories in height. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO South San Francisco’s urban character is one of contrasts within a visually well defined setting. San Bruno Mountain to the north, the ridge along Skyline Boulevard to the west, 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 like fashion by hills on two sides. The City’s terrain ranges from the flatlands along the water to hills east and north. Hills are visible from all parts of the City, and Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain in the distance are visual landmarks. Much of the City’s topography is rolling, resulting in distant views from many neighborhoods. Geographically, the City is relatively small, extending approximately two miles in a north-south direction and about five miles from east to west. South San Francisco’s industrial roots are reflected in its urban character, especially in its eastern parts. EAST OF 101 AREA Land uses in the East of 101 Area have witnessed a change in land use over the years. The East of 101 area was part of the first industrial development in South San Francisco about 100 years ago. Since then, the area has undergone many transformations. Pioneering industrial uses, such as steel manufacturing, and meat packaging gave way to industrial parks, 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 (R&D) in the 1980s marks the third major wave of land use change in the area. The Downtown Station Area Plan, if adopted, will usher in a new wave of land uses in the East of 101 Area south of Grand Avenue, as noted in the Project Description, Chapter 2. The Project site is approximately 100 feet from the southeastern edge of the Draft Downtown Station Area Plan area in what is identified as the “Eastern Neighborhood” (See Figure 2 Draft Downtown Station Area Plan and Project Location in Chapter 2). The Eastern Neighborhood would experience land use changes from Industrial to R&D if the Plan is adopted. Abandoned rail spurs and the Colma Creek channel would be designated open space. Land currently designated as Business Commercial, Mixed Industrial and Auto-Oriented Commercial would become Office R&D. PROPOSED PROJECT The Applicant proposes a 128 room limited-service hotel. The hotel would include an indoor swimming pool and breakfast area. All parking would be on surface in front of the building and along the south side and west side property lines. Two shuttle vans and 93 surface parking spaces are proposed. Site access would be via two 30 foot wide two-way driveways along the south and north property lines. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-4 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis The Project proposes a 1.02 floor area ratio (FAR). The building would be 63 feet in height and setback approximately 50 feet from the southern property line; 20 feet from the northern; 45 from the western; and 65 to 75 from the eastern property lines. Landscaping would include 57 trees consisting of Raywood Ash, Flowering Gum Eucalyptus, Date Palm, Mexican Fan Palm, Mediterranean Fan Palm and Cajeput trees. Additional landscaping includes seven varieties of shrubs and four varieties of groundcover and various placements of boulders to appear as rock outcroppings. Bioswales and retention areas are proposed on the north, east, and southern property lines. The front elevation (toward West Harris Avenue) would include more detailed landscaping framing the building and the entry walkway. The Raywood Ash trees may be replaced with London Plane Trees, Platanus acerifolia ‘Columbia’ or Ginkgo biloba trees as recommended by the Design Review Board and noted in Chapter 2 Project Description. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK SAN MATEO COUNTY Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (ALUP) The South San Francisco General Plan refers to the ALUP maximum height limits for structures within the San Francisco International Airport impact zone. The maximum permitted height for the Project is 150 feet.1 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 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 regulates signage, site layout, architecture, urban design and lighting. General Plan Scenic vistas and corridors are identified in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project site is identified as a site that is visible from at least one viewpoint (Figure 2-4 Viewshed, South San Francisco General Plan, page 36 and General Plan Background Report). 1 Mr. Billy Gross of the South San Francisco Planning Division downloaded the height regulations for this initial study. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-5 East of 101 Area Plan Design Element In 1995, the East of 101 Area Plan established goals and policies for the East of 101 Area. The stated goals of the Area Plan’s design concept are to promote quality design, to promote a functional, safe and attractive environment, preserve the character of South San Francisco’s heritage, protect public investment and land values, protect the natural environment, and facilitate evaluation of individual development proposals through the use of the Area Plan’s design guidelines. IMPACTS a) Scenic Vistas Significance Criteria: For the purpose of assessing impacts of a proposed project on scenic vistas, the threshold of significance is exceeded when a project would result in the obstruction of a designated public vista, or in the placement of an arguably offensive or negative-appearing project within such a vista. Any clear conflict with a general plan policy or other adopted planning policy regarding scenic vistas would also be considered a potentially significant adverse environmental impact. The Project 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 West Harris area does have views of Sign Hill. The Project site is undeveloped which provides unobstructed views of Sign Hill. The proposed building setbacks at approximately 50 feet from the southern property line; 20 feet from the northern; 45 from the western; and 65 to 75 from the eastern property lines would provide view corridors to Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain. The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to scenic vistas. b) Scenic Resources and Scenic Routes Significance Criteria: For the purposes of assessing impacts of the Project on scenic resources, the threshold of significance is exceeded by any Project-related action that would substantially damage scenic resources (i.e., trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state [or local] scenic highway). There are no state or local scenic highways within the Project area. Additionally there are no rock outcroppings, trees or historic buildings within the Project area or on the Project site. Therefore by default there are no scenic resources or scenic route impacts associated with the Project as defined by the significance criteria. Project would not be visible from a state or local scenic highway. The Project site does not contain historic buildings, trees or significant rock outcroppings. The view of Sign Hill is addressed above in a, and as noted the building setbacks would allow views of Sign Hill. The Project would have no impact on scenic resources. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-6 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis c) Visual Character Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The Project would be located in an area which is largely industrial. The property is fenced, and notwithstanding the locked gate, trespassers have managed to dump refuse on the site. The goals of the City are to provide visitor serving uses on the site and within the Project area. The Project would construct a building and house a use that is consistent with the City’s general plan. The landscaping proposed is consistent with the East of 101 Area Plan Design Guidelines to include street trees, enhance entryways, and provide visual interest. The building would be articulated, banded, and accentuated with arbor elements. The proposed landscaping and curvilinear entry would successfully enhance the entrance to the hotel. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on visual character or the quality of the site or its surroundings. d) Light or Glare Significance Criteria: 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 Project site is a built-out suburban area that is undergoing land use changes from industrial to R&D, retail and visitor serving lodging. The Project is not in an undeveloped area but within a mile of San Francisco International Airport and 850 feet of U.S. 101. Parking lot and building lighting would be downcast and task oriented as required by the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) and described in Chapter 1 Introduction. As required to be constructed per law, the Project would not substantially increase of light in the area and would not produce glare. The Project would have a less than significant impact on light and glare impacts. Finding: The Project would not have an impact on the aesthetics or scenic quality on the site or in the area. The proposed building setbacks would provide a view corridor to Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain. The Project would construct a building and house a use that is consistent with the City’s general plan. The landscaping proposed is consistent with the East of 101 Area Plan Design Guidelines to include street trees, enhance entryways, and provide visual interest. The building would be articulated, banded, and accentuated with arbor elements. The proposed landscaping and curvilinear entry would successfully enhance the entrance to the hotel. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on visual character or the quality of the site or its surroundings. There would be no individual or cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetic, visual quality or light and glare associated with the Project. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-7 SETTING The Project site is vacant and covered with invasive and native grasses and shrubs. No trees are on the site. The site is relatively flat, with a slight surface gradient towards the east. Evidence of illegal dumping is present on the site. The 64,117 square foot (1.47 acre) site is approximately 13 feet above mean sea level. Historical information indicates that the site and surrounding area 3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory 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. a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or 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))? X d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X e) Involve other changes in the existing environment 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 use? X Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-8 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis were submerged swamp land from the late 1890s to the early 1950s. The site has never been developed. Periodically the site was used for parking. IMPACTS a, b and e) Farmland Impacts Significance Criteria: 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 Act 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 Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The Project site is not in Williamson Act 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 Significance Criteria: A significant impact would result in a conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in the Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104 (g)) or result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The site is not zoned for timberland production or in use as such, or in proximity to such a use. Use of the site for airport-related parking 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 section 51104(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 site has never been developed and until the early 1950s was submerged swamp land. The Project would not adversely affect any existing agricultural operations as none exist on the site. The Project would not impact agricultural resources individually or cumulatively and does not contain any Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) nor land in a Williamson Act 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 section 51104(g)). Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-9 3.3 AIR QUALITY Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X SETTING METHODOLOGY This air quality analysis was performed using methodologies and assumptions recommended within the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (dated June 2010, updated in May 2011, and revised in May 2012).2 This section describes existing air quality and air pollutant construction and operational impacts. Air Quality Conditions of Approval (as described in Chapter 1, Section 1.5.2) that are required to be 2 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 CEQA when it adopted the thresholds. The court found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under CEQA and ordered the Air District to examine whether the thresholds would have a significant impact on the environment under CEQA 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 CEQA. The court’s order permits the Air District to develop and disseminate these CEQA Guidelines, as long as they do not implement the thresholds of significance. Although the BAAQMD’s adoption of significance thresholds for air quality analysis has been subject to judicial actions, the City of South San Francisco has determined that BAAQMD’s Revised Draft Options and Justification Report (October 2009), provide substantial evidence to support the BAAQMD recommended thresholds. Therefore, the City of South San Francisco has determined the BAAQMD recommended thresholds are appropriate for use in this analysis. California’s First District Court of Appeal issued a decision in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Case No. A134335, August 13, 2013), laying the groundwork for the reinstatement of the BAAQMD’s air quality thresholds, including for greenhouse gas emissions and toxic air contaminants. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-10 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis implemented as part of the Project pursuant to the City of South San Francisco’s project review process are also addressed. Analyzed air quality pollutants include: carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic compounds (ROG), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), particulate matter equal to or less than 10 micrometers (coarse particulates or PM 10 ), and particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 micrometers (fine particulates or PM 2.5 ). Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is also a concern with regard to health risk assessment. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are addressed within Section 3.4. CLIMATE The peninsula region of the Bay Area Air Basin (Bay 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 south end, and gradually decreasing to an elevation of 500 feet in South San Francisco, where it terminates. San Francisco is at the north end of the peninsula and because most of the topography of San Francisco is less than 200 feet, the marine layer is able to flow across most of the city, making its climate relatively cool and windy.3 However, the area of South San Francisco and San Francisco International Airport (SFO) experience lower winds and a greater frequency of calm winds, especially during the nighttime and cooler season, due to sheltering effect of terrain to the west. Meteorological data collected at the SFO, which is approximately two miles south of the Project site, are representative of general project conditions. Average maximum and minimum winter (i.e., January) temperatures at SFO are 56 and 42 ºF, respectively, while average summer (i.e., July) maximum and minimum temperatures are 72 and 54 ºF, respectively. Precipitation at SFO averages approximately 20 inches per year. 4 Annual average wind speeds range from five 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 topographic features. That is, a few hundred feet rise in elevation will induce flow around that feature instead of over it during stable atmospheric conditions. This can change the wind pattern by as much as 90 degrees over short distances. On mornings without a strong pressure gradient, areas on the east side of the peninsula often experience eastern flow in the surface layer, 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.5 3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. October 4, 2010, Bay Area Climatology – Peninsula http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Communications-and-Outreach/Air-Quality-in-the-Bay-Area/Bay-Area- Climatology/Subregions/Peninsula.aspx. 4 Western Regional Climate Center, Local Climate Data Summaries for San Francisco International Airport, California. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/clilcd.pl?ca23234. 5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. October 4, 2010, Bay Area Climatology – Peninsula http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Communications-and-Outreach/Air-Quality-in-the-Bay-Area/Bay-Area- Climatology/Subregions/Peninsula.aspx. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-11 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS People within the general population that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution 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 usually stay home for extended periods of time, which results in greater exposure to localized air pollutants. The Project is located in the East of 101 Planning Area, south of East Grand Avenue and north of Mitchell Avenue. San Francisco International Airport is approximately 0.8 miles south of the site. The Colma Creek channel is approximately 250 feet south and U.S. 101 is approximately 850 feet west of the site. Mitchell Avenue provides access to West Harris Avenue. Gateway Boulevard to the west and Harbor Way to the east provide access to Mitchell Avenue. BAAQMD considers the relevant zone of influence for an assessment of air quality health risks to be those areas within 1,000 feet of the Project impact area. The adjacent properties are commercial land uses along Gateway Boulevard and Mitchell Avenue. The nearest residential land uses are approximately 1,800 feet to the northwest (west of US 101). The Early Years Preschool, Old Souls Catholic School, and Spruce Elementary School are located 3,700 feet to the northeast, 4,200 feet to the northwest, and 4,790 feet to the northwest of the Project site, respectively. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK CRITERIA POLLUTANTS The BAAQMD monitors and regulates air quality pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, as amended, and the California Clean Air Act. The BAAQMD adopts and enforces controls on stationary sources of air pollutants through its permit and inspection programs. Other BAAQMD responsibilities include monitoring air quality, preparation of clean air plans, and responding to citizen air quality complaints. The BAAQMD has also published CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the Bay Area. CURRENT AIR QUALITY The BAAQMD 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 PM 10 and PM 2.5 , CO, NO 2 , and SO 2 . Air Quality Table 1 summarizes the most recent three years of data published by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for the San Francisco, Arkansas Street air monitoring station, which is approximately eight miles to the north of the Project site. The federal 24-hour PM 2.5 standard was exceeded twice in 2011. The State 24-hour PM 10 standard and federal 24-hour PM 2.5 standard were each exceeded once in 2012. The federal 1-hour nitrogen dioxide standard Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-12 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis was exceeded once in 2012. The federal 24-hour PM 2.5 standard was exceeded twice in 2013. No other State or federal air quality standards were exceeded during the three year period. Notably, the Bay Area is currently designated “nonattainment” for state and national (1-hour and 8-hour) ozone standards, for the state PM 10 standards, and for state and national (annual average and 24-hour) PM 2.5 standards. The Bay Area is designated “attainment” or “unclassified” with respect to the other ambient air quality standards. AIR QUALITY TABLE 1 AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY SAN FRANCISCO, ARKANSAS STREET, CA, 2011 – 2013 Pollutant Standard Days Standard Exceeded 2011 2012 2013 Ozone State 1–Hour 0 0 0 Ozone Federal 8–Hour 0 0 0 Ozone State 8–Hour 0 0 0 PM 10 Federal 24–Hour 0 0 0 PM 10 State 24–Hour 0 1 0 PM 2.5 Federal 24–Hour 2 1 2 Carbon Monoxide State/Federal 8–Hour 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide State 1–Hour 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide Federal 1–Hour 0 1 0 Sulfur Dioxide State 24-Hour 0 0 0 Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summaries, http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Communications-and-Outreach/Air-Quality-in-the-Bay-Area/Air-Quality- Summaries.aspx, 2014. IMPACTS a) Conflicts with the Current Air Quality Plan Significance Criteria: Any project that would not support the goals of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan (Bay Area CAP) would not be considered consistent with the 2010 Bay Area CAP. On September 15, 2010, the BAAQMD adopted the 2010 Bay Area CAP. The 2010 Bay Area CAP updates the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) 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 establish 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: o Attain air quality standards; o Reduce population exposure and protect public health in the Bay Area; and o Reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-13 The recommended measure for determining Project support of these goals is consistency with BAAQMD-approved CEQA thresholds of significance. Therefore, if approval of a project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts after the application of all feasible mitigation, the Project would be considered consistent with the 2010 Bay Area CAP. The Project would not result in a significant and unavoidable impact, as shown in the Air Quality Checklist Table 3.3, above, Greenhouse Gas Checklist in Section 3.4, below and the entirety of this analysis in particular b and c, directly below. Therefore as defined by the BAAQMD’s significance criteria the Project would be consistent with the 2010 Bay Area CAP, and thus, the impact is less than significant. b and c) Violation of Standards and a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would exceed BAAQMD’s construction and/or operational mass emission thresholds for exhaust emissions and/or if appropriate air pollutant control measures are not implemented. The significance thresholds are designated to assess whether the Project would potentially violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Projects with impacts less than the significance thresholds with implementation of mitigation measures are presumed to not violate air quality standards. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality 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. Air quality impacts are associated with both construction and operation of a project. BAAQMD rules and regulations govern certain aspects of the construction phase of projects. BAAQMD 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, fugitive dust, and paving materials. Project construction and operation impacts are discussed within the following sections. Construction Related Impacts The Project site is 1.47 acres and the hotel would be 128 rooms. The 65,136 square foot hotel would be five stories in height and include 93 onsite parking spaces. Construction activities are assumed to require approximately 16 months to completion during 2015-16. Chapter 2 Project Description provides further information on Project phasing and construction characteristics. Project construction would generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including fugitive dust and equipment exhaust emissions. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend quantification of construction-related exhaust emissions and comparison of those emissions to significance thresholds. Therefore, this analysis includes quantification of construction emissions and comparison of the emissions to the BAAQMD’s construction significance thresholds. The CalEEMod (California Emissions Estimator Model version 2013.2.2) was used to quantify Project construction emissions of criteria pollutants (see Appendix A 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 BAAQMD’s thresholds for Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-14 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis construction exhaust emissions. As the construction phases (i.e., grading, building construction, paving, etc.) are sequential, the average daily construction period emissions were compared to the BAAQMD significance thresholds. All construction-related emissions would be below the BAAQMD significance thresholds. AIR QUALITY TABLE 2 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS (pounds per day) Emission Sources ROG NOx PM 10 PM 2.5 CO Construction 6.5 29.8 7.3 4.3 22.9 Significance Thresholds 54 54 82 54 --- Significant Impact? No No No No No Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all emission assumptions. BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provides a number of Construction Mitigation Measures (related to fugitive dust and exhaust emissions) for construction 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, as required by the BAAQMD and implemented through the City Building Division. All construction emissions would be below the BAAQMD 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 City requires by law. Operational Impacts The CalEEMod was also used to estimate emissions that would be associated with space heating, water heating, and landscape maintenance emissions expected to occur due to the implementation of the Project. Operational emissions associated with motor vehicles from employees, customers, and deliveries were also estimated. 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 BAAQMD’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. AIR QUALITY TABLE 3 PROJECT DAILY OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS (pounds per day) Emission Category ROG NOx PM 10 PM 2.5 CO Area 1.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Energy 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.6 Mobile 3.4 5.8 4.3 1.2 32.6 Total Project 5.1 6.5 4.4 1.3 33.2 Significance Thresholds 54 54 82 54 --- Significant Impact? No No No No No Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all emission assumptions. Values reflect rounding. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-15 AIR QUALITY TABLE 4 PROJECT ANNUAL OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS (tons per year) Emission Category ROG NOx PM 10 PM 2.5 CO Area 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Energy <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 Mobile 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.2 5.3 Total Project 0.9 1.1 0.7 0.2 5.4 Significance Thresholds 10 10 15 10 --- Significant Impact? No No No No No Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all emission assumptions. Values reflect rounding. The BAAQMD has identified preliminary screening criteria for determining whether CO emissions would be exceeded. The screening criteria provide a conservative indication of whether the implementation of the Project would result in CO emissions that are potentially significant. This methodology includes the following: 1. 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. 2. The Project traffic would increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per day. 3. The Project traffic would increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per day 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 Project would be 65,136 gross square feet in area. The daily traffic volumes would be 1,152 (Crane Transportation Group, September, 2014). Vehicular access to the site would not include going through any tunnels, parking garages, underpasses or natural or urban street canyons. The Project traffic would not cause the daily traffic volumes to exceed the screening criteria shown in items 1 through 3 based on the circulation infrastructure and the projected traffic volumes. Therefore, impacts that would be associated with long-term operational CO exhaust emissions would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend that cumulative air quality effects from criteria air pollutants also be addressed by comparison to the BAAQMD’s mass daily and annual significance thresholds. As shown 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). Therefore, the Project would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-16 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis d) Impacts to Sensitive Receptors Significance Criteria: The significance of impact to sensitive receptors is dependent on the chance of contracting cancer from exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as DPM or of having adverse health effects from exposure to non-carcinogenic TACs. A project is considered to be significant if the incremental cancer risk at a receptor exceeds 10 in a million. For cumulative analysis of cancer risk, BAAQMD recommends that the risks from all sources within a 1,000 foot radius of the Project’s impact area (i.e., centered at the maximum exposed residence located to the northwest of the Project) 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 in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. For cumulative analysis of non-cancer hazard index, BAAQMD requires that the hazards from all sources within a 1,000 foot radius of the Project’s impact area be assessed and compared to a cumulative hazard index threshold of 10. Emissions of PM 2.5 are associated with health risks. The BAAQMD has established a separate significance threshold for PM 2.5 to protect public health. For individual projects, the BAAQMD significant threshold for PM 2.5 impacts is an average annual increase of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). For cumulative analysis, BAAQMD recommends that the PM 2.5 concentrations from all sources within a 1,000 foot radius of the Project’s impact area be assessed and compared to a cumulative threshold of an average annual increase of 0.8 µg/m3. Cancer Risk Cancer risk is defined as the lifetime probability 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 HRA guidelines established by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and BAAQMD’s Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines, incremental cancer risks were calculated by applying toxicity factors to modeled TAC concentrations in order to determine the inhalation dose (milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day [mg/kg-day]). See Appendix A for details. Construction Related Impacts As a result of construction activities (with implementation of the measures the City requires by law), the maximum cancer risk for a residential-adult receptor would be 0.02 per million and for a residential-child would be 0.20 per million (based on a 70-year annual average DPM concentration of 0.0023 µg/m3 per dispersion modeling analysis and risk exposure calculation methodologies within Appendix A). The maximum cancer risk for a school child receptor would be less than 0.01 per million. Thus, the cancer risk due to construction activities is below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per million and would be less than significant. Please see Appendix A for details on dispersion modeling and health risk assessment assumptions and methodologies. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-17 Operational Related Impacts The maximum cancer risks from the Project operations would be less than 0.01 per million for all receptors with implementation of the measures the City requires by law. Thus, the health impacts from Project operations would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per million and less than significant. Non-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 by OEHHA based on epidemiological research. 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. The impact is considered to be significant if the overall HI for the highest-impacted organ system is greater than 1.0. The chronic reference exposure level for DPM was established by the California OEHHA 6 as 5 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). Thus, the Project-related annual concentration of DPM cannot exceed 5.0 µg/m3; resulting in a chronic acute HI of greater than 1.0 (i.e., DPM annual concentration/5.0 µg/m3). There is no acute REL for DPM. However, diesel exhaust does contain acrolein and other compounds, which do have an acute REL. Based on BAAQMD’s DPM speciation data, acrolein emissions are approximately 1.3 percent of the total DPM emissions. The acute REL for acrolein was established by the California OEHHA7 as 2.5 µg/m3. Thus, the Project-related 1-hour concentration of acrolein cannot exceed 2.5 µg/m3; resulting in an acute HI of greater than 1.0 (i.e., acrolein 1-hour concentration/2.5 µg/m3). Please see Appendix A for details on dispersion modeling and health risk assessment assumptions and methodologies. The chronic HI would be less than 0.01, based on a project-related maximum annual diesel concentration of 0.006 µg/m3 (per dispersion modeling analysis) or 0.006 µg/m3/5.0 µg/m3, which is less than 0.01. The chronic HI would be well below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than significant. The acute HI would be 0.03, based on a project-related maximum 1-hour diesel concentration of 5.14 µg/m3 (per dispersion modeling analysis) and acrolein speciation of 1.3 percent for DPM or 5.14 µg/m3/2.5 µg/m3 times 1.3 percent (acrolein per DPM), which is 0.03. The acute HI would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than significant. 6 California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment - Acute, 8-hour, and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels, June 2014, http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html 7 California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment - Acute, 8-hour, and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels, June 2014, http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-18 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis PM2.5 Concentration Dispersion modeling was also used to estimate exposure of sensitive receptors to Project-related concentrations of PM 2.5 . Because emissions of PM 2.5 are associated with health risks, the BAAQMD has established a separate significance threshold to protect public health. For individual projects, the BAAQMD significant threshold for PM 2.5 impacts is an average annual increase of 0.3 µg/m3. The BAAQMD guidance requires inclusion of PM 2.5 exhaust emissions only in this analysis (i.e., fugitive dust emissions are addressed under BAAQMD dust control measures and are required by law to be implemented into Project construction, see Introduction, Chapter 1, Section 1.5.2). The maximum annual PM 2.5 concentration as a result of Project construction would be 0.01 µg/m3. The annual PM 2.5 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 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 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 analysis), then adding the health risks of 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 Bay Area, and has developed the Stationary Source Risk & Hazard Analysis Tool (dated May, 2012) for estimating cumulative health risks from permitted sources. Nine permitted sources are located within 1,000 feet of the Project. BAAQMD has also developed a geo-referenced database of roadways throughout the San Francisco Bay Area and has developed the Highway Screening Analysis Tool (dated May, 2011) for estimating cumulative health risks from roadways. US 101 is included in this database and is within 1,000 feet of the Project. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines also require the inclusion of surface streets within 1,000 feet of the Project with annual average daily traffic (AADT) of 10,000 or greater. Upon review of nearby roadways, Airport Boulevard meets the criteria. 8 Air Quality Table 5 lists the BAAQMD-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 PM 2.5 concentrations (in µg/m3) associated with these facilities (developed by BAAQMD), 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 8 BAAQMD County Surface Street Screening Tables, May 2011 and CEHTP Traffic Linkage Service Demonstration, http://www.ehib.org/traffic_tool.jsp with coordinates of -122.403841 longitude and 37.650199 latitude. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-19 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 Site # Facility Type Address Cancer Risk Hazard Impact PM 2.5 Concentration 15132 NOD Autobody 206 Baden Ave - 0.01 - 15764 Autobahn Specialties 33 Linden Ave - - - 16753 E+S Ahuactzin Autobody 303 Commercial Ave - - - 4316 Wright Cleaners 316 Grand Ave 3.43 0.01 - G9214 Unocal Grand Mateo 221 Airport Blvd 0.40 <0.01 - G10695 South City Shell 123 Linden Ave 0.29 <0.01 - 16311 First Class Pupu's Autobody 136 Linden Ave - - - 11618 Carrera Autobody 99 Linden Ave - <0.01 - 18877 SSF Water Quality 27 South Linden Ave 1.53 <0.01 <0.01 Permitted Sources Total 5.65 0.02 <0.01 US 101 11.9 0.01 0.11 Airport Blvd 2.95 0.01 0.11 Project (adult/children) 0.02/0.20 0.03 0.01 Grand Total 20.5/20. 7 0.07 0.24 Significance Thresholds 100 10 0.8 Significant Impact? No No No e) Odor Impacts Significance Criteria: The BAAQMD’s significance criteria for odors are more subjective and are based on the number of odor complaints generated by a project. Generally, the BAAQMD 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 farther than the applicable BAAQMD-established screening distances from an existing receptor or odor source, respectively, would not likely result in a significant odor impact. An odor source with five 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, chemical 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. Therefore, odor impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project would be less than significant. Finding: 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, PM 10 , and PM 2.5 ). The City’s building permit procedure captures the BAAQMD permitting regulations, as well as BAAQMD’s recommended emission control measures. The Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-20 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Project would not result in exceeding any Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines significance criteria. The Project would not introduce objectionable odors to the area. 3.4 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? X b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? X SETTING BACKGROUND AND DEFINITIONS 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 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), and nitrous oxide (N 2 O), ozone, and water vapor. While the presence of the primary GHGs in the atmosphere are naturally occurring, CO 2 , CH 4 , and N 2 O are also emitted from human activities, accelerating the rate at which these compounds occur within earth’s atmosphere. Emissions of CO 2 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 typically reported in “carbon dioxide-equivalent” measures (CO 2 e).9 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 days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years. Secondary effects are likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity.10 9 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. 10 2006 Final Climate Action Team Report to the Governor and Legislature, April 3, 2005, http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006report/2006-04-03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-21 CARB estimated that in 2011 California produced 459 million gross metric tons of CO 2 e (MMTCO 2 e).11 CARB found the transportation sector is the largest source of emissions, accounting for approximately 37 percent of the total emissions. On-road vehicles accounted for more than 90 percent of emissions in the transportation sector. Transportation related GHG emissions have dropped 11 percent since 2006. The industrial sector accounted for approximately 22 percent of the total emissions. Emissions from electricity generation were about 21 percent of total emissions, with higher contribution from in-state than from imported electricity.12 In the San Francisco Bay Area, 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 two largest sources of GHG emissions, each accounting for approximately 36 percent of the San Francisco Bay Area’s 95.8 MMTCO 2 e emitted in 2007.13 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.14 The City of South San Francisco published a community-wide GHG emissions inventory for the year of 2005.15 The inventory attributed the two largest sources of GHG emissions to transportation (34.9 percent) and to commercial/industrial (34.7 percent). The City of South San Francisco emitted approximately 560,414 metric tons of CO 2 e in 2005. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK California has increased focus on the need to control GHG emissions, to mitigate their effects and to prepare for adapting to the effects of global climate change. The following summarizes prominent regulations and initiatives in California that address global climate change and GHGs: o Senate Bill 1771 (Sher, Chapter 1018, Statutes of 2000), signed on September 30, 2000, established the creation of the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) as a non- profit organization. SB 1771 required the California Energy Commission (CEC) to update the state GHG emissions inventory and to develop data and information on climate change – and to provide certain entities and interest groups with information on the costs, technical feasibility, and demonstrated effectiveness of methods for reducing GHGs from in-state sources. SB 1771 required the inventory to be updated every five years. 11 California Air Resources Board (ARB), “California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2012— by Category as Defined in the Scoping Plan.” May 2014. Available Online at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/ghg_inventory_00- 12_report.pdf. 12 Ibid. 13 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Base Year 2007, Updated: February 2010. Available Online at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Emission%20Inventory/regionalinventory2007_2_10.a shx. 14 Ibid. 15 City of South San Francisco, 2005 Community-wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, January 2011. Available Online at: http://ca-southsanfrancisco.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/2472. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-22 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis o Senate Bill 527 (Sher, Chapter 769, Statutes of 2001), which amended SB 1771, was signed on October 11, 2001. The bill revised the functions and duties of the CCAR and required the CCAR, in coordination with the CEC to adopt third-party verification metrics, develop GHG emissions protocols and qualify third-party organizations to provide technical assistance and certification of emissions baselines and inventories. o Assembly Bill 32 (Núñez, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on September 27, 2006, required the CARB to lower GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020—a 25 percent reduction statewide, with mandatory caps for significant emissions sources. AB 32 directed CARB to develop discrete early actions to reduce GHG while also preparing a scoping plan (i.e., the Climate Change Scoping Plan) in order to identify how best to reach the 2020 limit. o Senate Bill 97 (Dutton, Chapter 187, Statutes of 2007), signed on August 24, 2007, directed the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop guidelines to mitigate GHG emissions identified through the CEQA review process, including the effects associated with transportation and energy consumption. As directed by SB 97, the Natural Resources Agency adopted Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for GHG on December 30, 2009. On February 16, 2010, the Office of Administrative Law approved the Amendments, and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. The Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines implementing SB 97 became effective on March 18, 2010. CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD 2008 SCOPING PLAN CARB’s Scoping Plan is California’s GHG reduction strategy to achieve the state’s GHG emissions reduction target established by AB 32, which is 1990 levels by year 2020. To estimate the reductions necessary, CARB projected statewide 2020 business-as-usual (BAU) GHG emissions and identified that the state as a whole would be required to reduce GHG emissions by 28.5 percent from year 2020 BAU to achieve the targets of AB 32. Since release of the 2008 Scoping Plan, CARB has updated the 2020 GHG BAU forecast to reflect GHG emissions in light of the economic downturn and measures not previously considered within the 2008 Scoping Plan baseline inventory. The revised BAU 2020 forecast shows that the state would have to reduce GHG emissions by 21.6 percent from BAU without emissions standards enacted under Assembly Bill 1493 (Pavley) and the 33 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) or 15.7 percent from the adjusted baseline (i.e., with Pavley and 33 percent RPS). Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS),16 California 16 On December 29, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued several rulings in the federal lawsuits challenging the LCFS. One of the court’s rulings preliminarily enjoins the CARB from enforcing the regulation during the pendency of the litigation. In January 2012, CARB appealed the decision and on April 23, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court granted CARB’s motion for a stay of the injunction while it continues to consider CARB’s appeal of the lower court’s decision. In a separate case, on July 15, 2013, the State of California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District issued its opinion in POET, LLC v. California Air Resources Board. The Court held that the LCFS would remain in effect and that the CARB can continue Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-23 Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, RPS, changes in the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, and other early action measures that would ensure the state is on target to achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals of AB 32. In addition, newly constructed buildings are required to comply with the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). The Project’s GHG emissions would be reduced by compliance with statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32. Therefore, the Project would not have the potential to interfere with the State of California's GHG reduction goals and strategies. CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE On January 12, 2010, the State Building Standards Commission unanimously adopted updates to the California Green Building Standards Code, which went into effect on January 1, 2011. New CALGreen standards were adopted and became effective January 14, 2014. CALGreen is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial and school buildings. CALGreen does not prevent a local jurisdiction from adopting a more stringent code as state law provides methods for local enhancements. CALGreen recognizes that many jurisdictions have developed existing construction and demolition ordinances, and defers to them as the ruling guidance provided they provide a minimum 50-percent diversion requirement. CALGreen also provides exemptions for areas not served by construction and demolition recycling infrastructure. State building code provides the minimum standard, which buildings are required to meet in order to be certified for occupancy. Enforcement is generally through the local building official. The development of CALGreen is intended to (1) cause a reduction in GHG emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the Governor. In short, CALGreen is established to reduce construction waste; make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy; and reduce environmental impacts during and after construction. CALGreen contains requirements for construction site selection, storm water control during construction, construction waste reduction, indoor water use reduction, material selection, natural resource conservation, site irrigation conservation, and more. CALGreen provides for design options allowing the designer to determine how best to achieve compliance for a given site or building condition. CALGreen also requires building commissioning, which is a process for verifying that all building systems, like heating and cooling equipment and lighting systems, are functioning at their maximum efficiency. The following provides examples of CALGreen requirements: o Designated Parking. Provide designated parking in commercial projects for any combination of low-emitting, fuel-efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles. to implement and enforce the 2013 regulatory standards while it corrects certain aspects of the procedures by which the LCFS was originally adopted. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-24 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis o Recycling by Occupants. Provide readily accessible areas that serve the entire building and are identified for the depositing, storage and collection of nonhazardous materials for recycling. o Construction Waste. A minimum 50-percent diversion of construction and demolition waste from landfills, increasing voluntarily to 65 and-75 percent for new homes and 80- percent for commercial projects. All (100 percent) of trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation and soils resulting from land clearing shall be reused or recycled. o Wastewater Reduction. Each building shall reduce the generation of wastewater by one of the following methods:  The installation of water-conserving fixtures or  Using nonpotable water systems. o Water Use Savings. 20-percent mandatory reduction in indoor water use with voluntary goal standards for 30, 35, and 40-percent reductions. o Water Meters. Separate water meters for buildings in excess of 50,000 square feet or buildings projected to consume more than 1,000 gallons per day. o Irrigation Efficiency. Moisture-sensing irrigation systems for larger landscaped areas. o Materials Pollution Control. Low-pollutant emitting interior finish materials such as paints, carpet, vinyl flooring, and particleboard. o Building Commissioning. Mandatory inspections of energy systems (i.e. heat furnace, air conditioner, mechanical equipment) for nonresidential buildings over 10,000 square feet to ensure that all are working at their maximum capacity according to their design efficiencies. CALIFORNIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), representing California's 35 local air districts, launched the CAPCOA Greenhouse Gas Reduction Exchange (GHG Rx).17 The Exchange provides a reliable, low-cost, secure platform to encourage locally generated, high quality GHG emission reduction credits that can be used to meet CEQA or other compliance requirements. The GHG Rx features locally generated and properly validated GHG emission reduction credits from voluntary projects within California and allow interaction between those who create the credits, potential buyers and funding organizations. 17 CAPCOA Greenhouse Gas Exchange, Available online at: http://xappprod.aqmd.gov/ghgrx Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-25 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT The BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for air quality regulation in the nine county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. As part of its role in air quality regulation, BAAQMD has prepared CEQA air quality guidelines to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality impacts of proposed projects and plans. The guidelines provide procedures for evaluating potential air quality impacts during the environmental review process consistent with CEQA requirements. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide CEQA thresholds of significance for operational GHG emissions from land use projects for the first time. The BAAQMD 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 CEQA Guidelines as well as BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and thresholds of significance have been incorporated into the analysis of potential GHG impacts associated with the Project. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN The City of South San Francisco prepared a Pedestrian Master Plan (PMP)18 and a Climate Action Plan (CAP).19 The City Council adopted the PMP and CAP on February 12, 2014. The CAP provides goals, policies, and programs to reduce GHG emissions, climate change adaptation and support the goals of AB 32 and SB 375. The PMP provides a community-wide plan providing for a network of sidewalks and paths to facilitate increased walking to local destinations. The PMP includes an inventory and assessment of the current pedestrian facilities, a gap analysis, to identify and prioritize needed improvements and provide goals, policies, and measurable implementation measures. A key focus area is the Downtown Area and residential neighborhoods. The CAP contains the following goals, measures, and actions to reduce GHG emissions (measures/actions of particular applicability to the Project): Goal LUT1: Reduce Emissions from Transportation. Measure 1.1: Expand active transportation alternatives by providing infrastructure and enhancing connectivity for bicycle and pedestrian access. Measure 1.2: Support expansion of public and private transit programs to reduce employee commutes. Measure 1.3: Integrate higher-density development and mixed-use development near transit facilities and community facilities, and reduce dependence on autos through smart parking practices. Goal LUT2: Improve Vehicle Efficiency Measure 2.1: Expand the use of alternative-fuel vehicles. 18 City of South San Francisco, Pedestrian Master Plan, February 13, 2014. http://www.ssf.net/1531/Pedestrian-Master-Plan. 19 City of South San Francisco, Climate Action Plan, February 13, 2014. http://www.ssf.net/1803/Climate-Action-Plan. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-26 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Measure 2.2: Reduce emissions from off-road vehicle and equipment. Goal EE1: Increase Building Energy Efficiency Measure 3.1: Maximize energy efficiency in the built environment through standards and the plan review process. 1. Provide incentives to encourage new development to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards, such as expedited permitting and fee reductions, and promote utility- sponsored and statewide initiatives for energy efficiency in new construction and materials. 2. Encourage the use of CALGreen energy efficiency measures as preferred mitigation for CAP streamlining 3. Encourage the use of energy-efficient or smart-grid integrated appliances in new development. Measure 3.2: Support retrofits to existing residential structures. Measure 3.3: Encourage energy efficiency retrofits to the existing nonresidential building stock that reduce operating costs and increase industry competitiveness. Measure 3.4: Address heat island issues and expand the urban forest. 1. Encourage the use of high-albedo (reflective) surfaces and technologies, as identified in the CALGreen standards. 2. Continue to require tree planting in new development and encourage tree placement to maximize building shading. Measure 3.5: Promote energy information and sharing, and educate the community about energy-efficient behaviors and construction. Goal EE2: Increase Alternative Energy Options in South San Francisco Measure 4.1: Promote installation of alternative energy facilities 1. Require the construction of any new nonresidential conditioned space of 5,000 square feet or more, to comply with one of the following standards: a. Meet a minimum of 50 percent of modeled building electricity needs with on-site renewable energy sources. b. Participate in a power purchase agreement to offset a minimum of 50 percent of modeled building electricity use. c. Comply with CALGreen Tier 2 energy efficiency requirements to exceed mandatory energy efficiency requirements by 20 percent or more. 2. Require all new development to install conduit to accommodate wiring for solar. 3. Promote on-site renewable energy or distributed generation energy systems in new and existing and nonresidential projects. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-27 Measure 4.2: Reduce the cost of alternative energy installations. Measure 4.3: Support green industries. Goal W1: Reduce Waste Disposal Rates and Volumes Measure 5.1: Develop a waste reduction strategy to increase recycling and reuse of materials to achieve a 75 percent diversion of landfilled waste by 2020. 1. Continue to provide recycling and compost bins to all tenants. 2. Continue to enforce the existing construction and demolition recycling ordinance, requiring 100 percent of inert waste and 65 percent of non-inert waste to be recycled from all eligible projects. 3. Continue to establish new and innovative residential and commercial green waste recycling/composting services. Measure 5.2: Reduce landfill emissions. Goal WE1: Conserve Water Measure 6.1: Reduce water demand. 1. Continue to support implementation of the Urban Water Management Plan to reduce potable water use by 20 percent. 2. Revitalize implementation and enforcement of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance by undertaking the following: a. Establishing a variable-speed pump exchange for water features. b. Limiting turf area in commercial projects. c. Restricting hours of irrigation to occur between 3 am and two hours after sunrise. d. Installing irrigation controllers with rain sensors. e. Landscaping with native, water-efficient plants. f. Installing drip irrigation systems. g. Reducing impervious surfaces. Measure 6.2: Provide alternative water resources for irrigation. IMPACTS a) Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Significance Criteria: The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines identify a project specific threshold of either a brightline threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO 2 e per year or an efficiency threshold of 4.6 metric tons of CO 2 e per year per service population (i.e., the number of residents plus the number of employees associated with a new development) as resulting 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 CAP would have a less Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-28 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis than significant impact to global climate change. This analysis applies the 1,100 metric tons of CO 2 e per year or 4.6 metric tons of CO 2 e per year per service population significance criterion while also reviewing the goals, policies, and measures within the South San Francisco CAP. CalEEMod 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 vehicles. CalEEMod incorporates local energy emission factors and mitigation measures based on the CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures 20 and the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol.21 Estimated construction GHG emissions that would be associated with the Project are presented in GHG Emissions Table 2. The estimated construction GHG emissions are 271 metric tons. As indicated, 30-year amortized annual construction related GHG emissions would be 9 metric tons. Of note, there is no BAAQMD CEQA significance threshold for construction-related GHG emissions. The GHG construction impacts would be 271 metric tons (9 metric tons amortized over 30 years), which is less than the BAAQMD GHG operational threshold of 1,100 metric tons. GHG Emissions Table 2 also provides the estimated operational GHG emissions that would be associated with the Project. The GHG operational (plus construction) impacts would be 1,099 metric tons per year, which is below the BAAQMD threshold of 1,100 metric tons and thus, less than significant. With implementation of the CalGreen standards and consistency with South San Francisco Climate Action Plan, the GHG operational (plus construction) impacts would be 1,071 metric tons per year. 20 CAPCOA, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, August 2010, http://www.capcoa.org/wp- content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf 21 California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, May 2008, http://www.theclimateregistry.org/downloads/GRP.pdf Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-29 GHG EMISSIONS TABLE 2 PROJECT RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Emission Source GHG CO 2 e Metric Tons Per Year Construction (30-year amortized) 9 Operations Area Sources - Energy 306 Mobile 751 Solid Waste 32 Water 10 Total Emissions 1,099 Accounting for CalGreen Standard Reductions 28 Total Emissions with CalGreen & SSF CAP 1,071 BAAQMD Bright line Threshold 1,100 Potentially Significant? No Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all emission assumptions. b) Potential Conflicts with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation The City of South San Francisco has adopted a CAP regarding the reduction of GHG emissions. The City 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 and the goals, policies, and measures of the applicable CAP for reducing GHG emissions. The assumption is that AB 32 and the CAP will be successful in reducing GHG emissions and reducing the cumulative GHG emissions statewide by 2020. The City and State have taken these measures, because no project individually could have a major impact (either positively or negatively) on the global concentration of GHG. The Project has been reviewed relative to the AB 32 measures and South San Francisco CAP and it has been determined that the Project would not conflict with the goals of AB 32 and the applicable CAP. The principal State plan and policy adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions is AB 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Statewide plans and regulations such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles and the LCFS are being implemented at the statewide level, and compliance at the specific plan or project level is not addressed. Therefore, the Project does not conflict with these plans and regulations. The regulations, plans, and polices adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions that are directly applicable to the Project include Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings and the Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code. As previously discussed, the Project would be developed to exceed Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings by 15 percent and would be required to comply with Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code. Thus, the Project would be developed in compliance with the requirements of these regulations. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-30 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis In summary, the Project would not conflict with the plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. No impact would result and no mitigation is required. Finding: The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact with respect to GHG emissions. The Project would not conflict with the plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. No impact would result and no mitigation is required. 3.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? X c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? X d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? X Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-31 SETTING INTRODUCTION The biological assessment used to inform this section was prepared by Michael Marangio of Marangio Biological Consulting. The complete assessment is in Appendix A. The purpose of this biological resource assessment was to review a site proposed for development in sufficient detail to determine if the Project may affect threatened, endangered, or other sensitive animal or plant species as well as important habitats such as wetlands. The biological assessment provides information that is intended for use in environmental documents under CEQA review and for Federal review of permits such as Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permits. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project would include a five-story hotel building, anticipated to be approximately 13,000 square feet in plan area surrounded by asphalt and concrete pavements (geotechnical report by Terracon, 2014). The Project site is vacant. Due to the variable nature of the existing fill, which averages nine feet, the geotechnical report recommends that the fill materials within the footprint of the proposed building be removed to a minimum depth of three feet below the lowest foundation bearing level or five feet below existing site grades (whichever is deeper) and the excavation be thoroughly cleaned prior to backfill placement and/or construction (Terracon, 2014). REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Local, State, and federal regulations have been enacted to provide for the protection and management of sensitive biological and wetland resources. The following section outlines the key local, State, and federal regulations that apply to these resources. FEDERAL The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for protection of terrestrial and freshwater organisms through implementation of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has primary responsibility for protecting wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Corps also regulates navigable waters under Section 10 (33 U.S.C. 403) of the Rivers and Harbors Act. STATE The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is responsible for administration of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and for protection of streams and water bodies through the Streambed Alteration Agreement process under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. Certification from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is also required when a proposed activity may result in discharge into navigable waters, pursuant to Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-32 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Section 401 of the CWA and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The RWQCB also has jurisdiction over waters of the State not regulated by the Corps under the Porter-Cologne Act. The following discusses in more detail how State and federal regulations address special-status species, wetlands and other sensitive natural communities. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES Special-status species are plants and animals that are legally protected under the State and/or federal ESAs, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the California Fish and Game Code (sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, 3513, 3515, and 4700), or other regulations.22 In addition, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15380, special-status species also include other species that are considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to warrant special consideration, particularly with regard to protection of isolated populations, nesting or denning locations, communal roosts and other essential habitat. Species with legal protection under the federal and State ESAs often represent major constraints to development; particularly when they are wide ranging or highly sensitive to habitat disturbance and where proposed development would result in a take of these species. WETLANDS AND OTHER WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES Although definitions vary to some degree, wetlands are generally considered to be areas that are periodically or permanently inundated by surface or ground water, and support vegetation adapted to life in saturated soil. Wetlands are recognized as important features on a regional and national level due to their high inherent value to fish and wildlife, use as storage areas for storm and flood waters, and water recharge, filtration and purification functions. The CDFW, Corps, and RWQCB have jurisdiction over modifications to river banks, lakes, stream channels and other wetland features. Technical standards for delineating wetlands have been developed by the Corps and the USFWS, which generally define wetlands through consideration of three criteria: hydrology, soils and vegetation. The CWA was enacted to address water pollution, establishing regulations and permit requirements regarding construction activities that affect storm water, dredge and fill material operations, and water quality standards. The regulatory program requires that discharges to surface waters be controlled under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program which applies to sources of water runoff, private developments, and public facilities. 22 Special-status species include: designated (rare, threatened, or endangered) and candidate species for listing by the CDFW; designated (threatened or endangered) and candidate species for listing by the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries; species considered to be rare or endangered under the conditions of Section 15380 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, such as those identified on lists 1A, 1B, and 2 in the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (2001); and possibly other species which are considered sensitive due to limited distribution or lack of adequate information to permit listing or rejection for state or federal status, such as those included on list 3 in the CNPS Inventory or identified as “California Species of Special Concern (SSC)” by the CDFW. Species designated as a SSC have no legal protective status under the California Endangered Species Act but are of concern to the CDFW because of severe decline in breeding populations and other factors. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-33 Under Section 404 of the CWA, the Corps is responsible for regulating the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States. The term “waters” includes wetlands and non-wetland bodies of water that meet specific criteria as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations. All three of the identified technical criteria must be met for an area to be identified as a wetland under Corps jurisdiction, unless the area has been modified by human activity. In general, a permit must be obtained before fill can be placed in wetlands or other waters of the United States. The type of permit is determined by the Corps depending on the amount of acreage and the purpose of the proposed fill. Certain activities in wetlands or “other waters” are automatically authorized, or granted a nationwide permit which allows filling where impacts are considered minor. Eligibility for a nationwide permit simplifies the permit review process. Nationwide permits cover construction and fill of waters of the U.S. for a variety of routine activities such as minor road crossings, utility line crossings, streambank protection, recreational facilities and outfall structures. A project must demonstrate that it has no more than a minimal adverse effect on the aquatic ecosystem, including species listed under the ESA to qualify for a nationwide permit. Typically this means that there will be no net loss of either habitat acreage or habitat value, resulting in appropriate mitigation where fill activities are proposed. The Corps assumes discretionary approval over proposed projects where impacts are considered significant, requiring adequate mitigation and permit approval. To provide compliance with EPA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, an applicant must demonstrate that the proposed discharge is unavoidable and is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative that will achieve the overall project purpose. The 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between the EPA and Corps concerning the Determination of Mitigation under the Guidelines prioritizes mitigation, with the first priority to avoid impacts, the second to minimize impacts, and the third to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts. Jurisdictional authority of the CDFW over wetland areas is established under Section 1600 of the Fish and Wildlife Code, which pertains to activities that would disrupt the natural flow or alter the channel, bed, or bank of any lake, river, or stream. The Fish and Wildlife Code stipulates that it is unlawful to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake without notifying the CDFW, incorporating necessary mitigation, and obtaining a Streambed Alteration Agreement. The Wetlands Resources Policy of the CDFW states that the Fish and Wildlife Commission will strongly discourage development in or conversion of wetlands, unless, at a minimum, project mitigation assures there will be no net loss of either wetland habitat values or acreage. The CDFW is also responsible for commenting on projects requiring Corps permits under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958. In addition, the RWQCB is responsible for upholding state water quality standards. Pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, projects that apply for a Corps permit for discharge of dredge or fill material, and projects that qualify for a Nationwide Permit must obtain water quality certification from the RWQCB. The RWQCB is also responsible for regulating wetlands under the Porter- Cologne Act, which may include hydrologically isolated wetlands no longer regulated by the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Recent federal Supreme Court rulings have limited the limits of Corps jurisdiction, but the RWQCB in some cases continues to exercise jurisdiction over these features. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-34 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES Protecting habitat on an ecosystem-level is increasingly recognized as vital to the protection of natural diversity in the State, in addition to species-oriented management. Protecting habitat on an ecosystem-level is considered the most effective means of providing long-term protection of ecologically viable habitat, and can include whole watersheds, ecosystems and sensitive natural communities. Providing functional habitat connectivity between natural areas is essential to sustaining healthy wildlife populations and allowing for the continued dispersal of native plant and animal species. Although sensitive natural communities have no protected legal status under the State or federal Endangered Species Acts, they are provided some level of protection under CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines identify potential impacts on a sensitive natural community as one of six significance criteria. As an example, a discretionary project that is constructed on any riparian habitat, native grassland, valley oak woodland, or other sensitive natural community would normally be considered to have a significant effect on the environment. Further loss of a sensitive natural community could be interpreted as substantially diminishing habitat, depending on its relative abundance, quality and degree of past disturbance, and the anticipated impacts to the specific community type. Where determined to be significant under CEQA, the potential impact would require mitigation through avoidance, minimization of disturbance or loss, or some type of compensatory mitigation when unavoidable. LOCAL REGULATIONS Several policies in the City of South San Francisco General Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan pertain to the protection of sensitive biological and wetland resources. Following is a description of the key policy documents and regulations that are applicable to the site. City of South San Francisco General Plan The Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of South San Francisco General Plan contains a number of policies related to protection of sensitive biological and wetland resources that are applicable to the site. The following policies are excerpted from the City’s General Plan. o 7.1-G-1: Protect special status species and supporting habitats within South San Francisco, including species that are State or federally listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Rare. o 7.1-G-2: Protect and, where reasonable and feasible, restore salt marshes and wetlands. o 7.1-I-2: As part of the Park, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Master Plan update, institute an ongoing program to remove invasive plant species from ecologically sensitive areas, including Sign Hill Park, Colma Creek Linear Park, Bayfront Linear Park, and other City-owned open space, as depicted in Figure 7-1. o 7.1-I-3: As part of development approvals on sites that include ecologically sensitive habitat designated in Figure 7-2, require institution of an on-going program to remove and prevent the re-establishment of the invasive species and restore the native species. o 7.1-I-4: Require development on the wetlands delineated in figure 7-1 to complete assessments of biological resources. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-35 o 7.1-I-5: Work with private, non-profit conservation, and public groups to secure funding for wetland and marsh protection and restoration projects. East of 101 Area Plan The East of 101 Area Plan was adopted by the City of South San Francisco in July 1994. The Area Plan includes a Conservation Element that contains policies intended to protect and enhance natural resources in the East of 101 Area. The following policies relevant to the Project are excerpted from the East of 101 Area Plan: o Policy CON-1: Prior to construction of development projects on sensitive resource lands, the City shall require an applicant to conduct a formal wetlands delineation at the project site. The results of the wetlands delineation shall be made available to evaluate project specific impacts associated with sensitive habitats. o Policy CON-2: The City shall require that developments comply with all applicable State and federal laws and regulations regarding protection and replacement of wetlands. o Policy CON-4: The City shall take all feasible measures to preserve any sensitive plant and animal species that occur in the East of 101 Area. o Policy CON-5: Prior to receiving approval for construction activities or other disturbances on undeveloped land in the East of 101 Area project sponsors shall conduct environmental analyses to evaluate the site-specific status of sensitive plant and animal species. o Policy CON-6: If sensitive plant or animal species would be unavoidably affected by a proposed project the City shall require the project developer to implement appropriate mitigation measures. o Policy Con-7: New development adjacent to sensitive resource areas shall be required to incorporate the following measures into project design: o Shield lights to reduce off-site glare. o A buffer area of at least 100 feet in width shall be provided between known sensitive resources and development area. Encroachments into the 100-foot buffer area may be allowed on a case-by-case basis as follows: o Buildings which have a water oriented theme and which further the goals of allowing or encouraging public access to the Bay or inland waterways; o Development located adjacent to inland waterways; o Accessory parking from adjacent development; o Development on the “fingers’ portion of the planning area. Any encroachment into the 100-foot buffer must receive approval of the City, Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the California Department of Fish and Game,23 and shall only be permitted if supported by a site- specific biological assessment prepared by a qualified biologist. Mitigation measures 23 California Department of Fish and Game is now known as California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The City’s East of 101 Area Plan was drafted and adopted before the name change and this section is quoted directly from the East of 101 Area Plan. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-36 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis identified through the biological analysis shall be attached as conditions of any encroachment approvals. o Landscape all on-site buffer areas with native vegetation to screen habitat areas from adjacent land uses. o Restrict entry to habitat areas through devises such as fencing landscaping or signage. o Ensure that run-off from development does not adversely affect the biotic values of adjacent wetlands or other habitat areas. Municipal Code South San Francisco Municipal 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 other factor; or a stand of trees that the Director of Parks and Recreation has determined each tree is dependent on the others for survival. FIELD AND LITERATURE STUDY Special Status Species On the basis of a review of the California Natural Diversity Data Base report from the CDFW for the project area (CNDDB, 2014; CNPS, Rare Plant Program, 2014 California Native Plant Society, 2001)24 and general knowledge of special status species of plants and animals in the San Francisco Bay area, a list was developed of the potential special status plants and animals known from the vicinity of the Project (Appendix A Table A). All listed potential animal species such as fishes requiring permanent aquatic habitats were eliminated from further impact analysis since suitable aquatic habitat is not present on the project site. Plants and animals requiring marshlands were also eliminated from further analysis because such habitats are not present on the Project site. Additionally, special status plant species that are large shrubs or trees were also eliminated from further analysis since the site contains only low-growing herbaceous species. Field Survey A field survey was conducted on May 27, 2014. Site location and features were reviewed using local street maps, USGS 7.5 minute quad sheets (San Francisco South), and Google Earth maps. The Project site is situated adjacent to a hotel. Much of the nearby built environment consists of hotel and industrial and commercial/warehouse establishments with associated parking lots and connecting roadways and driveways. 24 Inventory of rare and endangered plants of California (sixth edition). CNPS. Sacramento. x + 388pp. CNPS, Rare Plant Program. 2014. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 31 May 2014 CNDDB, 2014. CDFG. California Natural Diversity Data Base overlay for San Francisco South 7.5 minute quadrangle. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-37 Approximately 250 feet to the south of the Project is the Colma Creek channel. The width of the tidal channel in this vicinity is about 50-60 feet, depending on rainfall and tides. The channel margins are vegetated with pickleweed and sea-blite (Suaeda fruticosa), indicating presence of brackish water. The upper elevations of the stream banks support native gumplant (Grindelia sp.) and many introduced weeds. A three to four-foot flood wall runs east-west along Mitchell Avenue, limiting potential movement of many terrestrial animal species to and from stream channel habitat. The Project site is generally flat except for several mounds of soil 2-3 feet high. The site is vegetated mainly with introduced grasses and weeds and would be designated as a mixture of Non-Native Annual Grassland and Ruderal (disturbed) habitats. Plants that were observed include non-native annual grasses such as wild-oat (Avena barbata) ), Mediteranean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum), pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata), annual fescue (Vulpia myuros), and ripgut brome (Bromus carinatus). Many additional introduced weeds and "escaped exotics" (garden horticultural plants) included English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), sea plantain (Plantago maritima), ice plant (Carpobrotus chilensis), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), cheeseweed (Malva sp.), Capeweed (Arctotheca calendula), Salsify (Tragopogon porrifolius), cotoneaster (Cotoneaster sp.), vetch (Vicia sp.), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), Aeonium (Aeonium sp.), clover (Trifolium sp.), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), redstem storksbill (Erodium cicutarium), deerweed (Acmiston glaber), pearly everlasting (Anaphalis margaritacea), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), and dock (Rumex sp.). Native plant species included Coyote Brush (Baccharis pilularis var. consanguinea), and California poppy (Eschscholtzia californica). Very little wildlife was seen on the Project site. Burrows of Botta pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) were seen scattered sparsely over the site. Several house finches (Carpodacus mexicanus) were seen foraging on the ground, and a Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) and an American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) were seen flying over nearby adjacent properties. Scat of Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) were seen scattered within the Project site. (The list of plants and animals is not intended to be an exhaustive census of the plants and animals at the Project site.) No ponded surface water or channels were observed on the Project site nor was there any evidence for the pooling of water over the winter rainy season. An area at the southeast corner of this fenced site has been paved with several inches of gravel. Portions of the site contained mounds of soil or rock, likely the remains of geotechnical test pits and test borings, or undocumented dumping of soil. According to a geotechnical report (Terracon, 2014), the site is covered with nine feet of undocumented fill materials comprised of clayey sand with gravel, cobbles, and boulders, approximately 12 to 42 inches in dimension. These materials were underlain by organic clays and silts to depths of approximately 20 to 25 feet below existing site grades.” Biological Impact Assessment Plants The Project site is highly disturbed. The site may have been marsh land in the past, but that habitat is now under at least nine feet of soil and rock. Historic aerials going back to 1993 (Google, 2014 and Terracon, 2014) indicate conversion of the marshland occurred before that Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-38 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis time. The plants that dominate the site consist mainly of introduced invasive annual plants, probably brought to the site in the soil that was dumped there or from nearby disturbed sites. A reconnaissance survey was conducted on May 28, 2014. No special status species of plants were observed and would not be expected because of the disturbed nature of the site. No sensitive plant species would be affected by the proposed project. Animals Observation of animals on the site was limited to several common birds including American Crow, Canada Goose, and House finch, all known to be adaptable to urban conditions. The dominance of introduced non-native annual plants limits the value of the habitat to only "generalist" species that can tolerate disturbed conditions and utilize common food sources. The Project site would be highly unlikely to support any special status as a result of the small size of the parcel (1.47acre), the soil disturbance, and the dominance of non-native annual plant species. Special species are generally "specialist" species that require certain plants for cover and food that are not present on the site. Birds would not be likely to nest at the site since important habitat requirements such as sources of water on the site do not exist, nor does nesting cover in the form of trees and shrubs. To provide a more thorough analysis, several wildlife species known within one to two miles of the Project or which are deemed to be potentially present in the Project vicinity are further discussed below. Burrowing Owl Burrowing owl (Athene cuniculata) is a State Species of Special Concern but has no protection under Federal laws except as a migratory bird. Burrowing owl is not known to be located in the general vicinity of the Project site. However, since they are often found in isolated and disturbed areas, this species was evaluated for potential habitat use of the Project site. Burrowing owls are usually associated with open, dry, perennial or annual grasslands and typically utilize burrows of other animals such as ground squirrels. This species is distributed over much of the state, but because of loss of habitat, its numbers are becoming much reduced. During the site reconnaissance, burrows were searched for that could be utilized by Burrowing owls. No sites were found. Most of the site contains grass and ruderal plants over 1.5 ft tall which are not preferred by this species. The site is therefore of very low value for Burrowing owls, and therefore, the species is not likely to use the site for roosting or nesting. There would be no impact to Burrowing owl as a result of Project construction or operation. California Clapper Rail The California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) is listed as Endangered by both the USFWS and CDFW. This species is found foraging in tidal marsh vegetation along brackish creeks, mudflats, and coastal areas. Suitable habitats are generally dominated by pickleweed and cordgrass. The nearest documented occurrence of the California clapper rail is located along the edge of San Francisco Bay and along the margins of Colma Creek where it flows into the Bay, which comes within 0.3 miles of the Project site. No suitable habitat is located on the Project site therefore clapper rails would not be expected to be present on the site. No significant impacts to this species would result from Project construction or operation. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-39 California red-legged frog The California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) (CRLF) is listed by the USFWS as Threatened and is classified by the CDFW as a Species of Special Concern. The CRLF breeds primarily in ponds, but will also breed in slow moving streams, or deep pools in intermittent streams and is seldom found in brackish waters. Inhabited ponds are typically permanent, at least two feet (0.6 meters) in depth, and contain emergent and shoreline vegetation. Sufficient pond depth and shoreline cover are both critical, because they provide means of escape from predators for the frogs. CNDDB (2014) documents the presence of this protected species about 1.5 miles south of the Project site. Since no aquatic habitat is present on the Project site, nor is any suitable aquatic habitat nearby, the site would not provide suitable aquatic or upland habitat for the frog. There would be no impacts to the CRLF as a result from the proposed Project construction or operation. The San Francisco forktail damselfly The San Francisco forktail damselfly, (Ishnura gemina), has no protection under Federal or State statutes but is very localized in urban areas. Several small populations have gone extinct since their discovery. A documented location (CNDDB 2014) indicates its presence 1.5 miles south of the Project site. Historically some populations have been extirpated due to urbanization and some habitat has naturally converted from small shallow ponds to dry pond beds. The species is associated with marshy aquatic habitat, none of which is present at the Project site. Therefore the Project would not have any significant impact on this species. IMPACTS a) Special-Status Species and Nesting Habitat Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant impact if were to result in a substantial adverse effect on special-status species, as identified in 3.5 Biological Resources a, above. The disturbed nature of the site that was caused by the placement of nine feet of fill soils, and the spread of invasive weed species to the site from outside and adjacent sources has resulted in the destruction of the original native vegetation, which probably consisted of tidal wetlands on saturated soils. The present vegetation has displaced the wetlands to non-native grassland and ruderal vegetation. The change in soil, hydrology, and spread of invasive weedy species that are competitive with native plants greatly reduces the potential for the presence of federal and state protected plants. The lack of native vegetative cover also greatly reduces the potential for the presence of federal and state protected animal life. In addition, the existing vegetation does not include any sensitive habitats. The Project would have no impact on special-species and nesting habitat. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-40 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis b) and c) Jurisdictional Habitat Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant impact if it were to substantially impact sensitive natural communities or jurisdictional wetlands and Waters of the U.S. as identified in Biological Resources 3.5 b-c, above. The Project site is vegetated with a mixture of herbaceous plant species that are predominantly introduced, non-native annual grasses and forbs. Generally, wetlands are legally defined as areas that are suitable for retention or flow of water, have soils that indicate the presence of water, and have plants that mostly require the presence of water. A formal protocol for wetland analysis was not done as part of this investigation. However, general observations revealed that the ground surface of the Project site was disturbed but no suitable basins or other depressions were noted where water would likely pool during the winter rainy season. Soils appeared in most places to be fill soil from outside the site consisting mainly of subsoils, as indicated by their light color. Geotechnical studies (Terracon, 2014) indicate that approximately nine feet of fill soils have been used to cover an area that was probably marshland before the construction of buildings and roads in this vicinity. In addition, no distinct vegetation that was dominated by water-loving plants was observed. No indication of the presence of federal or state-protected wetlands was observed. Jurisdictional authority of the CDFW over wetland areas, established under Section 1600 of the Fish and Wildlife Code does not apply for this site. Further wetland analysis regarding jurisdictional evaluation is not required. The Project would have no impact on any sensitive natural communities or jurisdictional wetlands. d) Native Fish and Wildlife Movement Opportunities and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites. Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Wildlife movements include migration (i.e., usually one way per season), inter-population movement (i.e., long-term genetic flow) and small travel pathways (i.e., daily movement within an animal’s territory). While small travel pathways usually facilitate movement for daily home range activities, such as foraging or escape from predators, they also provide connection between outlying populations and the main corridor, permitting an increase in gene flow among populations. These linkages among habitat types can extend for miles from primary habitat areas and occur on a large scale throughout California. Habitat linkages facilitate movement between populations located in small discrete areas and populations located within larger habitat areas. The mosaic of habitats found within a large-scale landscape results in wildlife populations that consist of discrete sub-populations comprising a large single population, which is often referred to as a meta-population. Even where patches of pristine habitat are fragmented, the movement between wildlife populations is facilitated through habitat linkages, migration corridors and movement corridors. Potentially low frequency genetic flow may lead to complete isolation and, if pressures are strong, potential extinction. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-41 The Project would result in the construction of a hotel on a 1.47 acre site surrounded by roadways, parking lots, and industrial and warehouse buildings. Although aquatic habitat and marsh vegetation is located within about 250 feet of the Project, other than for flying birds, there is functionally no connection between the non-native annual grassland/ruderal habitat on the Project site and the habitat associated with the Colma Creek channel. The presence of a 3-4 foot high flood wall between the creek and the Project site also inhibits movement of any wildlife that would attempt to utilize both sites except for an occasional raccoon or striped skunk, common animal species that would not be affected by construction of the Project. Therefore the project would have no impact on biological resources with regard to native wildlife movement opportunities or nursery sites. e) Local Policies and Ordinances Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. General Plan The Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of South San Francisco General Plan contains a number of policies related to protection of sensitive biological and wetland resources that are applicable to the site. These policies are implemented through the implementation of the biological assessment and this CEQA analysis. There are no biological or wetlands resources on the site. East of 101 Area Plan Policy CON-5 of the East of 101 Area Plan states: "Prior to receiving approval for construction activities or other disturbances on undeveloped land in the East of 101 Area, project sponsors shall conduct environmental analyses to evaluate the site-specific status of sensitive plant and animal species." The preparation of this report is consistent with this policy because a Biological Impact Assessment was prepared. The other policies of the plan would also be followed. Municipal Code Since there are no trees on the site, South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 covering "Protected Trees" will not need to be considered. There are no trees on the site that meet the City’s definition of protected tree, and no impacts are anticipated. Further, preparation of a biological assessment and analysis of potential impacts that the project may have on sensitive biological and wetlands resources is consistent with general plan and area plan policies. Therefore, the Project does no conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-42 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis f) Conflict with any Habitat Conservation Plan or Community Conservation Plan. Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to conflict with a habitat or community conservation plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan protecting biological resources. The Project site is not within a habitat conservation plan area and contains no habit suitable for conservation. The Project would not impact an adopted habitat conservation plan. Finding: After review of CNDDB reports and map overlays for the general Project area, and field evaluations of the site, the habitat was found to be highly disturbed and isolated from other areas containing sensitive habitat. As a result, the site is considered to be of very low value for plants and wildlife in general, and as well for sensitive species of plants and animals. No significant biological impacts would result from full development of the Project site. 3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X SETTING The 64,117 square foot (1.47 acre) site is approximately 13 feet above mean sea level. Historical information indicates that the site and surrounding area were submerged swamp land from the late 1890s to the early 1950s. The site has never been developed. The site is approximately 250 feet north of Colma Creek. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The 64,117 square foot (1.47 acre) site is approximately 13 feet above mean sea level. Historical information indicates that the site and surrounding area were submerged swamp land from the late 1890s to the early 1950s. The site has never been developed. The site is approximately 250 feet north of Colma Creek. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-43 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK CEQA 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. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California history and cultural heritage; B. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or, D. Has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. A lead agency does not have to rely solely on the above criterion and may determine the appropriateness of a potential resource based upon age. Commonly 50 years of age is used as a basis by which to consider a structure’s potential historic significance under which a more detailed and rigorous analysis 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). Archaeological resources are evaluated pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 Archaeological resources. If it is determined that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource the lead agency may require reasonable efforts to permit the resource to remain in situ. Plan construction to avoid the resource; deed the resource into a conservation easement; cap the resource with a layer of soil prior to building; and planning a park or open space to incorporate the resource are listed as appropriate measures in subsection (b). A mitigation plan is required if disturbance of the resource is not feasible (subsection (c)). Subsection (e) identifies not-to-exceed mitigation cost maximums for archaeological resources. IMPACTS a) Historic Resources Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5. There are no structures on the site. There are no historical resources or structures on the Project site. The Project would have no impact on historic resources. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-44 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis b - d) Archaeological Resources Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5, directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature, or disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries. The Project site is along historic Bay margins and 250 feet north of Colma Creek. Native Americans, over 5,000 years ago, typically settled along creek banks and the margins of San Francisco Bay. Archaeologist Miley Holman of Holman Associates states that the project area has a moderate possibility of containing cultural resources. Cultural resources have been located along the historic path of Colma Creek in South San Francisco, most notably closer to El Camino Real. The Project area has not been evaluated for cultural resources (telephone conversation Allison Knapp and Miley Holman, October 28, 2014). The Applicant is aware of this potential and has proposed as part of the Project to have an archaeologist on site during grading operations. As identified in Chapter 2 Project Description: A licensed archaeologist shall be on site during grading and pile drilling or driving to inspect site soils. Should site soils appear culturally significant, the archaeologist shall call a halt to grading operations in the potentially affected areas until the potential significance of the find is evaluated. A mitigation program to preserve the cultural resource in situ, remove and preserve in a museum or university, photograph and catalogue, or other method(s) deemed appropriate by the archaeologist if warranted, shall occur. The protocols of Public Resources Code Section 210832.2 and Section 15065.5(c)-(f), California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines) shall be followed, as appropriate. The Project would have a less than significant impact on archaeological or paleontological resources. Finding: There are no structures on the Project site. There is a moderate chance that cultural resources may be present on the site. The project plans state that an archaeologist shall be present during site grading and pile driving. The archaeologist would follow the protocols of Public Resources Code Section 210832.2 and Section 15065.5(c)-(f), California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines). The Project would have a less than significant impact on cultural resources. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-45 3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? X d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? X e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? X SETTING PROJECT SITE The Project site is undeveloped and according to historic records has never been developed. Moreover the site was submerged swamp land from the late 1890s to the early 1950s. The site is 13 feet above mean sea level. The site is the only parcel in the West Harris cul du sac that is undeveloped. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-46 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis The Project would construct a five story hotel. Supporting piles would be drilled or driven. Grading and export of soil is anticipated to be approximately 1,470 cubic yards. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL Chapter 1, Sections 4 and 5 outlines the City’s standard review process and conditions of project approval. The Engineering Division is requiring the following as conditions of Project approval (Mr. Andy Tam, Memorandum to Mr. Billy Gross, October 30, 2013) should the Project be approved. I. Standard Conditions The owner/applicant shall comply with the applicable conditions of approval for commercial projects, as detailed in the Engineering Division’s “Standard Conditions for Commercial and Industrial Developments”, contained in our “Standard Development Conditions” booklet, dated January 1998. This booklet is available at no cost to the applicant from the Engineering Division. II. Special Conditions A. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Division. The owner/applicant will be responsible for paying for all fees, bonds, plan checking and all associated fees for the grading permit. The owner/applicant will also place a cash deposit of $30,000 to pay for all onsite, SWPPP compliance, grading compliance and dust control inspections. B. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a geotechnical report shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division. The owner/applicant shall place a $5,000 cash deposit with the City for the peer review of the Geotechnical Report. C. The owner/applicant shall remove and replace any broken sidewalk fronting the project. The new sidewalk shall comply with the City standard detail and shall provide Caltrans standard handicap ramps. All work shall be done at no cost to the City. D. The owner/applicant shall provide the Engineering Division with a traffic study addressing egress/ingress to and from the site from intersection of Gateway Boulevard and West Harris Avenue. E. The drive aisles onsite shall be a minimum of 25’ wide. There are areas on the plan where the drive aisles are less than 25’ wide. There is an area which the drive aisle is 20’ and should be considered to be one-way, with proper striping and signage to be installed. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-47 F. The driveways shall have a grade no greater than 12%. The owner/applicant shall place “R-1” Stop Signs at all driveways exiting the site. G. The owner/applicant shall incorporate bio-grassy swales and other Best Management Practices as stormwater measures within the project and shall be approved by the Engineering Division and the Environmental Compliance Manager. The owner/applicant shall submit the stormwater calculations for review and approval by the Engineering Division. H. The owner/applicant shall install one correctly-sized sanitary sewer lateral from the site. A sanitary sewer manhole shall be installed as the lateral’s cleanout and shall be installed in the public right-of-way, near the property line, at no cost to the City. I. The owner/applicant shall coordinate work with California Water Service for all water utility work. J. Any light standards installed in the City’s right-of-way shall be the standard East of 101 light fixture. The owner/applicant shall provide the light fixture at no cost to the City. K. The owner/applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for any work performed in the City’s right-of-way and pay all associated fees, deposit and/or bonds. The owner/applicant shall submit an Engineer’s estimate for all work performed in the City’s right-of-way and place a bond or cash deposit for said work. L. Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the owner/applicant shall complete all lot line adjustments. The owner/applicant shall pay for all plan reviews and recordation fees by placing a $5,000 deposit. Should the cost of plan review and recordation be more than the deposit, the City shall request additional funds from the owner/applicant to continue map checking work. (CEQA note: Project has been modified to include one lot only so this does not apply). M. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the various fees as detailed below. III. Oyster Point Overpass Contribution Fee Prior to receiving a Building Permit for the proposed new hotel, the Applicant shall pay the Oyster Point Overpass fee, as determined by the City Engineer, in accordance with City Council Resolutions 102-96 and 152-96. The fee will be calculated upon reviewing the information shown on the applicant's construction plans and the latest Engineering News Record San Francisco Construction Cost Index at the time of payment. The estimated fee for the entire subject 65,636 sq. feet hotel use is calculated below. (The number in the calculation, "10389.59", is the September 2013 Engineering News Record San Francisco construction cost index, which is revised each month to reflect local inflation changes in the construction industry.) Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-48 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Trip Calculation 65,636 gsf of hotel @ 10.50 trips per 1000 gsf = 689 new vehicle trips Contribution Calculation 689 trips X $154 X (10389.59/6552.16) = $ 168,292 IV. East of 101 Traffic Impact Fees Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for any building within the proposed project, the Applicant shall pay the East of 101 Traffic Impact fee, In accordance with the resolution adopted by the City Council at their meeting of May 23, 2007, or as the fee may be amended in the future. Fee Calculation (effective July 2013)25 128 Hotel Rooms @ $1,214.32 per room = $ 155,433 Traffic Impact Fee = $ 155,433 V. Sewer System Capacity Study and Impact Fee The City of South San Francisco has identified the need to investigate the condition and capacity of the sewer system within the East of 101 area, downstream of the hotel. The existing sewer collection system was originally designed many years ago to accommodate warehouse and industrial use and is now proposed to accommodate uses, such as offices and biotech facilities, with a much greater sewage flow. These additional flows, plus groundwater infiltration into the existing sewers, due to ground settlement and the age of the system, have resulted in pumping and collection capacity constraints. A study and flow model is proposed to analyze the problem and recommend solutions and improvements. The Applicant shall pay the East of 101 Sewer Facility Development Impact Fee, as adopted by the City Council at their meeting of October 23, 2002. The adopted fee is $4.25 per gallon of discharge per day. The calculation is based upon the assumption that any use in the East of 101 generates 400 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of development. Based upon this calculation, the potential fee would be, if paid this year: 0.4 g/sf (400 gpd/1000 sq. ft.) x $4.25 per gallon x 65,636 sq. ft. = $111,581. The sewer contribution shall be due and payable prior to receiving a building permit for each phase of the development. Total estimated fees: Oyster Point Overpass Fee $ 168,292 East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee $ 155,433 East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee $ 111,581 Total $ 435,306 25 The estimated fees were identified by the Public Works Department and may reflect variations due to rounding or square footage. The fees may also be different at the time of building permit issuance. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-49 GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS The City Engineering Division requires geotechnical reports as a part of the permit package for projects to be constructed on vacant land, demolition and rebuilding and additions to buildings that require grading and additional loading (see Chapter 1, Section 5) and as identified in condition of approval II A. B. above. Geotechnical reports are required to be prepared by a licensed geologist, geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. The reports include a detailed site characterization study, an analysis of potential hazards and design specifications to mitigate the potential hazards. The reports identify design and construction specifications for (among other items) grading, site stabilization, drainage, utility and infrastructure design and placement, foundation design, retaining wall specifications and placement and soil compaction requirements. The reports are peer reviewed by the City’s geotechnical consultant and are often modified through this process. The final geotechnical report is required to incorporate the modifications recommended by the City’s consultant and the project is required to be built as identified through this process. The types of grading and construction methods that are required reduce geotechnical impacts (i.e., expansive soils, liquefaction, differential settlement, severe ground shaking, etc.) to the maximum extent technically feasible. The Applicant’s geotechnical consultant is Terracon and the City’s is Cotton Shires Associates. The Project geotechnical reports and peer review are listed below, used to analyze geologic and soils impacts and located in full in Appendix A. Terracon Reports o Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Fairfield Inn and Suites, 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco, California Terracon Project No. 60145004, April 15 2014. o Response to City of South San Francisco-Geotechnical Peer Review Proposed Fairfield Inn and Suites, 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco, California Terracon Project No. 60145004, August 21, 2014. o Geotechnical Engineering Addendum 1 Proposed Fairfield Inn and Suites, 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco, California Terracon Project No. 60145004, October 7, 2014. Cotton Shires Associates Peer Review o Geotechnical Peer Review, Kuber Development, Proposed Fairfield Inn and Suites 127 West Harris Project No. F5014, May 6, 2014. o Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review, Kuber Development, Proposed Fairfield Inn and Suites 127 West Harris Project No. F5014A, September 2, 2014. o Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review, Kuber Development, Proposed Fairfield Inn and Suites 127 West Harris Project No. F5014B, October 16, 2014. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-50 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis SITE GEOLOGIC CHARACTERIZATION The Project site is within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province of California. The materials on the site contain artificial fill overlying tidal flat deposits. The site is generally characterized by a relatively level graded pad surface. Portions of the property have been utilized for dumping of undocumented fill materials. These materials consist of boulders and cobbles ranging from 12 to 42 inches in diameter. The site has been temporarily utilized in the past for vehicle parking. Terracon advanced four test pits, two borings, and three Cone Penetrometer Tests (CPT) soundings. Sand was encountered with black peat seams at the maximum boring depth of 51.5 feet. This material is overlain by approximately 20 feet of medium dense to dense sand and silt (alluvium). The alluvium is in turn overlain by approximately 10 to 20 feet of very soft organic clay (Bay Mud) and nine feet of undocumented fill. Encountered Bay Mud materials typically have average blow counts of two or less. Groundwater was encountered in all test pits between eight and nine feet below ground surface (bgs). The San Andreas Fault is located approximately three miles southwest of the site. 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 miles southwest of the site. Other active faults in the area include the San Gregorio fault located roughly 8.4 miles west-southwest, Monte Vista-Shannon is located 16.8 miles southeast, and the Hayward fault located on the order of 14.3 miles northeast. Additional faults in the area that are not considered active include the San Bruno and Sierra faults located roughly 2.2 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 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 Hayward faults. IMPACTS Seismic Hazards Seismic hazards are generally classified as two types, primary and secondary. Primary geologic hazards include surface fault rupture. Secondary geologic hazards include ground shaking, liquefaction, dynamic densification and seismically induced ground failure. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-51 i) Surface Fault Rupture Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with the surface rupture of a known earthquake fault. There are no active faults underlying the site and the nearest one is the San Andreas Fault, located about three miles southwest. The Hillside fault is located nearby, but there is no evidence that this fault has been active within geologically recent time. The Project would have no impact on exposing people or structures to danger from surface rupture of a known earthquake fault. ii) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking; iii) Liquefaction; c) Geologic Instability and d) Expansive Soils Significance Criteria: Strong Seismic Ground Shaking: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground shaking. Liquefaction: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Geologic Instability: 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. Expansive Soils: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property. 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 nearby fault. Estimates of actual ground shaking intensity at a particular location are made according to the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, which accounts for variables such as the size and distance from the earthquake. For the Project site, Mercalli Intensity estimates indicate that earthquake-shaking intensity would vary depending upon where the seismic event originates. For the Maximum Credible Earthquakes (MCE) along the nearby San Andreas and San Gregorio faults (Richter Magnitude 7.9 and 7.4, respectively) the shaking intensities would be IX, “violent” and VIII, “very strong”, respectively, at the Project site (Association of Bay Area Governments, Seismic Hazard Maps). Liquefaction is a secondary seismic hazard involving saturated cohesionless sand and silty 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 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-52 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis vertically, if not confined. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, clean, saturated, uniformly-graded, fine-grained sands. The Project site geologic stability is further complicated by the presence of alluvial deposits and Bay Mud that would likely liquefy during an extreme seismic event (Association of Bay Area Governments, Seismic Hazard Maps). Expansive soils contain minerals such as smectite, bentonite, montmorillonite, beidellite, vermiculite, attapulgite, nontronite, illite and chlorite. There are also some sulfate salts that will expand with changes in temperature. When a soil contains a large amount of expansive minerals it has the potential of significant expansion. When the soil contains very little expansive minerals it has little expansive potential. The clays are capable of absorbing water and as they do so they increase in volume. The more water they absorb the more their volume increases. Expansions of ten percent or more are not uncommon. The change in volume can exert enough force on a building or other structure to cause damage. Cracked foundations, floors and basement walls are typical types of damage done by swelling soils. Damage to the upper floors of the building can occur when motion in the structure is significant. Expansive soils will also shrink when they dry out. This shrinkage can remove support from buildings or other structures and result in damaging subsidence. Fissures in the soil can also develop. These fissures can facilitate the deep penetration of water when moist conditions or runoff occurs. This produces a cycle of shrinkage and swelling that places repetitive stress on structures. The Project site would likely experience seismically induced liquefaction, settlement and differential settlement as the result of an extreme seismic event. The site could settle up to 2.25 inches in multiple areas across the site (page 7, Terracon, April 15, 2014). The City requires geologic site characterization, identification of construction methods, peer review and specified modifications (geotechnical reports and peer review) to reduce seismic related impacts to the maximum extent possible with available technology. As a result of this process, the Project is required to satisfy the following requirements identified by Cotton Shires Associates (October 16, 2014) prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. These requirements are also stated in Chapter 2 Project Description and will in addition to being proposed by the applicant will become conditions of Project as evidenced above by the Engineering Division Conditions of Approval II A. and B, above. In summary, the following modifications and clarifications are identified by CSA to reduce potential Project impacts related to geotechnical hazards to less than significant. The Applicant understands these requirements and has included them as part of the Project. 1. Geotechnical Clarifications and Plan Review The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical design aspects of the project construction plans. The Consultant shall also address the following items: o Consideration shall be given to the benefits of an indicator pile testing program to confirm driving capabilities, embedment depths, and pile capacity prior to selecting final pile depths. o Planned pre-drilling for the upper portions of piles may create voids that could impact lateral resistance. The Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-53 Consultant shall consider appropriate measures to address voids prior to forming pile caps. o Appropriate documentation to address the above will be submitted to the City for review by the City Engineer prior to issuance of permits for project construction. 2. Vibration monitoring and pre- and post-construction monitoring of nearby structures shall be undertaken to evaluate and document vibration related impacts. A specific proposed plan to address construction period vibrations shall be submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer. 3. The geotechnical consultant will inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project will be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final (as-built) project approval. Terracon identified a maximum pile depth of 48 feet. CSA opines that piles up to 60 feet may be required considering the properties of strata below 35 feet. The on-site structural engineer would determine the maximum pile depth to obtain sufficient bearing. In summary, according to Ted Sayre (Principal Engineering Geologist, Cotton Shires Associates e-mail to Allison Knapp on November 6, 2014) it seems credible that piles may be in the range of 50 to 60 feet on the site to reduce liquefaction to less than significant. The geotechnical report (Terracon, October 7, 2014 and Cotton Shires Associates peer review October 16, 2014) states the pile holes would be pre-drilled and consequently the needed forces to drive piles would be reduced. Cast-in-place piles may not be feasible with the very weak, squeezing bay muds. A rigid pile would be inserted from the surface into pre-drilled holes as the holes would likely squeeze in after they are drilled so there is still a need to drive the piles to get them into place. To address voids that may form near the tops of the pre-drilled holes after pile insertion, additional compacted fill may need to be placed around the tops of the piles. This may be required to obtain the design lateral resistance near the top of the piles. These measures in addition to grading specifications and emplacing the over-excavation of fill soils one foot beneath the floor slabs and pile caps would reduce soil instability, liquefaction, strong seismic shaking and geologic instability to a less than significant impact. Instrumentation would be in place on nearby buildings to monitor vibrations during pile driving so that buildings are not exposed to harmful vibrations Pile driving would need to be modified to reduce vibrations if measured accelerations exceed a designated threshold. Vibration Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-54 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis reduction might include use of a smaller driving hammer, or reduced travel of the hammer to lesson impact vibrations caused by the hammer hitting the top of pile. This would be like switching to more extended shallow pounding instead of a shorter duration of more forceful pounding. The Project would have less than significant impacts associated with a geologic unit becoming unstable by implementing the measures identified by the Project geotechnical engineer and as modified by the City’s geotechnical consultant. iv) Landslides Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to substantial hazards from landslides. A landslide is a mass of rock, soil and debris displaced down slope by sliding, flowing or falling. The Project site is flat. There is no threat of landslides on the Project site; therefore the Project would have no impact with respect to landslides. b) Erosion or Loss of Topsoil Significance Criteria: The Project would result in a significant environmental impact if it were to result in substantial soil erosion or in the loss of topsoil. The Project would require grading, and export of soil as well as drilling and driving piles. The City’s requirements for a grading permit and material export (noted in conditions of approval II. A and B above) requires various vehicular and pedestrian safety measures as well as erosion control off site (such as soil on tires or falling out of dump trucks). 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 construction. The NPDES requirements are required and implemented by the City Engineering Division to reduce impacts associated with soil erosion and water pollution during both construction and operation of projects. These requirements are 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. e) Capability of Soils to Support Septic Tanks Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it involved construction of septic systems in soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The Project does not propose to build any new septic tank or alternate waste disposal systems. The Project site would be connected to the city’s sanitary sewer system. The Project would have no impact on soils due to septic systems as the Project would be connected to the City’s wastewater system. Finding: There are no active faults underlying the site and the nearest one is the San Andreas Fault, located about three miles southwest. Implementation of the geotechnical measures Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-55 required by law (the City’s standard permitting requirements for peer review of all geotechnical reports and the final recommendations to become part of the Project) would reduce geologic instability to less than significant. The Project would have no impact on soils due to septic systems as the Project would be connected to the City’s wastewater system. 3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? X e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? X f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? X g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? X Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-56 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis SETTING SITE CONDITIONS The Project is located in the East of 101 Planning Area, south of East Grand Avenue and north of Mitchell Avenue. San Francisco International Airport is approximately 0.8 miles south of the site. The Colma Creek channel is approximately 250 feet south and U.S. 101 is approximately 850 feet west of the site. Mitchell Avenue provides access to West Harris Avenue. Gateway Boulevard to the west and Harbor Way to the east provide access to Mitchell Avenue. The 64,117 square foot (1.47 acre) site is approximately 13 feet above mean sea level. Historical information indicates that the site and surrounding area were submerged swamp land from the late 1890s to the early 1950s. The site has never been developed. Periodically the site was used for parking. The adjacent Focus Hotel was constructed in 1980. Two hazards studies were conducted to identify the conditions on the project site. The two studies are: o Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites, 127 West Harris Avenue, South San Francisco, California. March 18, 2014. Terracon. o Limited Stockpile Characterization and Sampling, Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites, 127 West Harris Avenue, South San Francisco, California. March 19, 2014. Terracon. There are three PG&E towers constructed in the southwest corner of the Focus Hotel parking area. The lines traverse in a relative north/south direction. The lines (in plan dimension) are approximately 120 to 140 feet in distance from the western façade of the Project, and approximately 180 feet from the southwestern corner of the proposed building. The towers were emplaced in the 1940s (Phase I ESA, Terracon, March 18, 2014). The site is covered with invasive and native grasses and shrubs. The site is relatively flat, with a slight surface gradient towards the east. Evidence of illegal dumping is present on the site. The materials include pipes, cardboard boxes, glass, tires, metal fencing and plastic oil bottles. These materials, consisting of approximately one dump truck in volume were removed from the site. Dumped fill is present in the middle of the site. Additionally, there is approximately nine feet of undocumented fill consisting of sandy, gravely, cobble and boulders. The boulders are 12 to 42 inches in diameter (Geotechnical Engineering Report, Terracon, April 15, 2014). Metal concentrations (arsenic and chromium) above California Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for shallow soils are present on the site. Additionally low levels of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) below ESLs are also present in shallow soils (Phase I ESA, Terracon, March 18, 2014). Terracon conducted a limited sampling soil on the Project site, as prompted by the Phase I ESA findings (Limited Stockpile Characterization and Sampling, 127 West Harris Avenue, South San Francisco, CA, March 19, 2014. Terracon). Activities consisted of the collection of representative samples from the test pits and stockpiles on March 3, 2014. No odors, discoloration or staining was observed associated with the observed materials. The soil samples were collected from bottom of the test pits TP-1, TP-2, TP-3 and TP-4 and Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-57 composite soil samples were collected from the onsite stockpiles SP-5 and SP-6, as depicted in Chapter 2 Figure 3, Boring and Sampling Locations. The samples were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), gasoline range organics (GRO), diesel range organics (DRO) and oil range organics (ORO) by United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Method 8015B, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260B, PAHs (Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) by EPA Method 8270C and Title-22 Metals by EPA Method 6010B. The findings are summarized below and the full report is in Appendix A. Based on laboratory analysis of the soil samples collected from test pits and stockpiled materials, the samples did exhibit concentrations above the reporting limits for: o TPH-ORO 8.8 mg/Kg, 19 mg/Kg and 7.8 mg/Kg from TP-1, SP-5 and SP-6, respectively; o Naphthalene concentration of 0.085 mg/Kg from TP-3, and phenanthrene concentrations of 0.061 mg/Kg and 0.12 mg/Kg from TP-3 and TP-4 respectively; and. o Various metals from stockpiles soils, including: arsenic, barium, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, vanadium and zinc were at concentrations above the laboratory method reporting limits. The Applicant proposes to test the soil to determine suitable disposal or reuse procedures pursuant to Hazards Table 1 in Chapter 2 Project Description Permits from the San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and South San Francisco Fire Department shall be secured, as proposed by the Applicant. A soil management plan may be required and chain of custody shall be followed. The geologic formation is sandstone, shale and conglomerate. Bay Mud appears below the non- engineered fill. Groundwater was encountered at eight feet below ground surface (bgs). The hydrological gradient varies seasonally from southeast to southwest (Phase I ESA, Terracon, March 18, 2014). Depth of groundwater varies seasonally. Adjacent properties are commercial land uses along Gateway Boulevard and Mitchell Avenue. The nearest residential land uses are approximately 1,800 feet to the northwest (west of US 101). The Early Years Preschool, Old Souls Catholic School, and Spruce Elementary School are located 3,700 feet to the northeast, 4,200 feet to the northwest, and 4,790 feet to the northwest of the Project site, respectively. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Hazardous materials use, storage, and disposal would be governed by the following standards and permits at both the federal and state level. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-58 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis FEDERAL o Toxic Substances Control Act, administered by the EPA, Regulation 40 CFR 720. o Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, administered by the Department of Transportation, Regulation 49 CFR 171-177. o Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 4 USC 6901-6987. o Hazardous Waste Management Standards for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Facilities, administered by EPA, 40CFR 260-2625. STATE o California Hazardous Waste Control Act. California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5. o California Hazardous Waste Management Regulations. California Administrative Code, Title 22. Social Security, Division 4. Environmental Health, Chapter 30. o Occupation Safety and Health Act, 29 USC 651. o Workplace Exposure Limits, administered by Occupational Health and Safety Administration. 29CFR 1900-1910. o California Occupational Safety and Health Act. REGIONAL The San Mateo Department of Environmental Health (SMCDEH) largely serves as the lead permitting or remediation agency through various memoranda of understandings with federal, state, regional agencies and local government. Often the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and /or the Bay Area Air Quality District (BAAQMD) take a lead or partnership in site remediation with the SMCDEH. Hazards Table 1 outlines the type of hazardous material impacts and standard and acceptable remediation measures. HAZARDS TABLE 1 STANDARD REMEDIATION PRACTICES Media Hazardous Materials Approach 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 fuels, solvents) • Consult the SMCEHD for requirements. • Haul and Dispose. • Aeration – requires a notification to BAAQMD, daily volumes are limited. • Vapor Stripping – apply vacuum system to covered piles, notify BAAQMD. • Bioremediation - apply bio-treatment materials, moisture and “work” soil piles. • Thermal Desorption – various vendors provide mobile treatment units. • Capping and vapor barrier. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-59 Media Hazardous Materials Approach Soil Remediation (ex-situ) Inorganics (metals) • Consult BAAQMD and SMCEHD for requirements. • Haul and Dispose. • Chemical Stabilization. • Sorting – reduce waste volume by screening to target contaminant particle size. Soil Remediation (in-situ) VOCs • Consult SMCEHD for requirements. • Soil Vapor Extraction – apply vacuum to vapor wells, notify BAAQMD. • In-situ chemical oxidation. • In-Situ Vitrification – use electricity to melt waste and surrounding soils. Soil Remediation (in-situ) SVOCs • Consult SMCEHD for requirements. • Bioremediation – saturate soils with bio-treatment 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 SMCEHD and consult on remedial alternatives. Groundwater Remediation VOCs • Consult BAAQMD and SMCEHD for requirements. • Pump and Treat – pump from wells, treat and discharge treated water. • Air Sparging – inject air to volatilize contaminants and create aerobic groundwater conditions suitable for natural 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 Remediation SVOCs • Consult BAAQMD for requirements. • Pump and Treat. • Bioremediation. • Chemical Oxidation. Groundwater Remediation Inorganics • Consult BAAQMD for requirements. • Pump and Treat. • Chemical Immobilization – inject chemicals to precipitate or chemically fix contaminants to soil particles. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO The South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD) requires businesses using or transporting hazardous substances to provide a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) for their review Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-60 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis and approval. SSFFD reviews development and entitlement applications, levies and enforces code requirements for fire prevention and safety and conducts periodic inspections of business activities. The SSFFD identified the following conditions of approval for the Project should it be approved (Luis Da Silva, Fire Marshall memorandum to Billy Gross, August 28, 2013). 1. Install fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13/SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan check and permit for overhead and underground. 2. Fire sprinkler system shall be central station monitored per California Fire Code section 1003.3. 3. Install a standpipe system per NFPA 14/SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan check and permit. 4. Install exterior listed horn/strobe alarm device, not a bell. 5. Elevator if provided shall not contain shunt-trips. 6. At least one elevator shall be sized for a gurney the minimum size shall be in accordance with the California Fire Code. 7. Fire alarm plans shall be provided per NFPA 72 and the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code. 8. Buildings 4 stories or more will require a modified smoke control system. A rational analysis is required before building plans are approved. 9. Provide fire extinguishers throughout the building. 10. All Non parking space curbs to be painted red to local Fire Code Specifications 11. Access road shall have all weather driving capabilities and support the imposed load of 75,000 pounds. 12. Road gradient and vehicle turning widths shall not exceed maximum allowed by engineering department. 13. Provide fire flow in accordance with California Fire Code Appendix III-A. 14. Provide fire hydrants; location and number to be determined. 15) Provide fire hydrants with an average spacing of 400 feet between hydrants. 16) The fire hydrants shall have a minimum fire flow of 3000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure for duration of 4 hours. 17) All buildings shall provide premise identification in accordance with SSF municipal code section 15.24.100. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-61 18) Provide Knox key box for each building with access keys to entry doors, electrical/mechanical rooms, elevators, and others to be determined. 19) The minimum road width is 20 feet per the California Fire Code. 20) Project must meet all applicable Local (SSF Municipal Code, Chapter 15.24 Fire Code), State and Federal Codes 21) All buildings shall have Emergency Responder Radio Coverage throughout in compliance with Section 510 of the California Fire Code. 22) The Fire Department reserves the right to make additional safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed / revised building plans. 23) This new construction will be assessed a Public Safety Impact Fee. The amounts for Office/R & D are $0.13 per square foot for the Police Department and $0.29 per square foot for the Fire Department, or the total of the two ($0.42) for hotel development. IMPACTS a) and b) Hazardous Materials Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or if it were to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The Project would not handle hazardous materials as a course of conducting business operations. There are no sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the Project boundary. Adjacent properties are commercial land uses along Gateway Boulevard and Mitchell Avenue. The nearest residential land uses are approximately 1,800 feet to the northwest (west of US 101). The Early Years Preschool, Old Souls Catholic School, and Spruce Elementary School are located 3,700 feet to the northeast, 4,200 feet to the northwest, and 4,790 feet to the northwest of the Project site, respectively. Operational Impacts Any hazardous materials incident on the site would first be responded to by the South San Francisco Fire Department. The South San Francisco Fire Department Fire Marshall reviewed the project plans. As shown in the Setting Section, Chief Da Silva identified 25 conditions for approval of the project and he did not identify any safety hazards. Operational impacts with respect to a release of hazardous substances or materials would be less than significant. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-62 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis There are three PG&E towers constructed in the southwest corner of the Focus Hotel parking area. The lines traverse in a relative north/south direction. The lines (in plan dimension) are approximately 120 to 140 feet in distance from the western façade of the Project, and approximately 180 feet from the southwestern corner of the proposed building. Electric and magnetic field (EMF) is a term used to describe electric and magnetic fields that are created by electric voltage (electric field) and electric current (magnetic field). Electric fields are present whenever voltage exists on a wire and are not dependent on current. The magnitude of the electric field is primarily a function of the configuration and operating voltage of the transmission line and decreases with the distance from the transmission line. Magnetic fields are present whenever current flows in a conductor and are not dependent on the voltage present on the conductor. The strength of these fields also decreases with distance from the source. The magnetic field levels of overhead transmission lines will vary depending upon customer power usage. Magnetic field strengths for typical transmission line loadings at the edge of rights- of-way are approximately 10 to 90 milligauss (mG). Under peak load conditions, the magnetic fields at the edge of the right-of-way would not likely exceed 150 mG. There are no long-term, health-based California or federal EMF exposure standards. State regulations for magnetic fields have been developed in New York and Florida (150 mG and 200 mG at the edge of the right-of- way). However, these are based on limiting exposure from new facilities to levels no greater than existing facilities. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the California Department of Health Services (CDHS) have not concluded that exposure to magnetic fields from utility electric facilities is a potential health hazard. Many reports have concluded that the potential for health effects associated with EMF exposure is too speculative to allow the evaluation of impacts or the preparation of mitigation measures. Construction Construction related impacts could include removing hazardous containing materials in a manner not compliant with Hazards Table 1, above. The Hazards Setting Section notes metals and hydrocarbon elements present in the soil that are in excess of repotting limits. Chapter 2 Project Description notes the Applicant’s actions that are proposed as part of the Project. The Applicant proposes to obtain permits and test soils for re-use and/or disposal and based upon the results a Soil Management Plan will be prepared and followed as prescribed by law. The Project would be incompliance with testing re-use, removal, monitoring and permitting regulations identified and implemented to reduce hazards impacts to less than significant. c) and d) Hazardous Materials Presence Significance Criteria: 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”). Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-63 There are no existing or proposed schools or day care centers or facilities within a quarter mile of the Project site. The site is not identified on a Cortese list (Phase I ESA, Terracon , March 18, 2014) As noted above, the Early Years Preschool, Old Souls Catholic School, and Spruce Elementary School are located 3,700 feet to the northeast, 4,200 feet to the northwest, and 4,790 feet to the northwest of the Project site, respectively. 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 Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were located within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport), if it would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area; or if it were located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, if it would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. San Francisco International Airport is approximately 0.8 miles south of the site and within the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC) and ALUC Plan Area jurisdiction. The ALUC allows development within its plan boundaries, provided that development is below a prescribed height limit. The City, in concert with the ALUC and in coordination with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), established height limits in the South San Francisco General Plan (1999) in compliance with the ALUC and FAA. SFO’s Interactive Airspace Tool identifies updated height information based upon the updated 2012 Airport Land Use Plan. The maximum height allowed at the Project site is 150 above msl. The maximum height of the Project would be 65 feet. The Project would be 85 feet below the maximum permitted height in order to avoid conflicts with aircraft operations. Potential safety impacts associated with airports and airstrips is considered to be less than significant. g) Conflict with Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. There are no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Project vicinity. The Project would have no impact on the implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) Exposure of People or Structures to Wildland Fires Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. 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 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 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-64 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis hazardous waste. The Project would have no impact from the emission or handling of hazardous materials or wastes on schools within a quarter of a mile or from any environmental contamination posed by the sites listed on the Cortese List. The impact of the Project with regards to hazardous materials would be less than significant with respect to operational activities. The Project as proposed would have a less than significant impact with respect to the release of hazardous materials during construction. There are no existing or proposed schools or day care centers or facilities within a quarter mile of the Project site. The Project would be 65 feet in height and 85 feet below the 150 foot maximum. The Project would be well under the maximum permitted height determined by the ALUC and FAA. 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 through conditions of approval to provide a fair share financial contribution to the department’s study 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. Intentionally Left Blank Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-65 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? X 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? X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? X e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-66 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis SETTING Colma Creek, the City’s main natural drainage system, is a perennial stream with a watershed of about 16.3 square miles that trends in a roughly southeasterly direction through the center of the City. The Colma Creek watershed is one of the three largest in the County. The basin is bounded on the northeast by San Bruno Mountain and on the west by a ridge traced by Skyline Boulevard. Dominant topographic features of the drainage basin include two relatively straight mountain ridges that diverge toward the southeast that are connected by a low ridge at the northern boundary of the area. The valley enclosed by the ridges widens toward the southeast where it drains into San Francisco Bay. Flooding potential is evaluated by use of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Community Maps. South San Francisco’s Community Panel Number is 0044E, Map #06081C00H4E, dated October 16, 2012. Flood risk is based upon a one percent (1%) annual chance of a 100 year flood, also known as the base flood, which is the flood that has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The area that would be inundated by a 100 year flood is known as the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). SFHA areas include flood zones A, AE, AH, AO, AR, A99, V and VE. The base flood elevation is the water surface elevation of the one percent annual chance flood. The Project site is located in a Flood Zone C (minimal flooding), and no base flood elevation level has been determined (Community Panel Number is 0044E, Map #06081C00H4E, September 8, 2013). The site is adjacent to Flood Zone A0 with a two foot base flood level elevation at that location. The City’s Building Official is the Flood Administrator who is responsible for ensuring that construction complies with FEMA regulations. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FEDERAL National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water Discharge Permit: As identified in Chapter 1 Section 5, the City of South San Francisco is a member of the San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), an organization of the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County holding a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water 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 (BMP’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. structure construction, material delivery 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 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-67 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 (BASMAA) Start at the Source Design Guidance Manual for Storm Water Quality Protection (available from BASMAA) for a comprehensive listing of required measures. Typical storm water quality protection measures are identified in Chapter 1, Section 1.5.4 of this document. The City’s requirements are in compliance with state and federal laws and regulations that are designed to mitigate potential hydrological and stormwater impacts associated with project construction and on-going operational activities. STATE State Water Quality Control Board’s General Permitting Requirements: As identified above and in Chapter 1 Section 1.5.4, 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 (SWPPP). 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 SWPPP 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 1 Section 1.5.4 apply to the Project as a matter of law. These measures are required in order to reduce water quality impacts to a less than significant level. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Chapter 1, Sections 4 and 5 outlines the City’s standard review process and conditions of project approval. Rob Lecal, Interim Environmental Compliance Coordinator reviewed the Project and identified the following conditions of approval (memorandum to Billy Gross, August 15, 2013). The following items must be included in the plans or are requirements of the Stormwater and/or Pretreatment programs and must be completed prior to the issuance of a permit: 1. If fire sprinklers are installed, the fire sprinkler system test/drainage valve shall be plumbed into the sanitary sewer system. This must be shown on the plans prior to issuance of a permit. 2. Install a grease interceptor for the food preparation area. 3. The interceptor must be connected to all wash sinks, mop sinks, and floor sinks and shall not be downstream from the domestic waste stream. Sizing of the interceptor must be in accordance with the uniform plumbing code. Connections must be shown on the plans prior to the issuance of a permit. 4. Sizing of the interceptor must be shown on the plans. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-68 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis 5. Cut sheet of the interceptor must be shown on the plans. 6. All condensate from refrigeration equipment shall be discharged to sanitary sewer. Show location of the condensate drain on the plans. 7. Garbage disposals are not allowed in commercial facilities. 8. Trash handling area must be covered, enclosed, be connected to the pretreatment system and must drain to sanitary sewer. This connection must be shown on the plans prior to issuance of a permit. 9. Submit a geotechnical report to show infeasibility (NOTE by CEQA preparer: The geotechnical report is fully vetted in Section 3.7 Geology and Soils. 10. Submit c.3 documents. 11. Boiler blow down must be discharged to the sanitary sewer. 12. Roof leaders cannot be directly connected to the storm drain system. 13. Runoff from all driveways must be diverted into bio-retention area. 14. The Applicant must submit a signed maintenance agreement for the stormwater pollution prevention devices installed. Each maintenance agreement will require the inclusion of the following exhibits: a. A letter-sized reduced-scale site plan that shows the locations of the treatment measures that will be subject to the agreement. b. A legal description of the property. c. A maintenance plan, including specific long-term maintenance tasks and a schedule. It is recommended that each property owner be required to develop its own maintenance plan, subject to the municipality’s approval. Resources that may assist property owners in developing their maintenance plans include: (i) The operation manual for any proprietary system purchased by the property owner. 15. The owner or his representative must file this agreement with the County of San Mateo and documentation that the County received it must be sent to the Technical Services Supervisor. 16. Roof leaders cannot be directly connected to the storm drain system. 17. Pool filter discharge must be routed to sanitary sewer. 18. Source Control Requirements. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-69 The Project must implement source control measures. Onsite that at a minimum shall include the following: (a) Minimization of stormwater pollutants of concern in urban runoff through measures that will include plumbing of the following discharges to the sanitary sewer, subject to the local sanitary sewer agency’s authority and standards: o Discharges from indoor floor mat/equipment/hood filter wash racks or covered outdoor wash racks for restaurants; o Discharges from covered outdoor wash areas for vehicles, equipment, and accessories; (b) Properly designed covers, drains, and storage precautions for outdoor material storage areas, loading docks, repair/maintenance bays, and fueling areas; (d) Landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff, promotes surface infiltration, minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and incorporates other appropriate sustainable landscaping practices and programs such as Bay-Friendly Landscaping; (e) Efficient irrigation systems; and (f) Storm drain system stenciling or signage. 19. Implement Site Design and Stormwater Treatment Requirements The Project must implement at least the following design strategies onsite: a. Limit disturbance of natural water bodies and drainage systems; minimize compaction of highly permeable soils; protect slopes and channels; and minimize impacts from stormwater and urban runoff on the biological integrity of natural drainage systems and water bodies; b. Conserve natural areas, including existing trees, other vegetation, and soils; c. Minimize impervious surfaces; d. Minimize disturbances to natural drainages; and e. Minimize stormwater runoff by implementing one or more of the following site design measures: o Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse. o Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas. o Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas. o Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas. o Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces. o Construct driveways, bike lanes, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces. 20. Applicant must pay sewer connection fee at a later time based on anticipated flow, Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Sediments(TSS) calculations. Please provide the number of existing fixture units and the total number of fixture units after the improvement. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-70 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis IMPACTS a) Violation of Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in any violation of existing water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The Project as a matter of law is required to provide a SWPPP for approval by the City. The City requires the implementation of LIDs and BMPs for new development and construction 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. Rob Lecel, Interim Environmental Compliance Manager for the City of South San Francisco reviewed the proposed plans and identified the conditions of approval (listed in the Setting Section, above). These measures are required by the City in compliance with their permitting authority and are designed to reduce potential water quality impacts to less than significant. 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 which are in compliance with regional, state and federal laws designed to mitigate hydrological including stormwater impacts both on individual projects and as well as cumulative impacts. b) Deplete or Interfere Substantially with Groundwater Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it substantially depletes groundwater supplies or interferes substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The Project would not draw down groundwater but be connected to water supply infrastructure provided by California Water Service (CWS). Section 3.7 Geology and Soils, Setting Section identifies conditions of approval to comply with CWS permitting requirements. Please see Section 3.17 Public Utilities for a water supply evaluation. The Project would have no impact with regards to groundwater depletion. The Project would continue to receive its water supply from existing local infrastructure, not groundwater. The proposed bioswales would likely improve groundwater recharge as the swales would collect and filter water that would in turn filtrate into the soil. Current conditions include some filtration and sheet flow off the site into the street and storm drain. The Project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to groundwater recharge. c) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Erosion and Siltation Effects Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-71 Significance Criteria: 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 is required to comply with current NPDES and SWPPP measures, as noted in a and b, above and Section 3.7 Geology and Soils. 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. There would be a less than significant 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 Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. The Project would likely improve the existing drainage pattern of the site because the Project is required by law to implement NPDES and SWPPP measures (outlined in detail in the Setting Section above and Chapter 1 Introduction). The site currently does not include any of these measures including bioswales or any devices to filter and retain stormwater on site. The non- permitted dumping has altered the topography of the site and to some extent the direction of stormwater runoff. Under current conditions it is reasonable to assume that stormwater percolates on site and sheet flows across the site in an easterly direction (due to the gradient), into the street and the City’s storm drain system. The Project proposes bio-retention areas approximately one foot in depth along the eastern, southern, northern and a small portion of the western property lines. These bio-retention areas are designed to capture excess stormwater, and allow filtration on the Project site. SWPPP measures are implemented and identified in detail in the Setting Section, above and Chapter 1 Introduction to reduce and in many cases eliminate stormwater runoff and stormwater pollution. The Project would result in a less than significant impact related to an increased rate or amount of surface runoff. e) Runoff Exceeding Drainage System Capacity/Increase Polluted Runoff Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The Project, as a matter of law, is required to submit a SWPPP 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 SWPPP as noted in the Chapter 1 Introduction Section 5 and the Setting Section and in a and d 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 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-72 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis 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 Inspector conducts routine site inspections to insure compliance. Failure to comply with the approved construction BMPs would result in the issuance of correction notices, citations and/or a Stop Work Order. Plans for the Project would 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 runoff impacts to less than significant. f) Otherwise Degrade Water Quality Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to degrade water quality. The Project, as required by law, would treat all stormwater and operational (i.e., hotel use) water. Hotel water must be diverted to sanitary sewer lines. Landscaping and storm water must be filtered bioswales and retained on site. The Project would result a less than significant impact on water quality from point source water pollution. g – i) Flood Hazards Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to place any housing units within a designated 100-year 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 structures to flooding hazards. Flood hazard areas identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) are identified as a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). SFHA are defined as the area that will be inundated by the flood event having a one-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The one-percent annual chance flood is also referred to as the base flood or 100-year flood. SFHAs are labeled as Zone A, Zone AO, Zone AH, Zones A1-A30, Zone AE, Zone A99, Zone AR, Zone AR/AE, Zone AR/AO, Zone AR/A1-A30, Zone AR/A, Zone V, Zone VE, and Zones V1-V30. Moderate flood hazard areas, labeled Zone B or Zone X (shaded) are also shown on the FIRM, and are the areas between the limits of the base flood and the 0.2-percent-annual- chance (or 500-year) flood. The areas of minimal flood hazard, which are the areas outside the SFHA and higher than the elevation of the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood, are labeled Zone C or Zone X (unshaded). Areas subject to inundation by the one-percent-annual-chance flood event are generally determined using approximate methodologies. Because detailed hydraulic analyses have not been performed, no Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) or flood depths are shown. Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements and floodplain management standards apply. The Project site is located in a Flood Zone C (minimal flooding) and no base flood elevation Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-73 level has been determined (Community Panel Number is 0044E, Map #06081C00H4E, September 8, 2013). The site is touches upon a very small portion of the Flood Zone A0 with a two foot base flood level elevation at this location. The A0 Flood Zone is associated with Colma Creek. The City’s Building Official is the Flood Administrator who is responsible for ensuring that construction complies with FEMA regulations. By law, the Project is required to be constructed one foot above base flood level, or three feet in elevation. The site meets this requirement and additional mitigation is not required. The Project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to flooding. j) Tsunami Hazards Significance Criteria: 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 approximately 3,400 feet (0.68 mile) from San Francisco Bay. An earthquake could cause tsunamis (tidal waves) and seiches (oscillating waves in enclosed water bodies) in the Bay. The City’s general plan estimates that potential wave 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 (Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October 1999, page 250). The Project site is 13 feet above msl, would be outside the runup zone subject to inundation by a 500-year tsunami and would be outside the any potential tsunami hazard zone. 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. Finding: 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 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 Study. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to hydrology or water quality resources. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-74 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis 3. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X SETTING The Project is in an area intended for freeway commercial land uses. The Focus Hotel is adjacent to the site and CTC Food Industries, Inc is north of the site. There are no biological resources on the site (see Section 3.5 Biological Resources). The Project site is vacant and the Project would construct a hotel. Properties in the area are developed with vacant and occupied office space, freight forwarding, building materials and food wholesalers. Land uses outside of West Harris Avenue are a mix of light industrial, manufacturing and research and development. Buildings along West Harris are one to three story structures. Denser development patterns such as the Embassy Suites Hotel and R&D and office buildings located on Gateway Boulevard can be seen from the Project area. These buildings are two to eight stories in height. The Project site is approximately 100 feet from the southeastern edge of the Draft Downtown Station Area Plan area, in what is identified as the “Eastern Neighborhood” (See Figure 2 Draft Downtown Station Area Plan and Project Location in Chapter 2). The Eastern Neighborhood is bounded by East Grand Avenue to the north; Gateway Boulevard to the east; South Airport Boulevard to the south; and the U.S. 101 to the west. The Eastern Neighborhood would experience land use changes from Industrial to R&D if the Plan is adopted as shown in Figure 2. Abandoned rail spurs and the Colma Creek channel would be designated open space. Land currently designated as Business Commercial, Mixed Industrial and Auto-Oriented Commercial would become Office and R&D. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN The General Plan designates the Project site “Business Commercial” (BC) a use intended for business and professional office and visitor service establishments and retail. Permitted uses Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-75 include administrative, financial, business, professional, medical and public offices, and visitor- oriented and regional commercial activities. The 1999 General Plan (page 42) specifically notes: This category is intended for the emerging commercial and hotel district along South Airport, Gateway and Oyster Point [b]oulevards, and South Spruce Corridor. Maximum FAR for hotel developments shall be 1.2 with increases to a maximum total FAR of 2.0 for development meeting specified criteria. ZONING CLASSIFICATION The Project site is zoned Freeway Commercial (FC). The FC zoning is one of a group of four zoning districts identified under Chapter 20.110 Employment Districts. FC zoning is intended for regional-serving retail uses, commercial lodging, visitor services and similar uses that benefit from proximity to the Bayshore Freeway. Hotels are a permitted use within this zoning classification. The FC designation identifies a 1.2 FAR for hotels; a minimum lot size of one acre; minimum lot width of 50 feet and a minimum front setback of 20 feet. A complete list of permitted and conditional uses is identified in Chapter 20.110, Table 20.11.002 Land Use Regulations-Employment Districts of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (http://qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco). IMPACTS a and b) Division of an Established Community and Conflicts with Land Use Plan and Zoning Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to physically divide an established community and/or the Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The project conforms to the general plan and zoning classifications for the site. The Project would also provide hotel services supporting the planned biotechnology uses in the Eastern Neighborhood. The Project would have no impact on dividing an established community and would continue to be consistent with City’s General Plan and zoning. The Project would conform to all applicable land use plans and zoning regulations and, therefore, would have no impact. c) Conflict with Conservation Plan Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. There is 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. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-76 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Finding: The Project would not physically divide an established community. The site is planned for a hotel use 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. 3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? X SETTING The Project is located in an area that has been historically a mixed industrial area. The site is vacant, has never been developed, and was submerged swampland until the 1950s. IMPACTS a) and b) Loss of Mineral Resources Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region 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 any known 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. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-77 3.12 NOISE Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? X e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? X f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? X SETTING The Project site is located in the southern area of the City, within an industrial area. SFO property is 0.80 miles south of the site. The area is dominated by aircraft and roadway noise. The site is within the 65-70 dB noise contour for roadway noise (Figure 9-2 Projected Rail and Road Noise, page 283, and below the 60 dB contour for airport-related noise exposure Figure 9-1 Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program page 279, South San Francisco General Plan). SFO’s website shows the site below the 65 dB contour. The airport’s contours were updated in 2012 (Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, Ricondo Associates. 2012). 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, irregularity) and how intrusive it is above background sound levels. In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than daytime levels. However, most Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-78 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis household noise also decreases at night and exterior noise becomes more noticeable. Further, most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to nighttime noise intrusion. To quantify the noise over a 24-hour period, the Day/Night Average Sound level (DNL or Ldn) or Community Noise equivalent Level (CNEL) criteria are used. These noise descriptors include a 10 decibel (dB) penalty (addition to the actual measured levels) during nighttime hours (10 PM to 7AM) and a five dB penalty during evening hours (7 PM to 10 PM) for the CNEL to account for people’s sensitivity during these hours. The Leq is also included to demonstrate a more steady state of sound experienced at a particular location, not factoring in the weighting noted for the Ldn measurements. Noise is measured and quantified with an A-weighted filter which closely approximates the way the human ear hears sound; a de-emphasis of low-frequency and high-frequency sound. The resulting measurement is quantified as an A-weighted decibel or dBA. Noise attenuates (reduces) the further it travels from the source. Typically noise from a point source attenuates 6 dB per doubling distance in hard surface environments (paving, hardscape). The shell of a building (sometimes referred to as the envelope) attenuates noise 15 to 25 dBA depending on the type construction, number and type of doors and windows, and insulation contained therein. Noise can also be reduced by barriers that break the line of sight from the noise source to the receiver. For example, a building between a construction site and a park can reduce the noise levels reaching the park in addition to the attenuation afforded by distance. Projects can result in an increase in noise (unwanted sound) from demolition and construction and operational activities. Demolition and construction are typically short-term in nature depending upon the construction schedule. Construction impacts can be annoying, but are relatively short term and restricted to certain times of the day while “operational impacts” are not. Operational impacts run with the life of the project and largely result from increased traffic, ventilation systems and/or land use activities that are conducted external to a building. SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Residential, schools, child care facilities and convalescent facilities are typically considered noise sensitive land uses. There are no sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the Project boundary. The nearest residential land uses are approximately 1,800 feet to the northwest (west of US 101). The Early Years Preschool, Old Souls Catholic School, and Spruce Elementary School are located 3,700 feet to the northeast, 4,200 feet to the northwest, and 4,790 feet to the northwest of the Project site, respectively. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-79 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FEDERAL U.S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) USEPA’s “Protective Noise Levels” (November, 1978) identifies 75 dB, L eq as the level requisite to protect from hearing loss over a duration of 40 years assuming an eight hour a day exposure for 365 days a year. The 75 dB L eq is defined as a “noise equivalent level” and is not a decibel weighted metric like the Ldn or CNEL. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) OSHA requires protection for workers exposed to noise levels above 90 dB. Workers can be exposed to 90 dB for up to eight hours per day, but any exposure above 90 dB requires compliance with hearing protection guidelines. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO General Plan The South San Francisco Noise Element (General Plan, 1999) 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. Noise levels over 85 dBA are acceptable for airport-related development only; less than 75 dBA is acceptable for industrial and open space land uses while 75-85 is conditionally acceptable; and less than 70 dBA is acceptable for commercial uses while 70 to 80 dBA is conditionally acceptable for commercial land uses (Table 9.2-1 Land Use Criteria for Noise Impacted Areas, South San Francisco General Plan, page 280). South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Section 8.32.050, SSFMC) 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. The ordinance also limits noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the property line. The Building Division enforces the noise limits at the time of building permit issuance by informing applicant’s of the requirement and if necessary requiring quieter equipment. The Building Division also conducts routine site inspections prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy or finalization of the building permit. The inspections monitor building and municipal code compliance. The Building Official has the discretion to waive certain construction related noise levels if conditions warrant such an action. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-80 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis 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. Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the South San Francisco General Plan or the City’s Noise Ordinance. The noise standards are based upon the type of use they are designed to protect for the operational (i.e., occupancy and activity) phase of the project. Construction noise would have a significant environmental impact if it occurs outside the hours specified in the Noise Ordinance or generates noise levels greater than those specified in the Noise Ordinance. PROJECT DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION Noise levels associated with various types of demolition and grading equipment, using the Leq sound metric at 50 feet, range from 87 to 86 dB for a hoe ram attachment, grader and scrapers; 84 dB for bulldozers; 83 dB for excavators; 80 to 81 dB for backhoes and loaders; 101 dB for pile drivers; and 85 to 98 dB for impact wrenches and rock drills. Generators and compressors can range from 72 to 87 dB at 50 feet. Water trucks and street sweepers can reach 77 dB at 50 feet. Back up warning alarms required on construction equipment (California Occupational Safety Health Administration or Cal OSHA) range from 87 to 112 dB at four feet (Federal Highway Administration, 2006) and quieter alarms for smaller sites are not as loud. Project construction is anticipated to take 15-16 months. The heaviest portion of construction, site clearing, grading, emplacing drilled piles, structural steel and foundation work would require approximately three months. Wood framing, rough plumbing, electrical and mechanical, emplacement of block walls, and roofing would require approximately 16 to 18 weeks (4.5 months). Interior work and finishes would require approximately 12 to 14 weeks. The stages of work overlap and are rounded up to provide a conservative construction schedule.26 In summary, the most intense part of site preparation and grading would require three months and noise levels could reach 101 dB at 50 feet from the pile driver. To comply with the quantitative noise limits in the Noise Ordinance, the Applicant would use noise reduction technologies (such as sound blankets or other temporary noise barriers 27) to limit noise at the property line to not greater than 90 dB. The three month period of heaviest construction would result in pile driving approximately 80 feet from the northern façade of the Focus Hotel and 45 feet from the southern façade of the industrial building (CTC Food Industries). The buildings across West Harris Avenue to the east would be 130 to 180 feet from the closest pile driving operations. The following interior and 26 Schedule is based upon information provided by Covent Construction, Inc., May 23, 2014) 27 Example temporary installation can be seen in http://www.construction-noise.com/BBC-ext-n.html and https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook07.cfm Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-81 exterior noise levels would be experienced in the area assuming 25 dB attenuation afforded to the building envelope and a limit of 90 dB at the property line. ANTICIPATED NOISE LEVELS DURING PILE DRIVING Receptor Site28 Distance ft. Exterior dB 29 Interior dB Focus Hotel 80 90 65 CTC Food Industries 45 88 48 Businesses east of W. Harris Ave. 180 to 130 76-79 51-54 Hotel rooms further from the northern façade of the Focus Hotel would experience considerably less noise due to the distance from the source and the wall assembly of intervening rooms 30. The hotel is largely business and airport serving and as such most patrons would likely be out of their rooms by 8 AM, the earliest that construction is allowed to begin by City ordinance. Project related noise experienced inside CTC Food Industries would be less than 50 dB and would not affect normal conversation inside the building. The concrete construction attenuates noise more than wood construction materials, as an example concrete is often used for freeway sound barriers. The overall Project construction schedule is anticipated to take 15-16 months. The heaviest portion of construction, site clearing, grading, emplacing drilled piles, structural steel and foundation work would require approximately three months. Exterior noise levels nearby the Project during the pile driving and grading could be annoying at various places that would change based on the construction activities on any particular day. Depending on the receptor and type of building construction, nearby interior noise levels would be approximately 25-40 dB less than exterior levels during this phase, and less annoying. This period is temporary and expected to require three months, at most. Annoyance can be reduced by notifying the adjacent and nearby businesses of construction schedules and duration of activities. The Applicant is aware of these annoyances and has proposed the following as part of the Project: o Notify property and business owners in writing within West Harris Avenue of the construction schedule and contact person for the Project for questions, complaints and comments. o Consider and to the extent feasible provide some periods during the day (i.e., lunch, breaks) when pile driving does not occur. 28 Attenuation calculations assume that construction operation shall limit property-line noise levels from construction to no more than 90 dB. 29 The exterior to interior wall attenuations are assumed to be 25 dB for the Focus Hotel and businesses east of W. Harris Ave. and 40 dB for the tilt-up concrete wall (with no windows) on the CTC Food Industries building to the northeast. 30 Building envelope and “wall assemblies” attenuate sound. A wall assembly does include additional measures to reduce interior sound levels. The wall assembly is designed to reach the targeted interior noise levels to protect public health (i.e., against hearing loss, foster concentration) and provide for enjoyment of the activities inside the building. Residential buildings, schools and hospitals would likely have more sound attenuation built into the wall (given an excessive noise environment) than, for example, a warehouse or commercial building. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-82 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis o Provide sound attenuation blankets (outdoor noise curtains) or other temporary noise barriers to reduce typical noise from construction to be in compliance with the 90 dB property line noise level specified in the City Noise Ordinance. Noise curtains typically have a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 27 dB or greater. The curtains can be moved around a construction site to the needed locations. Some construction activities could occasionally exceed 90 dB temporarily for short periods of time (i.e., at access points to the Project site along West Harris Avenue). Any construction activities in excess of 90 dB at property lines would be in violation of City ordinance in absence of a waiver being granted. The applicant is aware of this requirement and proposes to: o Secure a waiver to permit more than 90 dB noise levels at the property line during grading and pile driving. Properly installed sound attenuation blankets would reduce construction-related noise impacts to less than significant. The City’s waiver process provides a mechanism to approve noise in excess of the standards contained in the SSFMC for construction activities which are temporary in nature. Access to the site along West Harris Avenue could experience momentary higher noise levels along the property line. Exterior noise levels would, at the properties along the east side of West Harris be, approximately 76 to 79 dB and interior noise levels would be approximately 51-54 dB. Temporary construction noise impacts would be considered less than significant. Potential vibration impacts to nearby buildings would be less than significant with the instrumentation in place on the buildings and the monitoring both which are proposed as part of the Project and identified in Section 3.7 Geology and Soils and in Chapter 2 and restated in the following paragraph. o Vibration monitoring and pre- and post-construction monitoring of nearby structures shall be undertaken to evaluate and document vibration related impacts. A specific plan to address construction period vibrations should be submitted to the City for review by the City Engineer. o The geotechnical report (Terracon, October 7, 2014 and Cotton Shires Associates peer review October 16, 2014) indicates that the pile holes would be pre-drilled and consequently the needed forces to drive piles will be reduced. Cast-in-place piles may not be feasible with the very weak, squeezing bay muds. A rigid pile would be inserted from the surface into pre-drilled holes as the holes would likely squeeze in after they are drilled so there is still a need to drive the piles to get them into place. OPERATIONAL NOISE The operation of a project could increase ambient noise levels in two ways, through 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 (i.e., 3-5 dB). Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-83 The Project area is dominated by roadway traffic from U.S. 101 and Interstate 380, South Airport Boulevard and other surface streets. 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 running in the north-south direction. U.S.101 is approximately 0.38 miles west of the Project site. In 2012, U.S. 101 carried an annual average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 220,000 vehicles south of Produce Avenue, 218,000 vehicles south of Oyster Point Boulevard, and 213,000 vehicles just north of Oyster Point Boulevard. A traffic study was prepared for the Project as a part of the scope of services for this Initial Study. The Project would likely generate about 1,152 daily two-way trips (576 in and 576 out), with 51 inbound and 36 outbound trips during the AM peak hour as well as 44 inbound and 47 outbound trips during the PM peak hour (Crane Transportation Group, October, 2014). The incremental increase of traffic in the Project area does not represent a doubling of background traffic volumes. Traffic to and from the site is not expected to increase noise levels by 3 dB. The Project site is under the 65 dB noise contour interval identified as acceptable for commercial land uses. The hotel is a freeway commercial land use. A 70 dB or less noise environment is acceptable for commercial uses while 70 to 80 dBA is conditionally acceptable for commercial land uses. The Project use would be in conformance with the noise standards identified in the City’s General Plan. Additionally, the California Building Code requires noise insulation assemblies in the walls of residential uses (such as hotel rooms and multifamily housing) to attenuate sound to a 45 dB maximum. Rooftop mechanical sound levels would be minimal. Rooftop mechanical sound levels would likely quieter than the mechanical equipment existing in the area due to newer technology. Most of the buildings in the area were constructed 30 plus years ago. The noise level associated with the increase in traffic to and from the Project site is not anticipated to be significant (i.e., increase the noise environment by 5 dB). Moreover, Project- related traffic would not result in a doubling of traffic volumes in the area so there would not be a 3 dB increase in noise levels. As previously noted, the Project site is under the 65 dB noise contour. The Project and the Focus Hotel adjacent to the site are commercial land uses. The Project would not significantly increase noise levels (i.e., 5 dB) in the area. Noise levels in the area would remain lower than 70 dB with the Project. The Project would not contribute to a cumulative noise impact. Noise impacts associated with the Project would be less than significant impact. e) and f) Aircraft Noise Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were located within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport) or in the vicinity of a private airstrip and were to expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. The site is located under the 65 dB contour, therefore under the 70 dB maximum permitted for commercial land uses. The interior ambient noise levels would likely be 20-25 dB less due to the Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-84 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis construction assembly resulting in a noise level of 45 dB. The Project is not within two miles of a private airstrip. The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to excessive aircraft noise exposure. Finding: With the applicant complying with noise limits in the City Noise Ordinance, construction related noise impacts would be less than significant. Traffic associated with the Project would not increase noise levels in the area. The Project would not contribute to a cumulative noise impact. Noise impacts associated with the Project would result a less than significant impact. The site is located under the 65 dB contour interval therefore 5 dB less than the 70 dBA maximum permitted (i.e., without additional mitigation) for commercial land uses. The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to excessive aircraft noise exposure. The interior ambient noise levels would likely be 20-25 dB less (i.e., 45 dB) due to the exterior-to-interior noise reduction from the building walls. 3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X SETTING The 64,117 square foot (1.47 acre) site is approximately 13 feet above mean sea level. Historical information indicates that the site and surrounding area were submerged swamp land from the late 1890s to the early 1950s. The site has never been developed. Periodically the site was used for parking. The adjacent Focus Hotel was constructed in 1980. IMPACTS a) Population Growth Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to induce either directly of indirectly substantial population growth. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-85 The Project site has been planned for a hotel use since the City adopted the 1999 General Plan. The site was analyzed in the East of 101 Traffic Model as containing a 25 room hotel. The Project would construct 128 rooms. The Applicant states there would be at least 52 employees for the Project and a total of three shifts. For CEQA purposes we assume 100 employees. The Project is not a large employer such as an office or industrial complex that would employ a hundreds of people. The Project would not add to the growth assumptions contained in the City’s General Plan and its impact on population growth would be less than significant. b) and c) Displacement of Housing or People Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would result in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing units or people living at the project site. 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 of housing or people. Finding: The Project site has been planned for a hotel use since the City adopted the 1999 General Plan. The site was analyzed in the East of 101 Traffic Model as containing a 25 room hotel. The Project would construct 128 rooms. The Applicant states there would be at least 52 employees for the Project and a total of three shifts. For CEQA purposes we assume 100 employees. The Project site does not include housing and would not displace housing units or residents. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-86 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) 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 64,117 square foot (1.47 acre) site is approximately 13 feet above mean sea level. Historical information indicates that the site and surrounding area were submerged swamp land from the late 1890s to the early 1950s. The site has never been developed. Periodically the site was used for parking. The adjacent Focus Hotel was constructed in 1980. IMPACTS a) Public Services Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks and recreational facilities, or other government facilities. The Project is not anticipated to increase the City of South San Francisco’s population as identified as described above, in Section 3.10 Land Use and Planning and in Section 3.13 Population and Housing. School impact fees are required for new construction and paid for at the time of building permit issuance Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-87 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. Fire Department requirements are identified in Section 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Staffing and service issues were not identified with respect to site development. Fire extinguishers and sprinklers, radio coverage, road and parking standards and a safety impact fee to conduct a study of the East of 101 Area are identified conditions of Project approval. The Police Department reviewed the Project and identified the following conditions of approval (Sergeant Scott Campbell memorandum to Billy Gross, August 30, 2013). Municipal Code Compliance The Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code; "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. 1. Parking Lot / Lighting Parking lots, (including parking lots with carports), driveways, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with high intensity discharge lighting with sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property and vehicles on site. Such lighting shall be equipped with vandal-resistant covers. Exterior door, perimeter, parking area and canopy lights shall be controlled by photocell or timer and shall be left on during hours of darkness or diminished lighting. Parking lot lights shall remain on during the hours of darkness. 2. Alarm The front desk shall be equipped with a central station silent robbery alarm. 3. Security Camera System Building entrances, lobbies, front desk and main driveway shall be monitored by a closed circuit television camera system. Recordings must be maintained for a period of no less than 30 days. These cameras will be part of a digital surveillance system, which will be monitored on-site and accessible on the World Wide Web. This system must be of adequate resolution and color rendition to readily identify any person or vehicle in the event a crime is committed, anywhere on the premises. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-88 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis 4. Misc. Security Measures Commercial establishments having one hundred dollars or more in cash on the premises after closing hours shall lock such money in approved type money safe with a minimum rating of TL-15. 5. Public Safety Impact Fee This new construction will be assessed a Public Safety Impact Fee. The amounts for Office/R & D are $0.13 per square foot for the Police Department and $0.29 per square foot for the Fire Department. Hotel safety impact fees are $0.42 per foot. 6. Hotel Registration Compliance with Chapter 10.70 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code relating to the registration of hotel guests. Neither department identified staffing or service issues associated with redevelopment of and intensification of development on the site. Recreation and parks are discussed in the following section. Any increased demand for public services as a result of the Project would not require construction of new facilities and would be considered less than significant. Finding: The Project was reviewed by Police and Fire Department representatives and staffing or facility needs were not identified as insufficient. Development of the Project site would not increase the demand for public services individually or cumulatively. 3.15 RECREATION Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X SETTING The 64,117 square foot (1.47 acre) site is approximately 13 feet above mean sea level. Historical information indicates that the site and surrounding area were submerged swamp land from the Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-89 late 1890s to the early 1950s. The site has never been developed. Periodically the site was used for parking. The adjacent Focus Hotel was constructed in 1980. IMPACTS a) and b) Recreation Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in an increase in the use of existing parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of these facilities could be anticipated, or if it were to include recreational facilities, the construction of which might have adverse physical effects on the environment. The Project would be a freeway commercial land use, largely serving airport and business travel lodging needs. The Project would likely employ up to 100 persons and is not a major employer as identified in Section 3.13 Population and Housing, above. The Project impact on recreational facilities and the need to construct new facilities would be less than significant. Finding: The Project would not result in an individual or cumulatively considerable impact on parks and recreation. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-90 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis 3.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance 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? X b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program including but not limited to the level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? X c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X Based upon a traffic and circulation study prepared by Crane Transportation group an EIR focusing on traffic and circulation shall be prepared analyzing potential traffic impacts largely due to U.S. 101 existing operating conditions. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-91 3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? X e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs? X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X SETTING The 64,117 square foot (1.47 acre) site is approximately 13 feet above mean sea level. Historical information indicates that the site and surrounding area were submerged swamp land from the late 1890s to the early 1950s. The site has never been developed. Periodically the site was used for parking. The adjacent Focus Hotel was constructed in 1980. IMPACTS a) Regional Wastewater Treatment Standards Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The City’s storm drain outfalls operate under NPDES permits granted by the RWQCB. The South San Francisco Municipal Code (Title 14) contains regulations related to stormwater Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-92 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis management. As identified in Chapter 1 Introduction Section 5 and in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality as a matter of law, projects are required to implement BMPs and LID measures and comply with SWPPP regulations. Mr. Lecel, Acting Environmental Compliance Manager for the City reviewed the Project, identified conditions of approval, and did not identify any extraordinary measures or significant impacts with respect to wastewater. The City is in compliance with its 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 Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which may serve the Project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. All wastewater produced within the City of South San Francisco is treated at the City’s Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP), which is located at the end of Belle Air Road, near the edge of San Francisco Bay, south of the Project site. The WQCP is jointly owned by the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, and it treats all wastewater generated within the two cities. The WQCP also has contracts to treat most of the wastewater produced by the City of Colma and a portion of the wastewater produced by the City of Daly City. The City of South San Francisco has a current allocation of 8.74 million gallon per day (MGD), is currently generating 5.6 MGD. As noted in the comments provided by the Engineering Division (see Section 3.7 Geology and Soils), the City of South San Francisco has identified the need to investigate the condition and capacity of the sewer system within the East of 101 area. The City’s wastewater treatment plant was upgraded in 2000-01. The sewer collection system was originally designed to accommodate warehouse and industrial use and is now proposed to accommodate uses with a much greater sewage flow, such as offices and biotechnology facilities. These additional flows, plus groundwater infiltration into the existing sewers, due to ground settlement and the age of the system, have resulted in pumping and collection capacity constraints. A study and flow model is proposed to analyze the problem and recommend solutions and improvements. The Applicant is required by ordinance to pay the East of 101 Sewer Facility Development Impact Fee (adopted by the City Council, October 23, 2002). The adopted fee is $4.25 per gallon of discharge per day. The calculation is based upon the assumption that any use in the East of 101 Area generates 400 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of development. The Applicant would be required to pay a fee of approximately $111,581 (2013 dollars). The sewer contribution shall be due and payable prior to receiving a building permit for each phase of the development (Andy Tam, Engineering Division). Another condition of approval for the owner/applicant would be to install one correctly-sized sanitary sewer lateral from the site to the line in West Harris Avenue. A sanitary sewer manhole shall be installed as the lateral’s cleanout and shall be installed in the public right-of-way, near the property line, at no cost to the City. The Project site has been planned for a hotel use since the 1999 General Plan adoption. The City of South San Francisco has a current wastewater allocation of 8.74 million gallon per day (MGD), is currently generating 5.6 MGD. The wastewater treatment Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-93 plant has capacity to treat Project and cumulative projected wastewater. The City is currently collecting fees to study future upgrades. Specific needs and upgrades are unknown at this time. The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to wastewater treatment. c) Storm Water Drainage Facilities Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or in the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. The Project would be required to connect to the stormwater facilities. As identified in the Introduction Chapter 1 Section 5 and Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality stormwater is required to be filtered on site prior to being conveyed to manholes. The Project includes bioswales and water retention areas along three of the four property lines. The Project would not require the construction of new or expanded storm drainage facilities, resulting in a less than significant impact to stormwater facilities. b and d) Water Treatment Facilities and Supply Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require additional water supply beyond that available from existing entitlements and resources. 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 whether 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 employing 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 (CWSC) and the Westborough County Water District (WCWD). CWSC 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. WCWD serves the portion of South San Francisco west of I-280. CWCS receives water from the City and County of San Francisco, through the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. CWSC drafted and adopted an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in 2006. The UWMP was established in accordance with the California Urban Water Management Planning Act, (Division 6 Part 2.6 of the Water Code, Section 10610-10656). Water Code Section 10910 subd. (c)(2) and Government Code, Section 66473.7, subd. (c)(1) note that it is acceptable to use the most recently adopted UWMP to assess water supply in accordance with the California Urban Water Management Planning Act and SB 610. Between sources guaranteed by a settlement agreement and the purchase of the Los Trancos County Water District, CWSC has a total Supply Assurance Allocation of 35.5 million gallons a day (MGD) of water indefinitely.31 The UWMP projected that the South San Francisco District population would increase from 55,024 in 2000 to 64,050 in 2020; an increase of approximately 0.8 percent per year. CWSC developed 31 CWSC, 2006 Urban Water Management Plan for South San Francisco, December 15, 2006. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-94 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis an Integrated Long Term Water Supply Plan (ILTWSP) for its three peninsula districts in 2010. The findings of the ILTWSP recommend continuing with conservation and further evaluating desalination and water transfers. The population of the CWSC service area is projected to be 64,050 by 2020 and 70,548 by 2040. 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. Therefore, in 2020 it is anticipated that the CWSC service population area will be 57,678 providing adequate water supply for existing and projected development 32; particularly in light of the conservation efforts identified below. The Project would also be required to comply with the California Green Building Code which identifies measures to reduce water consumption, reduce building construction waste, and energy consumption in both the construction and operation of buildings and for the life of the building (outlined in Chapter 1 Introduction). The regulations prescribe methods to test, report, maintain, and improve the measures employed to promote environmental sustainability. The significance threshold set by Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15083.5 identifies the addition of 1,000 employees as the threshold for additional assessment of potential water impacts. The Project would be a very small employer with office, maintenance and cleaning staff to support a 128 room hotel. The Applicant estimates 52 employees, and for purposes of CEQA, the assumed employee count is increased to 100, which is well below the 1,000 threshold of significance. 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 South San Francisco General Plan. The Applicant estimates 52 employees, and for purposes of CEQA, the assumed employee count is increased to 100, which is well below the 1,000 threshold of significance. f and g) Solid Waste Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to be served by a landfill with inadequate permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs, or if it were to fail to fully comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) manages the waste generation and disposal data for South 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. 32 UWMP, 2006 and South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment and EIR, City of South San Francisco, Dyatt and Bhatia, November, 2009, updated by Knapp Consulting October, 2012 in the 475 Eccles EIR and initial study. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-95 CIWMB 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.33 The City requires constriction waste diversion as outlined in Chapter 1, Introduction as well as recycling and composting waste associated with Project operations. 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. 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 to research the potential for future upgrades. The wastewater treatment plant has capacity to treat Project and cumulative projected wastewater. The UWMP, adopted in 2006, shows adequate water is available for the Project and projected cumulative development. CWSC developed an Integrated Long Term Water Supply Plan (ILTWSP) for its three peninsula districts in 2010. The findings of the ILTWSP recommend continuing with conservation and further evaluating desalination and water transfers. The Project would also be required to comply with the California Green Building Code which identifies measures to reduce water consumption, reduce building construction waste, and energy consumption in both the construction and operation of buildings and for the life of the building. The regulations prescribe methods to test, report, maintain, and improve the measures employed to promote environmental sustainability. The Project would not be a major employer (high estimate for CEQA is 100 persons), well below the threshold of significance of 1,000 employees for preparation of an Urban Water Management Plan. 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 BMPs for stormwater treatment; an improvement over existing conditions. 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. 33 South San Francisco’s existing and projected waste stream generation include an approximate 50 percent demonstrated diversion rate (South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment and EIR, City of South San Francisco, Dyatt and Bhatia, November, 2009, updated by Knapp Consulting, October, 2012 in the 475 Eccles EIR and initial study). . Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-96 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis 3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE — a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects.) X c) Does the Project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X a) Quality of the Environment All environmental impacts associated with aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, health risks, biological resources, cultural resources including important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology 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 without additional mitigation measures. b) Cumulative Impacts The Project may have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable with respect to traffic and circulation; therefore an EIR focusing on traffic and circulation shall be prepared. 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. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-97 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. AGRICULTURAL AND TIMBER RESOURCES: The Project would not adversely affect any existing agricultural operations as none exist on the site. The Project would not impact agricultural resources individually or cumulatively and does not contain any Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), or land in a Williamson Act 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)). AIR QUALITY/HAZARD RISKS: The maximum cancer risk for a residential-adult receptor would be 0.02 per million and for a residential-child would be 0.20 per million. The maximum cancer risk for a school child receptor would be less than 0.01per million. Thus, the cancer risk due to construction activities is below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per million and would be less than significant. The health impacts from Project operations would be 0.01 below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per million and less than significant. 0.01. The chronic HI would be less than 0.01. The chronic HI would be well below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than significant. The acute HI would be 0.03. The acute HI would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than significant. The annual PM 2.5 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. 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. 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, PM 10 , and PM 2.5 ). The City’s building permit procedure captures the BAAQMD permitting regulations, as well as BAAQMD’s recommended emission control measures. The Project would not result in exceeding any Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines significance criteria. The Project would not introduce objectionable odors to the area. GREENHOUSE GAS: The GHG construction impacts would be 1071 less than the BAAQMD GHG operational threshold of 1,100 metric tons. The Project has been reviewed relative to the AB 32 measures and South San Francisco Climate Action Plan and it has been determined that the Project would not conflict with the goals of AB 32 and the applicable Climate Action Plan. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-98 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis BIOLOGY: After review of CNDDB reports and map overlays for the general Project area, and field evaluations of the site, the habitat was found to be highly disturbed and isolated from other areas containing sensitive habitat. As a result, the site is considered to be of very low value for plants and wildlife in general, and as well for sensitive species of plants and animals. No significant biological impacts would result from full development of the Project site. CULTURAL RESOURCES: There are no structures on the Project site. There is a moderate chance that cultural resources may be present on the site. The project plans state that an archaeologist shall be present during site grading and pile driving. The archaeologist would follow the protocols of Public Resources Code Section 210832.2 and Section 15065.5(c)-(f), California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines). The Project would have a less than significant impact on cultural resources. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: There are no active faults underlying the site and the nearest one is the San Andreas Fault, located about three miles southwest. Implementation of the geotechnical measures required by law (the City’s standard permitting requirements for peer review of all geotechnical reports and the final recommendations to become part of the Project) would reduce geologic instability to less than significant. The Project would have no impact on soils due to septic systems as the Project would be connected to the City’s wastewater system. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: 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 Project would have no impact from the emission or handling of hazardous materials or wastes on schools within a quarter of a mile or from any environmental contamination posed by the sites listed on the Cortese List. The impact of the Project with regards to hazardous materials would be less than significant with respect to operational activities. The Project as proposed would have a less than significant impact with respect to the release of hazardous materials during construction. There are no existing or proposed schools or day care centers or facilities within a quarter mile of the Project site. The Project would be 65 feet in height and 85 feet below the 150 foot maximum. The Project would be well under the maximum permitted height determined by the ALUC and FAA. 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 through conditions of approval to provide a fair share financial contribution to the department’s study 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. 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 construction or occupation. The site is Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis Page 3-99 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 hydrology or water quality resources. LAND USE AND PLANNING: The Project would not physically divide an established community. The site is planned for a hotel use 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: With the applicant complying with noise limits in the City Noise Ordinance, construction related noise impacts would be less than significant. Traffic associated with the Project would not increase noise levels in the area. The Project would not contribute to a cumulative noise impact. Noise impacts associated with the Project would result a less than significant impact. The site is located under the 65 dB contour interval therefore 5 dB less than the 70 dBA maximum permitted (i.e., without additional mitigation) for commercial land uses. The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to excessive aircraft noise exposure. The interior ambient noise levels would likely be 20-25 dB less (i.e., 45 dB) due to the exterior-to-interior noise reduction from the building walls. POPULATION AND HOUSING: The Project site has been planned for a hotel use since the City adopted the 1999 General Plan. The site was analyzed in the East of 101 Traffic Model as containing a 25 room hotel. The Project would construct 128 rooms. The Applicant states there would be at least 52 employees for the Project and a total of three shifts. For CEQA purposes we assume 100 employees. The Project site does not include housing and would not displace housing units or residents. PUBLIC SERVICES: The Project was reviewed by Police and Fire Department representatives and staffing or facility needs were not identified as insufficient. Development of the Project site would not increase the demand for public services individually or cumulatively. RECREATION: The Project would be a freeway commercial land use, largely serving airport and business travel lodging needs. The Project would likely employ up to 100 persons and is not a major employer as identified in Section 3.13 Population and Housing, above. The Project impact on recreational facilities and the need to construct new facilities would be less than significant. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION: Due to potential cumulative impacts associated with U.S. 101 an EIR shall be prepared focusing on traffic and circulation. 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 pay wastewater improvement fees Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Page 3-100 127 West Harris-Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis to research the potential for future upgrades. The wastewater treatment plant has capacity to treat Project and cumulative projected wastewater. The UWMP, adopted in 2006, shows adequate water is available for the Project and projected cumulative development. CWSC developed an Integrated Long Term Water Supply Plan (ILTWSP) for its three peninsula districts in 2010. The findings of the ILTWSP recommend continuing with conservation and further evaluating desalination and water transfers. The Project would also be required to comply with the California Green Building Code which identifies measures to reduce water consumption, reduce building construction waste, and energy consumption in both the construction and operation of buildings and for the life of the building. The regulations prescribe methods to test, report, maintain, and improve the measures employed to promote environmental sustainability. The Project would not be a major employer (high estimate for CEQA is 100 persons), well below the threshold of significance of 1,000 employees for preparation of an Urban Water Management Plan. 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 BMPs for stormwater treatment; an improvement over existing conditions. 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. APPENDIX A WEST HARRIS BACKGROUND REPORTS AIR QUALITY Air Quality Assumptions and Methodologies, Construction and Operational Emissions, CALEEMOD Output Files, June, 2014. RCH Group, Mike Ratte. BIOLOGY Biological Resource Assessment, 127 West Harris Street, South San Francisco, California, West Harris SSF.SMa, 21 April 2014. Marangio Biological Consulting, Michael Marangio. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Engineering Report, Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites, 127 West Harris Avenue, South San Francisco, California. April 15, August 21, and October 7, 2014. Terracon. Geotechnical Peer Review, Kuber Development Proposed Fairfield Inn and Suites. May 6, September 2, and October 16, 2014. Cotton Shires Associates. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites, 127 West Harris Avenue, South San Francisco, California. March 18, 2014. Terracon. Limited Stockpile Characterization and Sampling, Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites, 127 West Harris Avenue, South San Francisco, California. March 19, 2014. Terracon. Appendix A-1 Air Quality Assumptions and Methodologies Construction Activities The Project is located in the East of 101 Planning Area, south of East Grand Avenue and north of Mitchell Avenue. San Francisco International Airport is approximately 0.8 miles south of the site. The Colma Creek channel is approximately 330 feet south and U.S. 101 is approximately 850 feet west of the site. Mitchell Avenue provides access to West Harris Avenue. Gateway Boulevard to the west and Harbor Way to the east provide access to Mitchell Avenue. The Project site is 1.47 acres and the hotel would be 129 rooms. The 65,136 square foot hotel would be five stories in height and include 93 onsite parking spaces. Construction activities are assumed to require approximately 52 weeks to completion during 2015. Air quality assessment methodologies in this section generally conform to those identified by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (dated June 2010, updated in May 2011, and revised in May 2012). Construction emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod (California Emissions Estimator Model version 2013.2.2). BAAQMD acknowledges CalEEMod as an appropriate tool for assessment of air quality impacts relative to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This model was also used to calculate the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures. Operations The CalEEMod was used to estimate emissions that would be associated with space heating, water heating, and landscape maintenance emissions expected to occur due to the implementation of the Project. Operational emissions associated with motor vehicles from employees, customers, and deliveries were also estimated. 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 was conducted in accordance with technical guidelines developed by federal, state, and regional agencies, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance1, 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 knowledge, 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 within a short period of time (few minutes to several days) following an exposure to TACs. Cancer risk – the probability of an individual contracting cancer from a lifetime (i.e., 70 year) 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 (weeks, months, years). Hazard Index (HI) – the unitless ratio of an exposure level over the acceptable reference dose (RfC). 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 (RfC). 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., injury 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 eye watering, respiratory 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 quantify both the individual and population-wide health risks associated with those levels of exposure. Incremental – under CEQA, the net difference (or change) in conditions or impacts when comparing the baseline to future year project conditions. 1 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), 2003. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, http://www.oehha.org/air/hot_spots/pdf/HRAguidefinal.pdf. 2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2005. BAAQMD Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines (http://www.baaqmd.gov/pmt/air_toxics/risk_procedures_policies/hrsa_guidelines.pdf), June 2005 . Maximum exposed individual (MEI) – an individual assumed to be located at the point where the highest concentrations of TACs, and therefore, health risks are predicted to occur. Non-cancer risks – health risks such as eye watering, respiratory or heart ailments, and other non-cancer related diseases. Receptors – the locations where potential health impacts or risks are predicted (i.e., schools, residences, and recreational areas). LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES There are a number of important limitations and uncertainties commonly associated with a HRA due to the wide variability of human exposures to TACs, the extended timeframes over which the exposures are evaluated and the inability to verify the results. Among these challenges are the following:  The HRA exposure estimates do not take into account that people do not usually reside at the same location for 70 years and that other exposures (i.e., school children) are also of much shorter durations than was assumed in this analysis. Therefore, the results of the HRA are highly overstated for those cases.  Other limitations and uncertainties associated with 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 with dispersion models; and (e.) the variability in lifestyles, fitness and other confounding factors of the human population. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION TAC emissions associated with the Project would occur from the following Project activities:  Off-road equipment and haul trucks during construction activities; and  Employees, customers, and delivery operations along nearby roadways 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 washout by rain. Humans can be exposed to airborne DPM by deposition on water, 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 the 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, with 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-wide 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 was 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 worst- case for the state, since it assumes constant exposure to outdoor concentrations of diesel exhaust and does not account for expected lower concentrations indoors, where most of time is spent. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Dispersion is the process by which atmospheric pollutants disseminate due to wind 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 13350) was used for the dispersion analysis. AERMOD is the USEPA 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 was executed using the regulatory default options (stack-tip downwash, buoyancy-induced dispersion, and final plume rise), default wind speed profile categories, default potential temperature gradients, and no pollutant decay. The selection of the appropriate dispersion coefficients depends on the land use within three kilometers (km) of the Project site. The land use typing was 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 USEPA Guideline on Air Quality Models recommends using urban dispersion coefficients; otherwise, the appropriate rural coefficients were used. Based on observation of the area surrounding the Project site, rural (urban is only designated within dense city centers such as San Francisco) dispersion coefficients were 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 have a high demand on respiratory system function. Sensitive receptors such as residences, schools, and outdoor recreational areas near the Project were chosen as the receptors to be analyzed. Receptors were placed at a height of 1.8 meters (typical breathing height). The adjacent properties are commercial land uses along Gateway Boulevard and Mitchell Avenue. The nearest residential land uses are approximately 1,800 feet to the northwest (west of US 101). The Early Years Preschool, Old Souls Catholic School, and Spruce Elementary School are located 3,700 feet to the northeast, 4,200 feet to the northwest, and 4,790 feet to the northwest of the Project site, respectively. Terrain elevations for receptor locations were 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 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 wind speed, wind direction, atmospheric stability, and air temperature gradients interact with 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) were used in the dispersion modeling analysis. The data from 2005 through 2009 were used. Exhibit 2 displays the wind rose during this period. Wind directions are predominately from the west and there is a high frequency of calm and low wind conditions. EXHIBIT 2 WINDROSE FOR SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Source Release Characteristics Construction equipment activities were treated as an area source. The release height of the off-road equipment exhaust was 3.05 meters. Haul trucks and employee trips were treated as a line source (i.e., volume sources placed at regular intervals) located along the access road. The haul trucks were 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 were 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 were determined for DPM emissions for the emission sources of concern. These concentrations were estimated for a unit emission rate (1 gram per second) and adjusted based on the calculated Project-related emission rate. The HRA was conducted following 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 was 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 were based on OEHHA guidance. These toxicity values are for carcinogenic effects and acute/chronic health impacts. The primary pathway for exposures was assumed to be inhalation and carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects were evaluated separately. The incremental risks were determined for each emission source of TAC and summed to obtain an estimated total incremental carcinogenic health risk. The 80th percentile adult breathing rate of 302 liters per kilogram per day (L/kg-day) was used to determine cancer risks to residents from exposure to TAC. The residential exposure frequency and duration was 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 95th percentile of daily breathing rates for children. The modeled TAC concentrations were used to represent the exposure concentrations in the air. The inhalation absorption factor was 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 3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2005. BAAQMD Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines (http://www.baaqmd.gov/pmt/air_toxics/risk_procedures_policies/hrsa_guidelines.pdf), June 2005. 4 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), 2003. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, http://www.oehha.org/air/hot_spots/pdf/HRAguidefinal.pdf. cancer risks be weighted 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 residential receptors over a 70 year lifetime, the incorporation of the ASFs results in a cancer risk adjustment factor (CRAF) of 1.7. Table 1 presents the health risk assessment exposure parameters. 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 HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT EXPOSURE PARAMETERS Receptor Breathing Rate (DBR) Cancer Risk Adjustment Factor (CRAF) Daily Exposure Annual Exposure Exposure Duration (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 SOURCE: BAAQMD Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines, (http://www.baaqmd.gov/pmt/air_toxics/risk_procedures_policies/hrsa_guidelines.pdf), June 2005. 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 weight per day [mg/kg-day]), the 70-year annual average concentration (microgram per cubic meter [µg/m3]), and the lifetime exposure adjustment. Following guidelines established by OEHHA, the incremental cancer risks attributable to the Project were 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 weight mass per day. The cancer risks occur exclusively through the inhalation pathway; therefore, the cancer risks can be estimated from the following equation: Dose-inh = Cair * {DBR} * A * CRAF * EF * ED * 10-6 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 (m3)) {DBR} = Daily breathing rate (liter (L)/kg 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 which exposure is averaged in days (25,550 days for a 70 year cancer risk) To determine incremental cancer risk, the estimated inhalation dose attributed to the Project was 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), 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 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 (in µg/m3) and the REL (in µg/m3). The acute hazard index was determined using the “simple” concurrent maximum approach, which tends to be conservative (i.e., overpredicts). The relationship for the non-cancer health effects is given by the following equation: HI = C/REL Where: HI = Hazard index; an expression of the potential for non-cancer health effects. C = Annual average concentration (g/m3) during the 70 year exposure period. REL = The concentration at which no adverse health effects are anticipated. The chronic REL for DPM was established by the California OEHHA 5 as 5 g/m3. There is no acute REL for DPM. However, diesel exhaust does contain acrolein and other compounds, which do have an acute REL. BAAQMD’s DPM speciation table (based on profile 4674 within the USEPA Speciate 4.2)6 was used to assess the acute impacts. 5 California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment Toxicity Criteria Database, 2010, http://www.oehha.ca.gov//. 6 Provides for a speciation faction of 1.3 percent of acrolein per DPM emission rate , http://www.epa.gov////.html. Acrolein emissions are approximately 1.3 percent of the total emissions. The acute REL for acrolein was established by the California OEHHA7 as 2.5 g/m3. 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 roadways in the vicinity of a project (i.e., within a 1,000-foot radius of the location of the Project’s maximum impact area), 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 Bay Area, and has developed the Stationary Source Risk & Hazard Analysis Tool (dated May 2012) for estimating cumulative health risks from permitted sources. Twelve permitted sources are located within 1,000 feet of the Project impact area. Table 2 provides the estimated screening cancer risk, hazard impacts, and the PM2.5 concentrations for the cumulative permitted source. Table 3 provides the estimated adjusted cancer risk, hazard impacts, and the PM2.5 concentrations for the cumulative permitted source. TABLE 2 CUMULATIVE HEALTH IMPACTS – PERMITTED SOURCES Adjustment Factors and Screening Data Facility # Facility Type Address Adjustment Factor Cancer Risk Hazard Impact PM2.5 Concentration 15132 NOD Autobody 206 Baden Ave 1 - 0.01 - 15764 Autobahn Specialties 33 Linden Ave 1 - - - 16753 E+S Ahuactzin Autobody 303 Commercial Ave 1 - - - 4316 Wright Cleaners 316 Grand Ave 0.17 20.2 0.05 - G9214 Unocal Grand Mateo 221 Airport Blvd 0.027 14.7 0.02 - G10695 South City Shell 123 Linden Ave 0.024 12.2 0.02 - 16311 First Class Pupu's Autobody 136 Linden Ave 1 - - - 11618 Carrera Autobody 99 Linden Ave 1 - <0.01 - 18877 SSF Water Quality 27 South Linden Ave 1 1.53 <0.01 <0.01 Information (cancer risks and chronic index) was adjusted for distance from source to receptor, based on BAAQMD’s Distance Adjustment Multiplier for Diesel Internal Combustion Engine and the Distance Adjustment Multiplier for Gasoline Dispensing Facilities. Table 2 provides the distance adjustment factors and the screening (unadjusted) cancer risk, hazard impacts, and the PM2.5 concentrations. Table 3 provides the adjusted cancer risk, hazard impacts, and the PM2.5 concentrations. 7 California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment Toxicity Criteria Database, 2010, http://www.oehha.ca.gov//. TABLE 3 CUMULATIVE HEALTH IMPACTS – PERMITTED SOURCES Adjusted Data Facility # Facility Type Address Cancer Risk Hazard Impact PM2.5 Concentration 15132 NOD Autobody 206 Baden Ave - 0.01 - 15764 Autobahn Specialties 33 Linden Ave - - - 16753 E+S Ahuactzin Autobody 303 Commercial Ave - - - 4316 Wright Cleaners 316 Grand Ave 3.43 0.01 - G9214 Unocal Grand Mateo 221 Airport Blvd 0.40 <0.01 - G10695 South City Shell 123 Linden Ave 0.29 <0.01 - 16311 First Class Pupu's Autobody 136 Linden Ave - - - 11618 Carrera Autobody 99 Linden Ave - <0.01 - 18877 SSF Water Quality 27 South Linden Ave 1.53 <0.01 <0.01 BAAQMD has also developed a geo-referenced database of roadways throughout the San Francisco Bay Area and has developed the Highway Screening Analysis Tool (dated May 2011) for estimating cumulative health risks from roadways. US 101 is also included in this database and is within 1,000 feet of the Project. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines also require the inclusion of surface streets within 1,000 feet of the Project with annual average daily traffic (AADT) of 10,000 or greater8. Upon review of nearby roadways, Airport Boulevard meets the criteria. 8 BAAQMD County Surface Street Screening Tables, May 2011 and CEHTP Traffic Linkage Service Demonstration, http://www.ehib.org/traffic_tool.jsp. Project Characteristics - Land Use - Lot acreage and square feet per project description Architectural Coating - Low ROG coatings Area Mitigation - Energy Mitigation - Water Mitigation - San Mateo County, Annual 127 West Harris Hotel 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Hotel 129.00 Room 1.47 65,136.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 5 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 70 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2016Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 1 of 29 2.0 Emissions Summary Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 10.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 10.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 10.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 100.00 10.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 187,308.00 65,136.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 4.30 1.47 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2016 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 2 of 29 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2015 0.4643 2.7557 2.1988 3.1400e- 003 0.0493 0.1788 0.2281 0.0171 0.1717 0.1888 0.0000 269.4298 269.4298 0.0537 0.0000 270.5578 Total 0.4643 2.7557 2.1988 3.1400e- 003 0.0493 0.1788 0.2281 0.0171 0.1717 0.1888 0.0000 269.4298 269.4298 0.0537 0.0000 270.5578 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2015 0.4643 2.7557 2.1988 3.1400e- 003 0.0493 0.1788 0.2281 0.0171 0.1717 0.1888 0.0000 269.4295 269.4295 0.0537 0.0000 270.5575 Total 0.4643 2.7557 2.1988 3.1400e- 003 0.0493 0.1788 0.2281 0.0171 0.1717 0.1888 0.0000 269.4295 269.4295 0.0537 0.0000 270.5575 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 3 of 29 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.2885 1.0000e- 005 1.2200e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.3100e- 003 2.3100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.4400e- 003 Energy 0.0134 0.1215 0.1021 7.3000e- 004 9.2300e- 003 9.2300e- 003 9.2300e- 003 9.2300e- 003 0.0000 304.6924 304.6924 0.0103 4.0400e- 003 306.1611 Mobile 0.5570 0.9642 5.2622 9.5200e- 003 0.7113 0.0126 0.7239 0.1908 0.0116 0.2024 0.0000 751.0373 751.0373 0.0355 0.0000 751.7821 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 14.3373 0.0000 14.3373 0.8473 0.0000 32.1307 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0382 5.5212 6.5594 0.1069 2.5700e- 003 9.6003 Total 0.8588 1.0857 5.3655 0.0103 0.7113 0.0219 0.7332 0.1908 0.0208 0.2116 15.3754 1,061.253 2 1,076.628 6 1.0000 6.6100e- 003 1,099.676 7 Unmitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 4 of 29 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.2885 1.0000e- 005 1.2200e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.3100e- 003 2.3100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.4400e- 003 Energy 0.0123 0.1116 0.0938 6.7000e- 004 8.4800e- 003 8.4800e- 003 8.4800e- 003 8.4800e- 003 0.0000 278.6998 278.6998 9.4400e- 003 3.7000e- 003 280.0445 Mobile 0.5570 0.9642 5.2622 9.5200e- 003 0.7113 0.0126 0.7239 0.1908 0.0116 0.2024 0.0000 751.0373 751.0373 0.0355 0.0000 751.7821 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 14.3373 0.0000 14.3373 0.8473 0.0000 32.1307 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8305 4.1468 4.9774 0.0855 2.0500e- 003 7.4091 Total 0.8577 1.0759 5.3572 0.0102 0.7113 0.0211 0.7324 0.1908 0.0201 0.2109 15.1678 1,033.886 3 1,049.054 1 0.9777 5.7500e- 003 1,071.368 8 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.13 0.91 0.15 0.59 0.00 3.43 0.10 0.00 3.60 0.35 1.35 2.58 2.56 2.23 13.01 2.57 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 5 of 29 Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2015 1/28/2015 5 20 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/29/2015 1/30/2015 5 2 3 Grading Grading 1/31/2015 2/5/2015 5 4 4 Building Construction Building Construction 2/6/2015 11/12/2015 5 200 5 Paving Paving 11/13/2015 11/26/2015 5 10 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/27/2015 12/10/2015 5 10 OffRoad Equipment Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 97,704; Non-Residential Outdoor: 32,568 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 1 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 1.5 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 6 of 29 Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 7.00 255 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 6.00 174 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 6.00 255 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 6.00 226 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 1 6.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 6.00 9 0.56 Paving Pavers 1 6.00 125 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 130 0.36 Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 7 of 29 3.2 Demolition - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0307 0.2968 0.2206 2.4000e- 004 0.0187 0.0187 0.0175 0.0175 0.0000 22.7618 22.7618 5.7700e- 003 0.0000 22.8829 Total 0.0307 0.2968 0.2206 2.4000e- 004 0.0187 0.0187 0.0175 0.0175 0.0000 22.7618 22.7618 5.7700e- 003 0.0000 22.8829 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 7 27.00 11.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 5.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 8 of 29 3.2 Demolition - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.2000e- 004 8.0000e- 004 7.6500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1800e- 003 3.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.0953 1.0953 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0966 Total 5.2000e- 004 8.0000e- 004 7.6500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1800e- 003 3.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.0953 1.0953 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0966 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0307 0.2968 0.2206 2.4000e- 004 0.0187 0.0187 0.0175 0.0175 0.0000 22.7618 22.7618 5.7700e- 003 0.0000 22.8829 Total 0.0307 0.2968 0.2206 2.4000e- 004 0.0187 0.0187 0.0175 0.0175 0.0000 22.7618 22.7618 5.7700e- 003 0.0000 22.8829 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 9 of 29 3.2 Demolition - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.2000e- 004 8.0000e- 004 7.6500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1800e- 003 3.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.0953 1.0953 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0966 Total 5.2000e- 004 8.0000e- 004 7.6500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1800e- 003 3.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.0953 1.0953 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0966 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 5.8000e- 003 0.0000 5.8000e- 003 2.9500e- 003 0.0000 2.9500e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.5400e- 003 0.0269 0.0170 2.0000e- 005 1.4700e- 003 1.4700e- 003 1.3500e- 003 1.3500e- 003 0.0000 1.6345 1.6345 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.6448 Total 2.5400e- 003 0.0269 0.0170 2.0000e- 005 5.8000e- 003 1.4700e- 003 7.2700e- 003 2.9500e- 003 1.3500e- 003 4.3000e- 003 0.0000 1.6345 1.6345 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.6448 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 10 of 29 3.3 Site Preparation - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0674 0.0674 0.0000 0.0000 0.0675 Total 3.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0674 0.0674 0.0000 0.0000 0.0675 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 5.8000e- 003 0.0000 5.8000e- 003 2.9500e- 003 0.0000 2.9500e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.5400e- 003 0.0269 0.0170 2.0000e- 005 1.4700e- 003 1.4700e- 003 1.3500e- 003 1.3500e- 003 0.0000 1.6345 1.6345 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.6448 Total 2.5400e- 003 0.0269 0.0170 2.0000e- 005 5.8000e- 003 1.4700e- 003 7.2700e- 003 2.9500e- 003 1.3500e- 003 4.3000e- 003 0.0000 1.6345 1.6345 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.6448 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 11 of 29 3.3 Site Preparation - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0674 0.0674 0.0000 0.0000 0.0675 Total 3.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0674 0.0674 0.0000 0.0000 0.0675 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 9.8300e- 003 0.0000 9.8300e- 003 5.0500e- 003 0.0000 5.0500e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1300e- 003 0.0439 0.0282 3.0000e- 005 2.3900e- 003 2.3900e- 003 2.2000e- 003 2.2000e- 003 0.0000 2.6849 2.6849 8.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.7017 Total 4.1300e- 003 0.0439 0.0282 3.0000e- 005 9.8300e- 003 2.3900e- 003 0.0122 5.0500e- 003 2.2000e- 003 7.2500e- 003 0.0000 2.6849 2.6849 8.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.7017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 12 of 29 3.4 Grading - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 004 9.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.5000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1348 0.1348 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1350 Total 6.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 004 9.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.5000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1348 0.1348 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1350 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 9.8300e- 003 0.0000 9.8300e- 003 5.0500e- 003 0.0000 5.0500e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1300e- 003 0.0439 0.0282 3.0000e- 005 2.3900e- 003 2.3900e- 003 2.2000e- 003 2.2000e- 003 0.0000 2.6849 2.6849 8.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.7017 Total 4.1300e- 003 0.0439 0.0282 3.0000e- 005 9.8300e- 003 2.3900e- 003 0.0122 5.0500e- 003 2.2000e- 003 7.2500e- 003 0.0000 2.6849 2.6849 8.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.7017 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 13 of 29 3.4 Grading - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 004 9.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.5000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1348 0.1348 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1350 Total 6.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 004 9.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.5000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1348 0.1348 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1350 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.3600 2.1564 1.5004 2.2000e- 003 0.1485 0.1485 0.1434 0.1434 0.0000 186.4831 186.4831 0.0430 0.0000 187.3864 Total 0.3600 2.1564 1.5004 2.2000e- 003 0.1485 0.1485 0.1434 0.1434 0.0000 186.4831 186.4831 0.0430 0.0000 187.3864 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 14 of 29 3.5 Building Construction - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0160 0.1277 0.2040 2.6000e- 004 7.0200e- 003 1.9800e- 003 9.0100e- 003 2.0100e- 003 1.8200e- 003 3.8400e- 003 0.0000 23.5133 23.5133 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 23.5177 Worker 0.0108 0.0167 0.1589 2.9000e- 004 0.0244 2.1000e- 004 0.0246 6.4900e- 003 1.9000e- 004 6.6800e- 003 0.0000 22.7489 22.7489 1.3100e- 003 0.0000 22.7765 Total 0.0267 0.1444 0.3629 5.5000e- 004 0.0314 2.1900e- 003 0.0336 8.5000e- 003 2.0100e- 003 0.0105 0.0000 46.2622 46.2622 1.5200e- 003 0.0000 46.2941 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.3600 2.1564 1.5004 2.2000e- 003 0.1485 0.1485 0.1434 0.1434 0.0000 186.4829 186.4829 0.0430 0.0000 187.3862 Total 0.3600 2.1564 1.5004 2.2000e- 003 0.1485 0.1485 0.1434 0.1434 0.0000 186.4829 186.4829 0.0430 0.0000 187.3862 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 15 of 29 3.5 Building Construction - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0160 0.1277 0.2040 2.6000e- 004 7.0200e- 003 1.9800e- 003 9.0100e- 003 2.0100e- 003 1.8200e- 003 3.8400e- 003 0.0000 23.5133 23.5133 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 23.5177 Worker 0.0108 0.0167 0.1589 2.9000e- 004 0.0244 2.1000e- 004 0.0246 6.4900e- 003 1.9000e- 004 6.6800e- 003 0.0000 22.7489 22.7489 1.3100e- 003 0.0000 22.7765 Total 0.0267 0.1444 0.3629 5.5000e- 004 0.0314 2.1900e- 003 0.0336 8.5000e- 003 2.0100e- 003 0.0105 0.0000 46.2622 46.2622 1.5200e- 003 0.0000 46.2941 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 7.0200e- 003 0.0730 0.0459 7.0000e- 005 4.4600e- 003 4.4600e- 003 4.1100e- 003 4.1100e- 003 0.0000 6.2708 6.2708 1.8400e- 003 0.0000 6.3094 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 7.0200e- 003 0.0730 0.0459 7.0000e- 005 4.4600e- 003 4.4600e- 003 4.1100e- 003 4.1100e- 003 0.0000 6.2708 6.2708 1.8400e- 003 0.0000 6.3094 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 16 of 29 3.6 Paving - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.6000e- 004 4.0000e- 004 3.8300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 5.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.9000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.5477 0.5477 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5483 Total 2.6000e- 004 4.0000e- 004 3.8300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 5.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.9000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.5477 0.5477 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5483 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 7.0200e- 003 0.0730 0.0459 7.0000e- 005 4.4600e- 003 4.4600e- 003 4.1100e- 003 4.1100e- 003 0.0000 6.2708 6.2708 1.8400e- 003 0.0000 6.3094 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 7.0200e- 003 0.0730 0.0459 7.0000e- 005 4.4600e- 003 4.4600e- 003 4.1100e- 003 4.1100e- 003 0.0000 6.2708 6.2708 1.8400e- 003 0.0000 6.3094 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 17 of 29 3.6 Paving - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.6000e- 004 4.0000e- 004 3.8300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 5.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.9000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.5477 0.5477 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5483 Total 2.6000e- 004 4.0000e- 004 3.8300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 5.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.9000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.5477 0.5477 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5483 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.0302 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.0300e- 003 0.0129 9.5100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 1.1000e- 003 1.1000e- 003 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.2801 Total 0.0322 0.0129 9.5100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 1.1000e- 003 1.1000e- 003 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.2801 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 18 of 29 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.4700e- 003 0.0000 2.3000e- 004 0.0000 2.3000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2106 0.2106 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2109 Total 1.0000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.4700e- 003 0.0000 2.3000e- 004 0.0000 2.3000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2106 0.2106 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2109 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.0302 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.0300e- 003 0.0129 9.5100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 1.1000e- 003 1.1000e- 003 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.2801 Total 0.0322 0.0129 9.5100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 1.1000e- 003 1.1000e- 003 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.2801 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 19 of 29 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.5570 0.9642 5.2622 9.5200e- 003 0.7113 0.0126 0.7239 0.1908 0.0116 0.2024 0.0000 751.0373 751.0373 0.0355 0.0000 751.7821 Unmitigated 0.5570 0.9642 5.2622 9.5200e- 003 0.7113 0.0126 0.7239 0.1908 0.0116 0.2024 0.0000 751.0373 751.0373 0.0355 0.0000 751.7821 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.4700e- 003 0.0000 2.3000e- 004 0.0000 2.3000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2106 0.2106 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2109 Total 1.0000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.4700e- 003 0.0000 2.3000e- 004 0.0000 2.3000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2106 0.2106 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2109 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 20 of 29 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Hotel 1,053.93 1,056.51 767.55 1,925,365 1,925,365 Total 1,053.93 1,056.51 767.55 1,925,365 1,925,365 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Hotel 9.50 7.30 7.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Exceed Title 24 Install High Efficiency Lighting Kilowatt Hours of Renewable Electricity Generated Install Energy Efficient Appliances 4.4 Fleet Mix LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.579021 0.062765 0.176333 0.114336 0.029695 0.004181 0.015593 0.003984 0.002598 0.003702 0.006580 0.000230 0.000982 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 21 of 29 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 157.1891 157.1891 7.1100e- 003 1.4700e- 003 157.7943 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 172.4342 172.4342 7.8000e- 003 1.6100e- 003 173.0980 NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0123 0.1116 0.0938 6.7000e- 004 8.4800e- 003 8.4800e- 003 8.4800e- 003 8.4800e- 003 0.0000 121.5107 121.5107 2.3300e- 003 2.2300e- 003 122.2502 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0134 0.1215 0.1021 7.3000e- 004 9.2300e- 003 9.2300e- 003 9.2300e- 003 9.2300e- 003 0.0000 132.2582 132.2582 2.5300e- 003 2.4200e- 003 133.0631 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Hotel 2.47842e +006 0.0134 0.1215 0.1021 7.3000e- 004 9.2300e- 003 9.2300e- 003 9.2300e- 003 9.2300e- 003 0.0000 132.2582 132.2582 2.5300e- 003 2.4200e- 003 133.0631 Total 0.0134 0.1215 0.1021 7.3000e- 004 9.2300e- 003 9.2300e- 003 9.2300e- 003 9.2300e- 003 0.0000 132.2582 132.2582 2.5300e- 003 2.4200e- 003 133.0631 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 22 of 29 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Hotel 2.27702e +006 0.0123 0.1116 0.0938 6.7000e- 004 8.4800e- 003 8.4800e- 003 8.4800e- 003 8.4800e- 003 0.0000 121.5107 121.5107 2.3300e- 003 2.2300e- 003 122.2502 Total 0.0123 0.1116 0.0938 6.7000e- 004 8.4800e- 003 8.4800e- 003 8.4800e- 003 8.4800e- 003 0.0000 121.5107 121.5107 2.3300e- 003 2.2300e- 003 122.2502 Mitigated 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Hotel 592738 172.4342 7.8000e- 003 1.6100e- 003 173.0980 Total 172.4342 7.8000e- 003 1.6100e- 003 173.0980 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 23 of 29 Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Interior Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Exterior Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Interior Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Exterior Use only Natural Gas Hearths 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Hotel 540333 157.1891 7.1100e- 003 1.4700e- 003 157.7943 Total 157.1891 7.1100e- 003 1.4700e- 003 157.7943 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 24 of 29 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.2885 1.0000e- 005 1.2200e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.3100e- 003 2.3100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.4400e- 003 Unmitigated 0.2885 1.0000e- 005 1.2200e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.3100e- 003 2.3100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.4400e- 003 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.0340 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.2544 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.2200e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.3100e- 003 2.3100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.4400e- 003 Total 0.2885 1.0000e- 005 1.2200e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.3100e- 003 2.3100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.4400e- 003 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 25 of 29 Apply Water Conservation Strategy Use Water Efficient Irrigation System 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 4.9774 0.0855 2.0500e- 003 7.4091 Unmitigated 6.5594 0.1069 2.5700e- 003 9.6003 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.0340 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.2544 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.2200e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.3100e- 003 2.3100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.4400e- 003 Total 0.2885 1.0000e- 005 1.2200e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.3100e- 003 2.3100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.4400e- 003 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 26 of 29 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Hotel 3.27231 / 0.36359 6.5594 0.1069 2.5700e- 003 9.6003 Total 6.5594 0.1069 2.5700e- 003 9.6003 Unmitigated Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Hotel 2.61785 / 0.36359 4.9774 0.0855 2.0500e- 003 7.4091 Total 4.9774 0.0855 2.0500e- 003 7.4091 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 27 of 29 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 14.3373 0.8473 0.0000 32.1307 Unmitigated 14.3373 0.8473 0.0000 32.1307 Category/Year 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Hotel 70.63 14.3373 0.8473 0.0000 32.1307 Total 14.3373 0.8473 0.0000 32.1307 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 28 of 29 10.0 Vegetation 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Hotel 70.63 14.3373 0.8473 0.0000 32.1307 Total 14.3373 0.8473 0.0000 32.1307 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:01 PMPage 29 of 29 Project Characteristics - Land Use - Lot acreage and square feet per project description Architectural Coating - Low ROG coatings Area Mitigation - Energy Mitigation - Water Mitigation - San Mateo County, Summer 127 West Harris Hotel 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Hotel 129.00 Room 1.47 65,136.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 5 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 70 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2016Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:03 PMPage 1 of 24 2.0 Emissions Summary Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 10.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 10.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 10.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 100.00 10.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 187,308.00 65,136.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 4.30 1.47 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2016 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:03 PMPage 2 of 24 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2015 6.4652 29.7483 22.8474 0.0276 5.8750 1.8661 7.3427 2.9737 1.7479 4.3240 0.0000 2,637.031 2 2,637.031 2 0.6427 0.0000 2,650.528 0 Total 6.4652 29.7483 22.8474 0.0276 5.8750 1.8661 7.3427 2.9737 1.7479 4.3240 0.0000 2,637.031 2 2,637.031 2 0.6427 0.0000 2,650.528 0 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2015 6.4652 29.7483 22.8474 0.0276 5.8750 1.8661 7.3427 2.9737 1.7479 4.3240 0.0000 2,637.031 2 2,637.031 2 0.6427 0.0000 2,650.528 0 Total 6.4652 29.7483 22.8474 0.0276 5.8750 1.8661 7.3427 2.9737 1.7479 4.3240 0.0000 2,637.031 2 2,637.031 2 0.6427 0.0000 2,650.528 0 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:03 PMPage 3 of 24 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 1.5813 1.3000e- 004 0.0135 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 0.0282 0.0282 8.0000e- 005 0.0299 Energy 0.0732 0.6657 0.5592 3.9900e- 003 0.0506 0.0506 0.0506 0.0506 798.8476 798.8476 0.0153 0.0147 803.7093 Mobile 3.2334 5.1121 28.7362 0.0573 4.2493 0.0722 4.3216 1.1358 0.0664 1.2022 4,981.876 0 4,981.876 0 0.2242 4,986.583 9 Total 4.8879 5.7779 29.3089 0.0613 4.2493 0.1229 4.3722 1.1358 0.1170 1.2528 5,780.751 9 5,780.751 9 0.2396 0.0147 5,790.323 1 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 1.5813 1.3000e- 004 0.0135 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 0.0282 0.0282 8.0000e- 005 0.0299 Energy 0.0673 0.6116 0.5138 3.6700e- 003 0.0465 0.0465 0.0465 0.0465 733.9321 733.9321 0.0141 0.0135 738.3987 Mobile 3.2334 5.1121 28.7362 0.0573 4.2493 0.0722 4.3216 1.1358 0.0664 1.2022 4,981.876 0 4,981.876 0 0.2242 4,986.583 9 Total 4.8820 5.7238 29.2635 0.0610 4.2493 0.1188 4.3681 1.1358 0.1129 1.2487 5,715.836 3 5,715.836 3 0.2383 0.0135 5,725.012 5 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:03 PMPage 4 of 24 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2015 1/28/2015 5 20 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/29/2015 1/30/2015 5 2 3 Grading Grading 1/31/2015 2/5/2015 5 4 4 Building Construction Building Construction 2/6/2015 11/12/2015 5 200 5 Paving Paving 11/13/2015 11/26/2015 5 10 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/27/2015 12/10/2015 5 10 OffRoad Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.12 0.94 0.16 0.52 0.00 3.34 0.09 0.00 3.51 0.33 0.00 1.12 1.12 0.52 8.12 1.13 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 97,704; Non-Residential Outdoor: 32,568 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 1 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 1.5 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:03 PMPage 5 of 24 Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 7.00 255 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 6.00 174 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 6.00 255 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 6.00 226 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 1 6.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 6.00 9 0.56 Paving Pavers 1 6.00 125 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 130 0.36 Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:03 PMPage 6 of 24 3.2 Demolition - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 3.0666 29.6778 22.0566 0.0245 1.8651 1.8651 1.7469 1.7469 2,509.059 9 2,509.059 9 0.6357 2,522.410 4 Total 3.0666 29.6778 22.0566 0.0245 1.8651 1.8651 1.7469 1.7469 2,509.059 9 2,509.059 9 0.6357 2,522.410 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 7 27.00 11.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 5.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:03 PMPage 7 of 24 3.2 Demolition - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0532 0.0706 0.7908 1.4600e- 003 0.1226 1.0000e- 003 0.1236 0.0325 9.2000e- 004 0.0334 127.9713 127.9713 6.9700e- 003 128.1176 Total 0.0532 0.0706 0.7908 1.4600e- 003 0.1226 1.0000e- 003 0.1236 0.0325 9.2000e- 004 0.0334 127.9713 127.9713 6.9700e- 003 128.1176 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 3.0666 29.6778 22.0566 0.0245 1.8651 1.8651 1.7469 1.7469 0.0000 2,509.059 9 2,509.059 9 0.6357 2,522.410 4 Total 3.0666 29.6778 22.0566 0.0245 1.8651 1.8651 1.7469 1.7469 0.0000 2,509.059 9 2,509.059 9 0.6357 2,522.410 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:03 PMPage 8 of 24 3.2 Demolition - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0532 0.0706 0.7908 1.4600e- 003 0.1226 1.0000e- 003 0.1236 0.0325 9.2000e- 004 0.0334 127.9713 127.9713 6.9700e- 003 128.1176 Total 0.0532 0.0706 0.7908 1.4600e- 003 0.1226 1.0000e- 003 0.1236 0.0325 9.2000e- 004 0.0334 127.9713 127.9713 6.9700e- 003 128.1176 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 5.7996 0.0000 5.7996 2.9537 0.0000 2.9537 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.5362 26.8886 17.0107 0.0171 1.4671 1.4671 1.3497 1.3497 1,801.744 0 1,801.744 0 0.5379 1,813.039 8 Total 2.5362 26.8886 17.0107 0.0171 5.7996 1.4671 7.2666 2.9537 1.3497 4.3034 1,801.744 0 1,801.744 0 0.5379 1,813.039 8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:03 PMPage 9 of 24 3.3 Site Preparation - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0327 0.0434 0.4866 9.0000e- 004 0.0754 6.2000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 5.6000e- 004 0.0206 78.7516 78.7516 4.2900e- 003 78.8416 Total 0.0327 0.0434 0.4866 9.0000e- 004 0.0754 6.2000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 5.6000e- 004 0.0206 78.7516 78.7516 4.2900e- 003 78.8416 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 5.7996 0.0000 5.7996 2.9537 0.0000 2.9537 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.5362 26.8886 17.0107 0.0171 1.4671 1.4671 1.3497 1.3497 0.0000 1,801.744 0 1,801.744 0 0.5379 1,813.039 8 Total 2.5362 26.8886 17.0107 0.0171 5.7996 1.4671 7.2666 2.9537 1.3497 4.3034 0.0000 1,801.744 0 1,801.744 0 0.5379 1,813.039 8 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:03 PMPage 10 of 24 3.3 Site Preparation - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0327 0.0434 0.4866 9.0000e- 004 0.0754 6.2000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 5.6000e- 004 0.0206 78.7516 78.7516 4.2900e- 003 78.8416 Total 0.0327 0.0434 0.4866 9.0000e- 004 0.0754 6.2000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 5.6000e- 004 0.0206 78.7516 78.7516 4.2900e- 003 78.8416 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 4.9143 0.0000 4.9143 2.5256 0.0000 2.5256 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.0666 21.9443 14.0902 0.0141 1.1968 1.1968 1.1011 1.1011 1,479.800 0 1,479.800 0 0.4418 1,489.077 4 Total 2.0666 21.9443 14.0902 0.0141 4.9143 1.1968 6.1110 2.5256 1.1011 3.6267 1,479.800 0 1,479.800 0 0.4418 1,489.077 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:03 PMPage 11 of 24 3.4 Grading - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0327 0.0434 0.4866 9.0000e- 004 0.0754 6.2000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 5.6000e- 004 0.0206 78.7516 78.7516 4.2900e- 003 78.8416 Total 0.0327 0.0434 0.4866 9.0000e- 004 0.0754 6.2000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 5.6000e- 004 0.0206 78.7516 78.7516 4.2900e- 003 78.8416 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 4.9143 0.0000 4.9143 2.5256 0.0000 2.5256 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.0666 21.9443 14.0902 0.0141 1.1968 1.1968 1.1011 1.1011 0.0000 1,479.800 0 1,479.800 0 0.4418 1,489.077 4 Total 2.0666 21.9443 14.0902 0.0141 4.9143 1.1968 6.1110 2.5256 1.1011 3.6267 0.0000 1,479.800 0 1,479.800 0 0.4418 1,489.077 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:03 PMPage 12 of 24 3.4 Grading - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0327 0.0434 0.4866 9.0000e- 004 0.0754 6.2000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 5.6000e- 004 0.0206 78.7516 78.7516 4.2900e- 003 78.8416 Total 0.0327 0.0434 0.4866 9.0000e- 004 0.0754 6.2000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 5.6000e- 004 0.0206 78.7516 78.7516 4.2900e- 003 78.8416 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 3.6000 21.5642 15.0041 0.0220 1.4851 1.4851 1.4344 1.4344 2,055.624 7 2,055.624 7 0.4741 2,065.581 2 Total 3.6000 21.5642 15.0041 0.0220 1.4851 1.4851 1.4344 1.4344 2,055.624 7 2,055.624 7 0.4741 2,065.581 2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:03 PMPage 13 of 24 3.5 Building Construction - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1423 1.2316 1.6463 2.5800e- 003 0.0728 0.0197 0.0925 0.0208 0.0181 0.0389 260.0397 260.0397 2.2800e- 003 260.0877 Worker 0.1104 0.1465 1.6424 3.0300e- 003 0.2546 2.0900e- 003 0.2567 0.0675 1.9100e- 003 0.0694 265.7865 265.7865 0.0145 266.0904 Total 0.2527 1.3782 3.2887 5.6100e- 003 0.3274 0.0218 0.3492 0.0883 0.0201 0.1083 525.8262 525.8262 0.0168 526.1781 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 3.6000 21.5642 15.0041 0.0220 1.4851 1.4851 1.4344 1.4344 0.0000 2,055.624 7 2,055.624 7 0.4741 2,065.581 2 Total 3.6000 21.5642 15.0041 0.0220 1.4851 1.4851 1.4344 1.4344 0.0000 2,055.624 7 2,055.624 7 0.4741 2,065.581 2 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:03 PMPage 14 of 24 3.5 Building Construction - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1423 1.2316 1.6463 2.5800e- 003 0.0728 0.0197 0.0925 0.0208 0.0181 0.0389 260.0397 260.0397 2.2800e- 003 260.0877 Worker 0.1104 0.1465 1.6424 3.0300e- 003 0.2546 2.0900e- 003 0.2567 0.0675 1.9100e- 003 0.0694 265.7865 265.7865 0.0145 266.0904 Total 0.2527 1.3782 3.2887 5.6100e- 003 0.3274 0.0218 0.3492 0.0883 0.0201 0.1083 525.8262 525.8262 0.0168 526.1781 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.4041 14.5959 9.1695 0.0133 0.8919 0.8919 0.8215 0.8215 1,382.470 3 1,382.470 3 0.4054 1,390.982 6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.4041 14.5959 9.1695 0.0133 0.8919 0.8919 0.8215 0.8215 1,382.470 3 1,382.470 3 0.4054 1,390.982 6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:03 PMPage 15 of 24 3.6 Paving - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0532 0.0706 0.7908 1.4600e- 003 0.1226 1.0000e- 003 0.1236 0.0325 9.2000e- 004 0.0334 127.9713 127.9713 6.9700e- 003 128.1176 Total 0.0532 0.0706 0.7908 1.4600e- 003 0.1226 1.0000e- 003 0.1236 0.0325 9.2000e- 004 0.0334 127.9713 127.9713 6.9700e- 003 128.1176 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.4041 14.5959 9.1695 0.0133 0.8919 0.8919 0.8215 0.8215 0.0000 1,382.470 3 1,382.470 3 0.4054 1,390.982 6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.4041 14.5959 9.1695 0.0133 0.8919 0.8919 0.8215 0.8215 0.0000 1,382.470 3 1,382.470 3 0.4054 1,390.982 6 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:03 PMPage 16 of 24 3.6 Paving - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0532 0.0706 0.7908 1.4600e- 003 0.1226 1.0000e- 003 0.1236 0.0325 9.2000e- 004 0.0334 127.9713 127.9713 6.9700e- 003 128.1176 Total 0.0532 0.0706 0.7908 1.4600e- 003 0.1226 1.0000e- 003 0.1236 0.0325 9.2000e- 004 0.0334 127.9713 127.9713 6.9700e- 003 128.1176 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 6.0381 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.4066 2.5703 1.9018 2.9700e- 003 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 281.4481 281.4481 0.0367 282.2177 Total 6.4447 2.5703 1.9018 2.9700e- 003 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 281.4481 281.4481 0.0367 282.2177 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:03 PMPage 17 of 24 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0205 0.0271 0.3042 5.6000e- 004 0.0472 3.9000e- 004 0.0475 0.0125 3.5000e- 004 0.0129 49.2197 49.2197 2.6800e- 003 49.2760 Total 0.0205 0.0271 0.3042 5.6000e- 004 0.0472 3.9000e- 004 0.0475 0.0125 3.5000e- 004 0.0129 49.2197 49.2197 2.6800e- 003 49.2760 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 6.0381 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.4066 2.5703 1.9018 2.9700e- 003 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0367 282.2177 Total 6.4447 2.5703 1.9018 2.9700e- 003 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0367 282.2177 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:03 PMPage 18 of 24 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 3.2334 5.1121 28.7362 0.0573 4.2493 0.0722 4.3216 1.1358 0.0664 1.2022 4,981.876 0 4,981.876 0 0.2242 4,986.583 9 Unmitigated 3.2334 5.1121 28.7362 0.0573 4.2493 0.0722 4.3216 1.1358 0.0664 1.2022 4,981.876 0 4,981.876 0 0.2242 4,986.583 9 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0205 0.0271 0.3042 5.6000e- 004 0.0472 3.9000e- 004 0.0475 0.0125 3.5000e- 004 0.0129 49.2197 49.2197 2.6800e- 003 49.2760 Total 0.0205 0.0271 0.3042 5.6000e- 004 0.0472 3.9000e- 004 0.0475 0.0125 3.5000e- 004 0.0129 49.2197 49.2197 2.6800e- 003 49.2760 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:03 PMPage 19 of 24 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Hotel 1,053.93 1,056.51 767.55 1,925,365 1,925,365 Total 1,053.93 1,056.51 767.55 1,925,365 1,925,365 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Hotel 9.50 7.30 7.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Exceed Title 24 Install High Efficiency Lighting Kilowatt Hours of Renewable Electricity Generated Install Energy Efficient Appliances 4.4 Fleet Mix LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.579021 0.062765 0.176333 0.114336 0.029695 0.004181 0.015593 0.003984 0.002598 0.003702 0.006580 0.000230 0.000982 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:03 PMPage 20 of 24 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0673 0.6116 0.5138 3.6700e- 003 0.0465 0.0465 0.0465 0.0465 733.9321 733.9321 0.0141 0.0135 738.3987 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0732 0.6657 0.5592 3.9900e- 003 0.0506 0.0506 0.0506 0.0506 798.8476 798.8476 0.0153 0.0147 803.7093 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Hotel 6790.2 0.0732 0.6657 0.5592 3.9900e- 003 0.0506 0.0506 0.0506 0.0506 798.8476 798.8476 0.0153 0.0147 803.7093 Total 0.0732 0.6657 0.5592 3.9900e- 003 0.0506 0.0506 0.0506 0.0506 798.8476 798.8476 0.0153 0.0147 803.7093 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:03 PMPage 21 of 24 Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Interior Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Exterior Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Interior Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Exterior Use only Natural Gas Hearths 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Hotel 6.23842 0.0673 0.6116 0.5138 3.6700e- 003 0.0465 0.0465 0.0465 0.0465 733.9321 733.9321 0.0141 0.0135 738.3987 Total 0.0673 0.6116 0.5138 3.6700e- 003 0.0465 0.0465 0.0465 0.0465 733.9321 733.9321 0.0141 0.0135 738.3987 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:03 PMPage 22 of 24 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 1.5813 1.3000e- 004 0.0135 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 0.0282 0.0282 8.0000e- 005 0.0299 Unmitigated 1.5813 1.3000e- 004 0.0135 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 0.0282 0.0282 8.0000e- 005 0.0299 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.1861 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 1.3939 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.3200e- 003 1.3000e- 004 0.0135 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 0.0282 0.0282 8.0000e- 005 0.0299 Total 1.5813 1.3000e- 004 0.0135 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 0.0282 0.0282 8.0000e- 005 0.0299 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:03 PMPage 23 of 24 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Apply Water Conservation Strategy Use Water Efficient Irrigation System 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 10.0 Vegetation 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.1861 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 1.3939 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.3200e- 003 1.3000e- 004 0.0135 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 0.0282 0.0282 8.0000e- 005 0.0299 Total 1.5813 1.3000e- 004 0.0135 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 0.0282 0.0282 8.0000e- 005 0.0299 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 3:03 PMPage 24 of 24 Project Characteristics - Land Use - Lot acreage and square feet per project description Architectural Coating - Low ROG coatings Energy Mitigation - Area Mitigation - San Mateo County, Winter 127 West Harris Hotel 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Hotel 129.00 Room 1.47 65,136.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 5 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 70 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2016Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 2:41 PMPage 1 of 24 2.0 Emissions Summary Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 10.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 10.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 10.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 100.00 10.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 187,308.00 65,136.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 4.30 1.47 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2016 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 2:41 PMPage 2 of 24 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2015 6.4663 29.7650 22.8558 0.0274 5.8750 1.8661 7.3427 2.9737 1.7479 4.3240 0.0000 2,629.353 4 2,629.353 4 0.6427 0.0000 2,642.850 3 Total 6.4663 29.7650 22.8558 0.0274 5.8750 1.8661 7.3427 2.9737 1.7479 4.3240 0.0000 2,629.353 4 2,629.353 4 0.6427 0.0000 2,642.850 3 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2015 6.4663 29.7650 22.8558 0.0274 5.8750 1.8661 7.3427 2.9737 1.7479 4.3240 0.0000 2,629.353 4 2,629.353 4 0.6427 0.0000 2,642.850 3 Total 6.4663 29.7650 22.8558 0.0274 5.8750 1.8661 7.3427 2.9737 1.7479 4.3240 0.0000 2,629.353 4 2,629.353 4 0.6427 0.0000 2,642.850 3 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 2:41 PMPage 3 of 24 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 1.5813 1.3000e- 004 0.0135 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 0.0282 0.0282 8.0000e- 005 0.0299 Energy 0.0732 0.6657 0.5592 3.9900e- 003 0.0506 0.0506 0.0506 0.0506 798.8476 798.8476 0.0153 0.0147 803.7093 Mobile 3.4484 5.7862 32.6495 0.0544 4.2493 0.0727 4.3220 1.1358 0.0668 1.2026 4,731.183 9 4,731.183 9 0.2243 4,735.893 5 Total 5.1029 6.4520 33.2222 0.0584 4.2493 0.1233 4.3726 1.1358 0.1174 1.2532 5,530.059 7 5,530.059 7 0.2397 0.0147 5,539.632 7 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 1.5813 1.3000e- 004 0.0135 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 0.0282 0.0282 8.0000e- 005 0.0299 Energy 0.0673 0.6116 0.5138 3.6700e- 003 0.0465 0.0465 0.0465 0.0465 733.9321 733.9321 0.0141 0.0135 738.3987 Mobile 3.4484 5.7862 32.6495 0.0544 4.2493 0.0727 4.3220 1.1358 0.0668 1.2026 4,731.183 9 4,731.183 9 0.2243 4,735.893 5 Total 5.0970 6.3979 33.1768 0.0581 4.2493 0.1192 4.3685 1.1358 0.1133 1.2491 5,465.144 2 5,465.144 2 0.2384 0.0135 5,474.322 1 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 2:41 PMPage 4 of 24 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2015 1/28/2015 5 20 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/29/2015 1/30/2015 5 2 3 Grading Grading 1/31/2015 2/5/2015 5 4 4 Building Construction Building Construction 2/6/2015 11/12/2015 5 200 5 Paving Paving 11/13/2015 11/26/2015 5 10 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/27/2015 12/10/2015 5 10 OffRoad Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.12 0.84 0.14 0.55 0.00 3.33 0.09 0.00 3.50 0.33 0.00 1.17 1.17 0.52 8.12 1.18 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 97,704; Non-Residential Outdoor: 32,568 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 1 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 1.5 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 2:41 PMPage 5 of 24 Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 7.00 255 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 6.00 174 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 6.00 255 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 6.00 226 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 1 6.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 6.00 9 0.56 Paving Pavers 1 6.00 125 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 130 0.36 Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 2:41 PMPage 6 of 24 3.2 Demolition - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 3.0666 29.6778 22.0566 0.0245 1.8651 1.8651 1.7469 1.7469 2,509.059 9 2,509.059 9 0.6357 2,522.410 4 Total 3.0666 29.6778 22.0566 0.0245 1.8651 1.8651 1.7469 1.7469 2,509.059 9 2,509.059 9 0.6357 2,522.410 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 7 27.00 11.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 5.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 2:41 PMPage 7 of 24 3.2 Demolition - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0560 0.0872 0.7992 1.3700e- 003 0.1226 1.0000e- 003 0.1236 0.0325 9.2000e- 004 0.0334 120.2935 120.2935 6.9700e- 003 120.4399 Total 0.0560 0.0872 0.7992 1.3700e- 003 0.1226 1.0000e- 003 0.1236 0.0325 9.2000e- 004 0.0334 120.2935 120.2935 6.9700e- 003 120.4399 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 3.0666 29.6778 22.0566 0.0245 1.8651 1.8651 1.7469 1.7469 0.0000 2,509.059 9 2,509.059 9 0.6357 2,522.410 4 Total 3.0666 29.6778 22.0566 0.0245 1.8651 1.8651 1.7469 1.7469 0.0000 2,509.059 9 2,509.059 9 0.6357 2,522.410 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 2:41 PMPage 8 of 24 3.2 Demolition - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0560 0.0872 0.7992 1.3700e- 003 0.1226 1.0000e- 003 0.1236 0.0325 9.2000e- 004 0.0334 120.2935 120.2935 6.9700e- 003 120.4399 Total 0.0560 0.0872 0.7992 1.3700e- 003 0.1226 1.0000e- 003 0.1236 0.0325 9.2000e- 004 0.0334 120.2935 120.2935 6.9700e- 003 120.4399 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 5.7996 0.0000 5.7996 2.9537 0.0000 2.9537 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.5362 26.8886 17.0107 0.0171 1.4671 1.4671 1.3497 1.3497 1,801.744 0 1,801.744 0 0.5379 1,813.039 8 Total 2.5362 26.8886 17.0107 0.0171 5.7996 1.4671 7.2666 2.9537 1.3497 4.3034 1,801.744 0 1,801.744 0 0.5379 1,813.039 8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 2:41 PMPage 9 of 24 3.3 Site Preparation - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0345 0.0537 0.4918 8.4000e- 004 0.0754 6.2000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 5.6000e- 004 0.0206 74.0268 74.0268 4.2900e- 003 74.1169 Total 0.0345 0.0537 0.4918 8.4000e- 004 0.0754 6.2000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 5.6000e- 004 0.0206 74.0268 74.0268 4.2900e- 003 74.1169 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 5.7996 0.0000 5.7996 2.9537 0.0000 2.9537 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.5362 26.8886 17.0107 0.0171 1.4671 1.4671 1.3497 1.3497 0.0000 1,801.744 0 1,801.744 0 0.5379 1,813.039 8 Total 2.5362 26.8886 17.0107 0.0171 5.7996 1.4671 7.2666 2.9537 1.3497 4.3034 0.0000 1,801.744 0 1,801.744 0 0.5379 1,813.039 8 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 2:41 PMPage 10 of 24 3.3 Site Preparation - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0345 0.0537 0.4918 8.4000e- 004 0.0754 6.2000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 5.6000e- 004 0.0206 74.0268 74.0268 4.2900e- 003 74.1169 Total 0.0345 0.0537 0.4918 8.4000e- 004 0.0754 6.2000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 5.6000e- 004 0.0206 74.0268 74.0268 4.2900e- 003 74.1169 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 4.9143 0.0000 4.9143 2.5256 0.0000 2.5256 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.0666 21.9443 14.0902 0.0141 1.1968 1.1968 1.1011 1.1011 1,479.800 0 1,479.800 0 0.4418 1,489.077 4 Total 2.0666 21.9443 14.0902 0.0141 4.9143 1.1968 6.1110 2.5256 1.1011 3.6267 1,479.800 0 1,479.800 0 0.4418 1,489.077 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 2:41 PMPage 11 of 24 3.4 Grading - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0345 0.0537 0.4918 8.4000e- 004 0.0754 6.2000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 5.6000e- 004 0.0206 74.0268 74.0268 4.2900e- 003 74.1169 Total 0.0345 0.0537 0.4918 8.4000e- 004 0.0754 6.2000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 5.6000e- 004 0.0206 74.0268 74.0268 4.2900e- 003 74.1169 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 4.9143 0.0000 4.9143 2.5256 0.0000 2.5256 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.0666 21.9443 14.0902 0.0141 1.1968 1.1968 1.1011 1.1011 0.0000 1,479.800 0 1,479.800 0 0.4418 1,489.077 4 Total 2.0666 21.9443 14.0902 0.0141 4.9143 1.1968 6.1110 2.5256 1.1011 3.6267 0.0000 1,479.800 0 1,479.800 0 0.4418 1,489.077 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 2:41 PMPage 12 of 24 3.4 Grading - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0345 0.0537 0.4918 8.4000e- 004 0.0754 6.2000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 5.6000e- 004 0.0206 74.0268 74.0268 4.2900e- 003 74.1169 Total 0.0345 0.0537 0.4918 8.4000e- 004 0.0754 6.2000e- 004 0.0761 0.0200 5.6000e- 004 0.0206 74.0268 74.0268 4.2900e- 003 74.1169 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 3.6000 21.5642 15.0041 0.0220 1.4851 1.4851 1.4344 1.4344 2,055.624 7 2,055.624 7 0.4741 2,065.581 2 Total 3.6000 21.5642 15.0041 0.0220 1.4851 1.4851 1.4344 1.4344 2,055.624 7 2,055.624 7 0.4741 2,065.581 2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 2:41 PMPage 13 of 24 3.5 Building Construction - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1769 1.2942 2.3778 2.5700e- 003 0.0728 0.0200 0.0927 0.0208 0.0184 0.0391 258.0155 258.0155 2.3400e- 003 258.0646 Worker 0.1163 0.1811 1.6598 2.8500e- 003 0.2546 2.0900e- 003 0.2567 0.0675 1.9100e- 003 0.0694 249.8404 249.8404 0.0145 250.1444 Total 0.2932 1.4753 4.0377 5.4200e- 003 0.3274 0.0221 0.3494 0.0883 0.0203 0.1086 507.8559 507.8559 0.0168 508.2090 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 3.6000 21.5642 15.0041 0.0220 1.4851 1.4851 1.4344 1.4344 0.0000 2,055.624 7 2,055.624 7 0.4741 2,065.581 2 Total 3.6000 21.5642 15.0041 0.0220 1.4851 1.4851 1.4344 1.4344 0.0000 2,055.624 7 2,055.624 7 0.4741 2,065.581 2 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 2:41 PMPage 14 of 24 3.5 Building Construction - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1769 1.2942 2.3778 2.5700e- 003 0.0728 0.0200 0.0927 0.0208 0.0184 0.0391 258.0155 258.0155 2.3400e- 003 258.0646 Worker 0.1163 0.1811 1.6598 2.8500e- 003 0.2546 2.0900e- 003 0.2567 0.0675 1.9100e- 003 0.0694 249.8404 249.8404 0.0145 250.1444 Total 0.2932 1.4753 4.0377 5.4200e- 003 0.3274 0.0221 0.3494 0.0883 0.0203 0.1086 507.8559 507.8559 0.0168 508.2090 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.4041 14.5959 9.1695 0.0133 0.8919 0.8919 0.8215 0.8215 1,382.470 3 1,382.470 3 0.4054 1,390.982 6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.4041 14.5959 9.1695 0.0133 0.8919 0.8919 0.8215 0.8215 1,382.470 3 1,382.470 3 0.4054 1,390.982 6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 2:41 PMPage 15 of 24 3.6 Paving - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0560 0.0872 0.7992 1.3700e- 003 0.1226 1.0000e- 003 0.1236 0.0325 9.2000e- 004 0.0334 120.2935 120.2935 6.9700e- 003 120.4399 Total 0.0560 0.0872 0.7992 1.3700e- 003 0.1226 1.0000e- 003 0.1236 0.0325 9.2000e- 004 0.0334 120.2935 120.2935 6.9700e- 003 120.4399 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.4041 14.5959 9.1695 0.0133 0.8919 0.8919 0.8215 0.8215 0.0000 1,382.470 3 1,382.470 3 0.4054 1,390.982 6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.4041 14.5959 9.1695 0.0133 0.8919 0.8919 0.8215 0.8215 0.0000 1,382.470 3 1,382.470 3 0.4054 1,390.982 6 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 2:41 PMPage 16 of 24 3.6 Paving - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0560 0.0872 0.7992 1.3700e- 003 0.1226 1.0000e- 003 0.1236 0.0325 9.2000e- 004 0.0334 120.2935 120.2935 6.9700e- 003 120.4399 Total 0.0560 0.0872 0.7992 1.3700e- 003 0.1226 1.0000e- 003 0.1236 0.0325 9.2000e- 004 0.0334 120.2935 120.2935 6.9700e- 003 120.4399 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 6.0381 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.4066 2.5703 1.9018 2.9700e- 003 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 281.4481 281.4481 0.0367 282.2177 Total 6.4447 2.5703 1.9018 2.9700e- 003 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 281.4481 281.4481 0.0367 282.2177 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 2:41 PMPage 17 of 24 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0215 0.0335 0.3074 5.3000e- 004 0.0472 3.9000e- 004 0.0475 0.0125 3.5000e- 004 0.0129 46.2668 46.2668 2.6800e- 003 46.3230 Total 0.0215 0.0335 0.3074 5.3000e- 004 0.0472 3.9000e- 004 0.0475 0.0125 3.5000e- 004 0.0129 46.2668 46.2668 2.6800e- 003 46.3230 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 6.0381 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.4066 2.5703 1.9018 2.9700e- 003 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0367 282.2177 Total 6.4447 2.5703 1.9018 2.9700e- 003 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0367 282.2177 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 2:41 PMPage 18 of 24 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 3.4484 5.7862 32.6495 0.0544 4.2493 0.0727 4.3220 1.1358 0.0668 1.2026 4,731.183 9 4,731.183 9 0.2243 4,735.893 5 Unmitigated 3.4484 5.7862 32.6495 0.0544 4.2493 0.0727 4.3220 1.1358 0.0668 1.2026 4,731.183 9 4,731.183 9 0.2243 4,735.893 5 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0215 0.0335 0.3074 5.3000e- 004 0.0472 3.9000e- 004 0.0475 0.0125 3.5000e- 004 0.0129 46.2668 46.2668 2.6800e- 003 46.3230 Total 0.0215 0.0335 0.3074 5.3000e- 004 0.0472 3.9000e- 004 0.0475 0.0125 3.5000e- 004 0.0129 46.2668 46.2668 2.6800e- 003 46.3230 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 2:41 PMPage 19 of 24 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Hotel 1,053.93 1,056.51 767.55 1,925,365 1,925,365 Total 1,053.93 1,056.51 767.55 1,925,365 1,925,365 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Hotel 9.50 7.30 7.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Exceed Title 24 Install High Efficiency Lighting Kilowatt Hours of Renewable Electricity Generated Install Energy Efficient Appliances 4.4 Fleet Mix LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.579021 0.062765 0.176333 0.114336 0.029695 0.004181 0.015593 0.003984 0.002598 0.003702 0.006580 0.000230 0.000982 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 2:41 PMPage 20 of 24 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0673 0.6116 0.5138 3.6700e- 003 0.0465 0.0465 0.0465 0.0465 733.9321 733.9321 0.0141 0.0135 738.3987 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0732 0.6657 0.5592 3.9900e- 003 0.0506 0.0506 0.0506 0.0506 798.8476 798.8476 0.0153 0.0147 803.7093 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Hotel 6790.2 0.0732 0.6657 0.5592 3.9900e- 003 0.0506 0.0506 0.0506 0.0506 798.8476 798.8476 0.0153 0.0147 803.7093 Total 0.0732 0.6657 0.5592 3.9900e- 003 0.0506 0.0506 0.0506 0.0506 798.8476 798.8476 0.0153 0.0147 803.7093 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 2:41 PMPage 21 of 24 Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Interior Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Exterior Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Interior Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Exterior Use only Natural Gas Hearths 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Hotel 6.23842 0.0673 0.6116 0.5138 3.6700e- 003 0.0465 0.0465 0.0465 0.0465 733.9321 733.9321 0.0141 0.0135 738.3987 Total 0.0673 0.6116 0.5138 3.6700e- 003 0.0465 0.0465 0.0465 0.0465 733.9321 733.9321 0.0141 0.0135 738.3987 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 2:41 PMPage 22 of 24 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 1.5813 1.3000e- 004 0.0135 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 0.0282 0.0282 8.0000e- 005 0.0299 Unmitigated 1.5813 1.3000e- 004 0.0135 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 0.0282 0.0282 8.0000e- 005 0.0299 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.1861 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 1.3939 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.3200e- 003 1.3000e- 004 0.0135 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 0.0282 0.0282 8.0000e- 005 0.0299 Total 1.5813 1.3000e- 004 0.0135 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 0.0282 0.0282 8.0000e- 005 0.0299 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 2:41 PMPage 23 of 24 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 10.0 Vegetation 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.1861 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 1.3939 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.3200e- 003 1.3000e- 004 0.0135 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 0.0282 0.0282 8.0000e- 005 0.0299 Total 1.5813 1.3000e- 004 0.0135 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 0.0282 0.0282 8.0000e- 005 0.0299 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/23/2014 2:41 PMPage 24 of 24 Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco, California Biological Resources Assessment for Allison Knapp Wollam Consulting prepared by Michael Marangio Biological Consultant 5446 Sutter Avenue Richmond, CA 94804 June 16, 2014 Introduction The purpose of this biological resource assessment is to review a site proposed for development in sufficient detail to determine if the proposed project (Project) may affect threatened, endangered, or other sensitive animal or plant species as well as important habitats such as wetlands. The Project location is at 127 West Harris Avenue in South San Francisco, California (see Figure 1). This biological assessment provides information that is intended for use in environmental documents under CEQA review and for Federal review of permits such as Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permits. Description of the Proposed Action The proposed Project would include a five-story hotel building, anticipated to be approximately 13,000 square feet in plan area surrounded by asphalt and concrete pavements (geotechnical report by Terracon, 2014). The Project site covers 1.47 acres. Because of the variable nature of the existing fill, which averages 9 feet, the geotechnical report recommends that the fill materials within the footprint of the proposed building be removed to a minimum depth of 3 feet below the lowest foundation bearing level or 5 feet below existing site grades (whichever is deeper) and the excavation be thoroughly cleaned prior to backfill placement and/or construction (Terracon, 2014). REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Local, State, and federal regulations have been enacted to provide for the protection and management of sensitive biological and wetland resources. The following section outlines the key local, State, and federal regulations that apply to these resources. FEDERAL The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for protection of terrestrial and freshwater organisms through implementation of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has primary responsibility for protecting wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Corps also regulates navigable waters under Section 10 (33 U.S.C. 403) of the Rivers and Harbors Act. STATE The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is responsible for administration of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and for protection of streams and water bodies through the Streambed Alteration Agreement process under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. Certification from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is also required when a proposed activity may result in discharge into navigable waters, pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and EPA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The RWQCB also has jurisdiction over waters of the State not regulated by the Corps under the Porter-Cologne Act. The following discusses in more detail how State and federal regulations address special-status species, wetlands and other sensitive natural communities. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES Special-status species are plants and animals that are legally protected under the State and/or federal ESAs, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the California Fish and Game Code (sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, 3513, 3515, and 4700), or other regulations.1 In addition, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15380, special-status species also include other species that are considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to warrant special consideration, particularly with regard to protection of isolated populations, nesting or denning locations, communal roosts and other essential habitat. Species with legal protection under the federal and State ESAs often represent major constraints to development; particularly when they are wide ranging or highly sensitive to habitat disturbance and where proposed development would result in a take of these species. 1 Special-status species include: designated (rare, threatened, or endangered) and candidate species for listing by the CDFW; designated (threatened or endangered) and candidate species for listing by the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries; species considered to be rare or endangered under the conditions of Section 15380 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, such as those identified on lists 1A, 1B, and 2 in the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (2001); and possibly other species which are considered sensitive due to limited distribution or lack of adequate information to permit listing or rejection for state or federal status, such as those included on list 3 in the CNPS Inventory or identified as “California Species of Special Concern (SSC) by the CDFW. Species designated as a SSC have no legal protective status under the California Endangered Species Act but are of concern to the CDFW because of severe decline in breeding populations and other factors. WETLANDS AND OTHER WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES Although definitions vary to some degree, wetlands are generally considered to be areas that are periodically or permanently inundated by surface or ground water, and support vegetation adapted to life in saturated soil. Wetlands are recognized as important features on a regional and national level due to their high inherent value to fish and wildlife, use as storage areas for storm and flood waters, and water recharge, filtration and purification functions. The CDFW, Corps, and RWQCB have jurisdiction over modifications to river banks, lakes, stream channels and other wetland features. Technical standards for delineating wetlands have been developed by the Corps and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which generally define wetlands through consideration of three criteria: hydrology, soils and vegetation. The CWA was enacted to address water pollution, establishing regulations and permit requirements regarding construction activities that affect storm water, dredge and fill material operations, and water quality standards. The regulatory program requires that discharges to surface waters be controlled under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program which applies to sources of water runoff, private developments, and public facilities. Under Section 404 of the CWA, the Corps is responsible for regulating the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States. The term “waters” includes wetlands and non- wetland bodies of water that meet specific criteria as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations. All three of the identified technical criteria must be met for an area to be identified as a wetland under Corps jurisdiction, unless the area has been modified by human activity. In general, a permit must be obtained before fill can be placed in wetlands or other waters of the United States. The type of permit is determined by the Corps depending on the amount of acreage and the purpose of the proposed fill. Certain activities in wetlands or “other waters” are automatically authorized, or granted a nationwide permit which allows filling where impacts are considered minor. Eligibility for a nationwide permit simplifies the permit review process. Nationwide permits cover construction and fill of waters of the U.S. for a variety of routine activities such as minor road crossings, utility line crossings, streambank protection, recreational facilities and outfall structures. A project must demonstrate that it has no more than a minimal adverse effect on the aquatic ecosystem, including species listed under the ESA to qualify for a nationwide permit. Typically this means that there will be no net loss of either habitat acreage or habitat value, resulting in appropriate mitigation where fill activities are proposed. The Corps assumes discretionary approval over proposed projects where impacts are considered significant, requiring adequate mitigation and permit approval. To provide compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency's Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, an applicant must demonstrate that the proposed discharge is unavoidable and is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative that will achieve the overall project purpose. The 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between the EPA and Corps concerning the Determination of Mitigation under the Guidelines prioritizes mitigation, with the first priority to avoid impacts, the second to minimize impacts, and the third to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts. Jurisdictional authority of the CDFW over wetland areas is established under Section 1600 of the Fish and Wildlife Code, which pertains to activities that would disrupt the natural flow or alter the channel, bed, or bank of any lake, river, or stream. The Fish and Wildlife Code stipulates that it is unlawful to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake without notifying the CDFW, incorporating necessary mitigation, and obtaining a Streambed Alteration Agreement. The Wetlands Resources Policy of the CDFW states that the Fish and Wildlife Commission will strongly discourage development in or conversion of wetlands, unless, at a minimum, project mitigation assures there will be no net loss of either wetland habitat values or acreage. The CDFW is also responsible for commenting on projects requiring Corps permits under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958. In addition, the RWQCB is responsible for upholding state water quality standards. Pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, projects that apply for a Corps permit for discharge of dredge or fill material, and projects that qualify for a Nationwide Permit must obtain water quality certification from the RWQCB. The RWQCB is also responsible for regulating wetlands under the Porter-Cologne Act, which may include hydrologically isolated wetlands no longer regulated by the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Recent federal Supreme Court rulings have limited the limits of Corps jurisdiction, but the RWQCB in some cases continues to exercise jurisdiction over these features. SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES Protecting habitat on an ecosystem-level is increasingly recognized as vital to the protection of natural diversity in the State, in addition to species-oriented management. Protecting habitat on an ecosystem-level is considered the most effective means of providing long-term protection of ecologically viable habitat, and can include whole watersheds, ecosystems and sensitive natural communities. Providing functional habitat connectivity between natural areas is essential to sustaining healthy wildlife populations and allowing for the continued dispersal of native plant and animal species. Although sensitive natural communities have no protected legal status under the State or federal Endangered Species Acts, they are provided some level of protection under CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines identify potential impacts on a sensitive natural community as one of six significance criteria. As an example, a discretionary project that is constructed on any riparian habitat, native grassland, valley oak woodland, or other sensitive natural community would normally be considered to have a significant effect on the environment. Further loss of a sensitive natural community could be interpreted as substantially diminishing habitat, depending on its relative abundance, quality and degree of past disturbance, and the anticipated impacts to the specific community type. Where determined to be significant under CEQA, the potential impact would require mitigation through avoidance, minimization of disturbance or loss, or some type of compensatory mitigation when unavoidable. LOCAL REGULATIONS Several policies in the City of South San Francisco General Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan pertain to the protection of sensitive biological and wetland resources. Following is a description of the key policy documents and regulations that are applicable to the site. City of South San Francisco General Plan The Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of South San Francisco General Plan contains a number of policies related to protection of sensitive biological and wetland resources that are applicable to the site. The policies are: • 7.1-G-1: Protect special status species and supporting habitats within South San Francisco, including species that are State or federally listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Rare. • 7.1-G-2: Protect and, where reasonable and feasible, restore salt marshes and wetlands. • 7.1-I-2: As part of the Park, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Master Plan update, institute an ongoing program to remove invasive plant species from ecologically sensitive areas, including Sign Hill Park, Colma Creek Linear Park, Bayfront Linear Park, and other City-owned open space, as depicted in Figure 7-1. • 7.1-I-3: As part of development approvals on sites that include ecologically sensitive habitat designated in Figure 7-2, require institution of an on-going program to remove and prevent the re-establishment of the invasive species and restore the native species. • 7.1-I-4: Require development on the wetlands delineated in figure 7-1 to complete assessments of biological resources. • 7.1-I-5: Work with private, non-profit conservation, and public groups to secure funding for wetland and marsh protection and restoration projects. East of 101 Area Plan The East of 101 Area Plan was adopted by the City of South San Francisco in July 1994. The Area Plan includes a Conservation Element that contains policies intended to protect and enhance natural resources in the East of 101 Area. Policies relevant to the site are: • Policy CON-1: Prior to construction of development projects on sensitive resource lands the City shall require an applicant to conduct a formal wetlands delineation at the project site. The results of the wetlands delineation shall be made available to evaluate project specific impacts associated with sensitive habitats • Policy CON-2: The City shall require that developments comply with all applicable State and federal laws and regulations regarding protection and replacement of wetlands. • Policy CON-4: The City shall take all feasible measures to preserve any sensitive plant and animal species that occur in the East of 101 Area. • Policy CON-5: Prior to receiving approval for construction activities or other disturbances on undeveloped land in the East of 101 Area project sponsors shall conduct environmental analyses to evaluate the site-specific status of sensitive plant and animal species • Policy CON-6: If sensitive plant or animal species would be unavoidably affected by a proposed project the City shall require the project developer to implement appropriate mitigation measures • Policy Con-7: New development adjacent to sensitive resource areas shall be required to incorporate the following measures into project design: • Shield lights to reduce off-site glare. • A buffer area of at least 100 feet in width shall be provided between known sensitive resources and development area. Encroachments into the 100-foot buffer area may be allowed on a case-by-case basis as follows: o Buildings which have a water oriented theme and which further the goals of allowing or encouraging public access to the Bay or inland waterways; o Development located adjacent to inland waterways; o Accessory parking from adjacent development; o Development on the “fingers’ portion of the planning area. Any encroachment into the 100-foot buffer must receive approval of the City, Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the California Department of Fish and Game, and shall only be permitted if supported by a site-specific biological assessment prepared by a qualified biologist. Mitigation measures identified through the biological analysis shall be attached as conditions of any encroachment approvals. • Landscape all on-site buffer areas with native vegetation to screen habitat areas from adjacent land uses. • Restrict entry to habitat areas through devises such as fencing landscaping or signage. • Ensure that run-off from development does not adversely affect the biotic values of adjacent wetlands or other habitat areas. Municipal Code South San Francisco Municipal 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 other factor; or a stand of trees that the Director of Parks and Recreation has determined each tree is dependent on the others for survival. Special Status Species On the basis of a review of the California Natural Diversity Data Base report from the California Department of Fish and Game for the project area (CNDDB, 2014; CNPS, Rare Plant Program, 2014) and general knowledge of special status species of plants and animals in the San Francisco Bay area, a list was developed of the potential special status plants and animals known from the vicinity of the Project (Appendix Table A). All listed potential animal species such as fishes requiring permanent aquatic habitats were eliminated from further impact analysis since suitable aquatic habitat is not present on the project site. Plants and animals requiring marshlands were also eliminated from further analysis because such habitats are not present on the Project site. Additionally, special status plant species that are large shrubs or trees were also eliminated from further analysis since the site contains only low-growing herbaceous species. Field Survey A field survey was conducted on May 27, 2014. Site location and features were reviewed using local street maps, USGS 7.5 minute quad sheets (San Francisco South), and Google Earth maps. The Project site is situated adjacent to a hotel. Much of the nearby built environment consists of multi-family and industrial and commercial/warehouse establishments with associated parking lots and connecting roadways and driveways. Approximately 250 ft to the south of the Project is the Colma Creek channel. The width of the tidal channel in this vicinity is about 50-60 feet, depending on rainfall and tides. The channel margins are vegetated with pickleweed and sea-blite (Suaeda fruticosa), indicating presence of brackish water. The upper elevations of the stream banks support native gumplant (Grindelia sp.) and many introduced weeds. A three to four-foot flood wall runs east-west along Mitchell Avenue, limiting potential movement of many terrestrial animal species to and from stream channel habitat. The Project site is generally flat except for several mounds of soil 2-3 feet high. The site is vegetated mainly with introduced grasses and weeds (Photo 1), and would be designated as a mixture of Non-Native Annual Grassland and Ruderal (disturbed) habitats. Plants that were observed include non-native annual grasses such as wild-oat (Avena barbata) ), Mediteranean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum), pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata), annual fescue (Vulpia myuros), and ripgut brome (Bromus carinatus). Many additional introduced weeds and "escaped exotics" (garden horticultural plants) included English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), sea plantain (Plantago maritima), ice plant (Carpobrotus chilensis), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), cheeseweed (Malva sp.), Capeweed (Arctotheca calendula), Salsify (Tragopogon porrifolius), cotoneaster (Cotoneaster sp.), vetch (Vicia sp.), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), Aeonium (Aeonium sp.), clover (Trifolium sp.), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), redstem storksbill (Erodium cicutarium), deerweed (Acmiston glaber), pearly everlasting (Anaphalis margaritacea), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), and dock (Rumex sp.). Native plant species included Coyote Brush (Baccharis pilularis var. consanguinea), and California poppy (Eschscholtzia californica). Very little wildlife was seen on the Project site. Burrows of Botta pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) were seen scattered sparsely over the site. Several house finches (Carpodacus mexicanus) were seen foraging on the ground, and a Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) and an American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) were seen flying over nearby adjacent properties. Scat of Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) were seen scattered within the Project site. (The list of plants and animals is not intended to be an exhaustive census of the plants and animals at the Project site.) No ponded surface water or channels were observed on the Project site nor was there any evidence for the pooling of water over the winter rainy season. An area at the southeast corner of this fenced site has been paved with several inches of gravel. Portions of the site contained mounds of soil or rock, likely the remains of geotechnical test pits and test borings, or undocumented dumping of soil. According to a geotechnical report (Terracon, 2014), the site is covered with 9 feet of undocumented fill materials comprised of clayey sand with gravel, cobbles, and boulders, approximately 12 to 42 inches in dimension. These materials were underlain by organic clays and silts to depths of approximately 20 to 25 feet below existing site grades...". Biological Impact Assessment Plants The Project site is highly disturbed. The site may have been marsh land in the past, but that habitat is now under at least 9 feet of soil and rock. Historic aerials going back to 1993 (Google, 2014 and Terracon, 2014) indicate conversion of the marshland to have occurred before that time. The plants that dominate the site consist mainly of introduced invasive annual plants, probably brought to the site in the soil that was dumped there or from nearby disturbed sites. A reconnaissance survey was conducted on May 28, 2014. No special status species of plants were observed and would not be expected because of the disturbed nature of the site. No sensitive plant species would be affected by the proposed project. Animals Observation of animals on the site was limited to several common birds including American Crow, Canada Goose, and House finch, all known to be adaptable to urban conditions. The dominance of introduced non-native annual plants limits the value of the habitat to only "generalist" species that can tolerate disturbed conditions and utilize common food sources. The Project site would be highly unlikely to support any special status as a result of the small size of the parcel (1.47acre), the soil disturbance, and the dominance of non-native annual plant species. Special species are generally "specialist" species that require certain plants for cover and food that are not present on the site. Birds would not be likely to nest at the site since important habitat requirements such as sources of water on the site do not exist, nor does nesting cover in the form of trees and shrubs. To provide a more thorough analysis, several wildlife species known within 1-2 mile of the Project or which are deemed to be potentially present in the Project vicinity are further discussed below. Burrowing Owl Burrowing owl (Athene cuniculata) is a State Species of Special Concern but has no protection under Federal laws except as a migratory bird. Burrowing owl is not known to be located in the general vicinity of the Project site. However, since they are often found in isolated and disturbed areas, this species was evaluated for potential habitat use of the Project site. Burrowing owls are usually associated with open, dry, perennial or annual grasslands and typically utilize burrows of other animals such as ground squirrels. This species is distributed over much of the state, but because of loss of habitat, its numbers are becoming much reduced. During the site reconnaissance, burrows were searched for that could be utilized by Burrowing owls. No sites were found. Most of the site contains grass and ruderal plants over 1.5 ft tall which are not preferred by this species. The site is therefore of very low value for Burrowing owls and would therefore not likely to ever use the site for roosting or nesting. There would be no impact to Burrowing owl as a result of Project construction or operation. California Clapper Rail The California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) is listed as both Federal and State Endangered. This species is found foraging in tidal marsh vegetation along brackish creeks, mudflats, and coastal areas. Suitable habitats are generally dominated by pickleweed and cordgrass. The nearest documented occurrence of the California clapper rail is located along the edge of San Francisco Bay and along the margins of Colma Creek where it flows into the Bay, which comes within 0.3 mi of the Project site. No suitable habitat is located on the Project site therefore clapper rails would not be expected to be present on the site. No significant impacts to this species would result from Project construction or operation. California red-legged frog The California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) (CRLF) is listed by the USFWS as Threatened and is classified by the CDFW as a Species of Special Concern. The CRLF breeds primarily in ponds, but will also breed in slow moving streams, or deep pools in intermittent streams and is seldom found in brackish waters. Inhabited ponds are typically permanent, at least 2 feet (0.6 meters) in depth, and contain emergent and shoreline vegetation. Sufficient pond depth and shoreline cover are both critical, because they provide means of escape from predators for the frogs. CNDDB (2014) documents the presence of this protected species about 1.5 miles south. Since no aquatic habitat is present on the Project site, nor is any suitable aquatic habitat nearby, the site would not provide suitable aquatic or upland habitat for the frog. There would be no impacts to the CRLF as a result result from the proposed Project construction or operation. The San Francisco forktail damselfly The San Francisco forktail damselfly, (Ishnura gemina), has no protection under Federal or State statutes but is very localized in urban areas. Several small populations have gone extinct since their discovery. A documented location (CNDDB 2014) indicates its presence 1.5 mi south of the Project site. Historically some populations have been extirpated due to urbanization and some habitat has naturally converted from small shallow ponds to dry pond beds. The species is associated with marshy aquatic habitat, none of which is present at the Project site. Therefore the Project would not have any significant impact on this species. Regulatory Framework - Impacts Federal and State Special Status Species and Sensitive Habitats The disturbed nature of the site that was caused by the placement of 9 feet of fill soils, and the spread of invasive weed species to the site from outside and adjacent sources has resulted in the destruction of the original native vegetation, which probably consisted of tidal wetlands on saturated soils. The present vegetation has displaced the wetlands to non-native grassland and ruderal vegetation. The change in soil, hydrology, and spread of invasive weedy species that are competitive with native plants greatly reduces the potential for the presence of federal and state protected plants. The lack of native vegetative cover also greatly reduces the potential for the presence of federal and state protected animal life. In addition, the existing vegetation does not include any sensitive habitats. Federal and State Wetlands The project site is vegetated with a mixture of herbaceous plant species that are predominantly introduced, non-native annual grasses and forbs. Generally speaking, wetlands are legally defined as areas that are suitable for retention or flow of water, have soils that indicate the presence of water, and have plants that mostly require the presence of water. A formal protocol for wetland analysis was not done as part of this investigation. However, general observations revealed that the ground surface of the Project site was disturbed but no suitable basins or other depressions were noted where water would likely pool during the winter rainy season. Soils appeared in most places to be fill from outside the site consisting mainly of subsoils, as indicated by their light color. Geotechnical studies (Terracon, 2014) indicate that approximately 9 feet of fill soils have been used to cover an area that was probably marshland before the construction of buildings and roads in this vicinity. In addition, no distinct vegetation that was dominated by water-loving plants was observed. No indication for the presence of federal or state-protected wetlands were observed. Jurisdictional authority of the CDFW over wetland areas, established under Section 1600 of the Fish and Wildlife Code does not apply for this site. Further wetland analysis regarding jurisdictional evaluation is not required. Local The Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of South San Francisco General Plan contains a number of policies related to protection of sensitive biological and wetland resources that are applicable to the site. All of these policies would be followed. Policy CON-5 of the East of 101 Area Plan states: "Prior to receiving approval for construction activities or other disturbances on undeveloped land in the East of 101Area project sponsors shall conduct environmental analyses to evaluate the site-specific status of sensitive plant and animal species." The preparation of this report is consistent with this policy. The other policies of the plan would also be followed. Municipal Code Since there are no trees on the site, South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 covering "Protected Trees" will not need to be considered. WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS Wildlife movements include migration (i.e., usually one way per season), inter-population movement (i.e., long-term genetic flow) and small travel pathways (i.e., daily movement within an animal’s territory). While small travel pathways usually facilitate movement for daily home range activities, such as foraging or escape from predators, they also provide connection between outlying populations and the main corridor, permitting an increase in gene flow among populations. These linkages among habitat types can extend for miles from primary habitat areas and occur on a large scale throughout California. Habitat linkages facilitate movement between populations located in small discrete areas and populations located within larger habitat areas. The mosaic of habitats found within a large-scale landscape results in wildlife populations that consist of discrete sub-populations comprising a large single population, which is often referred to as a meta-population. Even where patches of pristine habitat are fragmented, the movement between wildlife populations is facilitated through habitat linkages, migration corridors and movement corridors. Potentially low frequency genetic flow may lead to complete isolation and, if pressures are strong, potential extinction. The proposed Project would result in the construction of a hotel on a 1.47acre site surrounded with roadways, parking lots, and industrial and warehouse buildings. Although aquatic habitat and marsh vegetation is located within about 250 feet of the Project, other than for flying birds, there is functionally no connection between the non-native annual grassland/ruderal habitat on the Project site with the habitat associated with the Colma Creek channel. The presence of a 3-4 ft high flood wall between the creek and the Project site also inhibits movement of any wildlife that would attempt to utilize both sites except for an occasional raccoon or striped skunk, common animal species that would not be affected by construction of the project. Therefore the project would have no significant impact on biological resources with regard to movement corridors. Summary and Conclusions To ascertain impacts to sensitive biological resources, a site assessment was made to evaluate their potential presence at a proposed development site at 127 W Harris Avenue in South San Francisco. After review of CNDDB reports and map overlays for the general project area, and field evaluations of the site, the habitat was found to be highly disturbed and isolated from other areas containing sensitive habitat. As a result, the site is considered to be of very low value for plants and wildlife in general, and as well for sensitive species of plants and animals. No significant biological impacts would result from full development of the Project site. Literature Cited California Native Plant Society, 2001. Inventory of rare and endangered plants of California (sixth edition). CNPS. Sacramento. x + 388pp. CNPS, Rare Plant Program. 2014. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 31 May 2014 CNDDB, 2014. CDFG. California Natural Diversity Data Base overlay for San Francisco South 7.5 minute quadrangle. Terracon, 2014. Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco, California Terracon Project No. 60145004 Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Irvine, California Figure 1. Project location map APPENDIX A List of special status species of plants and animals known from the Project vicinity. Plants Acanthomintha duttonii San Mateo thorn-mint Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum Franciscan onion Amsinckia lunaris bent-flowered fiddleneck Arenaria paludicola marsh sandwort Astragalus pycnostachyus var. pycnostachyus coastal marsh milk-vetch Astragalus tener var. tener alkali milk-vetch California macrophylla round-leaved macrophylla Carex comosa bristly sedge Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi pappose tarplant Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre Point Reyes bird's beak Chorizanthe cuspidata var. cuspidata San Francisco Bay spineflower Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta Robust spineflower Chorizanthe valida Sonoma spineflower Cirsium andrewsi Franciscan thistle Cirsiun fontinale var. fontinale Crystal Springs fountain thistle Cirsium occidentale var. compactum compact cobwebby thistle Clarkia franciscana Presidio clarkia Collinsia corymbosa round-headed Chinese-houses Collinsia multicolor San FranciscoCollinsia Eriophyllum latilobum San Mateo woolly sunflower Fritillaria biflora var ineziana Hillsborough chocolate lily Fritillaria lanceolata var. tristulis Marin checker lily Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary Gilia capitata ssp. chamissonis blue coast gilia Gilia millefoliata dark-eyed gilia Grindelia hirsutula var. maritima San Francisco gumplant Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta white seaside tarplant Hesperevax sparsiflora var. brevifolia short leaved evax Hesperolinon gongestum Marin western flax Heteranthera dubia water star-grass Holocarpha macradenia Santa Cruz tarplant Horkelia cuneata var. sericea Kellogg's horkelia Horkelia marinensis Point Reyes horkelia Layia carnosa beach layia Leptosiphon croceus coast yellow leptosiphon Leptosiphon rosaceus rose leptosiphon Lessingia arachnoidea Crystal SpringsLessingia Lessingia germanorum San Francisco lessingia Lilium maritimum coast lily Limnanthes douglassii var ornduffii Ornduff's meadow foam Microseris paludosa marsh microseris Monardella sinuata var. nigrescens northern curly-leaved monardella Monolopia gracilens woodland woollythreads Pentachaeta bellidifera white-rayed pentachaeta Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus Choris' popcornflower Plagiobothrys diffusus San Francisco popcorn flower Polemonium carneum Oregon polemonium Potentilla hickmanii Hickman's cinqufoil Sanicula maritima adobe sanicle Silene verecunda ssp. verecunda San Francisco campion Stebbinsoseris decipiens Santa Cruz microseris Sueda californica California seablite Triquetrella california coastal triquetrella Trifolium amoenum two-fork clover Trifolium hydrophilum saline clover Tryphysaria floribunda San Francisco owl's clover Animals Adela oplerella Opler's longhorn moth Athene cunicularia Burrowing Owl Banksula incredula incredible harvestman Caecidotea tomalensis Tomales isopod Callophrys mossii bayensis San Bruno elfin butterfly Cicindela hirticollis gravida sandy beach tiger beetle Dufourea stagei Stage's dufourine bee Emys marmorata Western pond turtle Eucyclobius newberryi tidewater goby Euphydryas editha bayensis Bay checkerspot butterfly Geothlypis trichas sinuosa Saltmarsh common yellowthroat Hydroporus leechi Leech's skyline diving beetle Ischnura gemina San Francisco forktail damselfly Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail Lichnanthe ursina bumblebee scarab beetle Melospiza melodia pusillula Alameda song sparrow Phalacrocorax auritus double crested cormorant Plebejus icarioides missionensis Mission blue butterfly Rallus longirostris obsoletus California clapper rail Rana draytonii California red-legged frog Riparia riparia bank swallow Speyeria callippe callippe Callipe silverspot butterfly Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake Trachusa gummifera San Francisco leaf-cutter bee Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco, California April 15, 2014 Terracon Project No. 60145004 Prepared for: Kuber Development Company Tempe, Arizona Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Irvine, California Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites ■ South San Francisco, California April 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 60145004 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1  2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................... 1  2.1 Project Description ................................................................................................ 1  2.2 Site Location and Description ................................................................................ 2  2.3 Background ........................................................................................................... 2  3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 2  3.1 Site Geology .......................................................................................................... 2  3.2 Typical Subsurface Profile ..................................................................................... 3  3.3 Groundwater .......................................................................................................... 3  3.4 Faulting and Estimated Ground Motions ............................................................... 4  3.5 Liquefaction Potential ............................................................................................ 4  3.6 Seismic Considerations ......................................................................................... 5  3.7 Corrosion Potential ................................................................................................ 6  3.8 Percolation Test Results ....................................................................................... 6  4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ....................................... 7  4.1 Geotechnical Considerations................................................................................. 7  4.2 Earthwork .............................................................................................................. 8  4.2.1 Site Preparation ......................................................................................... 8  4.2.2 Subgrade Preparation ................................................................................ 9  4.2.3 Fill Materials and Placement ...................................................................... 9  4.2.4 Compaction Requirements ...................................................................... 10  4.2.5 Grading and Drainage ............................................................................. 10  4.2.6 Exterior Slab Design and Construction .................................................... 11  4.2.7 Utility Trenches ........................................................................................ 11  4.2.8 Construction Considerations .................................................................... 11  4.3 Foundations ......................................................................................................... 12  4.3.1 Mat Foundation Design Parameters ........................................................ 12  4.3.2 Spread Footing Design Parameters......................................................... 13  4.3.3 Foundation Design Considerations .......................................................... 14  4.4 Lateral Earth Pressures ....................................................................................... 14  4.5 Pavements .......................................................................................................... 15  4.5.1 Design Recommendations ....................................................................... 15  4.5.2 Construction Considerations .................................................................... 16  5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS ................................................................................................. 16  Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites ■ South San Francisco, California April 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 60145004 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATION Exhibit A-1 Site Location Plan Exhibit A-2 Boring Location Diagram Exhibit A-3 Field Exploration Description Exhibits A-4 thru A-7 Boring Logs Exhibits A-8 thru A-11 Test Pit Logs Exhibits A-12 thru A-14 CPT Sounding Data APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TESTING Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Test Description Exhibit B-2 Atterberg Limits Test Results Exhibit B-3 Grain Size Distribution Exhibit B-4 and B-5 Swell/Consolidation Test Results Exhibit B-6 Results of Corrosivity Analysis APPENDIX C – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Exhibit C-1 General Notes Exhibit C-2 Unified Soil Classification APPENDIX D – LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Exhibit D-1 Liquefaction Analysis Summary and Chart (B-1) Exhibit D-2 Liquefaction Analysis Summary and Chart (B-2) Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites ■ South San Francisco, California April 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 60145004 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A geotechnical exploration has been performed for the proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites to be located at 127 West Harris Avenue in South San Francisco, California. Terracon’s geotechnical scope of work included the excavation of four (4) test pits, advancement of two (2) test borings and two (2) Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) soundings to approximate depths ranging between 23 to 50 feet below existing site grades (bgs). Additionally, two (2) percolation test borings were performed to an approximate depth of 5 feet bgs. Based on the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, the site is considered suitable for development of the proposed project provided the geotechnical engineering recommendations contained in this report are implemented in the design and construction of the project. The following geotechnical considerations were identified:  The on-site soils generally consisted of approximately 9 feet of undocumented fill materials comprised of clayey sand with gravel, cobbles, and boulders, approximately 12 to 42 inches in dimension. These materials were underlain by organic clays and silts to depths of approximately 20 to 25 feet below existing site grades (bgs). Sandy materials with varying amounts of silt and clay were encountered below the organic clays and silts to the boring termination depth of approximately 50 feet bgs.  We assume that the fill materials encountered in the test pits and borings were placed during the development of the surrounding areas. Terracon does not have any documentation to show if the fill placement or grading operations were inspected and if fill compaction was tested.  The hotel building may be supported on a mat foundation with a minimum embedment of 2 feet below final grade and supported on a minimum of 3 feet of engineered fill.  Onsite fill materials may be used as engineered fill provided the oversized particles (>3 inches) are removed and the materials meet the requirements set forth in this report.  Construction of floor slabs directly on engineered fill consisting of approved materials is considered acceptable for the project.  Recommended minimum pavement section thicknesses are as follows: Automobile parking areas – 3” AC over 4” AB or 5” PCC over 4” AB compacted materials On-site driveways – 3” AC over 6” AB or 6” PCC over 4” AB compacted materials.  The 2013 California Building Code (CBC) seismic site classification for this site is F.  Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon. The evaluation of earthwork should include observation and testing of engineered fill, subgrade preparation, foundation bearing soils, and other geotechnical conditions exposed during construction. Additionally, during over-excavation of the building foundations, Terracon recommends an engineer or representative of the engineer be present to observe the Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites ■ South San Francisco, California April 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 60145004 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i excavated materials and the bottom of excavation to confirm the homogeneity and suitability of the fill materials across the site, assumed in this report. This geotechnical executive summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design and/or construction purposes. It should be recognized that specific details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The section titled General Comments should be read for an understanding of the report limitations. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Terracon Project No. 60145004 April 15, 2014 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services performed for the proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites to be located at 127 West Harris Avenue in South San Francisco, California. The Site Location Plan (Exhibit A-1) is included in Appendix A of this report. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:  subsurface soil conditions  groundwater conditions  earthwork  foundation design and construction  seismic considerations  pavement design and construction Our geotechnical engineering scope of work for this project included the advancement of four (4) test pits, two (2) borings and three (3) Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) soundings to depths of approximately 23 to 50 feet below existing site grades. Additionally, two borings drilled to 5 feet bgs were used to perform percolation testing. Logs of the borings along with a Boring Location Diagram (Exhibit A-2) are included in Appendix A of this report. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soil samples obtained from the site during the field exploration are included in Appendix B of this report. Descriptions of the field exploration and laboratory testing are included in their respective appendices. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Project Description ITEM DESCRIPTION Site layout Refer to the Site Location Plan (Exhibit A-1) Structures The project will include a five-story hotel building. The building is anticipated to be approximately 13,000 square feet in plan area and will be surrounded by asphalt concrete and portland cement concrete pavements. The building is assumed to be of steel frame construction. Finished floor elevation We assume the majority of the hotel building will be within one foot of existing grades. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites ■ South San Francisco, California April 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 60145004 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2 ITEM DESCRIPTION Maximum loads Provided maximum loads are as follows: Structure Columns: 100 kips Building Walls: 2 klf Floor Loads: 150 psf max Grading Grading will include over-excavation and backfill to bring the site to grade. Traffic loading Assumed Design Traffic Index (TI’s): Automobile Parking Areas………………………..………..4.5 Automobile Driving Lanes.………………….…….…….....5.5 2.2 Site Location and Description Item Description Location This project is located at 127 West Harris Avenue in South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. Existing Improvements The project site is currently undeveloped. Surrounding improvements appear to consist of multi-family and commercial/warehouse buildings. Current ground cover Exposed soils and grassy vegetation. Existing topography Relatively level project site with the exception of 2 to 3 foot high soil piles on the western portion of the site. 2.3 Background The majority of the site is currently graded to a relatively level configuration with the exception of a cluster of soil piles located in the western half of the site. Aerial photographs indicate that the site has remained undeveloped for at least 10 years prior to our site exploration. The site is currently underlain with approximately 9 feet of undocumented fill. Terracon does not have any documentation indication if any grading operations were monitored, and if the backfill activities were controlled, inspected, or tested. If such documentation exists, Terracon should be notified and the recommendations in this report may be appropriately modified. 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.1 Site Geology The project area is situated within the Coast Range geomorphic province of California. The materials underlying the site are considered to be artificial fill overlying tidal flat deposits as Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites ■ South San Francisco, California April 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 60145004 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3 described on the “Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7.5’ quadrangle, San Francisco Bay area, California,” (Bonilla, 1998; scale: 1:24,000) by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). According to the USGS map, the surficial deposits are Quaternary in age (duration about 2.6 million years ago to present) and consist of “clay, silt, sand, rock fragments, organic matter, and man-made debris, placed over tidal flats.” The total thickness of the tidal sediments at this location was determined to be between 10 and 15 feet under which older alluvial deposits were encountered. 3.2 Typical Subsurface Profile During our initial field exploration at the site; multiple borings encountered refusal approximately 2 to 5 feet below existing site grades in a layer of fill containing boulders and cobbles. During our second trip to the site, a large excavator was used to excavate test pits through this layer of fill and expose the organic clay layer underneath. The test pits were then backfilled with on-site materials excluding the cobbles and boulders. During our third trip to the site, two borings and three CPT soundings were performed in the areas previously explored by test pits in order to obtain subsurface data and samples of the underlying materials. The following paragraphs describe the subsurface profile of the site based on the information obtained from all of our exploration methods. Specific conditions encountered at the test locations are indicated on the individual logs. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil types; in-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Details for the borings, test pits, and CPT soundings can be found on the logs included in Appendix A. Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as follows: Description Approximate Depth to Bottom of Stratum Material Encountered Consistency/Density Stratum 1 9 feet Fill: Clayey Sand with gravel, cobbles, and boulders -- Stratum 2 20½ to 25 feet Organic Clay Very Soft to Soft Stratum 3 51½ feet Sand with variable amounts of silt and clay Loose to Very Dense Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples and the test results are presented in Appendix B. Laboratory test results indicate that the organic clay material has high plasticity characteristics. 3.3 Groundwater Groundwater measurements were taken both during exploration (at first observation) and again after explorations were completed. During test pit excavations, groundwater was observed in all test pits at depths ranging between 8 and 9 feet bgs. During drilling, initial groundwater levels were Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites ■ South San Francisco, California April 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 60145004 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4 noted after sampling at a depth of 10 feet bgs. Details for groundwater levels in each of the borings can be found on the boring logs in Appendix A of this report. Groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff, tides, and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the life of the structure may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project. 3.4 Faulting and Estimated Ground Motions The site is located in the San Francisco Peninsula, which is a seismically active area. The intensity of ground shaking at the site is largely dependent on the distance to causative faults, and the magnitude of the seismic event. The distance to nearby fault zones, having the greatest contribution during a seismic event, was calculated using the USGS Earthquake Hazard Program 2002 interactive deaggregations. The San Andreas fault – Santa Cruz & Peninsula, which is located approximately 4.2 kilometers from the project site is considered to have the most significant effect at the site from a design standpoint. Based on the USGS Design Maps Summary Report, using the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 7-10) standard, the peak ground acceleration at the project site is expected to be about 0.795 g with a Modal magnitude of 7.88. The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone based on our review of the State Fault Hazard Maps.1 Therefore, the risk of fault rupture at the site is considered low. 3.5 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is a mode of ground failure that results from the generation of high pore water pressures during earthquake ground shaking, causing loss of shear strength. Liquefaction is typically a hazard where loose sandy soils exist below groundwater. The CGS has designated certain areas within northern California as potential liquefaction hazard zones. These are areas considered at a risk of liquefaction-related ground failure during a seismic event, based upon mapped surficial deposits and the presence of a relatively shallow water table. The project site is not located within a mapped potential liquefaction hazard zone as designated by the CGS. Materials encountered at the project site generally consisted of granular fill material overlying cohesive and granular soils. Groundwater was encountered in test boring B-1 at an approximate depth of 8 feet bgs at the time of field exploration. 1. California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), “Digital Images of Official Maps of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California”, CDMG Compact Disc 2000-003, 2000. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites ■ South San Francisco, California April 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 60145004 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5 Liquefaction analyses for the site was performed in general accordance with the DMG Special Publication 117. The liquefaction study utilized the software “LiquefyPro” by CivilTech Software. This analysis was based on the soils data from the soil borings. Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) of 0.795g was used. Calculations utilized the encountered groundwater depths. Settlement analysis used the Tokimatsu, M-correction method. Fines were corrected for liquefaction using the modified Stark/Olsen et al method. Two liquefaction potential analyses were calculated from a depth of 0 to 50 feet below the ground surface. The sites were represented by B-1 and B-2. Liquefaction potential analysis is attached in Appendix D of this report. The factor of safety for soils extending from the surface to a depth of 50 feet bgs was greater than 1.2 with the exception of multiple zones between depths of 20 to 50 feet bgs. Based on our analyses and test results we have concluded that there is a potential for liquefaction hazard at the site. Based on the calculation results, total seismically-induced settlement is estimated to be between ¾ to 2¼ inches and differential settlement is estimated to be between ½ inch and 1½ inches. 3.6 Seismic Considerations DESCRIPTION VALUE 2013 California Building Code Site Classification (CBC) 1 F2,3 Site Latitude N 37.650° Site Longitude W 122.403° Ss Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period 2.027g S1 Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period 0.956g Fa Site Coefficient for a Short Period (Class E) 3 0.9 Fv Site Coefficient for a 1-Second Period (Class E) 3 2.4 1 Note: The 2013 California Building Code (CBC) requires a site soil profile determination extending to a depth of 100 feet for seismic site classification. The current scope does not include the required 100 foot soil profile determination. Borings extended to a maximum depth of 50 feet, and this seismic site class definition considers that dense soil continues below the maximum depth of the subsurface exploration. 2 Per CBC Table 1613.5.2, any profile containing highly organic clays soils (H>10 ft) and/or materials vulnerable to potential failure or collapse under seismic loading such as liquefiable soils. 3 For structures with fundamental periods of vibration less than 0.5 seconds, Section 20.3.1 of ASCE 7-05 allows the site coefficients (Fa and Fv) to be determined assuming that liquefaction does not occur (i.e., Site Class D). The structure’s fundamental period should be verified by the structural engineer. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites ■ South San Francisco, California April 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 60145004 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6 3.7 Corrosion Potential Results of soluble sulfate testing indicate that ASTM Type I/II Portland cement can be used for all concrete on and below grade. Foundation concrete may be designed for low sulfate exposure in accordance with the provisions of the ACI Design Manual, Section 318, Chapter 4. Laboratory test results indicate the on-site soils have a pH of 8.4, a minimum resistivity of 2,037 ohm-centimeters, and a chloride content of 75 ppm, as shown on the attached Summary of Laboratory Results sheet. These values should be used to evaluate corrosive potential of the on-site soils to underground ferrous metals. Refer to the Summary of Laboratory Results in Appendix B for the complete results of the corrosivity testing conducted in conjunction with this geotechnical exploration. 3.8 Percolation Test Results Two (2) in-situ percolation tests (falling head borehole permeability) were performed to approximate depths of approximately 5 feet bgs. A 2-inch thick layer of gravel was placed in the bottom of each boring after the borings were drilled to evaluate the soil profile. A 3-inch diameter perforated pipe was installed on top of the gravel layer in each boring. Gravel was used to backfill between the perforated pipes and the boring sidewall. The borings were then filled with water for a pre-soak period. Testing began after the entire amount of water added to the borings had infiltrated into the ground. At the beginning of each test, the pipes were refilled with water and readings were taken at 5-minute time intervals. As the water level dropped at the end of each interval, the borings were refilled for the next test. Percolation rates are provided in the table below. TEST RESULTS Test Location (depth) Percolation Rate, in/hr Correlated Infiltration Rate*, in/hr Water Head, in P-1 3 0.10 41 P-2 15 0.59 37 *Infiltration rates were calculated based on conversion of measured percolation rates using the Porchet Method If the proposed infiltration systems will mainly rely on vertical downward seepage, the correlated infiltration rates should be used. These field test results are not intended to be design rates. They represent the result of our tests at the depths and locations indicated, as described above. The design rate should be determined by the designer by applying an appropriate factor of safety. With time, the bottom of infiltration systems tend to plug with organics, sediments, and other debris. Long term maintenance will likely be required to remove these deleterious materials to help reduce decreases in actual percolation rates. In addition, the infiltration rate may be affected by the following factors, which should be considered when selecting the factor of safety: Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites ■ South San Francisco, California April 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 60145004 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7 Test Procedures: Percolation during the test likely included seepage out of the boring both vertically and laterally, whereas seepage from storm water infiltration systems may primarily flow vertically downward, depending on the geometry and details of the systems. Water Quality: The percolation test was performed with clear water, whereas the storm water will likely not be clear, but may contain organics, fines, and grease/oil. The presence of these deleterious materials will tend to decrease the rate that water percolates from the infiltration systems. Design of the storm water infiltration systems should account for the presence of these materials and should incorporate structures/devices to remove these deleterious materials. Soil Variability: Based on the soils and variable fill materials encountered in our borings, we expect the percolation rates of the soils could be different than measured in the field due to variations in fines content. The design elevation and size of the proposed infiltration system should account for this expected variability in infiltration rates. Infiltration testing should be performed after construction of the infiltration system to verify the design infiltration rates. It should be noted that siltation and vegetation growth along with other factors may affect the infiltration rates of the infiltration areas. The actual infiltration rate may vary from the values reported here. Infiltration systems should be located at least 10 feet from any existing or proposed foundation system. 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 4.1 Geotechnical Considerations The site appears suitable for the proposed construction based upon geotechnical conditions encountered in the test borings provided the geotechnical engineering recommendations contained in this report are implemented in the design and construction of the project. Our analysis has concluded that the soils are liquefiable at multiple zones between depths of 20 to 50 feet bgs with the potential of seismic induced settlement of ¾ to 2¼ inches and differential settlement of ½ inch and 1½ inch. Due to the liquefaction hazard potential we recommend the proposed building be supported on a mat foundation. The structural design of the foundations and building should consider the anticipated seismic settlement and mitigate the liquefaction hazard structurally to improve the proposed building support. Due to the presence of undocumented fill consisting of boulders and cobbles encountered in our explorations throughout the site, the proposed mat foundation should be supported on a minimum of 3 feet of engineered fill placed below the bottom of the lowest foundation level, or 5 Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites ■ South San Francisco, California April 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 60145004 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8 feet below existing site grades whichever is deeper. The materials in the undocumented fill may be used as engineered fill provided the oversized particles (>3 inches) are removed and the materials meet the requirements set forth in this report. Geotechnical engineering recommendations for foundation systems and other earth connected phases of the project are outlined below. The recommendations contained in this report are based upon the results of field and laboratory testing (which are presented in Appendices A and B), engineering analyses, and our current understanding of the proposed project. 4.2 Earthwork The following presents recommendations for site preparation, excavation, subgrade preparation and placement of engineered fills on the project. The recommendations presented for the design and construction of earth supported elements including, foundations, slabs, and pavements, are contingent upon following the recommendations outlined in this section. All grading for the structure should incorporate the limits of the proposed structure plus a minimum lateral distance of five feet beyond the edges. Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon. The evaluation of earthwork should include observation and testing of engineered fill, subgrade preparation, foundation bearing soils, and other geotechnical conditions exposed during the construction of the project. 4.2.1 Site Preparation Strip and remove existing fill, vegetation, and other deleterious materials from proposed building and pavement areas. Stripped materials consisting of vegetation and organic materials should be wasted from the site or used to re-vegetate landscaped areas or exposed slopes after completion of grading operations. Exposed surfaces should be free of mounds and depressions which could prevent uniform compaction. Our explorations indicate the site has approximately 9 feet of existing fill materials across the site. The fill soils consist of sand and gravel materials with large cobbles and boulders. Because of the variable nature of the fill, we recommend that the fill materials within the footprint of the proposed building be removed to a minimum depth of 3 feet below the lowest foundation bearing level or 5 feet below existing site grades (whichever is deeper) and the excavation be thoroughly cleaned prior to backfill placement and/or construction. Although evidence of utilities or underground facilities such as septic tanks, cesspools, basements, and utilities was not observed during the site reconnaissance, such features could be encountered during construction. If unexpected fills or underground facilities are encountered, such features should be removed and the excavation thoroughly cleaned prior to backfill placement and/or construction. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites ■ South San Francisco, California April 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 60145004 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 9 4.2.2 Subgrade Preparation Due to the presence of undocumented fill with large boulders and cobbles, foundations and floor slabs should be supported on a minimum depth of 3 feet of engineered fill composed of on-site fill materials provided the oversized particles (greater than 3 inches) are removed and the soils are placed and compacted in accordance with the parameters provided in this report. The over-excavated area should tbe backfilled up to the footing base elevation with engineered fill placed in lifts of 8 inches or less in loose thickness and should be moisture conditioned and compacted following the recommendations in section 4.2.4 of this report. Care should be taken to prevent wetting or drying of the bearing materials during construction. Wet, dry, or loose/disturbed material in the bottom of the footing excavations should be removed before foundation concrete is placed. Subsequent to surface clearing and grubbing, subgrade soils beneath exterior slabs and pavements should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted to a minimum depth of 10 inches. The moisture content and compaction of subgrade soils should be maintained until slab or pavement construction. Subgrade soils should be proofrolled and approved by the Engineer prior to the placement of engineered fill and/or aggregate base. Any soft spots, where the Contractor may have difficulty in obtaining the desired compaction, should be removed and replaced with compacted backfill as described in this report. 4.2.3 Fill Materials and Placement The on-site soils are considered suitable for use as engineered fill in all areas of the site, provided the oversized particles (>3 inches) are removed and the resulting soils meet the recommendations provided in this section. All fill materials should be inorganic soils free of vegetation, debris, and fragments larger than three inches in size. Pea gravel or other similar non-cementitious, poorly-graded materials should not be used as fill or backfill without the prior approval of the geotechnical engineer. Approved onsite soil materials may be used as fill material for the following:  interior floor slab areas  foundation backfill  foundation areas  exterior slab areas  general site grading  pavement areas Onsite soils for use as fill material within proposed building and structure areas should conform to low volume change materials as indicated in the following specifications: Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites ■ South San Francisco, California April 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 60145004 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 10 Percent Finer by Weight Gradation (ASTM C 136) 3” ........................................................................................................... 100 No. 4 Sieve ......................................................................................... 50-75 No. 200 Sieve ................................................................................ 40 (max)  Liquid Limit......................................................................... 30 (max)  Plasticity Index ................................................................... 15 (max)  Maximum expansive index* ............................................... 20 (max) *ASTM D 4829 Engineered fill should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts, using equipment and procedures that will produce recommended moisture contents and densities throughout the lift. Fill lifts should not exceed eight inches loose thickness. 4.2.4 Compaction Requirements Recommended compaction and moisture content criteria for engineered fill materials are as follows: Material Type and Location Per the Modified Proctor Test (ASTM D 1557) Minimum Compaction Requirement Range of Moisture Contents for Compaction Above Optimum Minimum Maximum On-site native soils: Beneath foundations: 95% 0% +4% Utility trenches:90% 0% +4% Beneath pavements: 95% 0% +4% Miscellaneous backfill:90% 0% +4% Aggregate base (beneath pavements):95% -2% +3% 4.2.5 Grading and Drainage Positive drainage should be provided during construction and maintained throughout the life of the development. Infiltration of water into utility trenches or foundation excavations should be prevented during construction. Backfill against footings and in utility trenches should be well compacted and free of all construction debris to reduce the possibility of moisture infiltration. Roof drainage should discharge into splash blocks or extensions when the ground surface beneath such features is not protected by exterior slabs or paving. Sprinkler systems and landscaped irrigation should not be installed within 5 feet of foundation walls. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites ■ South San Francisco, California April 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 60145004 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 11 4.2.6 Exterior Slab Design and Construction Exterior slabs-on-grade, exterior architectural features, and utilities founded on, or in backfill may experience some movement due to the volume change of the backfill. To reduce the potential for damage caused by movement, we recommend:  minimizing moisture increases in the backfill;  controlling moisture-density during placement of backfill;  placing engineered fill beneath these slabs in the same manner as specified for the foundation system.  using designs which allow vertical movement between the exterior features and adjoining structural elements;  placing effective control joints on relatively close centers. 4.2.7 Utility Trenches It is anticipated that the on-site soils will provide suitable support for underground utilities and piping that may be installed. Any soft and/or unsuitable material encountered at the bottom of excavations should be removed and be replaced with an adequate bedding material. A non- expansive granular material with a sand equivalent greater than 30 should be used for bedding and shading of utilities, unless otherwise specified by the utility manufacturer. On-site granular materials are considered suitable for backfill of utility and pipe trenches from one foot above the top of the pipe to the final ground surface, provided the material is free of organic matter, deleterious substances, and oversized materials. Trench backfill should be mechanically placed and compacted as discussed earlier in this report. Compaction of initial lifts should be accomplished with hand-operated tampers or other lightweight compactors. Where trenches are placed beneath slabs or footings, the backfill should satisfy the gradation and expansion index requirements of engineered fill discussed in this report. Flooding or jetting for placement and compaction of backfill is not recommended. 4.2.8 Construction Considerations It is anticipated that excavations for the proposed construction can be accomplished with conventional earthmoving equipment. Some additional effort may be necessary to extract boulder sized materials, particularly in deep narrow excavations such as utility trenches. Consideration should be given to obtaining a unit price for difficult excavation in the contract documents for the project. Based upon the subsurface conditions determined from the geotechnical exploration, subgrade soils exposed during construction are anticipated to be relatively stable. However, the stability of the subgrade may be affected by precipitation, repetitive construction traffic or other factors. If unstable conditions develop, workability may be improved by scarifying and drying. During Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites ■ South San Francisco, California April 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 60145004 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 12 and after periods of heavy rain, over excavation of wet zones and replacement with granular materials may be necessary. Groundwater seepage should be anticipated for excavations approaching the level of the organic clay layer. Pumping from sumps may be utilized to control water within the excavations. Well points may be required for significant groundwater flow, or where excavations penetrate groundwater to a significant depth. Oversized materials such as boulders and cobbles, exposed in the sides of excavations may create unstable slopes and should be removed from the lateral extent of the trenches and pits. The individual contractor(s) is responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. Excavations should be sloped or shored in the interest of safety following local and federal regulations, including current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. 4.3 Foundations 4.3.1 Mat Foundation Design Parameters DESIGN ITEM DESIGN RECOMENDATION Foundation Type Mat foundations Bearing Material Engineered fill extending to a minimum depth of 3 feet below foundations or 5 feet below existing grades, whichever is deper. Maximum Allowable Bearing Pressure 500 psf Minimum Embedment below grade 2 feet Based on a mat foundation with an embodiment of 24 inches and a contact pressure of 500 psf, settlement calculations were performed utilizing Westergard and Hough's methods5. The estimated settlement will vary with the size of the mat as shown in the following graph. 5 FHWA Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 6 – Shallow Foundations, FHWA-SA-02-054. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites ■ South San Francisco, California April 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 60145004 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 13 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 40.045.050.055.060.065.070.0 Se t t l m e n t  (i n ) Mat Foundation Width (ft) Pressure = 500 psf Since there are several factors that will control the design of mat foundations besides vertical load, Terracon should be consulted when the final foundation depth and width are determined to assist the structural designer in the evaluation of anticipated settlement. For structural design of mat foundations, a modulus of subgrade reaction (Kv1) of 200 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used for the foundation supported on engineered fill. Other details including treatment of loose foundation soils, superstructure reinforcement and observation of foundation excavations as outlined in the Earthwork section of this report are applicable for the design and construction of a mat foundation at the site. The subgrade modulus (Kv) for the mat is affected by the size of the mat foundation and would vary according the following equation: Kv = Kv1 x (B+1)2 /4B2 Where: Kv is the modulus for the size footing being analyzed B is the width of the mat foundation. 4.3.2 Spread Footing Design Parameters DESCRIPTION RECOMENDATION Structures Minor structures with foundation width less than 5 feet such as trash enclosures, equipment pads, and low retaining walls. Foundation Type Conventional Shallow Spread Footings Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites ■ South San Francisco, California April 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 60145004 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 14 DESCRIPTION RECOMENDATION Bearing Material Engineered fill extending to a minimum depth of 2 feet below foundations. Allowable Bearing Pressure 2,000 psf Minimum Footing Dimensions Walls: 18 inches; Columns: 24 inches Minimum Embedment Depth Below Finished Grade 18 inches Estimated Static Settlement 1 inch Estimated Differential Static Settlement ½ inch in 40 feet. The allowable foundation bearing pressures provided in this report apply to dead loads plus design live load conditions. The design bearing pressure may be increased by one-third when considering total loads that include wind or seismic conditions. The weight of the foundation concrete below grade may be neglected in dead load computations. 4.3.3 Foundation Design Considerations Foundations should be reinforced as necessary to reduce the potential for distress caused by differential foundation movement. Finished grade is defined as the lowest adjacent grade within five feet of the foundation for perimeter (or exterior) footings. Foundation excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer. If the soil conditions encountered differ significantly from those presented in this report, supplemental recommendations may be required. 4.4 Lateral Earth Pressures For onsite processed materials or imported low volume change fill materials above any free water surface, recommended equivalent fluid pressures for foundation elements are: ITEM VALUE1,2 Active Case 40 psf/ft Passive Case 360 psf/ft At-Rest Case 60 psf/ft Surcharge Pressure 0.33*(Surcharge) Coefficient of Friction 0.40 1 Note: Ignore passive pressure in the upper 18 inches because of soil disturbance. 2 Note: Reduce to 0.30 when used in conjunction with passive pressure. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites ■ South San Francisco, California April 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 60145004 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 15 The lateral earth pressures herein do not include any factor of safety and are not applicable for submerged soils/hydrostatic loading. Additional recommendations may be necessary if such conditions are to be included in the design. Adequate drainage should be provided behind the below-grade walls to collect water from irrigation, landscaping, surface runoff, or other sources, to achieve a free-draining backfill condition. The wall back drain should consist of Class 2 permeable materials that are placed behind the entire wall height to within 18 inches of ground surface at the top of the wall. As a minimum, the width of Class 2 permeable materials behind the wall should be two feet. Water collected by the back drain should be directed to an appropriate outlet, such as weep holes or perforated pipes, for disposal. 4.5 Pavements 4.5.1 Design Recommendations Based on the engineering properties of the near surface materials, a correlated design R-Value was used to calculate the Asphalt Concrete (AC) pavement thickness sections and an estimated modulus of subgrade reaction value was used in calculating the Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement sections for the project. R-value testing should be completed prior to pavement construction to verify the design R-value. Assuming the pavement subgrades will be prepared as recommended within this report, the following pavement sections should be considered as minimum for this project for the traffic indices assumed in the table below. As more specific traffic information becomes available, we should be contacted to reevaluate the pavement calculations. Recommended Pavement Section Thickness (inches)* Light (Automobile) Parking Assumed Traffic Index (TI) = 4.5 On-site Driveways and Delivery Areas Assumed TI = 6.0 Section I Portland Cement Concrete (600 psi Flexural Strength) 5.0” PCC over 4” Class II Aggregate Base over 10” of scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted materials 6.0” PCC over 4” Class II Aggregate Base over 10” of scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted materials Section II Asphaltic Concrete 3” AC over 4” Class II Aggregate Base over 10” of scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted materials 3” AC over 6” Class II Aggregate Base over 10” of scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted materials * All materials should meet the CALTRANS Standard Specifications for Highway Construction. These pavement sections are considered minimal sections based upon the expected traffic and the existing subgrade conditions. However, they are expected to function with periodic maintenance and overlays if good drainage is provided and maintained. All concrete for rigid pavements should have a minimum flexural strength of 600 psi, and be placed with a maximum slump of four inches. Proper joint spacing will also be required to Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites ■ South San Francisco, California April 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 60145004 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 16 prevent excessive slab curling and shrinkage cracking. All joints should be sealed to prevent entry of foreign material and dowelled where necessary for load transfer. Preventative maintenance should be planned and provided for through an on-going pavement management program in order to enhance future pavement performance. Preventative maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration, and to preserve the pavement investment. Preventative maintenance consists of both localized maintenance (e.g. crack sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g. surface sealing). Preventative maintenance is usually the first priority when implementing a planned pavement maintenance program and provides the highest return on investment for pavements. 4.5.2 Construction Considerations Materials and construction of pavements for the project should be in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the State of California Department of Transportation, or other approved local governing specifications. Base course or pavement materials should not be placed when the surface is wet. Surface drainage should be provided away from the edge of paved areas to minimize lateral moisture transmission into the subgrade. 5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and testing services during grading, excavation, foundation construction and other earth-related construction phases of the project. The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings, test pits, and CPT soundings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between explorations, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites ■ South San Francisco, California April 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 60145004 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 17 This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing. APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES 2817 McGaw Avenue Irvine, California 92614 PH. (949) 261-0051 FAX. (949) 261-6110 A-1 Exhibit Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites Project Manager: Drawn by: Checked by: Approved by: FH TH FH FH Project No. Scale: File Name: Date: 60145004 AS SHOWN A-1 03/27/14 137 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco, California SITE LOCATION PLAN Site REFERENCE: USGS SAN FRANCISCO SOUTH, CALIFORNIA, 7.5-MINUTE QUADRANGLE (dated 1981) BORING AND TEST LOCATION DIAGRAM Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites 127 West Harris Avenue South San Fransisco, California A-2 2817 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 PH. (949) 261-0051 FAX. (949) 261-6110 60145004 03/27/14 FH TH FH FH 1 in. ~ 80 ft. Project Manager: Drawn by: Checked by: Approved by: Project No. Scale: File Name: Date: Exhibit A-2 DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES B-1 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION LEGEND WEST HARRIS AVENUE TP-1 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION TP-1 TP-2 TP-3 TP-4 B-1 B-2 CPT-1 APPROXIMATE CONE PENETRATION TEST LOCATION P-1 APPROXIMATE PERCOLATION TEST LOCATION CPT-1 CPT-2 P-2 P-1 Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites ■ South San Francisco, California April 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 60145004 Exhibit A-3 Field Exploration Description The field exploration program included three separate trips to the project site and included the advancement of four (4) test pits, four (4) test borings and three (3) Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) soundings. The borings and CPT soundings were performed in areas previously excavated as test pits to explore the existing fill layer. A large excavator was used to perform the test pits. The borings and soundings were extended to approximate depths ranging between 23 to 51½ feet below existing site grades. The CPT and Borings were performed at the site on March 7, 2014. The drilled test borings were advanced with a truck-mounted CME-55 drill rig utilizing 6-inch diameter hollow-stem auger. CPT soundings were advanced with a 20-ton truck providing the reaction weight for pushing the cone assembly into the ground at a constant rate of 20-mm per second (approximately four feet per minute). The cone tip resistance and sleeve friction resistance were recorded every 2-cm (approximately ¾-inch) and stored in digital form. The borings were located in the field by using the proposed site plan, an aerial photograph of the site, and a GPS handheld device. The accuracy of boring locations should only be assumed to the level implied by the method used. The location of the borings and CPT soundings are shown on the attached Boring Location Diagram, Exhibit A-2. Continuous lithologic logs of the borings were recorded by the field engineer during the drilling operations. At selected intervals, samples of the subsurface materials were taken by driving split-spoon or ring-barrel samplers. Bulk samples of subsurface materials were also obtained. Groundwater conditions were evaluated in the borings at the time of site exploration. Penetration resistance measurements were obtained by driving the split-spoon and ring-barrel samplers into the subsurface materials with a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches. The penetration resistance value is a useful index in estimating the consistency or relative density of materials encountered. An automatic hammer was used to advance the split-barrel sampler in the borings performed on this site. A significantly greater efficiency is achieved with the automatic hammer compared to the conventional safety hammer operated with a cathead and rope. This higher efficiency has an appreciable effect on the SPT-N value. The effect of the automatic hammer's efficiency has been considered in the interpretation and analysis of the subsurface information for this report. The samples were tagged for identification, sealed to reduce moisture loss, and taken to our laboratory for further examination, testing, and classification. Information provided on the boring logs in this appendix includes soil descriptions, consistency evaluations, boring depths, sampling intervals, and groundwater conditions. The borings were backfilled with auger cuttings prior to the drill crew leaving the site. 9.0 FILL - CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND, gray to brown orange to brown, boulders to 24 inches in dimension ORGANIC CLAY (OH), blue to gray, very soft to soft, with black peat seams decomposing odor at 15 feet depth The estimated depth of the fill materials should not be considered exact due to the similarity of lithology, color, and densities of the graded materials and native soils. 1-1-3 1-0-0 N=0 WOH 52 86-48-3878 Latitude: 37.650028° Longitude: -122.403997° All coordinates are approximate. Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. LOCATION DEPTH GR A P H I C L O G TH I S B O R I N G L O G I S N O T V A L I D I F S E P A R A T E D F R O M O R I G I N A L R E P O R T . T E R R A C O N S M A R T L O G - N O W E L L 6 0 1 4 5 0 0 4 - S S F B O R I N G L O G S . G P J T E R R A C O N 2 0 1 2 . G D T 3 / 2 8 / 1 4 Groundwater encountered at 10' depth while drilling WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Page 1 of 3 Advancement Method: Hollow Stem Auger Abandonment Method: tremie backfilled with neat cement upon completion 2817 McGaw Avenue Irvine, California Notes: Project No.: 60145004 Drill Rig: CME-55 Boring Started: 3/7/2014 BORING LOG NO. B-1 Kuber Development CompanyCLIENT: 1550 S 52nd St See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. Driller: Technicon Boring Completed: 3/7/2014 Exhibit: Tempe, AZ 85281 PROJECT: Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites SITE: See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data, (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. A-4 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco, California PE R C E N T F I N E S FI E L D T E S T RE S U L T S SA M P L E T Y P E WA T E R L E V E L OB S E R V A T I O N S DE P T H ( f t ) 5 10 15 20 DR Y U N I T WE I G H T ( p c f ) ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI UN C O N F I N E D CO M P R E S S I V E ST R E N G T H ( p s f ) WA T E R CO N T E N T ( % ) 25.0 30.0 ORGANIC CLAY (OH), blue to gray, very soft to soft, with black peat seams (continued) SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), fine to medium grained sand, black, very soft POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), fine to medium grained sand, gray, medium dense brown to orange, moderate cementation, very dense, from 35 to 41.5 feet depth 0-1-2 1-0-0 N=0 WOH 7-19-31 15-25-37 N=62 44 88 93 19 Latitude: 37.650028° Longitude: -122.403997° All coordinates are approximate. Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. LOCATION DEPTH GR A P H I C L O G TH I S B O R I N G L O G I S N O T V A L I D I F S E P A R A T E D F R O M O R I G I N A L R E P O R T . T E R R A C O N S M A R T L O G - N O W E L L 6 0 1 4 5 0 0 4 - S S F B O R I N G L O G S . G P J T E R R A C O N 2 0 1 2 . G D T 3 / 2 8 / 1 4 Groundwater encountered at 10' depth while drilling WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Page 2 of 3 Advancement Method: Hollow Stem Auger Abandonment Method: tremie backfilled with neat cement upon completion 2817 McGaw Avenue Irvine, California Notes: Project No.: 60145004 Drill Rig: CME-55 Boring Started: 3/7/2014 BORING LOG NO. B-1 Kuber Development CompanyCLIENT: 1550 S 52nd St See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. Driller: Technicon Boring Completed: 3/7/2014 Exhibit: Tempe, AZ 85281 PROJECT: Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites SITE: See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data, (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. A-4 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco, California PE R C E N T F I N E S FI E L D T E S T RE S U L T S SA M P L E T Y P E WA T E R L E V E L OB S E R V A T I O N S DE P T H ( f t ) 25 30 35 40 DR Y U N I T WE I G H T ( p c f ) ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI UN C O N F I N E D CO M P R E S S I V E ST R E N G T H ( p s f ) WA T E R CO N T E N T ( % ) 45.0 50.0 51.5 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), fine to medium grained sand, gray, medium dense (continued) SILTY SAND (SM), fine sand, reddish-brown to light gray, medium dense POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to medium grained sand, brown to orange, medium dense, with black peat seams Boring Terminated at 51.5 Feet 7-25-47 4-6-8 N=14 12-13-20 115 114 17 17 Latitude: 37.650028° Longitude: -122.403997° All coordinates are approximate. Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. LOCATION DEPTH GR A P H I C L O G TH I S B O R I N G L O G I S N O T V A L I D I F S E P A R A T E D F R O M O R I G I N A L R E P O R T . T E R R A C O N S M A R T L O G - N O W E L L 6 0 1 4 5 0 0 4 - S S F B O R I N G L O G S . G P J T E R R A C O N 2 0 1 2 . G D T 3 / 2 8 / 1 4 Groundwater encountered at 10' depth while drilling WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Page 3 of 3 Advancement Method: Hollow Stem Auger Abandonment Method: tremie backfilled with neat cement upon completion 2817 McGaw Avenue Irvine, California Notes: Project No.: 60145004 Drill Rig: CME-55 Boring Started: 3/7/2014 BORING LOG NO. B-1 Kuber Development CompanyCLIENT: 1550 S 52nd St See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. Driller: Technicon Boring Completed: 3/7/2014 Exhibit: Tempe, AZ 85281 PROJECT: Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites SITE: See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data, (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. A-4 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco, California PE R C E N T F I N E S FI E L D T E S T RE S U L T S SA M P L E T Y P E WA T E R L E V E L OB S E R V A T I O N S DE P T H ( f t ) 45 50 DR Y U N I T WE I G H T ( p c f ) ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI UN C O N F I N E D CO M P R E S S I V E ST R E N G T H ( p s f ) WA T E R CO N T E N T ( % ) 5.0 9.0 FILL - SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND, orange to brown, cobbles and boulders to 42 inches in dimension, derived from sandstone rock fragments FILL - LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, dark gray, occasional boulders to 12 inches in dimension, older fill ORGANIC CLAY (OH), dark blue to gray, very soft, with black peat seams and decomposing plant matter The estimated depth of the fill materials should not be considered exact due to the similarity of lithology, color, and densities of the graded materials and native soils. 1-1-1 1-0-0 N=0 WOH 53 82-45-37 75 Latitude: 37.650272° Longitude: -122.40372° All coordinates are approximate. Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. LOCATION DEPTH GR A P H I C L O G TH I S B O R I N G L O G I S N O T V A L I D I F S E P A R A T E D F R O M O R I G I N A L R E P O R T . T E R R A C O N S M A R T L O G - N O W E L L 6 0 1 4 5 0 0 4 - S S F B O R I N G L O G S . G P J T E R R A C O N 2 0 1 2 . G D T 3 / 2 8 / 1 4 Groundwater encountered at 10' depth while drilling WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Page 1 of 3 Advancement Method: Hollow Stem Auger Abandonment Method: tremie backfilled with neat cement upon completion 2817 McGaw Avenue Irvine, California Notes: Project No.: 60145004 Drill Rig: CME-55 Boring Started: 3/7/2014 BORING LOG NO. B-2 Kuber Development CompanyCLIENT: 1550 S 52nd St See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. Driller: Technicon Boring Completed: 3/7/2014 Exhibit: Tempe, AZ 85281 PROJECT: Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites SITE: See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data, (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. A-5 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco, California PE R C E N T F I N E S FI E L D T E S T RE S U L T S SA M P L E T Y P E WA T E R L E V E L OB S E R V A T I O N S DE P T H ( f t ) 5 10 15 20 DR Y U N I T WE I G H T ( p c f ) ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI UN C O N F I N E D CO M P R E S S I V E ST R E N G T H ( p s f ) WA T E R CO N T E N T ( % ) 20.5 29.0 35.0 sandy, from 20 to 20.5 feet depth POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), gray, loose to medium dense, 2 inch clayey lenses from 20.5 to 25 feet depth SILTY SAND (SM), fine grained sand, light brown to gray, loose POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), brown to reddish brown, moderate cementation, hard 4-4-9 11-18-11 N=29 4-6-8 16-25-36 N=61 106 109 18 24 Latitude: 37.650272° Longitude: -122.40372° All coordinates are approximate. Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. LOCATION DEPTH GR A P H I C L O G TH I S B O R I N G L O G I S N O T V A L I D I F S E P A R A T E D F R O M O R I G I N A L R E P O R T . T E R R A C O N S M A R T L O G - N O W E L L 6 0 1 4 5 0 0 4 - S S F B O R I N G L O G S . G P J T E R R A C O N 2 0 1 2 . G D T 3 / 2 8 / 1 4 Groundwater encountered at 10' depth while drilling WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Page 2 of 3 Advancement Method: Hollow Stem Auger Abandonment Method: tremie backfilled with neat cement upon completion 2817 McGaw Avenue Irvine, California Notes: Project No.: 60145004 Drill Rig: CME-55 Boring Started: 3/7/2014 BORING LOG NO. B-2 Kuber Development CompanyCLIENT: 1550 S 52nd St See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. Driller: Technicon Boring Completed: 3/7/2014 Exhibit: Tempe, AZ 85281 PROJECT: Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites SITE: See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data, (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. A-5 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco, California PE R C E N T F I N E S FI E L D T E S T RE S U L T S SA M P L E T Y P E WA T E R L E V E L OB S E R V A T I O N S DE P T H ( f t ) 25 30 35 40 DR Y U N I T WE I G H T ( p c f ) ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI UN C O N F I N E D CO M P R E S S I V E ST R E N G T H ( p s f ) WA T E R CO N T E N T ( % ) 50.7 POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), brown to reddish brown, moderate cementation, hard (continued) medium dense to dense, from 40 to 50 feet depth dark gray to black, hard, from 50 to 51.5 feet Boring Terminated at 50.7 Feet 10-13-19 11-10-6 N=16 7-10-6 N=16 13-50/2"11916 Latitude: 37.650272° Longitude: -122.40372° All coordinates are approximate. Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. LOCATION DEPTH GR A P H I C L O G TH I S B O R I N G L O G I S N O T V A L I D I F S E P A R A T E D F R O M O R I G I N A L R E P O R T . T E R R A C O N S M A R T L O G - N O W E L L 6 0 1 4 5 0 0 4 - S S F B O R I N G L O G S . G P J T E R R A C O N 2 0 1 2 . G D T 3 / 2 8 / 1 4 Groundwater encountered at 10' depth while drilling WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Page 3 of 3 Advancement Method: Hollow Stem Auger Abandonment Method: tremie backfilled with neat cement upon completion 2817 McGaw Avenue Irvine, California Notes: Project No.: 60145004 Drill Rig: CME-55 Boring Started: 3/7/2014 BORING LOG NO. B-2 Kuber Development CompanyCLIENT: 1550 S 52nd St See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. Driller: Technicon Boring Completed: 3/7/2014 Exhibit: Tempe, AZ 85281 PROJECT: Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites SITE: See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data, (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. A-5 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco, California PE R C E N T F I N E S FI E L D T E S T RE S U L T S SA M P L E T Y P E WA T E R L E V E L OB S E R V A T I O N S DE P T H ( f t ) 45 50 DR Y U N I T WE I G H T ( p c f ) ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI UN C O N F I N E D CO M P R E S S I V E ST R E N G T H ( p s f ) WA T E R CO N T E N T ( % ) 5.0 FILL - CLAYEY GRAVEL, with cobbles, brown Boring Terminated at 5 Feet Latitude: 37.6501° Longitude: -122.4042° All coordinates are approximate. Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. LOCATION DEPTH GR A P H I C L O G TH I S B O R I N G L O G I S N O T V A L I D I F S E P A R A T E D F R O M O R I G I N A L R E P O R T . T E R R A C O N S M A R T L O G - N O W E L L 6 0 1 4 5 0 0 4 - S S F B O R I N G L O G S . G P J T E R R A C O N 2 0 1 2 . G D T 3 / 2 8 / 1 4 Groundwater not encountered WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Page 1 of 1 Advancement Method: Hollow Stem Auger Abandonment Method: Installed 6" diameter perforated pipe upon completion 2817 McGaw Avenue Irvine, California Notes: Project No.: 60145004 Drill Rig: CME-55 Boring Started: 2/14/2014 BORING LOG NO. P-1 Kuber Development CompanyCLIENT: 1550 S 52nd St See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. Driller: Technicon Boring Completed: 2/14/2014 Exhibit: Tempe, AZ 85281 PROJECT: Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites SITE: See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data, (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. A-6 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco, California PE R C E N T F I N E S FI E L D T E S T RE S U L T S SA M P L E T Y P E WA T E R L E V E L OB S E R V A T I O N S DE P T H ( f t ) 5 DR Y U N I T WE I G H T ( p c f ) ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI UN C O N F I N E D CO M P R E S S I V E ST R E N G T H ( p s f ) WA T E R CO N T E N T ( % ) 5.0 FILL - CLAYEY GRAVEL, with cobbles, brown Boring Terminated at 5 Feet Latitude: 37.6501° Longitude: -122.4036° All coordinates are approximate. Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. LOCATION DEPTH GR A P H I C L O G TH I S B O R I N G L O G I S N O T V A L I D I F S E P A R A T E D F R O M O R I G I N A L R E P O R T . T E R R A C O N S M A R T L O G - N O W E L L 6 0 1 4 5 0 0 4 - S S F B O R I N G L O G S . G P J T E R R A C O N 2 0 1 2 . G D T 3 / 2 8 / 1 4 Groundwater not encountered WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Page 1 of 1 Advancement Method: Hollow Stem Auger Abandonment Method: Installed 6" diameter perforated pipe upon completion 2817 McGaw Avenue Irvine, California Notes: Project No.: 60145004 Drill Rig: CME-55 Boring Started: 2/14/2014 BORING LOG NO. P-2 Kuber Development CompanyCLIENT: 1550 S 52nd St See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. Driller: Technicon Boring Completed: 2/14/2014 Exhibit: Tempe, AZ 85281 PROJECT: Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites SITE: See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data, (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. A-7 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco, California PE R C E N T F I N E S FI E L D T E S T RE S U L T S SA M P L E T Y P E WA T E R L E V E L OB S E R V A T I O N S DE P T H ( f t ) 5 DR Y U N I T WE I G H T ( p c f ) ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI UN C O N F I N E D CO M P R E S S I V E ST R E N G T H ( p s f ) WA T E R CO N T E N T ( % ) 9.0 10.0 FILL - CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND, gray to brown ORGANIC CLAY (OH), blue to gray, peat seams Test Pit Terminated at 10 Feet The estimated depth of the fill materials should not be considered exact due to the similarity of lithology, color, and densities of the graded materials and native soils. 25-15-10 Latitude: 37.650028° Longitude: -122.403997° All coordinates are approximate. Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. LOCATION DEPTH GR A P H I C L O G TH I S B O R I N G L O G I S N O T V A L I D I F S E P A R A T E D F R O M O R I G I N A L R E P O R T . T E R R A C O N S M A R T L O G - N O W E L L 6 0 1 4 5 0 0 4 - S S F B O R I N G L O G S . G P J T E R R A C O N 2 0 1 2 . G D T 3 / 2 8 / 1 4 elevation taken at 10:40am elevation taken at 12:45am WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Page 1 of 1 Advancement Method: Abandonment Method: Test pit backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion 2817 McGaw Avenue Irvine, California Notes: Project No.: 60145004 Excavator: PC150 Excavator Test Pit Started: 2/24/2014 TEST PIT LOG NO. TP-1 Kuber Development CompanyCLIENT: 1550 S 52nd St See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. Operator: Daryl Meuller Excavation Exhibit: Tempe, AZ 85281 PROJECT: Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites SITE: See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data, (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. A-8 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco, California PE R C E N T F I N E S FI E L D T E S T RE S U L T S SA M P L E T Y P E WA T E R L E V E L OB S E R V A T I O N S DE P T H ( f t ) 5 10 DR Y U N I T WE I G H T ( p c f ) ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI UN C O N F I N E D CO M P R E S S I V E ST R E N G T H ( p s f ) WA T E R CO N T E N T ( % ) 9.0 10.0 FILL - SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND, orange to brown, cobbles and boulders to 32-inches in dimension dark brown, cobbles and occasional boulders to 12 inches in dimension, decay odor, older fill ORGANIC CLAY (OH), blue to gray, with occasional peat seams Test Pit Terminated at 10 Feet The estimated depth of the fill materials should not be considered exact due to the similarity of lithology, color, and densities of the graded materials and native soils. Latitude: 37.650257° Longitude: -122.403995° All coordinates are approximate. Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. LOCATION DEPTH GR A P H I C L O G TH I S B O R I N G L O G I S N O T V A L I D I F S E P A R A T E D F R O M O R I G I N A L R E P O R T . T E R R A C O N S M A R T L O G - N O W E L L 6 0 1 4 5 0 0 4 - S S F B O R I N G L O G S . G P J T E R R A C O N 2 0 1 2 . G D T 3 / 2 8 / 1 4 elevation taken at 11:10am elevation taken at 12:58pm WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Page 1 of 1 Advancement Method: Abandonment Method: Test pit backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion 2817 McGaw Avenue Irvine, California Notes: Project No.: 60145004 Excavator: PC150 Excavator Test Pit Started: 2/24/2014 TEST PIT LOG NO. TP-2 Kuber Development CompanyCLIENT: 1550 S 52nd St See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. Operator: Daryl Meuller Excavation Exhibit: Tempe, AZ 85281 PROJECT: Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites SITE: See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data, (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. A-9 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco, California PE R C E N T F I N E S FI E L D T E S T RE S U L T S SA M P L E T Y P E WA T E R L E V E L OB S E R V A T I O N S DE P T H ( f t ) 5 10 DR Y U N I T WE I G H T ( p c f ) ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI UN C O N F I N E D CO M P R E S S I V E ST R E N G T H ( p s f ) WA T E R CO N T E N T ( % ) 5.0 9.0 10.0 FILL - SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND, orange to brown, cobbles and boulders to 42 inches in dimension, derived from sandstone rock fragments FILL - LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, dark gray, occasional boulders to 12 inches in dimension, older fill ORGANIC CLAY (OH), dark blue to gray, with black peat seams Test Pit Terminated at 10 Feet The estimated depth of the fill materials should not be considered exact due to the similarity of lithology, color, and densities of the graded materials and native soils. Latitude: 37.650272° Longitude: -122.40372° All coordinates are approximate. Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. LOCATION DEPTH GR A P H I C L O G TH I S B O R I N G L O G I S N O T V A L I D I F S E P A R A T E D F R O M O R I G I N A L R E P O R T . T E R R A C O N S M A R T L O G - N O W E L L 6 0 1 4 5 0 0 4 - S S F B O R I N G L O G S . G P J T E R R A C O N 2 0 1 2 . G D T 3 / 2 8 / 1 4 elevation taken at 12:20pm elevation taken at 1:00pm WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Page 1 of 1 Advancement Method: Abandonment Method: Test pit backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion 2817 McGaw Avenue Irvine, California Notes: Project No.: 60145004 Excavator: PC150 Excavator Test Pit Started: 2/24/2014 TEST PIT LOG NO. TP-3 Kuber Development CompanyCLIENT: 1550 S 52nd St See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. Operator: Daryl Meuller Excavation Exhibit: Tempe, AZ 85281 PROJECT: Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites SITE: See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data, (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. A-10 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco, California PE R C E N T F I N E S FI E L D T E S T RE S U L T S SA M P L E T Y P E WA T E R L E V E L OB S E R V A T I O N S DE P T H ( f t ) 5 10 DR Y U N I T WE I G H T ( p c f ) ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI UN C O N F I N E D CO M P R E S S I V E ST R E N G T H ( p s f ) WA T E R CO N T E N T ( % ) 9.0 10.0 FILL - SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND, orange to brown, cobbles and boulders to 40 inches in dimension, derived from sandstone rock fragments dark gray, cobbles and boulders to 18 inches in dimension, strong decay odor, older fill ORGANIC CLAY (OH), dark blue to gray, with black peat seams Test Pit Terminated at 10 Feet The estimated depth of the fill materials should not be considered exact due to the similarity of lithology, color, and densities of the graded materials and native soils. Latitude: 37.650458° Longitude: -122.403769° All coordinates are approximate. Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. LOCATION DEPTH GR A P H I C L O G TH I S B O R I N G L O G I S N O T V A L I D I F S E P A R A T E D F R O M O R I G I N A L R E P O R T . T E R R A C O N S M A R T L O G - N O W E L L 6 0 1 4 5 0 0 4 - S S F B O R I N G L O G S . G P J T E R R A C O N 2 0 1 2 . G D T 3 / 2 8 / 1 4 elevation taken at 12:25pm elevation taken at 1:03pm WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Page 1 of 1 Advancement Method: Abandonment Method: Test pit backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion 2817 McGaw Avenue Irvine, California Notes: Project No.: 60145004 Excavator: PC150 Excavator Test Pit Started: 2/24/2014 TEST PIT LOG NO. TP-4 Kuber Development CompanyCLIENT: 1550 S 52nd St See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. Operator: Daryl Meuller Excavation Exhibit: Tempe, AZ 85281 PROJECT: Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites SITE: See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data, (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. A-11 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco, California PE R C E N T F I N E S FI E L D T E S T RE S U L T S SA M P L E T Y P E WA T E R L E V E L OB S E R V A T I O N S DE P T H ( f t ) 5 10 DR Y U N I T WE I G H T ( p c f ) ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI UN C O N F I N E D CO M P R E S S I V E ST R E N G T H ( p s f ) WA T E R CO N T E N T ( % ) 0 100 200 qc [T/ft^2] 0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 De p t h [ f t ] 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 fs [T/ft^2] 0 20 40 60 u2 [lb/in^2] 0 1.00 2.00 Su(qc) [T/ft^2] 0 10 20 30 40 50 N60 [blows/ft] Test no: CPT-1 Project ID: 60145004 Client: Terracon Project: Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites Position:Location: South San Francisco, California Ground level: Date: 3/7/2014 Scale: 1 : 40 Page: 1/1 Fig: File: CPT-1.cpd U2 Sleeve area [cm2]: 150 Tip area [cm2]: 10 Cone No: 4141 Classification by Robertson 1986 Sensitive fine grained (1) Silty clay to clay (4) Sensitive fine grained (1) Silty clay to clay (4) Sensitive fine grained (1) Clayey silt to silty clay (5) Sandy silt to clayey silt (6) Clayey silt to silty clay (5) Sandy silt to clayey silt (6) Clayey silt to silty clay (5) Sandy silt to clayey silt (6) Clayey silt to silty clay (5) 0 100 200 qc [T/ft^2] 0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 De p t h [ f t ] 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 fs [T/ft^2] 0 20 40 60 u2 [lb/in^2] 0 1.00 2.00 Su(qc) [T/ft^2] 0 10 20 30 40 50 N60 [blows/ft] Test no: CPT-2 Project ID: 60145004 Client: Terracon Project: Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites Position:Location: South San Francisco, California Ground level: Date: 3/7/2014 Scale: 1 : 40 Page: 1/1 Fig: File: CPT-2.cpd U2 Sleeve area [cm2]: 150 Tip area [cm2]: 10 Cone No: 4141 Classification by Robertson 1986 Sensitive fine grained (1) Silty sand to sandy silt (7) Clay (3) Sensitive fine grained (1) Sandy silt to clayey silt (6) Clayey silt to silty clay (5) Sandy silt to clayey silt (6) Very stiff fine grained (11) 0 100 200 qc [T/ft^2] 0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 De p t h [ f t ] 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 fs [T/ft^2] 0 20 40 60 u2 [lb/in^2] 0 1.00 2.00 Su(qc) [T/ft^2] 0 10 20 30 40 50 N60 [blows/ft] Test no: CPT-3 Project ID: 60145004 Client: Terracon Project: Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites Position:Location: South San Francisco, California Ground level: Date: 3/7/2014 Scale: 1 : 40 Page: 1/1 Fig: File: CPT-3.cpd U2 Sleeve area [cm2]: 150 Tip area [cm2]: 10 Cone No: 4141 Classification by Robertson 1986 Sensitive fine grained (1) Sandy silt to clayey silt (6)Silty sand to sandy silt (7) Sensitive fine grained (1) Sandy silt to clayey silt (6) Clayey silt to silty clay (5) Silty sand to sandy silt (7) Sandy silt to clayey silt (6) APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites ■ South San Francisco, California April 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 60145004 Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing Samples retrieved during the field exploration were taken to the laboratory for further observation by the project geotechnical engineer and were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described in Appendix C. At that time, the field descriptions were confirmed or modified as necessary and an applicable laboratory testing program was formulated to determine engineering properties of the subsurface materials. Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples and the test results are presented in this appendix. The laboratory test results were used for the geotechnical engineering analyses, and the development of foundation and earthwork recommendations. Laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with the applicable ASTM, local or other accepted standards. Selected soil samples obtained from the site were tested for the following engineering properties:  In-situ Dry Density  In-situ Water Content  Soluble Chlorides  Soluble Sulfates  pH  Minimum Resistivity  Grain Size Distribution  Atterberg Limits  Consolidation/Collapse Potential 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 20 40 60 80 100 CH o r O H CL o r O L ML or OL MH or OH PLPI 10.0 15.0 6.0 Boring ID Depth Description ORGANIC CLAY ORGANIC CLAY CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND OH OH GC Fines P L A S T I C I T Y I N D E X LIQUID LIMIT "U" L i n e "A" L i n e 86 82 25 48 45 15 38 37 10 99 96 19 LL USCS B-1 B-2 TP-1 ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS ASTM D4318 2817 McGaw Avenue Irvine, California PROJECT NUMBER: 60145004PROJECT: Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites SITE: 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco, California CLIENT: Kuber Development Company 1550 S 52nd St EXHIBIT: B-2 LA B O R A T O R Y T E S T S A R E N O T V A L I D I F S E P A R A T E D F R O M O R I G I N A L R E P O R T . A T T E R B E R G L I M I T S 6 0 1 4 5 0 0 4 - S S F B O R I N G L O G S . G P J T E R R A C O N 2 0 1 2 . G D T 3 / 2 8 / 1 4 CL-ML 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 0.0010.010.1110100 16 20 30 40 501.5 2006810 7.1 19.0 0.0 42.5 0.081 14 LLPLPI %Clay%Silt 413/4 1/2 60 fine HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS 1510 1.14 D100 CcCu SILT OR CLAY 4 %Sand%GravelD30D10 B-1 TP-1 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND 25 0.139 0.263 0.21 5.26 4 25 B-1 TP-1 2.5935.0 6.0 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS PE R C E N T F I N E R B Y W E I G H T coarsefine GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 3/8 3 100 14032 COBBLES GRAVEL SAND USCS Classification 92.9 38.5 D60 coarsemedium 35.0 6.0 Boring ID Depth Boring ID Depth 6 ASTM D422 2817 McGaw Avenue Irvine, California PROJECT NUMBER: 60145004PROJECT: Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites SITE: 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco, California CLIENT: Kuber Development Company 1550 S 52nd St EXHIBIT: B-3 LA B O R A T O R Y T E S T S A R E N O T V A L I D I F S E P A R A T E D F R O M O R I G I N A L R E P O R T . S W _ G R A I N S I Z E : U S C S - 2 6 0 1 4 5 0 0 4 - S S F B O R I N G L O G S . G P J T E R R A C O N 2 0 1 2 . G D T 3 / 2 8 / 1 4 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 100 1,000 10,000 AX I A L S T R A I N , % PRESSURE, psf SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D4546 NOTES: Specimen Identification 20.0 ft Classification , pcf B-1 93 WC, % ORGANIC CLAY 44 2817 McGaw Avenue Irvine, California PROJECT NUMBER: 60145004PROJECT: Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites SITE: 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco, California CLIENT: Kuber Development Company 1550 S 52nd St EXHIBIT: B-4 LA B O R A T O R Y T E S T S A R E N O T V A L I D I F S E P A R A T E D F R O M O R I G I N A L R E P O R T . S W _ C O N S O L _ S T R A I N - U S C S 6 0 1 4 5 0 0 4 - S S F B O R I N G L O G S . G P J T E R R A C O N 2 0 1 2 . G D T 3 / 2 8 / 1 4 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 100 1,000 10,000 AX I A L S T R A I N , % PRESSURE, psf SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D4546 NOTES: Specimen Identification 10.0 ft Classification , pcf B-2 75 WC, % ORGANIC CLAY 53 2817 McGaw Avenue Irvine, California PROJECT NUMBER: 60145004PROJECT: Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites SITE: 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco, California CLIENT: Kuber Development Company 1550 S 52nd St EXHIBIT: B-5 LA B O R A T O R Y T E S T S A R E N O T V A L I D I F S E P A R A T E D F R O M O R I G I N A L R E P O R T . S W _ C O N S O L _ S T R A I N - U S C S 6 0 1 4 5 0 0 4 - S S F B O R I N G L O G S . G P J T E R R A C O N 2 0 1 2 . G D T 3 / 2 8 / 1 4 Project Number: Service Date: Report Date: Task: Client Date Received: B-1 0.0 8.42 138 Nil +545 650 75 2037 Services: Terracon Rep: Reported To: Contractor: Reviewed By: CHEMICAL LABORATORY TEST REPORT Kurt D. Ergun pH Analysis, AWWA 4500 H Water Soluble Sulfate (SO4), AWWA 4500 E (mg/kg) Sulfides, AWWA 4500-S D, (mg/kg) Red-Ox, AWWA 2580, (mV) Total Salts, AWWA 2510, (mg/kg) Chlorides, AWWA 4500 Cl B, (mg/kg) Resistivity, ASTM G-57, (ohm-cm) Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites 03/28/14 750 Pilot Road, Suite F Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 (702) 597-9393 Project Lab No.: 14-0146 Analyzed By: Kurt D. Ergun Sample Number Sample Location Sample Depth (in.) The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. 60145004 Terracon (60)Sample Submitted By:3/27/2014 Results of Corrosivity Analysis Chemist 03/28/14 APPENDIX C SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Trace With Modifier Water Level After a Specified Period of Time GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGYRELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL Trace With Modifier Standard Penetration or N-Value Blows/Ft. Descriptive Term (Consistency) Loose Very Stiff Exhibit C-1 Standard Penetration or N-Value Blows/Ft. Ring Sampler Blows/Ft. Ring Sampler Blows/Ft. Medium Dense Dense Very Dense 0 - 1 < 3 4 - 9 2 - 4 3 - 4 Medium-Stiff 5 - 9 30 - 50 WA T E R L E V E L Auger Shelby TubeSplit Spoon Rock Core 8 - 15 PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION Term < 15 15 - 29 > 30 Descriptive Term(s) of other constituents Water Initially Encountered Water Level After a Specified Period of Time Major Component of SamplePercent of Dry Weight (More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.) Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance Includes gravels, sands and silts. Hard Very Loose 0 - 3 0 - 6Very Soft 7 - 18 Soft 10 - 29 19 - 58 59 - 98 Stiff less than 500 500 to 1,000 1,000 to 2,000 Macro Core 2,000 to 4,000 4,000 to 8,000> 99 LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES SA M P L I N G FI E L D T E S T S DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS Descriptive Term (Density) Non-plastic Low Medium High Boulders Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt or Clay 10 - 18 > 50 15 - 30 19 - 42 > 30 > 42 _ CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS Hand Penetrometer Torvane Standard Penetration Test (blows per foot) N value Photo-Ionization Detector Organic Vapor Analyzer (HP) (T) (b/f) N (PID) (OVA) (50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.) Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field visual-manual procedures or standard penetration resistance DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION > 8,000 Unless otherwise noted, Latitude and Longitude are approximately determined using a hand-held GPS device. The accuracy of such devices is variable. Surface elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographical survey was conducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographic maps of the area. Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are defined on the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency. Plasticity Index 0 1 - 10 11 - 30 > 30 RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES Descriptive Term(s) of other constituents Percent of Dry Weight < 5 5 - 12 > 12 RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS Particle Size Over 12 in. (300 mm) 12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm) 3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm) #4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mm Passing #200 sieve (0.075mm) ST R E N G T H T E R M S Unconfined Compressive Strength, Qu, psf 4 - 8 GENERAL NOTES Modified California Ring Sampler Grab Sample Modified Dames & Moore Ring Sampler No Recovery Water levels indicated on the soil boring logs are the levels measured in the borehole at the times indicated. Groundwater level variations will occur over time. In low permeability soils, accurate determination of groundwater levels is not possible with short term water level observations. Exhibit C-2 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Soil Classification Group Symbol Group Name B Coarse Grained Soils: More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve Gravels: More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve Clean Gravels: Less than 5% fines C Cu t 4 and 1 d Cc d 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F Cu  4 and/or 1 ! Cc ! 3 E GP Poorly graded gravel F Gravels with Fines: More than 12% fines C Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F,G,H Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F,G,H Sands: 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve Clean Sands: Less than 5% fines D Cu t 6 and 1 d Cc d 3 E SW Well-graded sand I Cu  6 and/or 1 ! Cc ! 3 E SP Poorly graded sand I Sands with Fines: More than 12% fines D Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G,H,I Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G,H,I Fine-Grained Soils: 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve Silts and Clays: Liquid limit less than 50 Inorganic: PI ! 7 and plots on or above “A” line J CL Lean clay K,L,M PI  4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K,L,M Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried  0.75 OL Organic clay K,L,M,N Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,O Silts and Clays: Liquid limit 50 or more Inorganic: PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K,L,M PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K,L,M Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried  0.75 OH Organic clay K,L,M,P Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,Q Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders, or both” to group name. C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay. D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay E Cu = D60/D10 Cc = 6010 2 30 DxD )(D F If soil contains t 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name. G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM. H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name. I If soil contains t 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name. J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay. K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel,” whichever is predominant. L If soil contains t 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name. M If soil contains t 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to group name. N PI t 4 and plots on or above “A” line. O PI  4 or plots below “A” line. P PI plots on or above “A” line. Q PI plots below “A” line. APPENDIX D LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Exhibit D-1 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY Input File Name: N:\Projects\2014\60145004\Working Files\Liquefaction\B-1.liq Title: Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites Subtitle: 60145004 Input Data: Surface Elev.=100 Hole No.=B-1 Depth of Hole=51.50 ft Water Table during Earthquake= 8.00 ft Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 8.00 ft Max. Acceleration=0.8 g Earthquake Magnitude=7.88 No-Liquefiable Soils: CL, OL are Non-Liq. Soil 1. SPT or BPT Calculation. 2. Settlement Analysis Method: Tokimatsu, M-correction 3. Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Modify Stark/Olson 4. Fine Correction for Settlement: During Liquefaction* 5. Settlement Calculation in: All zones* 6. Hammer Energy Ratio, Ce = 1.25 7. Borehole Diameter, Cb= 1.05 8. Sampling Method, Cs= 1.2 9. User request factor of safety (apply to CSR) , User= 1.2 Plot two CSR (fs1=User, fs2=1) 10. Use Curve Smoothing: Yes* * Recommended Options In-Situ Test Data: Depth SPT gamma Fines ft pcf % ____________________________________ 3.00 50.00 120.00 20.00 8.00 50.00 120.00 20.00 10.00 1.00 92.30 NoLiq 15.00 1.00 85.10 NoLiq 20.00 1.00 85.10 NoLiq 25.00 1.00 85.10 NoLiq 30.00 32.00 103.80 NoLiq 35.00 62.00 103.80 4.00 40.00 46.00 134.90 4.00 45.00 14.00 110.00 14.00 50.00 21.00 133.40 4.00 ____________________________________ Output Results: Settlement of Saturated Sands=0.95 in. Settlement of Unsaturated Sands=0.02 in. Total Settlement of Saturated and Unsaturated Sands=0.97 in. Differential Settlement=0.486 to 0.642 in. Exhibit D-2 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY Input File Name: N:\Projects\2014\60145004\Working Files\Liquefaction\B-2.liq Title: Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites Subtitle: 60145004 Input Data: Surface Elev.=100 Hole No.=B-2 Depth of Hole=51.50 ft Water Table during Earthquake= 10.00 ft Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 10.00 ft Max. Acceleration=0.72 g Earthquake Magnitude=7.88 No-Liquefiable Soils: CL, OL are Non-Liq. Soil 1. SPT or BPT Calculation. 2. Settlement Analysis Method: Tokimatsu, M-correction 3. Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Modify Stark/Olson 4. Fine Correction for Settlement: During Liquefaction* 5. Settlement Calculation in: All zones* 6. Hammer Energy Ratio, Ce = 1.25 7. Borehole Diameter, Cb= 1.05 8. Sampling Method, Cs= 1.2 9. User request factor of safety (apply to CSR) , User= 1.2 Plot two CSR (fs1=User, fs2=1) 10. Use Curve Smoothing: Yes* * Recommended Options In-Situ Test Data: Depth SPT gamma Fines ft pcf % ____________________________________ 10.00 1.00 93.30 NoLiq 15.00 1.00 93.30 NoLiq 20.00 7.00 124.30 NoLiq 25.00 29.00 123.00 4.00 30.00 8.00 135.30 14.00 35.00 61.00 138.00 4.00 40.00 20.00 123.00 4.00 41.50 16.00 123.00 4.00 45.00 16.00 123.00 4.00 50.00 57.00 138.30 4.00 ____________________________________ Output Results: Settlement of Saturated Sands=1.55 in. Settlement of Unsaturated Sands=0.00 in. Total Settlement of Saturated and Unsaturated Sands=1.55 in. Differential Settlement=0.773 to 1.021 in.   Terracon Consultants, Inc. 2817 McGaw Avenue Irvine, California 92614 P [949] 261.0051 F [949] 261.6110 terracon.com August 21, 2014 Kuber Development Company 1550 S 52nd Street Tempe, AZ 85281 Attn: Mr. Shane Kuber P: (480) 968-4500 E: shanekuber@gmail.com Re: Response to City of South San Francisco – Geotechnical Peer Review Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco, California Terracon Project No. 60145004 Dear Mr. Kuber: The following is Terracon’s response to the peer review of Terracon’s Geotechnical Engineering Report for the above referenced project. The geotechnical peer review was performed by Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. (CSA) for the City of South San Francisco and comments were provided in their letter dated May 6, 2014. CSA concluded that the proposed foundation is constrained by existing undocumented fill materials, weak subsurface materials potentially subject to consolidation, liquefaction, and strong seismic ground shaking. CSA recommended that the Geotechnical Consultant clarify multiple items. This response letter addresses each item outlined by CSA and provides supplemental design and analysis information, where necessary. Item 1: Discuss sampling methods used to obtain samples for consolidation testing and the disturbance effects likely resulting from the sampling method. Response 1: The sampling methods used to obtain samples for consolidation testing was performed using a Modified Dames & Moore Ring Sampler. The sampler is a thin walled tube with a nominal diameter of 60 mm (~2.4 inches). The ring is driven into the ground using a 140- pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches. Based on the relatively low penetration resistance (i.e. blowcounts of 1 to 3 blows per foot) recorded during the sampling event of the subgrade materials, we do not believe that the sampler blows have disturbed the sampled soils. However, to further address this issue, Terracon has completed supplemental soil borings at the site and utilized Shelby tubes to obtain representative samples of the softer subsurface materials. Additionally, laboratory consolidation testing has been completed on these recent Response to City of South San Francisco Peer Review Comments Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites ■ South San Francisco, California August 21, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 60145004 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable  2    soils samples obtained from these supplemental test borings. Soil samples were delivered to the closest laboratory upon completion of the supplemental test boring and field exploration activities and the consolidation testing was initiated on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the site. The results of that testing and the impact to our recommendations are subsequently discussed in this response letter. Item 2: The Project Geotechnical Consultant should provide consolidation analysis of Bay Mud and any other subsurface materials that may be subject to consolidation. This work should include providing the Compression Index Ratio (Cce), Recompression Index (Cre), Preconsolidation stress, and Over-Consolidation Ratio. Estimated new loading of compressible materials should be defined. Estimated ongoing consolidation should also be addressed. Response 2: Results of our initial consolidation testing were provided in Appendix B of the original Terracon geotechnical engineering report for the project. The results of the recent supplemental testing of soil samples obtained from the site are illustrated on the consolidation graphs attached to this letter. The testing was performed on samples of the Bay Mud stratum at various depths ranging between 10 feet and 20 feet bgs. The compression strain index (Cc), the re-compression strain index (Cr), over-consolidation ratios, and estimated consolidation settlement are included in the attached calculation sheets. The new loading was defined as a contact pressure of 500 psf at the bottom of the proposed mat foundation system at a level of 4 feet bgs. The effective stress transferred to lower soil strata was based on Westergaard stress distribution method. Furthermore, placing the mat foundation at 4 feet bgs will essentially provide full compensation of the mat foundation at the recommended design bearing pressure of 500 psf. Historical aerial photographs indicate that the existing fill soils have been placed onsite since the 1980’s. Ongoing consolidation due to the existing fill materials may be considered minimal given the time period the existing fill has been present on-site. Item 3: Discuss the impacts of leaving up to 4 feet of undocumented fill in-place beneath the shallow foundations. Response 3: Support of structures and pavements on or above existing fill materials was discussed in the original Terracon report for the project. However, even with the recommended construction testing services, there remains an inherent risk for the owner that compressible fill or unsuitable material within or buried by the fill will not be discovered. This risk of unforeseen conditions cannot be eliminated without completely removing the existing fill. However, our design and construction recommendations include provisions that a representative of the geotechnical engineer be called to observe the conditions exposed at foundation subgrade elevation during construction. This will afford the opportunity to visually observe and evaluate the consistency of the exiting fill materials versus what can be observed from borings alone, and Response to City of South San Francisco Peer Review Comments Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites ■ South San Francisco, California August 21, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 60145004 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable  3    to determine if any other ground improvement or treatment of existing fill materials is necessary before the foundation is constructed. Item 4: Clarification should be provided regarding the analysis of the liquefaction potential of the silty sand layer between 29 and 35 feet. Response 4: Liquefaction potential analysis was calculated for Borings B-1 and B-2. CPT data was not available to use in the analysis because of the CPT refusal on relatively dense layer encountered at about 25 feet bgs. However in our borings this dense layer of granular material was underlain by a loose to medium dense layer, which has a potential for liquefaction hazard during a seismic event. Further information of the parameters, methods, and calculations used in our engineering analyses regarding liquefaction are attached to this letter. Item 5: Consideration should be given to re-investigating the site with a rotary wash drill rig and thin-wall sampling tube capabilities to obtain undisturbed Bay Mud samples for consolidation testing and CPT data collection down to 50 feet to better characterize the liquefaction potential below 25 feet. Response 5: Our original exploration of the site included sampling and testing of the Bay Mud samples. It is our professional opinion that the samples retrieved from this layer were relatively undisturbed and the results of consolidation testing are representative of the in-situ conditions. Furthermore, CPT soundings were not extended further than 25 feet due to refusal of the dense layer of sand encountered at this depth. Therefore our liquefaction potential calculations utilized information obtained from the borings and Standard Penetration Test results. However, in the interest of addressing this item, Terracon has completed supplemental test borings and laboratory evaluation of samples from the site as previously outlined in this response letter. The combination of our original borings and laboratory test data, and the data generated from our recent supplemental field and laboratory work has been used to conduct additional engineering analyses which is reflected in the revised design recommendations and settlement predictions outlined in this response letter. Item 6: The consultant should consider the benefits of a deep foundation bearing below highly compressible Bay Mud. Response 6: During our engineering analyses regarding the subsurface conditions at this site, deep foundations were considered. However due to the liquefiable layer below the compressible Bay Mud and the effects of down drag on a deep foundation system, the capacity of the deep foundations within the upper 50 feet was not considered suitable to support the proposed building. If deep foundations are to be used for this facility, subsurface conditions below a depth of 50 feet would need to be evaluated with additional field explorations to develop 9.0 22.3 FILL - CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND , sandy, gray to brown orange to brown, boulders to 24 inches in dimension ORGANIC CLAY (OH), black to gray, with black peat seams Boring Terminated at 22.25 Feet The estimated depth of the fill materials should not be considered exact due to the similarity of lithology, color, and densities of the graded materials and native soils. Hammer Type: Automatic SPT HammerStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. LOCATION DEPTH GR A P H I C L O G See Exhibit A-2 TH I S B O R I N G L O G I S N O T V A L I D I F S E P A R A T E D F R O M O R I G I N A L R E P O R T . G E O S M A R T L O G - N O W E L L 6 0 1 4 5 0 0 4 - S S F B O R I N G L O G S . G P J T E M P L A T E U P D A T E 3 - 3 1 - 1 4 . G P J 8 / 1 9 / 1 4 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco, California SITE: Page 1 of 1 Advancement Method: 8 inch hollow stem auger Abandonment Method: tremie backfilled with neat cement upon completion , Notes: Project No.: 60145004 Drill Rig: CME-75 Boring Started: 8/1/2014 BORING LOG NO. B-1 Kuber Development CompanyCLIENT: 1550 S 52nd St Driller: NOA Boring Completed: 8/1/2014 Exhibit: Tempe, AZ 85281 A-3 See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. PROJECT: Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites DE P T H ( F t . ) 5 10 15 20 SA M P L E T Y P E WA T E R L E V E L OB S E R V A T I O N S WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS 5.0 9.0 19.8 FILL - POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL , orange to brown, cobbles and boulders to 42 inches in dimension, derived from sandstone rock fragments FILL - CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL , dark gray, occasional boulders to 12 inches in dimension, older fill ORGANIC CLAY (OH), dark blue to gray, very soft, with black peat seams and decomposing plant matter Boring Terminated at 19.75 Feet The estimated depth of the fill materials should not be considered exact due to the similarity of lithology, color, and densities of the graded materials and native soils. Hammer Type: Automatic SPT HammerStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. LOCATION DEPTH GR A P H I C L O G See Exhibit A-2 TH I S B O R I N G L O G I S N O T V A L I D I F S E P A R A T E D F R O M O R I G I N A L R E P O R T . G E O S M A R T L O G - N O W E L L 6 0 1 4 5 0 0 4 - S S F B O R I N G L O G S . G P J T E M P L A T E U P D A T E 3 - 3 1 - 1 4 . G P J 8 / 1 9 / 1 4 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco, California SITE: Page 1 of 1 Advancement Method: 8 inch hollow stem auger Abandonment Method: tremie backfilled with neat cement upon completion , Notes: Project No.: 60145004 Drill Rig: CME-75 Boring Started: 8/1/2014 BORING LOG NO. B-2 Kuber Development CompanyCLIENT: 1550 S 52nd St Driller: NOA Boring Completed: 8/1/2014 Exhibit: Tempe, AZ 85281 A-4 See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. PROJECT: Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites DE P T H ( F t . ) 5 10 15 SA M P L E T Y P E WA T E R L E V E L OB S E R V A T I O N S WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Purpose of Program: Method of Analysis: 3. Subdivide subsurface soil profile into layers based on stratigraphy. 4. Calculate the effective vertical stress at the midpoint of each layer and the C' value for that layer. 5. Calculate the increase in stress at the midpoint of each layer. 6. Calculate the settlement in each layer, ǻH, under the applied load using the following formula 7. Sum the incremental settlements to determine the total settlement. - Settlement in cohesive soils is determined using consolidation equations (depending on pressures). - Stress distribution can be calculated using Boussinesq or Westergaard methods. Key Assumptions/Points: - C' is automatically determined by this spreadsheet based on soil type and N-value. - CHc and CHr are strain based. That is, there is no void ratio involved. - Soil layers are horizontal. Input Designation: Cells that are shaded gray (like this one) designate those fields where the user can provide input. The tabs in this spreadsheet are also color coded. In general, gray tabs designate input, white designates output. FHWA"GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CIRCULAR NO. 6 - Shallow Foundations." FHWA-SA-02-054. See pages 89-91. Key Assumptions - The Hough method is applicable only for normally consolidated cohesionless soils. - Note that 1/C' is equal to CHc (compression ratio). References 2. Determine bearing capacity index (Cƍ) using corrected N-values (Nƍ), determined in Step 1 using the chart below. Shallow Foundation Settlement Program Overview and Equations Calculate settlement for shallow foundations in both cohesionless and cohesive soils. Settlement in cohesionless soils is calculated using Hough's method, which consists of the following steps: 1. Correct SPT blow counts for overburden stress. o f cCHHV V Hlog ' o f rCHHV V Hlog ' ¸¸ ¹ · ¨¨ © § ' p f c o p r CCHH V V V V HHloglog Project Project No. Notes/Location Date Symbol Value Units Description Bmin 40.00ft Minimum Footing Width Bmax 60.00ft Maximum Footing Width L/B Ratio 4.00 none Length to Width (L/B) Ratio Df 4.00 ft Depth of Footing (from ground surface) Gw 8.00 ft Depth to Groundwater (from ground surface) Pressure 500 psf Design bearing pressure Perform Analysis Stress Distribution Method: Selected Analysis Method: Definition of Footing Variables Footing Input Parameters 8/19/2014 Footing length defined by: Shallow Foundation Settlement PROJECT INFORMATION Fairfield Inn & Suites 60145004 Df B Ground Surface Gw Ground Surface Fixed Footing Length Fixed Length to Width (L/B) Ratio Click to Perform Analysis PROJECT INFORMATION Footing is 4 feet below the ground surface. Groundwater is 8 feet below the ground surface. Top (ft) Bottom (ft) J moist (pcf)Method N-Value (corrected)Hough Type CHcCHr OCR 0.04.5 120 Hough 50 Well graded fine to medium SILTY SAND 4.59.0 130 Hough 50 Well graded silty SAND & GRAVEL 9.0 12.5 92 Direct1 Sandy CLAY 0.2570.045 1.457726 12.515.0 92 Direct1 Sandy CLAY 0.37 0.0761 15.017.5 92 Direct1 Sandy CLAY 0.3520.061 1.483792 17.520.0 92 Direct1 Sandy CLAY 0.3060.073 1.476732 20.025.0 85 Direct1 Sandy CLAY 0.3820.068 1.298961 25.030.0 85 Hough1 Sandy CLAY 30.035.0 104 Hough59.2360304 Clean well graded fine to coarse SAND 35.040.0 104 Hough69.5310151 Clean well graded fine to coarse SAND 40.045.0 135 Hough76.8508337 Well graded fine to medium SILTY SAND 45.050.0 133 Hough14.2858659 Clean well graded fine to coarse SAND 50.051.5 133 Hough32.3123539 Clean well graded fine to coarse SAND Shallow Foundation Settlement Depth of Footing and Depth to Groundwater Soil Input Parameters Project Project No. Notes/Location Date Fairfield Inn & Suites 60145004 8/19/2014 Click to Analyze Project Project No. Notes/Location Date Width (ft)Length (ft)Pressure (psf)Settlement (in) 40 160 500 2.7 41 164 500 2.7 42 168 500 2.7 43 172 500 2.8 44 176 500 2.8 45 180 500 2.8 46 184 500 2.8 47 188 500 2.8 48 192 500 2.8 49 196 500 2.8 50 200 500 2.9 51 204 500 2.9 52 208 500 2.9 53 212 500 2.9 Dimensions, Pressure, and Settlement Settlement Results PROJECT INFORMATION Fairfield Inn & Suites 60145004 8/19/2014 Westergaard Stress Distribution Method 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 Se t t l m e n t ( i n ) Footing Width (ft) Pressure = 500 psf Project:Notes Number:Date: Width (ft)Length (ft)Mid Point Depth (ft)Vo' (psf)Vp' (psf)'V' (psf)Vf' (psf)Settlement (in) 40.0160.04.25 5105104971007 0.0 40.0160.06.75 8338334681301 0.1 40.0160.010.75111416244231537 0.3 40.0160.013.75120312033911594 1.4 40.0160.016.25127718953661643 0.2 40.0160.018.75135119953421693 0.2 40.0160.022.50144518773091754 0.3 40.0160.027.50155815582711829 0.2 40.0160.032.50171817182391958 0.0 40.0160.037.50192619262122138 0.0 40.0160.042.50221222121892401 0.0 40.0160.047.50257025701702740 0.0 40.0160.050.75279927991592958 0.0 Westergaard Total=2.7 41.0164.04.25 5105104971007 0.0 41.0164.06.75 8338334691301 0.1 41.0164.010.75111416244251539 0.3 41.0164.013.75120312033931597 1.4 41.0164.016.25127718953691646 0.2 41.0164.018.75135119953451696 0.2 41.0164.022.50144518773131758 0.3 41.0164.027.50155815582751833 0.2 41.0164.032.50171817182431962 0.0 41.0164.037.50192619262162143 0.0 41.0164.042.50221222121932405 0.0 41.0164.047.50257025701742743 0.0 41.0164.050.75279927991632962 0.0 Westergaard Total=2.7 42.0168.04.25 5105104971007 0.0 42.0168.06.75 8338334701302 0.1 42.0168.010.75111416244271541 0.3 42.0168.013.75120312033961599 1.4 42.0168.016.25127718953711649 0.2 42.0168.018.75135119953481700 0.2 42.0168.022.50144518773171761 0.4 42.0168.027.50155815582791837 0.2 42.0168.032.50171817182481966 0.0 42.0168.037.50192619262202147 0.0 42.016842.50221222121972409 0.0 42.016847.50257025701782747 0.0 Stress and Settlement Calculation Output Fairfield Inn & Suites 60145004 8/19/2014 42.016850.75279927991662965 0.0 Westergaard Total=2.7 43.0172 4.25 5105104971007 0.0 43.0172 6.75 8338334701303 0.1 43.017210.75111416244281543 0.3 43.017213.75120312033981601 1.4 43.017216.25127718953741651 0.2 43.017218.75135119953521703 0.2 43.017222.50144518773201765 0.4 43.0172 27.5155815582831841 0.2 43.0172 32.5171817182511970 0.0 43.0172 37.5192619262242151 0.0 43.0172 42.5221222122012413 0.0 43.0172 47.5257025701812751 0.0 43.017250.75279927991702969 0.0 Westergaard Total=2.8 44.0176 4.25 5105104971007 0.0 44.0176 6.75 8338334711304 0.1 44.017610.75111416244301544 0.3 44.017613.75120312034001603 1.4 44.017616.25127718953771654 0.2 44.017618.75135119953541706 0.2 44.0176 22.5144518773241768 0.4 44.0176 27.5155815582871845 0.2 44.0176 32.5171817182551974 0.0 44.0176 37.5192619262282154 0.0 44.0176 42.5221222122052417 0.0 44.0176 47.5257025701852755 0.0 44.017650.75279927991742973 0.0 Westergaard Total=2.8 45.0180 4.25 5105104971007 0.0 45.0180 6.75 8338334721304 0.1 45.018010.75111416244311546 0.3 45.018013.75120312034021606 1.4 45.018016.25127718953791656 0.2 45.018018.75135119953571709 0.2 45.0180 22.5144518773271771 0.4 45.0180 27.5155815582901848 0.2 45.0180 32.5171817182591977 0.0 45.0180 37.5192619262322158 0.0 45.0180 42.5221222122092420 0.0 45.0180 47.5257025701892758 0.0 45.018050.75279927991772976 0.0 Westergaard Total=2.8 46.0184 4.25 5105104971007 0.0 46.0184 6.75 8338334721305 0.1 46.018410.75111416244331547 0.3 46.018413.75120312034041608 1.4 46.018416.25127718953821659 0.2 46.018418.75135119953601711 0.2 46.0184 22.5144518773301775 0.4 46.0184 27.5155815582941852 0.2 46.0184 32.5171817182631981 0.0 46.0184 37.5192619262362162 0.0 46.0184 42.5221222122122424 0.0 46.0184 47.5257025701922762 0.0 46.018450.75279927991812980 0.0 Westergaard Total=2.8 47.0188 4.25 5105104981008 0.0 47.0188 6.75 8338334731305 0.1 47.018810.75111416244341549 0.3 47.018813.75120312034061610 1.4 47.018816.25127718953841661 0.2 47.018818.75135119953631714 0.2 47.0188 22.5144518773331778 0.4 47.0188 27.5155815582971855 0.2 47.0188 32.5171817182661984 0.0 47.0188 37.5192619262392165 0.0 47.0188 42.5221222122162428 0.0 47.0188 47.5257025701962765 0.0 47.018850.75279927991842983 0.0 Westergaard Total=2.8 48.0192 4.25 5105104981008 0.0 48.0192 6.75 8338334731306 0.1 48.019210.75111416244361550 0.3 48.019213.75120312034081611 1.4 48.019216.25127718953861663 0.2 48.019218.75135119953651716 0.2 48.0192 22.5144518773361781 0.4 48.0192 27.5155815583011858 0.2 48.0192 32.5171817182701988 0.0 48.0192 37.5192619262432169 0.0 48.0192 42.5221222122192431 0.0 48.0192 47.5257025701992769 0.0 48.019250.75279927991872987 0.0 Westergaard Total=2.8 49.0196 4.25 5105104981008 0.0 49.0196 6.75 8338334741307 0.1 49.019610.75111416244371551 0.3 49.019613.75120312034101613 1.4 49.019616.25127718953881666 0.2 49.019618.75135119953681719 0.2 49.0196 22.5144518773391783 0.4 49.0196 27.5155815583041861 0.2 49.0196 32.5171817182731991 0.0 49.0196 37.5192619262462172 0.0 49.0196 42.5221222122232435 0.0 49.0196 47.5257025702032772 0.0 49.019650.75279927991912990 0.0 Westergaard Total=2.8 50.0200 4.25 5105104981008 0.0 50.0200 6.75 8338334751307 0.1 50.020010.75111416244381552 0.3 50.020013.75120312034121615 1.4 50.020016.25127718953901668 0.2 50.020018.75135119953701721 0.2 50.0200 22.5144518773411786 0.4 50.0200 27.5155815583071865 0.2 50.0200 32.5171817182761995 0.0 50.0200 37.5192619262502176 0.0 50.0200 42.5221222122262438 0.0 50.0200 47.5257025702062776 0.0 50.020050.75279927991942993 0.0 Westergaard Total=2.9 51.0204 4.25 5105104981008 0.0 51.0204 6.75 8338334751308 0.1 51.020410.75111416244391554 0.3 51.020413.75120312034131617 1.4 51.020416.25127718953921670 0.2 51.020418.75135119953721724 0.2 51.0204 22.5144518773441789 0.4 51.0204 27.5155815583101868 0.2 51.0204 32.5171817182801998 0.0 51.0204 37.5192619262532179 0.0 51.0204 42.5221222122302441 0.0 51.0204 47.5257025702092779 0.0 51.020450.75279927991972997 0.0 Westergaard Total=2.9 52.0208 4.25 5105104981008 0.0 52.0208 6.75 8338334761308 0.1 52.020810.75111416244401555 0.3 52.020813.75120312034151618 1.4 52.020816.25127718953941672 0.2 52.020818.75135119953751726 0.2 52.0208 22.5144518773471791 0.4 52.0208 27.5155815583131871 0.2 52.0208 32.5171817182832001 0.0 52.0208 37.5192619262562182 0.0 52.0208 42.5221222122332445 0.0 52.0208 47.5257025702122782 0.0 52.020850.75279927992013000 0.0 Westergaard Total=2.9 53.0212 4.25 5105104981008 0.0 53.0212 6.75 8338334761308 0.1 53.021210.75111416244421556 0.3 53.021213.75120312034161620 1.4 53.021216.25127718953961673 0.2 53.021218.75135119953771728 0.2 53.0212 22.5144518773491794 0.4 53.0212 27.5155815583161873 0.2 53.0212 32.5171817182862004 0.0 53.0212 37.5192619262592186 0.0 53.0212 42.5221222122362448 0.0 53.0212 47.5257025702162785 0.0 53.021250.75279927992043003 0.0 Westergaard Total=2.9 54.0216 4.25 5105104981008 0.0 54.0216 6.75 8338334761309 0.1 54.021610.75111416244431557 0.3 54.021613.75120312034181621 1.4 54.021616.25127718953981675 0.2 54.021618.75135119953791730 0.2 54.0216 22.5144518773521796 0.4 54.0216 27.5155815583181876 0.2 54.0216 32.5171817182892007 0.0 54.0216 37.5192619262622189 0.0 54.0216 42.5221222122392451 0.0 54.0216 47.5257025702192788 0.0 54.021650.75279927992073006 0.0 Westergaard Total=2.9 55.0220 4.25 5105104981008 0.0 55.0220 6.75 8338334771309 0.1 55.022010.75111416244441558 0.3 55.022013.75120312034191623 1.4 55.022016.25127718954001677 0.2 55.022018.75135119953811732 0.2 55.0220 22.5144518773541799 0.4 55.0220 27.5155815583211879 0.2 55.0220 32.5171817182922010 0.0 55.0220 37.5192619262652192 0.0 55.0220 42.5221222122422454 0.0 55.0220 47.5257025702222792 0.0 55.022050.75279927992103009 0.0 Westergaard Total=2.9 56.0224 4.25 5105104981008 0.0 56.0224 6.75 8338334771310 0.1 56.022410.75111416244451559 0.3 56.022413.75120312034211624 1.4 56.022416.25127718954011679 0.2 56.022418.75135119953831734 0.2 56.0224 22.5144518773561801 0.4 56.0224 27.5155815583241881 0.2 56.0224 32.5171817182952013 0.0 56.0224 37.5192619262682195 0.0 56.0224 42.5221222122452457 0.0 56.0224 47.5257025702252795 0.0 56.022450.75279927992133012 0.0 Westergaard Total=2.9 57.0228 4.25 5105104981008 0.0 57.0228 6.75 8338334781310 0.1 57.022810.75111416244461560 0.3 57.022813.75120312034221625 1.4 57.022816.25127718954031680 0.2 57.022818.75135119953851736 0.2 57.0228 22.5144518773591803 0.4 57.0228 27.5155815583261884 0.2 57.0228 32.5171817182972016 0.0 57.0228 37.5192619262712198 0.0 57.0228 42.5221222122482460 0.0 57.0228 47.5257025702282798 0.0 57.022850.75279927992163015 0.0 Westergaard Total=2.9 58.0232 4.25 5105104981008 0.0 58.0232 6.75 8338334781311 0.1 58.023210.75111416244461561 0.3 58.023213.75120312034231627 1.5 58.023216.25127718954051682 0.2 58.023218.75135119953871738 0.2 58.0232 22.5144518773611805 0.4 58.0232 27.5155815583291887 0.2 58.0232 32.5171817183002018 0.0 58.0232 37.5192619262742200 0.0 58.0232 42.5221222122512463 0.0 58.0232 47.5257025702312800 0.0 58.023250.75279927992193018 0.0 Westergaard Total=3.0 59.0236 4.25 5105104981008 0.0 59.0236 6.75 8338334781311 0.1 59.023610.75111416244471562 0.3 59.023613.75120312034251628 1.5 59.023616.25127718954061683 0.2 59.023618.75135119953881740 0.2 59.0236 22.5144518773631808 0.4 59.0236 27.5155815583311889 0.2 59.0236 32.5171817183032021 0.0 59.0236 37.5192619262772203 0.0 59.0236 42.5221222122542466 0.0 59.0236 47.5257025702342803 0.0 59.023650.75279927992223021 0.0 Westergaard Total=3.0 60.0240 4.25 5105104981008 0.0 60.0240 6.75 8338334791311 0.1 60.024010.75111416244481563 0.3 60.024013.75120312034261629 1.5 60.024016.25127718954081685 0.2 60.024018.75135119953901741 0.2 60.0240 22.5144518773651810 0.4 60.0240 27.5155815583341891 0.2 60.0240 32.5171817183052023 0.0 60.0240 37.5192619262802206 0.0 60.0240 42.5221222122572469 0.0 60.0240 47.5257025702362806 0.0 60.024050.75279927992243024 0.0 Westergaard Total=3.0 Job No.:Boring:Run By:MD Client:Sample:Reduced:PJ Project:Depth, ft.:Checked:PJ/DC Soil Type:Date:8/13/2014 Assumed Gs 2.7 Initial Final 88.8 62.0 48.4 63.0 2.486 1.675 96.5 100.0% Saturation: Dry Density, pcf: Moisture %: B-1 10(Tip-6")60145004 Terracon 725-003 Greenish Gray CLAY w/ organics (Bay Mud) Void Ratio: -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 10 100 1000 10000 100000 St r a i n , % Effective Stress, psf Strain-Log-P Curve Consolidation Test ASTM D2435 Remarks: This sample exhibited a slight tendency to swell. Job No.:Boring:Run By:MD Client:Sample:Reduced:PJ Project:Depth, ft.:Checked:PJ/DC Soil Type:Date:8/13/2014 Assumed Gs 2.75 Initial Final 96.6 64.6 45.9 61.8 2.740 1.778 97.0 100.0% Saturation: Dry Density, pcf: Moisture %: B-1 2060145004 Terracon 725-003 Dark Greenish Gray CLAY (Bay Mud) Void Ratio: -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 10 100 1000 10000 100000 St r a i n , % Effective Stress, psf Strain-Log-P Curve Consolidation Test ASTM D2435 Remarks: Job No.:Boring:Run By:MD Client:Sample:Reduced:PJ Project:Depth, ft.:Checked:PJ/DC Soil Type:Date:8/15/2014 Assumed Gs 2.75 Initial Final 108.9 61.6 41.3 63.7 3.158 1.694 94.8 100.0% Saturation: Dry Density, pcf: Moisture %: B-2 12.5(Tip-3.5")60145004 Terracon 722-003 Dark Greenish Gray CLAY w/ organics (Bay Mud) Void Ratio: 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 10 100 1000 10000 100000 St r a i n , % Effective Stress, psf Strain-Log-P Curve Consolidation Test ASTM D2435 Remarks: Job No.:Boring:Run By:MD Client:Sample:Reduced:PJ Project:Depth, ft.:Checked:PJ/DC Soil Type:Date:8/18/2014 Assumed Gs 2.75 Initial Final 91.0 64.8 48.1 61.7 2.572 1.782 97.3 100.0 Void Ratio: % Saturation: Dry Density, pcf: Moisture %: B-2 1560145004 Terracon 725-003 Greenish Gray CLAY (Bay Mud) 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 10 100 1000 10000 100000 St r a i n , % Effective Stress, psf Strain-Log-P Curve Consolidation Test ASTM D2435 Remarks: Job No.:Boring:Run By:MD Client:Sample:Reduced:PJ Project:Depth, ft.:Checked:PJ/DC Soil Type:Date:8/14/2014 Assumed Gs 2.7 Initial Final 86.0 60.1 49.8 64.2 2.387 1.624 97.3 100.0% Saturation: Dry Density, pcf: Moisture %: B-2 17.5(Tip-6.5")60145004 Terracon 725-003 Very Dark Gray Oranic SILT/ change to Greenish Gray CLAY w/ organics (Bay Mud) Void Ratio: -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 10 100 1000 10000 100000 St r a i n , % Effective Stress, psf Strain-Log-P Curve Consolidation Test ASTM D2435 Remarks: new avg B-2.sum ************************************************************************************ ******************* LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY Copyright by CivilTech Software www.civiltechsoftware.com ************************************************************************************ ******************* Font: Courier New, Regular, Size 8 is recommended for this report. Licensed to , 6/16/2014 11:34:18 AM Input File Name: N:\Projects\2014\60145004\Working Files\Liquefaction\NEW LIQ\new avg B-2.liq Title: Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites Subtitle: 60145004 Surface Elev.=100 Hole No.=B-2 Depth of Hole= 51.50 ft Water Table during Earthquake= 8.00 ft Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 8.00 ft Max. Acceleration= 0.8 g Earthquake Magnitude= 7.88 Input Data: Surface Elev.=100 Hole No.=B-2 Depth of Hole=51.50 ft Water Table during Earthquake= 8.00 ft Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 8.00 ft Max. Acceleration=0.8 g Earthquake Magnitude=7.88 No-Liquefiable Soils: CL, OL are Non-Liq. Soil 1. SPT or BPT Calculation. 2. Settlement Analysis Method: Tokimatsu, M-correction 3. Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Modify Stark/Olson 4. Fine Correction for Settlement: During Liquefaction* 5. Settlement Calculation in: All zones* 6. Hammer Energy Ratio, Ce = 1.25 7. Borehole Diameter, Cb= 1.05 8. Sampling Method, Cs= 1.2 9. User request factor of safety (apply to CSR) , User= 1.2 Plot two CSR (fs1=User, fs2=1) 10. Use Curve Smoothing: Yes* * Recommended Options In-Situ Test Data: DepthSPTgammaFines ft pcf% ____________________________________ 3.0050.00130.0020.00 9.0050.00130.0020.00 10.001.0093.30NoLiq 20.001.0093.30NoLiq 20.507.00124.304.00 26.0029.00123.004.00 31.008.00135.3014.00 36.0061.00138.004.00 41.0020.00123.004.00 Page 1 new avg B-2.sum 42.5016.00123.004.00 46.0016.00123.004.00 51.0057.00138.304.00 ____________________________________ Output Results: Settlement of Saturated Sands=2.26 in. Settlement of Unsaturated Sands=0.01 in. Total Settlement of Saturated and Unsaturated Sands=2.27 in. Differential Settlement=1.134 to 1.497 in. DepthCRRmCSRfsF.S.S_sat.S_dryS_all ft in.in.in. _______________________________________________________ 3.001.760.625.002.260.012.27 3.051.760.625.002.260.012.27 3.101.760.625.002.260.012.27 3.151.760.625.002.260.012.27 3.201.760.625.002.260.012.27 3.251.760.625.002.260.012.27 3.301.760.625.002.260.012.27 3.351.760.625.002.260.012.27 3.401.760.625.002.260.012.27 3.451.760.625.002.260.002.27 3.501.760.625.002.260.002.27 3.551.760.615.002.260.002.27 3.601.760.615.002.260.002.27 3.651.760.615.002.260.002.27 3.701.760.615.002.260.002.27 3.751.760.615.002.260.002.27 3.801.760.615.002.260.002.27 3.851.760.615.002.260.002.26 3.901.760.615.002.260.002.26 3.951.760.615.002.260.002.26 4.001.760.615.002.260.002.26 4.051.760.615.002.260.002.26 4.101.760.615.002.260.002.26 4.151.760.615.002.260.002.26 4.201.760.615.002.260.002.26 4.251.760.615.002.260.002.26 4.301.760.615.002.260.002.26 4.351.760.615.002.260.002.26 4.401.760.615.002.260.002.26 4.451.760.615.002.260.002.26 4.501.760.615.002.260.002.26 4.551.760.615.002.260.002.26 4.601.760.615.002.260.002.26 4.651.760.615.002.260.002.26 4.701.760.615.002.260.002.26 4.751.760.615.002.260.002.26 4.801.760.615.002.260.002.26 4.851.760.615.002.260.002.26 4.901.760.615.002.260.002.26 4.951.760.615.002.260.002.26 5.002.000.615.002.260.002.26 5.052.000.615.002.260.002.26 5.102.000.615.002.260.002.26 5.152.000.615.002.260.002.26 5.202.000.615.002.260.002.26 5.252.000.615.002.260.002.26 5.302.000.615.002.260.002.26 5.352.000.615.002.260.002.26 5.402.000.615.002.260.002.26 Page 2 new avg B-2.sum 5.452.000.615.002.260.002.26 5.502.000.615.002.260.002.26 5.552.000.615.002.260.002.26 5.602.000.615.002.260.002.26 5.652.000.615.002.260.002.26 5.702.000.615.002.260.002.26 5.752.000.615.002.260.002.26 5.802.000.615.002.260.002.26 5.852.000.615.002.260.002.26 5.902.000.615.002.260.002.26 5.952.000.615.002.260.002.26 6.002.000.615.002.260.002.26 6.052.000.615.002.260.002.26 6.102.000.615.002.260.002.26 6.152.000.615.002.260.002.26 6.202.000.615.002.260.002.26 6.252.000.615.002.260.002.26 6.302.000.615.002.260.002.26 6.352.000.615.002.260.002.26 6.402.000.615.002.260.002.26 6.452.000.615.002.260.002.26 6.502.000.615.002.260.002.26 6.552.000.615.002.260.002.26 6.602.000.615.002.260.002.26 6.652.000.615.002.260.002.26 6.702.000.615.002.260.002.26 6.752.000.615.002.260.002.26 6.802.000.615.002.260.002.26 6.852.000.615.002.260.002.26 6.902.000.615.002.260.002.26 6.952.000.615.002.260.002.26 7.002.000.615.002.260.002.26 7.052.000.615.002.260.002.26 7.102.000.615.002.260.002.26 7.152.000.615.002.260.002.26 7.202.000.615.002.260.002.26 7.252.000.615.002.260.002.26 7.302.000.615.002.260.002.26 7.352.000.615.002.260.002.26 7.402.000.615.002.260.002.26 7.452.000.615.002.260.002.26 7.502.000.615.002.260.002.26 7.552.000.615.002.260.002.26 7.602.000.615.002.260.002.26 7.652.000.615.002.260.002.26 7.702.000.615.002.260.002.26 7.752.000.615.002.260.002.26 7.802.000.615.002.260.002.26 7.852.000.615.002.260.002.26 7.902.000.615.002.260.002.26 7.952.000.615.002.260.002.26 8.002.000.615.002.260.002.26 8.052.000.615.002.260.002.26 8.102.000.615.002.260.002.26 8.152.000.615.002.260.002.26 8.202.000.625.002.260.002.26 8.252.000.625.002.260.002.26 8.302.000.625.002.260.002.26 8.352.000.625.002.260.002.26 8.402.000.625.002.260.002.26 8.452.000.625.002.260.002.26 8.502.000.635.002.260.002.26 8.552.000.635.002.260.002.26 Page 3 new avg B-2.sum 8.602.000.635.002.260.002.26 8.652.000.635.002.260.002.26 8.702.000.635.002.260.002.26 8.752.000.635.002.260.002.26 8.802.000.645.002.260.002.26 8.852.000.645.002.260.002.26 8.902.000.645.002.260.002.26 8.952.000.645.002.260.002.26 9.001.760.642.752.260.002.26 9.051.760.642.742.260.002.26 9.101.760.642.732.260.002.26 9.151.760.652.732.260.002.26 9.201.760.652.722.260.002.26 9.251.760.652.722.260.002.26 9.301.760.652.712.260.002.26 9.351.760.652.702.260.002.26 9.401.760.652.702.260.002.26 9.451.760.652.692.260.002.26 9.501.760.662.682.260.002.26 9.551.760.662.682.260.002.26 9.601.760.662.672.260.002.26 9.651.760.662.672.260.002.26 9.701.760.662.662.260.002.26 9.751.760.662.652.260.002.26 9.801.760.672.652.260.002.26 9.851.760.672.642.260.002.26 9.901.760.672.642.260.002.26 9.950.310.670.46*2.260.002.26 10.002.000.675.002.250.002.25 10.052.000.675.002.250.002.25 10.102.000.675.002.250.002.25 10.152.000.685.002.250.002.25 10.202.000.685.002.250.002.25 10.252.000.685.002.250.002.25 10.302.000.685.002.250.002.25 10.352.000.685.002.250.002.25 10.402.000.685.002.250.002.25 10.452.000.685.002.250.002.25 10.502.000.695.002.250.002.25 10.552.000.695.002.250.002.25 10.602.000.695.002.250.002.25 10.652.000.695.002.250.002.25 10.702.000.695.002.250.002.25 10.752.000.695.002.250.002.25 10.802.000.695.002.250.002.25 10.852.000.705.002.250.002.25 10.902.000.705.002.250.002.25 10.952.000.705.002.250.002.25 11.002.000.705.002.250.002.25 11.052.000.705.002.250.002.25 11.102.000.705.002.250.002.25 11.152.000.705.002.250.002.25 11.202.000.705.002.250.002.25 11.252.000.715.002.250.002.25 11.302.000.715.002.250.002.25 11.352.000.715.002.250.002.25 11.402.000.715.002.250.002.25 11.452.000.715.002.250.002.25 11.502.000.715.002.250.002.25 11.552.000.715.002.250.002.25 11.602.000.725.002.250.002.25 11.652.000.725.002.250.002.25 11.702.000.725.002.250.002.25 Page 4 new avg B-2.sum 11.752.000.725.002.250.002.25 11.802.000.725.002.250.002.25 11.852.000.725.002.250.002.25 11.902.000.725.002.250.002.25 11.952.000.725.002.250.002.25 12.002.000.735.002.250.002.25 12.052.000.735.002.250.002.25 12.102.000.735.002.250.002.25 12.152.000.735.002.250.002.25 12.202.000.735.002.250.002.25 12.252.000.735.002.250.002.25 12.302.000.735.002.250.002.25 12.352.000.745.002.250.002.25 12.402.000.745.002.250.002.25 12.452.000.745.002.250.002.25 12.502.000.745.002.250.002.25 12.552.000.745.002.250.002.25 12.602.000.745.002.250.002.25 12.652.000.745.002.250.002.25 12.702.000.745.002.250.002.25 12.752.000.755.002.250.002.25 12.802.000.755.002.250.002.25 12.852.000.755.002.250.002.25 12.902.000.755.002.250.002.25 12.952.000.755.002.250.002.25 13.002.000.755.002.250.002.25 13.052.000.755.002.250.002.25 13.102.000.755.002.250.002.25 13.152.000.755.002.250.002.25 13.202.000.765.002.250.002.25 13.252.000.765.002.250.002.25 13.302.000.765.002.250.002.25 13.352.000.765.002.250.002.25 13.402.000.765.002.250.002.25 13.452.000.765.002.250.002.25 13.502.000.765.002.250.002.25 13.552.000.765.002.250.002.25 13.602.000.775.002.250.002.25 13.652.000.775.002.250.002.25 13.702.000.775.002.250.002.25 13.752.000.775.002.250.002.25 13.802.000.775.002.250.002.25 13.852.000.775.002.250.002.25 13.902.000.775.002.250.002.25 13.952.000.775.002.250.002.25 14.002.000.785.002.250.002.25 14.052.000.785.002.250.002.25 14.102.000.785.002.250.002.25 14.152.000.785.002.250.002.25 14.202.000.785.002.250.002.25 14.252.000.785.002.250.002.25 14.302.000.785.002.250.002.25 14.352.000.785.002.250.002.25 14.402.000.785.002.250.002.25 14.452.000.795.002.250.002.25 14.502.000.795.002.250.002.25 14.552.000.795.002.250.002.25 14.602.000.795.002.250.002.25 14.652.000.795.002.250.002.25 14.702.000.795.002.250.002.25 14.752.000.795.002.250.002.25 14.802.000.795.002.250.002.25 14.852.000.795.002.250.002.25 Page 5 new avg B-2.sum 14.902.000.805.002.250.002.25 14.952.000.805.002.250.002.25 15.002.000.805.002.250.002.25 15.052.000.805.002.250.002.25 15.102.000.805.002.250.002.25 15.152.000.805.002.250.002.25 15.202.000.805.002.250.002.25 15.252.000.805.002.250.002.25 15.302.000.805.002.250.002.25 15.352.000.815.002.250.002.25 15.402.000.815.002.250.002.25 15.452.000.815.002.250.002.25 15.502.000.815.002.250.002.25 15.552.000.815.002.250.002.25 15.602.000.815.002.250.002.25 15.652.000.815.002.250.002.25 15.702.000.815.002.250.002.25 15.752.000.815.002.250.002.25 15.802.000.815.002.250.002.25 15.852.000.825.002.250.002.25 15.902.000.825.002.250.002.25 15.952.000.825.002.250.002.25 16.002.000.825.002.250.002.25 16.052.000.825.002.250.002.25 16.102.000.825.002.250.002.25 16.152.000.825.002.250.002.25 16.202.000.825.002.250.002.25 16.252.000.825.002.250.002.25 16.302.000.825.002.250.002.25 16.352.000.835.002.250.002.25 16.402.000.835.002.250.002.25 16.452.000.835.002.250.002.25 16.502.000.835.002.250.002.25 16.552.000.835.002.250.002.25 16.602.000.835.002.250.002.25 16.652.000.835.002.250.002.25 16.702.000.835.002.250.002.25 16.752.000.835.002.250.002.25 16.802.000.835.002.250.002.25 16.852.000.845.002.250.002.25 16.902.000.845.002.250.002.25 16.952.000.845.002.250.002.25 17.002.000.845.002.250.002.25 17.052.000.845.002.250.002.25 17.102.000.845.002.250.002.25 17.152.000.845.002.250.002.25 17.202.000.845.002.250.002.25 17.252.000.845.002.250.002.25 17.302.000.845.002.250.002.25 17.352.000.855.002.250.002.25 17.402.000.855.002.250.002.25 17.452.000.855.002.250.002.25 17.502.000.855.002.250.002.25 17.552.000.855.002.250.002.25 17.602.000.855.002.250.002.25 17.652.000.855.002.250.002.25 17.702.000.855.002.250.002.25 17.752.000.855.002.250.002.25 17.802.000.855.002.250.002.25 17.852.000.865.002.250.002.25 17.902.000.865.002.250.002.25 17.952.000.865.002.250.002.25 18.002.000.865.002.250.002.25 Page 6 new avg B-2.sum 18.052.000.865.002.250.002.25 18.102.000.865.002.250.002.25 18.152.000.865.002.250.002.25 18.202.000.865.002.250.002.25 18.252.000.865.002.250.002.25 18.302.000.865.002.250.002.25 18.352.000.865.002.250.002.25 18.402.000.875.002.250.002.25 18.452.000.875.002.250.002.25 18.502.000.875.002.250.002.25 18.552.000.875.002.250.002.25 18.602.000.875.002.250.002.25 18.652.000.875.002.250.002.25 18.702.000.875.002.250.002.25 18.752.000.875.002.250.002.25 18.802.000.875.002.250.002.25 18.852.000.875.002.250.002.25 18.902.000.875.002.250.002.25 18.952.000.885.002.250.002.25 19.002.000.885.002.250.002.25 19.052.000.885.002.250.002.25 19.102.000.885.002.250.002.25 19.152.000.885.002.250.002.25 19.202.000.885.002.250.002.25 19.252.000.885.002.250.002.25 19.302.000.885.002.250.002.25 19.352.000.885.002.250.002.25 19.402.000.885.002.250.002.25 19.452.000.885.002.250.002.25 19.502.000.885.002.250.002.25 19.552.000.895.002.250.002.25 19.602.000.895.002.250.002.25 19.652.000.895.002.250.002.25 19.702.000.895.002.250.002.25 19.752.000.895.002.250.002.25 19.802.000.895.002.250.002.25 19.852.000.895.002.250.002.25 19.902.000.895.002.250.002.25 19.952.000.895.002.250.002.25 20.002.000.895.002.250.002.25 20.050.230.890.26*2.250.002.25 20.100.220.890.24*2.240.002.24 20.150.200.900.23*2.240.002.24 20.200.190.900.21*2.230.002.23 20.250.180.900.20*2.220.002.22 20.300.160.900.18*2.210.002.21 20.350.150.900.17*2.200.002.20 20.400.140.900.16*2.190.002.19 20.450.130.900.14*2.180.002.18 20.500.120.900.13*2.160.002.16 20.550.120.900.14*2.150.002.15 20.600.130.900.14*2.140.002.14 20.650.130.900.14*2.120.002.12 20.700.130.900.15*2.110.002.11 20.750.140.900.15*2.100.002.10 20.800.140.900.15*2.090.002.09 20.850.140.900.16*2.080.002.08 20.900.140.900.16*2.060.002.06 20.950.150.900.16*2.050.002.05 21.000.150.900.17*2.040.002.04 21.050.150.900.17*2.030.002.03 21.100.160.910.17*2.020.002.02 21.150.160.910.18*2.010.002.01 Page 7 new avg B-2.sum 21.200.160.910.18*2.000.002.00 21.250.170.910.18*1.990.001.99 21.300.170.910.19*1.980.001.98 21.350.170.910.19*1.970.001.97 21.400.180.910.19*1.960.001.96 21.450.180.910.20*1.950.001.95 21.500.180.910.20*1.940.001.94 21.550.190.910.20*1.930.001.93 21.600.190.910.21*1.920.001.92 21.650.190.910.21*1.910.001.91 21.700.200.910.22*1.900.001.90 21.750.200.910.22*1.890.001.89 21.800.200.910.22*1.880.001.88 21.850.210.910.23*1.880.001.88 21.900.210.910.23*1.870.001.87 21.950.210.910.23*1.860.001.86 22.000.220.910.24*1.850.001.85 22.050.220.910.24*1.840.001.84 22.100.220.910.25*1.830.001.83 22.150.230.910.25*1.830.001.83 22.200.230.910.25*1.820.001.82 22.250.240.920.26*1.810.001.81 22.300.240.920.26*1.800.001.80 22.350.250.920.27*1.800.001.80 22.400.250.920.27*1.790.001.79 22.450.250.920.28*1.780.001.78 22.500.260.920.28*1.780.001.78 22.550.260.920.29*1.770.001.77 22.600.270.920.29*1.760.001.76 22.650.280.920.30*1.750.001.75 22.700.280.920.31*1.750.001.75 22.750.290.920.31*1.740.001.74 22.800.290.920.32*1.740.001.74 22.850.300.920.33*1.730.001.73 22.900.310.920.33*1.720.001.72 22.950.320.920.34*1.720.001.72 23.000.330.920.35*1.710.001.71 23.050.340.920.37*1.710.001.71 23.100.350.920.38*1.700.001.70 23.150.380.920.41*1.700.001.70 23.200.430.920.47*1.690.001.69 23.251.760.921.911.690.001.69 23.301.760.921.911.680.001.68 23.351.760.921.911.680.001.68 23.401.760.921.911.680.001.68 23.451.760.921.911.670.001.67 23.501.760.921.901.670.001.67 23.551.760.931.901.670.001.67 23.601.760.931.901.660.001.66 23.651.760.931.901.660.001.66 23.701.760.931.901.660.001.66 23.751.760.931.901.660.001.66 23.801.760.931.901.660.001.66 23.851.760.931.901.660.001.66 23.901.760.931.901.650.001.65 23.951.760.931.901.650.001.65 24.001.760.931.901.650.001.65 24.051.760.931.901.650.001.65 24.101.760.931.901.650.001.65 24.151.760.931.901.650.001.65 24.201.760.931.891.650.001.65 24.251.760.931.891.650.001.65 24.301.760.931.891.650.001.65 Page 8 new avg B-2.sum 24.351.760.931.891.650.001.65 24.401.760.931.891.650.001.65 24.451.760.931.891.650.001.65 24.501.760.931.891.650.001.65 24.551.760.931.891.650.001.65 24.601.760.931.891.650.001.65 24.651.760.931.891.650.001.65 24.701.760.931.891.650.001.65 24.751.760.931.891.650.001.65 24.801.760.931.891.650.001.65 24.851.760.931.891.650.001.65 24.901.760.931.891.650.001.65 24.951.760.931.891.650.001.65 25.001.760.931.881.650.001.65 25.051.760.941.881.650.001.65 25.101.760.941.881.650.001.65 25.151.760.941.881.650.001.65 25.201.760.941.881.650.001.65 25.251.760.941.881.650.001.65 25.301.760.941.881.650.001.65 25.351.760.941.881.650.001.65 25.401.760.941.881.650.001.65 25.451.760.941.881.650.001.65 25.501.760.941.881.650.001.65 25.551.760.941.881.650.001.65 25.601.760.941.881.650.001.65 25.651.760.941.881.650.001.65 25.701.760.941.881.650.001.65 25.751.760.941.881.650.001.65 25.801.760.941.871.650.001.65 25.851.760.941.871.650.001.65 25.901.760.941.871.650.001.65 25.951.760.941.871.650.001.65 26.001.760.941.871.650.001.65 26.051.760.941.871.650.001.65 26.101.760.941.871.650.001.65 26.151.760.941.871.650.001.65 26.201.760.941.871.650.001.65 26.251.760.941.871.650.001.65 26.301.760.941.871.650.001.65 26.351.760.941.871.650.001.65 26.401.760.941.871.650.001.65 26.451.760.941.871.650.001.65 26.501.760.941.871.650.001.65 26.551.760.941.871.650.001.65 26.601.760.941.871.650.001.65 26.651.760.941.871.650.001.65 26.701.760.941.871.650.001.65 26.751.760.941.861.650.001.65 26.801.760.951.861.650.001.65 26.851.760.951.861.650.001.65 26.901.760.951.861.650.001.65 26.951.760.951.861.650.001.65 27.001.760.951.861.650.001.65 27.051.760.951.861.650.001.65 27.101.760.951.861.650.001.65 27.151.760.951.861.650.001.65 27.201.760.951.861.650.001.65 27.251.760.951.861.650.001.65 27.301.760.951.861.650.001.65 27.351.760.951.861.650.001.65 27.401.760.951.861.650.001.65 27.451.760.951.861.650.001.65 Page 9 new avg B-2.sum 27.501.760.951.861.650.001.65 27.551.760.951.861.650.001.65 27.601.760.951.861.650.001.65 27.651.760.951.861.640.001.64 27.701.760.951.861.640.001.64 27.751.760.951.861.640.001.64 27.801.760.951.861.640.001.64 27.851.760.951.861.640.001.64 27.901.760.951.851.640.001.64 27.951.760.951.851.640.001.64 28.001.760.951.851.640.001.64 28.051.760.951.851.640.001.64 28.101.760.951.851.640.001.64 28.151.760.951.851.630.001.63 28.201.760.951.851.630.001.63 28.251.760.951.851.630.001.63 28.301.760.951.851.630.001.63 28.351.760.951.851.630.001.63 28.401.760.951.851.620.001.62 28.451.760.951.851.620.001.62 28.501.760.951.851.620.001.62 28.551.760.951.851.610.001.61 28.601.760.951.851.610.001.61 28.650.410.950.43*1.610.001.61 28.700.360.950.38*1.600.001.60 28.750.340.950.36*1.600.001.60 28.800.330.950.35*1.590.001.59 28.850.320.950.33*1.590.001.59 28.900.310.950.33*1.580.001.58 28.950.300.950.32*1.580.001.58 29.000.290.950.31*1.570.001.57 29.050.290.950.30*1.560.001.56 29.100.280.950.29*1.560.001.56 29.150.270.950.29*1.550.001.55 29.200.270.950.28*1.540.001.54 29.250.260.950.28*1.540.001.54 29.300.260.950.27*1.530.001.53 29.350.250.950.27*1.520.001.52 29.400.250.950.26*1.520.001.52 29.450.240.950.26*1.510.001.51 29.500.240.950.25*1.500.001.50 29.550.240.950.25*1.490.001.49 29.600.230.960.24*1.490.001.49 29.650.230.960.24*1.480.001.48 29.700.220.960.23*1.470.001.47 29.750.220.960.23*1.460.001.46 29.800.220.960.23*1.460.001.46 29.850.210.960.22*1.450.001.45 29.900.210.960.22*1.440.001.44 29.950.200.960.21*1.430.001.43 30.000.200.960.21*1.420.001.42 30.050.200.960.21*1.410.001.41 30.100.190.960.20*1.410.001.41 30.150.190.960.20*1.400.001.40 30.200.190.950.20*1.390.001.39 30.250.180.950.19*1.380.001.38 30.300.180.950.19*1.370.001.37 30.350.180.950.19*1.360.001.36 30.400.180.950.18*1.350.001.35 30.450.170.950.18*1.340.001.34 30.500.170.950.18*1.330.001.33 30.550.170.950.17*1.320.001.32 30.600.160.950.17*1.310.001.31 Page 10 new avg B-2.sum 30.650.160.950.17*1.300.001.30 30.700.160.950.16*1.290.001.29 30.750.150.950.16*1.280.001.28 30.800.150.950.16*1.270.001.27 30.850.150.950.16*1.260.001.26 30.900.150.950.15*1.240.001.24 30.950.140.950.15*1.230.001.23 31.000.140.950.15*1.220.001.22 31.050.150.950.15*1.210.001.21 31.100.150.950.16*1.200.001.20 31.150.160.950.17*1.190.001.19 31.200.170.950.18*1.180.001.18 31.250.180.950.19*1.170.001.17 31.300.180.950.19*1.160.001.16 31.350.190.950.20*1.150.001.15 31.400.200.950.21*1.140.001.14 31.450.210.950.22*1.130.001.13 31.500.220.950.23*1.120.001.12 31.550.230.950.24*1.110.001.11 31.600.240.950.25*1.110.001.11 31.650.250.950.26*1.100.001.10 31.700.260.950.27*1.090.001.09 31.750.270.950.28*1.080.001.08 31.800.280.950.30*1.080.001.08 31.850.300.950.32*1.070.001.07 31.900.320.950.34*1.070.001.07 31.950.350.950.37*1.060.001.06 32.001.760.951.861.050.001.05 32.051.760.951.861.050.001.05 32.101.760.951.861.050.001.05 32.151.760.951.861.040.001.04 32.201.760.951.861.040.001.04 32.251.760.951.861.040.001.04 32.301.760.941.861.040.001.04 32.351.760.941.861.040.001.04 32.401.760.941.871.040.001.04 32.451.760.941.871.040.001.04 32.501.760.941.871.040.001.04 32.551.760.941.871.040.001.04 32.601.760.941.871.040.001.04 32.651.760.941.871.040.001.04 32.701.760.941.871.040.001.04 32.751.760.941.871.040.001.04 32.801.760.941.871.040.001.04 32.851.760.941.871.040.001.04 32.901.760.941.871.040.001.04 32.951.760.941.871.040.001.04 33.001.760.941.871.040.001.04 33.051.760.941.871.040.001.04 33.101.760.941.871.040.001.04 33.151.760.941.871.040.001.04 33.201.760.941.871.040.001.04 33.251.760.941.871.040.001.04 33.301.760.941.871.040.001.04 33.351.760.941.881.040.001.04 33.401.760.941.881.040.001.04 33.451.760.941.881.040.001.04 33.501.760.941.881.040.001.04 33.551.760.941.881.040.001.04 33.601.760.941.881.040.001.04 33.651.760.941.881.040.001.04 33.701.760.941.881.040.001.04 33.751.760.941.881.040.001.04 Page 11 new avg B-2.sum 33.801.760.941.881.040.001.04 33.851.760.941.881.040.001.04 33.901.760.941.881.040.001.04 33.951.760.941.881.040.001.04 34.001.760.941.881.040.001.04 34.051.760.941.881.040.001.04 34.101.760.941.881.040.001.04 34.151.760.931.881.040.001.04 34.201.760.931.891.040.001.04 34.251.760.931.891.040.001.04 34.301.760.931.891.040.001.04 34.351.760.931.891.040.001.04 34.401.760.931.891.040.001.04 34.451.760.931.891.040.001.04 34.501.760.931.891.040.001.04 34.551.760.931.891.040.001.04 34.601.760.931.891.040.001.04 34.651.760.931.891.040.001.04 34.701.760.931.891.040.001.04 34.751.760.931.891.040.001.04 34.801.760.931.891.040.001.04 34.851.760.931.891.040.001.04 34.901.760.931.891.040.001.04 34.951.760.931.891.040.001.04 35.001.760.931.891.040.001.04 35.051.760.931.901.040.001.04 35.101.760.931.901.040.001.04 35.151.760.931.901.040.001.04 35.201.760.931.901.040.001.04 35.251.760.931.901.040.001.04 35.301.760.931.901.040.001.04 35.351.760.931.901.040.001.04 35.401.760.931.901.040.001.04 35.451.760.931.901.040.001.04 35.501.760.931.901.040.001.04 35.551.760.931.901.040.001.04 35.601.760.931.901.040.001.04 35.651.760.931.901.040.001.04 35.701.760.931.901.040.001.04 35.751.760.931.901.040.001.04 35.801.760.921.901.040.001.04 35.851.760.921.911.040.001.04 35.901.760.921.911.040.001.04 35.951.760.921.911.040.001.04 36.001.760.921.911.040.001.04 36.051.760.921.911.040.001.04 36.101.760.921.911.040.001.04 36.151.760.921.911.040.001.04 36.201.760.921.911.040.001.04 36.251.760.921.911.040.001.04 36.301.760.921.911.040.001.04 36.351.760.921.911.040.001.04 36.401.760.921.911.040.001.04 36.451.760.921.911.040.001.04 36.501.760.921.911.040.001.04 36.551.760.921.911.040.001.04 36.601.760.921.921.040.001.04 36.651.760.921.921.040.001.04 36.701.760.921.921.040.001.04 36.751.760.921.921.040.001.04 36.801.760.921.921.040.001.04 36.851.760.921.921.040.001.04 36.901.760.921.921.040.001.04 Page 12 new avg B-2.sum 36.951.760.921.921.040.001.04 37.001.760.921.921.040.001.04 37.051.760.921.921.040.001.04 37.101.760.921.921.040.001.04 37.151.760.921.921.040.001.04 37.201.760.921.921.040.001.04 37.251.760.921.921.040.001.04 37.301.760.921.921.040.001.04 37.351.760.921.921.040.001.04 37.401.760.911.931.040.001.04 37.451.760.911.931.040.001.04 37.501.760.911.931.040.001.04 37.551.760.911.931.040.001.04 37.601.760.911.931.040.001.04 37.651.760.911.931.040.001.04 37.701.760.911.931.040.001.04 37.751.760.911.931.040.001.04 37.801.760.911.931.040.001.04 37.851.760.911.931.040.001.04 37.901.760.911.931.040.001.04 37.951.760.911.931.040.001.04 38.001.760.911.931.040.001.04 38.051.760.911.931.040.001.04 38.101.760.911.931.040.001.04 38.151.760.911.931.040.001.04 38.201.760.911.941.040.001.04 38.251.760.911.941.040.001.04 38.301.760.911.941.040.001.04 38.351.760.911.941.040.001.04 38.401.760.911.941.040.001.04 38.451.760.911.941.040.001.04 38.501.760.911.941.040.001.04 38.551.760.911.941.040.001.04 38.601.760.911.941.040.001.04 38.651.760.911.941.040.001.04 38.701.760.911.941.040.001.04 38.751.760.911.941.040.001.04 38.801.760.911.941.040.001.04 38.851.760.911.941.040.001.04 38.901.760.911.941.040.001.04 38.951.760.911.941.040.001.04 39.001.760.911.951.040.001.04 39.051.760.911.951.040.001.04 39.101.760.911.951.040.001.04 39.151.760.901.951.040.001.04 39.201.760.901.951.040.001.04 39.251.760.901.951.040.001.04 39.301.760.901.951.040.001.04 39.351.760.901.951.040.001.04 39.401.760.901.951.040.001.04 39.451.760.901.951.040.001.04 39.501.760.901.951.040.001.04 39.551.760.901.951.040.001.04 39.601.760.901.951.040.001.04 39.651.760.901.951.040.001.04 39.701.760.901.951.040.001.04 39.751.760.901.951.040.001.04 39.801.760.901.951.040.001.04 39.851.760.901.961.040.001.04 39.901.760.901.961.040.001.04 39.951.760.901.961.040.001.04 40.001.760.901.961.040.001.04 40.051.760.901.961.040.001.04 Page 13 new avg B-2.sum 40.101.760.901.961.040.001.04 40.151.760.901.961.040.001.04 40.201.760.901.961.040.001.04 40.251.760.901.961.040.001.04 40.301.760.901.961.030.001.03 40.351.760.901.961.030.001.03 40.401.760.901.961.030.001.03 40.451.760.901.961.030.001.03 40.501.760.901.961.030.001.03 40.551.760.901.961.030.001.03 40.601.760.901.961.030.001.03 40.651.760.901.961.020.001.02 40.701.760.901.971.020.001.02 40.750.390.900.43*1.010.001.01 40.800.340.900.38*1.010.001.01 40.850.320.900.36*1.000.001.00 40.900.310.900.34*1.000.001.00 40.950.290.900.33*0.990.000.99 41.000.280.890.32*0.990.000.99 41.050.280.890.31*0.980.000.98 41.100.280.890.31*0.970.000.97 41.150.270.890.30*0.970.000.97 41.200.270.890.30*0.960.000.96 41.250.270.890.30*0.950.000.95 41.300.260.890.29*0.950.000.95 41.350.260.890.29*0.940.000.94 41.400.260.890.29*0.930.000.93 41.450.250.890.28*0.930.000.93 41.500.250.890.28*0.920.000.92 41.550.250.890.28*0.910.000.91 41.600.250.890.27*0.910.000.91 41.650.240.890.27*0.900.000.90 41.700.240.890.27*0.890.000.89 41.750.240.890.27*0.880.000.88 41.800.230.890.26*0.880.000.88 41.850.230.890.26*0.870.000.87 41.900.230.890.26*0.860.000.86 41.950.230.890.26*0.850.000.85 42.000.230.890.25*0.850.000.85 42.050.220.890.25*0.840.000.84 42.100.220.890.25*0.830.000.83 42.150.220.890.25*0.820.000.82 42.200.220.890.24*0.810.000.81 42.250.210.890.24*0.810.000.81 42.300.210.890.24*0.800.000.80 42.350.210.890.24*0.790.000.79 42.400.210.890.23*0.780.000.78 42.450.210.890.23*0.770.000.77 42.500.200.890.23*0.760.000.76 42.550.200.890.23*0.760.000.76 42.600.200.890.23*0.750.000.75 42.650.200.890.23*0.740.000.74 42.700.200.890.23*0.730.000.73 42.750.200.890.23*0.720.000.72 42.800.200.890.23*0.710.000.71 42.850.200.880.23*0.710.000.71 42.900.200.880.23*0.700.000.70 42.950.200.880.23*0.690.000.69 43.000.200.880.23*0.680.000.68 43.050.200.880.23*0.670.000.67 43.100.200.880.23*0.660.000.66 43.150.200.880.23*0.650.000.65 43.200.200.880.23*0.650.000.65 Page 14 new avg B-2.sum 43.250.200.880.23*0.640.000.64 43.300.200.880.23*0.630.000.63 43.350.200.880.23*0.620.000.62 43.400.200.880.23*0.610.000.61 43.450.200.880.23*0.600.000.60 43.500.200.880.23*0.590.000.59 43.550.200.880.23*0.590.000.59 43.600.200.880.23*0.580.000.58 43.650.200.880.23*0.570.000.57 43.700.200.880.23*0.560.000.56 43.750.200.880.23*0.550.000.55 43.800.200.880.23*0.540.000.54 43.850.200.880.23*0.530.000.53 43.900.200.880.23*0.520.000.52 43.950.200.880.23*0.520.000.52 44.000.200.880.23*0.510.000.51 44.050.200.880.23*0.500.000.50 44.100.200.880.23*0.490.000.49 44.150.200.880.23*0.480.000.48 44.200.200.880.23*0.470.000.47 44.250.200.880.23*0.460.000.46 44.300.200.880.23*0.460.000.46 44.350.200.880.23*0.450.000.45 44.400.200.880.23*0.440.000.44 44.450.200.880.23*0.430.000.43 44.500.200.880.23*0.420.000.42 44.550.200.870.23*0.410.000.41 44.600.200.870.23*0.400.000.40 44.650.200.870.23*0.390.000.39 44.700.200.870.23*0.390.000.39 44.750.200.870.23*0.380.000.38 44.800.200.870.23*0.370.000.37 44.850.200.870.23*0.360.000.36 44.900.200.870.23*0.350.000.35 44.950.200.870.23*0.340.000.34 45.000.200.870.23*0.330.000.33 45.050.200.870.23*0.330.000.33 45.100.200.870.23*0.320.000.32 45.150.200.870.23*0.310.000.31 45.200.200.870.23*0.300.000.30 45.250.200.870.23*0.290.000.29 45.300.200.870.23*0.280.000.28 45.350.200.870.23*0.270.000.27 45.400.200.870.23*0.260.000.26 45.450.200.870.23*0.260.000.26 45.500.200.870.23*0.250.000.25 45.550.200.870.23*0.240.000.24 45.600.200.870.23*0.230.000.23 45.650.200.870.23*0.220.000.22 45.700.200.870.23*0.210.000.21 45.750.200.870.23*0.200.000.20 45.800.200.870.23*0.190.000.19 45.850.200.870.23*0.180.000.18 45.900.200.870.23*0.180.000.18 45.950.200.870.23*0.170.000.17 46.000.200.870.23*0.160.000.16 46.050.200.870.23*0.150.000.15 46.100.210.870.24*0.140.000.14 46.150.210.870.25*0.130.000.13 46.200.220.870.25*0.120.000.12 46.250.220.860.26*0.120.000.12 46.300.230.860.27*0.110.000.11 46.350.240.860.28*0.100.000.10 Page 15 new avg B-2.sum 46.400.240.860.28*0.090.000.09 46.450.250.860.29*0.090.000.09 46.500.260.860.30*0.080.000.08 46.550.270.860.31*0.070.000.07 46.600.280.860.32*0.070.000.07 46.650.290.860.33*0.060.000.06 46.700.300.860.34*0.050.000.05 46.750.310.860.36*0.050.000.05 46.800.320.860.38*0.040.000.04 46.850.340.860.40*0.040.000.04 46.900.380.860.44*0.030.000.03 46.951.760.862.050.030.000.03 47.001.760.862.050.020.000.02 47.051.760.862.050.020.000.02 47.101.760.862.050.010.000.01 47.151.760.862.050.010.000.01 47.201.760.862.050.010.000.01 47.251.760.862.050.010.000.01 47.301.770.862.070.010.000.01 47.351.770.862.070.000.000.00 47.401.770.862.070.000.000.00 47.451.770.862.070.000.000.00 47.501.770.862.070.000.000.00 47.551.770.862.070.000.000.00 47.601.770.862.070.000.000.00 47.651.770.862.070.000.000.00 47.701.770.862.070.000.000.00 47.751.770.852.070.000.000.00 47.801.770.852.070.000.000.00 47.851.770.852.070.000.000.00 47.901.770.852.070.000.000.00 47.951.770.852.070.000.000.00 48.001.770.852.070.000.000.00 48.051.770.852.070.000.000.00 48.101.770.852.070.000.000.00 48.151.770.852.080.000.000.00 48.201.770.852.080.000.000.00 48.251.770.852.080.000.000.00 48.301.770.852.080.000.000.00 48.351.770.852.080.000.000.00 48.401.770.852.080.000.000.00 48.451.770.852.080.000.000.00 48.501.770.852.080.000.000.00 48.551.770.852.080.000.000.00 48.601.770.852.080.000.000.00 48.651.760.852.080.000.000.00 48.701.760.852.080.000.000.00 48.751.760.852.080.000.000.00 48.801.760.852.080.000.000.00 48.851.760.852.080.000.000.00 48.901.760.852.080.000.000.00 48.951.760.852.080.000.000.00 49.001.760.852.080.000.000.00 49.051.760.852.090.000.000.00 49.101.760.842.090.000.000.00 49.151.760.842.090.000.000.00 49.201.760.842.090.000.000.00 49.251.760.842.090.000.000.00 49.301.760.842.090.000.000.00 49.351.760.842.090.000.000.00 49.401.760.842.090.000.000.00 49.451.760.842.090.000.000.00 49.501.760.842.090.000.000.00 Page 16 new avg B-2.sum 49.551.760.842.090.000.000.00 49.601.760.842.090.000.000.00 49.651.760.842.090.000.000.00 49.701.760.842.090.000.000.00 49.751.760.842.090.000.000.00 49.801.760.842.090.000.000.00 49.851.760.842.090.000.000.00 49.901.760.842.100.000.000.00 49.951.760.842.100.000.000.00 50.001.760.842.100.000.000.00 50.051.760.842.100.000.000.00 50.101.760.842.100.000.000.00 50.151.760.842.100.000.000.00 50.201.760.842.100.000.000.00 50.251.760.842.100.000.000.00 50.301.750.842.100.000.000.00 50.351.750.842.100.000.000.00 50.401.750.832.100.000.000.00 50.451.750.832.100.000.000.00 50.501.750.832.100.000.000.00 50.551.750.832.100.000.000.00 50.601.750.832.100.000.000.00 50.651.750.832.100.000.000.00 50.701.750.832.110.000.000.00 50.751.750.832.110.000.000.00 50.801.750.832.110.000.000.00 50.851.750.832.110.000.000.00 50.901.750.832.110.000.000.00 50.951.750.832.110.000.000.00 51.001.750.832.110.000.000.00 51.051.750.832.110.000.000.00 51.101.750.832.110.000.000.00 51.151.750.832.110.000.000.00 51.201.750.832.110.000.000.00 51.251.750.832.110.000.000.00 51.301.750.832.110.000.000.00 51.351.750.832.110.000.000.00 51.401.750.832.110.000.000.00 51.451.750.832.120.000.000.00 51.501.750.832.120.000.000.00 _______________________________________________________ * F.S.<1, Liquefaction Potential Zone (F.S. is limited to 5,CRR is limited to 2,CSR is limited to 2) Units:Unit: qc, fs, Stress or Pressure = atm (1.0581tsf); Unit Weight = pcf; Depth = ft; Settlement = in. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 atm (atmosphere) = 1 tsf (ton/ft2) CRRm Cyclic resistance ratio from soils CSRsf Cyclic stress ratio induced by a given earthquake (with user request factor of safety) F.S. Factor of Safety against liquefaction, F.S.=CRRm/CSRsf S_sat Settlement from saturated sands S_dry Settlement from Unsaturated Sands S_all Total Settlement from Saturated and Unsaturated Sands NoLiq No-Liquefy Soils Page 17 new B-1.sum ************************************************************************************ ******************* LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY Copyright by CivilTech Software www.civiltechsoftware.com ************************************************************************************ ******************* Font: Courier New, Regular, Size 8 is recommended for this report. Licensed to , 6/16/2014 11:31:27 AM Input File Name: N:\Projects\2014\60145004\Working Files\Liquefaction\NEW LIQ\new B-1.liq Title: Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites Subtitle: 60145004 Surface Elev.=100 Hole No.=B-1 Depth of Hole= 51.50 ft Water Table during Earthquake= 8.00 ft Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 8.00 ft Max. Acceleration= 0.8 g Earthquake Magnitude= 7.88 Input Data: Surface Elev.=100 Hole No.=B-1 Depth of Hole=51.50 ft Water Table during Earthquake= 8.00 ft Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 8.00 ft Max. Acceleration=0.8 g Earthquake Magnitude=7.88 No-Liquefiable Soils: CL, OL are Non-Liq. Soil 1. SPT or BPT Calculation. 2. Settlement Analysis Method: Tokimatsu, M-correction 3. Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Modify Stark/Olson 4. Fine Correction for Settlement: During Liquefaction* 5. Settlement Calculation in: All zones* 6. Hammer Energy Ratio, Ce = 1.25 7. Borehole Diameter, Cb= 1.05 8. Sampling Method, Cs= 1.2 9. User request factor of safety (apply to CSR) , User= 1.2 Plot two CSR (fs1=User, fs2=1) 10. Use Curve Smoothing: Yes* * Recommended Options In-Situ Test Data: DepthSPTgammaFines ft pcf% ____________________________________ 3.0040.00120.00NoLiq 6.0040.00120.00NoLiq 9.001.0092.30NoLiq 16.001.0085.10NoLiq 21.001.0085.10NoLiq 26.001.0085.10NoLiq 31.0032.00103.80NoLiq 36.0062.00103.804.00 41.0046.00134.904.00 Page 1 new B-1.sum 46.0014.00110.0014.00 51.0021.00133.404.00 ____________________________________ Output Results: Settlement of Saturated Sands=0.82 in. Settlement of Unsaturated Sands=0.00 in. Total Settlement of Saturated and Unsaturated Sands=0.82 in. Differential Settlement=0.411 to 0.543 in. DepthCRRmCSRfsF.S.S_sat.S_dryS_all ft in.in.in. _______________________________________________________ 3.002.000.625.000.820.000.82 3.052.000.625.000.820.000.82 3.102.000.625.000.820.000.82 3.152.000.625.000.820.000.82 3.202.000.625.000.820.000.82 3.252.000.625.000.820.000.82 3.302.000.625.000.820.000.82 3.352.000.625.000.820.000.82 3.402.000.625.000.820.000.82 3.452.000.625.000.820.000.82 3.502.000.625.000.820.000.82 3.552.000.615.000.820.000.82 3.602.000.615.000.820.000.82 3.652.000.615.000.820.000.82 3.702.000.615.000.820.000.82 3.752.000.615.000.820.000.82 3.802.000.615.000.820.000.82 3.852.000.615.000.820.000.82 3.902.000.615.000.820.000.82 3.952.000.615.000.820.000.82 4.002.000.615.000.820.000.82 4.052.000.615.000.820.000.82 4.102.000.615.000.820.000.82 4.152.000.615.000.820.000.82 4.202.000.615.000.820.000.82 4.252.000.615.000.820.000.82 4.302.000.615.000.820.000.82 4.352.000.615.000.820.000.82 4.402.000.615.000.820.000.82 4.452.000.615.000.820.000.82 4.502.000.615.000.820.000.82 4.552.000.615.000.820.000.82 4.602.000.615.000.820.000.82 4.652.000.615.000.820.000.82 4.702.000.615.000.820.000.82 4.752.000.615.000.820.000.82 4.802.000.615.000.820.000.82 4.852.000.615.000.820.000.82 4.902.000.615.000.820.000.82 4.952.000.615.000.820.000.82 5.002.000.615.000.820.000.82 5.052.000.615.000.820.000.82 5.102.000.615.000.820.000.82 5.152.000.615.000.820.000.82 5.202.000.615.000.820.000.82 5.252.000.615.000.820.000.82 5.302.000.615.000.820.000.82 5.352.000.615.000.820.000.82 5.402.000.615.000.820.000.82 5.452.000.615.000.820.000.82 Page 2 new B-1.sum 5.502.000.615.000.820.000.82 5.552.000.615.000.820.000.82 5.602.000.615.000.820.000.82 5.652.000.615.000.820.000.82 5.702.000.615.000.820.000.82 5.752.000.615.000.820.000.82 5.802.000.615.000.820.000.82 5.852.000.615.000.820.000.82 5.902.000.615.000.820.000.82 5.952.000.615.000.820.000.82 6.002.000.615.000.820.000.82 6.052.000.615.000.820.000.82 6.102.000.615.000.820.000.82 6.152.000.615.000.820.000.82 6.202.000.615.000.820.000.82 6.252.000.615.000.820.000.82 6.302.000.615.000.820.000.82 6.352.000.615.000.820.000.82 6.402.000.615.000.820.000.82 6.452.000.615.000.820.000.82 6.502.000.615.000.820.000.82 6.552.000.615.000.820.000.82 6.602.000.615.000.820.000.82 6.652.000.615.000.820.000.82 6.702.000.615.000.820.000.82 6.752.000.615.000.820.000.82 6.802.000.615.000.820.000.82 6.852.000.615.000.820.000.82 6.902.000.615.000.820.000.82 6.952.000.615.000.820.000.82 7.002.000.615.000.820.000.82 7.052.000.615.000.820.000.82 7.102.000.615.000.820.000.82 7.152.000.615.000.820.000.82 7.202.000.615.000.820.000.82 7.252.000.615.000.820.000.82 7.302.000.615.000.820.000.82 7.352.000.615.000.820.000.82 7.402.000.615.000.820.000.82 7.452.000.615.000.820.000.82 7.502.000.615.000.820.000.82 7.552.000.615.000.820.000.82 7.602.000.615.000.820.000.82 7.652.000.615.000.820.000.82 7.702.000.615.000.820.000.82 7.752.000.615.000.820.000.82 7.802.000.615.000.820.000.82 7.852.000.615.000.820.000.82 7.902.000.615.000.820.000.82 7.952.000.615.000.820.000.82 8.002.000.615.000.820.000.82 8.052.000.615.000.820.000.82 8.102.000.615.000.820.000.82 8.152.000.615.000.820.000.82 8.202.000.625.000.820.000.82 8.252.000.625.000.820.000.82 8.302.000.625.000.820.000.82 8.352.000.625.000.820.000.82 8.402.000.625.000.820.000.82 8.452.000.635.000.820.000.82 8.502.000.635.000.820.000.82 8.552.000.635.000.820.000.82 8.602.000.635.000.820.000.82 Page 3 new B-1.sum 8.652.000.635.000.820.000.82 8.702.000.635.000.820.000.82 8.752.000.645.000.820.000.82 8.802.000.645.000.820.000.82 8.852.000.645.000.820.000.82 8.902.000.645.000.820.000.82 8.952.000.645.000.820.000.82 9.002.000.655.000.820.000.82 9.052.000.655.000.820.000.82 9.102.000.655.000.820.000.82 9.152.000.655.000.820.000.82 9.202.000.655.000.820.000.82 9.252.000.655.000.820.000.82 9.302.000.665.000.820.000.82 9.352.000.665.000.820.000.82 9.402.000.665.000.820.000.82 9.452.000.665.000.820.000.82 9.502.000.665.000.820.000.82 9.552.000.675.000.820.000.82 9.602.000.675.000.820.000.82 9.652.000.675.000.820.000.82 9.702.000.675.000.820.000.82 9.752.000.675.000.820.000.82 9.802.000.675.000.820.000.82 9.852.000.685.000.820.000.82 9.902.000.685.000.820.000.82 9.952.000.685.000.820.000.82 10.002.000.685.000.820.000.82 10.052.000.685.000.820.000.82 10.102.000.685.000.820.000.82 10.152.000.695.000.820.000.82 10.202.000.695.000.820.000.82 10.252.000.695.000.820.000.82 10.302.000.695.000.820.000.82 10.352.000.695.000.820.000.82 10.402.000.695.000.820.000.82 10.452.000.705.000.820.000.82 10.502.000.705.000.820.000.82 10.552.000.705.000.820.000.82 10.602.000.705.000.820.000.82 10.652.000.705.000.820.000.82 10.702.000.705.000.820.000.82 10.752.000.715.000.820.000.82 10.802.000.715.000.820.000.82 10.852.000.715.000.820.000.82 10.902.000.715.000.820.000.82 10.952.000.715.000.820.000.82 11.002.000.715.000.820.000.82 11.052.000.725.000.820.000.82 11.102.000.725.000.820.000.82 11.152.000.725.000.820.000.82 11.202.000.725.000.820.000.82 11.252.000.725.000.820.000.82 11.302.000.725.000.820.000.82 11.352.000.725.000.820.000.82 11.402.000.735.000.820.000.82 11.452.000.735.000.820.000.82 11.502.000.735.000.820.000.82 11.552.000.735.000.820.000.82 11.602.000.735.000.820.000.82 11.652.000.735.000.820.000.82 11.702.000.745.000.820.000.82 11.752.000.745.000.820.000.82 Page 4 new B-1.sum 11.802.000.745.000.820.000.82 11.852.000.745.000.820.000.82 11.902.000.745.000.820.000.82 11.952.000.745.000.820.000.82 12.002.000.745.000.820.000.82 12.052.000.755.000.820.000.82 12.102.000.755.000.820.000.82 12.152.000.755.000.820.000.82 12.202.000.755.000.820.000.82 12.252.000.755.000.820.000.82 12.302.000.755.000.820.000.82 12.352.000.755.000.820.000.82 12.402.000.765.000.820.000.82 12.452.000.765.000.820.000.82 12.502.000.765.000.820.000.82 12.552.000.765.000.820.000.82 12.602.000.765.000.820.000.82 12.652.000.765.000.820.000.82 12.702.000.775.000.820.000.82 12.752.000.775.000.820.000.82 12.802.000.775.000.820.000.82 12.852.000.775.000.820.000.82 12.902.000.775.000.820.000.82 12.952.000.775.000.820.000.82 13.002.000.775.000.820.000.82 13.052.000.785.000.820.000.82 13.102.000.785.000.820.000.82 13.152.000.785.000.820.000.82 13.202.000.785.000.820.000.82 13.252.000.785.000.820.000.82 13.302.000.785.000.820.000.82 13.352.000.785.000.820.000.82 13.402.000.795.000.820.000.82 13.452.000.795.000.820.000.82 13.502.000.795.000.820.000.82 13.552.000.795.000.820.000.82 13.602.000.795.000.820.000.82 13.652.000.795.000.820.000.82 13.702.000.795.000.820.000.82 13.752.000.795.000.820.000.82 13.802.000.805.000.820.000.82 13.852.000.805.000.820.000.82 13.902.000.805.000.820.000.82 13.952.000.805.000.820.000.82 14.002.000.805.000.820.000.82 14.052.000.805.000.820.000.82 14.102.000.805.000.820.000.82 14.152.000.815.000.820.000.82 14.202.000.815.000.820.000.82 14.252.000.815.000.820.000.82 14.302.000.815.000.820.000.82 14.352.000.815.000.820.000.82 14.402.000.815.000.820.000.82 14.452.000.815.000.820.000.82 14.502.000.815.000.820.000.82 14.552.000.825.000.820.000.82 14.602.000.825.000.820.000.82 14.652.000.825.000.820.000.82 14.702.000.825.000.820.000.82 14.752.000.825.000.820.000.82 14.802.000.825.000.820.000.82 14.852.000.825.000.820.000.82 14.902.000.835.000.820.000.82 Page 5 new B-1.sum 14.952.000.835.000.820.000.82 15.002.000.835.000.820.000.82 15.052.000.835.000.820.000.82 15.102.000.835.000.820.000.82 15.152.000.835.000.820.000.82 15.202.000.835.000.820.000.82 15.252.000.835.000.820.000.82 15.302.000.845.000.820.000.82 15.352.000.845.000.820.000.82 15.402.000.845.000.820.000.82 15.452.000.845.000.820.000.82 15.502.000.845.000.820.000.82 15.552.000.845.000.820.000.82 15.602.000.845.000.820.000.82 15.652.000.845.000.820.000.82 15.702.000.855.000.820.000.82 15.752.000.855.000.820.000.82 15.802.000.855.000.820.000.82 15.852.000.855.000.820.000.82 15.902.000.855.000.820.000.82 15.952.000.855.000.820.000.82 16.002.000.855.000.820.000.82 16.052.000.855.000.820.000.82 16.102.000.865.000.820.000.82 16.152.000.865.000.820.000.82 16.202.000.865.000.820.000.82 16.252.000.865.000.820.000.82 16.302.000.865.000.820.000.82 16.352.000.865.000.820.000.82 16.402.000.865.000.820.000.82 16.452.000.865.000.820.000.82 16.502.000.875.000.820.000.82 16.552.000.875.000.820.000.82 16.602.000.875.000.820.000.82 16.652.000.875.000.820.000.82 16.702.000.875.000.820.000.82 16.752.000.875.000.820.000.82 16.802.000.875.000.820.000.82 16.852.000.875.000.820.000.82 16.902.000.885.000.820.000.82 16.952.000.885.000.820.000.82 17.002.000.885.000.820.000.82 17.052.000.885.000.820.000.82 17.102.000.885.000.820.000.82 17.152.000.885.000.820.000.82 17.202.000.885.000.820.000.82 17.252.000.885.000.820.000.82 17.302.000.895.000.820.000.82 17.352.000.895.000.820.000.82 17.402.000.895.000.820.000.82 17.452.000.895.000.820.000.82 17.502.000.895.000.820.000.82 17.552.000.895.000.820.000.82 17.602.000.895.000.820.000.82 17.652.000.895.000.820.000.82 17.702.000.895.000.820.000.82 17.752.000.905.000.820.000.82 17.802.000.905.000.820.000.82 17.852.000.905.000.820.000.82 17.902.000.905.000.820.000.82 17.952.000.905.000.820.000.82 18.002.000.905.000.820.000.82 18.052.000.905.000.820.000.82 Page 6 new B-1.sum 18.102.000.905.000.820.000.82 18.152.000.905.000.820.000.82 18.202.000.915.000.820.000.82 18.252.000.915.000.820.000.82 18.302.000.915.000.820.000.82 18.352.000.915.000.820.000.82 18.402.000.915.000.820.000.82 18.452.000.915.000.820.000.82 18.502.000.915.000.820.000.82 18.552.000.915.000.820.000.82 18.602.000.915.000.820.000.82 18.652.000.925.000.820.000.82 18.702.000.925.000.820.000.82 18.752.000.925.000.820.000.82 18.802.000.925.000.820.000.82 18.852.000.925.000.820.000.82 18.902.000.925.000.820.000.82 18.952.000.925.000.820.000.82 19.002.000.925.000.820.000.82 19.052.000.925.000.820.000.82 19.102.000.935.000.820.000.82 19.152.000.935.000.820.000.82 19.202.000.935.000.820.000.82 19.252.000.935.000.820.000.82 19.302.000.935.000.820.000.82 19.352.000.935.000.820.000.82 19.402.000.935.000.820.000.82 19.452.000.935.000.820.000.82 19.502.000.935.000.820.000.82 19.552.000.945.000.820.000.82 19.602.000.945.000.820.000.82 19.652.000.945.000.820.000.82 19.702.000.945.000.820.000.82 19.752.000.945.000.820.000.82 19.802.000.945.000.820.000.82 19.852.000.945.000.820.000.82 19.902.000.945.000.820.000.82 19.952.000.945.000.820.000.82 20.002.000.945.000.820.000.82 20.052.000.955.000.820.000.82 20.102.000.955.000.820.000.82 20.152.000.955.000.820.000.82 20.202.000.955.000.820.000.82 20.252.000.955.000.820.000.82 20.302.000.955.000.820.000.82 20.352.000.955.000.820.000.82 20.402.000.955.000.820.000.82 20.452.000.955.000.820.000.82 20.502.000.965.000.820.000.82 20.552.000.965.000.820.000.82 20.602.000.965.000.820.000.82 20.652.000.965.000.820.000.82 20.702.000.965.000.820.000.82 20.752.000.965.000.820.000.82 20.802.000.965.000.820.000.82 20.852.000.965.000.820.000.82 20.902.000.965.000.820.000.82 20.952.000.965.000.820.000.82 21.002.000.975.000.820.000.82 21.052.000.975.000.820.000.82 21.102.000.975.000.820.000.82 21.152.000.975.000.820.000.82 21.202.000.975.000.820.000.82 Page 7 new B-1.sum 21.252.000.975.000.820.000.82 21.302.000.975.000.820.000.82 21.352.000.975.000.820.000.82 21.402.000.975.000.820.000.82 21.452.000.975.000.820.000.82 21.502.000.975.000.820.000.82 21.552.000.985.000.820.000.82 21.602.000.985.000.820.000.82 21.652.000.985.000.820.000.82 21.702.000.985.000.820.000.82 21.752.000.985.000.820.000.82 21.802.000.985.000.820.000.82 21.852.000.985.000.820.000.82 21.902.000.985.000.820.000.82 21.952.000.985.000.820.000.82 22.002.000.985.000.820.000.82 22.052.000.995.000.820.000.82 22.102.000.995.000.820.000.82 22.152.000.995.000.820.000.82 22.202.000.995.000.820.000.82 22.252.000.995.000.820.000.82 22.302.000.995.000.820.000.82 22.352.000.995.000.820.000.82 22.402.000.995.000.820.000.82 22.452.000.995.000.820.000.82 22.502.000.995.000.820.000.82 22.552.000.995.000.820.000.82 22.602.001.005.000.820.000.82 22.652.001.005.000.820.000.82 22.702.001.005.000.820.000.82 22.752.001.005.000.820.000.82 22.802.001.005.000.820.000.82 22.852.001.005.000.820.000.82 22.902.001.005.000.820.000.82 22.952.001.005.000.820.000.82 23.002.001.005.000.820.000.82 23.052.001.005.000.820.000.82 23.102.001.005.000.820.000.82 23.152.001.015.000.820.000.82 23.202.001.015.000.820.000.82 23.252.001.015.000.820.000.82 23.302.001.015.000.820.000.82 23.352.001.015.000.820.000.82 23.402.001.015.000.820.000.82 23.452.001.015.000.820.000.82 23.502.001.015.000.820.000.82 23.552.001.015.000.820.000.82 23.602.001.015.000.820.000.82 23.652.001.015.000.820.000.82 23.702.001.025.000.820.000.82 23.752.001.025.000.820.000.82 23.802.001.025.000.820.000.82 23.852.001.025.000.820.000.82 23.902.001.025.000.820.000.82 23.952.001.025.000.820.000.82 24.002.001.025.000.820.000.82 24.052.001.025.000.820.000.82 24.102.001.025.000.820.000.82 24.152.001.025.000.820.000.82 24.202.001.025.000.820.000.82 24.252.001.035.000.820.000.82 24.302.001.035.000.820.000.82 24.352.001.035.000.820.000.82 Page 8 new B-1.sum 24.402.001.035.000.820.000.82 24.452.001.035.000.820.000.82 24.502.001.035.000.820.000.82 24.552.001.035.000.820.000.82 24.602.001.035.000.820.000.82 24.652.001.035.000.820.000.82 24.702.001.035.000.820.000.82 24.752.001.035.000.820.000.82 24.802.001.035.000.820.000.82 24.852.001.045.000.820.000.82 24.902.001.045.000.820.000.82 24.952.001.045.000.820.000.82 25.002.001.045.000.820.000.82 25.052.001.045.000.820.000.82 25.102.001.045.000.820.000.82 25.152.001.045.000.820.000.82 25.202.001.045.000.820.000.82 25.252.001.045.000.820.000.82 25.302.001.045.000.820.000.82 25.352.001.045.000.820.000.82 25.402.001.045.000.820.000.82 25.452.001.055.000.820.000.82 25.502.001.055.000.820.000.82 25.552.001.055.000.820.000.82 25.602.001.055.000.820.000.82 25.652.001.055.000.820.000.82 25.702.001.055.000.820.000.82 25.752.001.055.000.820.000.82 25.802.001.055.000.820.000.82 25.852.001.055.000.820.000.82 25.902.001.055.000.820.000.82 25.952.001.055.000.820.000.82 26.002.001.055.000.820.000.82 26.052.001.055.000.820.000.82 26.102.001.065.000.820.000.82 26.152.001.065.000.820.000.82 26.202.001.065.000.820.000.82 26.252.001.065.000.820.000.82 26.302.001.065.000.820.000.82 26.352.001.065.000.820.000.82 26.402.001.065.000.820.000.82 26.452.001.065.000.820.000.82 26.502.001.065.000.820.000.82 26.552.001.065.000.820.000.82 26.602.001.065.000.820.000.82 26.652.001.065.000.820.000.82 26.702.001.065.000.820.000.82 26.752.001.075.000.820.000.82 26.802.001.075.000.820.000.82 26.852.001.075.000.820.000.82 26.902.001.075.000.820.000.82 26.952.001.075.000.820.000.82 27.002.001.075.000.820.000.82 27.052.001.075.000.820.000.82 27.102.001.075.000.820.000.82 27.152.001.075.000.820.000.82 27.202.001.075.000.820.000.82 27.252.001.075.000.820.000.82 27.302.001.075.000.820.000.82 27.352.001.075.000.820.000.82 27.402.001.075.000.820.000.82 27.452.001.075.000.820.000.82 27.502.001.085.000.820.000.82 Page 9 new B-1.sum 27.552.001.085.000.820.000.82 27.602.001.085.000.820.000.82 27.652.001.085.000.820.000.82 27.702.001.085.000.820.000.82 27.752.001.085.000.820.000.82 27.802.001.085.000.820.000.82 27.852.001.085.000.820.000.82 27.902.001.085.000.820.000.82 27.952.001.085.000.820.000.82 28.002.001.085.000.820.000.82 28.052.001.085.000.820.000.82 28.102.001.085.000.820.000.82 28.152.001.085.000.820.000.82 28.202.001.085.000.820.000.82 28.252.001.085.000.820.000.82 28.302.001.095.000.820.000.82 28.352.001.095.000.820.000.82 28.402.001.095.000.820.000.82 28.452.001.095.000.820.000.82 28.502.001.095.000.820.000.82 28.552.001.095.000.820.000.82 28.602.001.095.000.820.000.82 28.652.001.095.000.820.000.82 28.702.001.095.000.820.000.82 28.752.001.095.000.820.000.82 28.802.001.095.000.820.000.82 28.852.001.095.000.820.000.82 28.902.001.095.000.820.000.82 28.952.001.095.000.820.000.82 29.002.001.095.000.820.000.82 29.052.001.095.000.820.000.82 29.102.001.095.000.820.000.82 29.152.001.095.000.820.000.82 29.202.001.095.000.820.000.82 29.252.001.105.000.820.000.82 29.302.001.105.000.820.000.82 29.352.001.105.000.820.000.82 29.402.001.105.000.820.000.82 29.452.001.105.000.820.000.82 29.502.001.105.000.820.000.82 29.552.001.105.000.820.000.82 29.602.001.105.000.820.000.82 29.652.001.105.000.820.000.82 29.702.001.105.000.820.000.82 29.752.001.105.000.820.000.82 29.802.001.105.000.820.000.82 29.852.001.105.000.820.000.82 29.902.001.105.000.820.000.82 29.952.001.105.000.820.000.82 30.002.001.105.000.820.000.82 30.052.001.105.000.820.000.82 30.102.001.105.000.820.000.82 30.152.001.105.000.820.000.82 30.202.001.105.000.820.000.82 30.252.001.105.000.820.000.82 30.302.001.105.000.820.000.82 30.352.001.105.000.820.000.82 30.402.001.105.000.820.000.82 30.452.001.105.000.820.000.82 30.502.001.105.000.820.000.82 30.552.001.105.000.820.000.82 30.602.001.105.000.820.000.82 30.652.001.105.000.820.000.82 Page 10 new B-1.sum 30.702.001.105.000.820.000.82 30.752.001.105.000.820.000.82 30.802.001.105.000.820.000.82 30.852.001.105.000.820.000.82 30.902.001.105.000.820.000.82 30.952.001.105.000.820.000.82 31.002.001.105.000.820.000.82 31.051.761.101.600.820.000.82 31.101.761.101.600.820.000.82 31.151.761.101.600.820.000.82 31.201.761.101.600.820.000.82 31.251.761.101.600.820.000.82 31.301.761.101.600.820.000.82 31.351.761.101.600.820.000.82 31.401.761.101.600.820.000.82 31.451.761.101.600.820.000.82 31.501.761.101.600.820.000.82 31.551.761.101.600.820.000.82 31.601.761.101.600.820.000.82 31.651.761.101.600.820.000.82 31.701.761.101.600.820.000.82 31.751.761.101.600.820.000.82 31.801.761.101.600.820.000.82 31.851.761.101.600.820.000.82 31.901.761.101.600.820.000.82 31.951.761.101.600.820.000.82 32.001.761.101.600.820.000.82 32.051.761.101.600.820.000.82 32.101.761.101.600.820.000.82 32.151.761.101.600.820.000.82 32.201.761.101.600.820.000.82 32.251.761.101.600.820.000.82 32.301.761.101.600.820.000.82 32.351.761.101.600.820.000.82 32.401.761.101.600.820.000.82 32.451.761.101.600.820.000.82 32.501.761.101.600.820.000.82 32.551.761.101.600.820.000.82 32.601.761.101.600.820.000.82 32.651.761.101.600.820.000.82 32.701.761.101.600.820.000.82 32.751.761.101.600.820.000.82 32.801.761.101.600.820.000.82 32.851.761.101.600.820.000.82 32.901.761.101.600.820.000.82 32.951.761.101.600.820.000.82 33.001.761.101.600.820.000.82 33.051.761.101.600.820.000.82 33.101.761.101.600.820.000.82 33.151.761.101.600.820.000.82 33.201.761.101.600.820.000.82 33.251.761.101.600.820.000.82 33.301.761.101.600.820.000.82 33.351.761.101.600.820.000.82 33.401.761.101.600.820.000.82 33.451.761.101.600.820.000.82 33.501.761.101.610.820.000.82 33.551.761.101.610.820.000.82 33.601.761.101.610.820.000.82 33.651.761.101.610.820.000.82 33.701.761.101.610.820.000.82 33.751.761.101.610.820.000.82 33.801.761.101.610.820.000.82 Page 11 new B-1.sum 33.851.761.101.610.820.000.82 33.901.761.101.610.820.000.82 33.951.761.101.610.820.000.82 34.001.761.101.610.820.000.82 34.051.761.101.610.820.000.82 34.101.761.101.610.820.000.82 34.151.761.101.610.820.000.82 34.201.761.101.610.820.000.82 34.251.761.101.610.820.000.82 34.301.761.101.610.820.000.82 34.351.761.101.610.820.000.82 34.401.761.101.610.820.000.82 34.451.761.101.610.820.000.82 34.501.761.101.610.820.000.82 34.551.761.091.610.820.000.82 34.601.761.091.610.820.000.82 34.651.761.091.610.820.000.82 34.701.761.091.610.820.000.82 34.751.761.091.610.820.000.82 34.801.761.091.610.820.000.82 34.851.761.091.610.820.000.82 34.901.761.091.610.820.000.82 34.951.761.091.610.820.000.82 35.001.761.091.610.820.000.82 35.051.761.091.610.820.000.82 35.101.761.091.610.820.000.82 35.151.761.091.610.820.000.82 35.201.761.091.610.820.000.82 35.251.761.091.610.820.000.82 35.301.761.091.610.820.000.82 35.351.761.091.610.820.000.82 35.401.761.091.610.820.000.82 35.451.761.091.610.820.000.82 35.501.761.091.610.820.000.82 35.551.761.091.610.820.000.82 35.601.761.091.610.820.000.82 35.651.761.091.610.820.000.82 35.701.761.091.610.820.000.82 35.751.761.091.610.820.000.82 35.801.761.091.610.820.000.82 35.851.761.091.610.820.000.82 35.901.761.091.620.820.000.82 35.951.761.091.620.820.000.82 36.001.761.091.620.820.000.82 36.051.761.091.620.820.000.82 36.101.761.091.620.820.000.82 36.151.761.091.620.820.000.82 36.201.761.091.620.820.000.82 36.251.761.091.620.820.000.82 36.301.761.091.620.820.000.82 36.351.761.091.620.820.000.82 36.401.761.091.620.820.000.82 36.451.761.091.620.820.000.82 36.501.761.091.620.820.000.82 36.551.761.091.620.820.000.82 36.601.761.091.620.820.000.82 36.651.761.091.620.820.000.82 36.701.761.091.620.820.000.82 36.751.761.091.620.820.000.82 36.801.761.091.620.820.000.82 36.851.761.091.620.820.000.82 36.901.761.091.620.820.000.82 36.951.761.091.620.820.000.82 Page 12 new B-1.sum 37.001.761.091.620.820.000.82 37.051.761.091.620.820.000.82 37.101.761.091.620.820.000.82 37.151.761.081.620.820.000.82 37.201.761.081.620.820.000.82 37.251.761.081.620.820.000.82 37.301.761.081.630.820.000.82 37.351.761.081.630.820.000.82 37.401.761.081.630.820.000.82 37.451.761.081.630.820.000.82 37.501.761.081.630.820.000.82 37.551.761.081.630.820.000.82 37.601.761.081.630.820.000.82 37.651.761.081.630.820.000.82 37.701.761.081.630.820.000.82 37.751.761.081.630.820.000.82 37.801.761.081.630.820.000.82 37.851.761.081.630.820.000.82 37.901.761.081.630.820.000.82 37.951.761.081.630.820.000.82 38.001.761.081.630.820.000.82 38.051.761.081.630.820.000.82 38.101.761.081.630.820.000.82 38.151.761.081.630.820.000.82 38.201.761.081.640.820.000.82 38.251.761.081.640.820.000.82 38.301.761.081.640.820.000.82 38.351.761.081.640.820.000.82 38.401.761.081.640.820.000.82 38.451.761.081.640.820.000.82 38.501.761.071.640.820.000.82 38.551.761.071.640.820.000.82 38.601.761.071.640.820.000.82 38.651.761.071.640.820.000.82 38.701.761.071.640.820.000.82 38.751.761.071.640.820.000.82 38.801.761.071.640.820.000.82 38.851.761.071.640.820.000.82 38.901.761.071.640.820.000.82 38.951.761.071.650.820.000.82 39.001.761.071.650.820.000.82 39.051.761.071.650.820.000.82 39.101.761.071.650.820.000.82 39.151.761.071.650.820.000.82 39.201.761.071.650.820.000.82 39.251.761.071.650.820.000.82 39.301.761.071.650.820.000.82 39.351.761.071.650.820.000.82 39.401.761.071.650.820.000.82 39.451.761.071.650.820.000.82 39.501.761.071.650.820.000.82 39.551.761.061.650.820.000.82 39.601.761.061.660.820.000.82 39.651.761.061.660.820.000.82 39.701.761.061.660.820.000.82 39.751.761.061.660.820.000.82 39.801.761.061.660.820.000.82 39.851.761.061.660.820.000.82 39.901.761.061.660.820.000.82 39.951.761.061.660.820.000.82 40.001.761.061.660.820.000.82 40.051.761.061.660.820.000.82 40.101.761.061.660.820.000.82 Page 13 new B-1.sum 40.151.761.061.670.820.000.82 40.201.761.061.670.820.000.82 40.251.761.061.670.820.000.82 40.301.761.061.670.820.000.82 40.351.761.061.670.820.000.82 40.401.761.051.670.820.000.82 40.451.761.051.670.820.000.82 40.501.761.051.670.820.000.82 40.551.761.051.670.820.000.82 40.601.761.051.670.820.000.82 40.651.761.051.670.820.000.82 40.701.761.051.680.820.000.82 40.751.761.051.680.820.000.82 40.801.761.051.680.820.000.82 40.851.761.051.680.820.000.82 40.901.761.051.680.820.000.82 40.951.761.051.680.820.000.82 41.001.761.051.680.820.000.82 41.051.761.051.680.820.000.82 41.101.761.051.680.820.000.82 41.151.761.051.680.820.000.82 41.201.761.041.690.820.000.82 41.251.761.041.690.820.000.82 41.301.761.041.690.820.000.82 41.351.761.041.690.820.000.82 41.401.761.041.690.820.000.82 41.451.761.041.690.820.000.82 41.501.761.041.690.820.000.82 41.551.761.041.690.820.000.82 41.601.761.041.690.820.000.82 41.651.761.041.690.820.000.82 41.701.761.041.700.820.000.82 41.751.761.041.700.820.000.82 41.801.761.041.700.820.000.82 41.851.761.041.700.820.000.82 41.901.761.041.700.820.000.82 41.951.761.041.700.820.000.82 42.001.761.041.700.820.000.82 42.051.761.031.700.820.000.82 42.101.761.031.700.820.000.82 42.151.761.031.700.820.000.82 42.201.761.031.710.820.000.82 42.251.761.031.710.820.000.82 42.301.761.031.710.820.000.82 42.351.761.031.710.820.000.82 42.401.761.031.710.820.000.82 42.451.761.031.710.820.000.82 42.501.761.031.710.820.000.82 42.551.761.031.710.820.000.82 42.601.761.031.710.820.000.82 42.651.761.031.710.820.000.82 42.701.761.031.710.820.000.82 42.751.761.031.720.820.000.82 42.801.761.031.720.820.000.82 42.851.761.031.720.820.000.82 42.901.761.031.720.820.000.82 42.951.761.021.720.820.000.82 43.001.761.021.720.820.000.82 43.051.761.021.720.820.000.82 43.101.761.021.720.820.000.82 43.151.761.021.720.820.000.82 43.201.761.021.720.820.000.82 43.251.761.021.720.820.000.82 Page 14 new B-1.sum 43.301.761.021.720.820.000.82 43.351.761.021.730.820.000.82 43.401.761.021.730.820.000.82 43.451.761.021.730.820.000.82 43.501.761.021.730.820.000.82 43.551.761.021.730.820.000.82 43.601.761.021.730.820.000.82 43.651.761.021.730.820.000.82 43.701.761.021.730.820.000.82 43.751.761.021.730.820.000.82 43.801.761.021.730.820.000.82 43.851.761.021.730.820.000.82 43.901.761.021.730.820.000.82 43.951.761.021.740.820.000.82 44.001.761.011.740.820.000.82 44.051.761.011.740.820.000.82 44.101.761.011.740.820.000.82 44.151.761.011.740.820.000.82 44.201.761.011.740.820.000.82 44.251.761.011.740.820.000.82 44.301.761.011.740.820.000.82 44.351.761.011.740.820.000.82 44.401.761.011.740.820.000.82 44.451.761.011.740.820.000.82 44.501.761.011.740.820.000.82 44.551.761.011.740.820.000.82 44.601.761.011.750.820.000.82 44.651.761.011.750.820.000.82 44.701.761.011.750.820.000.82 44.751.761.011.750.820.000.82 44.801.761.011.750.820.000.82 44.851.761.011.750.820.000.82 44.901.761.011.750.820.000.82 44.951.761.011.750.820.000.82 45.001.761.011.750.810.000.81 45.051.761.011.750.810.000.81 45.101.761.011.750.810.000.81 45.151.761.001.750.810.000.81 45.201.761.001.750.800.000.80 45.251.761.001.750.800.000.80 45.300.371.000.37*0.790.000.79 45.350.341.000.34*0.790.000.79 45.400.321.000.32*0.780.000.78 45.450.311.000.31*0.780.000.78 45.500.301.000.30*0.770.000.77 45.550.291.000.29*0.770.000.77 45.600.281.000.28*0.760.000.76 45.650.271.000.27*0.750.000.75 45.700.261.000.26*0.750.000.75 45.750.261.000.26*0.740.000.74 45.800.251.000.25*0.730.000.73 45.850.241.000.24*0.730.000.73 45.900.241.000.24*0.720.000.72 45.950.231.000.23*0.710.000.71 46.000.221.000.22*0.700.000.70 46.050.231.000.23*0.700.000.70 46.100.231.000.23*0.690.000.69 46.150.231.000.23*0.680.000.68 46.200.231.000.23*0.670.000.67 46.250.231.000.23*0.670.000.67 46.300.231.000.23*0.660.000.66 46.350.231.000.23*0.650.000.65 46.400.231.000.23*0.640.000.64 Page 15 new B-1.sum 46.450.231.000.23*0.630.000.63 46.500.230.990.23*0.630.000.63 46.550.230.990.24*0.620.000.62 46.600.230.990.24*0.610.000.61 46.650.240.990.24*0.600.000.60 46.700.240.990.24*0.600.000.60 46.750.240.990.24*0.590.000.59 46.800.240.990.24*0.580.000.58 46.850.240.990.24*0.570.000.57 46.900.240.990.24*0.570.000.57 46.950.240.990.24*0.560.000.56 47.000.240.990.24*0.550.000.55 47.050.240.990.25*0.550.000.55 47.100.240.990.25*0.540.000.54 47.150.240.990.25*0.530.000.53 47.200.250.990.25*0.520.000.52 47.250.250.990.25*0.520.000.52 47.300.250.990.25*0.510.000.51 47.350.250.990.25*0.500.000.50 47.400.250.990.25*0.490.000.49 47.450.250.990.25*0.490.000.49 47.500.250.990.25*0.480.000.48 47.550.250.990.26*0.470.000.47 47.600.250.990.26*0.470.000.47 47.650.250.990.26*0.460.000.46 47.700.260.980.26*0.450.000.45 47.750.260.980.26*0.450.000.45 47.800.260.980.26*0.440.000.44 47.850.260.980.26*0.430.000.43 47.900.260.980.26*0.420.000.42 47.950.260.980.26*0.420.000.42 48.000.260.980.27*0.410.000.41 48.050.260.980.27*0.400.000.40 48.100.260.980.27*0.400.000.40 48.150.260.980.27*0.390.000.39 48.200.270.980.27*0.380.000.38 48.250.270.980.27*0.380.000.38 48.300.270.980.27*0.370.000.37 48.350.270.980.27*0.360.000.36 48.400.270.980.28*0.360.000.36 48.450.270.980.28*0.350.000.35 48.500.270.980.28*0.340.000.34 48.550.270.980.28*0.340.000.34 48.600.270.980.28*0.330.000.33 48.650.270.980.28*0.320.000.32 48.700.280.980.28*0.320.000.32 48.750.280.970.28*0.310.000.31 48.800.280.970.29*0.300.000.30 48.850.280.970.29*0.300.000.30 48.900.280.970.29*0.290.000.29 48.950.280.970.29*0.280.000.28 49.000.280.970.29*0.280.000.28 49.050.280.970.29*0.270.000.27 49.100.290.970.29*0.270.000.27 49.150.290.970.30*0.260.000.26 49.200.290.970.30*0.250.000.25 49.250.290.970.30*0.250.000.25 49.300.290.970.30*0.240.000.24 49.350.290.970.30*0.230.000.23 49.400.290.970.30*0.230.000.23 49.450.290.970.30*0.220.000.22 49.500.290.970.31*0.220.000.22 49.550.300.970.31*0.210.000.21 Page 16 new B-1.sum 49.600.300.970.31*0.200.000.20 49.650.300.970.31*0.200.000.20 49.700.300.960.31*0.190.000.19 49.750.300.960.31*0.190.000.19 49.800.300.960.31*0.180.000.18 49.850.300.960.32*0.170.000.17 49.900.310.960.32*0.170.000.17 49.950.310.960.32*0.160.000.16 50.000.310.960.32*0.160.000.16 50.050.310.960.32*0.150.000.15 50.100.310.960.32*0.140.000.14 50.150.310.960.33*0.140.000.14 50.200.310.960.33*0.130.000.13 50.250.320.960.33*0.130.000.13 50.300.320.960.33*0.120.000.12 50.350.320.960.33*0.120.000.12 50.400.320.960.34*0.110.000.11 50.450.320.960.34*0.100.000.10 50.500.320.960.34*0.100.000.10 50.550.330.960.34*0.090.000.09 50.600.330.950.35*0.090.000.09 50.650.330.950.35*0.080.000.08 50.700.340.950.35*0.080.000.08 50.750.340.950.36*0.070.000.07 50.800.340.950.36*0.070.000.07 50.850.350.950.36*0.060.000.06 50.900.350.950.37*0.060.000.06 50.950.360.950.37*0.050.000.05 51.000.360.950.38*0.050.000.05 51.050.360.950.38*0.040.000.04 51.100.360.950.38*0.040.000.04 51.150.360.950.38*0.030.000.03 51.200.360.950.38*0.030.000.03 51.250.350.950.37*0.020.000.02 51.300.350.950.37*0.020.000.02 51.350.350.950.37*0.010.000.01 51.400.350.950.37*0.010.000.01 51.450.350.940.37*0.000.000.00 51.500.350.940.37*0.000.000.00 _______________________________________________________ * F.S.<1, Liquefaction Potential Zone (F.S. is limited to 5,CRR is limited to 2,CSR is limited to 2) Units:Unit: qc, fs, Stress or Pressure = atm (1.0581tsf); Unit Weight = pcf; Depth = ft; Settlement = in. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 atm (atmosphere) = 1 tsf (ton/ft2) CRRm Cyclic resistance ratio from soils CSRsf Cyclic stress ratio induced by a given earthquake (with user request factor of safety) F.S. Factor of Safety against liquefaction, F.S.=CRRm/CSRsf S_sat Settlement from saturated sands S_dry Settlement from Unsaturated Sands S_all Total Settlement from Saturated and Unsaturated Sands NoLiq No-Liquefy Soils Page 17 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable  1    October 7, 2014 Kuber Development Company 1550 S 52nd Street Tempe, AZ 85281 Attn: Mr. Shane Kuber P: (480) 968-4500 E: shanekuber@gmail.com Re: Geotechnical Engineering Addendum 1 Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites 127 West Harris Avenue South San Francisco, California Terracon Project No. 60145004 Dear Mr. Kuber: The following letter provides supplemental information to our referenced geotechnical engineering report. The objective to this letter is to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for the design of deep foundations to support the proposed building. The selection of the deep foundations was based on our communications with Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. (CSA) who were retained by the City of South San Francisco to review our geotechnical report for the referenced project Due to the presence of existing undocumented fill materials, weak subsurface materials potentially subject to consolidation, liquefaction, and strong seismic ground shaking, an alternative foundation system consisting of driven piles can be used to support the proposed building. Based on our additional engineering analyses of these proposed foundation system , we recommend that the piles extend to a minimum depth of 48 feet below the existing ground surface at the site (bgs). The piles should be located beneath the proposed column foundations. Due to the anticipated downdrag forces acting on the piles from the presence of soft saturated soils during a seismic event, the piles should be grouped in a minimum of four (4) piles distributed in a square fashion beneath a pile cap supporting the proposed structural columns. Based on our engineering analyses, we recommend that 14-in square pre-stressed concrete piles be used to comprise each pile group. The allowable axial and uplift pile capacities of each pile group were determined using both end bearing and side friction components of resistance. Based on a group of four (4) pre-stressed Geotechnical Engineering Addendum 1 Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites ■ South San Francisco, California October 7, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 60145004 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable  2    concrete 14-inch square piles distributed in a square fashion with 2.5 diameter spacings (i.e. 35 inches), axial capacity was calculated to be on the order of 350 kips, while uplift capacity is on the order of 135 kips. Calculations for allowable axial and uplift capacity calculations using CivilTech AllPile V7.15b software are attached to this letter. The allowable axial capacities consider ultimate down-drag forces in the upper 48 feet of the pile group. The allowable uplift capacities are based on the side friction of the piles and weight of the piles. The allowable axial and uplift capacities are based on a minimum factor of safety of 2.5 for axial loading conditions. Due to the relatively high density of the undocumented granular materials encountered within the upper 9 feet of the site, it is our opinion that the fill materials should be pre-drilled to allow for installation of individual piles prior to commencing pile driving operations. The contractor should select a driving hammer and cushion combination which is capable of installing the selected piling without overstressing the pile material. The contractor should submit the pile driving plan and the pile hammer-cushion combination to the engineer for evaluation of the driving stresses in advance of pile installation. The pile driving system should be analyzed using the wave equation to evaluate the potential for overstressing the pile materials during driving. Dynamic analysis may also be used to evaluate the driving resistance required to obtain the predicted design load. Some ground heave may be experienced as a result of pile driving at each site. Therefore, it is recommended that the top elevations of the initial piles driven be surveyed. If any heave is noted after the driving of subsequent piles, the piles should be re-driven to their original top elevation. This problem can be particularly acute in pile groups. The pile hammer should be operated at the manufacturer's recommended stroke when measuring penetration resistance. All piles should be provided with driving shoes to protect the pile tip from damage when penetrating the dense granular soils. A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe pile driving operations on a full-time basis. Each pile should be observed and checked for buckling, crimping and alignment in addition to recording penetration resistance, depth of embedment, and general pile driving operations. Recommended soil parameters for lateral load analysis of pile foundations have been developed for use in the LPILE and GROUP computer programs. Based upon the review of the logs of borings for the project and the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) results, engineering properties have been estimated for the soil conditions as shown in the following table. Top Depth Bottom Depth Unit Weight (pcf) L-Pile Soil Type* Internal Friction / Cohesion Modulus of Horizontal Subgrade Reaction Ks (pci) 2 100 SAND* 26o 25 9 Ph ase I Envirronme South ental Pr San Fran Site A roposed 127 ncisco, S Terra Kuber D Terr Asses Fairfield 7 West Ha an Mateo M acon Projec Developm Te racon Con Irvi ssme Inn & Su arris Ave o County, March 18, 2 ct No. 60147 Prepared ent Comp mpe, Ariz Prepared nsultants, ne, Califo ent uites enue , CA 2014 7707 d for: pany zona d by: Inc. ornia TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... i  Findings ............................................................................................................................................. i  Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... iii  Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... iii  1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1  1.1 Site Description ................................................................................................................... 1  1.2 Scope of Services ............................................................................................................... 1  1.3 Standard of Care ................................................................................................................. 1  1.4 Additional Scope Limitations, ASTM Deviations and Significant Data Gaps ...................... 2  1.5 Reliance .............................................................................................................................. 3  1.6 Client Provided Information ................................................................................................. 3  2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING ...................................................................................................................... 4  3.0 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION ................................................................................................ 5  3.1 Historical Topographic Maps .............................................................................................. 5  3.2 Historical Aerial Photographs .............................................................................................. 6  3.3 Historical City Directories .................................................................................................... 7  3.4 Historical Fire Insurance Maps ........................................................................................... 7  3.5 Site Ownership .................................................................................................................... 8  3.6 Title Search ......................................................................................................................... 8  3.7 Environmental Liens............................................................................................................ 8   3.8 Interviews Regarding Current and Historical Uses ............................................................. 8  3.9 Historical Use Information Summary .................................................................................. 9  4.0 RECORDS REVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 10  4.1 Federal and State/Tribal Databases ................................................................................. 10  4.2 Local Agency Inquiries ...................................................................................................... 16  4.2.1 Health Department/Environmental Division ......................................................... 16  4.2.2 Department of Toxic Substances Control ............................................................ 16  4.2.3 Fire Department ................................................................................................... 16  4.2.4 Public Works Department .................................................................................... 17  4.2.5 Local/Regional Pollution Control Agency ............................................................. 17  4.2.6 Local/Regional Water Quality Control Agency ..................................................... 17  4.3 Records Review Summary ............................................................................................... 17  5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ............................................................................................................ 17  5.1 General Site Information ................................................................................................... 17  5.2 Overview of Current Site Occupants and Operations ....................................................... 18  5.3 Site Observations .............................................................................................................. 18  5.4 Site Reconnaissance Summary ........................................................................................ 20  6.0 ADJOINING PROPERTY RECONNAISSANCE ........................................................................... 21  7.0 DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................. 22  TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) APPENDICES APPENDIX A Exhibit 1 - Topographic Map, Exhibit 2 – Site Diagram APPENDIX B Description of Terms and Acronyms APPENDIX C Historical Documentation and User Questionnaire APPENDIX D Environmental Database Information APPENDIX E Site Photographs APPENDIX F Credentials Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was performed in accordance with Terracon Proposal No. P80140002 dated January 13, 2014, and was conducted consistent with the procedures included in ASTM E 1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The ESA was conducted under the supervision or responsible charge of Oak J. Bastian, Environmental Professional. Oak J. Bastian performed the site reconnaissance on January 28, 2014. Findings A summary of findings is provided below. It should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. Site Description and Use The site is located at 127 West Harris Avenue, approximately 150 feet north of the intersection of Mitchell Avenue and West Harris Avenue in South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. The site consists of a 1.47-acre tract of vacant land covered with native grass and brushes. Historical Information Based on a review of the historical information, the site and surrounding properties consisted of submerged marsh or swamp land from as early as 1899 until the early 1940s. The site appears to have been vacant and/or undeveloped land from the mid-1950s through the present, except for a brief time in the late 2000’s when it was used for parking purposes. Based on a review of historical information including topographic maps and aerial photographs, the site consisted of submerged marsh or swamp land from the late 1890s through the early 1950s. From the 1950s through the present the site appeared as vacant land or used for parking purposes. Based on geotechnical exploration activities conducted by Terracon on February 25, 2014, subsurface soils at the site consisted of undocumented sandy, gravely, cobble, boulders, and fill materials to a depth of nine (9) feet below ground surface followed by dark blue gray bay mud. A limited site investigation was performed to evaluate the fill and dumped material observed at the site for the presence of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and metals above laboratory reporting limits. Based on the findings of the limited site investigation, metals concentrations (arsenic and chromium) above the California Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for shallow soil were reported. The metals concentrations appear to be similar to background concentrations in the area, but in order to determine background concentrations, an additional study would be required. Although not above regulatory screening levels, low level concentrations of PAH compounds (naphthalene and phenanthrene) and TPH – oil-range was Phase I E Proposed March 18 Respons reported, presentin Surround through commerc through t site to t southwes 1980s w through t Records Selected and loca database (NPL) f (ENVIRO Historica setting a facilities Site Reco During t observed Terracon hydrocar above. T Adjoining CTS Foo followed abuts th Avenue, Harris Av followed asphalt-p observed Environmenta Fairfield Inn , 2014 ■ Terr ive ■ Resour , and appea ng the limited ding propert the early 19 cial structure the present. the southea st was deve as develope the present. Review federal and al regulatory es. The reg facilities, 16 OSTOR) fac l Undergrou nd/or facility do not const onnaissance the site rec d throughou n performed rbons in the The limited si g Properties od Internatio by Tom Duf e site to so Nakura Inc. venue. Hote by Mitchell A paved parki d with the ad al Site Asses & Suites ■ So acon Project rceful ■ Relia ar to be ass d site invest ties consiste 950s. adjoin es from at From the e ast followed eloped with ed with the d state enviro y agencies ulatory revie 6 RCRA ilities, 114 L und Storage y characteris titute RECs e connaissanc ut site, dum d a limited e dumped fi ite investigat onal Inc. loc ffy Company outheast fo located at 1 el Focus loc Avenue. The ng lot follo djoining prop ssment outh San Fra No. 6014770 able sociated wit igation findin ed of subm ning properti least the la early 1960s by the ex three PG&E existing hot onmental re were review ew identified facilities, o Leaking Und Tank (HIST stics, and in in connectio ce, two pol ped fill dirt site inves ill material o tion letter re cated at 131 y Wholesale llowed by m 110 W. Harr cated at 11 e properties wed by Ga perties. ncisco, CA 07 h possible a ngs is prese erged mars es to the n ate 1960’s a through the xisting comm E transmissio tel building a egulatory dat wed. The si d two CERC one RCRA derground S T UST) facili nquiry results on with the s le-mounted , and concr stigation to observed on eport is prese 1 W. Harris e Flooring bu multi-tenant ris Avenue, a 1 Mitchell A to the adjac ateway Bou asphalt deb ented under a sh or swam ortheast we and has rem present, W mercial buil on lines in t and has rem tabases as w ite was not CLIS facilitie A Generato Storage Tan ities. Based s from the l site at this tim transforme rete piles w evaluate t n-site, which ented under Avenue abu uilding (215 office spac and Time Cl Avenue abut cent northwe ulevard. Indi bris in the fi a separate c p land from ere develope mained relat West Harris A dings. The the early 19 mained relat well as resp identified i es, six Nati ors facility, nk (LUST) fa d on distanc ocal agenci me. rs, trash a were also o the presenc h was prev a separate uts the site Harris Court ces located lock repair lo ts the site t est of the site ications of ll. A letter r cover. m the late 1 ed with app tively uncha Avenue abut property to 940s and in tively uncha ponses from in the regul onal Priority 26 Enviro acilities, and ce, environm es, the iden and debris observed on ce of petro viously discu cover. to the north t). Harris Av at 139 Mi ocated at 12 to the south e consisted RECs were ii report 1890s parent anged ts the o the early anged state latory y List oStor d two mental ntified were n-site. oleum ussed heast venue tchell 20 W. hwest of an e not Phase I E Proposed March 18 Respons Conclus We have and limit approxim Mateo C described topograp land from appeared activities undocum below gr performe hydrocar (VOCs), investiga Screenin be simila concentr levels, lo oil-range Recomm Based o Terracon grading managem removed Environmenta Fairfield Inn , 2014 ■ Terr ive ■ Resour sions e performed tations of A mately 1.74– County, Cal d in Section phic maps a m the late 18 d as vacant conducted mented sand round surfac ed to evalu rbons (TPH) and metals ation, metals ng Levels (E ar to backg rations, an a ow level conc e was reporte mendation n the scope n, if the iden operations, ment plan d from the sit al Site Asses & Suites ■ So acon Project rceful ■ Relia a Phase I E ASTM Pract acres that is ifornia. Any n 1.4 of this nd aerial ph 890s through t land or us by Terracon dy, gravely, ce followed ate the fill ), polynuclea above labo concentrati ESLs) for sha round conce dditional stu centrations o ed, and appe ns e of services ntified fill and and are to developed to te. ssment outh San Fra No. 6014770 able Environment tice E 1527 s located at y exceptions s report. Ba hotographs, h the early 1 sed for park n on Februar cobble, bou by dark blu observed ar aromatic oratory repor ons (arsenic allow soil w entrations in udy would be of PAH comp ear to be ass s, limitations d dumped m be remove o manage th ncisco, CA 07 tal Site Asse 7-05 of the 127 West H s to, or de ased on a re the site con 1950s. From king purpos ry 25, 2014, ulders, and f ue gray bay at the site hydrocarbo rting limits. B c and chrom ere reported n the area, e required. A pounds (nap sociated wit s, and finding materials are d from the he proper d essment in e parcel (AP arris Avenue eletions from eview of his nsisted of s m the 1950s ses. Based subsurface fill materials y mud. A lim e for the p ons (PAHs), Based on th mium) above d. The meta but in orde Although not phthalene an h possible a gs of this as e not suitabl site, Terrac disposition o conformanc PNs: 015-1 e, South Sa m, the AST storical infor submerged m s through the on geotech e soils at the s to a depth mited site i resence of volatile org he findings o the Californ als concentr er to determ t above regu nd phenanth asphalt debri ssessment, le for reuse con recomm of any excav ce with the s 23-600), tot n Francisco TM practice rmation inclu marsh or sw e present the hnical explor site consist h of nine (9) nvestigation total petro ganic compo of the limited nia Environm rations appe mine backgr ulatory scree hrene) and T is in the fill. in the opini as part of f mends that a vated soils t iii scope taling , San e are uding wamp e site ration ted of ) feet n was oleum ounds d site mental ear to round ening TPH – on of future a soil to be Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1 PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT PROPOSED FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES 127 WEST HARRIS AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Terracon Project No. 60147707 March 18, 2014 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Site Description Site Name Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites Site Location/Address 127 West Harris Avenue, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California Land Area Approximately 1.47-acres Site Improvements Vacant land. The site location is depicted on Exhibit 1 of Appendix A, which was reproduced from a portion of the USGS 7.5-minute series topographic map. A Site Diagram of the site and adjoining properties is included as Exhibit 2 of Appendix A. Acronyms and terms used in this report are described in Appendix B. 1.2 Scope of Services This Phase I ESA was performed in accordance with Terracon Proposal No. P80140002 dated January 13, 2014, and was conducted consistent with the procedures included in ASTM E 1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The purpose of this ESA was to assist the client in developing information to identify RECs in connection with the site as reflected by the scope of this report. This purpose was undertaken through user-provided information, a regulatory database review, historical and physical records review, interviews, including local government inquiries, as applicable, user- provided information, and a visual noninvasive reconnaissance of the site and adjoining properties. Limitations, ASTM deviations, and significant data gaps (if identified) are noted in the applicable sections of the report. 1.3 Standard of Care This ESA was performed in accordance with generally accepted practices of this profession, undertaken in similar studies at the same time and in the same geographical area. We have endeavored to meet this standard of care, but may be limited by conditions encountered during performance, a client-driven scope of work, or inability to review information not received by the Phase I E Proposed March 18 Respons report da evaluatio Phase I E cannot e have bee conductin public re documen regarding intended warrantie when the uses the – throug research 1.4 A Based u invasive evaluatio evaluatio company upon req reference within th informati obtained nonethel hereunde An evalu findings discusse significan evaluatio our conc obtained services, or opinio provided Environmenta Fairfield Inn , 2014 ■ Terr ive ■ Resour ate. Where a on of their sig ESAs, such eliminate the en released ng the limite cords were nted in publi g the potent to reduce es, express o e user of this report for an h additional or assessm Additional S pon the agr assessmen on of the pre ons, or other y (Statemen quest. Pertin e section ha e scope an on requeste for this ES ess, the au er. ation of the has been c ed in the tex nt data gaps on of informa clusions, rec or discover , regardless ns in the rep by the clien al Site Asses & Suites ■ So acon Project rceful ■ Relia appropriate, gnificance w as the one p e potential t at the site ed scope of not reviewe c records th tial for RECs , but not e or implied, a s report form ny other pur research o ment options Scope Lim reed-on sco nts, vapor in esence of v r services no t of Qualific nent docume as not been i nd time con ed is not, or w SA was rec uthenticity o significance onducted, a xt of the re s is based on ation receive commendatio red by us aft of whether t port. This dis nt. ssment outh San Fra No. 6014770 able these limita with respect t performed a hat hazardo beyond wha f services de d. It should hat were not s in connect eliminate, u are intended mulates opini rpose. These or assessme that may be mitations, A ope of servi ntrusion ass vapors within ot particularly cations) have ents are ref included. Re nstraints set was not, rec ceived from or reliability e of these lim and where a port. Howev n the informa ed after the ons, or opin ter the issua the informat sclaimer spe ncisco, CA 07 ations are dis to our finding t this site, ar ous, toxic, o at is identifi escribed her be recogniz reviewed. N tion with a p uncertainty r or made. Th ions as to ris e risks may ent. We will, e available a ASTM Devia ces, this ES sessments o n a building y identified a e not been ferred to in easonable at t forth by th eived by the m several so of these mitations and appropriate, ver, it shou ation availab report issua nions. We ha ance date of ion would af ecifically app scussed in t gs has been re of limited or petroleum ed by the li rein, certain zed that env No ESA can property. Pe regarding th he limitation sks associat be further ev upon reque and associat ations and SA did not or indoor a structure), and discuss included in the text of ttempts were he client; ho e issuance d ources that sources ca d missing in significant d ld be recog ble at the tim ance date m ave no oblig f the report, ffect any con plies to any i the text of th n conducted. scope, are m substance imited scope n sources of vironmental c n wholly elim erformance o he potentia ns herein mu ted with the valuated – b est, advise ed costs. d Significan include sub air quality a business en sed herein. C this report this report, e made to o owever, in date of the re we believe nnot and is formation w data gaps a gnized that me of report may result in gation to pro or to perfor nclusions, re nformation t he report, an . noninvasive s are prese e of this ES f information concerns ma minate uncert of this pract l for RECs ust be consid site or othe but not elimin you of addit nt Data Ga bsurface or ssessments nvironmenta Credentials o but are ava and a sep obtain inform some insta eport. Inform e to be rel s not warra with respect t are identified an evaluatio issuance, an n an alterati ovide inform rm any addit ecommendat that has not 2 nd an e, and ent or SA. In n and ay be tainty ice is s. No dered rwise nated tional aps other s (i.e. al risk of the ilable parate mation nces, mation iable; anted to our d and on of nd an on of mation tional tions, been Phase I E Proposed March 18 Respons This rep documen the site’s other act presence unobserv become not to be 1.5 R This ESA Use or r Developm Reliance condition limitation client and Continue will be u prepared E 1527-1 1.6 C Prior to following Aware of Actual Kn Limitation Aware of site or nea Actual Kn of hazardo Environmenta Fairfield Inn , 2014 ■ Terr ive ■ Resour port represe nt; its text ma s current util tivities descr e of hazardo vable, or no observable e construed a Reliance A report is pr reliance by ment Compa e on the ES ns and limita n of liability d d al