HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 113-2016 (16-716) Go��K S,44, City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,
400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
4 — o
('1L ORti"lP
Resolution: RES 113-2016
File Number: 16-716 Enactment Number: RES 113-2016
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND16-0001) PREPARED FOR THE
ZONING MAP AND ORDINANCE AMENDMENT(RZ15-0001,
ZA15-0011)AT 1440 SAN MATEO AVENUE.
WHEREAS, on June 19, 2015, the property identified as 1440 San Mateo Avenue received approval
from the Zoning Administrator for a Minor Use Permit(MUP 15-0001)to operate a vehicle rental facility
on two vacant parcels(APNs 015-114-470 and 015-114-460) in the Mixed Industrial zoning district; and
WHEREAS, since that time the applicant has requested that the City consider rezoning three adjoining
parcels (APNs 015-114-420, 015-114-480, and 015-114-490) from the Freeway Commercial zoning
district to the Mixed Industrial zoning district to permit the vehicle rental facility to expand ("Project");
and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the
Project; and
WHEREAS, the IS/MND was circulated for the required 30-day public comment period on June 10,
2016, and ended on July 11, 2016, at 5:00 p.m.; and
WHEREAS,no comments were received on the document; and
WHEREAS, on July 21, 2016, the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a
lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the IS/MND (ND16-0001),
Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment ((RZ15-0001, ZA15-0011), and modifications to Minor Use
Permit (MUP15-0001), take public testimony, and make a recommendation to the City Council on the
Project; and
WHEREAS, on September 28, 2016, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco held a
lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the IS/MND (ND 16-0001),
Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment (RZ15-0001, ZA15-0011), and modifications to Minor Use
Permit(MUP15-0001), and take public testimony on the Project.
Page 1
Fite Number: 16-716 Enactment Number: RES 113-2016
Now, therefore, be it resolved that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without
limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. ("CEQA")
and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco
General Plan and General Plan EIR, including all amendments and updates thereto; the South San
Francisco Municipal Code; the draft Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment, and the IS/MND prepared
by Raney Planning & Management, Inc., and all appendices thereto; all reports, minutes, and public
testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed July 21, 2016 meeting; all
reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed September
28, 2016 meeting and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and
§21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
SECTION 1 FINDINGS
The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
The exhibits and attachments, including the IS/MND for the Project (attached as Exhibit A) and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (attached as Exhibit B) are each incorporated by
reference as part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein.
The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the
Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager, Sailesh Mehra.
SECTION 2 APPROVAL
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and hereby approves the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND16-0001) attached as Exhibit A, and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit B.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage
and adoption.
At a meeting of the City Council on 9/28/2016, a motion was made by Liza Normandy, seconded by
Pradeep Gupta, that this Resolution be approved. The motion passed.
Yes: 4 Councilmember Normandy, Councilmember Matsumoto, Vice Mayor Gupta,
and Mayor Addiego
Page 2
File Number: 16-716 Enactment Number: RES 113-2016
Absent: 1 Councilmember Garbarino
Attest by Militi
Kr: a v artinj
Page 3
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1440 SAN MATEO AVENUE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016
Prepared by:
1501 Sports Drive, Suite A, Sacramento, CA 95834
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. PROJECT INFORMATION ........................................................................................................ 3
B. SOURCES ....................................................................................................................................... 5
C. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ............................................. 6
D. DETERMINATION ...................................................................................................................... 7
E. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 8
F. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 9
G. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .......................................................................................... 15
I. AESTHETICS. .........................................................................................................16
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. .....................................................20
III. AIR QUALITY. .........................................................................................................21
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. .................................................................................31
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. .....................................................................................35
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. .........................................................................................38
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. .........................................................................41
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. .......................................................46
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. ................................................................49
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. ................................................................................53
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. ........................................................................................55
XII. NOISE. .....................................................................................................................56
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. ............................................................................59
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. ...............................................................................................60
XV. RECREATION. ........................................................................................................62
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. ..............................................................................63
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. ...................................................................69
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. ..................................................72
FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Location Map ................................................................................................ 10
Figure 2: Project Vicinity Map .................................................................................................... 11
Figure 3: Site Plan ........................................................................................................................ 12
Figure 4: Landscape Plan ............................................................................................................. 14
Figure 5: Site Lighting ................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 6: Site Photometrics .......................................................................................................... 19
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 ii
TABLES
Table 1: BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance ......................................................................... 22
Table 2: Maximum Unmitigated Construction Emissions (lbs/day) ........................................... 24
Table 3: Maximum Unmitigated Operational Emissions ............................................................ 26
Table 4: City CAP Project Consistency Checklist ....................................................................... 42
Table 5: Vibration Levels for Varying Construction Equipment ................................................ 57
Table 6: Trip Generation .............................................................................................................. 64
Table 7: Existing, Existing Plus Western Parcels, and Existing Plus Western Parcels Plus
Project Conditions Intersection Operations Summary ................................................... 65
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Results
Appendix B: Transportation Assessment
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 3
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
June 2016
A. PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Project Title: 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Tony Rozzi, AICP
Senior Planner
(650) 877-8535
4. Project Location: San Mateo Avenue and Lowrie Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Gary M. Semling, Architect, NCARB, AIA
Managing Associate, Stantec Architecture
1383 North McDowell Blvd., Ste. 250
Petaluma, CA 94954
6. Project Applicant Andrew Jaksich
Avis Rent-a-Car System, LLC
513 Eccles Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
7. Existing General Plan Designation: Community Commercial (Regional Commercial)
8. Existing Zoning Designation: Freeway Commercial
9. Proposed Zoning Designation: Mixed Industrial
10. Project Description Summary:
The approximately one-acre proposed project site is located in the City of South San
Francisco, east of the intersection of San Mateo Avenue and Lowrie Avenue, west of
Produce Avenue, and south of Colma Creek. The project site consists of three vacant
parcels identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 015-114-420 (0.14-acre), 015-
114-480 (0.47-acre), and 015-114-490 (0.38-acre). The proposed project site is currently
zoned Freeway Commercial (FC) and automobile/vehicle rental uses are not permitted
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 4
under the FC zoning designation; therefore, the project applicant is seeking approval of a
rezone of the three project parcels to the Mixed Industrial (MI) zoning designation. With
approval of said rezone of the project site, the property would be used for
automobile/vehicle rental uses in conjunction with the parcels immediately west of the
subject site. Physical improvements on the project site are limited to restriping and
sealing the existing surface parking lot to demarcate a maximum of 200 vehicle stalls for
temporary staging of vehicles; installing landscaping on a portion of the southern
boundary of the site; trenching for lighting conduit; and installing additional parking lot
lights. The project would not include repaving of the project site.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 5
B. SOURCES
The following documents are referenced information sources utilized by this analysis:
1. Association of Bay Area Governments. Interactive Liquefaction Hazard Map. Available
at: http://quake.abag.ca.gov/earthquakes/#liquefaction. Accessed April 2016.
2. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Plans & Climate. Available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/Plans.aspx. Accessed April
2016.
3. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Standards and Attainment
Status. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-
and-attainment-status. Accessed April 2016.
4. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air
Quality Guidelines. May 2011.
5. California Air Resources Board. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community
Health Perspective. April 2005.
6. California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program. San Mateo County Important Farmland Map. 2014.
7. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. RareFind 5. Available at:
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp. Accessed April 2016.
8. City of South San Francisco. Housing Element 2015-2023. April 2015.
9. City of South San Francisco. South San Francisco Municipal Code. Revised April 2016.
10. City of South San Francisco. South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance. Adopted July 28,
2010.
11. Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List.
Available at: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public. Accessed April 2016.
12. Dyett & Bhatia. City of South San Francisco General Plan. October 1999.
13. Dyett & Bhatia. City of South San Francisco General Plan Draft EIR. June 1999.
14. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map (Map Number ID:
06081C0043E). Available at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal. Accessed April 2016.
15. Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
Guidelines. May 2006.
16. Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants. Arata Property Transportation Assessment.
February 3, 2015.
17. PMC. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan. February 13, 2014.
18. County of San Mateo. San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan. November 1982.
19. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Science. Web
Soil Survey. Available at:
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed April 2016.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 6
C. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture & Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology & Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology & Water Quality
Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population & Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic Utilities & Service Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 7
D.DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial study:
I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or
“potentially significant unless mitigated” on the environment, but at least one effect 1)
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Tony Rozzi, AICP, Senior Planner_ C ity of South San Francisco_________
Printed Name For
June 7, 2016
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 8
E. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) identifies and analyzes the potential
environmental impacts of the 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project (proposed project). The
information and analysis presented in this document is organized in accordance with the order of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA
Guidelines. If the analysis provided in this document identifies potentially significant
environmental effects of the project, mitigation measures that should be applied to the project are
prescribed. The mitigation measures prescribed for environmental effects described in this
IS/MND will be implemented in conjunction with the project, as required by CEQA. The
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project through project conditions of approval.
The City will adopt findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for
the project in conjunction with approval of the project.
The City o f South San Francisco adopted their General Plan and associated Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) in October 1999. The General Plan EIR is a program EIR, prepared
pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations,
Sections 15000 et seq.), and includes an examination of the potential wide-ranging effects
resulting from implementation of the General Plan land use diagram. Measures to mitigate the
significant adverse project and cumulative impacts associated with the General Plan were
identified in the General Plan EIR.
The environmental setting of each section of this IS/MND has been largely based on information
in the City’s General Plan and associated EIR as well as a site visit conducted by Raney and City
staff. In addition, technical traffic and air quality/greenhouse gas emissions reports have been
prepared for the proposed project by Fehr & Peers and Raney Planning & Management, Inc.,
respectively. The technical reports used in the preparation of this IS/MND are available upon
request at the City of South San Francisco located at 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco,
California.
City of South San Francisco Project Review Process
After a project application is complete, the application is subject to environmental, public, and
discretionary review through and by the City’s Planning Commission and/or City Council,
depending upon the type of project, as defined by the City’s Municipal Code and state law. The
Conditions of Approval (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 pursuant to the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Prior to the City issuing a building,
grading, and/or demolition permit, all City departments and divisions review the project plans for
compliance with the identified COAs and any additional conditions added pursuant to the public
review process. Permits are not issued by the City’s Building Division in the absence of
authorization from City staff or in the absence of the identified requirements being incorporated
into the project plans.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 9
F. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A description of the project location and setting, project background, the components of the
project, and required discretionary actions, is provided below.
Project Location and Existing Site Conditions
The approximately one-acre proposed project site is located east of the intersection of San Mateo
Avenue and Lowrie Avenue, west of Produce Avenue, and south of Colma Creek (see Figure 1,
Regional Location Map and Figure 2, Project Vicinity Map). The project site consists of three
vacant parcels identified as APNs 015-114-420 (0.14-acre), 015-114-480 (0.47-acre), and 015-
114-490 (0.38-acre). Surrounding land uses include the aforementioned adjacent lot to the west,
auto body shops to the south and west, the Park ‘N Fly facility to the southeast, various
commercial uses to the south, and Colma Creek to the north.
The project site is currently a vacant, paved lot surrounded by a chain link fence. The site
contains two existing light poles and an unused structure at the southern boundary, consisting of
a ladder leading to a small enclosure with a door and windows. A small homeless encampment
was located beneath the structure at the time of the site visit. One tree and some shrubs are
located just outside of the northern boundary of the project site.
Project Background
On June 19, 2015, the project applicant received City approval of a Minor Use Permit (MUP 15-
0001) and Design Review (DR15-0024) for the two parcels (APN 015-114-470 and 015-114-
460) located immediately west of the subject site. These two parcels and the current project site
are on the same overall property that would be rented by Payless Car Rental (see Figure 3, Site
Plan). The proposed improvements for the two western parcels include lot striping to
accommodate 150 rental cars, a 1,850-square foot (sf) modular office space, a 1,300-sf canopy
cover for vehicle hand washing, with water collection and reclamation system, a 5,000-gallon
fuel dispensing tank, landscaping, security fences, gates and associated site works. The MUP
was required because the two westerly parcels are zoned Mixed Industrial (MI), and pursuant to
South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.110.002, automobile/vehicle rental uses are
allowed in the MI zone subject to approval of a Minor Use Permit.
The project applicant would like to use the approximately one-acre subject site to park rental cars
associated with their business. In order to utilize the subject site for such purposes, the three
subject parcels need to be rezoned from Freeway Commercial to MI.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 10
Figure 1
Regional Location Map
Project Site
N
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 11
Figure 2
Project Vicinity Map
Project Site
Boundary
N
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 12
Figure 3
Site Plan
Project Site
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 13
Project Components
The proposed project consists of a rezone of APNs 015-114-420, 015-114-480, and 015-114-490
from Freeway Commercial (FC) to Mixed Industrial (MI) in order to allow automobile/vehicle
rental uses on the project site. For the proposed project, the project applicant is seeking a
modification to the previously-approved MUP for the parcels immediately west of the project
site. Therefore, the necessary entitlements being reviewed by the City of South San Francisco
include a rezone of the project site and an MUP modification.
With approval of a rezone of the proposed project site, the entire property would be used for
automobile/vehicle rental uses. The scope of improvements associated with the proposed rezone
and MUP modification are described in the following sections.
Parking Lot Striping and Sealing
The project site is currently paved with asphaltic concrete. The proposed project would include
restriping the project site to demarcate a maximum of 200 parking stalls for the temporary
staging of vehicles. The surface lot would then be seal coated to protect the striping. While this
Initial Study evaluates a maximum of 200 vehicle stalls, installation of a fire lane through the
approximate center of the parking area would likely reduce the total number of parking spaces on
the subject site to 170, as shown in Figure 4.
Trenching and Lighting Installation
The project would include the installation of 11 additional parking lot lights within the proposed
project site (this total would not include new lights installed on the adjacent western property).
The lights would have a maximum height of 20 feet, in accordance with the City’s Municipal
Code requirements. In order to install the lighting conduit, trenching to an approximate depth of
18 to 24 inches would be necessary on the site. The proposed lighting for the site is further
discussed in the Aesthetics section of this IS/MND.
Landscaping
With implementation of the project, the asphaltic concrete along the southern border of the
project site would be removed and water-efficient landscaping would be installed, consisting of
Purple Hopseed Bushes and groundcover (i.e., trailing lantana) (see Figure 4, Landscape Plan).
The project would not include removal of any existing shrubs or the single tree that exist
immediately outside of the northern property line.
Infrastructure
The project would not require connection to water or sewer infrastructure, as the project consists
only of rental vehicle storage. Storm drain infrastructure already exists on-site, consisting of one
catch basin. This catch basin would continue to collect surface runoff from the project site, and
route said runoff to the City’s storm drain system in San Mateo Avenue.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 14
Figure 4
Landscape Plan
Project Site
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 15
The project is not subject to C.3. stormwater infiltration requirements for the following reasons.
Overall, the project would disturb 1,294 sf of the site surface for landscaping installation
purposes, and an additional 511 sf for the purposes of trenching for lighting installation. In total,
the project would result in disturbance of 1,805 sf of land. The San Mateo C.3. Stormwater
Technical Guidance identifies the following applicable threshold for C.3. regulated projects:
uncovered parking lots (stand-alone or part of another use) that create and/or replace 5,000
square feet or more of impervious surface. The proposed project does not trigger this threshold.
Further discussion regarding drainage can be found in the Hydrology and Water Quality section
of this IS/MND.
Discretionary Actions
Implementation of the proposed project would require the following discretionary actions by the
City of South San Francisco:
• Adoption of the IS/MND and MMRP;
• Approval of a Rezone of the site from FC to MI; and
• Approval of a modification of MUP 15-0001.
G. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The following Checklist contains the environmental checklist form presented in Appendix G of
the CEQA Guidelines. The checklist form is used to describe the impacts of the proposed
project. A discussion follows each environmental issue identified in the checklist. Included in
each discussion are project-specific mitigation measures recommended, as appropriate, as part of
the proposed project.
For this checklist, the following designations are used:
Potentially Significant Impact: An impact that could be significant, and for which no
mitigation has been identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified, an EIR must
be prepared.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: An impact that requires mitigation to
reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Less-Than-Significant Impact: Any impact that would not be considered significant under
CEQA relative to existing standards.
No Impact: The project would not have any impact.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 16
I. AESTHETICS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
State scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Discussion
a,c. The proposed project site is located within the Lindenville sub-area, as indicated in the
City’s General Plan. Historically, government-built housing for military personnel and
shipyard workers was developed during the war on the former marshland between
Railroad Avenue, South Spruce Avenue, and San Mateo Avenue – the area is still known
as Lindenville. Currently, warehousing/distribution and light industrial uses are
dominant; in addition, commercial storage, manufacturing, automobile repair, and
commercial automobile uses are present.
The proposed project site is already a surface parking lot, though it is not currently in use
and has the appearance of a dilapidated parcel with overgrown weeds throughout. The
proposed project consists of striping and sealing the existing paved lot to demarcate a
maximum of 200 parking spaces, as well as installation of lighting and landscaping. The
proposed landscaping, consisting of Purple Hopseed bushes and groundcover (i.e.,
trailing lantana) would be installed along the southern boundary of the site and would
serve to enhance the aesthetic appearance of the project site.
The site would operate as the rental car parking/staging area for the Payless Car Rental
facility, the primary operations for which will be conducted on the two parcels to the
west. The above-described minor improvements to the existing surface parking lot would
not be considered a substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings. In addition, the General Plan does not designate any areas as
scenic vistas. As such, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista or substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings, and the project’s impact would be less than significant.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 17
b. Neither State nor local scenic highways are located within the vicinity of the proposed
project site. U.S. Highway 101 is located approximately 0.2-mile from the project site.
U.S. 101 is not designated a State scenic highway in this location. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would not damage any scenic resources within a
State scenic highway, and a less-than-significant impact would result.
d. The project site currently contains two parking lot lights along its eastern boundary. The
project would include the installation of 11 additional parking lot lights within two of the
three project parcels (i.e., APNs 015-114-480, and -490) (see Figure 5, Site Lighting).
The lights would have a maximum height of 20 feet, in accordance with the City’s
Municipal Code requirements.
Section 20.300.010, Performance Standards, of the Municipal Code requires that lights be
placed to deflect light away from adjacent properties and public streets, and to prevent
adverse interference with the normal operation or enjoyment of surrounding properties.
Properties must not cast light on a public street exceeding one foot-candle (fc) as
measured from the centerline of the street, and light exceeding one-half fc must not be
cast onto any residentially-zoned property or any property containing residential uses.
Residential uses, residentially-zoned properties, or public streets are not located adjacent
to the project site. Therefore, the applicable requirement is for the project lighting to be
placed to deflect light away from adjacent properties, and to prevent adverse interference
with the normal operation or enjoyment of surrounding properties.
Figure 6, Site Photometrics, demonstrates the general photometric schedule for the
proposed project site. Due to the placement of the proposed lights, and the requirement
for shielding, the lighting intensities at the northern, eastern, and southern property lines
are relatively minimal, ranging from a minimum of 0.4 footcandles (fc) to a maximum of
6.9 fc.1 These intensities would not be considered a substantial new source of light to
surrounding properties, none of which are residential. Per the City’s Municipal Code,
Section 20.300.008, the additional parking lot fixtures shall be shielded so as not to
produce obtrusive glare onto the public right-of-way or adjoining properties. All
luminaries shall meet the most recently adopted criteria of the Illuminating Engineering
Society of North America (IESNA) for “Cut Off” or “Full Cut Off” luminaries.
Sensitive residential receptors are not located within the vicinity of the project site, as the
site is surrounded by commercial and industrial development, primarily parking lots.
Additionally, the site is not located adjacent to any public streets. Therefore, for the
above-stated reasons, the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial
light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and impacts
would be considered less than significant.
1 The intensities at the western property line are of no significance because this area is part of the same proposed car
rental operation.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 18
Figure 5
Site Lighting
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 19
Figure 6
Site Photometrics
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 20
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in 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))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could
individually or cumulatively result in loss of
Farmland to non-agricultural use?
Discussion
a,b,e. The site is not considered Farmland of Prime, Unique, or Statewide Importance and the
site is not under a Williamson Act contract. Per the San Mateo County Important
Farmland Map, the site is designated Urban and Built-Up Land.2
The project site is currently zoned Freeway Commercial and the proposed project
includes a request to rezone the site to Mixed Industrial. Therefore, the project would not
conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. In addition, the site is not subject to a
Williamson Act contract.
For the above-stated reasons, the proposed project would have no impact related to the
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conflict with agricultural zoning or a
Williamson Act contract.
c,d. The project site is not considered forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220[g]) or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), and
the site is not zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104[g]). Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact with regard to
conversion of forest land or any potential conflict with forest land, timberland, or
Timberland Production zoning.
2 California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program. San Mateo County Important Farmland Map. 2014.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 21
III. AIR QUALITY.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-
Than-Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region
is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
Discussion
a-c. The City of South San Francisco is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
(SFBAAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) who regulates air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area. The
SFBAAB area is currently designated as a nonattainment area for the State and federal
ozone, State and federal particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter (PM 2.5 ), and State
particulate matter 10 microns in diameter (PM 10 ) standards. The SFBAAB is designated
attainment or unclassified for all other ambient air quality standards (AAQS). It should be
noted that on January 9, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
issued a final rule to determine that the Bay Area has attained the 24-hour PM 2.5 federal
AAQS. Nonetheless, the Bay Area must continue to be designated as nonattainment for
the federal PM 2.5 AAQS until such time as the BAAQMD submits a redesignation
request and a maintenance plan to the USEPA, and the USEPA approves the proposed
redesignation.
In compliance with regulations, due to the nonattainment designations of the area, the
BAAQMD periodically prepares and updates air quality plans that provide emission
reduction strategies to achieve attainment of the AAQS, including control strategies to
reduce air pollutant emissions via regulations, incentive programs, public education, and
partnerships with other agencies. The current air quality plans are prepared in cooperation
with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG). The most recent federal ozone plan is the 2001 Ozone
Attainment Plan, which was adopted on October 24, 2001 and approved by the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) on November 1, 2001. The plan was submitted to the
USEPA on November 30, 2001 for review and approval. The most recent State ozone
plan is the 2010 Clean Air Plan, adopted on September 15, 2010. The 2010 Clean Air
Plan was developed as a multi-pollutant plan that provides an integrated control strategy
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 22
to reduce ozone, PM, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and greenhouse gases (GHGs).
Although a plan for achieving the State PM 10 standard is not required, the BAAQMD has
prioritized measures to reduce PM in developing the control strategy for the 2010 CAP.
The control strategy serves as the backbone of the BAAQMD’s current PM control
program.
Adopted BAAQMD rules and regulations, as well as the thresholds of significance, have
been developed with the intent to ensure continued attainment of AAQS, or to work
towards attainment of AAQS for which the area is currently designated nonattainment,
consistent with applicable air quality plans. The BAAQMD’s established significance
thresholds associated with development projects for emissions of the ozone precursors
reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NO x ), as well as for PM 10 , and
PM 2.5 , expressed in pounds per day (lbs/day) and tons per year (tons/yr), are listed in
Table 1.3 Thus, by exceeding the BAAQMD’s mass emission thresholds for operational
emissions of ROG, NO X , or PM 10 , a project would be considered to conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the BAAQMD’s air quality planning efforts.
Table 1
BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant
Construction Operational
Average Daily
Emissions (lbs/day)
Average Daily
Emissions (lbs/day)
Maximum Annual
Emissions (tons/year)
ROG 54 54 10
NO x 54 54 10
PM 10 82 82 15
PM 2.5 54 54 10
Source: BAAQMD, CEQA Guidelines, May 2010.
3 It should be noted that the BAAQMD resolutions adopting and revising the 2010 significance thresholds were set
aside by the Alameda County Superior Court on March 5, 2012. The Alameda Superior Court did not determine
whether the thresholds were valid on the merits, but found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under
CEQA, necessitating environmental review. The BAAQMD appealed the Alameda County Superior Court’s
decision. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, reversed the trial court's decision.
The Court of Appeal's decision was appealed to the California Supreme Court, which granted limited review
confined to the questions of under what circumstances, if any, does CEQA require an analysis of how existing
environmental conditions will impact future residents or users (receptors) of a proposed project? On review, the
Supreme Court rejected BAAQMD’s argument that CEQA requires an analysis of the environment’s impact on a
project in every instance. Rather, the Court held that CEQA review should be “limited to those impacts on a
project’s users or residents that arise from the project’s effects on the environment.” Ultimately, the Supreme Court
reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision and remanded the matter back to the appellate court to reconsider the case in
light of the Supreme Court’s opinion. The California Supreme Court did not review the underlying question whether
adoption of the thresholds is a project under CEQA, and no court has indicated that the thresholds lack evidentiary
support. BAAQMD continues to provide direction on recommended analysis methodologies, but has withdrawn the
recommended quantitative significance thresholds for the time being. The May 2012 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines state that lead agencies may reference the Air District’s 1999 Thresholds of Significance available on the
Air District’s website. Lead agencies may also reference the Air District’s CEQA Thresholds Options and
Justification Report developed by staff in 2009. The CEQA Thresholds Options and Justification Report, available
on the District’s website, outlines substantial evidence supporting a variety of thresholds of significance. The air
quality and GHG analysis in this IS/MND uses the previously-adopted 2010 thresholds of significance to determine
the potential impacts of the proposed project, as the thresholds are supported by substantial evidence.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 23
The proposed project would not be considered new development, but is merely restriping
and seal coating an existing parking lot to allow for additional on-site vehicle storage.
The proposed project would involve some other minor improvements, including the
removal of 1,294 sf of existing pavement, which would be replaced with landscaping, and
trenching and installing 11 additional parking lot lights. The project would not involve
any grading, repaving, or building construction. The proposed project improvements
would involve a total disturbance area of approximately 1,805 sf (or 0.04-acre) and
would not directly result in the introduction of any new employees at the site. The
minimal amount of improvements would not be expected to generate construction or
operational emissions that would substantially contribute to the region’s air quality issues
or obstruct implementation of the BAAQMD’s air quality planning efforts. In order to
verify the aforementioned expectations, a comparison of the proposed project’s estimated
emissions to the BAAQMD thresholds of significance has been conducted.
The proposed project’s construction and operational emissions were quantified using the
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) software version 2013.2.2 – a
statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land
use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify air quality emissions, including
GHG emissions, from land use projects. The model applies inherent default values for
various land uses, including construction data, trip generation rates based on the Institute
of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, vehicle mix, trip
length, average speed, etc. Where project-specific information is available, such
information should be applied in the model. As such, the proposed project’s modeling
assumed the following:
• Construction assumed to commence in January 2017 and occur over an
approximately one-month period;
• Construction would consist of a demolition and trenching phase and would
involve the following pieces of equipment operating for a maximum of eight
hours per day:
o Concrete industrial saw;
o Rubber-tired dozer;
o Tractor/loader/backhoe;
o Generator set; and
o Air compressor;
• Demolition of approximately 511 sf of existing pavement would be necessary;
and
• The proposed project would allow for the generation of approximately 354 trips
per day, based on a daily trip generation rate of 1.77 per parking space, according
to the Transportation Assessment prepared for the proposed project.
The proposed project’s estimated emissions associated with construction, operations, and
cumulative conditions are presented and discussed in further detail below.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 24
Construction Emissions
According to the CalEEMod results, the proposed project would result in maximum
construction criteria air pollutant emissions as shown in Table 2. As shown in the table,
the proposed project’s construction emissions would be below the applicable thresholds
of significance.
Table 2
Maximum Unmitigated Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NO X PM10 PM 2.5
Project Construction Emissions 6.03 20.65 1.33 1.12
Thresholds of Significance 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO
Source: CalEEMod, April 2016 (see Appendix A).
All construction projects are required to comply with the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District’s (BAAQMD) dust control measures. These measures are imposed
by the City’s Engineering Division on all projects as a condition of building permit
issuance and are monitored for compliance by staff and/or City consultants. 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 as of May 2011. The City
requires projects to do the following:
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 (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.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 25
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 miles per hour and
slower, should wind and dust conditions necessitate.
r) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon
as possible and 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 toxic control measure detailed in Title 13, Section 2485 of the
California Code of Regulations). Clear signage regarding this requirement 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 twenty-four (24) hours. The applicable Air District phone number
shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
As such, the proposed project would implement the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction
Mitigation Measures listed above, to the extent that the measures are feasible for the
proposed project’s construction activities. Compliance with the aforementioned measures
would help to further minimize any construction-related emissions.
Because the proposed project would be below the applicable thresholds of significance
for construction emissions, the proposed project would not be considered to result in a
significant air quality impact during construction.
Operational Emissions
According to the CalEEMod results, the proposed project would result in maximum
operational criteria air pollutant emissions as shown in Table 3. As shown in the table,
the proposed project’s operational emissions would be below the applicable thresholds of
significance.
Because the proposed project would be below the applicable thresholds of significance
for operational emissions, the proposed project would not be considered to result in a
significant air quality impact during operations.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 26
Table 3
Maximum Unmitigated Operational Emissions
ROG NO X PM10 PM 2.5
Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
Project Operational Emissions 1.72 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Thresholds of Significance 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO
Maximum Annual Emissions (tons/year)
Project Operational Emissions 0.31 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Thresholds of Significance 10 10 15 10
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO
Source: CalEEMod, April 2016 (see Appendix A).
Note: These operational emission calculations assume a total of approximately 354 trips per day for the
project site, based on a daily trip generation rate of 1.77 per parking space, with 200 total parking spaces.
Cumulative Emissions
Past, present and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air
quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative
impact. A single project is not sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of
AAQS. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively
significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative
impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered
significant. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD
considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be
cumulatively considerable. The thresholds of significance presented in Table 1 represent
the levels at which a project’s individual emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors
would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SFBAAB’s existing air
quality conditions. If a project exceeds the significance thresholds presented in Table 1,
the proposed project’s emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in
significant adverse cumulative air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality
conditions. Because the proposed project would result in emissions below the applicable
thresholds of significance, the project would not be expected to result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution the region’s existing air quality conditions.
Conclusion
As stated previously, the applicable regional air quality plans include the 2001 Ozone
Attainment Plan and the 2010 CAP. According to BAAQMD, if a project would not
result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, after the application of all
feasible mitigation, the project may be considered consistent with the air quality plans.
Because the proposed project would result in emissions below the applicable thresholds
of significance, the project would not be considered to conflict with or obstruct
implementation of regional air quality plans.
Because the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 27
applicable air quality plans, violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air quality violation, or result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase in any criteria air pollutant, impacts would be considered less than significant.
d. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others, due to the types
of population groups or activities involved. Heightened sensitivity may be caused by
health problems, proximity to the emissions source, and/or duration of exposure to air
pollutants. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with existing health
problems are especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Accordingly, land uses
that are typically considered to be sensitive receptors include residences, schools,
childcare centers, playgrounds, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals, and
medical clinics. The proposed project would involve restriping and seal coating an
existing parking lot, as well as some other minor improvements. Because the project
would not introduce any sensitive users to the site, the proposed project would not be
considered a sensitive receptor. The project site is located in an industrial area and is
predominantly surrounded by existing industrial and commercial uses. The nearest
existing sensitive receptors would be the residences located nearly 1,500 feet to the
northwest of the site, opposite Colma Creek and the Caltrain tracks.
The major pollutant concentrations of concern are localized CO emissions and TAC
emissions, which are addressed in further detail below.
Localized CO Emissions
Localized concentrations of CO are related to the levels of traffic and congestion along
streets and at intersections. High levels of localized CO concentrations are only expected
where background levels are high, and traffic volumes and congestion levels are high.
Emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) are of potential concern, as the pollutant is a toxic
gas that results from the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as
gasoline or wood. CO emissions are particularly related to traffic levels.
In order to provide a conservative indication of whether a project would result in
localized CO emissions that would exceed the applicable threshold of significance, the
BAAQMD has established screening criteria for localized CO emissions. According to
BAAQMD, a proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to
localized CO emission concentrations if the following screening criteria are met:
• The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency
plans;
• The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to
more than 44,000 vehicles per hour; and
• The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to
more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is
substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, underpass, etc.).
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 28
The Transportation Assessment prepared for the proposed project analyzed whether the
project would cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the traffic load
and capacity of the street system or change the conditions of an existing street in a
manner that would substantially impact access or traffic load and capacity of the street
system using criteria from applicable plans, policies, and standards for the project area.
According to the Transportation Assessment, as discussed in further detail in Section
XVI, Transportation/Circulation, of this IS/MND, implementation of the proposed project
would not result in any impacts related to transportation or circulation. Accordingly, the
proposed project would not be expected to interfere with any applicable congestion
management program, regional transportation plan, or local congestion management
agency plans.
In addition, according to the Transportation Assessment, the maximum volume that
would occur at any of the study intersections for the project under existing plus project
conditions would be 3,689 vehicles per hour, which would occur during the PM peak
hour at the San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection. Thus, the proposed project
traffic would not increase traffic volumes at any affected intersection to more than 24,000
or 44,000 vehicles per hour, as identified in the screening criteria above. As such, a
substantial increase in levels of CO at surrounding intersections would not occur.
Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to result in substantial levels of
localized CO at surrounding intersections or generate localized concentrations of CO that
would exceed standards.
TAC Emissions
For assessing community risks and hazards related to TAC emissions, BAAQMD
recommends that any proposed project that includes the siting of a new emission source
or sensitive receptor assess associated impacts within 1,000 feet of the project property
boundary. As stated above, the proposed project is not considered a sensitive receptor.
Accordingly, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the exposure of
on-site sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations associated with any
existing nearby uses.
Typical major sources of TAC emissions include, but are not limited to, freeways and
high traffic roads, distribution centers, rail yards, gas dispensing facilities, dry cleaners,
and distribution centers. The proposed project would not involve any land uses or
operations that would be considered major sources of TACs. As such, the proposed
project would not generate any substantial pollutant concentrations during operations.
The proposed project’s short-term, construction-related activities could result in the
generation of TACs associated with off-road equipment exhaust emissions. However,
construction is temporary, occurs over a relatively short duration in comparison to the
operational lifetime of the proposed project, and construction activities for the proposed
project are minimal. In addition, as stated above, the nearest sensitive receptor is located
nearly 1,500 feet to the northwest of the proposed project site. Therefore, project
construction would not be expected to expose any existing sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 29
Conclusion
Based on the above, the proposed project would not cause or be exposed to substantial
pollutant concentrations, including localized CO or TACs, and impacts related to such
would be less than significant.
e. Due to the subjective nature of odor impacts, the number of variables that can influence
the potential for an odor impact, and the variety of odor sources, quantitative
methodologies to determine the presence of a significant odor impact do not exist.
Typical odor-generating land uses include, but are not limited to, wastewater treatment
plants, landfills, and composting facilities. The proposed project would not introduce any
such land uses and is not located in the vicinity of any such existing or planned land uses.
Although less common, diesel fumes associated with substantial diesel-fueled equipment
and heavy-duty trucks, such as from construction activities, freeway traffic, or
distribution centers, could be found to be objectionable. The proposed project would not
involve any land uses or operations that would involve the generation of substantial
diesel fumes. The proposed project’s short-term, construction-related activities could
result in the generation of objectionable odors associated with off-road equipment
exhaust emissions. Although diesel fumes from construction equipment are sometimes
found to be objectionable, as discussed above, construction is temporary and construction
activities for the proposed project are minimal. Construction equipment would operate
intermittently throughout the course of a day, would be restricted to daytime hours per
Title 8, Section 8.32.050 Special Provisions, of the City’s Municipal Code, and would
likely only occur over portions of the improvement area at a time. In addition, all
construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated per the In-Use Off-
Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. Project construction would also be required to comply
with all applicable BAAQMD rules and regulations, particularly associated with
permitting of air pollutant sources. The aforementioned regulations would help to
minimize air pollutant emissions, as well as any associated odors. Furthermore, the
nearest sensitive receptor is located nearly 1,500 feet to the northwest of the proposed
project site, separated from the site by existing development, Caltrain tracks, and Colma
Creek. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to create objectionable
odors affecting a substantial number of people.
It should be noted that BAAQMD regulates objectionable odors through Regulation 7,
Odorous Substances, which does not become applicable until the Air Pollution Control
Officer (APCO) receives odor complaints from ten or more complainants within a 90-
day period. Once effective, Regulation 7 places general limitation on odorous
substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds, which
remain effective until such time that citizen complaints have been received by the
APCO for one year. The limits of Regulation 7 become applicable again when the
APCO receives odor complaints from five or more complainants within a 90-day
period. Thus, although not anticipated, if odor complaints are made after the proposed
project is developed, the BAAQMD would ensure that such odors are addressed and
any potential odor effects reduced to less than significant.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 30
For the aforementioned reasons, the proposed project would not create objectionable
odors, nor would the project site be affected by any existing sources of substantial
objectionable odors, and a less-than-significant impact related to objectionable odors
would result.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 31
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, and
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation
Community Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion
a. Figure 4.13-1, Biological Resources, of the General Plan EIR shows sensitive biological
habitats in South San Francisco. The proposed project site does not contain any areas
identified as a vegetative community or special species habitat. In addition, a search of
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB) was performed for the proposed project location to determine the records of
sensitive plant and wildlife species within the general vicinity of the area. A total of 65
federally-listed, State-listed, or special-status plant and wildlife species were identified
for the general project area, including 35 plant species, 14 insect species, six bird species,
three fish species, two reptile and two bat species, and one amphibian and one crustacean
species.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 32
Many of the plant and wildlife species occur in specialized habitats, such as riparian,
wetlands, marshes, ponds, and other aquatic habitats (e.g., California red-legged frog,
California clapper rail, California black rail, San Francisco garter snake, western pond
turtle, etc.), as well as coastal scrub (e.g., manzanita, San Francisco Bay spineflower,
blue gilia, Stage’s dufourine bee, etc.), grasslands (e.g., Crystal Springs lessingia, San
Francisco owl's-clover, etc.), and forests (e.g., Townsend’s big-eared bat, hoary bat).
The proposed project site is entirely surrounded by other industrial and commercial
developments similar to that of the proposed project. Colma Creek is adjacent to the site
to the north; however, the project would not include any disturbance of the creek. The
project site itself is surrounded by a chain link fence and the project would not include
any development outside the boundary of the fence. The proposed project site is highly
disturbed and has been previously developed.
The proposed project site does not contain and is not considered, associated with, or
located within the vicinity of any riparian habitat, wetlands, or other sensitive natural
communities. The absence of suitable habitat and the highly disturbed and urbanized
nature of the site and surrounding area would eliminate the potential for any of the
special-status species to occur on site. Accordingly, the species identified by the CNDDB
search to potentially occur in the area would not be present at the project site and would
not be affected by implementation of the proposed project.
Although the proposed project site is highly disturbed and lacks essential habitat for
special-status plants and wildlife species, a remote possibility remains that protected
migratory birds in the vicinity could establish nests in trees near the boundary of the site
prior to initiation of construction. If new nests are established, construction could result
in inadvertent loss of nesting birds unless adequate protective measures are taken.
Migratory bird species are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Should
any of the migratory bird species be found nesting in the on-site trees during construction
activities, the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact associated
with a substantial adverse effect on a species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a
less-than-significant level.
IV-1 Within 14 days prior to commencing construction work during the avian
nesting season (March 1 to September 1), a qualified biologist shall conduct a
preconstruction nesting bird survey within the site boundaries and the
vegetated area between the site’s northerly boundary and Colma Creek (If
construction work would not occur during the nesting season, a nesting survey
is not required). If special-status birds are not identified nesting within the
area of effect, further mitigation is not required. If special-status birds are
identified nesting within the area of effect, a 75-foot no-disturbance buffer
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 33
around the nest(s) shall be staked with orange construction fencing.
Construction or earth-moving activities shall be restricted within the
identified buffer until the determination is made by a qualified biologist that
the young have fledged (i.e., left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight
skills to avoid project construction zones. This typically occurs by June 15th;
however, the date may be later and would have to be determined by a
qualified ornithologist. The preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be
submitted for review and approval by the City of South San Francisco
Planning Division.
b,c. Wetlands or seasonal wetlands generally denote areas where the soil is seasonally
saturated and/or inundated by fresh water for a significant portion of the wet season, and
then seasonally dry during the dry season. To be classified as "wetland," the duration of
saturation and/or inundation must be long enough to cause the soils and vegetation to
become altered and adapted to the wetland conditions. The proposed project site is
currently an unused surface parking lot, surrounded by existing development in an urban
area. Water features are not located on the project site and the site is not within a
floodplain or normally subjected to flooding. As such, wetlands, seasonal wetlands, or
vernal pools do not exist on the project site. Similarly, riparian habitat does not exist on
the project site or in the vicinity, and the project would not involve removal of any
riparian vegetation or sensitive native vegetation. In addition, local or regional sensitive
habitat types or natural communities regulated by the CDFW or USFWS are not present
or associated with the project footprint.
Colma Creek is located approximately 30 feet north of the project site; however, the
project site is entirely enclosed by a chain link fence and the project would not include
any disturbance of, or near, Colma Creek.
Consequently, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on
federally-protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, riparian
habitat, or any other sensitive natural community. Therefore, impacts related to riparian
habitat, wetlands, or other sensitive natural communities would be less than significant.
d. As discussed above, the project site is a paved surface parking lot and is located in a
currently developed area. Resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or wildlife nursery
sites, do not exist on the project site or the immediate vicinity. Therefore, the project
would not interfere with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species, and impacts would be less than significant.
e. According to the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance, the preservation of trees is essential
to the health, welfare and quality of life of the citizens of the City because these trees
preserve the scenic beauty of the City, maintain ecological balance, prevent erosion of top
soil, counteract air pollution and oxygenate the air, absorb noise, maintain climatic and
microclimatic balance, help block wind, and provide shade and color. The Ordinance
provides standards and requirements for the protection of certain large trees and trees
with unique characteristics, as well as for planting and maintenance of trees for new
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 34
development. The Ordinance also establishes recommended standards for planting and
maintaining trees on property that is already developed.
Trees are not located on the project site. A single tree is located just outside of the
project’s northern boundary – this tree would be avoided during striping and sealing of
the existing surface parking lot. With retention of this existing tree along the site’s
northern border, the project would not conflict with the applicable Tree Preservation
Ordinance, and impacts would be considered less than significant.
f. The San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was prepared for the County
of San Mateo in 1982 and was authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) in 1983. According to the General Plan EIR, the City of South San Francisco
contains two areas specifically set aside as habitat for the conservation of threatened and
endangered species – San Bruno Mountain and the portion of Sign Hill currently
classified as a City park – which are subject to the San Bruno Mountain HCP. The
proposed project site is not within the planning area for the San Bruno Mountain HCP.
The City itself does not have an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation
Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.
Therefore, no impact would occur related to a conflict with such a plan.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 35
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-
Than-Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a unique archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource on site or unique geologic
features?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries.
e. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined
in Public Resources Code 21074?
Discussion
a. The term cultural resources encompasses archaeological, traditional, and “built
environment” resources, including, but not necessarily limited to, buildings, structures,
objects, districts, and sites (generally 45 years old or older). An historic resource is a
structure, site, or feature that is representative of a historic period or building type, but is
not of landmark quality. Historic and cultural resources in South San Francisco are
protected through the process of local designation and subsequent oversight by the
Historic Preservation Commission. In addition to Sign Hill, the City's only national
historic landmark, South San Francisco's designated resources include several residential
and commercial buildings in the Downtown area.
According to the General Plan EIR, the proposed project site is not located within the
vicinity of any identified historic resources. In addition, the project site is currently
vacant and does not contain any historical resources. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to historical
resources as defined in Section 15064.5.
b-d. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, consistent with the City of South San
Francisco’s history as an Ohlone settlement location, the City has Native American
village sites and shell mounds scattered around the City. Known resources include the
following:
• A Native American archaeological village (CA-SMA-299) located within the El
Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Area that contains household items,
projectile points, dietary debris, and human burials.
• A large shell mound (CA-SMA-40) and one small shell midden (CA-SMA-40)
near the south slope of San Bruno Mountain. The shell mound is considered a
significant archaeological resource.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 36
The City’s coastal location, and its rich history as a center of industry, makes the
existence of additional prehistoric and historic archaeological resources possible. CEQA
requires the evaluation of any archaeological resource on the site of a development
project and provides for the protection of archaeological resources. City involvement in
the identification, mitigation, and monitoring of project impacts on these resources
ensures the protection of South San Francisco’s cultural heritage. Policy 7.5-I-4 of the
General Plan requires that the City ensure the protection of known archaeological
resources in the City by requiring a records review for any development proposed areas
of known resources and Policy 7.5-I-5 requires for development projects the preparation
of a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program by a qualified archaeologist in the
event that archaeological resources are uncovered.
The project site has already been disturbed and is an existing paved surface parking lot.
Minimal ground disturbance would occur on-site during construction. Trenching for
lighting conduit would only extend to a depth of approximately 24 inches. Therefore, for
the above-stated reasons, it is unlikely that previously unknown archaeological resources
would be identified on-site during construction. However, the City’s General Plan EIR
states that a high possibility exists for the City to contain Native American resources due
to the City’s location near the San Francisco Bay. Consequently, the possibility still
exists that during construction activities, unidentified archaeological resources,
paleontological resources, or human remains may be uncovered, which could result in a
potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a
less-than-significant level.
V-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, project plans shall
include a requirement (via notation) indicating that if historic and/or cultural
resources, or human remains are encountered during site grading or other site
work, all such work shall be halted immediately within 100 feet of the area of
discovery and the contractor shall immediately notify the City of the discovery. In
such case, the applicant shall retain the services of a qualified archaeologist for
the purpose of recording, protecting, or curating the discovery as appropriate.
The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the City for review and approval
a report of the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources.
Further grading or site work within the vicinity of the discovery, as identified by
the qualified archaeologist, shall not be allowed until the preceding steps have
been taken. All fees associated with the services of the qualified archaeologist
shall be paid by the project applicant.
V-2 Pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 (c) State Public Resources
Code §5097.98, if human bone or bone of unknown origin is found during
construction, all work shall stop in the vicinity of the find and the San Mateo
County Coroner shall be contacted immediately. If the remains are determined to
be Native American, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage
Commission who shall notify the person believed to be the most likely descendant.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 37
The most likely descendant shall work with the contractor to develop a program
for re-internment of the human remains and any associated artifacts. Additional
work is not to take place in the immediate vicinity of the find, which shall be
identified by the qualified archaeologist, until the identified appropriate actions
have been implemented. All fees associated with the services of the qualified
archaeologist shall be paid by the project applicant.
e. Tribal cultural resources are generally defined by Public Resources Code 21074 as sites,
features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe. A Sacred Lands File search, performed by the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the immediate project area on April 22,
2016, failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the
immediate project area. In addition, the City has not received requests from tribes for
formal notification of projects in the City of South San Francisco, with which the tribe(s)
must be traditionally or culturally affiliated, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21080.3.1. In the absence of information regarding tribal cultural resources provided by
California Native American tribes, the City has relied on the negative results of the
NAHC Sacred Lands file search, and the existing disturbed, developed environment of
the project site, to conclude that the project is expected to have a less-than-significant
impact to tribal cultural resources.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 38
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-
site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
Discussion
a.i-a.iii.The San Francisco Bay area is one of the most seismically active areas in the country.
While seismologists cannot predict earthquake events, the U.S. Geological Survey’s
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities 2007 estimates a 63 percent
chance of at least one magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake occurring in the Bay Area
region between 2007 and 2036. As seen with the damage in San Francisco and Oakland
due to the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake that was centered about 50 miles south of San
Francisco, significant damage can occur at considerable distances. Higher levels of
shaking and damage would be expected for earthquakes occurring at closer distances.
The faults considered capable of generating significant earthquakes are generally
associated with the well-defined areas of crustal movement, which trend northwesterly.
The nearest State-considered active fault to the site is the San Andreas Fault, which is
located approximately three miles from the site.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 39
While the project site is located within a seismically-sensitive area, the site has been
previously developed and the proposed project, which consists of striping and sealing the
existing paved lot, as well as installation of lighting and landscaping, would not include
any development or construction of structures on the site. In addition, while people may
be located on the project, when moving rental vehicles to/from the adjacent rental
facility, these employees would only temporarily be located on the project site. Because
the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects
associated with fault rupture or strong seismic ground shaking, impacts would be
considered less than significant.
aiv. The proposed project site has been previously developed and is surrounded by existing
development. In addition, the project site is relatively flat. Therefore, no impact related to
exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with
landslides would occur.
b. Implementation of the proposed project would result in ground disturbance on very few
areas of the site for trenching and landscaping purposes. A total of 1,805 sf would be
disturbed as a result of the project. Land on the site is flat and would have a slight
potential for soil erosion. During the early stages of construction activities, topsoil would
be exposed due to removal of a portion of the existing pavement near the southern
boundary of the site, and prior to installing landscaping on this portion of the site, the
potential exists for wind and water erosion to occur, which could adversely affect project
site soils. However, per Section 14.04.180 Reduction of Pollutants in Stormwater, of the
City’s Municipal Code, all construction sites in the City must implement year-round
effective erosion control, run-on and runoff control, sediment control, active treatment
systems (as appropriate), good site management, and non-stormwater management
through all phases of construction until the site is stabilized by landscaping or the
installation of permanent erosion control measures. In addition, the project would be
required to implement the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program’s
construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), including temporary erosion controls
to stabilize all denuded areas until permanent erosion controls are established.
After construction is completed, installation of landscaping along the southern boundary
of the site would preclude future erosion on the otherwise completely paved site.
Therefore, overall, impacts related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be considered
less than significant.
c-d. As discussed above, according to the General Plan EIR, soils in the flat, lowland eastern
portions of the City, which are composed largely of Bay mud overlain with fill, have high
shrink-swell potential, high water table, and low strength. These soil conditions amplify
earthquake waves and groundshaking, and are subject to liquefaction. In addition, as
mentioned above, the project site is located within an area of variable liquefaction. The
project site is not, however, located in the area comprised by Bay mud overlain with fill;
the site is entirely composed of artificial fill soils. In addition, the project site has been
previously developed and is currently paved.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 40
With respect to expansive soils, these soils could damage foundations of aboveground
structures, paved roads and streets, and concrete slabs. Expansion and contraction of
soils, depending on the season and the amount of surface water infiltration, could exert
enough pressure on structures to result in cracking, settlement, and uplift.
The project site was mapped using the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Web Soil Survey. The Web Soil Survey map for the project site indicates that the entirety
of the project site is composed of Urban land-Orthents, reclaimed complex, 0 to 2 percent
slopes. Orthents soil is characterized as well-drained, silty clay, which could potentially
have expansive properties.
While the project site is located within an area subject to liquefaction and expansive soils,
the site currently consists of a paved parking lot, and the proposed lot does not appear to
have damage resulting from these geotechnical hazards. The proposed project would
result in the continued use of the site as a parking lot, and no structures would be
introduced onto the project site that could be subject to damage from liquefaction or
expansive soils. In addition, while people may temporarily be located on the project,
when moving rental vehicles to/from the adjacent rental facility, these employees would
only be located on the project site for short periods of time. Therefore, the project would
result in a less-than-significant impact associated with liquefaction.
e. The project site is a vacant, paved lot and, upon implementation of the project, the site
would remain a paved lot used for parking. The site would not require any connection to
the City’s sewer system. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are not
proposed for the project and would not be required. Therefore, no impact would occur
from soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 41
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gasses?
Discussion
a,b. Emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) contributing to global climate change are
attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing,
utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Therefore, the cumulative
global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to
every nation, region, and city, and virtually every individual on earth. An individual
project’s GHG emissions are at a micro-scale level relative to global emissions and
effects to global climate change; however, an individual project could result in a
cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro-
scale impact. As such, impacts related to emissions of GHG are inherently considered
cumulative impacts.
The proposed project would involve restriping and seal coating an existing parking lot to
allow for additional on-site vehicle storage. Some other minor improvements would also
occur with implementation of the project, including the removal of 1,805 sf of existing
pavement, which would be replaced with landscaping, and trenching and installing 11
additional parking lot lights. According to the Transportation Assessment prepared for
the proposed project, with the addition of on-site vehicle parking stalls, specifically an
increase of a maximum of 200 vehicle stalls for temporary staging of vehicles, the project
would be expected to increase the vehicle trips associated with the site. Implementation
of the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to increases of GHG emissions.
Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development is primarily associated with
increases of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and, to a lesser extent, other GHG pollutants, such as
methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O) associated with area sources, mobile sources or
vehicles, utilities (electricity and natural gas), water usage, wastewater generation, and
the generation of solid waste. The primary source of GHG emissions for the proposed
project would be from mobile sources.
The City has adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that identifies strategies and actions
to reduce GHG emissions. The City has and continues to implement GHG reduction
measures, including, but not limited to, 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 TDM program; and
providing electrical car charging stations at City facilities. The City actively participates
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 42
in the San Francisco International Airport noise insulation program which also reduces
heat loss and associated GHG emissions in older buildings. The City also spearheads
educational programs to reduce GHG emissions. Through conditions of approval,
development projects are required to implement a variety of GHG reduction measures.
To ensure that development within the City is consistent with the CAP, as well as to aid
in streamlining the CEQA process, the City has prepared a Development Review
Checklist for two separate project types: additions, alterations, and tenant improvements;
and new development.
Table 4 provides a discussion regarding the proposed project’s consistency with the
City’s Development Review Checklist, which is included as Appendix E to the CAP. The
proposed project would not be considered new development; thus, the Development
Review Checklist for additions, alterations, and tenant improvements was used.
Table 4
City CAP Project Consistency Checklist
Measure Yes No N/A Discussion
Does the project provide bicycle
facilities, bicycle lanes, or other
facilities?
X
The project will not result in the
demand for bicycle facilities.
Will the project provide a bike share
program for employees or residents? X The project would not generate
new employees or residents.
Will there be a commute shuttle or
public transit stop within 500 feet? X
Shuttle access to and from the
western parcels adjacent to the
project site will be provided at
buildout of the western parcels.
Is the project subject to a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program?
X
While the project generates
more than 100 daily trips, the
City has determined that a
TDM program is not required
for the project due to very low
employee counts.
Will the project provide incentives for
commuters? X The project would not generate
new commuters to the area.
Is the project subject to a traffic impact
fee? X
How will the net number of parking
spaces change on-site?
- - -
The project site is already a
surface parking lot, though it is
not currently in use. The project
would include restriping of the
site to demarcate a maximum of
200 parking spaces on-site.
Is the project located within a specific
plan area, station area, or Priority
Development Area?
X
Will this project provide any
alternative-fuel stations?
X
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 43
Table 4
City CAP Project Consistency Checklist
Measure Yes No N/A Discussion
Will the project have any pre-wiring or
conduits to accommodate renewable
energy facilities or electric vehicle
charging stations in the future?
X
Will project construction activities
implement best management practices,
such as the BAAQMD’s recommended
construction mitigations identified in
the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines? X
As discussed in detail in
Section III, Air Quality, of this
IS/MND, the proposed project
would comply with all
applicable BAAQMD rules,
regulations, and Basic
Construction Mitigation
Measures.
Is the building more than 30 years old? X The project would not include
any buildings.
Will certification of the building be
sought under LEED or another green
building criteria?
X
The project would not include
any buildings.
Will the project be built to CALGreen
Tier 1 energy efficiency standards? X The project would not include
any buildings.
Does the project include any energy-
efficient improvements (e.g., double-
paned windows, increased insulation,
weatherization)?
X
The project would not include
any buildings.
Does the project include any upgrades
of appliances to more energy efficient
models?
X
The project would not include
any buildings or appliances.
Will mechanical equipment (e.g.,
HVAC equipment, boilers, water
heaters) be upgraded to more energy
efficient models?
X
The project would not include
any buildings or mechanical
equipment.
Will roofs or surface paving be replaced
with high-reflectivity (“cool”) surfaces?
X
See above. Project would not
involve repaving. However, the
project would include
replacement of a portion of the
existing pavement with
landscaping.
How will the net number of trees
change on-site?
- - -
The project would not involve
removal of any existing trees.
The project includes removal of
a small portion of existing
pavement, which would be
replaced with landscaping.
Will any renewable energy system be
installed as part of this project? X The project would not include
any buildings.
Is the project a new conversion of
unconditioned space 5,000 square feet X The project would not include
any buildings.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 44
Table 4
City CAP Project Consistency Checklist
Measure Yes No N/A Discussion
or more?
Is there a plan for construction and
demolition waste recycling?
X
The project would be required
to comply with the current
California Green Building
Standards Code, which requires
the diversion of 50 percent of
construction waste from
landfills.
Will there be composting on-site?
X
The project would not include
any buildings and would not
directly result in the
introduction of any new
employees at the site. Thus, the
project would not generate any
solid waste.
Will any water fixtures be replaced with
more efficient fixtures? X The project would not include
any buildings.
Will there be any effort to educate
occupants and tenants about water
conservation?
X
The project would not involve
any new occupants or tenants.
Does the project incorporate low-impact
development (LID) practices? X
The project is exempt from C.3
stormwater infiltration
requirements.
Will any xeriscaping be installed?
X
The project includes planting
water efficient landscaping
along the southern boundary.
Will captured rainwater or graywater be
used for irrigation? X
Because the proposed project would not include any buildings and consists of restriping
and seal coating an existing parking lot, along with some other minor improvements, the
majority of the measures identified in the City’s Development Review Checklist are not
directly applicable to the proposed project. Based on the discussions presented in Table 4,
the proposed project would be expected to be consistent with the applicable measures of
the City’s CAP.
In addition to the City’s CAP requirements, the BAAQMD has developed thresholds of
significance associated with development projects for GHG emissions of 1,100 metric
tons per year carbon dioxide equivalent units (MTCO 2 e/yr). If a project would generate
GHG emissions above the threshold level, the project would be considered to generate
significant GHG emissions and conflict with applicable GHG regulations. For
informational purposes, the proposed project’s GHG emissions were quantified using
CalEEMod using the same assumptions as presented in Section III, Air Quality, of this
IS/MND and compared to the 1,100 MTCO 2 e/yr threshold of significance.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 45
According to the CalEEMod results, the proposed project would result in operational
GHG emissions of 20.56 MTCO 2 e/yr, which is well below the 1,100 MTCO 2 e/yr
threshold of significance. Construction GHG emissions are a one-time release and are,
therefore, not typically expected to generate a significant contribution to global climate
change. Neither the City nor BAAQMD has an adopted a threshold of significance for
construction-related GHG emissions. However, even if the proposed project’s total
construction GHG emissions of 15.43 MTCO 2 e/yr are included with the annual
operational GHG emissions, the resultant total GHG emissions of 35.99 MTCO 2 e/yr
would still be well below the 1,100 MTCO 2 e/yr threshold of significance. Therefore,
using the BAAQMD threshold of significance, the proposed project would not be
expected to result in a significant impact related to GHG emissions.
Based on the above, the proposed project would not be considered to generate GHG
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment, or conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and impacts would be considered less than
significant.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 46
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the likely release
of hazardous materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h. Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion
a,b. Known hazardous materials are not present on the proposed project site. In addition, the
project would not involve any modifications to the existing land uses. During
construction, hazards from construction activities (e.g., use of heavy machinery, storage
of fuel for machinery, potential dust emissions, etc.) could cause a temporary impact to
the public or the environment. However, all construction activities would be required to
follow protocol, including compliance with applicable policies, standards, and regulations
in order to ensure a less-than-significant impact.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 47
Therefore, because the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the routine use, disposal, transport, or accidental
release of hazardous materials, impacts would be considered less than significant.
c. As stated above, the proposed project would not involve the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials. In addition, the nearest existing or proposed school
facility is All Souls Catholic School, which is over 0.75-mile from the project site.
Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact associated
with hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school.
d. The proposed project site has been previously developed and is surrounded by existing
industrial and commercial land uses. The project site is not included on the list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Therefore, no impact would result from implementation of the proposed project.
e. The nearest airport is the San Francisco International Airport (SFO), which is located
approximately 1.5 miles east of the project site, on the opposite side of Highway 101. The
City of South San Francisco is within the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport
Land Use Plan (CALUP ) boundary. The project site is located outside of the five safety
compatibility zones identified in the CALUP. Because of this, and the fact that the
proposed project includes striping and sealing for parking and installation of lighting and
landscaping, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area, and the impact would be less than significant.
f. The proposed project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Thus, the proposed
project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area, and no impact would occur.
g. The project involves the storage/temporary staging of rental vehicles for the Payless
Vehicle car rental business. While the proposed project would indirectly support
additional traffic trips as vehicles come to/from the rental facility and are temporarily
staged on the subject parking lot, these vehicle trips would not be expected to interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan. San Mateo Avenue would not be altered or
obstructed as part of this project. Because the project would not impair implementation of
or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan, impacts would be considered less than significant.
h. The proposed project is located in a commercial and industrial area that is highly
disturbed. The project site and surrounding areas are regularly maintained and are not
considered “wildlands” where wildland fires are a risk to structures. According to Figure
4.8-1, Fire Hazard Management Units, in the City’s General Plan EIR, the project site is
not located within an area that needs vegetation management or other measures to reduce
wildland fire risk and increase the potential for successful fire suppression. The proposed
project is required to comply with the City’s General Plan policies and procedures
pertaining to reduction of fire hazards, as well as California State Public Resource Codes
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 48
4290 and 4291 that require management along roadsides. In addition, the project would
not include the construction of any structures on-site. Therefore, because the risk of on-
site structures being subject to wildland fires is negligible and the project would be
required to comply with applicable policies and regulations, impacts related to exposure
of people or structures to the risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires would
be considered less than significant.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 49
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off-site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g. Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h. Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Discussion
a,e-f. The Federal Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants to navigable waters
from point and non-point sources unless authorized by a NPDES permit. Point source
discharges generally pertain to discharges from wastewater treatment facilities or other
identifiable dischargers. Non-point discharges generally pertain to areawide or
stormwater discharges. In California, NPDES permits are issued and enforced by the
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 50
Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The City of South San Francisco is located
within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). The City has NPDES permit coverage from the RWQCB.
On March 10, 2003, the State Water Resources Control Board began regulating all
stormwater discharges associated with construction activities where clearing, grading, or
excavation results in a land disturbance of one or more acres. Performance Standard
NDCC-13 of the City’s NPDES permit requires applicants to show proof of coverage
under the State’s General Construction Permit prior to receipt of any construction
permits. The project would disturb less than one acre of land and an NPDES General
Construction Permit would not be required; however, as discussed in the Geology and
Soils section of this IS/MND, the project would be required to implement erosion Best
Management Practices (BMPs) during construction.
In addition, San Mateo County was required to develop more restrictive surface water
control standards for new development projects as part of the renewal of the Countywide
NPDES permit. All municipalities within the County have to require post-construction
stormwater controls as part of their obligations under Provision C.3 of the Municipal
Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP). This is a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board (Water Board), allowing municipal stormwater systems to discharge to
local creeks, San Francisco Bay, and other water bodies.
The project is not subject to C.3. stormwater infiltration requirements for the following
reasons. Overall, the project would disturb 1,294 sf of the site surface for landscaping
installation purposes, and an additional 511 sf for the purposes of trenching for lighting
installation. In total, the project would result in disturbance of 1,805 sf of land. The San
Mateo C.3. Stormwater Technical Guidance identifies the following applicable threshold
for C.3. regulated projects: uncovered parking lots (stand-alone or part of another use)
that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. The proposed
project does not trigger this threshold.
The proposed commercial parking lot use does not involve any operations typically
associated with the generation or discharge of polluted water. Thus, typical operations on
the project site would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements, nor degrade water quality. No washing of vehicles or refueling will occur
on the project site. These activities will be conducted on the two westerly parcels, which
are not the subject of this IS/MND.
Because the proposed project would comply with all applicable regulations and would
not involve uses associated with the generation or discharge of polluted water, the
proposed project would not violate any water quality standards, waste discharge
requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality, and the project would not
create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems, impacts would be considered less than significant.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 51
b. The project site is vacant and has been previously paved. The proposed project would not
include any need for an increase in water use at the site. In addition, because the project
would result in removal of a portion of the pavement along the southern boundary of the
site and the subsequent introduction of landscaping to that portion, the project would
result in a reduction in impervious surfaces on the site, as compared to existing
conditions. Thus, the proposed project would allow for a greater potential area for
groundwater recharge than what currently exists on the site. Therefore, overall,
implementation of the proposed project would not interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge. Because the project would not substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge, the project’s impact would be considered
less than significant.
c,d. The proposed project site is currently a vacant, paved lot that is surrounded by existing
commercial and industrial development in an urban, developed area. The project would
result in the continued use of the site as a parking lot and would slightly reduce the
amount of impervious surface area on the project site due to the introduction of
landscaping along the site’s southern boundary. Implementation of the proposed project
would consist of striping and sealing for parking spaces, trenching and installation of
lighting, and installation of landscaping, none of which would result in any alteration to
the existing drainage patterns on the site. Therefore, the project would have no impact
related to substantially altering the existing drainage pattern of the site or area such that
substantial erosion/siltation or flooding would occur on- or off-site.
g. The proposed project consists of striping and sealing a parking area, trenching for and
installing parking lot lighting, and placing landscaping along a portion of the southern
site boundary. Therefore, the proposed project would not place any housing within a 100-
year floodplain, and no impact would occur.
h,i. The project site is located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
flood hazard Zone X (shaded), according to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for the
project site.4 Zone X (shaded) is defined as an area of moderate flood hazard, usually the
area between the limits of the 100‐year and 500‐year floods. However, the project site has
been previously paved, is relatively flat, and is surrounded by existing development in an
industrial and commercial area. The proposed project would not include the construction
of any structures on-site. In addition, according to Figure 4.7-1, Draft General Plan
Policies for Flood Protection, of the City’s General Plan EIR, the project site is not
located within the 100-year floodplain. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed
project would not result in an increase in risks associated with placing structures within a
100-year floodplain.
In conclusion, the proposed project would not place a structure within a 100-year
floodplain that would impede or redirect flood flows, and would not expose people or
structures to risks involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam. Therefore, impacts related to flooding would be considered less than
significant.
4 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 06081C0043E. October 16, 2012.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 52
j. Tsunamis are defined as sea waves created by undersea fault movement. A tsunami poses
little danger away from shorelines. When tsunamis reach the shoreline, high swells of
water break and wash inland with great force. A seiche is a long-wavelength, large-scale
wave action set up in a closed body of water such as a lake or reservoir, with destructive
capacity that is not as great as that of a tsunami.
The City of South San Francisco is located approximately five miles east of the Pacific
Ocean, separated by mountainous terrain, and approximately one mile west of the San
Francisco Bay. According to the General Plan, earthquakes could cause tsunamis or
seiches in the San Francisco Bay and, as portions of the City are located adjacent to the
Bay and are low-lying, tsunami or seiche inundation is a possibility. Wave run-up is
estimated at approximately 4.3 feet (msl) for tsunami with a 100-year recurrence and 6.0
feet (msl) for a 500-year tsunami. The project site is 13 feet above msl; therefore, the
project site would be outside the runup zone subject to inundation by a 500-year tsunami
and outside the any potential tsunami hazard zone. As such, the proposed project would
not be expected to be exposed to flooding risks associated with seiches or tsunamis.
Mudflows typically occur in mountainous or hilly terrain, and the project site and
surrounding area is relatively flat. Thus, the likelihood for danger from mudflows would
be low at the site.
Because the proposed project would not be threatened by seiches, tsunamis, or mudflows,
a less-than-significant impact from such phenomena would result.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 53
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plans,
policies, or regulations of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural communities conservation plan?
Discussion
a. The proposed project site is currently developed with a surface parking lot and is
surrounded by existing development. Therefore, the project would not physically divide
an established community and no impact would occur.
b. According to the land use map for the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area of the SSF General
Plan, the proposed project site is designated Community Commercial (CC), with an
accompanying “Regional Commercial” designation. According to the General Plan,
regional commercial areas are reserved for region-serving commercial uses. However, the
proposed use of the site as a rental car storage/staging area is consistent with the overall
range of uses allowed by the broader CC GP designation. For example, the CC land use
designation includes retail and department stores, eating and drinking establishments,
commercial recreation, service stations, automobile sales and repair services, financial,
business and personal services, motels, educational and social services are permitted.
Therefore, because the project site would serve as a parking lot for a commercial rental
car company, the project would be consistent with the project site’s current General Plan
land use designation. In addition, the proposed project site is currently surrounded by
existing industrial and commercial development, including auto body, other auto
services, and long-term parking lot uses.
The proposed project site is currently zoned Freeway Commercial (FC) and
automobile/vehicle rental uses are not permitted under the FC zoning designation;
therefore, the project applicant is seeking approval of a rezone of the project parcels to
MI to allow vehicle rental uses on the site, and to establish consistency with the current
MI zoning designation for the parcels immediately adjacent to the west.
Because the proposed project would be consistent with the current General Plan land use
designation for the site and because the proposed rezone of the project site to MI would
result in consistency with existing surrounding land uses, including the parcels
immediately to the west, the project’s overall impact related to a conflict with applicable
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 54
land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect would be less than significant.
c. The San Bruno Mountain HCP was prepared for the County of San Mateo in 1982 and
was authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1983. According to
the General Plan EIR, the City of South San Francisco contains two areas specifically set
aside as habitat for the conservation of threatened and endangered species – San Bruno
Mountain and the portion of Sign Hill currently classified as a City park – which are
subject to the San Bruno Mountain HCP. The proposed project site is not within the
planning area for the San Bruno Mountain HCP. The City itself does not have an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no impact would occur
related to a conflict with such a plan.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 55
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
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?
Discussion
a,b. The proposed project site has not been delineated as a locally important mineral recovery
site within the General Plan or on any other land use plan. Mineral resources of value to
the region have been not identified at the project site. In addition, the project site has been
previously developed and is surrounded by other existing developments. Therefore, no
impact to mineral resources would occur as a result of the proposed project.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 56
XII. NOISE.
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Discussion
a,c. The proposed project would include striping and sealing the vacant project site to create
parking spaces, trenching and installation of lighting, and installation of landscaping. The
project would not result in a change to the existing uses on the site and the site is
surrounded by existing commercial and industrial land uses. The site does not currently
contain any noise-producing uses. In addition, the nearest sensitive receptors to the
proposed project would be located to the north approximately 1,500 feet from the project
site. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose persons to or generate noise levels
in excess of established standards or cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Therefore, a
less-than-significant impact would result.
b. The primary vibration-generating activities associated with the project would occur
during trenching for lighting and during striping and sealing of the project site. The types
of vibration impact include human annoyance and building structural damage. Human
annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of
perception. Building damage can take the form of cosmetic or structural. Table 5 shows
the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 57
Table 5
Vibration Levels for Varying Construction Equipment
Type of Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity (ppv)
@ 25 feet
(inches/second)
Approximate Velocity Level
@ 25 feet
(VdB)
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58
Auger/Drill Rigs 0.089 87
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Vibratory Hammer 0.070 85
Vibratory Compactor/Roller 0.210 94
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May
2006.
The Table 5 data indicates that construction vibration levels, with the exception of the
vibratory compactor/roller, are less than the 0.2 in/sec ppv threshold of damage 5 to
buildings at distances of 25 feet. With respect to vibratory equipment, implementation of
the project would only involve the use of jackhammers to break up pavement and, per
Table 3, at a 25-foot distance jackhammers would generate 0.035 ppv. The nearest
structures are over 25 feet from the project site; therefore, vibration would be less than
0.2 in/sec.
Based upon the information in Table 5 and the Caltrans Technical Advisory, vibrations
are not predicted to exceed safe thresholds at any adjacent sensitive receptors.
Construction of the project would not require the use of pile driving. Additionally, the
risk of annoyance due to construction vibrations is very low considering the distance to
the nearest receptors. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.
d. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in temporary
increase in noise levels from limited pavement removal, parking lot striping and sealing,
and trenching for lighting conduit.
All construction would be conducted in accordance with Title 8, Section 8.32.050(d) of
the City’s Municipal Code. Section 8.32.050(d) indicates that construction, alteration,
repair or landscape maintenance activities which are authorized by a valid City permit
shall be allowed on weekdays between the hours of 8 AM and 8 PM, on Saturdays
between the hours of 9 AM and 8 PM, and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of
10 AM and 6 PM, 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
5 California Department of Transportation. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations [pg.11]. February 20,
2002.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 58
the structure at a distance as close to 25 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.
The Building Division enforces and monitors the construction noise regulations.
Construction-related impacts would be short-term in nature and would be reduced to a
less-than-significant level through adherence to the Municipal Code regulations
regarding the days and hours of construction activity.
e. The San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is located approximately 1.5 miles east of
the project site, on the opposite side of Highway 101. According to the City’s General
Plan EIR, aircraft departures from SFO are the primary source of transportation noise in
the City. Figure 4.5-2, Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program Area, of the City’s
General Plan EIR indicates that the project site is located just outside the 65 dB aircraft
noise exposure contour. The San Mateo County CALUP establishes noise/land use
compatibility standards, which specify the compatible noise standard for commercial land
uses to be less than 70 dB. Because the proposed project would not be subjected to
aircraft noise above 65 dB, which is less than the 70 dB compatibility standards, and the
project would not introduce any residents or employees to the area, the project would not
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated
with the nearby airport. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
f. The proposed project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Thus, the
proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area, and no impact would occur.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 59
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 (e.g., through
projects in an undeveloped area or extension of
major infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Discussion
a. The one-acre project site is currently vacant. The proposed project would consist of
striping and sealing the lot for rental car parking, as well as installing lighting and
landscaping. As such, the project would not directly induce population growth in the
developed area. In addition, the project would not include any employment-generating
uses. Furthermore, the project would not indirectly induce population growth because
road extensions or added infrastructure would not occur in previously undeveloped areas.
Thus, development of the proposed project would result in no impact related to inducing
substantial population growth either directly or indirectly.
b,c. The one-acre project site is vacant land unoccupied and located within an
industrial/commercial area of South San Francisco. Given the vacant state of the site and
industrially-developed character of the site’s immediate vicinity, the project would have
no impact related to the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing or
people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 60
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES.
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks?
e. Other Public Facilities?
Discussion
a,b. The proposed project site is located within the jurisdiction of the South San Francisco
Fire Department (SSFFD), which provides fire protection services and emergency
medical services within the City and to areas within the County. The 92 employees of the
SSFFD operate out of five stations within the City of South San Francisco. The nearest
fire station is Fire Station 62 located at 249 Harbor Way, which is approximately 0.5-
mile east of the project site.
The South San Francisco Police Department (SSFPD) provides law enforcement services
to the project site. The SSFPD serves a population of over 60,000 residents and is
allotted 83 sworn and 35 civilian positions. The SSFPD is divided into two Divisions –
Operations and Services – each commanded by a Captain. The SSFPD is located at 33
Arroyo Drive, which is approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the project site.
The proposed project site would store cars for the proximate car rental facility. In order to
deter theft, the chain link fencing around the project site would remain. Therefore, the
increase in police services demand associated with the project would be expected to be
minimal. In addition, the project would not result in the construction of any flammable
structures on the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in any increase in
demand for police and fire protection services or the need for new or physically altered
fire or police service facilities and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
c. Because the proposed project would consist of striping and sealing for parking spaces,
trenching and installation of lighting, and installation of landscaping, the project would
not directly or indirectly induce population growth in the City. Accordingly,
implementation of the proposed project would not increase the number of students within
the City or the demand for school services. Therefore, the proposed project would result
in no impact associated with the provision of school facilities or services.
d,e. As the proposed project would consist of striping and sealing for parking spaces,
trenching and installation of lighting, and installation of landscaping, the project would
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 61
not directly or indirectly induce population growth in the City. Accordingly,
implementation of the proposed project would not increase the demand for parks or other
public facilities or services; and the project would result in no impact.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 62
XV. RECREATION.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
Discussion
a,b. As described above in the Public Services section of this IS/MND, the proposed project is a
commercial rental car parking/staging area and, therefore, would not include the need for park
facilities. In addition, as discussed in the Population and Housing section of this IS/MND, the
project would not directly or indirectly increase population growth, and an increased demand
for new, or expansion of, any existing park facilities would not occur. Therefore, the project
would result in no impact associated with recreation.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 63
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 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?
Discussion
a,b. As discussed previously in this IS/MND, the proposed project is located adjacent to
vacant parcels to the west (APNs 015-114-470 and 015-114-460) for which the project
applicant has previously received a Minor Use Permit (15-0001) and Design Review
approval (DR15-0024) from the City of South San Francisco. The parcels are zoned MI
and are intended for future use as the Payless Car Rental business. Future improvements
to the two western parcels will include lot striping to accommodate an anticipated 150
rental cars, a 1,850-sf modular office space, a 1,300-sf canopy cover for vehicle hand
washing with water collection and reclamation system, a 5,000-gallon fuel dispensing
tank, and landscape, security fences, gates and associated site works.
The aforementioned improvements are not part of the proposed project analyzed in this
IS/MND. However, the transportation assessment that was prepared for the project by
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 64
Fehr & Peers 6 analyzed traffic operations under the scenario of buildout of the western
parcels (referred to as the “Arata Property” in the assessment) in addition to the proposed
project. The scope of work associated with the proposed project only includes restriping
the proposed project site to add a maximum of 200 vehicle stalls for temporary staging of
vehicles, installing landscaping on a portion of the southern boundary of the site, and
trenching and installing additional lighting.
Trip Generation
Trip generati on rates are not available in the 9th Edition of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation Manual for car rental sites.
Therefore, vehicle trip generation estimates for the western parcels and the proposed
project during both AM and PM peak hours were developed using driveway counts
collected from a similar Payless rental car business.
Table 6, below, shows the vehicle trip generation estimates for three scenarios – 50
percent occupancy of the western parcels (No Project), 100 percent occupancy of the
western parcels (No Project) and 100 percent occupancy of the western parcels (Plus
Project).
Table 6
Trip Generation
# of Vehicles Available for Rental Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
70 (Approximately 50% Occupancy)
(Western Parcels) 124 5 1 6 6 5 11
150 – (Approximately 100% Occupancy)
(Western Parcels) 265 10 1 11 12 10 22
350 (Approximately 100% Occupancy
(Western Parcels + Proposed Project) 619 22 2 24 27 23 50
Source: Fehr & Peers, Arata Transportation Assessment, February 3, 2015.
Existing Plus Western Parcels Plus Proposed Project Traffic Operations
Traffic operations throughout the study area were analyzed using the methodology
detailed in the transportation assessment (see Appendix B). Table 7, below, shows the
LOS results for both Existing Plus Western Parcels and Existing Plus Western Parcels
Plus Proposed Project scenarios. Attachment A of Appendix B documents detailed
existing conditions, impact criteria, and findings.
6 Fehr & Peers. Arata Property Transportation Assessment. February 3, 2015.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 65
Table 7
Existing, Existing Plus Western Parcels, and Existing Plus Western Parcels Plus Project Conditions
Intersection Operations Summary
Intersection Control1 Peak
Hour
Existing
Conditions
Existing + 50%
Occupancy
(Western Parcels)
(No Project)
Existing + 100%
Occupancy
(Western Parcels)
(No Project)
Existing + 100%
Occupancy
(Western Parcels)
+ Proposed
Project
Delay2 LOS2 Delay2 LOS2 Delay2 LOS2 Delay2 LOS2
San Mateo Ave./Airport Blvd.3 Signal AM 35 D 31 D 35 D 35 D
PM 43 D 43 D 43 D 43 D
San Mateo Ave./Lowrie Ave. SSSC AM <10
(EB15)
A (B) <10
(EB15)
A (C) <10
(EB15)
A (C) <10
(EB15)
A (C)
PM <10
(EB23)
A (C) <10
(EB23)
A (C) <10
(EB23)
A (C) <10
(EB24)
A (C)
San Mateo Ave./Peninsula Auto Body
Driveway/Ingress Driveway
SSSC AM <10
(WB14)
A (B) <10
(WB15)
A (B) <10
(WB15)
A (B) <10
(WB15)
A (C)
PM <10
(WB12)
A (B) <10
(WB12)
A (B) <10
(WB12)
A (B) <10
(WB12)
A (B)
San Mateo Ave./Egress Driveway SSSC AM N/A4 N/A4 <10
(WB13)
A (B) <10
(WB13)
A (B) <10
(WB12)
A (B)
PM N/A4 N/A4 <10
(WB13)
A (B) <10
(WB12)
A (B) <10
(WB13)
A (B)
Notes:
1. Signal = signalized intersection; SSSC = side-street stop-controlled intersection
2. Traffic operations results include LOS and delay. LOS is based on delay thresholds published in the Highway Capacity Manual.
3. N/A = intersection does not exist under existing conditions
Source: Fehr & Peers, Arata Property Transportation Assessment, February 3, 2015.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 66
The significance criteria states that acceptable operations for the study intersections is LOS
D (less than 55 seconds of average control delay per vehicle) or better. As shown in
Table 7, below, all intersections analyzed for the western parcels, and in the vicinity of
the proposed project, are projected to meet the standard under the evaluated scenarios;
therefore, the buildout of the western parcels and implementation of the project itself
would not have significant impacts on the study intersections.
Conclusion
As discussed above, although the proposed project would cause a slight increase in traffic
in the area, the incremental increase would not result in adverse traffic impacts per the
thresholds of significance used for this analysis. Therefore, the proposed project would
have a less-than-significant impact related to causing an increase in traffic that would be
substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system, and the
exceedance of any LOS standards.
c. The proposed project would not directly induce population growth in the area and thus
would not be expected to result in any increase in air traffic levels. As such, the project
would not result in any affects to or from the nearby SFO airport. Because the project
would not result in any changes to existing regional air traffic patterns or activity, no
impact would occur.
d. The transportation assessment includes a sight distance assessment that was conducted
at the San Mateo Avenue driveways of the western parcels. Failure to meet minimum
sight distances for either corner sight distance or stopping sight distance, as defined in
Chapter 400 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM), could warrant the
installation of traffic control.
Corner sight distance signifies the line of sight maintained between the driver of a vehicle
waiting at the cross road – in the case of the western parcels, the egress driveway north
of Lowrie Avenue and the driver of an approaching vehicle on San Mateo Avenue. Based
on a 25 mile per hour (mph) roadway, adequate sight distance would be feasible if
landscaping is maintained and parking is prohibited adjacent to the exit driveway.
Stopping sight distance is the distance required by the driver of a vehicle, traveling at a
given speed, to bring the vehicle to a stop after an object in the road becomes visible and
in advance of reaching the object. The HDM defines the minimum stopping sight
distance requirement as 150 feet for a roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. For
vehicles turning from San Mateo Avenue into the project driveway or vehicles passing
the egress driveway, sight distance is estimated to be over 150 feet, thus meeting the
stoppi ng sight distance requirements. With buildout of the western parcels and
adjustment of the speed limit, stopping sight distance conditions would become even
greater.
The transportation assessment includes recommendations for the western parcels to
ensure that sight distance impacts are less than significant with operation of the western
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 67
parcels. The recommendations include maintenance of landscaping along San Mateo
Avenue, adjacent to driveways, to avoid sight distance conflicts and restriction of on-
street parking on San Mateo Avenue on either side of the egress driveway
(approxi mately 60 feet to the north and 20 feet to the south). These recommendations
were included as conditions of the MUP approved for the western parcels on June 19,
2015.
The proposed project would not alter or encroach upon the site design for the western
parcels, as the project consists of striping and sealing the project site, and installation of
lighting and landscaping. Thus, the project itself would result in a less-than-significant
impact.
e. The proposed project site has been previously developed and is surrounded by existing
similar developments. Modifications to the existing circulation system in the project area
would not occur as a result of the proposed project. According to the transportation
assessment, a fire station is located on Harbor Way, approximately 0.5-mile from the
western parcels and the project site. Emergency vehicles are able to access the western
parcels from the two driveways on San Mateo Avenue and, if one entrance were
temporarily blocked, alternative access to the parcels would still be available.
Implementation of the proposed project would not alter this access. As such, emergency
access to the site and/or surrounding area would not be modified. In addition, the project
design includes sufficient emergency vehicle access to the site.
Access to the western parcels would be provided by two driveways – one for egress and
one for ingress – on San Mateo Avenue. The access intersections are expected to operate
with minimal delay; however, the transportation assessment indicates that way-finding
signs should be provided on the western parcels, directing drivers to vehicle return
stalls, exit driveway, and major desti nations (e.g., Highway 101). In addition, shuttle
access to and from the western parcels would be provided by the two driveways off San
Mateo Avenue. A shuttle bus parking stall, adjacent to the car rental building, would be
provided on the western parcels to allow customers to enter and exit the building
directly from the shuttle. These recommendations were included as conditions of the
MUP approved for the western parcels on June 19, 2015.
The proposed project would not alter or encroach upon the site design for the western
parcels, as the project consists of striping and sealing the project site, and installation of
lighting and landscaping. Thus, the project itself would result in less-than-significant
impacts related to emergency access and site circulation.
f. The proposed project site is located less than one mile from the San Bruno Bay Area Rapid
Transit (BART) station and from the South San Francisco Caltrain station. San Mateo
County Transit District (SamTrans) operates 73 bus routes and paratransit service
throughout San Mateo County and parts of San Francisco and Palo Alto. The closest
SamTrans routes to the project site are 38 and 133, located west of the project site.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 68
According to the transportation assessment, buildout of the western parcels and the proposed
project would be expected to generate very few transit trips. The transportation assessment
indicates that the transit facilities have the capacity and design to adequately
accommodate additional transit trips that would be associated with the western parcels
and the project site.
Pedestrian facilities are provided adjacent to the western parcels, such that pedestrians
could access the parcels via a designated pedestrian walkway from San Mateo Avenue to
the future car rental office. While San Mateo Avenue is a designated bicycle route,
bicycle facilities are not currently planned to be provided on the western parcels.
According to the transportation assessment, buildout of the western parcels is expected to
generate very few pedestrian trips, and the existi ng pedestrian faciliti es in the project area,
including sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals, have the capacity and design to
adequately accommodate the additional pedestrian trips that could be generated. In
addition, very few bicycle trips are expected to be generated, and Bike Route 15 on San
Mateo Avenue would have the capacity and design to adequately accommodate
additional bicycle trips that could be generated.
As discussed above, the proposed project would not alter or encroach upon the site design
for the western parcels, as the project consists of striping and sealing the project site, and
installation of lighting and landscaping. In addition, the proposed project would be
consistent with General Plan goals and policies associated with alternative transportation,
as well as all applicable State and local standards, including compliance with parking
standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any adopted policies
supporting alternative transportation, and impacts would be less than significant.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 69
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b. Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c. Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion
a,b. Wastewater services in the vicinity of the project site are provided by the South San
Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant, which is located adjacent to the San
Francisco Bay on Colma Creek. The average dry weather flow through the wastewater
facility is nine million gallons per day (MGD). The proposed project consists of striping
and sealing for parking spaces, trenching and installation of lighting, and installation of
landscaping on the site. Existing on-site land uses would not be modified and
implementation of the project would not result in the need for wastewater services to be
provided to the site. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate any additional
wastewater flows into the South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant
and no impact would occur.
c. The proposed project would not be subject to the C.3 Standards because, as discussed in
the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this IS/MND, implementation of the project
would only result in disturbance of a total of 1,805 sf (or 0.04-acre) of land. In addition,
the proposed project would result in a decrease in the amount of impervious surfaces on-
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 70
site due to the replacement of a portion of existing pavement on the southern boundary of
the site with landscaping. The proposed project would utilize an existing catch basin to
collect stormwater. The water would then be conveyed to the City’s storm drain system
via an existing on-site connection.
In conclusion, the proposed project would not result in the need for construction of any
new storm drainage facilities and a less-than-significant impact would occur to existing
storm drainage facilities as a result of project implementation.
d,e. The California Water Service Company – Peninsula District (CWSC) serves the portion
of the City of South San Francisco east of Interstate 280, within which the project site is
located. The CWSC currently provides potable water service for the project site.
The proposed project consists of striping and sealing for parking spaces, trenching and
installation of lighting, and installation of landscaping. Existing land uses on the site
would not be modified; however it should be noted that implementation of the project
would result in some additional landscaping on-site, the maintenance of which would
require a slight increase in water provided to the site. The proposed landscaping would
require minimal water for the purposes of upkeep.
The General Plan EIR determined that new development and intensification allowed
under the Draft General Plan will result in an increased demand for public water. Water
demand projections for the City by the California Water Service Company for the year
2020 range from 5.9 million gallons per day to 9.1 MGD. Assuming the SFWD contract
allocation is not modified during the remaining contract period, the CWSC has adequate
supply to meet even the highest projected demand. Draft General Plan policies and
implementation programs provide the framework for the continued provision of an
adequate supply of high quality water to existing and proposed development within the
City.
The proposed project is consistent with the project site’s General Plan land use
designation. The General Plan EIR indicates that impacts related to water facilities supply
at buildout of the General Plan would be less-than-significant with implementation of
General Plan goals and policies; therefore, the proposed project’s impacts related to water
facilities and supply would be considered less than significant.
f,g. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, disposal and treatment of solid and hazardous
waste is overseen by San Mateo County. Solid waste is collected from South San
Francisco homes and businesses and then processed at the Scavenger Company’s
materials recovery facility and transfer station. Materials that cannot be recycled or
composted are transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, located along State
Route 92 between Half Moon Bay and the City of San Mateo.
The proposed project would not generate any solid waste during operation. The only solid
waste generated by the project would be during the construction phase and the waste
would be limited to the removed pavement along the southern boundary and the two
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 71
parking lot lights that would also be removed. The project is consistent with the type and
intensity of development expected for the site in the General Plan and the project would
comply with all federal, State, and local regulations related to solid waste. The City’s
General Plan determined that the increase in solid waste that would result with buildout
of the General Plan would not be a significant impact. Because the proposed project
would generate minimal solid waste result in a less-than-significant impact related to
solid waste services.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 72
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
a. As mentioned previously, the project site has a low sensitivity for biological resources
and cultural resources. Although unlikely, the potential exists for the project to affect
nesting birds during construction activities if found nesting in the existing on-site trees. In
addition, the possibility exists that subsurface excavation of the site during grading and
other construction activities could unearth deposits of cultural significance. However, this
IS/MND includes mitigation measures that would reduce any potential impacts to a less-
than-significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would have less-than-significant
overall impacts to the quality of the environment, plant and wildlife species, and
important examples of California history or prehistory.
b. The proposed project in conjunction with other development within the City of South San
Francisco could incrementally contribute to cumulative impacts in the area. However, as
discussed in this IS/MND, the project would not result in any impacts with the exception
of potential project-level impacts to biological and cultural resources, for which
mitigation measures will be required to be implemented, reducing the impacts to a less-
than-significant level. While other projects within the City of South San Francisco could
result in related impacts, the project’s incremental contribution would not be
cumulatively considerable, and the proposed project would ultimately result in a less-
than-significant impact.
c. Because the project site has previously been developed and the site is surrounded by
existing development, and because the project would develop the site consistent with the
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2016 73
site’s existing land use designation, substantial adverse effects on human beings are not
anticipated with implementation of the proposed project. More specifically, as described
in this IS/MND, the criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions generated by the project
would be below the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance. In addition, the project
would not involve the use of hazardous materials that could impact human health.
Therefore, overall, the project’s impact to human health would be less than significant.
Appendix A
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - proposed project consists of restriping and seal coating an existing parking lot, along with other minor improvements (removal of portion of pavement
and replacement with landscaping, trenching and installation of lighting)
Construction Phase - based on anticipated on-site improvements
Off-road Equipment - based on anticipated on-site improvements
Off-road Equipment - based on anticipated on-site improvements
Off-road Equipment - adjusted for max 8 hrs/day
Demolition - approximate disturbance area
Vehicle Trips - trip generation rate based on project traffic assessment
Land Use Change -
Sequestration -
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
Payless Vehicle Rental
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Parking Lot 200.00 Space 0.99 80,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 64
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
2017Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PMPage 1 of 16
2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 250.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 250.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 250.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 100.00 250.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 10.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 5.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.80 0.99
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.37 0.37
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Concrete/Industrial Saws
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Generator Sets
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Air Compressors
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 1.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2017
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 0.00 1.77
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.00 1.77
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.00 1.77
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PMPage 2 of 16
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
2017 6.0304 20.6360 16.5688 0.0211 0.1830 1.1503 1.3333 0.0372 1.0828 1.1200 0.0000 2,001.708
5
2,001.708
5
0.4324 0.0000 2,010.787
9
Total 6.0304 20.6360 16.5688 0.0211 0.1830 1.1503 1.3333 0.0372 1.0828 1.1200 0.0000 2,001.708
5
2,001.708
5
0.4324 0.0000 2,010.787
9
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
2017 6.0304 20.6360 16.5688 0.0211 0.1830 1.1503 1.3333 0.0372 1.0828 1.1200 0.0000 2,001.708
5
2,001.708
5
0.4324 0.0000 2,010.787
9
Total 6.0304 20.6360 16.5688 0.0211 0.1830 1.1503 1.3333 0.0372 1.0828 1.1200 0.0000 2,001.708
5
2,001.708
5
0.4324 0.0000 2,010.787
9
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: 4/28/2016 3:17 PMPage 3 of 16
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 1.7209 2.0000e-
004
0.0208 0.0000 8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e-
004
0.0463
Energy 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
Mobile 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
Total 1.7209 2.0000e-
004
0.0208 0.0000 0.0000 8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
0.0000 8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.0463
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 1.7209 2.0000e-
004
0.0208 0.0000 8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e-
004
0.0463
Energy 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
Mobile 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
Total 1.7209 2.0000e-
004
0.0208 0.0000 0.0000 8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
0.0000 8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.0463
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PMPage 4 of 16
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 1/1/2017 1/6/2017 5 5
2 Trenching Trenching 1/7/2017 1/20/2017 5 10
3 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/21/2017 2/3/2017 5 10
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8.00 78 0.48
Trenching Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Trenching Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Trenching Air Compressors 1 8.00 78 0.48
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
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
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 3,600; Non-Residential Outdoor: 1,200 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PMPage 5 of 16
3.2 Demolition - 2017
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 0.1006 0.0000 0.1006 0.0152 0.0000 0.0152 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.0880 20.4977 16.0835 0.0183 1.1484 1.1484 1.0810 1.0810 1,820.938
3
1,820.938
3
0.4285 1,829.936
5
Total 2.0880 20.4977 16.0835 0.0183 0.1006 1.1484 1.2490 0.0152 1.0810 1.0963 1,820.938
3
1,820.938
3
0.4285 1,829.936
5
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Trips and VMT
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 3 8.00 0.00 2.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Trenching 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 7.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PMPage 6 of 16
3.2 Demolition - 2017
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 8.0100e-
003
0.1035 0.0794 3.0000e-
004
6.9700e-
003
1.3700e-
003
8.3400e-
003
1.9100e-
003
1.2600e-
003
3.1700e-
003
29.7628 29.7628 2.2000e-
004
29.7673
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 0.0290 0.0348 0.4059 9.3000e-
004
0.0754 5.8000e-
004
0.0760 0.0200 5.3000e-
004
0.0205 75.0164 75.0164 3.6500e-
003
75.0931
Total 0.0370 0.1383 0.4853 1.2300e-
003
0.0824 1.9500e-
003
0.0844 0.0219 1.7900e-
003
0.0237 104.7792 104.7792 3.8700e-
003
104.8604
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 0.1006 0.0000 0.1006 0.0152 0.0000 0.0152 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.0880 20.4977 16.0835 0.0183 1.1484 1.1484 1.0810 1.0810 0.0000 1,820.938
3
1,820.938
3
0.4285 1,829.936
5
Total 2.0880 20.4977 16.0835 0.0183 0.1006 1.1484 1.2490 0.0152 1.0810 1.0963 0.0000 1,820.938
3
1,820.938
3
0.4285 1,829.936
5
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PMPage 7 of 16
3.2 Demolition - 2017
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 8.0100e-
003
0.1035 0.0794 3.0000e-
004
6.9700e-
003
1.3700e-
003
8.3400e-
003
1.9100e-
003
1.2600e-
003
3.1700e-
003
29.7628 29.7628 2.2000e-
004
29.7673
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 0.0290 0.0348 0.4059 9.3000e-
004
0.0754 5.8000e-
004
0.0760 0.0200 5.3000e-
004
0.0205 75.0164 75.0164 3.6500e-
003
75.0931
Total 0.0370 0.1383 0.4853 1.2300e-
003
0.0824 1.9500e-
003
0.0844 0.0219 1.7900e-
003
0.0237 104.7792 104.7792 3.8700e-
003
104.8604
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Trenching - 2017
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 1.9096 14.6703 12.3976 0.0199 1.0661 1.0661 1.0479 1.0479 1,907.938
0
1,907.938
0
0.2393 1,912.963
6
Total 1.9096 14.6703 12.3976 0.0199 1.0661 1.0661 1.0479 1.0479 1,907.938
0
1,907.938
0
0.2393 1,912.963
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PMPage 8 of 16
3.3 Trenching - 2017
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 0.0362 0.0435 0.5074 1.1600e-
003
0.0943 7.2000e-
004
0.0950 0.0250 6.7000e-
004
0.0257 93.7705 93.7705 4.5700e-
003
93.8664
Total 0.0362 0.0435 0.5074 1.1600e-
003
0.0943 7.2000e-
004
0.0950 0.0250 6.7000e-
004
0.0257 93.7705 93.7705 4.5700e-
003
93.8664
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 1.9096 14.6703 12.3976 0.0199 1.0661 1.0661 1.0479 1.0479 0.0000 1,907.938
0
1,907.938
0
0.2393 1,912.963
6
Total 1.9096 14.6703 12.3976 0.0199 1.0661 1.0661 1.0479 1.0479 0.0000 1,907.938
0
1,907.938
0
0.2393 1,912.963
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PMPage 9 of 16
3.3 Trenching - 2017
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 0.0362 0.0435 0.5074 1.1600e-
003
0.0943 7.2000e-
004
0.0950 0.0250 6.7000e-
004
0.0257 93.7705 93.7705 4.5700e-
003
93.8664
Total 0.0362 0.0435 0.5074 1.1600e-
003
0.0943 7.2000e-
004
0.0950 0.0250 6.7000e-
004
0.0257 93.7705 93.7705 4.5700e-
003
93.8664
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Architectural Coating - 2017
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 5.5620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.4431 2.9134 2.4908 3.9600e-
003
0.2311 0.2311 0.2311 0.2311 375.2641 375.2641 0.0396 376.0961
Total 6.0051 2.9134 2.4908 3.9600e-
003
0.2311 0.2311 0.2311 0.2311 375.2641 375.2641 0.0396 376.0961
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PMPage 10 of 16
3.4 Architectural Coating - 2017
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 0.0254 0.0304 0.3552 8.1000e-
004
0.0660 5.1000e-
004
0.0665 0.0175 4.7000e-
004
0.0180 65.6394 65.6394 3.2000e-
003
65.7065
Total 0.0254 0.0304 0.3552 8.1000e-
004
0.0660 5.1000e-
004
0.0665 0.0175 4.7000e-
004
0.0180 65.6394 65.6394 3.2000e-
003
65.7065
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 5.5620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.4431 2.9134 2.4908 3.9600e-
003
0.2311 0.2311 0.2311 0.2311 0.0000 375.2641 375.2641 0.0396 376.0961
Total 6.0051 2.9134 2.4908 3.9600e-
003
0.2311 0.2311 0.2311 0.2311 0.0000 375.2641 375.2641 0.0396 376.0961
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PMPage 11 of 16
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 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
Unmitigated 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
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.4 Architectural Coating - 2017
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 0.0254 0.0304 0.3552 8.1000e-
004
0.0660 5.1000e-
004
0.0665 0.0175 4.7000e-
004
0.0180 65.6394 65.6394 3.2000e-
003
65.7065
Total 0.0254 0.0304 0.3552 8.1000e-
004
0.0660 5.1000e-
004
0.0665 0.0175 4.7000e-
004
0.0180 65.6394 65.6394 3.2000e-
003
65.7065
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PMPage 12 of 16
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
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
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
Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
5.0 Energy Detail
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
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
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
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
0.546114 0.062902 0.174648 0.122995 0.034055 0.004856 0.015640 0.024397 0.002087 0.003279 0.006673 0.000688 0.001667
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PMPage 13 of 16
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
Parking Lot 0 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
Total 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
Unmitigated
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
Parking Lot 0 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
Total 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
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PMPage 14 of 16
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 1.7209 2.0000e-
004
0.0208 0.0000 8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e-
004
0.0463
Unmitigated 1.7209 2.0000e-
004
0.0208 0.0000 8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e-
004
0.0463
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
6.8600e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
1.7120 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 2.0100e-
003
2.0000e-
004
0.0208 0.0000 8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e-
004
0.0463
Total 1.7209 2.0000e-
004
0.0208 0.0000 8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e-
004
0.0463
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:17 PMPage 15 of 16
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
6.8600e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
1.7120 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 2.0100e-
003
2.0000e-
004
0.0208 0.0000 8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e-
004
0.0463
Total 1.7209 2.0000e-
004
0.0208 0.0000 8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e-
004
0.0463
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: 4/28/2016 3:17 PMPage 16 of 16
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - proposed project consists of restriping and seal coating an existing parking lot, along with other minor improvements (removal of portion of pavement
and replacement with landscaping, trenching and installation of lighting)
Construction Phase - based on anticipated on-site improvements
Off-road Equipment - based on anticipated on-site improvements
Off-road Equipment - based on anticipated on-site improvements
Off-road Equipment - adjusted for max 8 hrs/day
Demolition - approximate disturbance area
Vehicle Trips - trip generation rate based on project traffic assessment
Land Use Change -
Sequestration -
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
Payless Vehicle Rental
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Parking Lot 200.00 Space 0.99 80,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 64
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
2017Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PMPage 1 of 16
2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 250.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 250.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 250.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 100.00 250.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 10.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 5.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.80 0.99
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.37 0.37
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Concrete/Industrial Saws
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Generator Sets
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Air Compressors
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 1.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2017
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 0.00 1.77
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.00 1.77
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.00 1.77
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PMPage 2 of 16
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
2017 6.0304 20.6498 16.5934 0.0210 0.1830 1.1503 1.3333 0.0372 1.0828 1.1200 0.0000 1,994.447
7
1,994.447
7
0.4324 0.0000 2,003.527
2
Total 6.0304 20.6498 16.5934 0.0210 0.1830 1.1503 1.3333 0.0372 1.0828 1.1200 0.0000 1,994.447
7
1,994.447
7
0.4324 0.0000 2,003.527
2
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
2017 6.0304 20.6498 16.5934 0.0210 0.1830 1.1503 1.3333 0.0372 1.0828 1.1200 0.0000 1,994.447
7
1,994.447
7
0.4324 0.0000 2,003.527
2
Total 6.0304 20.6498 16.5934 0.0210 0.1830 1.1503 1.3333 0.0372 1.0828 1.1200 0.0000 1,994.447
7
1,994.447
7
0.4324 0.0000 2,003.527
2
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: 4/28/2016 3:36 PMPage 3 of 16
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 1.7209 2.0000e-
004
0.0208 0.0000 8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e-
004
0.0463
Energy 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
Mobile 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
Total 1.7209 2.0000e-
004
0.0208 0.0000 0.0000 8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
0.0000 8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.0463
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 1.7209 2.0000e-
004
0.0208 0.0000 8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e-
004
0.0463
Energy 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
Mobile 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
Total 1.7209 2.0000e-
004
0.0208 0.0000 0.0000 8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
0.0000 8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.0463
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PMPage 4 of 16
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 1/1/2017 1/6/2017 5 5
2 Trenching Trenching 1/7/2017 1/20/2017 5 10
3 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/21/2017 2/3/2017 5 10
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8.00 78 0.48
Trenching Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Trenching Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Trenching Air Compressors 1 8.00 78 0.48
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
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
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 3,600; Non-Residential Outdoor: 1,200 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PMPage 5 of 16
3.2 Demolition - 2017
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 0.1006 0.0000 0.1006 0.0152 0.0000 0.0152 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.0880 20.4977 16.0835 0.0183 1.1484 1.1484 1.0810 1.0810 1,820.938
3
1,820.938
3
0.4285 1,829.936
5
Total 2.0880 20.4977 16.0835 0.0183 0.1006 1.1484 1.2490 0.0152 1.0810 1.0963 1,820.938
3
1,820.938
3
0.4285 1,829.936
5
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Trips and VMT
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 3 8.00 0.00 2.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Trenching 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 7.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PMPage 6 of 16
3.2 Demolition - 2017
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 9.5300e-
003
0.1091 0.1166 3.0000e-
004
6.9700e-
003
1.3800e-
003
8.3500e-
003
1.9100e-
003
1.2700e-
003
3.1700e-
003
29.6932 29.6932 2.2000e-
004
29.6977
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 0.0289 0.0431 0.3932 8.6000e-
004
0.0754 5.8000e-
004
0.0760 0.0200 5.3000e-
004
0.0205 69.2078 69.2078 3.6500e-
003
69.2845
Total 0.0384 0.1521 0.5099 1.1600e-
003
0.0824 1.9600e-
003
0.0844 0.0219 1.8000e-
003
0.0237 98.9010 98.9010 3.8700e-
003
98.9823
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 0.1006 0.0000 0.1006 0.0152 0.0000 0.0152 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.0880 20.4977 16.0835 0.0183 1.1484 1.1484 1.0810 1.0810 0.0000 1,820.938
3
1,820.938
3
0.4285 1,829.936
5
Total 2.0880 20.4977 16.0835 0.0183 0.1006 1.1484 1.2490 0.0152 1.0810 1.0963 0.0000 1,820.938
3
1,820.938
3
0.4285 1,829.936
5
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PMPage 7 of 16
3.2 Demolition - 2017
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 9.5300e-
003
0.1091 0.1166 3.0000e-
004
6.9700e-
003
1.3800e-
003
8.3500e-
003
1.9100e-
003
1.2700e-
003
3.1700e-
003
29.6932 29.6932 2.2000e-
004
29.6977
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 0.0289 0.0431 0.3932 8.6000e-
004
0.0754 5.8000e-
004
0.0760 0.0200 5.3000e-
004
0.0205 69.2078 69.2078 3.6500e-
003
69.2845
Total 0.0384 0.1521 0.5099 1.1600e-
003
0.0824 1.9600e-
003
0.0844 0.0219 1.8000e-
003
0.0237 98.9010 98.9010 3.8700e-
003
98.9823
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Trenching - 2017
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 1.9096 14.6703 12.3976 0.0199 1.0661 1.0661 1.0479 1.0479 1,907.938
0
1,907.938
0
0.2393 1,912.963
6
Total 1.9096 14.6703 12.3976 0.0199 1.0661 1.0661 1.0479 1.0479 1,907.938
0
1,907.938
0
0.2393 1,912.963
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PMPage 8 of 16
3.3 Trenching - 2017
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 0.0361 0.0538 0.4915 1.0700e-
003
0.0943 7.2000e-
004
0.0950 0.0250 6.7000e-
004
0.0257 86.5098 86.5098 4.5700e-
003
86.6057
Total 0.0361 0.0538 0.4915 1.0700e-
003
0.0943 7.2000e-
004
0.0950 0.0250 6.7000e-
004
0.0257 86.5098 86.5098 4.5700e-
003
86.6057
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 1.9096 14.6703 12.3976 0.0199 1.0661 1.0661 1.0479 1.0479 0.0000 1,907.938
0
1,907.938
0
0.2393 1,912.963
6
Total 1.9096 14.6703 12.3976 0.0199 1.0661 1.0661 1.0479 1.0479 0.0000 1,907.938
0
1,907.938
0
0.2393 1,912.963
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PMPage 9 of 16
3.3 Trenching - 2017
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 0.0361 0.0538 0.4915 1.0700e-
003
0.0943 7.2000e-
004
0.0950 0.0250 6.7000e-
004
0.0257 86.5098 86.5098 4.5700e-
003
86.6057
Total 0.0361 0.0538 0.4915 1.0700e-
003
0.0943 7.2000e-
004
0.0950 0.0250 6.7000e-
004
0.0257 86.5098 86.5098 4.5700e-
003
86.6057
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Architectural Coating - 2017
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 5.5620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.4431 2.9134 2.4908 3.9600e-
003
0.2311 0.2311 0.2311 0.2311 375.2641 375.2641 0.0396 376.0961
Total 6.0051 2.9134 2.4908 3.9600e-
003
0.2311 0.2311 0.2311 0.2311 375.2641 375.2641 0.0396 376.0961
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PMPage 10 of 16
3.4 Architectural Coating - 2017
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 0.0253 0.0377 0.3441 7.5000e-
004
0.0660 5.1000e-
004
0.0665 0.0175 4.7000e-
004
0.0180 60.5568 60.5568 3.2000e-
003
60.6240
Total 0.0253 0.0377 0.3441 7.5000e-
004
0.0660 5.1000e-
004
0.0665 0.0175 4.7000e-
004
0.0180 60.5568 60.5568 3.2000e-
003
60.6240
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 5.5620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.4431 2.9134 2.4908 3.9600e-
003
0.2311 0.2311 0.2311 0.2311 0.0000 375.2641 375.2641 0.0396 376.0961
Total 6.0051 2.9134 2.4908 3.9600e-
003
0.2311 0.2311 0.2311 0.2311 0.0000 375.2641 375.2641 0.0396 376.0961
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PMPage 11 of 16
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 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
Unmitigated 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
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.4 Architectural Coating - 2017
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 0.0253 0.0377 0.3441 7.5000e-
004
0.0660 5.1000e-
004
0.0665 0.0175 4.7000e-
004
0.0180 60.5568 60.5568 3.2000e-
003
60.6240
Total 0.0253 0.0377 0.3441 7.5000e-
004
0.0660 5.1000e-
004
0.0665 0.0175 4.7000e-
004
0.0180 60.5568 60.5568 3.2000e-
003
60.6240
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PMPage 12 of 16
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
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
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
Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
5.0 Energy Detail
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
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
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
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
0.546114 0.062902 0.174648 0.122995 0.034055 0.004856 0.015640 0.024397 0.002087 0.003279 0.006673 0.000688 0.001667
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PMPage 13 of 16
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
Parking Lot 0 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
Total 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
Unmitigated
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
Parking Lot 0 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
Total 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
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PMPage 14 of 16
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 1.7209 2.0000e-
004
0.0208 0.0000 8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e-
004
0.0463
Unmitigated 1.7209 2.0000e-
004
0.0208 0.0000 8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e-
004
0.0463
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
6.8600e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
1.7120 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 2.0100e-
003
2.0000e-
004
0.0208 0.0000 8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e-
004
0.0463
Total 1.7209 2.0000e-
004
0.0208 0.0000 8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e-
004
0.0463
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:36 PMPage 15 of 16
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
6.8600e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
1.7120 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 2.0100e-
003
2.0000e-
004
0.0208 0.0000 8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e-
004
0.0463
Total 1.7209 2.0000e-
004
0.0208 0.0000 8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
0.0438 0.0438 1.2000e-
004
0.0463
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: 4/28/2016 3:36 PMPage 16 of 16
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - proposed project consists of restriping and seal coating an existing parking lot, along with other minor improvements (removal of portion of pavement
and replacement with landscaping, trenching and installation of lighting)
Construction Phase - based on anticipated on-site improvements
Off-road Equipment - based on anticipated on-site improvements
Off-road Equipment - based on anticipated on-site improvements
Off-road Equipment - adjusted for max 8 hrs/day
Demolition - approximate disturbance area
Vehicle Trips - trip generation rate based on project traffic assessment
Land Use Change -
Sequestration -
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
Payless Vehicle Rental
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Parking Lot 200.00 Space 0.99 80,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 64
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
2017Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PMPage 1 of 22
2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 250.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 250.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 250.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 100.00 250.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 10.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 5.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.80 0.99
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.37 0.37
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Concrete/Industrial Saws
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Generator Sets
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Air Compressors
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 1.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2017
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 0.00 1.77
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.00 1.77
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.00 1.77
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PMPage 2 of 22
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
2017 0.0452 0.1400 0.1199 1.8000e-
004
1.2200e-
003
9.3700e-
003
0.0106 3.0000e-
004
9.1100e-
003
9.4000e-
003
0.0000 15.3851 15.3851 2.2800e-
003
0.0000 15.4330
Total 0.0452 0.1400 0.1199 1.8000e-
004
1.2200e-
003
9.3700e-
003
0.0106 3.0000e-
004
9.1100e-
003
9.4000e-
003
0.0000 15.3851 15.3851 2.2800e-
003
0.0000 15.4330
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
2017 0.0452 0.1400 0.1199 1.8000e-
004
1.2200e-
003
9.3700e-
003
0.0106 3.0000e-
004
9.1100e-
003
9.4000e-
003
0.0000 15.3851 15.3851 2.2800e-
003
0.0000 15.4330
Total 0.0452 0.1400 0.1199 1.8000e-
004
1.2200e-
003
9.3700e-
003
0.0106 3.0000e-
004
9.1100e-
003
9.4000e-
003
0.0000 15.3851 15.3851 2.2800e-
003
0.0000 15.4330
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: 4/28/2016 3:51 PMPage 3 of 22
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 0.3139 2.0000e-
005
1.8700e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.5700e-
003
3.5700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.7800e-
003
Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 20.4802 20.4802 9.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
20.5590
Mobile 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
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.3139 2.0000e-
005
1.8700e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 20.4837 20.4837 9.4000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
20.5628
Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PMPage 4 of 22
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 0.3139 2.0000e-
005
1.8700e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.5700e-
003
3.5700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.7800e-
003
Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 20.4802 20.4802 9.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
20.5590
Mobile 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
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.3139 2.0000e-
005
1.8700e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 20.4837 20.4837 9.4000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
20.5628
Mitigated 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 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: 4/28/2016 3:51 PMPage 5 of 22
3.0 Construction Detail
2.3 Vegetation
CO2e
Category MT
New Trees 0.0000
Total 0.0000
Vegetation
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2017 1/6/2017 5 5
2 Trenching Trenching 1/7/2017 1/20/2017 5 10
3 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/21/2017 2/3/2017 5 10
OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 3,600; Non-Residential Outdoor: 1,200 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PMPage 6 of 22
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8.00 78 0.48
Trenching Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Trenching Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Trenching Air Compressors 1 8.00 78 0.48
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Trips and VMT
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 3 8.00 0.00 2.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Trenching 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 7.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PMPage 7 of 22
3.2 Demolition - 2017
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 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 2.5000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 5.2200e-
003
0.0512 0.0402 5.0000e-
005
2.8700e-
003
2.8700e-
003
2.7000e-
003
2.7000e-
003
0.0000 4.1298 4.1298 9.7000e-
004
0.0000 4.1502
Total 5.2200e-
003
0.0512 0.0402 5.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
004
2.8700e-
003
3.1200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
2.7000e-
003
2.7400e-
003
0.0000 4.1298 4.1298 9.7000e-
004
0.0000 4.1502
Unmitigated Construction On-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
Hauling 2.0000e-
005
2.7000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0674 0.0674 0.0000 0.0000 0.0674
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 7.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
004
9.5000e-
004
0.0000 1.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.8000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1584 0.1584 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1585
Total 9.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
1.2000e-
003
0.0000 2.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.0000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2258 0.2258 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2260
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PMPage 8 of 22
3.2 Demolition - 2017
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 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 2.5000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 5.2200e-
003
0.0512 0.0402 5.0000e-
005
2.8700e-
003
2.8700e-
003
2.7000e-
003
2.7000e-
003
0.0000 4.1298 4.1298 9.7000e-
004
0.0000 4.1502
Total 5.2200e-
003
0.0512 0.0402 5.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
004
2.8700e-
003
3.1200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
2.7000e-
003
2.7400e-
003
0.0000 4.1298 4.1298 9.7000e-
004
0.0000 4.1502
Mitigated Construction On-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
Hauling 2.0000e-
005
2.7000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0674 0.0674 0.0000 0.0000 0.0674
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 7.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
004
9.5000e-
004
0.0000 1.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.8000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1584 0.1584 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1585
Total 9.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
1.2000e-
003
0.0000 2.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.0000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2258 0.2258 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2260
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PMPage 9 of 22
3.3 Trenching - 2017
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 9.5500e-
003
0.0734 0.0620 1.0000e-
004
5.3300e-
003
5.3300e-
003
5.2400e-
003
5.2400e-
003
0.0000 8.6543 8.6543 1.0900e-
003
0.0000 8.6771
Total 9.5500e-
003
0.0734 0.0620 1.0000e-
004
5.3300e-
003
5.3300e-
003
5.2400e-
003
5.2400e-
003
0.0000 8.6543 8.6543 1.0900e-
003
0.0000 8.6771
Unmitigated Construction On-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
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 1.7000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
2.3700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
4.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.6000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.3959 0.3959 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3964
Total 1.7000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
2.3700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
4.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.6000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.3959 0.3959 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3964
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PMPage 10 of 22
3.3 Trenching - 2017
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 9.5500e-
003
0.0734 0.0620 1.0000e-
004
5.3300e-
003
5.3300e-
003
5.2400e-
003
5.2400e-
003
0.0000 8.6543 8.6543 1.0900e-
003
0.0000 8.6771
Total 9.5500e-
003
0.0734 0.0620 1.0000e-
004
5.3300e-
003
5.3300e-
003
5.2400e-
003
5.2400e-
003
0.0000 8.6543 8.6543 1.0900e-
003
0.0000 8.6771
Mitigated Construction On-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
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 1.7000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
2.3700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
4.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.6000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.3959 0.3959 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3964
Total 1.7000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
2.3700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
4.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.6000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.3959 0.3959 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3964
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PMPage 11 of 22
3.4 Architectural Coating - 2017
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 0.0278 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.2200e-
003
0.0146 0.0125 2.0000e-
005
1.1600e-
003
1.1600e-
003
1.1600e-
003
1.1600e-
003
0.0000 1.7022 1.7022 1.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.7059
Total 0.0300 0.0146 0.0125 2.0000e-
005
1.1600e-
003
1.1600e-
003
1.1600e-
003
1.1600e-
003
0.0000 1.7022 1.7022 1.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.7059
Unmitigated Construction On-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
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 1.2000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
1.6600e-
003
0.0000 3.2000e-
004
0.0000 3.2000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2772 0.2772 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2775
Total 1.2000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
1.6600e-
003
0.0000 3.2000e-
004
0.0000 3.2000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2772 0.2772 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2775
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PMPage 12 of 22
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
3.4 Architectural Coating - 2017
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 0.0278 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.2200e-
003
0.0146 0.0125 2.0000e-
005
1.1600e-
003
1.1600e-
003
1.1600e-
003
1.1600e-
003
0.0000 1.7022 1.7022 1.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.7059
Total 0.0300 0.0146 0.0125 2.0000e-
005
1.1600e-
003
1.1600e-
003
1.1600e-
003
1.1600e-
003
0.0000 1.7022 1.7022 1.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.7059
Mitigated Construction On-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
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 1.2000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
1.6600e-
003
0.0000 3.2000e-
004
0.0000 3.2000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2772 0.2772 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2775
Total 1.2000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
1.6600e-
003
0.0000 3.2000e-
004
0.0000 3.2000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2772 0.2772 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2775
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PMPage 13 of 22
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 0.0000 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
Unmitigated 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
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
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
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
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
Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
5.0 Energy Detail4.4 Fleet Mix
LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
0.546114 0.062902 0.174648 0.122995 0.034055 0.004856 0.015640 0.024397 0.002087 0.003279 0.006673 0.000688 0.001667
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PMPage 14 of 22
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 20.4802 20.4802 9.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
20.5590
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 20.4802 20.4802 9.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
20.5590
NaturalGas
Mitigated
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
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
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
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
Parking Lot 0 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
Total 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
Unmitigated
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PMPage 15 of 22
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
Parking Lot 0 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
Total 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
Mitigated
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Parking Lot 70400 20.4802 9.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
20.5590
Total 20.4802 9.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
20.5590
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PMPage 16 of 22
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
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 0.3139 2.0000e-
005
1.8700e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.5700e-
003
3.5700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.7800e-
003
Unmitigated 0.3139 2.0000e-
005
1.8700e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.5700e-
003
3.5700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.7800e-
003
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Parking Lot 70400 20.4802 9.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
20.5590
Total 20.4802 9.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
20.5590
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PMPage 17 of 22
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
1.2500e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.3124 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 1.8000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
1.8700e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.5700e-
003
3.5700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.7800e-
003
Total 0.3139 2.0000e-
005
1.8700e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.5700e-
003
3.5700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.7800e-
003
Unmitigated
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
1.2500e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.3124 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 1.8000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
1.8700e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.5700e-
003
3.5700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.7800e-
003
Total 0.3139 2.0000e-
005
1.8700e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.5700e-
003
3.5700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.7800e-
003
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PMPage 18 of 22
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PMPage 19 of 22
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
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PMPage 20 of 22
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
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: 4/28/2016 3:51 PMPage 21 of 22
10.0 Vegetation
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
10.2 Net New Trees
Number of
Trees
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT
Miscellaneous 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Species Class
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 3:51 PMPage 22 of 22
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Mitigation Report
Payless Vehicle Rental
Construction Mitigation Summary
Phase ROG NOx CO SO2
Exhaust
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Percent Reduction
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Trenching 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
OFFROAD Equipment Mitigation
Equipment Type Fuel Type Tier Number Mitigated Total Number of Equipment DPF Oxidation Catalyst
Air Compressors Diesel No Change 0 2 No Change 0.00
Generator Sets Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00
Concrete/Industrial Saws Diesel No Change 0 2 No Change 0.00
Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Diesel No Change 0 2 No Change 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 4:06 PMPage 1 of 7
Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Unmitigated tons/yr Unmitigated mt/yr
Air Compressors 4.43000E-003 2.91300E-002 2.49100E-002 4.00000E-005 2.31000E-003 2.31000E-003 0.00000E+000 3.40434E+000 3.40434E+000 3.60000E-004 0.00000E+000 3.41189E+000
Concrete/Industria
l Saws
4.36000E-003 3.19600E-002 2.81200E-002 5.00000E-005 2.30000E-003 2.30000E-003 0.00000E+000 4.03242E+000 4.03242E+000 3.50000E-004 0.00000E+000 4.03987E+000
Generator Sets 2.85000E-003 2.23200E-002 1.88700E-002 3.00000E-005 1.50000E-003 1.50000E-003 0.00000E+000 2.82604E+000 2.82604E+000 2.30000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.83084E+000
Rubber Tired
Dozers
2.98000E-003 3.29800E-002 2.48500E-002 2.00000E-005 1.53000E-003 1.41000E-003 0.00000E+000 2.06387E+000 2.06387E+000 6.30000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.07714E+000
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes
2.37000E-003 2.27700E-002 1.79100E-002 2.00000E-005 1.71000E-003 1.58000E-003 0.00000E+000 2.15959E+000 2.15959E+000 6.60000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.17348E+000
Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Mitigated tons/yr Mitigated mt/yr
Air Compressors 4.43000E-003 2.91300E-002 2.49100E-002 4.00000E-005 2.31000E-003 2.31000E-003 0.00000E+000 3.40433E+000 3.40433E+000 3.60000E-004 0.00000E+000 3.41188E+000
Concrete/Industrial
Saws
4.36000E-003 3.19600E-002 2.81200E-002 5.00000E-005 2.30000E-003 2.30000E-003 0.00000E+000 4.03242E+000 4.03242E+000 3.50000E-004 0.00000E+000 4.03987E+000
Generator Sets 2.85000E-003 2.23200E-002 1.88700E-002 3.00000E-005 1.50000E-003 1.50000E-003 0.00000E+000 2.82603E+000 2.82603E+000 2.30000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.83084E+000
Rubber Tired Dozers 2.98000E-003 3.29800E-002 2.48500E-002 2.00000E-005 1.53000E-003 1.41000E-003 0.00000E+000 2.06386E+000 2.06386E+000 6.30000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.07714E+000
Tractors/Loaders/Ba
ckhoes
2.37000E-003 2.27700E-002 1.79100E-002 2.00000E-005 1.71000E-003 1.58000E-003 0.00000E+000 2.15958E+000 2.15958E+000 6.60000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.17348E+000
Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Percent Reduction
Air Compressors 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 2.93743E-006 2.93743E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 2.93093E-006
Concrete/Industrial
Saws
0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000
Generator Sets 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 3.53852E-006 3.53852E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000
Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 4.84527E-006 4.84527E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000
Tractors/Loaders/Ba
ckhoes
0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 4.63051E-006 4.63051E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 4:06 PMPage 2 of 7
Fugitive Dust Mitigation
No Soil Stabilizer for unpaved
Roads
PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction
No Replace Ground Cover of Area
Disturbed
PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction
No Water Exposed Area PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Frequency (per
day)
No Unpaved Road Mitigation Moisture Content
%
Vehicle Speed
(mph)
No Clean Paved Road % PM Reduction 0.00
Operational Percent Reduction Summary
Unmitigated Mitigated Percent Reduction
Phase Source PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5
Architectural Coating Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Architectural Coating Roads 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Demolition Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Demolition Roads 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Trenching Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Trenching Roads 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Yes/No Mitigation InputMitigation InputMitigation InputMitigation Measure
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 4:06 PMPage 3 of 7
Category ROG NOx CO SO2
Exhaust
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Percent Reduction
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Consumer Products 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Electricity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Natural Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water Indoor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water Outdoor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Operational Mobile Mitigation
Mitigation
Selected
No
No
No
No
No
No
Category
Land Use
Land Use
Land Use
Land Use
Land Use
Land Use
Land Use
% Reduction
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
Input Value 1
0.15
Input Value 2 Input Value
3
Measure
Increase Diversity
Land Use SubTotal
Integrate Below Market Rate Housing
Increase Transit Accessibility
Improve Destination Accessibility
Improve Walkability Design
Increase Density
Project Setting:
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 4:06 PMPage 4 of 7
No
No
No Neighborhood Enhancements
Neighborhood Enhancements
Neighborhood Enhancements
0.00Implement NEV Network
Provide Traffic Calming Measures
Improve Pedestrian Network
No
No
No
No
No
No
Parking Policy Pricing
Transit Improvements
Transit Improvements
Transit Improvements
Transit Improvements
Parking Policy Pricing
Parking Policy Pricing
Parking Policy Pricing
Neighborhood Enhancements 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00Limit Parking Supply
Land Use and Site Enhancement Subtotal
Transit Improvements Subtotal
Increase Transit Frequency
Expand Transit Network
Provide BRT System
Parking Policy Pricing Subtotal
On-street Market Pricing
Unbundle Parking Costs
Neighborhood Enhancements Subtotal
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Commute
Commute
Commute
Commute
Commute
Commute
Commute
Commute
Commute
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
Transit Subsidy
Commute Subtotal
Provide Ride Sharing Program
Employee Vanpool/Shuttle
Market Commute Trip Reduction Option
Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative
Work Schedules
Workplace Parking Charge
Implement Employee Parking "Cash Out"
Implement Trip Reduction Program
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 4:06 PMPage 5 of 7
Area Mitigation
Measure Implemented
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Mitigation Measure
No Hearth
% Electric Chainsaw
% Electric Leafblower
% Electric Lawnmower
Use Low VOC Paint (Non-residential Exterior)
Use Low VOC Paint (Non-residential Interior)
Use Low VOC Paint (Residential Exterior)
Use Low VOC Paint (Residential Interior)
Use Low VOC Cleaning Supplies
Only Natural Gas Hearth
Input Value
150.00
100.00
150.00
100.00
Energy Mitigation Measures
Measure Implemented
No
No
No
Mitigation Measure
Install High Efficiency Lighting
On-site Renewable
Exceed Title 24
Input Value 1 Input Value 2
Appliance Type Land Use Subtype % Improvement
ClothWasher 30.00
No School Trip 0.00Implement School Bus Program
0.00Total VMT Reduction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 4:06 PMPage 6 of 7
DishWasher 15.00
Fan 50.00
Refrigerator 15.00
Water Mitigation Measures
Measure Implemented
No
No
No
Mitigation Measure
Use Reclaimed Water
Use Grey Water
Apply Water Conservation on Strategy
Input Value 1 Input Value 2
No
No
No
No
Install low-flow bathroom faucet
Install low-flow Toilet
Install low-flow Shower
Install low-flow Kitchen faucet
32.00
18.00
20.00
20.00
No
No
No
Turf Reduction
Water Efficient Landscape
Use Water Efficient Irrigation Systems 6.10
Solid Waste Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Institute Recycling and Composting Services
Percent Reduction in Waste Disposed
Input Value
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 4/28/2016 4:06 PMPage 7 of 7
Appendix B
332 Pine Street | 4th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790
www.fehrandpeers.com
February 3, 2015
Mark Melbye
Kidder Matthews
Towers at Shores Center
203 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 530
Redwood City, CA 94065
Subject: Arata Property Transportation Assessment (SF14-0769)
Dear Mr. Melbye:
This letter provides the draft transportation assessment of the proposed Project at the Arata
Property in South San Francisco, CA. This letter summarizes the site plan review and analysis
findings. Detailed documentation of the existing conditions and analysis for review and comment
by City staff follows this letter in Attachment A.
As detailed in this letter, all intersections are projected to meet the standards for acceptable
operations under the evaluated scenarios; therefore, the Project does not have a significant
impact on the study intersections, and intersection mitigation is not needed.
The following sections present the Project description, site plan review, and transportation impact
assessment findings. All figures and attachments are at the end of this document.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project site is located at 1350 San Mateo Avenue in South San Francisco and is bound by San
Mateo Avenue to the west, Colma Creek to the north, and the Peninsula Auto Body Driveway to
the south. Figure 1 shows the Project location.
The Project intends to replace the currently vacant lot, formally a Park-and-Fly parking lot, with a
Car Rental Kiosk and associated parking lot as well as construct an egress driveway approximately
200 feet north of the San Mateo Avenue at Lowrie Avenue intersection and an ingress driveway
just north of the Peninsula Autobody driveway. Patrons accessing the former Park-and-Fly site
used a driveway off of the Peninsula Auto Body driveway, approximately 50 feet east of San
Mark Melbye, Kidder Matthews
February 3, 2015
Page 2 of 7
Mateo Avenue. Access to the site through the Peninsula Autobody Driveway would close once the
new driveways are constructed.
In the near term, the Project would occupy the western parcels of the site, which would contain
approximately 150 parking stalls. Upon approval of rezoning the eastern parcels, the Project
would construct additional temporary vehicle staging lanes on the eastern parcels. In total, the
site would contain approximately 350 parking stalls.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
The Project site plans have been reviewed with consideration for safe and efficient circulation of
vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians through the Project site and on the roadways adjacent to the
Project site. The site plan review focused on:
The Proposed driveways interface with the existing roadway network, including sight
distances and driveway spacing
Vehicle circulation and drive aisles within the site
Pedestrian access and circulation within and adjacent to the site
Bicycle access and circulation within and adjacent to the site
Site recommendations are presented on Figure 2.
VEHICULAR ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Access to the Project would be provided by two driveways, one for egress and one for ingress, on
San Mateo Avenue. The site access intersections are expected to operate with minimal delay.
Recommendation: Provide way-finding signs in the lot, directing drivers to vehicle return
stalls, exit driveway, and major destinations (e.g. US-101).
Site Distance and Driveway Assessment
A sight distance assessment was conducted at the San Mateo Avenue driveways. Chapter 400 of
the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) defines the minimum required sight distances for
different design speeds. The HDM defines two kinds of sight distance: stopping sight distance
and corner sight distance, which are defined below. Failure to meet the minimum sight distances
could warrant the installation of traffic control.
Mark Melbye, Kidder Matthews
February 3, 2015
Page 3 of 7
Corner Sight Distance
Corner sight distance signifies the line of sight maintained between the driver of a vehicle waiting
at the cross road, in this case the egress driveway north of Lowrie Avenue and the driver of an
approaching vehicle on San Mateo Avenue.
Based on a 25 mile per hour (mph) roadway, adequate sight distance is feasible if landscaping is
maintained and parking is prohibited adjacent to the exit driveway.
Stopping Sight Distance
Stopping sight distance is the distance required by the driver of a vehicle, traveling at a given
speed, to bring the vehicle to a stop after an object in the road becomes visible and in advance of
reaching the object. The HDM defines the minimum stopping sight distance requirement as 150
feet for a roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 mph.
For vehicles turning from San Mateo Avenue into the project driveway or vehicles passing the
egress driveway, sight distance is estimated to be over 150 feet, thus meeting the stopping sight
distance requirements. If the Project is constructed and the speed limit adjusted, stopping sight
distance conditions would become even greater.
Recommendation: Maintain landscaping along San Mateo Avenue, adjacent to the
Project driveways, to avoid sight distance conflicts (shrubs should not be higher than
approximately 30 inches and tree canopies should be approximately six feet from the
ground).
Recommendation: On-street parking should be restricted on San Mateo Avenue on
either side of the egress Project driveway to limit sight distance issues; approximately 60
feet to the north and 20 feet to the south.
Figure 3 summarizes the sight distance assessment.
Shuttle Vehicle Access
Shuttle access to and from the site is provided by two driveways off San Mateo Avenue. The site
plan indicates a bus parking stall, adjacent to the car rental building which allows customers to
enter and exit the building directly from the shuttle.
Mark Melbye, Kidder Matthews
February 3, 2015
Page 4 of 7
Emergency Vehicle Access
A fire station is located on Harbor Way, approximately 0.5 miles from the Project site. Emergency
vehicles can access the site from either driveway on San Mateo Avenue, so if one entrance is
blocked, alternative access would be available.
Pedestrian Access
Pedestrian facilities are provided adjacent to the site, such that pedestrians walking to the Project
could access the site. A designated pedestrian walkway is provided from San Mateo Avenue to
the Rental Office.
Bicycle Access
San Mateo Avenue is a designated bicycle route. Bicycle facilities on site are not provided. If
employees are to bike to the site, bicycle parking should be considered.
PROPOSED PROJECT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT
This section provides the transportation impact assessment of the Project, or the existing
conditions plus the expected impact of the Project.
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
Traffic operations throughout the study area are analyzed using the Synchro models used in the
evaluation of the existing peak hours. Table 1 shows the LOS results for both scenarios and
Attachment A documents detailed existing conditions, impact criteria, and findings.
The significance criteria states that acceptable operations for the study intersections is LOS D (less
than 55 seconds of average control delay per vehicle) or better. As shown in Table 7, all
intersections are projected to meet this standard under the evaluated scenarios; therefore, the
Project does not have a significant impact on the study intersections, and intersection mitigation
is not needed. The Synchro worksheets used to complete this analysis are provided in
Attachment B.
Mark Melbye, Kidder Matthews
February 3, 2015
Page 5 of 7
TABLE 1: EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS SUMMARY
Intersection Control1 Peak
Hour
Existing
Conditions
Existing Plus 50%
Occupancy
Existing Plus 100%
Occupancy
Existing Plus 100%
Occupancy (Eastern
Parcels Acquired)
Delay2 LOS2 Delay2 LOS2 Delay2 LOS2 Delay2 LOS2
1. San Mateo Avenue /
Airport Boulevard3 Signal AM
PM
35
43
D
D
31
43
D
D
35
43
D
D
35
43
D
D
2. San Mateo Avenue /
Lowrie Avenue SSSC AM
PM
<10 (EB 15)
<10 (EB 23)
A (B)
A (C)
<10 (EB 15)
<10 (EB 23)
A (C)
A (C)
<10 (EB 15)
<10 (EB 23)
A (C)
A (C)
<10 (EB 15)
<10 (EB 24)
A (C)
A (C)
3. San Mateo Avenue /
Peninsula Auto Body
Driveway / Ingress
Driveway
SSSC AM
PM
<10 (WB 14)
<10 (WB 12)
A (B)
A (B)
<10 (WB 15)
<10 (WB 12)
A (B)
A (B)
<10 (WB 15)
<10 (WB 12)
A (B)
A (B)
<10 (WB 15)
<10 (WB 12)
A (C)
A (B)
4. San Mateo Avenue /
Egress Driveway SSSC AM
PM
n/a4
n/a4
n/a4
n/a4
<10 (WB 13)
<10 (WB 13)
A (B)
A (B)
<10 (WB 13)
<10 (WB 12)
A (B)
A (B)
<10 (WB 12)
<10 (WB 13)
A (B)
A (B)
Notes:
1. Signal = signalized intersection; SSSC = side-street stop controlled intersection.
2. Traffic operations results include LOS (level of service) and delay (seconds per vehicle). LOS is based on delay thresholds published in the Highway Capacity Manual
(Transportation Research Board, 2010).
3. Due to its unique intersection geometries and operations, HCM 2000 was used for the analysis.
4. n/a = Intersection does not existing under existing conditions.
Source: Fehr & Peers, November 2014.
Mark Melbye, Kidder Matthews
February 3, 2015
Page 6 of 7
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
The Project is expected to generate very few pedestrian trips. The existing pedestrian facilities in
the project area, including sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals, have the capacity and
design to adequately accommodate additional pedestrian trips generated by the Project.
Recommendations: City engineering staff should review site plan designs to assure that
safe and comfortable pedestrian conditions are constructed as part of the Project,
including assuring that all sidewalks and curb ramps meet the American Disability Act
(ADA) guidelines. Project driveways should be designed to minimize cross-slopes within
the sidewalks and with good visibility between entering/exiting vehicles and pedestrians
on the sidewalks.
BICYCLE FACILITIES
The Project is expected to generate very few bicycle trips. Bike Route 15 on San Mateo Avenue,
the existing bicycle facility in the project area, has the capacity and design to adequately
accommodate additional bicycle trips generated by the Project.
TRANSIT FACILITIES
The Project is expected to generate very few transit trips. As detailed in Attachment A, the existing
transit facilities within one mile of the Project site are BART, Caltrain, and SamTrans stations.
These facilities have the capacity and design to adequately accommodate additional transit trips
generated by the Project.
This concludes our transportation findings of the Project at the Arata Property in South San
Francisco. For questions or comments, please contact Sarah Nadiranto at (415) 426-2521.
Sincerely,
FEHR & PEERS
Sarah Nadiranto
Mark Melbye, Kidder Matthews
February 3, 2015
Page 7 of 7
Figures
Figure 1: Project Study Area
Figure 2: Site Plan Review
Figure 3: Sight Distance Assessment
Attachments
Attachment A: Detailed Documentation and Findings
Attachment B: LOS Calculation Worksheets
Attachment C: Data Collection – Peak Period Intersection Counts and Driveway Counts
WESTERN
PARCELS
EASTERN
PARCELS
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
S A i r p ort Blvd
S Airport Blvd
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
S Canal St
MitchellAve
N Canal St
T e r m i n a l C t
G atewayBlvd
A
ir
p
o
r
t
B
v
d
S Linden Ave
S Linden Ave
LowrieAve
Lowrie Ave
San Mateo Ave
Sa n M a t e o A v e 1
2
3
\\Fpsf03\data\Projects\2014 Projects\SF14-0769_Arata Property TIS\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Basemap.mxd
Project Location and Study IntersectionsFigure 1
N
101
101
4
Study Intersection
Proposed Int ersection#
#Project Site
SAN MATEO
SAN FRANCISCO
-
OV
E
R
A
L
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
SP1
2
SCALEOVERALL SITE PLAN 11"=30'-0"
N
NORTH
N
Source: Avis Budget Group, October 2014
Near-Term Project Site (150 stalls)
Total Project Site Pending Rezoning Approval (350 stalls)
Site Plan Review
Figure 2
Maintain landscaping and
prohibit parking 20’ on
either side of driveway to
limit sight distance issues.
Other Recommendations
• Provide way-finding signs in the lot,
directing drivers to vehicle return stalls,
exit driveway, and major destinations
(i.e., US-101).
• The fire department should review the
site plan for fire truck and emergency
vehicle access.
Note: Vehicles occupied in "Ready Stalls" are available for rental. Flex Return/Return stalls are used for vehicle return and
storage. Flex Return/Return stalls operate like a Valet lot where cars are parked behind one another to maximize space.
-
OV
E
R
A
L
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
SP1
2
SCALEOVERALL SITE PLAN 11"=30'-0"
N
NORTH
N
Source: Avis Budget Group, October 2014
Sight Distance
Figure 3
THIS SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
Lin
e
o
f
S
i
g
h
t
=
2
7
5
’
+
Lin
e
o
f
S
i
g
h
t
=
2
7
5
’
+
L
i
n
e
o
f
S
i
g
h
t
=
2
7
5
’
+
L
i
n
e
o
f
S
i
g
h
t
=
2
7
5
’
+
Sight Distance Near-Term Project Site (150 stalls)
Line of Sight Total Project Site Pending Rezoning Approval (350 stalls)
Stopping
Sight Distance = 150’+
Stopping
Sight Distance = 150’+
332 Pine Street | 4th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790
www.fehrandpeers.com
ATTACHMENT A
Attachment A documents the transportation assessment of the proposed Payless Car Rental
Project (Project) at the Arata Property. The Attachment documents study locations and study
scenarios, significance criteria, existing conditions, Project description including trip generation
and trip distribution, and transportation impact assessment for review and comment by City staff.
Figures and Attachments referenced below are found at the end of this document.
STUDY LOCATIONS AND SCENARIOS
The following intersections were selected for assessment based on knowledge of the local area,
discussions with City staff, and a preliminary estimate of the amount and prevailing directions of
travel of Project-generated vehicles:
1. San Mateo Avenue / Airport Boulevard
2. San Mateo Avenue/ Lowrie Avenue
3. San Mateo Avenue/Peninsula Auto Body Driveway / Project Ingress Driveway
4. San Mateo Avenue / Egress Driveway (Does not existing under existing conditions)
The intersections were evaluated for the weekday morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and evening (4:00 to
6:00 PM) peak periods. Figure A-1 shows the study intersection locations in relationship to the
site and existing AM and PM peak hour turning movement data.
For this study, the following scenarios were evaluated:
Existing – Existing (2014) conditions based on traffic counts collected in September 2014
Existing Plus Project – Existing conditions plus Project-generated vehicles. Rental car
operations vary day to day dependent on the season, day of week, and time period. For
this reason, three plus Project scenarios were assessed:
o Existing Plus Project (~50% Occupancy): Assumes approx. 50-percent of the
western parcel spaces (70 vehicles) are occupied and available for customer rental
o Existing Plus Project (~100% Occupancy): Assumes approx. 100-percent of the
western parcel spaces (150 vehicles) are occupied and available for customer
rental
Arata Property Transportation Assessment
February 3, 2015
Page 2 of 12
o Existing Plus Project (~100% Occupancy Full Site): Assumes approx. 100-percent
of the eastern and western parcel spaces (350 vehicles) are occupied and
available for customer rental
ANALYSIS METHODS
The operational performance of a roadway network is commonly described with the term level of
service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of operating conditions, ranging from LOS A (free -
flow traffic conditions with little or no delay) to LOS F (oversaturated conditions where traffic
flows exceed design capacity, resulting in long queues and delays.) LOS E corresponds to
operations “at capacity.” When volumes exceed capacity, stop-and-go conditions result and
operations are designated as LOS F.
The LOS analysis methods used in this study are consistent with the 2010 Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board. The HCM methods for
calculating LOS for signalized intersections and unsignalized intersections are described below.
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Traffic operations at signalized intersections are evaluated using the LOS method described in
Chapter 16 of the HCM. A signalized intersection’s LOS is based on the weighted average control
delay measured in seconds per vehicle and includes initial deceleration delay, queue move -up
time, stopped delay, and final acceleration. Table 1 summarizes the relationship between the
control delay and LOS for signalized intersections.
Arata Property Transportation Assessment
February 3, 2015
Page 3 of 12
TABLE 1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA
Level of
Service Description
Average
Control Delay
(seconds per
vehicle)
A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable traffic signal
progression and/or short cycle lengths. < 10.0
B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or
short cycle lengths. > 10.0 to 20.0
C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or
longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. > 20.0 to 35.0
D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable
progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop
and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
> 35.0 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.
> 55.0 to 80.0
F Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to
over-saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010.
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Traffic conditions at unsignalized intersections are evaluated using the method from Chapter 17
of the HCM. With this method, operations are defined by the average control delay per vehicle
(measured in seconds) for each movement that must yield the right -of-way. For all-way stop-
controlled intersections, the average control delay is calculated for the intersection as a whole. At
two-way or side street-controlled intersections, the control delay (and LOS) is calculated for each
controlled movement, the left turn movement from the major street, and the entire intersection.
Table 2 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections.
Arata Property Transportation Assessment
February 3, 2015
Page 4 of 12
TABLE 2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA
Level of
Service Description
Average
Control Delay
(seconds per
vehicle)
A Little or no delays < 10.0
B Short traffic delays > 10.0 to 15.0
C Average traffic delays > 15.0 to 25.0
D Long traffic delays > 25.0 to 35.0
E Very long traffic delays > 35.0 to 50.0
F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded > 50.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010.
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
Significance criteria are used to determine whether a Project impact is considered significant and
therefore require mitigation. The Project would have a significant impact on the environment if it
would cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the traffic load and capacity of
the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, or delay
and congestion at i ntersections), or change the condition of an existing street (e.g., street
closures, changing direction of travel) in a manner that would substantially impact access or traffic
load and capacity of the street system. The City of South San Francisco does not have a level of
service policy for vehicles, but strives to balance modes of travel and provide equitable access,
recognizing that people travel by a variety of modes, not just in vehicles and that the use of an
auto-focused level of service standard does not address the mobility needs for non-auto roadway
users.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
For the purpose of this study and understanding the potential effects of the Project, a significant
impact would be identified if:
Arata Property Transportation Assessment
February 3, 2015
Page 5 of 12
If a signalized intersection is projected to operate within expected delay ranges (i.e., LOS
D or better with an average control delay of equal to or less than 55 seconds per vehicle)
without the project and the project is expected to cause the facility to operate at an
unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F);
If an intersection is projected to operate at or over capacity (i.e., LOS E or F) without the
project, and the project is expected to increase the average control delay by more than 5
seconds; or
If the operations of an unsignalized study intersec tion is projected to decline with the
addition of project traffic, and if the installation of a traffic signal based on the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Peak Hour Signal Warrant (Warrant 3) would be
warranted.
The project substantially increases traffic hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment);
The project results in inadequate emergency access;
The project conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities;
A pedestrian or bicycle impact is considered significant if it would:
o Disrupt existing pedestrian facilities;
o Interfere with planned pedestrian facilities; or
o Create inconsistencies with adopted pedestrian system plans, guidelines, policies, or
standards.
A bicycle impact is considered significant if it would:
o Disrupt existing bicycle facilities;
o Interfere with planned bicycle facilities;
o Create inconsistencies with adopted bicycle system plans, guidelines, policies, or
standards; or
o Not provide secure and safe bicycle parking in adequate proportion to anticipated
demand.
o A transit impact is considered significant if it would result in development that is
inaccessible to transit riders.
Arata Property Transportation Assessment
February 3, 2015
Page 6 of 12
EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section outlines the data collection involved in this analysis. It outlines the existing
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities and summarized existing operating conditions.
DATA COLLECTION
Existing peak hour vehicle turning movement, bicycle, and pedestrian volume counts were
collected from 7:00 to 9:00 AM and from 4:00 to 6:00 PM on Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at
the three existing study intersections. The weekday AM peak hour in the study area is generally
from 8:00 to 9:00 AM, the weekday PM peak hour is generally from 4:45 to 5:45 PM. Figure A-1
shows the existing peak hour intersection volumes, lane configurations, and traffic control for the
AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Additionally, 24-hour vehicle counts were collected at San
Mateo Avenue south of Lowrie Avenue and the two driveways off of the Payless Car rental lot
(“Burlingame Payless”) at 1409 Rollins Road in Burlingame, CA 1. Additional data collection was
also completed, including observations of the lane configurations, signal timings, intersection
operations and vehicle queuing. Detailed traffic count sheets are provided in Attachment C.
Field Observations
Existing transportation operations were observed at the Project site and the Burlingame Payless
during the AM and PM peak period. During the AM peak hour, no major queues were present at
the study intersections. Typically, each movement was served within the given green time and
queues were within the constructed pocket length. Spillback to downstream intersections was not
observed. Similarly, during the PM peak period, queue spillback to downstream intersections was
not observed. An increase in vehicle traffic along Airport Boulevard was observed during the PM
peak hour due to its direct access to the US-101 South on-ramp. However, vehicles were typically
served within the given green time.
The Burlingame Payless does not have on-premises vehicle washing and fueling, so once a
customer returns the rental, the vehicle is driven to an off -site facility for cleaning. At times, a
vehicle could be driven off the site up to three times before ready for another customer rental.
1 The purpose of the off-site 24-hour vehicle counts is to collect existing roadway volume information to
capture vehicle trip generation of an existing site with similar operating characteristics of the proposed
Project. Vehicle count devices were placed away from the intersection to avoid queued vehicles at the signal
sitting on the hoses and low traffic speeds, which can lead to inaccurate counts. The peak period study
intersection and existing driveway counts adequately captured the traffic at the driveways generated by the
land use.
Arata Property Transportation Assessment
February 3, 2015
Page 7 of 12
The South San Francisco site proposes on-premises washing and possibly fueling, such that off-
site cleaning vehicle trips would not occur regularly.
Customer Shuttle Observations
The Burlingame Payless has two entrances: one driveway onto Rollins Road on the north end of
the site and a second driveway onto Carolan Avenue on the south end of the site. Therefore,
customer shuttles and vans arriving from San Francisco International Airport enter on Rollins Road
and exit on Carolan Avenue, minimizing the space needed for circulation and maneuvering within
the parking lot.
Burlingame Payless generally operates at least two shuttles operating at ten minute headways: a
mid-size passenger bus and a passenger van.
EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
Traffic operations throughout the study area are analyzed using the Synchro 8.0 software
program. Synchro calculations are based on the procedures outlined in the HCM. Table 3 shows
the LOS results for the existing weekday AM and PM peak hours. As shown below, the study
intersections perform at LOS C or better during the AM peak hour and LOS D or better during the
PM peak hours. Long queues and delays are not observed in the analysis and results are
consistent with field observations collected in September 2014.
The San Mateo Avenue and Airport Boulevard intersection operates at LOS C and D during the
AM and PM peak hour, respectively. The delay during the PM peak hour is associated with an
increase in traffic volumes at the intersection because of direct access to the US -101 southbound
on-ramp. At the side-street stop controlled intersections, average intersection delay was less than
ten seconds and the worst street stop had a delay of 23 seconds. Overall, all study intersections
operate well with nominal delay.
Arata Property Transportation Assessment
February 3, 2015
Page 8 of 12
TABLE 3: EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS SUMMARY
Intersection Control
1
Peak
Hour
Existing Conditions
Delay2 LOS2
1. San Mateo Avenue / Airport Boulevard3 Signal AM
PM
35
43
D
D
2. San Mateo Avenue / Lowrie Avenue SSSC AM
PM
<10 (EB 15)
<10 (EB 23)
A (B)
A (C)
3. San Mateo Avenue / Peninsula Auto
Body Driveway / Ingress Driveway SSSC AM
PM
<10 (WB 14)
<10 (WB 12)
A (B)
A (B)
4. San Mateo Avenue / Egress Driveway SSSC AM
PM
n/a4
n/a4
n/a4
n/a4
Notes:
1. Signal = signalized intersection; SSSC = side-street stop controlled intersection.
2. Traffic operations results include LOS (level of service) and delay (seconds per vehicle). LOS is based on delay
thresholds published in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2010).
3. Due to its unique intersection geometries and operations, HCM 2000 was used for the analysis.
4. n/a = Intersection does not existing under existing conditions.
Source: Fehr & Peers, November 2014.
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
San Mateo Avenue, which runs adjacent to the western edge of the Project site, has a narrow
sidewalk on both sides of the street. There are several supply/light-industrial businesses and
parking lots with driveways and curb cuts along San Mateo Avenue. The nearest crosswalks to the
Project site are at San Mateo Avenue and Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue, approximately 500
feet to the north.
Figure A-2 shows existing AM/PM pedestrian crossings at existing study intersections.
BICYCLE FACILITIES
The stretch of San Mateo Avenue adjacent to the Project site does not have visible sharrows (bike
and arrow pavement markings placed to guide bicyclists to the best place to ride on the road and
remind drivers to share the road with cyclists) but signs along the ro ad designate it as Bike Route
15. The route continues south towards the Centennial Way Trail, which is a 2.85 -mile linear park
on top of the underground BART tube with a Class I bicycle and pedestrian trail 2 less than a mile
2 Centennial Way Brochure, City of South San Francisco:
Arata Property Transportation Assessment
February 3, 2015
Page 9 of 12
from the Project site. The bicycle route on San Mateo Avenue also extends north from the Project
site through the intersection with South Airport Boulevard and Produce Avenue and continues
south along South Airport Boulevard.
Figure A-2 shows existing bicycle facilities in the study area and bicycle turning movements for
the AM and PM peak hour.
TRANSIT FACILITIES
While the Project site is less than a mile from the San Bruno Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station
and less than a mile from the South San Francisco Caltrain station, neither of these transit services
are close enough to affect project trips. Similarly, San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans)
operates 73 bus routes and paratransit service throughout San Mateo County and parts of San
Francisco and Palo Alto, but there are no stops within a half mile (or a 10-minute walk) of the
project site.
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
This section provides an overview of the proposed Project components and addresses the
proposed Project’s potential impacts on the surrounding roadway network. T his was done using a
three-step process:
1) Trip Generation – The amount of vehicle traffic entering/existing the Project site was
estimated.
2) Trip Distribution – The direction of trips would use to approach and depart the site was
projected.
3) Trip Assignment – Trips were then assigned to specific roadway segments and
intersection turning movements.
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation rates are not available in the 9 th Edition of the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation Manual for car rental sites. Therefore, vehicle trip
generation estimates for the Project during both AM and PM peak hours were developed using
driveway counts collected from the Burlingame Payless. It is our understanding that the proposed
http://www.ssf.net/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1255
Arata Property Transportation Assessment
February 3, 2015
Page 10 of 12
Project will operate similarly to the Payless site, with the exception of the vehicle washing and
fueling operations.
To calculate trip generation rates, 24-hour pneumatic tube data was collected during an average
weekday and total number of parking spaces on site were counted at Burlingame Payless. AM
and PM peak hour trip generation rates were estimated based on the number of incoming and
outgoing vehicles to the number of available parking stalls. The Burlingame site requires each
returned rental make additional trips for vehicle washing and fueling; therefore a factor was
applied to decrease driveway counts to account for additional trips that will not occur at the
South San Francisco site. The analysis assumes that no off -site vehicle trips would be required,
such that vehicle washing and fueling operations would occur on site. The Project site plan
proposes to construct a washing station, however, a fueling station may not be provided. If a
fueling station is not provided, trip generation rates could increase. However, data collected at
the Burlingame Payless site shows that 85-percent of customers return the vehicle with a full tank
of gasoline, such that 15-percent of vehicles need to be taken off-site for fuel. Therefore, it is
assumed that if 15-percent of vehicles need to drive off-site for fuel, it would not generate
enough vehicle traffic to adversely affect intersection delay. Table 4 shows trip generation
estimates based on the methodology described above.
TABLE 4: TRIP GENERATION RATES
Time Period Rate per
Occupied Stall % Enter % Exit
AM Peak Hour 0.06 95% 5%
PM Peak Hour 0.14 54% 46%
Daily 1.77 62% 38%
Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2014.
Table 5 shows the vehicle trip generation estimates for the three plus Project scenarios
Arata Property Transportation Assessment
February 3, 2015
Page 11 of 12
Table 5: Project Trip Generation
Number of Vehicles
Available for Rent Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
70 (~50% Occupancy) 124 5 1 6 6 5 11
150 (~100% Occupancy) 265 10 1 11 12 10 22
350 (~100% Occupancy of
Eastern and Western Parcels) 619 22 2 24 27 23 50
Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2014.
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
Trip distribution is defined as the directions of approach and departure that vehicles would use to
arrive at and depart from the site. This traffic analysis assumes that all new Project -generated
trips would be distributed proportionately based on an assessment of the current movements at
the existing intersections. The study assumes approximately 10% of trips will travel to / come
from south San Mateo Avenue, with the remaining 90% of trips traveling to / coming from
Airport Boulevard. A majority of trips are assumed to access regional destinations by way of US -
101.
Figure A-3 and Figure A-4 show the Project-generated trips assigned to the intersection turning
movements for the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. Figure A-5 and Figure A-6 show the
Project-generated trips added to existing traffic volumes for the AM and PM peak hour,
respectively.
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
As detailed in the letter above, with the Project traffic, intersections are expected to operate at
LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours, therefore, the Project does not have a
significant impact on the study intersections, and inters ection mitigation is not needed. Detailed
analysis worksheets are provided in Attachment B.
This concludes the detailed assessment. For questions or comments, please contact Sarah
Nadiranto at (415) 426-2521.
Arata Property Transportation Assessment
February 3, 2015
Page 12 of 12
Figures
Figure A-1: Project Study Intersections, Existing Traffic Control, Lane Configurations, and Peak
Hour Traffic Volumes
Figure A-2: Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities and Intersection Volumes
Figure A-3: Project Trip Turning Movements – AM Peak Hour
Figure A-4: Project Trip Turning Movements – PM Peak Hour
Figure A-5: Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Turning Movements – AM Peak Hour
Figure A-6: Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Turning Movements – PM Peak Hour
4
WESTERN
PARCELS
EASTERN
PARCELS
3
2
1
San Mateo Ave
Lowrie Ave
S A i r p o r t B l v d
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
A
ir
p
o
r
t
B
v
d
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
Pro
du
ce
Ave
gabcf
abcf
e b ebaccf
gaccf
Produce Avenue
San Mateo Avenue Lowrie Avenue
San Mateo Avenue
Peninsula Autobody Driveway
Airport Boulevard
San Mateo Avenue
Airport Boulevard
186 (113)
36 (22)
309 (205)
352 (421)
0 (1)
12 (15)
343 (406)
76 (95)
665 (1,070)
157 (123)
335 (365)
1 (2)
68 (38)
331 (347)
98 (141)150 (167)128 (220)
30 (79)5 (14)
0 (1)1 (0)
203 (450)180 (207)362 (827)
2. Lowrie Ave/San Mateo Ave1. San Mateo Ave/Airport Blvd 4. Proposed Drwy/San Mateo Ave3. Peninsula Autobody Drwy/San Mateo Ave
N:\Projects\2014 Projects\SF14-0769_Arata Property TIS\Graphics\GIS\MXD\PHTV.mxd
Existing Peak Hour Intersection Volum es,Lane Configurations, and Traffic Control
Figure A-1
AM (PM)
aTraffic Signal
Stop Sign
Turn Lane
Peak Hour Traffic Volume
101
N
PROPOSED INTERSECTION
Study Intersection
Future Stu dy Intersection#
#
4
WESTERN
PARCELS
EASTERN
PARCELS
3
2
1
San Mateo Ave
Lowrie Ave
S A i r p o r t B l v d
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
A
ir
p
o
r
t
B
v
d
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
Pro
du
ce
Ave
2. Lowrie Ave/San Mateo Ave1. San Mateo Ave/Airport Blvd 4. Proposed Drwy/San Mateo Ave3. Peninsula Autobody Drwy/San Mateo Ave
N:\Projects\2014 Projects\SF14-0769_Arata Property TIS\Graphics\GIS\MXD\PHTV.mxd
Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and Volumes
Figure A-2
AM (PM)
aTraffic Signal
Stop Sign
Turn Lane
Peak Hour Traffic Volume
101
N
PROPOSED
INTERSECTION
Study Intersection
Future Study Intersection#
#
Pr
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
dddd
1 (3)
2 (5)
3
(
3
)
2
(
1
1
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (1)
9 (1)
1 (0)
1 (0)
4 (13)
0 (0)
1
(
0
)
2
(
0
)
4
(
2
)
Airport Boulevard
San Mateo Avenue
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
Lowrie Avenue
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
Peninsula Autobody Driveway
0 (0)
1 (3)
7
(
7
)
1
(
4
)
0
(
0
)
9
(
3
)
2 (0)
0 (0)
1
(
2
)
5
(
1
5
)
9 (22)
8 (6)
0
(
0
)
1
(
0
)
9
(
5
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
5
(
1
0
)
0
(
0
)
G G
E
B E
B
AM (PM) [Mid-Day]Peak Hour Volume
-Pedestrian
-Bicycle
Pedestrian Crosswalk
Bicycle Travel
Class II Bike Lane
Class III Bike Route
d
Crosswalk Direction
Bicycle Lane Direction !!
""Proposed Intersection
Study Intersection#
#
4
WESTERN
PARCELS
EASTERN
PARCELS
3
2
1
San Mateo Ave
Lowrie Ave
S A i r p o r t B l v d
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
A
ir
p
o
r
t
B
v
d
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
Pro
du
ce
Ave
gabcf
abcf
e b
g
ebaccf eg
baccf
Produce Avenue
San Mateo Avenue Lowrie Avenue
San Mateo Avenue
San Mateo Avenue
Peninsula Autobody Driveway
Airport Boulevard
San Mateo Avenue
Airport Boulevard Proposed Driveway
3 (5) [10]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [0]
1 (1) [3]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [0]
1 (1) [2]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [0]
5 (9) [20]
0 (0) [0]
5 (10) [20]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [0]
1 (1) [1]1 (1) [1]1 (1) [1]
0 (0) [0]0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [0]0 (0) [0]
1 (1) [2]1 (1) [1]
0 (0) [0]2 (4) [9]0 (0) [0]
2. Lowrie Ave/San Mateo Ave1. San Mateo Ave/Airport Blvd 4. Proposed Drwy/San Mateo Ave3. Peninsula Autobody Drwy/San Mateo Ave
N:\Projects\2014 Projects\SF14-0769_Arata Property TIS\Graphics\GIS\MXD\ExistingPlusProj.mxd
Project Vehicle Trips - AMFigure A-3
101
N
50% (100%)[100% plus additionalspaces pending zoning]
aTraffic Signal
Stop Sign
Turn Lane
Peak Hour Traffic Volumeby Parking Utility Scenario
Study Intersection
Proposed Intersection#
#
4
WESTERN
PARCELS
EASTERN
PARCELS
3
2
1
San Mateo Ave
Lowrie Ave
S A i r p o r t B l v d
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
A
ir
p
o
r
t
B
v
d
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
Pro
du
ce
Ave
gabcf
abcf
e b
g
ebaccf eg
baccf
Produce Avenue
San Mateo Avenue Lowrie Avenue
San Mateo Avenue
San Mateo Avenue
Peninsula Autobody Driveway
Airport Boulevard
San Mateo Avenue
Airport Boulevard Proposed Driveway
3 (6) [13]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [0]
1 (2) [3]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [0]
1 (1) [2]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [0]
6 (11) [25]
0 (0) [0]
6 (12) [27]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [0]
2 (4) [9]1 (2) [5]2 (4) [9]
0 (0) [0]0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [0]0 (0) [0]
5 (9) [21]1 (1) [3]
0 (0) [0]3 (5) [11]0 (0) [0]
2. Lowrie Ave/San Mateo Ave1. San Mateo Ave/Airport Blvd 4. Proposed Drwy/San Mateo Ave3. Peninsula Autobody Drwy/San Mateo Ave
N:\Projects\2014 Projects\SF14-0769_Arata Property TIS\Graphics\GIS\MXD\ExistingPlusProj.mxd
Project Vehicle Trips - PMFigure A-4
101
N
50% (100%)[100% plus additionalspaces pending zoning]
aTraffic Signal
Stop Sign
Turn Lane
Peak Hour Traffic Volumeby Parking Utility Scenario
Study Intersection
Proposed Intersection#
#
4
WESTERN
PARCELS
EASTERN
PARCELS
3
2
1
San Mateo Ave
Lowrie Ave
S A i r p o r t B l v d
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
A
ir
p
o
r
t
B
v
d
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
Pro
du
ce
Ave
gabcf
abcf
e b
g
ebaccf cgcaccf
Produce Avenue
San Mateo Avenue Lowrie Avenue
San Mateo Avenue
San Mateo Avenue
Peninsula Autobody Driveway
Airport Boulevard
San Mateo Avenue
Airport Boulevard Proposed Driveway
189 (191) [196]
36 (36) [36]
309 (309) [309]
352 (352) [352]
1 (1) [3]
12 (12) [12]
343 (343) [343]
373 (373) [373]
77 (77) [78]
665 (665) [665]
157 (157) [157]
335 (335) [335]
6 (10) [21]
68 (68) [68]
336 (341) [351]
403 (408) [418]
99 (99) [99]151 (151) [151]129 (129) [129]
30 (30) [30]5 (5) [5]
0 (0) [0]1 (1) [1]1 (1) [2]1 (1) [1]
203 (203) [203]182 (184) [189]362 (362) [362]
2. Lowrie Ave/San Mateo Ave1. San Mateo Ave/Airport Blvd 4. Proposed Drwy/San Mateo Ave3. Peninsula Autobody Drwy/San Mateo Ave
N:\Projects\2014 Projects\SF14-0769_Arata Property TIS\Graphics\GIS\MXD\ExistingPlusProj.mxd
Existing Plus Project Vehicle Trips - AMFigure A-5
101
N
50% (100%)[100% plus additionalspaces pending zoning]
aTraffic Signal
Stop Sign
Turn Lane
Peak Hour Traffic Volumeby Parking Utility Scenario
Study Intersection
Proposed Intersection#
#
4
WESTERN
PARCELS
EASTERN
PARCELS
3
2
1
San Mateo Ave
Lowrie Ave
S A i r p o r t B l v d
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
A
ir
p
o
r
t
B
v
d
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
Pro
du
ce
Ave
gabcf
abcf
e b
g
ebaccf cgcaccf
Produce Avenue
San Mateo Avenue Lowrie Avenue
San Mateo Avenue
San Mateo Avenue
Peninsula Autobody Driveway
Airport Boulevard
San Mateo Avenue
Airport Boulevard
116 (119) [126]
22 (22) [22]
205 (205) [205]
421 (421) [421]
2 (3) [4]
15 (15) [15]
406 (406) [406]
485 (485) [485]
96 (96) [97]
1,070 (1,070) [1,070]
123 (123) [123]
365 (365) [365]
8 (13) [27]
38 (38) [38]
353 (359) [374]
390 (396) [390]
143 (145) [150]168 (169) [172]222 (224) [229]
79 (79) [79]14 (14) [14]
1 (1) [1]0 (0) [0]5 (9) [21]1 (1) [3]
450 (450) [450]210 (212) [218]827 (827) [827]
2. Lowrie Ave/San Mateo Ave1. San Mateo Ave/Airport Blvd 4. Proposed Drwy/San Mateo Ave3. Peninsula Autobody Drwy/San Mateo Ave
N:\Projects\2014 Projects\SF14-0769_Arata Property TIS\Graphics\GIS\MXD\ExistingPlusProj.mxd
Existing Plus Project Vehicle Trips - PMFigure A-6
101
N
50% (100%)[100% plus additionalspaces pending zoning]
aTraffic Signal
Stop Sign
Turn Lane
Peak Hour Traffic Volumeby Parking Utility Scenario
Study Intersection
Proposed Intersection#
#
ATTACHMENT B:
LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Produce Avenue & San Mateo Avenue & Airport Boulevard 11/17/2014
Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 ExisitingSynchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 1
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)981501283621802031863630915766576
Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900
Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.64.04.64.6
Lane Util. Factor0.910.911.000.910.911.001.000.951.001.000.951.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.971.001.000.981.001.000.981.001.000.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.000.851.001.000.851.001.000.851.001.000.85
Flt Protected0.950.991.000.950.981.000.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (prot)161033731533161033071555177035391557177035391558
Flt Permitted0.950.991.000.950.981.000.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (perm)161033731533161033071555177035391557177035391558
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.870.870.870.860.860.860.920.920.920.960.960.96
Adj. Flow (vph)1131721474212092362023933616469379
RTOR Reduction (vph)0012900187002700052
Lane Group Flow (vph)931921821042049202396616469327
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)12212332
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)942
Turn TypeSplitNAPermSplitNAPermProtNAPermProtNAPerm
Protected Phases44881652
Permitted Phases 4862
Actuated Green, G (s)12.012.012.020.820.820.815.319.619.630.534.834.8
Effective Green, g (s)12.012.012.020.820.820.815.319.619.630.534.834.8
Actuated g/C Ratio0.120.120.120.210.210.210.150.200.200.300.350.35
Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.64.04.64.6
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1934041833346873232706933055391231542
v/s Ratio Protc0.060.06c0.130.13c0.110.010.09c0.20
v/s Ratio Perm0.010.030.040.02
v/c Ratio0.480.480.100.630.610.150.750.060.220.300.560.05
Uniform Delay, d141.141.139.236.135.932.440.532.733.726.626.421.6
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d21.90.90.23.71.60.210.80.00.40.31.90.2
Delay (s)43.041.939.439.837.532.651.332.734.126.928.321.8
Level of Service DDDDDCDCCCCC
Approach Delay (s)41.336.740.027.5
Approach LOS DDDC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay35.0HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.60
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)17.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization59.0%ICU Level of ServiceB
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: San Mateo Avenue & Lowrie Avenue 11/17/2014
Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 ExisitingSynchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh0.8
MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR
Vol, veh/h3051234333168
Conflicting Peds, #/hr011001
Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree
RT Channelized-None-None-None
Storage Length0-----
Veh in Median Storage, #0--00-
Grade, %0--00-
Peak Hour Factor989898989898
Heavy Vehicles, %222222
Mvmt Flow3151235033869
Major/MinorMinor2Major1Major2
Conflicting Flow All7473744080-0
Stage 1373-----
Stage 2374-----
Critical Hdwy6.426.224.12---
Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42-----
Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42-----
Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.3182.218---
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver3816721151---
Stage 1696-----
Stage 2696-----
Platoon blocked, %---
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver3756711150---
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver375-----
Stage 1695-----
Stage 2686-----
ApproachEBNBSB
HCM Control Delay, s14.90.30
HCM LOSB
Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTEBLn1SBTSBR
Capacity (veh/h)1150-400--
HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.011-0.089--
HCM Control Delay (s)8.2014.9--
HCM Lane LOSAAB--
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0-0.3--
HCM 2010 TWSC
3: San Mateo Avenue & Peninsula Autobody Driveway 11/17/2014
Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 ExisitingSynchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh0
MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT
Vol, veh/h1035201335
Conflicting Peds, #/hr980000
Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree
RT Channelized-None-None-None
Storage Length0-----
Veh in Median Storage, #0-0--0
Grade, %0-0--0
Peak Hour Factor969696969696
Heavy Vehicles, %222222
Mvmt Flow1036701349
Major/MinorMinor1Major1Major2
Conflicting Flow All727376003760
Stage 1376-----
Stage 2351-----
Critical Hdwy6.426.22--4.12-
Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42-----
Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42-----
Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.318--2.218-
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver391670--1182-
Stage 1694-----
Stage 2713-----
Platoon blocked, %---
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver388665--1182-
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver388-----
Stage 1689-----
Stage 2712-----
ApproachWBNBSB
HCM Control Delay, s14.300
HCM LOSB
Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBTNBRWBLn1SBLSBT
Capacity (veh/h)--3881182-
HCM Lane V/C Ratio--0.0030.001-
HCM Control Delay (s)--14.380
HCM Lane LOS--BAA
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)--00-
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Produce Avenue & San Mateo Avenue & Airport Boulevard 11/17/2014
Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 ExisitingSynchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 1
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)14116722082720745011322205123107095
Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900
Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.64.04.64.6
Lane Util. Factor0.910.911.000.910.911.001.000.951.001.000.951.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.971.001.000.971.001.000.981.001.000.97
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.000.851.001.000.851.001.000.851.001.000.85
Flt Protected0.950.991.000.950.971.000.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (prot)161033571538161032811538177035391557177035391543
Flt Permitted0.950.991.000.950.971.000.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (perm)161033571538161032811538177035391557177035391543
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.99
Adj. Flow (vph)14216922283520945511422207124108196
RTOR Reduction (vph)0017500341001900060
Lane Group Flow (vph)101210474176271141142217124108136
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3553113311
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)113
Turn TypeSplitNAPermSplitNAPermProtNAPermProtNAPerm
Protected Phases44881652
Permitted Phases 4862
Actuated Green, G (s)9.79.79.725.025.025.010.28.28.240.038.038.0
Effective Green, g (s)9.79.79.725.025.025.010.28.28.240.038.038.0
Actuated g/C Ratio0.100.100.100.250.250.250.100.080.080.400.380.38
Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.64.04.64.6
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1563251494028203841802901277081344586
v/s Ratio Protc0.060.06c0.260.19c0.060.010.07c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm0.030.070.010.02
v/c Ratio0.650.650.311.041.00dl0.300.630.080.130.180.800.06
Uniform Delay, d143.543.542.137.534.830.443.142.442.619.427.719.7
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d28.94.41.254.94.30.47.10.10.50.15.20.2
Delay (s)52.447.943.392.439.030.850.242.543.119.532.919.9
Level of ServiceDDDF DCDDDBCB
Approach Delay (s)46.851.445.430.6
Approach LOS DDDC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay42.8HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.83
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)17.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization79.2%ICU Level of ServiceD
Analysis Period (min)15
dl Defacto Left Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a left lane.
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: San Mateo Avenue & Lowrie Avenue 11/17/2014
Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 ExisitingSynchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh2.5
MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR
Vol, veh/h79141540634738
Conflicting Peds, #/hr034004
Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree
RT Channelized-None-None-None
Storage Length0-----
Veh in Median Storage, #0--00-
Grade, %0--00-
Peak Hour Factor868686868686
Heavy Vehicles, %222222
Mvmt Flow92161747240344
Major/MinorMinor2Major1Major2
Conflicting Flow All9364334510-0
Stage 1429-----
Stage 2507-----
Critical Hdwy6.426.224.12---
Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42-----
Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42-----
Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.3182.218---
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver2946231109---
Stage 1657-----
Stage 2605-----
Platoon blocked, %---
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver2866191105---
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver286-----
Stage 1655-----
Stage 2591-----
ApproachEBNBSB
HCM Control Delay, s22.60.30
HCM LOSC
Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTEBLn1SBTSBR
Capacity (veh/h)1105-311--
HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.016-0.348--
HCM Control Delay (s)8.3022.6--
HCM Lane LOSAAC--
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0-1.5--
HCM 2010 TWSC
3: San Mateo Avenue & Peninsula Autobody Driveway 11/17/2014
Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 ExisitingSynchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh0
MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT
Vol, veh/h0142112365
Conflicting Peds, #/hr2260000
Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree
RT Channelized-None-None-None
Storage Length0-----
Veh in Median Storage, #0-0--0
Grade, %0-0--0
Peak Hour Factor868686868686
Heavy Vehicles, %222222
Mvmt Flow0149012424
Major/MinorMinor1Major1Major2
Conflicting Flow All941512005130
Stage 1512-----
Stage 2429-----
Critical Hdwy6.426.22--4.12-
Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42-----
Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42-----
Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.318--2.218-
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver292562--1052-
Stage 1602-----
Stage 2657-----
Platoon blocked, %---
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver286552--1052-
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver286-----
Stage 1591-----
Stage 2656-----
ApproachWBNBSB
HCM Control Delay, s11.500
HCM LOSB
Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBTNBRWBLn1SBLSBT
Capacity (veh/h)--5521052-
HCM Lane V/C Ratio--0.0020.002-
HCM Control Delay (s)--11.58.40
HCM Lane LOS--BAA
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)--00-
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Produce Avenue & San Mateo Avenue & Airport Boulevard 12/3/2014
Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 70Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 1
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)991511293621822031893630915766577
Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900
Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.64.04.64.6
Lane Util. Factor0.910.911.000.910.911.001.000.951.001.000.951.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.971.001.000.981.001.000.981.001.000.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.000.851.001.000.851.001.000.851.001.000.85
Flt Protected0.950.991.000.950.981.000.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (prot)161033721533161033081555177035391557177035391558
Flt Permitted0.950.991.000.950.981.000.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (perm)161033721533161033081555177035391557177035391558
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.870.870.870.860.860.860.920.920.920.960.960.96
Adj. Flow (vph)1141741484212122362053933616469380
RTOR Reduction (vph)0013000187002700052
Lane Group Flow (vph)931951821042349205396616469328
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)12212332
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)942
Turn TypeSplitNAPermSplitNAPermProtNAPermProtNAPerm
Protected Phases44881652
Permitted Phases 4862
Actuated Green, G (s)12.012.012.020.820.820.815.419.619.630.534.734.7
Effective Green, g (s)12.012.012.020.820.820.815.419.619.630.534.734.7
Actuated g/C Ratio0.120.120.120.210.210.210.150.200.200.300.350.35
Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.64.04.64.6
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1934041833346883232726933055391228540
v/s Ratio Prot0.06c0.06c0.130.13c0.120.010.09c0.20
v/s Ratio Perm0.010.030.040.02
v/c Ratio0.480.480.100.630.610.150.750.060.220.300.560.05
Uniform Delay, d141.141.139.236.136.032.440.532.733.726.626.521.7
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d21.90.90.23.71.60.211.20.00.40.31.90.2
Delay (s)43.042.039.439.837.632.651.732.734.126.928.421.9
Level of Service DDDDDCDCCCCC
Approach Delay (s)41.336.840.227.6
Approach LOS DDDC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay35.1HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.60
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)17.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization59.2%ICU Level of ServiceB
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: San Mateo Avenue & Lowrie Avenue 12/3/2014
Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 70Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh0.8
MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR
Vol, veh/h3051234333668
Conflicting Peds, #/hr011001
Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree
RT Channelized-None-None-None
Storage Length0-----
Veh in Median Storage, #0--00-
Grade, %0--00-
Peak Hour Factor989898989898
Heavy Vehicles, %222222
Mvmt Flow3151235034369
Major/MinorMinor2Major1Major2
Conflicting Flow All7533804130-0
Stage 1379-----
Stage 2374-----
Critical Hdwy6.426.224.12---
Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42-----
Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42-----
Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.3182.218---
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver3776671146---
Stage 1692-----
Stage 2696-----
Platoon blocked, %---
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver3716661145---
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver371-----
Stage 1691-----
Stage 2686-----
ApproachEBNBSB
HCM Control Delay, s150.30
HCM LOSC
Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTEBLn1SBTSBR
Capacity (veh/h)1145-396--
HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.011-0.09--
HCM Control Delay (s)8.2015--
HCM Lane LOSAAC--
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0-0.3--
HCM 2010 TWSC
3: San Mateo Avenue & Peninsula Autobody Driveway 12/3/2014
Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 70Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh0.1
MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT
Vol, veh/h1035216335
Conflicting Peds, #/hr980000
Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree
RT Channelized-None-None-None
Storage Length0-----
Veh in Median Storage, #0-0--0
Grade, %0-0--0
Peak Hour Factor969696969696
Heavy Vehicles, %222222
Mvmt Flow1036716349
Major/MinorMinor1Major1Major2
Conflicting Flow All737376003770
Stage 1376-----
Stage 2361-----
Critical Hdwy6.426.22--4.12-
Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42-----
Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42-----
Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.318--2.218-
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver386670--1181-
Stage 1694-----
Stage 2705-----
Platoon blocked, %---
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver381665--1181-
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver381-----
Stage 1689-----
Stage 2701-----
ApproachWBNBSB
HCM Control Delay, s14.500.1
HCM LOSB
Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBTNBRWBLn1SBLSBT
Capacity (veh/h)--3811181-
HCM Lane V/C Ratio--0.0030.005-
HCM Control Delay (s)--14.58.10
HCM Lane LOS--BAA
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)--00-
HCM 2010 TWSC
4: San Mateo Avenue & Proposed Driveway 12/3/2014
Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 70Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh0
MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT
Vol, veh/h1137300403
Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000
Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree
RT Channelized-None-None-None
Storage Length0-----
Veh in Median Storage, #0-0--0
Grade, %0-0--0
Peak Hour Factor929292929292
Heavy Vehicles, %222222
Mvmt Flow1140500438
Major/MinorMinor1Major1Major2
Conflicting Flow All843405004050
Stage 1405-----
Stage 2438-----
Critical Hdwy6.426.22--4.12-
Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42-----
Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42-----
Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.318--2.218-
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver334646--1154-
Stage 1673-----
Stage 2651-----
Platoon blocked, %---
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver334646--1154-
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver334-----
Stage 1673-----
Stage 2651-----
ApproachWBNBSB
HCM Control Delay, s13.200
HCM LOSB
Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBTNBRWBLn1SBLSBT
Capacity (veh/h)--4401154-
HCM Lane V/C Ratio--0.005--
HCM Control Delay (s)--13.20-
HCM Lane LOS--BA-
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)--00-
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Produce Avenue & San Mateo Avenue & Airport Boulevard 12/1/2014
Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 70Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 1
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)14316822282721045011622205123107096
Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900
Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.64.04.64.6
Lane Util. Factor0.910.911.000.910.911.001.000.951.001.000.951.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.971.001.000.971.001.000.981.001.000.97
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.000.851.001.000.851.001.000.851.001.000.85
Flt Protected0.950.991.000.950.971.000.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (prot)161033571538161032811538177035391557177035391543
Flt Permitted0.950.991.000.950.971.000.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (perm)161033571538161032811538177035391557177035391543
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.99
Adj. Flow (vph)14417022483521245511722207124108197
RTOR Reduction (vph)0017500341001900060
Lane Group Flow (vph)102212494176301141172217124108137
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3553113311
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)113
Turn TypeSplitNAPermSplitNAPermProtNAPermProtNAPerm
Protected Phases44881652
Permitted Phases 4862
Actuated Green, G (s)9.79.79.725.025.025.010.38.28.240.037.937.9
Effective Green, g (s)9.79.79.725.025.025.010.38.28.240.037.937.9
Actuated g/C Ratio0.100.100.100.250.250.250.100.080.080.400.380.38
Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.64.04.64.6
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1563251494028203841822901277081341584
v/s Ratio Protc0.060.06c0.260.19c0.070.010.07c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm0.030.070.010.02
v/c Ratio0.650.650.331.041.00dl0.300.640.080.130.180.810.06
Uniform Delay, d143.543.542.137.534.830.443.142.442.619.427.819.8
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d29.54.61.354.94.40.47.50.10.50.15.30.2
Delay (s)53.048.243.492.439.230.850.642.543.119.533.020.0
Level of ServiceDDDF DCDDDBCB
Approach Delay (s)47.151.445.630.8
Approach LOS DDDC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay42.9HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)17.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization79.4%ICU Level of ServiceD
Analysis Period (min)15
dl Defacto Left Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a left lane.
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: San Mateo Avenue & Lowrie Avenue 12/1/2014
Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 70Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh2.5
MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR
Vol, veh/h79141540635338
Conflicting Peds, #/hr034004
Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree
RT Channelized-None-None-None
Storage Length0-----
Veh in Median Storage, #0--00-
Grade, %0--00-
Peak Hour Factor868686868686
Heavy Vehicles, %222222
Mvmt Flow92161747241044
Major/MinorMinor2Major1Major2
Conflicting Flow All9434404580-0
Stage 1436-----
Stage 2507-----
Critical Hdwy6.426.224.12---
Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42-----
Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42-----
Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.3182.218---
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver2916171103---
Stage 1652-----
Stage 2605-----
Platoon blocked, %---
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver2836131099---
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver283-----
Stage 1650-----
Stage 2591-----
ApproachEBNBSB
HCM Control Delay, s22.90.30
HCM LOSC
Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTEBLn1SBTSBR
Capacity (veh/h)1099-308--
HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.016-0.351--
HCM Control Delay (s)8.3022.9--
HCM Lane LOSAAC--
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0-1.5--
HCM 2010 TWSC
3: San Mateo Avenue & Peninsula Autobody Driveway 12/1/2014
Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 70Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh0.1
MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT
Vol, veh/h0142128365
Conflicting Peds, #/hr2260000
Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree
RT Channelized-None-None-None
Storage Length0-----
Veh in Median Storage, #0-0--0
Grade, %0-0--0
Peak Hour Factor868686868686
Heavy Vehicles, %222222
Mvmt Flow0149029424
Major/MinorMinor1Major1Major2
Conflicting Flow All956513005140
Stage 1513-----
Stage 2443-----
Critical Hdwy6.426.22--4.12-
Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42-----
Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42-----
Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.318--2.218-
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver286561--1052-
Stage 1601-----
Stage 2647-----
Platoon blocked, %---
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver278551--1052-
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver278-----
Stage 1590-----
Stage 2640-----
ApproachWBNBSB
HCM Control Delay, s11.500.2
HCM LOSB
Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBTNBRWBLn1SBLSBT
Capacity (veh/h)--5511052-
HCM Lane V/C Ratio--0.0020.009-
HCM Control Delay (s)--11.58.50
HCM Lane LOS--BAA
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)--00-
HCM 2010 TWSC
4: San Mateo Avenue 12/1/2014
Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 70Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh0.1
MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT
Vol, veh/h1548500390
Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000
Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree
RT Channelized-None-None-None
Storage Length0-----
Veh in Median Storage, #0-0--0
Grade, %0-0--0
Peak Hour Factor929292929292
Heavy Vehicles, %222222
Mvmt Flow1552700424
Major/MinorMinor1Major1Major2
Conflicting Flow All951527005270
Stage 1527-----
Stage 2424-----
Critical Hdwy6.426.22--4.12-
Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42-----
Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42-----
Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.318--2.218-
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver288551--1040-
Stage 1592-----
Stage 2660-----
Platoon blocked, %---
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver288551--1040-
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver288-----
Stage 1592-----
Stage 2660-----
ApproachWBNBSB
HCM Control Delay, s12.600
HCM LOSB
Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBTNBRWBLn1SBLSBT
Capacity (veh/h)--4781040-
HCM Lane V/C Ratio--0.014--
HCM Control Delay (s)--12.60-
HCM Lane LOS--BA-
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)--00-
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Produce Avenue & San Mateo Avenue & Airport Boulevard 12/3/2014
Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 150Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 1
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)991511293621842031913630915766577
Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900
Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.64.04.64.6
Lane Util. Factor0.910.911.000.910.911.001.000.951.001.000.951.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.971.001.000.981.001.000.981.001.000.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.000.851.001.000.851.001.000.851.001.000.85
Flt Protected0.950.991.000.950.981.000.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (prot)161033721533161033081555177035391557177035391558
Flt Permitted0.950.991.000.950.981.000.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (perm)161033721533161033081555177035391557177035391558
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.870.870.870.860.860.860.920.920.920.960.960.96
Adj. Flow (vph)1141741484212142362083933616469380
RTOR Reduction (vph)0013000187002700052
Lane Group Flow (vph)931951821042549208396616469328
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)12212332
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)942
Turn TypeSplitNAPermSplitNAPermProtNAPermProtNAPerm
Protected Phases44881652
Permitted Phases 4862
Actuated Green, G (s)12.012.012.020.820.820.815.519.619.630.534.634.6
Effective Green, g (s)12.012.012.020.820.820.815.519.619.630.534.634.6
Actuated g/C Ratio0.120.120.120.210.210.210.160.200.200.300.350.35
Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.64.04.64.6
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1934041833346883232746933055391224539
v/s Ratio Prot0.06c0.06c0.130.13c0.120.010.09c0.20
v/s Ratio Perm0.010.030.040.02
v/c Ratio0.480.480.100.630.620.150.760.060.220.300.570.05
Uniform Delay, d141.141.139.236.136.032.440.532.733.726.626.621.8
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d21.90.90.23.71.70.211.40.00.40.31.90.2
Delay (s)43.042.039.439.837.632.651.932.734.126.928.522.0
Level of Service DDDDDCDCCCCC
Approach Delay (s)41.336.840.427.7
Approach LOS DDDC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay35.2HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.61
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)17.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization59.3%ICU Level of ServiceB
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: San Mateo Avenue & Lowrie Avenue 12/3/2014
Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 150Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh0.8
MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR
Vol, veh/h3051234334168
Conflicting Peds, #/hr011001
Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree
RT Channelized-None-None-None
Storage Length0-----
Veh in Median Storage, #0--00-
Grade, %0--00-
Peak Hour Factor989898989898
Heavy Vehicles, %222222
Mvmt Flow3151235034869
Major/MinorMinor2Major1Major2
Conflicting Flow All7583854180-0
Stage 1384-----
Stage 2374-----
Critical Hdwy6.426.224.12---
Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42-----
Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42-----
Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.3182.218---
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver3756631141---
Stage 1688-----
Stage 2696-----
Platoon blocked, %---
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver3706621140---
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver370-----
Stage 1687-----
Stage 2686-----
ApproachEBNBSB
HCM Control Delay, s150.30
HCM LOSC
Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTEBLn1SBTSBR
Capacity (veh/h)1140-395--
HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.011-0.09--
HCM Control Delay (s)8.2015--
HCM Lane LOSAAC--
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0-0.3--
HCM 2010 TWSC
3: San Mateo Avenue & Peninsula Autobody Driveway 12/3/2014
Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 150Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh0.1
MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT
Vol, veh/h10352110335
Conflicting Peds, #/hr980000
Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree
RT Channelized-None-None-None
Storage Length0-----
Veh in Median Storage, #0-0--0
Grade, %0-0--0
Peak Hour Factor969696969696
Heavy Vehicles, %222222
Mvmt Flow10367110349
Major/MinorMinor1Major1Major2
Conflicting Flow All746376003770
Stage 1376-----
Stage 2370-----
Critical Hdwy6.426.22--4.12-
Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42-----
Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42-----
Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.318--2.218-
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver381670--1181-
Stage 1694-----
Stage 2699-----
Platoon blocked, %---
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver374665--1181-
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver374-----
Stage 1689-----
Stage 2691-----
ApproachWBNBSB
HCM Control Delay, s14.700.2
HCM LOSB
Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBTNBRWBLn1SBLSBT
Capacity (veh/h)--3741181-
HCM Lane V/C Ratio--0.0030.009-
HCM Control Delay (s)--14.78.10
HCM Lane LOS--BAA
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)--00-
HCM 2010 TWSC
4: San Mateo Avenue & Proposed Driveway 12/3/2014
Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 150Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh0
MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT
Vol, veh/h1137300408
Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000
Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree
RT Channelized-None-None-None
Storage Length0-----
Veh in Median Storage, #0-0--0
Grade, %0-0--0
Peak Hour Factor929292929292
Heavy Vehicles, %222222
Mvmt Flow1140500443
Major/MinorMinor1Major1Major2
Conflicting Flow All848405004050
Stage 1405-----
Stage 2443-----
Critical Hdwy6.426.22--4.12-
Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42-----
Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42-----
Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.318--2.218-
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver332646--1154-
Stage 1673-----
Stage 2647-----
Platoon blocked, %---
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver332646--1154-
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver332-----
Stage 1673-----
Stage 2647-----
ApproachWBNBSB
HCM Control Delay, s13.200
HCM LOSB
Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBTNBRWBLn1SBLSBT
Capacity (veh/h)--4391154-
HCM Lane V/C Ratio--0.005--
HCM Control Delay (s)--13.20-
HCM Lane LOS--BA-
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)--00-
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Produce Avenue & San Mateo Avenue & Airport Boulevard 12/1/2014
Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 150Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 1
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)14516922482721245011922205123107096
Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900
Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.64.04.64.6
Lane Util. Factor0.910.911.000.910.911.001.000.951.001.000.951.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.971.001.000.971.001.000.981.001.000.97
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.000.851.001.000.851.001.000.851.001.000.85
Flt Protected0.950.991.000.950.971.000.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (prot)161033571538161032821538177035391557177035391543
Flt Permitted0.950.991.000.950.971.000.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (perm)161033571538161032821538177035391557177035391543
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.99
Adj. Flow (vph)14617122683521445512022207124108197
RTOR Reduction (vph)0017500341001900060
Lane Group Flow (vph)104213514176321141202217124108137
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3553113311
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)113
Turn TypeSplitNAPermSplitNAPermProtNAPermProtNAPerm
Protected Phases44881652
Permitted Phases 4862
Actuated Green, G (s)9.79.79.725.025.025.010.48.28.240.037.837.8
Effective Green, g (s)9.79.79.725.025.025.010.48.28.240.037.837.8
Actuated g/C Ratio0.100.100.100.250.250.250.100.080.080.400.380.38
Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.64.04.64.6
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1563251494028203841842901277081337583
v/s Ratio Protc0.060.06c0.260.19c0.070.010.07c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm0.030.070.010.02
v/c Ratio0.670.660.341.041.00dl0.300.650.080.130.180.810.06
Uniform Delay, d143.643.542.237.534.830.443.142.442.619.427.919.8
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d210.34.71.454.94.50.48.00.10.50.15.40.2
Delay (s)53.948.243.592.439.330.851.142.543.119.533.220.0
Level of ServiceDDDF DCDDDBCC
Approach Delay (s)47.451.545.830.9
Approach LOS DDDC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay43.1HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)17.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization79.6%ICU Level of ServiceD
Analysis Period (min)15
dl Defacto Left Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a left lane.
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: San Mateo Avenue & Lowrie Avenue 12/1/2014
Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 150Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh2.5
MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR
Vol, veh/h79141540635938
Conflicting Peds, #/hr034004
Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree
RT Channelized-None-None-None
Storage Length0-----
Veh in Median Storage, #0--00-
Grade, %0--00-
Peak Hour Factor868686868686
Heavy Vehicles, %222222
Mvmt Flow92161747241744
Major/MinorMinor2Major1Major2
Conflicting Flow All9504474650-0
Stage 1443-----
Stage 2507-----
Critical Hdwy6.426.224.12---
Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42-----
Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42-----
Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.3182.218---
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver2896121096---
Stage 1647-----
Stage 2605-----
Platoon blocked, %---
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver2826081092---
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver282-----
Stage 1645-----
Stage 2591-----
ApproachEBNBSB
HCM Control Delay, s230.30
HCM LOSC
Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTEBLn1SBTSBR
Capacity (veh/h)1092-307--
HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.016-0.352--
HCM Control Delay (s)8.3023--
HCM Lane LOSAAC--
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0-1.5--
HCM 2010 TWSC
3: San Mateo Avenue & Peninsula Autobody Driveway 12/1/2014
Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 150Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh0.2
MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT
Vol, veh/h01421313365
Conflicting Peds, #/hr2260000
Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree
RT Channelized-None-None-None
Storage Length0-----
Veh in Median Storage, #0-0--0
Grade, %0-0--0
Peak Hour Factor868686868686
Heavy Vehicles, %222222
Mvmt Flow01490315424
Major/MinorMinor1Major1Major2
Conflicting Flow All968513005150
Stage 1513-----
Stage 2455-----
Critical Hdwy6.426.22--4.12-
Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42-----
Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42-----
Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.318--2.218-
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver282561--1051-
Stage 1601-----
Stage 2639-----
Platoon blocked, %---
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver272551--1051-
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver272-----
Stage 1590-----
Stage 2627-----
ApproachWBNBSB
HCM Control Delay, s11.500.3
HCM LOSB
Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBTNBRWBLn1SBLSBT
Capacity (veh/h)--5511051-
HCM Lane V/C Ratio--0.0020.014-
HCM Control Delay (s)--11.58.50
HCM Lane LOS--BAA
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)--00-
HCM 2010 TWSC
4: San Mateo Avenue 12/1/2014
Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 150Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh0.1
MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT
Vol, veh/h1948500396
Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000
Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree
RT Channelized-None-None-None
Storage Length0-----
Veh in Median Storage, #0-0--0
Grade, %0-0--0
Peak Hour Factor929292929292
Heavy Vehicles, %222222
Mvmt Flow11052700430
Major/MinorMinor1Major1Major2
Conflicting Flow All957527005270
Stage 1527-----
Stage 2430-----
Critical Hdwy6.426.22--4.12-
Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42-----
Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42-----
Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.318--2.218-
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver286551--1040-
Stage 1592-----
Stage 2656-----
Platoon blocked, %---
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver286551--1040-
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver286-----
Stage 1592-----
Stage 2656-----
ApproachWBNBSB
HCM Control Delay, s12.300
HCM LOSB
Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBTNBRWBLn1SBLSBT
Capacity (veh/h)--5041040-
HCM Lane V/C Ratio--0.022--
HCM Control Delay (s)--12.30-
HCM Lane LOS--BA-
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)--0.10-
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Produce Avenue & San Mateo Avenue & Airport Boulevard 12/3/2014
Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 350Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 1
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)991511293621892031963630915766578
Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900
Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.64.04.64.6
Lane Util. Factor0.910.911.000.910.911.001.000.951.001.000.951.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.971.001.000.981.001.000.981.001.000.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.000.851.001.000.851.001.000.851.001.000.85
Flt Protected0.950.991.000.950.981.000.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (prot)161033721533161033091555177035391557177035391558
Flt Permitted0.950.991.000.950.981.000.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (perm)161033721533161033091555177035391557177035391558
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.870.870.870.860.860.860.920.920.920.960.960.96
Adj. Flow (vph)1141741484212202362133933616469381
RTOR Reduction (vph)0013000187002700053
Lane Group Flow (vph)931951821043149213396616469328
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)12212332
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)942
Turn TypeSplitNAPermSplitNAPermProtNAPermProtNAPerm
Protected Phases44881652
Permitted Phases 4862
Actuated Green, G (s)12.012.012.020.920.920.915.719.519.530.534.334.3
Effective Green, g (s)12.012.012.020.920.920.915.719.519.530.534.334.3
Actuated g/C Ratio0.120.120.120.210.210.210.160.200.200.300.340.34
Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.64.04.64.6
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1934041833366913242776903035391213534
v/s Ratio Prot0.06c0.06c0.130.13c0.120.010.09c0.20
v/s Ratio Perm0.010.030.040.02
v/c Ratio0.480.480.100.620.620.150.770.060.220.300.570.05
Uniform Delay, d141.141.139.236.036.032.340.432.833.826.626.822.0
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d21.90.90.23.61.80.212.10.00.40.32.00.2
Delay (s)43.042.039.439.637.732.552.532.834.226.928.822.2
Level of Service DDDDDCDCCCCC
Approach Delay (s)41.336.840.727.9
Approach LOS DDDC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay35.4HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.61
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)17.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization59.7%ICU Level of ServiceB
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: San Mateo Avenue & Lowrie Avenue 12/3/2014
Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 350Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh0.8
MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR
Vol, veh/h3051234335168
Conflicting Peds, #/hr011001
Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree
RT Channelized-None-None-None
Storage Length0-----
Veh in Median Storage, #0--00-
Grade, %0--00-
Peak Hour Factor989898989898
Heavy Vehicles, %222222
Mvmt Flow3151235035869
Major/MinorMinor2Major1Major2
Conflicting Flow All7683954290-0
Stage 1394-----
Stage 2374-----
Critical Hdwy6.426.224.12---
Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42-----
Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42-----
Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.3182.218---
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver3706541130---
Stage 1681-----
Stage 2696-----
Platoon blocked, %---
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver3656531129---
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver365-----
Stage 1680-----
Stage 2686-----
ApproachEBNBSB
HCM Control Delay, s15.20.30
HCM LOSC
Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTEBLn1SBTSBR
Capacity (veh/h)1129-390--
HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.011-0.092--
HCM Control Delay (s)8.2015.2--
HCM Lane LOSAAC--
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0-0.3--
HCM 2010 TWSC
3: San Mateo Avenue & Peninsula Autobody Driveway 12/3/2014
Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 350Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh0.3
MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT
Vol, veh/h10352321335
Conflicting Peds, #/hr980000
Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree
RT Channelized-None-None-None
Storage Length0-----
Veh in Median Storage, #0-0--0
Grade, %0-0--0
Peak Hour Factor969696969696
Heavy Vehicles, %222222
Mvmt Flow10367322349
Major/MinorMinor1Major1Major2
Conflicting Flow All770377003790
Stage 1377-----
Stage 2393-----
Critical Hdwy6.426.22--4.12-
Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42-----
Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42-----
Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.318--2.218-
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver369670--1179-
Stage 1694-----
Stage 2682-----
Platoon blocked, %---
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver358665--1179-
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver358-----
Stage 1689-----
Stage 2666-----
ApproachWBNBSB
HCM Control Delay, s15.100.5
HCM LOSC
Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBTNBRWBLn1SBLSBT
Capacity (veh/h)--3581179-
HCM Lane V/C Ratio--0.0030.019-
HCM Control Delay (s)--15.18.10
HCM Lane LOS--CAA
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)--00.1-
HCM 2010 TWSC
4: San Mateo Avenue & Proposed Driveway 12/3/2014
Arata Property 8:00 am 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 350Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh0
MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT
Vol, veh/h1237300418
Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000
Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree
RT Channelized-None-None-None
Storage Length0-----
Veh in Median Storage, #0-0--0
Grade, %0-0--0
Peak Hour Factor929292929292
Heavy Vehicles, %222222
Mvmt Flow1240500454
Major/MinorMinor1Major1Major2
Conflicting Flow All859405004050
Stage 1405-----
Stage 2454-----
Critical Hdwy6.426.22--4.12-
Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42-----
Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42-----
Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.318--2.218-
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver327646--1154-
Stage 1673-----
Stage 2640-----
Platoon blocked, %---
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver327646--1154-
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver327-----
Stage 1673-----
Stage 2640-----
ApproachWBNBSB
HCM Control Delay, s12.400
HCM LOSB
Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBTNBRWBLn1SBLSBT
Capacity (veh/h)--4871154-
HCM Lane V/C Ratio--0.007--
HCM Control Delay (s)--12.40-
HCM Lane LOS--BA-
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)--00-
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Produce Avenue & San Mateo Avenue & Airport Boulevard 12/3/2014
Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 350Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 1
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)15017222982721845012622205123107097
Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900
Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.64.04.64.6
Lane Util. Factor0.910.911.000.910.911.001.000.951.001.000.951.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.971.001.000.971.001.000.981.001.000.97
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.000.851.001.000.851.001.000.851.001.000.85
Flt Protected0.950.991.000.950.971.000.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (prot)161033551538161032831538177035391557177035391543
Flt Permitted0.950.991.000.950.971.000.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (perm)161033551538161032831538177035391557177035391543
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.99
Adj. Flow (vph)15217423183522045512722207124108198
RTOR Reduction (vph)0017500341001900061
Lane Group Flow (vph)106220564176381141272217124108137
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3553113311
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)113
Turn TypeSplitNAPermSplitNAPermProtNAPermProtNAPerm
Protected Phases44881652
Permitted Phases 4862
Actuated Green, G (s)9.79.79.725.025.025.010.58.28.240.037.737.7
Effective Green, g (s)9.79.79.725.025.025.010.58.28.240.037.737.7
Actuated g/C Ratio0.100.100.100.250.250.250.100.080.080.400.380.38
Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.64.04.64.6
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1563251494028203841852901277081334581
v/s Ratio Protc0.070.07c0.260.19c0.070.010.07c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm0.040.070.010.02
v/c Ratio0.680.680.371.041.00dl0.300.690.080.130.180.810.06
Uniform Delay, d143.643.642.337.534.930.443.242.442.619.427.919.9
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d211.25.51.654.94.70.410.10.10.50.15.40.2
Delay (s)54.849.143.992.439.630.853.342.543.119.533.420.1
Level of ServiceDDDF DCDDDBCC
Approach Delay (s)48.051.546.731.0
Approach LOS DDDC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay43.4HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.85
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)17.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization80.1%ICU Level of ServiceD
Analysis Period (min)15
dl Defacto Left Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a left lane.
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: San Mateo Avenue & Lowrie Avenue 12/3/2014
Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 350Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh2.5
MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR
Vol, veh/h79141540637438
Conflicting Peds, #/hr034004
Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree
RT Channelized-None-None-None
Storage Length0-----
Veh in Median Storage, #0--00-
Grade, %0--00-
Peak Hour Factor868686868686
Heavy Vehicles, %222222
Mvmt Flow92161747243544
Major/MinorMinor2Major1Major2
Conflicting Flow All9674644820-0
Stage 1460-----
Stage 2507-----
Critical Hdwy6.426.224.12---
Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42-----
Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42-----
Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.3182.218---
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver2825981081---
Stage 1636-----
Stage 2605-----
Platoon blocked, %---
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver2755951077---
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver275-----
Stage 1634-----
Stage 2591-----
ApproachEBNBSB
HCM Control Delay, s23.70.30
HCM LOSC
Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTEBLn1SBTSBR
Capacity (veh/h)1077-299--
HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.016-0.362--
HCM Control Delay (s)8.4023.7--
HCM Lane LOSAAC--
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0-1.6--
HCM 2010 TWSC
3: San Mateo Avenue & Peninsula Autobody Driveway 12/3/2014
Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 350Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh0.3
MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT
Vol, veh/h01421427365
Conflicting Peds, #/hr2260000
Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree
RT Channelized-None-None-None
Storage Length0-----
Veh in Median Storage, #0-0--0
Grade, %0-0--0
Peak Hour Factor868686868686
Heavy Vehicles, %222222
Mvmt Flow01490531424
Major/MinorMinor1Major1Major2
Conflicting Flow All1001514005160
Stage 1514-----
Stage 2487-----
Critical Hdwy6.426.22--4.12-
Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42-----
Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42-----
Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.318--2.218-
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver269560--1050-
Stage 1600-----
Stage 2618-----
Platoon blocked, %---
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver254550--1050-
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver254-----
Stage 1589-----
Stage 2594-----
ApproachWBNBSB
HCM Control Delay, s11.600.6
HCM LOSB
Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBTNBRWBLn1SBLSBT
Capacity (veh/h)--5501050-
HCM Lane V/C Ratio--0.0020.03-
HCM Control Delay (s)--11.68.50
HCM Lane LOS--BAA
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)--00.1-
HCM 2010 TWSC
4: San Mateo Avenue 12/3/2014
Arata Property 5:00 pm 9/25/2014 Exisiting Plus Project - 350Synchro 8 Report
Fehr & Peers Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh0.3
MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT
Vol, veh/h32148500409
Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000
Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree
RT Channelized-None-None-None
Storage Length0-----
Veh in Median Storage, #0-0--0
Grade, %0-0--0
Peak Hour Factor929292929292
Heavy Vehicles, %222222
Mvmt Flow32352700445
Major/MinorMinor1Major1Major2
Conflicting Flow All972527005270
Stage 1527-----
Stage 2445-----
Critical Hdwy6.426.22--4.12-
Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42-----
Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42-----
Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.318--2.218-
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver280551--1040-
Stage 1592-----
Stage 2646-----
Platoon blocked, %---
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver280551--1040-
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver280-----
Stage 1592-----
Stage 2646-----
ApproachWBNBSB
HCM Control Delay, s12.700
HCM LOSB
Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBTNBRWBLn1SBLSBT
Capacity (veh/h)--4921040-
HCM Lane V/C Ratio--0.053--
HCM Control Delay (s)--12.70-
HCM Lane LOS--BA-
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)--0.20-
ATTACHMENT C:
DATA COLLECTION – PEAK PERIOD INTERSECTION
COUNTS AND DRIVEWAY COUNTS
File Name : airport-san mateo-a
Site Code : 7
Start Date : 9/10/2014
Page No : 1
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Groups Printed- Vehicles Only
AIRPORT BL
Southbound
S. AIRPORT BL
Westbound
PRODUCE AV
Northbound
SAN MATEO AV
Eastbound
Start Time RT TH LT U-turn App. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total Int. Total
07:00 18 181 24 1 224 32 31 76 139 70 6 30 106 39 21 13 73 542
07:15 17 170 40 2 229 34 37 70 141 76 5 35 116 24 35 19 78 564
07:30 17 179 32 1 229 46 34 87 167 88 5 32 125 29 47 8 84 605
07:45 20 174 46 3 243 38 40 88 166 91 12 43 146 24 37 16 77 632
Total 72 704 142 7 925 150 142 321 613 325 28 140 493 116 140 56 312 2343
08:00 19 170 48 5 242 40 39 96 175 86 15 43 144 32 32 22 86 647
08:15 22 173 41 1 237 46 50 82 178 78 8 48 134 23 36 20 79 628
08:30 17 169 33 1 220 45 44 86 175 69 5 36 110 37 47 24 108 613
08:45 18 153 28 0 199 72 47 98 217 76 8 59 143 36 35 32 103 662
Total 76 665 150 7 898 203 180 362 745 309 36 186 531 128 150 98 376 2550
Grand Total 148 1369 292 14 1823 353 322 683 1358 634 64 326 1024 244 290 154 688 4893
Apprch %8.1 75.1 16 0.8 26 23.7 50.3 61.9 6.2 31.8 35.5 42.2 22.4
Total %3 28 6 0.3 37.3 7.2 6.6 14 27.8 13 1.3 6.7 20.9 5 5.9 3.1 14.1
AIRPORT BL
Southbound
S. AIRPORT BL
Westbound
PRODUCE AV
Northbound
SAN MATEO AV
Eastbound
Start Time RT TH LT U-turn App. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 08:45 - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:00
08:00 19 170 48 5 242 40 39 96 175 86 15 43 144 32 32 22 86 647
08:15 22 173 41 1 237 46 50 82 178 78 8 48 134 23 36 20 79 628
08:30 17 169 33 1 220 45 44 86 175 69 5 36 110 37 47 24 108 613
08:45 18 153 28 0 199 72 47 98 217 76 8 59 143 36 35 32 103 662
Total Volume 76 665 150 7 898 203 180 362 745 309 36 186 531 128 150 98 376 2550
% App. Total 8.5 74.1 16.7 0.8 27.2 24.2 48.6 58.2 6.8 35 34 39.9 26.1
PHF .864 .961 .781 .350 .928 .705 .900 .923 .858 .898 .600 .788 .922 .865 .798 .766 .870 .963
AIRPORT BL
S
A
N
M
A
T
E
O
A
V
S
.
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
PRODUCE AV
RT
76
TH
665
LT
150
U-turn
7
InOut Total
337 898 1235
RT 20
3
TH 18
0
LT 36
2
Ou
t
To
t
a
l
In
60
9
74
5
13
5
4
LT
186
TH
36
RT
309
Out TotalIn
1155 531 1686
LT
98
TH15
0
RT12
8
To
t
a
l
Ou
t
In
44
2
37
6
81
8
Peak Hour Begins at 08:00
Vehicles Only
Peak Hour Data
North
MARKS TRAFFIC DATA
mietekm@comcast.net
916.806.0250
File Name : airport-san mateo-p
Site Code : 7
Start Date : 9/10/2014
Page No : 1
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Groups Printed- Vehicles Only
AIRPORT BL
Southbound
S. AIRPORT BL
Westbound
PRODUCE AV
Northbound
SAN MATEO AV
Eastbound
Start Time RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total Int. Total
16:00 19 222 22 263 69 51 185 305 45 13 27 85 50 32 30 112 765
16:15 14 249 30 293 94 42 192 328 64 8 35 107 39 35 21 95 823
16:30 47 223 21 291 95 53 176 324 49 7 32 88 47 38 25 110 813
16:45 24 256 31 311 97 44 233 374 50 8 31 89 53 44 30 127 901
Total 104 950 104 1158 355 190 786 1331 208 36 125 369 189 149 106 444 3302
17:00 26 272 37 335 99 45 194 338 39 6 34 79 75 48 41 164 916
17:15 29 264 29 322 127 65 198 390 50 5 23 78 46 35 30 111 901
17:30 16 278 26 320 127 53 202 382 66 3 25 94 46 40 40 126 922
17:45 29 235 20 284 117 57 214 388 41 4 17 62 45 33 39 117 851
Total 100 1049 112 1261 470 220 808 1498 196 18 99 313 212 156 150 518 3590
Grand Total 204 1999 216 2419 825 410 1594 2829 404 54 224 682 401 305 256 962 6892
Apprch %8.4 82.6 8.9 29.2 14.5 56.3 59.2 7.9 32.8 41.7 31.7 26.6
Total %3 29 3.1 35.1 12 5.9 23.1 41 5.9 0.8 3.3 9.9 5.8 4.4 3.7 14
AIRPORT BL
Southbound
S. AIRPORT BL
Westbound
PRODUCE AV
Northbound
SAN MATEO AV
Eastbound
Start Time RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 16:00 to 17:45 - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 16:45
16:45 24 256 31 311 97 44 233 374 50 8 31 89 53 44 30 127 901
17:00 26 272 37 335 99 45 194 338 39 6 34 79 75 48 41 164 916
17:15 29 264 29 322 127 65 198 390 50 5 23 78 46 35 30 111 901
17:30 16 278 26 320 127 53 202 382 66 3 25 94 46 40 40 126 922
Total Volume 95 1070 123 1288 450 207 827 1484 205 22 113 340 220 167 141 528 3640
% App. Total 7.4 83.1 9.5 30.3 13.9 55.7 60.3 6.5 33.2 41.7 31.6 26.7
PHF .819 .962 .831 .961 .886 .796 .887 .951 .777 .688 .831 .904 .733 .870 .860 .805 .987
AIRPORT BL
S
A
N
M
A
T
E
O
A
V
S
.
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
PRODUCE AV
RT
95
TH
1070
LT
123
InOut Total
613 1288 1901
RT 45
0
TH 20
7
LT 82
7
Ou
t
To
t
a
l
In
49
5
14
8
4
19
7
9
LT
113
TH
22
RT
205
Out TotalIn
2117 340 2457
LT14
1
TH16
7
RT22
0
To
t
a
l
Ou
t
In
41
5
52
8
94
3
Peak Hour Begins at 16:45
Vehicles Only
Peak Hour Data
North
MARKS TRAFFIC DATA
mietekm@comcast.net
916.806.0250
File Name : san mateo-body shop-a
Site Code : 2
Start Date : 9/10/2014
Page No : 1
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Groups Printed- Vehicles Only
SAN MATEO AV
Southbound
PENINSULA AUTO BODY
Westbound
SAN MATEO AV
Northbound
JOHNSTON SUPPLY
EastboundStart Time RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total Int. Total
07:00 0 64 1 65 0 0 0 0 0 74 0 74 0 0 0 0 139
07:15 0 67 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 72 1 0 0 1 140
07:30 0 73 0 73 0 0 0 0 1 78 2 81 0 0 1 1 155
07:45 1 87 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 68 0 68 0 0 2 2 158
Total 1 291 1 293 0 0 0 0 1 290 4 295 1 0 3 4 592
08:00 0 84 0 84 0 0 1 1 0 88 0 88 0 0 1 1 174
08:15 1 88 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 69 0 0 1 1 159
08:30 0 78 0 78 0 0 0 0 0 101 0 101 0 0 0 0 179
08:45 0 85 1 86 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 94 0 0 0 0 180
Total 1 335 1 337 0 0 1 1 0 352 0 352 0 0 2 2 692
Grand Total 2 626 2 630 0 0 1 1 1 642 4 647 1 0 5 6 1284
Apprch %0.3 99.4 0.3 0 0 100 0.2 99.2 0.6 16.7 0 83.3
Total %0.2 48.8 0.2 49.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 50 0.3 50.4 0.1 0 0.4 0.5
SAN MATEO AV
Southbound
PENINSULA AUTO BODY
Westbound
SAN MATEO AV
Northbound
JOHNSTON SUPPLY
EastboundStart Time RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 08:45 - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:00
08:00 0 84 0 84 0 0 1 1 0 88 0 88 0 0 1 1 174
08:15 1 88 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 69 0 0 1 1 159
08:30 0 78 0 78 0 0 0 0 0 101 0 101 0 0 0 0 179
08:45 0 85 1 86 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 94 0 0 0 0 180
Total Volume 1 335 1 337 0 0 1 1 0 352 0 352 0 0 2 2 692
% App. Total 0.3 99.4 0.3 0 0 100 0 100 0 0 0 100
PHF .250 .952 .250 .947 .000 .000 .250 .250 .000 .871 .000 .871 .000 .000 .500 .500 .961
SAN MATEO AV
J
O
H
N
S
T
O
N
S
U
P
P
L
Y
P
E
N
I
N
S
U
L
A
A
U
T
O
B
O
D
Y
SAN MATEO AV
RT
1
TH
335
LT
1
InOut Total
354 337 691
RT
0
TH
0
LT
1
Ou
t
To
t
a
l
In
1
1
2
LT
0
TH
352
RT
0
Out TotalIn
336 352 688
LT
2
TH
0
RT
0
To
t
a
l
Ou
t
In
1
2
3
Peak Hour Begins at 08:00
Vehicles Only
Peak Hour Data
North
MARKS TRAFFIC DATA
mietekm@comcast.net
916.806.0250
File Name : san mateo-body shop-p
Site Code : 2
Start Date : 9/10/2014
Page No : 1
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Groups Printed- Vehicles Only
SAN MATEO AV
Southbound
PENINSULA AUTO BODY
Westbound
SAN MATEO AV
Northbound
JOHNSTON SUPPLY
EastboundStart Time RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total Int. Total
16:00 0 89 0 89 1 0 0 1 0 83 0 83 0 0 0 0 173
16:15 0 82 1 83 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 87 0 0 0 0 170
16:30 0 91 1 92 0 0 0 0 1 94 0 95 0 0 0 0 187
16:45 0 93 0 93 1 0 0 1 0 110 0 110 0 0 1 1 205
Total 0 355 2 357 2 0 0 2 1 374 0 375 0 0 1 1 735
17:00 0 99 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 130 0 130 0 0 1 1 230
17:15 0 81 0 81 1 0 0 1 1 83 0 84 1 0 0 1 167
17:30 0 90 0 90 0 0 1 1 0 95 0 95 0 0 0 0 186
17:45 0 89 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 99 0 0 0 0 188
Total 0 359 0 359 1 0 1 2 1 407 0 408 1 0 1 2 771
Grand Total 0 714 2 716 3 0 1 4 2 781 0 783 1 0 2 3 1506
Apprch %0 99.7 0.3 75 0 25 0.3 99.7 0 33.3 0 66.7
Total %0 47.4 0.1 47.5 0.2 0 0.1 0.3 0.1 51.9 0 52 0.1 0 0.1 0.2
SAN MATEO AV
Southbound
PENINSULA AUTO BODY
Westbound
SAN MATEO AV
Northbound
JOHNSTON SUPPLY
EastboundStart Time RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 16:00 to 17:45 - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 16:15
16:15 0 82 1 83 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 87 0 0 0 0 170
16:30 0 91 1 92 0 0 0 0 1 94 0 95 0 0 0 0 187
16:45 0 93 0 93 1 0 0 1 0 110 0 110 0 0 1 1 205
17:00 0 99 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 130 0 130 0 0 1 1 230
Total Volume 0 365 2 367 1 0 0 1 1 421 0 422 0 0 2 2 792
% App. Total 0 99.5 0.5 100 0 0 0.2 99.8 0 0 0 100
PHF .000 .922 .500 .927 .250 .000 .000 .250 .250 .810 .000 .812 .000 .000 .500 .500 .861
SAN MATEO AV
J
O
H
N
S
T
O
N
S
U
P
P
L
Y
P
E
N
I
N
S
U
L
A
A
U
T
O
B
O
D
Y
SAN MATEO AV
RT
0
TH
365
LT
2
InOut Total
424 367 791
RT
1
TH
0
LT
0
Ou
t
To
t
a
l
In
3
1
4
LT
0
TH
421
RT
1
Out TotalIn
365 422 787
LT
2
TH
0
RT
0
To
t
a
l
Ou
t
In
0
2
2
Peak Hour Begins at 16:15
Vehicles Only
Peak Hour Data
North
MARKS TRAFFIC DATA
mietekm@comcast.net
916.806.0250
File Name : san mateo-lowrie-a
Site Code : 1
Start Date : 9/10/2014
Page No : 1
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Groups Printed- Vehicles Only
SAN MATEO AV
Southbound
0
Westbound
SAN MATEO AV
Northbound
LOWRIE AV (NORTH)
Eastbound
Start Time RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total Int. Total
07:00 9 66 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 69 3 72 1 0 2 3 150
07:15 14 68 0 82 0 0 0 0 0 71 1 72 0 0 12 12 166
07:30 11 72 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 77 1 78 0 0 3 3 164
07:45 8 88 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 69 2 71 0 0 6 6 173
Total 42 294 0 336 0 0 0 0 0 286 7 293 1 0 23 24 653
08:00 15 85 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 83 5 88 0 0 8 8 196
08:15 27 85 0 112 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 72 2 0 9 11 195
08:30 14 77 0 91 0 0 0 0 0 99 3 102 2 0 7 9 202
08:45 12 84 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 91 2 93 1 0 6 7 196
Total 68 331 0 399 0 0 0 0 0 343 12 355 5 0 30 35 789
Grand Total 110 625 0 735 0 0 0 0 0 629 19 648 6 0 53 59 1442
Apprch %15 85 0 0 0 0 0 97.1 2.9 10.2 0 89.8
Total %7.6 43.3 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 43.6 1.3 44.9 0.4 0 3.7 4.1
SAN MATEO AV
Southbound
0
Westbound
SAN MATEO AV
Northbound
LOWRIE AV (NORTH)
Eastbound
Start Time RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 08:30 - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45
07:45 8 88 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 69 2 71 0 0 6 6 173
08:00 15 85 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 83 5 88 0 0 8 8 196
08:15 27 85 0 112 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 72 2 0 9 11 195
08:30 14 77 0 91 0 0 0 0 0 99 3 102 2 0 7 9 202
Total Volume 64 335 0 399 0 0 0 0 0 321 12 333 4 0 30 34 766
% App. Total 16 84 0 0 0 0 0 96.4 3.6 11.8 0 88.2
PHF .593 .952 .000 .891 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .811 .600 .816 .500 .000 .833 .773 .948
SAN MATEO AV
L
O
W
R
I
E
A
V
(
N
O
R
T
H
)
0
SAN MATEO AV
RT
64
TH
335
LT
0
InOut Total
351 399 750
RT
0
TH
0
LT
0
Ou
t
To
t
a
l
In
0
0
0
LT
12
TH
321
RT
0
Out TotalIn
339 333 672
LT
30
TH
0
RT
4
To
t
a
l
Ou
t
In
76
34
11
0
Peak Hour Begins at 07:45
Vehicles Only
Peak Hour Data
North
MARKS TRAFFIC DATA
mietekm@comcast.net
916.806.0250
File Name : san mateo-lowrie-p
Site Code : 1
Start Date : 9/10/2014
Page No : 1
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Groups Printed- Vehicles Only
SAN MATEO AV
Southbound
0
Westbound
SAN MATEO AV
Northbound
LOWRIE AV
Eastbound
Start Time RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total Int. Total
16:00 7 85 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 83 2 85 5 0 14 19 196
16:15 8 79 0 87 0 0 0 0 0 84 2 86 2 0 11 13 186
16:30 10 89 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 90 3 93 2 0 16 18 210
16:45 10 90 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 107 4 111 3 0 13 16 227
Total 35 343 0 378 0 0 0 0 0 364 11 375 12 0 54 66 819
17:00 5 93 0 98 0 0 0 0 0 127 4 131 6 0 25 31 260
17:15 10 78 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 83 2 85 2 0 17 19 192
17:30 13 86 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 89 5 94 3 0 24 27 220
17:45 6 85 0 91 0 0 0 0 0 96 2 98 3 0 9 12 201
Total 34 342 0 376 0 0 0 0 0 395 13 408 14 0 75 89 873
Grand Total 69 685 0 754 0 0 0 0 0 759 24 783 26 0 129 155 1692
Apprch %9.2 90.8 0 0 0 0 0 96.9 3.1 16.8 0 83.2
Total %4.1 40.5 0 44.6 0 0 0 0 0 44.9 1.4 46.3 1.5 0 7.6 9.2
SAN MATEO AV
Southbound
0
Westbound
SAN MATEO AV
Northbound
LOWRIE AV
Eastbound
Start Time RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total RT TH LT App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 16:00 to 17:45 - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 16:45
16:45 10 90 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 107 4 111 3 0 13 16 227
17:00 5 93 0 98 0 0 0 0 0 127 4 131 6 0 25 31 260
17:15 10 78 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 83 2 85 2 0 17 19 192
17:30 13 86 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 89 5 94 3 0 24 27 220
Total Volume 38 347 0 385 0 0 0 0 0 406 15 421 14 0 79 93 899
% App. Total 9.9 90.1 0 0 0 0 0 96.4 3.6 15.1 0 84.9
PHF .731 .933 .000 .963 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .799 .750 .803 .583 .000 .790 .750 .864
SAN MATEO AV
L
O
W
R
I
E
A
V
0
SAN MATEO AV
RT
38
TH
347
LT
0
InOut Total
485 385 870
RT
0
TH
0
LT
0
Ou
t
To
t
a
l
In
0
0
0
LT
15
TH
406
RT
0
Out TotalIn
361 421 782
LT
79
TH
0
RT
14
To
t
a
l
Ou
t
In
53
93
14
6
Peak Hour Begins at 16:45
Vehicles Only
Peak Hour Data
North
MARKS TRAFFIC DATA
mietekm@comcast.net
916.806.0250
Page 1
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SAN MATEO AV. S/O LOWRIE AV.
NORTHBOUND
Site Code: 2
san mateo-n
MARKS TRAFFIC DATA
mietekm@comcast.net
916.806.0250
Start Wed 10-Sep-
14 Hourly Totals Thu 11-Sep-
14 Hourly Totals Total
Time A.M.P.M.A.M.P.M. A.M.P.M.A.M.P.M. A.M.P.M.
12:00 19 131 **19 131
12:15 13 107 **13 107
12:30 17 103 **17 103
12:45 13 77 62 418 **0 0 13 77
01:00 14 117 **14 117
01:15 3 100 **3 100
01:30 13 115 **13 115
01:45 22 120 52 452 **0 0 22 120
02:00 8 122 **8 122
02:15 15 98 **15 98
02:30 16 92 **16 92
02:45 10 112 49 424 **0 0 10 112
03:00 4 128 **4 128
03:15 16 95 **16 95
03:30 10 101 **10 101
03:45 26 120 56 444 **0 0 26 120
04:00 16 89 **16 89
04:15 26 97 **26 97
04:30 23 105 **23 105
04:45 26 108 91 399 **0 0 26 108
05:00 23 130 **23 130
05:15 38 89 **38 89
05:30 41 105 **41 105
05:45 55 98 157 422 **0 0 55 98
06:00 58 73 **58 73
06:15 55 67 **55 67
06:30 93 67 **93 67
06:45 85 70 291 277 **0 0 85 70
07:00 104 73 **104 73
07:15 97 50 **97 50
07:30 98 63 **98 63
07:45 97 36 396 222 **0 0 97 36
08:00 98 73 **98 73
08:15 85 37 **85 37
08:30 114 47 **114 47
08:45 119 44 416 201 **0 0 119 44
09:00 119 41 **119 41
09:15 93 36 **93 36
09:30 94 59 **94 59
09:45 101 27 407 163 **0 0 101 27
10:00 118 61 **118 61
10:15 91 28 **91 28
10:30 81 30 **81 30
10:45 105 28 395 147 **0 0 105 28
11:00 97 23 **97 23
11:15 109 15 **109 15
11:30 113 24 **113 24
11:45 112 19 431 81 **0 0 112 19
Total 2803 3650 0 0 2803 3650
Day Total 6453 0 6453
Percent 43.4%56.6% 0.0%0.0% 43.4%56.6%
Peak 08:30 01:15 08:30 01:15
Vol.445 457 445 457
P.H.F.0.935 0.936 0.935 0.936
Page 1
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SAN MATEO AV. S/O LOWRIE AV.
SOUTHBOUND
Site Code: 4a
san mateo-s
MARKS TRAFFIC DATA
mietekm@comcast.net
916.806.0250
Start Wed 10-Sep-
14 Hourly Totals Thu 11-Sep-
14 Hourly Totals Total
Time A.M.P.M.A.M.P.M. A.M.P.M.A.M.P.M. A.M.P.M.
12:00 21 102 **21 102
12:15 11 98 **11 98
12:30 20 93 **20 93
12:45 18 97 70 390 **0 0 18 97
01:00 12 101 **12 101
01:15 11 107 **11 107
01:30 6 129 **6 129
01:45 19 104 48 441 **0 0 19 104
02:00 17 102 **17 102
02:15 23 90 **23 90
02:30 21 93 **21 93
02:45 12 107 73 392 **0 0 12 107
03:00 13 95 **13 95
03:15 8 103 **8 103
03:30 6 80 **6 80
03:45 22 86 49 364 **0 0 22 86
04:00 18 88 **18 88
04:15 26 97 **26 97
04:30 27 92 **27 92
04:45 29 101 100 378 **0 0 29 101
05:00 35 99 **35 99
05:15 46 88 **46 88
05:30 48 90 **48 90
05:45 55 93 184 370 **0 0 55 93
06:00 47 80 **47 80
06:15 72 59 **72 59
06:30 65 62 **65 62
06:45 76 84 260 285 **0 0 76 84
07:00 71 54 **71 54
07:15 76 46 **76 46
07:30 81 60 **81 60
07:45 101 59 329 219 **0 0 101 59
08:00 91 34 **91 34
08:15 110 35 **110 35
08:30 85 35 **85 35
08:45 98 51 384 155 **0 0 98 51
09:00 110 28 **110 28
09:15 102 28 **102 28
09:30 97 33 **97 33
09:45 86 26 395 115 **0 0 86 26
10:00 89 39 **89 39
10:15 98 24 **98 24
10:30 117 40 **117 40
10:45 112 24 416 127 **0 0 112 24
11:00 111 16 **111 16
11:15 88 15 **88 15
11:30 113 11 **113 11
11:45 108 16 420 58 **0 0 108 16
Total 2728 3294 0 0 2728 3294
Day Total 6022 0 6022
Percent 45.3%54.7% 0.0%0.0% 45.3%54.7%
Peak 10:15 01:15 10:15 01:15
Vol.438 442 438 442
P.H.F.0.936 0.857 0.936 0.857
Page 1
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
PAYLESS CAR RENTAL
DRIVEWAY ON CAROLAN AV.
Site Code: 3
carolan dwy
MARKS TRAFFIC DATA
mietekm@comcast.net
916.806.0250
Start 10-Sep-14 IN Hour Totals OUT Hour Totals Both Dir. Total
Time Wed A.M.P.M.A.M.P.M. A.M.P.M.A.M.P.M. A.M.P.M.
12:00 0 2 0 1 0 3
12:15 0 7 0 2 0 9
12:30 0 5 0 0 0 5
12:45 0 4 0 18 0 3 0 6 0 7
01:00 0 2 0 0 0 2
01:15 0 6 0 0 0 6
01:30 0 9 0 0 0 9
01:45 0 8 0 25 0 3 0 3 0 11
02:00 0 1 0 3 0 4
02:15 0 3 0 7 0 10
02:30 0 4 0 1 0 5
02:45 0 5 0 13 0 4 0 15 0 9
03:00 0 4 0 3 0 7
03:15 0 6 0 2 0 8
03:30 0 6 0 2 0 8
03:45 0 4 0 20 0 2 0 9 0 6
04:00 0 9 0 0 0 9
04:15 0 4 0 0 0 4
04:30 0 6 0 0 0 6
04:45 0 6 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 6
05:00 0 5 0 0 0 5
05:15 0 4 0 0 0 4
05:30 0 8 0 0 0 8
05:45 0 1 0 18 0 3 0 3 0 4
06:00 0 3 0 3 0 6
06:15 0 3 0 2 0 5
06:30 1 2 0 4 1 6
06:45 0 6 1 14 0 1 0 10 0 7
07:00 0 2 0 0 0 2
07:15 0 2 0 1 0 3
07:30 3 0 0 4 3 4
07:45 1 0 4 4 0 0 0 5 1 0
08:00 1 0 0 3 1 3
08:15 5 2 1 5 6 7
08:30 2 1 0 4 2 5
08:45 3 0 11 3 0 1 1 13 3 1
09:00 0 0 2 4 2 4
09:15 3 1 0 5 3 6
09:30 3 0 0 1 3 1
09:45 1 0 7 1 4 1 6 11 5 1
10:00 0 0 3 1 3 1
10:15 0 0 3 2 3 2
10:30 2 0 5 2 7 2
10:45 6 2 8 2 1 1 12 6 7 3
11:00 4 0 0 2 4 2
11:15 6 0 1 1 7 1
11:30 3 0 0 0 3 0
11:45 7 *20 0 2 *3 3 9 *
Total 51 143 22 84 73 227
Day Total 194 106 300
Percent 26.3%73.7% 20.8%79.2% 24.3%75.7%
Peak 11:00 01:00 09:45 02:00 10:30 01:30
Vol. 20 25 15 15 25 34
P.H.F. 0.714 0.694 0.750 0.536 0.893 0.773
Page 1
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
PAYLESS CAR RENTAL
DRIVEWAY ON ROLLINS RD
Site Code: 3
rollins dwy
MARKS TRAFFIC DATA
mietekm@comcast.net
916.806.0250
Start 10-Sep-14 OUT Hour Totals IN Hour Totals Both Dir. Total
Time Wed A.M.P.M.A.M.P.M. A.M.P.M.A.M.P.M. A.M.P.M.
12:00 0 4 0 0 0 4
12:15 0 9 0 0 0 9
12:30 0 4 0 0 0 4
12:45 0 7 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 7
01:00 0 2 0 0 0 2
01:15 0 8 0 0 0 8
01:30 0 6 0 0 0 6
01:45 0 6 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 6
02:00 0 9 0 0 0 9
02:15 0 2 0 4 0 6
02:30 0 0 0 5 0 5
02:45 0 1 0 12 0 1 0 10 0 2
03:00 0 6 0 0 0 6
03:15 0 3 0 0 0 3
03:30 0 12 0 0 0 12
03:45 0 7 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 7
04:00 0 5 0 0 0 5
04:15 0 6 0 0 0 6
04:30 0 8 0 0 0 8
04:45 0 3 0 22 0 1 0 1 0 4
05:00 0 0 0 5 0 5
05:15 0 0 0 6 0 6
05:30 1 0 1 5 2 5
05:45 3 0 4 0 1 7 2 23 4 7
06:00 0 0 2 3 2 3
06:15 0 0 1 6 1 6
06:30 0 0 1 6 1 6
06:45 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 17 1 2
07:00 0 0 2 1 2 1
07:15 0 0 3 3 3 3
07:30 0 0 2 2 2 2
07:45 0 0 0 0 2 2 9 8 2 2
08:00 0 0 3 2 3 2
08:15 0 0 1 4 1 4
08:30 0 1 1 1 1 2
08:45 0 1 0 2 5 3 10 10 5 4
09:00 0 0 9 3 9 3
09:15 0 0 0 2 0 2
09:30 0 0 5 0 5 0
09:45 0 0 0 0 6 1 20 6 6 1
10:00 0 0 5 1 5 1
10:15 2 0 5 2 7 2
10:30 0 0 13 0 13 0
10:45 0 1 2 1 6 3 29 6 6 4
11:00 0 2 6 1 6 3
11:15 0 3 7 2 7 5
11:30 0 0 4 1 4 1
11:45 2 0 2 5 0 0 17 4 2 0
Total 8 116 92 85 100 201
Day Total 124 177 301
Percent 6.5%93.5% 52.0%48.0% 33.2%66.8%
Peak 05:00 03:30 10:30 05:00 10:15 03:30
Vol. 4 30 32 23 32 30
P.H.F. 0.333 0.625 0.615 0.821 0.615 0.625
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program July 2016
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
July 2016
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines require Lead Agencies to adopt a program for monitoring
the mitigation measures required to avoid the significant environmental impacts of a project. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) ensures that mitigation measures imposed by the City are completed at the appropriate time in the development
process.
The mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 1440 San Mateo Avenue Project are
listed in the MMRP along with the party responsible for monitoring implementation of the mitigation measure, the milestones for
implementation and monitoring, and a sign-off that the mitigation measure has been implemented.
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project 2
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program July 2016
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
1440 SAN MATEO AVENUE PROJECT
Mitigation
Number Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule
Compliance
Verification
(Date / Initials)
Biological Resources
IV-1 Within 14 days prior to commencing construction work during the
avian nesting season (March 1 to September 1), a qualified
biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey within
the site boundaries and the vegetated area between the site’s
northerly boundary and Colma Creek (If construction work would
not occur during the nesting season, a nesting survey is not
required). If special-status birds are not identified nesting within the
area of effect, further mitigation is not required. If special-status
birds are identified nesting within the area of effect, a 75-foot no-
disturbance buffer around the nest(s) shall be staked with orange
construction fencing. Construction or earth-moving activities shall
be restricted within the identified buffer until the determination is
made by a qualified biologist that the young have fledged (i.e., left
the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project
construction zones. This typically occurs by June 15th; however, the
date may be later and would have to be determined by a qualified
ornithologist. The preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be
submitted for review and approval by the City of South San
Francisco Planning Division.
City of South
San Francisco
Planning
Division
Within 14 days prior to
commencing
construction work
during the avian nesting
season (March 1 to
September 1)
Cultural Resources
V-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, project
plans shall include a requirement (via notation) indicating that if
historic and/or cultural resources, or human remains are
encountered during site grading or other site work, all such work
shall be halted immediately within 100 feet of the area of discovery
and the contractor shall immediately notify the City of the discovery.
In such case, the applicant shall retain the services of a qualified
archaeologist for the purpose of recording, protecting, or curating
the discovery as appropriate. The archaeologist shall be required to
submit to the City for review and approval a report of the findings
and method of curation or protection of the resources. Further
grading or site work within the vicinity of the discovery, as identified
by the qualified archaeologist, shall not be allowed until the
City of South
San Francisco
Planning
Division
Prior to the issuance of
a grading permit or
building permit
1440 San Mateo Avenue Project 3
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program July 2016
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
1440 SAN MATEO AVENUE PROJECT
Mitigation
Number Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule
Compliance
Verification
(Date / Initials)
preceding steps have been taken. All fees associated with the
services of the qualified archaeologist shall be paid by the project
applicant.
V-2 Pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 (c) State Public
Resources Code §5097.98, if human bone or bone of unknown
origin is found during construction, all work shall stop in the vicinity
of the find and the San Mateo County Coroner shall be contacted
immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American,
the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission
who shall notify the person believed to be the most likely
descendant. The most likely descendant shall work with the
contractor to develop a program for re-internment of the human
remains and any associated artifacts. Additional work is not to take
place in the immediate vicinity of the find, which shall be identified
by the qualified archaeologist, until the identified appropriate
actions have been implemented. All fees associated with the
services of the qualified archaeologist shall be paid by the project
applicant.
City of South
San Francisco
Planning
Division
San Mateo
County
Coroner (if
bone
detected)
During construction if
human bone or bone of
unknown origin is found