HomeMy WebLinkAbout560 Eccles ISMND with Attachments
INITIAL STUDY
AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
560 ECCLES AVENUE USDA FACILITY PROJECT
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
315 MAPLE AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
PREPARED BY:
LAMPHIER – GREGORY
1944 EMBARCADERO
OAKLAND, CA 94606
September 2017
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction to this Document ............................................................................................................ 1
Project Information ............................................................................................................................... 2
Mitigated Negative Declaration ........................................................................................................ 12
Project Description, Location, and Setting ................................................................................ 12
Potentially Significant Impacts Requiring Mitigation ............................................................. 12
Air Quality ..................................................................................................................................... 12
Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................... 13
Geology and Soils ......................................................................................................................... 13
Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................ 14
Proposed Findings ........................................................................................................................ 16
Initial Study Checklist ........................................................................................................................ 17
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................................. 17
Evaluation of Environmental Effects ......................................................................................... 18
1. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................. 19
2. Agriculture And Forestry Resources ................................................................................ 22
3. Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 23
4. Biological Resources ........................................................................................................... 28
5. Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................. 30
6. Geology And Soils .............................................................................................................. 32
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................ 34
8. Hazards And Hazardous Materials .................................................................................. 36
9. Hydrology And Water Quality ......................................................................................... 40
10. Land Use And Planning ..................................................................................................... 44
11. Mineral Resources .............................................................................................................. 45
12. Noise ..................................................................................................................................... 46
13. Population And Housing ................................................................................................... 48
14. Public Services ..................................................................................................................... 49
15. Recreation ............................................................................................................................. 50
16. Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 51
17. Utilities And Service Systems ............................................................................................ 53
18. Mandatory Findings Of Significance ................................................................................ 55
Document Preparers .................................................................................................................... 56
References ...................................................................................................................................... 57
ii 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
Figures
Figure 1: Project Location .............................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2: Project Site and Easements ........................................................................................... 4
Figure 3: Site Plan and Extent of Burn Ash ................................................................................. 6
Figure 4: Project Floor Plan ........................................................................................................... 7
Figure 5: Landscape Plan ............................................................................................................... 8
Figure 6: Project Elevations ......................................................................................................... 21
Attachments
For hard copies of this document, attachments are included on CD affixed to the back cover.
Attachment A Cultural Resources Records Search and Tribal Consultation
Attachment B Geotechnical Report
Attachment C Amended Site Closure Plan and Post‐Construction Maintenance Plan
Attachment D Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Landfill Due Diligence Report
Attachment E Traffic Study
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 1
INTRODUCTION TO THIS DOCUMENT
This document serves as the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed
Project, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public
Resources Code Sections 15000 et seq.).
Per CEQA Guidelines (Section 15070), a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be prepared to
meet the requirements of CEQA review when the Initial Study identifies potentially significant
environmental effects, but revisions in the Project and/or incorporation of mitigation measures
agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where
clearly no significant effects would occur and there is no substantial evidence in light of the
whole record that the Project as revised may have significant effect on the environment.
This document is organized in three sections as follows:
• Introduction and Project Information. This section introduces the document and
presents the project description including location, setting, and specifics of the lead
agency and contacts.
• Mitigated Negative Declaration. This section lists the impacts and mitigation measures
identified in the Initial Study and proposes findings that would allow adoption of this
document as the CEQA review document for the proposed Project.
• Initial Study Checklist. This section discusses the CEQA environmental topics and
checklist questions and identifies the potential for impacts and proposed mitigation
measures to avoid these impacts.
Page 2 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Project Title: 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
2. Lead Agency Contact: City of South San Francisco
Ryan Wassum, Associate Planner
Department of Economic and Community Development
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083
650.877.8535 or ryan.wassum@ssf.net
3. Project Location: 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco
4. Parcel Number: APN 015-082-210
5. Project Applicant's Name Steve Williams
and Address: SMPO Properties, Inc.
5858 Ridgeway Center Parkway
Memphis, TN 38120
stevewilliams@smpo.com
6. General Plan Designation: Business and Technology Park;
7. Zoning: Business Technology Park (BTP)
8. Site and Vicinity:
The 560 Eccles Avenue United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Facility Project
(Project) parcel (APN 015-082-210) is a vacant, generally triangular-shaped 7.5-acre flag lot
located between Forbes Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard in the East of 101 area of the
City of South San Francisco, California. A flag lot is a parcel where the bulk of the area is not
located along the roadway, but is connected to it with a driveway between neighboring
parcels. This driveway connection to Eccles Avenue acts as an access easement for
neighboring businesses to use and neighboring businesses provide additional access
easements connecting to Oyster Point Boulevard for use by the Project. The regional location
of the Project is shown in Figure 1 and the Project parcel, including access easements, is
shown in Figure 2.
Uses in the Project vicinity include a mix of office, warehouse, corporate, commercial, and
light industrial uses in Business Technology Park zoning. The Project parcel is bounded to
the north, west, and south by office/commercial and light industrial buildings and
associated parking lots. Gull Drive borders the Project parcel to the east. Due to a grade
separation between the site and Gull Drive, access to the Project is not proposed along that
roadway.
Three existing businesses would directly share the access driveway(s) with the Project.
Adjacent to the north of the Project site is the corporate campus of Sanrio, a company that
designs, licenses, and produces products focusing on Japanese popular culture. Two
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 3
Figure 1. Regional Location
Page 4 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
Figure 2. Project Site and Easements
Source: GoogleEarth, as modified by Lamphier-Gregory
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 5
buildings, together comprising the Nickell Property, sit southwest of Sanrio building across
the Project parcel’s 30-foot driveway to Eccles Avenue. The Nickell Property includes
several office complexes and a wholesale business (MTC Trading Company). Both the
Nickell and Sanrio properties have direct connections from their parking lots to the Project
parcel’s driveway. The Project parcel also includes an easement along its northwest border
with the Sanrio property, allowing access around the back of their parcel. On the other side
of the Sanrio building to the east is Iron Mountain, a records storage and document
shredding facility. This property is separated from Sanrio by two parallel approximately 30-
foot drive aisles (both owned by Sanrio, but grade separated such that they are separate
aisles), which intersect with Oyster Point Boulevard east of the signalized intersection with
Eccles Avenue and the signalized intersection with a driveway to the north.
The portion of the parcel adjacent to other Eccles Avenue developments is relatively flat,
with elevations ranging from approximately 62 feet to 57 feet above mean seal level (msl).
The site slopes steeply along the boundaries with Gull Drive to the east and development
along Forbes Boulevard to the south, where elevations drop to from the highest point of
about 50 feet msl at the northern end to 17 feet msl at the southern end. At the base of this
slope, directly south of the Project site, is a branch office for DSV/UTI, a global transport and
logistics firm.
During the 1950s, trash was reportedly burned on a portion of the Project site and/or burn
ash dumped at the site. The trash burning/ash dumping activities were not licensed. While
the burn ash located at the Project site is assumed to be associated with activity at the now-
closed Oyster Point Landfill across Gull Drive from the site, the Project site was not used for
disposal of municipal solid waste. The residual burn ash material consists of ash, brick,
concrete, metal fragments, and glass, and is considered hazardous material. The residual
burn ash material is located within approximately 4 acres in the eastern and south-central
portions of the 7.5-acre Project parcel (Figure 3). A closure/post-closure development plan is
in place for the residual burn ash at the Project site, as discussed in more detail in the
analysis of Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Section 8).
9. Project Description:
The Applicant proposes to subdivide the 560 Eccles Avenue parcel (APN 015-082-210) into
two separate parcels: an approximately 3.6-acre western parcel for proposed development
of the USDA facility and a 3.8-acre eastern out-parcel that is not proposed for development
at this time and would remain vacant until developed as a separate project.
The proposed Project would involve construction of a new 21,807-square-foot (sf)
office/laboratory/warehouse building and an associated surface parking lot on a portion of
the parcel. The proposed building has been designed for use by the USDA and would play a
critical role in enforcement and investigation related to the importing and exporting of
animal and plant organisms and products into and out of the country. The Project site plan
is shown on Figure 3 and the floor plan is shown in Figure 4. Additional details of the site
development are shown on the landscape plan in Figure 5.
Page 6 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
Figure 3. Site Plan and Extent of Burn Ash
Source: SCS Engineers, dated 3/9/2017
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 7
Figure 4. Project Floor Plan
Source: DGA, dated 3/29/2017
Note: Grid numbers and letters match
up to elevations included as Figure 6.
Page 8 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
Figure 5. Project Landscape Plan
Source: Environmental Foresight, Inc., dated 4/18/2017
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 9
The USDA building would be developed to include 6,054 sf of laboratory space; 5,052 sf of
warehouse, storage, and utility space; and 10,701 sf of office space. The floor plan would
include a fitness room, lactation room, huddle room, in addition to various specialty
laboratory and research functions. The site design would also include a picnic table area and
smoking area.
USDA intends to relocate its existing operations from its current facility nearby at 389
Oyster Point Boulevard. The new facility is anticipated to employ 25 people at move-in date,
which is a few more than currently employed at the existing location. Minimal
(approximately 10 percent) additional growth in employees and activities is anticipated over
time. Because the Project involves construction of a new building on a vacant site, this Initial
Study takes a conservative analytical approach, by treating the proposed operation as a
completely new Project, rather than subtracting the nearby existing use as a baseline.
The USDA operations are not the same as other office/laboratory/warehouse uses, therefore,
the details of operation of the site were used for the analysis of the Project. The 25
employees assigned to the site would operate as follows:
• 3 to 4 employees would work mostly in the field with approximately hour-long visits to
the facility once or twice a week.
• The rest of the employees (21 or 22) would work 8-hour days at the facility Monday
through Friday from 8 AM to 4:30 PM, except that:
o 1 employee would come in early each day to open the facility and would work from
approximately 6 AM to 2:30 PM.
o 1 employee would stay late each day to close the facility and would work from
approximately 9:30 AM to 6 PM.
Additionally, the following non-employees would be expected to visit the site each work
day: 15 visitors/customers and 20 trucks.
Access & Parking
Vehicular access to and from the Project would be via two routes:
• Along the Project parcel’s 30-foot driveway, which extends from the western side of the
site between the Sanrio and Nickell properties to connect with Eccles Avenue at an
unsignalized intersection
• Along the repaved drive aisle heading northeast of the proposed building then along
one of the two adjacent 30-foot drive aisle easements between the Sanrio and Iron
Mountain buildings to Oyster Point Boulevard. While the intersection of these
driveways with Oyster Point Boulevard is not signalized and would be limited to right-
in, right-out movements by existing medians on Oyster Point Boulevard, it is possible
for vehicles to access the adjacent signalized driveway intersection internally through
the parking lot area for full turning options.
The existing paved drive aisle along the northwestern boundary of the existing parcel
would be repaved as a part of the Project. The companies currently using the driveway and
drive aisles for access and circulation would continue to have the same access and rights to
Page 10 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
do so; with development of the Project, vehicles accessing the Project site would also use the
driveway and drive aisles.
The Project proposes to provide 62 parking spaces, including 3 ADA-accessible stalls, as per
the requirements of City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.330.004.1 Up to
five of the provided spaces would be marked “Clean Air/Vanpool/EV Parking.” Fourteen of
these parking spaces would be secured behind a rolling gate. Parking for 11 bicycles would
also be provided.
The Project would include a 5-foot sidewalk extending from the proposed building to Gull
Drive, providing a direct pedestrian route to the existing shuttle stop (to/from Bay Area
Rapid Transit and Caltrain stations) at the corner of Gull Drive and Oyster Point Boulevard.
Following the northwestern boundary of the site, where the grade change to Gull Drive is
least, the grade change of this sidewalk would be within those allowable.
Construction
Construction of the one-story building and other site improvements is expected to span
approximately 11 months. The exterior facade is expected to be cement plaster over metal
framing pilasters, with metal accent panels and concrete tilt-up wall panels.
Construction activities would consist of limited grading, foundation construction,
construction of the building, finishing of interiors and exteriors, and paving of the surface
parking areas. Pedestrian access improvements and sidewalk development would also
occur.
Grading is expected to involve site stripping to a depth of 6 inches, with a 12-inch building
pad section, which would produce a net of approximately 7,200 cubic yards of exported soil.
Site grading would not extend beyond 22 feet from the USDA facility development
footprint; grading would not occur along the steep slope at the southern edge of the parcel.
The Project foundation would employ conventional spread footings; no pile driving would
be required.
Depth to groundwater is estimated between 29 and 40 feet below the ground surface
(elevations of 18 to 26 feet msl), and dewatering is not anticipated during foundation work.
Typical equipment used during construction would include an excavator, drilling rig,
backhoe, trencher, electric tower crane, electric man lift, rough terrain forklift and paving
equipment.
The Applicant’s Erosion Control Plan includes creation of a stabilized construction
entrance/exit with a washout area, at least 50-foot long and a tire/truck temporary washout
pit. Both of these would be located at the northwest edge of the building footprint. A fiber
roll would surround the site, and storm drain inlet protections would be used to avoid
sediment erosion into the storm drain system.
1 1 space per 350 sf of building area
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 11
Utilities and Drainage
Gas and electric service would be extended to the Project site from the nearest connection
point at the northwest edge of the site. Trenching would occur along the northern portion of
the site, close to the proposed building footprint. Municipal water service exists to the
Project site, which currently has two fire hydrants, both of which lie just north of the
proposed building footprint.
The Project would create 1.5 acres of new impervious area, and proposes a stormwater
treatment area of 2,360 sf. Runoff generated at the site would be directed to a bioretention
area near the eastern edge of the site.
Landscaping
The Landscaping Plan (see Figure 5) includes planting areas generally around parking
areas, screening shrubs around utility boxes and the garbage area, parking lot shade trees,
and a bio-retention area along the eastern edge of the site to treat and retain stormwater
runoff from the site. The sloping portion along the southern edge of the Project site will not
be disturbed by grading or development activities and the existing vegetation is proposed to
remain.
10. Required Approvals:
Approval of the Project will require the following reviews and approvals:
• City of South San Francisco Design Review
• City of South San Francisco Tentative Parcel Map
• San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health approval of Amended Site
Closure Plan and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan
Construction activities will require appropriate administrative permits.
Page 12 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND SETTING
This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the 560 Eccles Avenue USDA
Facility Project. See the Introduction and Project Information section of this document for
details of the Project.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS REQUIRING MITIGATION
The following is a summary of potential Project impacts and the mitigation measures
recommended to reduce these impacts to a level of less than significant. Refer to the Initial
Study Checklist section of this document for a more detailed discussion.
AIR QUALITY
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) presents screening criteria in their
CEQA Guidelines that identify project sizes by type that could have the potential to result in
emissions over criteria levels. The proposed building would be 21,807 sf and well below
BAAQMD screening size of 277,000 sf of general office uses or 259,000 sf of warehouse uses.
However, BAAQMD recommends implementation of construction mitigation measures to
reduce construction-related emissions and fugitive dust for all projects, regardless of the
comparison to screening levels. With implementation of mitigation measure Air-1, impacts
associated with construction-period criteria pollutant would be reduced to a less than
significant level.
Mitigation Measure
Air-1: Basic Construction Management Practices. The Project shall demonstrate proposed
compliance with all applicable regulations and operating procedures prior to
issuance of demolition, building or grading permits, including implementation of
the following BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures.
i) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas,
and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
ii) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
iii) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed
using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry
power sweeping is prohibited.
iv) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
v) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon
as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
vi) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use
or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 13
Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at
all access points.
vii) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked
by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior
to operation.
viii) Post a publicly 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 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Although not anticipated at the Project site, previously unknown cultural resources (e.g.,
archaeological resources or human remains) could be inadvertently unearthed during ground-
disturbing activities. This inadvertent discovery would be a potentially significant impact. With
implementation of mitigation measures Cul-1 through Cul-3, impacts associated with possible
disturbance of unidentified cultural resources would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Cul-1: Pre-Construction Studies. Prior to ground disturbance, a qualified archaeologist
shall conduct further archival and field study to identify archaeological resources,
including a good faith effort to identify archaeological deposits that may show no
indications on the surface.
Cul-2: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Implement Mitigation. In the event
that previously unidentified paleontological, archaeological, or historical resources
are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, all
such activity within 25 feet of the discovery shall cease until the resources have been
evaluated by a qualified professional, and specific measures can be implemented to
protect these resources in accordance with sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the
California Public Resources Code.
Cul-3: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Remains and Take Appropriate Action in
Coordination with Native American Heritage Commission. In the event that
human remains are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other
construction activity, all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery shall cease until
the remains have been evaluated by the County Coroner, and appropriate action
taken in coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission, in
accordance with section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code or, if the
remains are Native American, section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources
Code.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The Project site is subject to liquefaction, which would result in settlement. This impact is
considered potentially significant and requires mitigation. With implementation of Mitigation
Measure Geo-1 requiring compliance with the California Building Code and design
Page 14 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
recommendations as outlined in the geotechnical report, the impact related to liquefaction
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
Geo-1: Implement Geotechnical Report Recommendations. Based on site soil analysis,
the geotechnical report included specific recommendations for grading and
construction. In addition to accordance with the current standards set forth in the
California Building Code, Project design and construction shall incorporate the
recommendations in the geotechnical report to avoid or reduce the geotechnical
hazards on the site. Per standard procedures, compliance with design-level
recommendations will be verified during the construction permitting process.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The Project site is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 due to hazardous burn ash residue in the soil, and is adjacent
to the now-closed Oyster Point Landfill, which has the potential for migration of combustible
gas (methane) onto the Project site. Project construction activities have the potential to result in
release of contaminated soils and Project operation has the potential to bring site users into
contact with contaminated soils and combustible vapors. A Closure Plan and Post-Closure
Maintenance Plan (PCMP) is in place at the Project site and an amended plan for the proposed
Project (included as Attachment C) was approved by San Mateo County Department of
Environmental Health in a letter dated April 25, 2017. The amended PCMP includes remedial
measures designed to minimize potential exposure of workers and building occupants to
contaminated soils and vapor during and after site development generally through capping site
soils with asphalt, concrete, and impermeable liners; installation of a vapor barrier and venting
system below the building foundation to address the potential for migration onto the site of
combustible vapor; and implementation of safety measures for excavation and soil handling
during construction. While these measures were originally intended to address higher
contamination and vapor levels in the eastern portion of the Project site, they have been
conservatively applied to the proposed development in the western portion to ensure the
impact of site hazards are minimized. Human health and ecological risk evaluations performed
for the PCMP found risks during both construction and operations to be insignificant assuming
implementation of the remedial measures into the proposed Project. With implementation of
Mitigation Measure Haz-1 requiring site remediation pursuant to the approved amended
PCMP, the impact relating to development at a hazardous material site and the accidental
release of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
Haz-1: Adherence to Remediation Measures. Project design and construction shall
incorporate the recommended remediation measures in the Amended Site Closure
Plan and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan (PCMP), which has been approved by the
San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health, to avoid or reduce the
hazards related to the presence of hazardous materials (burn ash) and combustible
vapor at this site, including the following measures:
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 15
• Placement of cap throughout the development area consistent with the final
cover / capping plan in the approved Amended PCMP, including:
- The building footprint will be capped with concrete. The concrete slab
foundation will be constructed in accordance with foundation
recommendations specified by the geotechnical and structural engineer. The
preliminary design concept is for a slab-on-grade construction, overlying a
DDC ground improvement system. A uniform gravel bed will underlie the
foundation slab.
- The parking surface cap area will consist of re-compacted subgrade, overlain
by an aggregate base layer, overlain by asphalt concrete layer with minimum
thickness 3 inches, or as specified by the geotechnical engineer.
- Installation of a surface water subdrain system underlain by an impermeable
geomembrane liner below perimeter landscape strips. Underdrain piping
would discharge to storm water collection bioswales and/or drain systems.
This underdrain and liner system will prevent water infiltration into the
underlying fill materials.
• Installation of building combustible gas protection and monitoring features to
consist of a subfloor vapor barrier and passive venting system, and interior alarm
system.
• Proper decommissioning and abandoning of existing groundwater monitoring
wells in the footprint of proposed site development areas.
• Adhering to applicable provisions of the existing Risk Management Plan and
Health and Safety Plan for soil handling during excavations for utility trenches,
foundations, and other site work. The excavations will be confined to the sandy
clay soil fill layer and will not extend into the underlying burn ash debris.
• Adherence to water conservation standards for landscaping and irrigation to
reduce or eliminate the potential for water infiltration into the underlying fill
materials.
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 17
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Environmental factors that may be affected by the Project are listed alphabetically below.
Factors marked with an “X” () were determined to be potentially affected by the Project,
involving at least one impact that is a potentially significant impact requiring further analysis,
as indicated in the Environmental Evaluation Form Checklist and related discussion that
follows.
Unmarked factors () were determined to not be significantly affected by the Project, based on
discussion provided in the Checklist, including the application of mitigation measures
identified in this document.
Aesthetics Agriculture/Forestry Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards/Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population/Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
There are no impacts that would remain significant with implementation of the identified
mitigation measures.
Page 18 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The Checklist portion of the Initial Study begins below, with explanations of each CEQA issue
topic. Four outcomes are possible, as explained below.
1. A “no impact” response indicates that no action that would have an adverse effect on
the environment would occur due to the Project.
2. A “less than significant” response indicates that while there may be potential for an
environmental impact, there are standard procedures or regulations in place, or other
features of the Project as proposed, which would limit the extent of this impact to a level
of “less than significant.”
3. Responses that indicate that the impact of the Project would be “less than significant
with mitigation” indicate that mitigation measures, identified in the subsequent
discussion, will be required as a condition of Project approval in order to effectively
reduce potential Project-related environmental effects to a level of “less than
significant.”
4. A “potentially significant impact” response indicates that further analysis is required to
determine the extent of the potential impact and identify any appropriate mitigation. If
any topics are indicated with a “potentially significant impact,” these topics would need
to be analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report.
This document does not indicate that any environmental topics would be considered to be
“potentially significant” after application of mitigation measures identified in herein.
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 19
1. AESTHETICS
Would the project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
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?
a) Scenic Vistas. The Project vicinity is predominantly developed with business park and
industrial uses and is not considered a scenic resource or vista. The East of 101 Area Plan
(Policy 5.3) states that a design goal of development in the Plan Area should be to “Protect
visually significant features of the East of 101 Area, including views of the Bay and San
Bruno Mountain.”2 CEQA generally protects against significant adverse impacts to public
views of scenic vistas, taking into consideration whether the view is from a location at
which people gather specifically to enjoy views and the environmental context (i.e., if the
area is a natural area or a developed urban area). While views of the Bay and San Bruno
Mountain are considered scenic vistas for purposes of this analysis, there are no
designated public viewing locations in the vicinity of the Project. Views from public
roadways are discussed below to indicate the potential for changed views from public
locations.
San Bruno Mountain, which lies northwest of the Project site, is not visible from Gull
Drive (to the east) or Forbes Boulevard (to the south) due to the relative ground levels and
existing development in the area. The proposed one-story USDA facility would be of
consistent or lower building height than the surrounding existing development and
generally not visible or prominent in views from surrounding roadways due to the
existing development and grade differences. Therefore, the Project would not
substantially block views of scenic vistas of travelers along nearby roadways.
While areas of the adjacent development could experience some blockage of views of the
Bay (for example, views from the parking area south of the Nickell Property and the
Sanrio property could be partially obstructed), this would not be considered a substantial
2 East of 101 Area Plan, July 1994, p. 13
Page 20 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
adverse effect, as these are not public viewing locations where people gather specifically
to enjoy views and obstruction of private views is not considered a significant
environmental impact under CEQA.
Taking both the regulatory and specific locational/scenic context into account, the impact
on scenic vistas from implementation of the Project would be considered less than
significant.
b) Scenic Highways. The Project would not be visible from a designated or eligible State
Scenic Highway. U.S. 101 is not a designated or eligible State Scenic Highway corridor in
the vicinity of the Project nor are there any scenic corridors identified in the area.3 The
Project would have no impact on a state scenic highway or scenic resources viewable from
such a highway.
c) Visual Character. As noted above, the Project vicinity is an urban environment
predominantly developed with business park and industrial uses. The proposed one-story
USDA facility would be of consistent height with the surrounding existing development
and would be consistent with the visual character of the area (Figure 6). Additionally, City
staff will review the proposed design as part of the approval process, and design
parameters would be imposed by the City. Therefore, the impact on visual character from
implementation of the Project would be considered less than significant.
d) Light and Glare. Sources of light and glare in the Project vicinity include interior and
exterior building lights, service areas and surface parking lots, and city street lights. Light
and glare associated with vehicular traffic along major thoroughfares in the area also
create sources of glare. The existing level and sources of light and glare are typical of those
in a developed urban business park setting.
Residential uses and natural areas are particularly sensitive to light and glare impacts,
particularly from nearby non-residential sources. The Project is located in a commercial
and industrial area with no adjacent residential uses or natural areas.
The Project would install five pole lights with integral photocells in the parking areas, and
two light emitting diode wall packs with integral motion sensors at the north and south
ends of the truck loading area, increasing the amount of nighttime lighting and glare. The
Project is not anticipated to substantially affect the overall ambient light levels in the
vicinity. As a standard condition of Project approval, new lighting will be required to
conform to the City’s standards that limit the amount of light that can spill over to other
properties through the use of downcast lighting fixtures.
The Project would consist of development and lighting treatments typical of the existing
commercial/industrial urban settings and would incorporate standard lighting measures
to address undue lighting on adjacent areas, and would not result in new sources of
substantial adverse light or glare. The impact would be less than significant.
3 California Department of Transportation, State Scenic Highway Mapping System,
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 21
Figure 6. Project Elevations
Source: DGA
Page 22 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including
timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and
Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest
carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the
California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
S
ig
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) 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 result in conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
a–e) Agriculture and Forestry Resources. The Project site is located in a business park area,
surrounded on three sides by development and a multilane connecting road (Gull Drive)
to the east. No part of the site is zoned for or currently being used for agricultural or
forestry purposes or are subject to the Williamson Act. The Project would have no impact
on agriculture and forestry resources.
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 23
3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the
project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
an
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
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?
a) Air Quality Plan. The Project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and is
subject to the Bay Area Clean Air Plan, first adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD; in association with the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments [ABAG]) in 1991 to meet state
requirements and those of the federal Clean Air Act. As required by state law, updates are
developed approximately every three years. The plan is meant to demonstrate progress
toward meeting the ozone standards, but also includes other elements related to
particulate matter, toxic air contaminants, and greenhouse gases. The latest update to the
plan, which was adopted in April 2017, is called the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan.
BAAQMD recommends analyzing a project’s consistency with current air quality plan
primary goals and control measures. The impact would be significant if the Project would
conflict with or obstruct attainment of the primary goals or implementation of the control
measures.
The primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan are:
• Attain all state and national air quality standards
• Eliminate disparities among Bay Area communities in cancer health risk from toxic
air contaminants
• Reduce Bay Area GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80
percent below 1990 levels by 2050. [This standard is addressed in Section 7:
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.]
Page 24 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
The Project would be consistent with all applicable rules and regulations related to
emissions and health risk and would not result in a new substantial source of emissions or
toxic air contaminants or otherwise conflict with the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air
Plan.
Many of the Clean Air Plan’s control measures are targeted to area-wide improvements,
large stationary source reductions, or large employers and these are not applicable to the
proposed Project. However, the Project would be consistent with all rules and regulations
related to construction activities and the proposed development would meet current
standards of energy and water efficiency (Energy Control Measure EN1 and Water
Control Measure WR2) and recycling and green waste requirements (Waste Management
Control Measures WA3 and WA4) and does not conflict with applicable control measures
aimed at improving access/connectivity for bicycles and pedestrians (Transportation
Control Measure TR9) or any other control measures.
The Project, therefore, would be generally consistent with the Clean Air Plan and have a
less than significant impact in this regard.
b–c) Air Quality Standards/Criteria Pollutants. Ambient air quality standards have been
established by state and federal environmental agencies for specific air pollutants most
pervasive in urban environments. These pollutants are referred to as criteria air pollutants
because the standards established for them were developed to meet specific health and
welfare criteria set forth in the enabling legislation and include ozone precursors (oxides
of nitrogen, NOx, and reactive organic gases, ROG), carbon monoxide, and suspended
particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The Bay Area is considered “attainment” (or
unclassified) for all of the national standards, with the exception of ozone and 24-hour
PM2.5. For State air quality standards, the Bay Area is considered “nonattainment” for all
averaging times for ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5).
Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air
quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a
cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in
nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. 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.4
BAAQMD’s updated CEQA Guidelines including thresholds of significance were adopted
on June 2, 2010, with the latest version of the CEQA Guidelines issued May 2017. Current
thresholds of significance for Criteria Air Pollutants are set by BAAQMD as summarized
below:
4 BAAQMD, May 2017, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, p. 2-1.
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 25
BAAQMD Criteria Pollutant Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant Construction-Related Operational-Related
Average Daily Emissions
(lbs./day)
Average Daily
Emissions (lbs./day)
Maximum Annual
Emissions (tpy)
ROG 54 54 10
NOx 54 54 10
PM10 82 (exhaust only) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (exhaust only) 54 10
PM10 / PM2.5
(fugitive dust)
Best Management
Practices
None
Source: BAAQMD Adopted Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance - June 2, 2010
Project-related air quality impacts fall into two categories: short-term impacts that would
occur during construction of the Project and long-term impacts due to Project operation.
Construction Emissions
BAAQMD presents screening criteria in their CEQA Guidelines that identify project sizes
by type that could have the potential to result in emissions over criteria levels. This table
includes a construction-period criteria pollutant screening level of 277,000 sf of general
office uses or 259,000 sf of warehouse uses.5 The proposed building is 21,807 sf and would
be well below threshold levels.
However, BAAQMD recommends implementation of construction mitigation measures to
reduce construction-related emissions and fugitive dust for all projects, regardless of the
comparison to threshold levels. These basic measures are included in Mitigation Measure
Air-1, below and would further reduce construction-period criteria pollutant impacts.
Mitigation Measure
Air-1: Basic Construction Management Practices. The Project shall demonstrate proposed
compliance with all applicable regulations and operating procedures prior to
issuance of demolition, building or grading permits, including implementation of
the following BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures.
i) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas,
and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
ii) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
iii) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed
using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry
power sweeping is prohibited.
iv) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
v) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon
5 BAAQMD, May 2011, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, pp. 3-2 to 3-3.
Page 26 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
vi) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use
or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at
all access points.
vii) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked
by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior
to operation.
viii) Post a publicly 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 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Operational Emissions
Similar to the analysis for construction-period impacts above, the Project was compared to
BAAQMD screening criteria for operational pollutants. As it relates to operational
pollutants, this table includes a construction-period criteria pollutant screening level of
346,000 sf of general office uses or 864,000 sf of warehouse uses.6 The proposed building
would be 21,807 sf and well below the applicable screening level size specified in the
BAAQMD operational criteria pollutants screening criteria. Additionally, as discussed in
the Project Description and Section 16: Transportation, the proposed use of the building
would involve relatively few employees and vehicle trips. Due to the lower vehicle trips
proposed, emissions from the proposed Project would be even lower than the similar
types of uses modeled in the BAAQMD Screening Tables.
Additionally, BAAQMD presents as screening criteria for carbon monoxide impacts
traffic-based criteria. As operation of the proposed Project would not significantly impact
traffic levels (see section 16: Transportation and Circulation), the Project would be below
carbon monoxide threshold levels.
Therefore, the Project impact related to operational pollutant emissions would be less than
significant.
d) Sensitive Receptors. For the purpose of assessing impacts of a proposed Project on
exposure of sensitive receptors to risks and hazards, the threshold of significance is
exceeded when the project-specific cancer risk exceeds 10 in one million or the non-cancer
risk exceeds a Hazard Index of 1.0. Examples of sensitive receptors are places where
people live, play, or convalesce and include schools, hospitals, residential areas, and
recreation facilities.
6 BAAQMD, May 2011, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, pp. 3-2 to 3-3.
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 27
The Project itself is not considered a sensitive receptor and operation of the Project would
not be a substantial source of hazardous emissions. However, construction activity that
uses traditional diesel-powered equipment results in the emission of diesel particulate
matter, which is considered a toxic air contaminant and potential health risk. The
generation of these emissions would be temporary and confined to the construction-
period.
There are few sensitive receptors in the East of 101 area of South San Francisco, but there
are scattered day care facilities throughout the area and a proposed recreational area and
some live -aboard house boats in the marina in the Oyster Point area. All these sensitive
uses are over 1,000 feet from the proposed Project, which is the screening distance
recommended by BAAQMD.
BAAQMD had previously issued a document titled Screening Tables for Air Toxics
Evaluation during Construction to estimate the potential for significant air quality health
risk impacts associated with construction activity based on general project characteristics,
such as type and size, utilizing worst-case and conservative assumptions. While
BAAQMD is currently working on an update or replacement to this table, a comparison to
the screening sizes and distances further supports conclusions. For a project of at least this
square footage and acreage of construction area (less than 100,000 sf of commercial
building on less than 4.6 acres), the Screening Table reports that under worst-case
conditions, there could be the potential for significant health risk if a sensitive receptor is
located within 150 meters (up to 492 feet) of such a construction site. There are no sensitive
receptors located within that distance from the Project site.
Additionally, BAAQMD Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation use a two-year
construction period for screening purposes, the shortest period they recommend with the
health risk modeling. The construction period for the proposed Project would only span
approximately 11 months, so the emissions would be expected to be substantially lower
than those modeled for the screening table.
Given the distance to sensitive uses and the short construction period, it can reasonably be
concluded that the potential health risk from construction-period emissions would be less
than significant.
Additionally, as recommended by the BAAQMD, standard construction Best Management
Practices would be implemented and would reduce construction emissions as outlined in
mitigation measure Air-1. This would further reduce diesel and particulate matter
emissions.
e) Objectionable Odors. The proposed Project use is consistent with other commercial office
type uses in the area and would not result in objectionable odors. During construction,
diesel-powered vehicles and equipment would create odors that some may find
objectionable. However, these odors would be temporary and not likely to be noticeable
much beyond the Project site’s boundaries. Therefore, the potential for substantial
objectionable odor impacts is considered less than significant.
Page 28 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
th
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
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, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
a–c) Special Status Species and Habitat and Wetlands. The Project site is maintained as a
vacant site and can generally be described as a grassy and weedy area with scattered
shrubs that is regularly mowed/cut. The General Plan has assessed parcels in the area that
have the potential for biological resources. The Project site is mapped as an area that can
be considered not to have biological resources, thus precluding the need for a Biological
Resources Assessment.7
Special-status species are unlikely to occur in the Project vicinity due to its highly
disturbed and urbanized nature. The Project site was not mapped in the East of 101 Area
7 South San Francisco General Plan, 1999. Figure 7-2.
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 29
Plan as an area with sensitive biological resources.8 Plant and animal species that may
occur in the vicinity would be common species associated with urban, developed, and
ruderal conditions throughout the San Francisco Bay area. No wetlands, riparian habitats,
or other sensitive habitats are present at the site.9 Impacts on special-status species and
habitats would therefore be less than significant.
d) Wildlife Corridors. The Project site is surrounded by roadways and other developed
areas and does not have the potential to act as a substantial wildlife corridor. Impacts
related to movement of wildlife would be less than significant.
e) Local Policies and Ordinances. There are no local policies or ordinances directly
applicable to the Project and tree removal is not proposed. Therefore, the Project would
have no impact regarding conflicts with local policies and ordinances, including tree
preservation.
f) Habitat Conservation Plan. There is no Habitat Conservation Plan applicable to the
Project site. Therefore, the Project would have no impact.
8 City of South San Francisco. East of 101 Area Plan, July 1994. Figure 18.
9 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Mapper. Available at
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html. Accessed July 25, 2017.
Page 30 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in Public Resources Section
15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Public Resources Section
15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section
21074 as either: 1) a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American Tribe, that is listed or eligible for
listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, or on a
local register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or 2) a resource determined
by a lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant according to the historical register
criteria in Public Resources Code section 5024.1 (c), and
considering the significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.10
a–e) Historic Resources, Archaeological and Paleontological Resources, Human Remains,
and Tribal Cultural Resources. A records search was performed by the Northwest
Information Center (Attachment A), which indicated that while there are no known
cultural resources present in the Project area, there is a moderate potential for the
inadvertent discovery of previously unrecorded Native American and historic-period
archaeological resources based on the characteristics of the site and history of the region.
A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File was
completed for the Project and indicated there are no known sacred lands present in the
vicinity of the site (see Attachment A). While no tribes have requested consultation for
10 Added per the Native American Resource Protection Act (Assembly Bill 52), effective July 1, 2016.
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 31
project in this area, notice was sent to listed tribes on August 31, 2017, per
recommendation of the Native American Heritage Commission. No responses have been
received.
Construction activities associated with the Project would include the removal of
approximately 7,200 cubic yards of soil. Although not anticipated, previously unknown
cultural resources or human remains could be inadvertently unearthed during ground-
disturbing activities. This inadvertent discovery would be a potentially significant impact
and require mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
Cul-1: Pre-Construction Studies. Prior to ground disturbance, a qualified archaeologist
shall conduct further archival and field study to identify archaeological resources,
including a good faith effort to identify archaeological deposits that may show no
indications on the surface.
Cul-2: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Implement Mitigation. In the event
that previously unidentified paleontological, archaeological, historical, or tribal
resources are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction
activity, all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery shall cease until the
resources have been evaluated by a qualified professional, and specific measures can
be implemented to protect these resources in accordance with sections 21083.2 and
21084.1 of the California Public Resources Code.
Cul-3: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Remains and Take Appropriate Action in
Coordination with Native American Heritage Commission. In the event that
human remains are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other
construction activity, all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery shall cease until
the remains have been evaluated by the County Coroner, and appropriate action
taken in coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission, in
accordance with section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code or, if the
remains are Native American, section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources
Code.
These measures are consistent with the recommendations provided by the Northwest
Information Center. Implementation of mitigation measures Cul-2a, Cul-2b, and Cul-2c
will reduce the impacts associated with possible disturbance of unidentified cultural
resources at the Project site to a level of less than significant.
Page 32 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of 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 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Information in this section is based on the geotechnical report completed for the Project by
Cornerstone Earth Group, which is included as Attachment B.
a) Seismic Hazards. The Project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Seismic Hazard Zone,
and no known active or potentially active faults traverse the Project site. Because ground
rupture generally occurs only at the location of a fault, and no active faults are known to
traverse the Project site, the Project would not be subject to substantial risk of surface fault
rupture. There would be no impact.
The Project site is in a seismically active region and could be subject to moderate to severe
ground shaking as a result of an earthquake along the active and nearby (within 5 miles)
San Andreas Fault. Strong seismic ground shaking has the potential to induce seismic-
related ground failure (e.g., liquefaction) and lateral spreading. The geotechnical report
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 33
determined that the potential for lateral spreading and landsliding is also considered low.
Impacts related to these seismic hazards would be less than significant.
According to ABAG Liquefaction Hazard Maps,11 the Project site is within a zone mapped
as having low potential for liquefaction. However, the geotechnical report included
additional testing and analysis of onsite soils and concluded that the potential for
liquefaction is higher than mapped by ABAG and subject to settlement of up to 1 inch.
This impact is considered potentially significant and requires mitigation.
Mitigation Measure
Geo-1: Implement Geotechnical Report Recommendations. Based on site soil analysis,
the geotechnical report included specific recommendations for grading and
construction. In addition, in accordance with the current standards set forth in the
California Building Code, Project design and construction shall incorporate the
recommendations in the geotechnical report to avoid or reduce the geotechnical
hazards on the site. Per standard procedures, compliance with design-level
recommendations will be verified during the construction permitting process.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure Geo-1, the impact related to liquefaction
would be less than significant.
b) Soil Erosion. The Project site would be graded to a depth of 6 inches, with a 12-inch
building pad section, which would produce a net of approximately 7,200 cubic yards of
exported soil. The applicant has developed an erosion control plan for the Project. In
addition, the Project applicant must obtain coverage under the General Construction
Activity Storm Water Permit (General Construction Permit) issued by the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which will address any erosion potential from ground
disturbance. Implementation of the erosion control plan and compliance with applicable
regulations would ensure the impact related to soil erosion would be less than significant.
c, d) Unstable or Expansive Soil. The Project site contains underlying fill soils that have
expansion potential and significant settlement of these soils is likely. This impact is
considered potentially significant and requires mitigation.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure Geo-1 as described above, the impact related
to unstable and expansive soil would be less than significant.
e) Septic Tanks. Existing infrastructure is located throughout the Project area, and the
Project would connect to the existing wastewater lines. No septic tanks or alternative
wastewater systems are proposed, and there would be no impact. Therefore, the Project
would have no impact.
11 Accessed July 31, 2017, at: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=liqSusceptibility
Page 34 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
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 gases?
a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions. BAAQMD has determined that greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and global climate change represent cumulative impacts. BAAQMD adopted a
threshold of significance for operational GHG emissions of 1,100 metric tons carbon
dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year or, if the project is too large to meet that threshold, an
efficiency threshold of 4.6 metric tons CO2e per service population (residents and
employees) per year .
BAAQMD does not suggest a threshold for assessment of construction-period GHG
emissions impacts or provide a screening level at which to compare projects. However, for
a project requiring relatively little site preparation and construction spanning less than a
year, construction-period GHG emissions would add a small amount to the lifetime
operational GHG emissions and would not change conclusions discussed below.
As it relates to operational GHG emissions, the screening table includes an operational
screening level of 53,000 sf of general office uses or 64,000 sf of warehouse uses.12 The
proposed building is 21,807 sf and would be well below the applicable screening level size
specified in the BAAQMD operational GHG emissions screening criteria. Therefore, the
impact related to GHG emissions would be less than significant. Additionally, as
discussed in the Project Description and Section 16: Transportation, the proposed use of
the building would involve relatively few employees and vehicle trips. Due to the lower
vehicle trips proposed, emissions from the proposed Project would be even lower than the
similar types of uses modeled in the BAAQMD Screening Tables.
b) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans. The City adopted a qualified GHG reduction plan in
2014, the City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan. This plan estimated
community-wide GHG emissions of 548,600 metric tons CO2e in 2005 and a target
reduction of 15% below the 2005 baseline levels.
12 BAAQMD, May 2011, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, pp. 3-2 to 3-3.
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 35
Many of the Climate Action Plan’s reduction measures are targeted to city-wide strategies
that are not directly applicable to the proposed Project. The Project would include a
pedestrian connection and walkway to the existing shuttle stop at the corner of Gull Drive
and Oyster Point Boulevard (to/from BART and Caltrain stations) and participate in a
Transportation Demand Management program (contributing to Measures 1.1 through 1.3).
The Project would meet current standards of energy and water efficiency (Measures 3.1
and 6.1), and occupants would participate in recycling for waste reduction (Measure 5.1).
A discussion of the Project in relation to the Clean Air Plan is included in Section 3: Air
Quality.
Additionally, GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project were analyzed per the
BAAQMD Guidelines. BAAQMD’s thresholds and methodologies take into account
implementation of state-wide regulations and plans, such as the Assembly Bill 32 Scoping
Plan and adopted state regulations such as Pavley and the low carbon fuel standard.
Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact in relation to consistency with
GHG reduction plans.
Page 36 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
Information in this section is based the Amended Site Closure Plan and Post-Construction
Maintenance Plan and the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Landfill Due Diligence
Report completed for the Project by SCS Engineers. These documents are included as
Attachments C and D, respectively.
a) Routine Handling of Hazardous Materials. Project operations are not expected to create a
significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
The use of any hazardous materials during Project construction or operation activities
would comply with applicable regulations. State and federal laws require proper
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 37
handling, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. The Project would have a less than
significant impact related to routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
b, d) Hazardous Materials Site and Release. The Project site is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and is adjacent to
the now-closed Oyster Point Landfill.
During the 1950s, trash was reportedly burned on a portion of the Project site and/or burn
ash dumped at the site. The trash burning/ash dumping activities were not licensed but
are assumed to be associated with activity at the now-closed Oyster Point Landfill across
Gull Drive from the site. Investigation and characterization of potential site hazards were
assessed through soil borings and test pits, soil sampling, soil gas (vapor) surveys,
installation of groundwater monitoring wells, and groundwater monitoring and sampling,
as detailed in the Phase I Environmental Site Investigation (Attachment D) and
summarized below.
The residual burn ash material consists of ash, brick, concrete, metal fragments, and glass,
and is considered hazardous material. Within the burn ash material, select metals
concentrations were reported at concentrations above industrial or commercial
environmental screening levels (ESLs). The highest metals concentrations were detected in
the northeastern portion of the site, which is not currently proposed for development. Site
development under the Project would occur with the burn ash left in place.
Groundwater at the Project site was determined to have been impacted by the presence of
the burn ash material and was found to contain metals and petroleum hydrocarbons (fuel
byproducts). Based upon these prior conclusions, the site has been and continues to be
subject to regulatory agency requirements to perform water quality monitoring and
sampling.
Additionally, a soil vapor survey performed in 2006 detected combustible gas (methane)
concentrations above the lower explosive limit at locations along the eastern side of the
property. The burn ash materials at the site do not produce combustible gas and the
detected methane was determined to likely be migrating to the site from the closed Oyster
Point Landfill to the east. Vent trenches and monitoring were subsequently installed in
2007 at the Oyster Point Landfill to mitigate the potential for off-site migration of methane
and there are no current records of off-site migration issues.
A closure/post-closure development plan (PCMP) is in place at the Project site and an
amended plan for the proposed Project (included as Attachment C) was approved by San
Mateo County Department of Environmental Health in a letter dated April 25, 2017.
The amended PCMP addresses the current proposed Project. The PCMP includes remedial
measures designed to minimize potential exposure of workers and building occupants to
contaminated soils and vapor during and after site development generally through
capping site soils with asphalt, concrete and vegetative barriers; installation of a vapor
barrier and venting system below the building foundation to address the potential for
migration onto the site of combustible vapor; and implementation of safety measures for
excavation and soil handling during construction. While these measures were originally
Page 38 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
intended to address higher contamination and vapor levels in the eastern portion of the
Project site, they have been conservatively applied to the proposed development in the
western portion to ensure the impact of site hazards are minimized.
Project construction activities have the potential to result in the release of contaminated
soils and Project operation has the potential to bring site users into contact with
contaminated soils and combustible vapors. This impact is considered potentially
significant and requires mitigation consistent with the approved PCMP, and as also listed
in the measure below.
Mitigation Measure
Haz-1: Adherence to Remediation Measures. Project design and construction shall
incorporate the recommended remediation measures in the Amended Site Closure
Plan and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan (PCMP), which has been approved by the
San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health, to avoid or reduce the
hazards related to the presence of hazardous materials (burn ash) and combustible
vapor at this site, including the following measures:
• Placement of cap throughout the development area consistent with the final
cover / capping plan in the approved Amended PCMP, including:
- The building footprint will be capped with concrete. The concrete slab
foundation will be constructed in accordance with foundation
recommendations specified by the geotechnical and structural engineer. The
preliminary design concept is for a slab-on-grade construction, overlying a
DDC ground improvement system. A uniform gravel bed will underlie the
foundation slab.
- The parking surface cap area will consist of re-compacted subgrade, overlain
by an aggregate base layer, overlain by asphalt concrete layer with minimum
thickness 3 inches, or as specified by the geotechnical engineer.
- Installation of a surface water subdrain system underlain by an impermeable
geomembrane liner below perimeter landscape strips. Underdrain piping
would discharge to storm water collection bioswales and/or drain systems.
This underdrain and liner system will prevent water infiltration into the
underlying fill materials.
• Installation of building combustible gas protection and monitoring features to
consist of a subfloor vapor barrier and passive venting system, and interior alarm
system.
• Proper decommissioning and abandoning of existing groundwater monitoring
wells in the footprint of proposed site development areas.
• Adhering to applicable provisions of the existing Risk Management Plan and
Health and Safety Plan for soil handling during excavations for utility trenches,
foundations, and other site work. The excavations will be confined to the sandy
clay soil fill layer and will not extend into the underlying burn ash debris.
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 39
• Adherence to water conservation standards for landscaping and irrigation to
reduce or eliminate the potential for water infiltration into the underlying fill
materials.
Human health and ecological risk evaluations performed for the PCMP found risks during
both construction and operations to be insignificant assuming implementation of the
above measures into the proposed Project. With implementation of Mitigation Measure
Haz-1, the impact relating to a hazardous material site and the accidental release of
hazardous materials would be less than significant.
c) Hazardous Materials Near Schools. No school is located within one-quarter mile of the
Project site. No hazardous materials with the potential for release during operation would
be handled on or emitted from the site. Construction activities are discussed above.
Therefore, the Project would have no impact.
e, f) Airport Hazards. The closest airport is the San Francisco International Airport,
approximately 2.25 miles from the Project site. The Project site is within the boundary of
the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and Airport Influence Area B. Because
the proposed USDA building would have an area of less than 100,000 sf, the Project is not
subject to advisory review by the Airport Land Use Commission.13 At 25 feet in height, the
Project would not be subject to review under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 77
related to heights and airplane safety. Overall, the Project would be compatible with the
ALUCP and would not pose a safety hazard for people working or residing in the Project
area. There are no other airports, either public or private, within the vicinity of the Project.
There would be no impact related to airport hazards.
g) Emergency Response Plan. The Project would not alter traffic patterns and would not
impair implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan. Therefore, the Project would have no impact.
h) Wildland Fire. The Project site is in an urbanized area removed from areas typically
subject to wildland fire. Therefore, the Project would have no impact.
13 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, November 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. Available at:
http://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121.pdf
Page 40 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,
in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,
or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
a, e–f) Water Quality and Stormwater.
Construction Period
Project site stormwater runoff is directed to drainage channels at the base of the slope to
the east and south of the Project which route storm water to the municipal stormwater
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 41
system. Construction activities on the Project site would include grading over an
approximately 3.6-acre area, potentially resulting in siltation and downstream
sedimentation of stormwater runoff, and construction activities could result in pollutants
entering stormwater runoff and downstream receiving waters. The Project will be
required to obtain coverage under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit
(General Construction Permit) issued by the SWRCB. Coverage under this permit requires
preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval
by the City, and evidence of approval of the SWPPP by the SWRCB. At a minimum, the
SWPPP will include a description of construction materials, practices, and equipment
storage and maintenance; a list of pollutants likely to contact stormwater; a list of
provisions to eliminate or reduce discharge of materials to stormwater; best management
practices (BMPs); and an inspection and monitoring program. Per standard procedures,
compliance with SWPPP requirements will be verified during the construction permitting
process. Therefore, the Project’s potential to result in construction-period impacts related
to water quality and stormwater would be less than significant.
Operational Period
Operation of the Project would also have the potential to introduce pollutants into
stormwater runoff that could result in degradation of downstream water quality, as
would any development project.
Federal Clean Water Act regulations require municipalities to obtain National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits that outline programs and activities to
control surface stormwater pollution. Municipalities, such as the City of South San
Francisco, must eliminate or reduce non-point pollution, consisting of all types of
substances generated as a result of urbanization (e.g. pesticides, fertilizers, automobile
fluids, sewage, litter), to the maximum extent practicable (as required by Clean Water Act
Section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii)). Clean Water Act Section 402(p) and U.S. Environmental
Protection Act regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations 122.26) specify a municipal
program of BMPs to control stormwater pollutants. BMP refers to any kind of procedure
or device designed to minimize the quantity of pollutants that enter the storm drain
system. To comply with these regulations, each incorporated city and town in San Mateo
County joined with the County of San Mateo to form the San Mateo County Water
Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) in applying for a regional NPDES permit.
The Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted a Municipal Regional Permit on
October 14, 2009 as the NPDES permit for all Bay Area municipalities, which includes
Provision C.3. The C.3 requirements are intended to protect water quality by minimizing
pollutants in runoff, and to prevent downstream erosion by: designing each project site to
minimize imperviousness, detain runoff, and infiltrate runoff where feasible; treating
runoff prior to discharge from the site; ensuring runoff does not exceed pre-project peaks
and durations; and maintaining treatment facilities. Project applicants must prepare and
implement a Stormwater Control Plan containing treatment and source control measures
that meet the maximum extent practicable standard as specified in the NPDES permit and
the SMCWPPP C.3 Guidebook. Project applicants must also prepare a Stormwater Facility
Page 42 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
Operation and Maintenance Plan and execute agreements to ensure the stormwater
treatment and flow-control facilities are maintained in perpetuity.
The Project would create 66,359 sf (1.5 acres) of new impervious area, requiring a
treatment area of 2,101 sf pursuant to the treatment area sizing requirements in the San
Mateo County Clean Water Program. The Project proposes a treatment area of 2,360 sf.
Runoff generated at the site would be directed to a bioretention area near the eastern edge
of the parcel where water would be naturally slowed and filtered prior to entering the
storm drainage system. Implementation of mitigation measure Haz-1 will reduce or
eliminate the potential for water infiltration into the underlying fill materials, and
potential water quality impacts. The Project will be required to submit preliminary
stormwater treatment plans and C.3 worksheets demonstrating the change in impervious
area at the site and appropriateness of stormwater system elements.
Therefore, the Project’s operational-period impacts related to water quality and
stormwater would be less than significant.
b) Groundwater Recharge and Supplies. The Project site and surrounding area are
connected to the municipal water supply and groundwater at the site is not used directly
by this or other properties as a water supply. Groundwater in the lower portion of the fill
deposits onsite flows to the southeast, generally toward the San Francisco Bay. The Project
would comply with stormwater drainage requirements (see response to “a, e–f”),
including permeable bioretention areas. The Project would not substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, and impacts
would be less than significant.
c, d) Drainage Pattern Alteration. The Project would increase impervious site area and slow
and treat runoff with bioretention areas prior to discharge into the storm drainage system
(see response to “a, e–f”). Through compliance with applicable regulations, the runoff
from the site would be the same or reduced from that existing and would not cause
erosion, siltation, or flooding. Project impacts related to alteration of drainage patterns
would be less than significant.
f) Otherwise Substantially Degrade Water Quality. Construction-related and post-
construction water quality are discussed under the response to “a, e–f” and the Project
would not otherwise degrade water quality. The impact would be less than significant.
g–i) Flooding. The Project is not located in a 100-year flood zone 14 and would not consist of
housing or present a risk for flooding or redirection of flood flows. Therefore, there would
be no impact related to flooding.
j) Inundation. The Project site is approximately 0.25 mile from the San Francisco Bay and
approximately 5.75 miles from the Pacific Ocean. Project site elevations are between 57
and 62 feet above msl. Wave run up from a tsunami is estimated at 6 feet above msl for a
14 City of South San Francisco, July 1994, East of 101 Area Plan, Figure 9.
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 43
500-year tsunami.15 Climate change-induced sea level rise is estimated at up to 17 inches
by 2050.16 Therefore, the site is not in danger of inundation from a tsunami or climate
change induced-sea level rise. Further, the site is not located near an inland body of water,
nor is it located adjacent to a soil slope susceptible to rapid mass wasting or mudflows.
Impacts related to inundation by seiche, tsunami, mudflow, or sea level rise would be less
than significant.
15 City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco General Plan: Health and Safety Element, 1999, p. 250.
16 Bay Conservation and Development Commission, adopted Oct 6, 2011, San Francisco Bay Plan.
Page 44 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
a) Physical Division of a Community. The Project site is in an urbanized area with
currently developed parcels and roadways. The Project would not involve any physical
changes that would have the potential to divide an established community. Thus, the
Project would have no impact.
b) Conflict with Land Use Plan. The General Plan designation for the Project site is
Business and Technology Park, and the zoning designation is Business Technology Park.
Additionally, the East of 101 Area Plan designates the Project area as Planned Industrial,
which includes industrial parks; light manufacturing; distribution, wholesale, and
warehouse uses; office uses; and research and development. The development proposed
for the Project would be consistent with these land use designations. Thus, the Project
would have no impact.
c) Conflict with Conservation Plan. The Project site is in an urbanized area with currently
developed parcels and roadways and is not subject to a conservation plan. The Project
would have no impact.
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 45
11. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
wi
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
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?
a, b) Mineral Resources. The site contains no known mineral resources and has not been
delineated as a locally important mineral recovery site on any land use plan.17 The Project
would have no impact on mineral resources.
17 U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Resources Data System: U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Accessed July
31, 2017, at: http://tin.er.usgs.gov/mrds/
Page 46 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
12. NOISE
Would the project result in: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
Im
p
a
c
t
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, exposure of people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, exposure of people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
a–d) Excessive Noise or Vibration. Noise impacts resulting from construction depend on the
noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of
noise generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise
sensitive receptors. Construction noise impacts primarily occur when construction
activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (early morning, evening, or
nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise sensitive
land uses, or when construction durations last over extended periods of time (typically
greater than one year).
Significant noise impacts do not normally occur when standard construction noise control
measures are enforced at the Project site and when the duration of the noise generating
construction period at a particular receiver or group of receivers is limited to one
construction season or less. Reasonable regulation of the hours of construction, as well as
regulation of the arrival and operation of heavy equipment and the delivery of
construction material, are necessary to protect the health and safety of persons, promote
the general welfare of the community, and maintain the quality of life.
The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal Code, Section
8.32.050) restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays,
9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Saturdays, and 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Sundays and holidays. This
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 47
ordinance also limits noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at
25 feet or at the property line. Construction activities will comply with the Noise
Ordinance.
Sensitive receptors in the East of 101 area of South San Francisco include day care facilities
scattered throughout the area and a proposed recreational area and some live-aboard
house boats in the marina in the Oyster Point area. These sensitive uses are over 1,000 feet
from the proposed Project. Operation of the Project would not produce substantial levels
of vibration or noise.
Impacts from noise and vibration generated by the construction and operation of the
Project would be less than significant.
e–f) Airport Noise. The closest airport is the San Francisco International Airport,
approximately 2.25 miles from the Project site. The Project site is within the boundary of
the ALUCP, but is not within the area impacted by airplane flyover noise (i.e., the
Community Noise Equivalent Level 70 Noise Contours).18 Impacts related to excessive
aircraft noise exposure would be less than significant.
18 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, November 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. Available at:
http://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121.pdf
Page 48 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) Induce substantial population growth in a manner not
contemplated in the General Plan, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads and other
infrastructure), such that additional infrastructure is required,
but the impacts of such were not previously considered or
analyzed?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere, in excess of that contemplated in the General
Plan?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere, in excess of
that contained in the City’s Housing Element of the General
Plan?
a–c) Population and Housing. The Project involves construction of a new USDA building on a
vacant lot. USDA intends to relocate its existing operations from its current facility nearby,
with the potential to add a few employees with the move and a few more over the long
term. The relocation of employees from one facility to another and minor increases in the
number of employees in the area would not induce population growth and would
displace neither existing housing nor people. There would be no impact.
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 49
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project : Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the following public
services?
ii) Fire protection
iii) Police protection
iv) Schools
v) Parks
vi) Other public facilities
b) 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?
c) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
a–e) Public Services. The Project involves construction of a new USDA building on a vacant
lot. USDA intends to relocate its existing operations from its current facility nearby, with
the potential to add a few employees with the move and a few more over the long term.
The relocation of employees from one facility to another and minor increases in the
number of employees in the area would not increase the demand for public services. There
would be no impact.
Page 50 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
15. RECREATION
Would the project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
a–b) Recreation. The Project involves construction of a new USDA building on a vacant lot.
USDA intends to relocate its existing operations from its current facility nearby, with the
potential to add a few employees with the move and a few more over the long term. The
relocation of employees from one facility to another and minor increases in the number of
employees in the area would not significantly increase demand for recreational facilities,
nor would it lead to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities or physical
deterioration of nearby recreational facilities. There would be no impact.
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 51
16. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
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?
Information in this section is based on the Traffic Impact Report completed for the Project by
Crane Transportation Group, which is included as Attachment E.
a, b) Vehicle Circulation and Congestion. The City’s significance threshold for an increase in
traffic at interchanges, freeway ramps, or freeway mainline locations already operating
unacceptably is a 1% increase. For surface street intersections away from the freeway, the
City’s threshold is a 2% increase in traffic.
Crane Transportation Group performed an assessment to determine whether the Project
would have the potential to cause significant impacts given the relatively small amount of
Project-generated traffic. The Project would generate 23 new AM peak hour trips and 19
new PM peak hour trips. Project traffic would not increase either existing or future
cumulative year 2040 volumes at any interchange intersections, freeway ramps, or
freeway mainline segments by 1% or more, or at any signalized surface street intersections
away from the U.S. 101 freeway, including the Oyster Point Boulevard driveway
intersection, by 2% or more.
Page 52 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
The unsignalized driveway connection to Eccles Avenue was also assessed, including new
counts in July 2017. The driveway connection to Eccles Avenue is low volume and was
determined to operate at acceptable service levels with or without the addition of Project
traffic.19
The traffic impact report (Attachment E) therefore determined that, based on the addition
of 23 new AM peak hour trips and 19 new PM peak hour trips, and continued acceptable
operation of the Eccles Avenue driveway, the Project would not have the potential to
result in significant traffic impacts (less than significant).
c) Air Traffic Hazards. The Project would not contain any features or characteristics that
would result in a change in air traffic patterns nor would any feature be of sufficient
height to affect air traffic. There would be no impact related to air traffic hazards.
d) Hazards. The design of the Project would be required to meet all local design and
construction standards, and as such, would not substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature. The Project’s connections to Eccles Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard,
are along existing driveways, which would continue to operate acceptably and not
increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. The impact related to site
hazards would be less than significant.
e) Inadequate Emergency Access. The Project would have two access roads for ingress and
egress, both of which would be of adequate width pursuant to City standards. At the time
of preparation of this document, however, vehicles associated with the uses adjacent to the
parallel easements between Oyster Point Boulevard and the Project site were being used
for parking in a portion of the required drive aisles, which is not allowable. The Fire
Department is actively working to correct this enforcement issue and this analysis can
assume these drive aisles will be clear of parking when the Project is constructed. The
impacts related to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant.
d) Alternative Modes. The Project would be adequately served by existing transit facilities
and would adhere to the General Plan’s Guiding Policy that alternative modes should be
encouraged. The site plan includes a sidewalk extending from the proposed building to
Gull Drive, providing a direct pedestrian route to the existing shuttle stop (to/from Bay
Area Rapid Transit and Caltrain stations) at the corner of Gull Drive and Oyster Point
Boulevard. The Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities. There would be no impact on alternative modes of
transportation.
19 Project distribution assumed use of both the Eccles and Oyster Point driveways. There would be little difference
in the acceptable level of service results at either driveway intersection if all Project vehicles use one or the other
driveway.
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 53
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
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?
a–g) Utilities. The Project involves construction of a new USDA building on a vacant lot.
USDA intends to relocate its existing operations from its current facility nearby, with the
potential to add a few employees with the move and a few more over the long term. The
Project site is served by all utilities. The Project would not generate substantial additional
wastewater or require a substantial increase in the supply of potable water. Construction
and operation of the Project would not require additional utility services or require new
stormwater drainage facilities. The Project site would also continue to be served by the
landfill that currently serves the existing USDA facility. The impact on utilities and service
systems would be less than significant.
Energy. While not a specific checklist item, the CEQA Guidelines recommend assessment
of a Project’s energy usage. The Project would be considered to have a significant impact
related to energy use if it would violate applicable federal, state and local statutes and
regulations relating to energy standards and/or if energy consumption increases resulting
Page 54 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
from the Project would trigger the need or expanded off-site energy facilities that would
have a significant environmental impact.
PG&E infrastructure for electricity and natural gas would be extended onto the Project site
as a part of the Project, the specifics of which would be determined in consultation with
PG&E prior to installation. However, as a relatively small project on a site zoned for such
development, off-site improvements to energy facilities would not be required to support
the Project.
Additionally, the Project would result in the consumption of fuel for construction vehicles
and equipment and for vehicles accessing the site during operation of the site. The Project
will comply with City requirements to implement a Transportation Demand Management
Plan to reduce peak hour vehicle trips and will therefore also reduce operational vehicle
fuel consumption.
The Project would be required by the City to comply with all standards of Title 24 of the
California Code of Regulations and CALGreen standards, as applicable, aimed at the
incorporation of energy-conserving design and construction. This Project is anticipated to
have similar energy requirements as other similar modern developments in the vicinity.
As a result, although the Project would incrementally increase energy consumption, it
would comply with all applicable regulations and energy standards and would not result
in a significant impact related to the provision of energy services.
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 55
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
a) Environmental Quality. With the implementation of mitigation measures identified in
this document, the Project would not 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, or threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community. The Project would not impact rare or endangered wildlife species, or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b) Cumulative Impacts. The Project would not result in adverse impacts that are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable, including effects for which project-
level mitigation were identified to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Potential
effects would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures
identified in this document, and would not contribute in considerable levels to cumulative
impacts.
c) Substantial Adverse Effects on Human Beings. The Project would not involve substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, including effects for which
project-level mitigation were identified to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
These potential effects on human beings related to the potential presence of contaminated
soil on the Project site would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation
measures identified in this document and would not result in substantial adverse effects
on human beings.
Page 56 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project
DOCUMENT PREPARERS
LAMPHIER – GREGORY
(Primary Report Preparers)
Rebecca Auld, Senior Planner
Sharon Wright, Environmental Planner
1944 Embarcadero
Oakland, CA 94606
510.535.6690
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Mark D. Crane, P.E.
(Traffic Impact Report)
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
This document was prepared in consultation with Ryan Wassum, Associate Planner, City of
South San Francisco.
560 Eccles Avenue USDA Facility Project Page 57
REFERENCES
Association of Bay Area Governments. Resilience Program, Liquefaction Susceptibility Map.
Website accessed July 31, 2017, at:
http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=liqSusceptibility.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality
Guidelines, May 2011.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During
Construction, Version 1.0, May 2010.
Bay Conservation and Development Commission. San Francisco Bay Plan, October 2011.
California Department of Pesticide Regulation. San Francisco Bay Area Stipulated Injunction
Species/Habitat County Maps. Website accessed July 25, 2017, at:
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/endspec/county_maps.htm.
California Department of Transportation. State Scenic Highway Mapping System. Website
accessed July 25, 2017, at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm.
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. Comprehensive Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, November
2012.
City of South San Francisco. General Plan, 1999.
City of South San Francisco. East of 101 Area Plan, July 1994.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Mapper. Website
accessed July 25, 2017, at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html.
U.S. Geological Survey. Mineral Resources Data System. Website accessed July 31, 2017, at:
http://tin.er.usgs.gov/mrds/.
ATTACHMENT A: CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH AND TRIBAL
CONSULTATION
August 17, 2017 NWIC File No.: 17-0167
Bruce Kaplan, Senior Planner
Lamphier-Gregory
1944 Embarcadero
Oakland, CA 94606
Re: Record search results for the proposed project at 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco
Dear Mr. Kaplan:
Per your request received by our office on July 25, 2017, a records search was conducted for the above
referenced project by reviewing pertinent Northwest Information Center (NWIC) base maps that
reference cultural resources records and reports, historic-period maps, and literature for San Mateo
County. Please note that use of the term cultural resources includes both archaeological resources and
historical buildings and/or structures.
The proposed project entails the subdivision of an existing parcel into two parcels. The project also
includes the development of a 21,807 square foot office/laboratory/warehouse building, as well as a
surface-level parking lot on the western portion of the parcel. The eastern portion of the parcel will
remain vacant and undeveloped at this time.
Review of the information at our office indicates that there have been no cultural resource studies that
cover the 560 Eccles Avenue project area. This project area contains no previously recorded
archaeological resources. The State Office of Historic Preservation Historic Property Directory (OHP HPD)
(which includes listings of the California Register of Historical Resources, California State Historical
Landmarks, California State Points of Historical Interest, and the National Register of Historic Places) lists
no recorded buildings or structures within or adjacent to the proposed project area. In addition to these
inventories, the NWIC base maps show no previously recorded buildings or structures within the
proposed project area.
At the time of Euroamerican contact, the Native Americans that lived in the area were speakers of the
Ramaytush language, part of the Costanoan subfamily of the Utian language family (Shipley 1978: 89).
There are no Native American resources within or adjacent to the proposed project area that are
referenced in the ethnographic literature (Levy 1976).
Based on an evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with known sites, Native
American resources in this part of San Mateo County have been found marginal to the San Francisco Bay,
as well as near a variety of plant and animal resources. Sites are also found near watercourses and bodies
of water. The 560 Eccles Avenue project area is located at the base of a hill approximately ¼-mile from
the San Francisco Bay, between Oyster Point and Point San Bruno. The project area is also located
approximately one mile from Colma Creek near an area of rolling hills. Given the similarity of one or more
of these environmental factors, there is a moderate potential for unrecorded Native American resources
in the 560 Eccles Avenue project area.
Review of historical literature and maps indicated the possibility of historic-period activity within the 560
Eccles Avenue project area. Two maps dating to the early 20th century depicts a road and railroad within
and adjacent to the project area. With this in mind, there is a moderate potential for previously
unrecorded historic-period archaeological resources within the 560 Eccles Avenue project area.
The 1896, 1899, 1915, 1939, and 1942 USGS San Mateo 15-minute topographic quadrangles fail to depict
any buildings or structures within the 560 Eccles Avenue project area. Therefore, there is a low possibility
of identifying buildings or structures that are 45 years or older within the project area.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) As noted above, there is a moderate potential of identifying previously unrecorded Native American
archaeological resources and a moderate potential of identifying previously unrecorded historic-
period archaeological resources in the project area. Our usual recommendation would include
archival research and a field examination. The proposed project area, however, has been highly
developed and is presently covered with asphalt, buildings, or fill that obscures the visibility of
original surface soils, which negates the feasibility of an adequate surface inspection.
It is therefore recommended that prior to ground disturbance, a qualified archaeologist conduct
further archival and field study to identify archaeological resources, including a good faith effort to
identify archaeological deposits that may show no indications on the surface. Please refer to the list
of consultants who meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards at http://www.chrisinfo.org.
2) We recommend that the lead agency contact the local Native American tribe(s) regarding
traditional, cultural, and religious heritage values. For a complete listing of tribes in the vicinity of
the project, please contact the Native American Heritage Commission at (916) 373-3710.
3) If the proposed project area contains buildings or structures that meet the minimum age
requirement, prior to commencement of project activities, it is recommended that this resource be
assessed by a professional familiar with the architecture and history of San Mateo County. Please
refer to the list of consultants who meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards at
http://www.chrisinfo.org. If no such buildings are present, then no architectural study is
recommended at this time.
4) Review for possible historic-period buildings or structures has included only those sources listed in
the attached bibliography and should not be considered comprehensive.
5) If archaeological resources are encountered during construction, work should be temporarily halted
in the vicinity of the discovered materials and workers should avoid altering the materials and their
context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided
appropriate recommendations. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources. Native
American resources include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and
dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials.
Historic-period resources include stone or adobe foundations or walls; structures and remains with
square nails; and refuse deposits or bottle dumps, often located in old wells or privies.
6) It is recommended that any identified cultural resources be recorded on DPR 523 historic resource
recordation forms, available online from the Office of Historic Preservation’s website:
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=1069
Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records
that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search.
Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or
paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes
have historical resource information not in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS)
Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on
local/regional tribal contacts.
The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical Resources
Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS
inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals,
Native American tribes, researchers, and the public. Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their
staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such
recommendations do not necessarily represent the evaluation or opinion of the State Historic
Preservation Officer in carrying out the OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law.
Thank you for using our services. If you have any questions, please contact our office at
nwic@sonoma.edu or at (707) 588-8455.
Sincerely,
Jessika Akmenkalns
Researcher
LITERATURE REVIEWED
In addition to archaeological maps and site records on file at the Northwest Information Center of
the Historical Resources Information System, the following literature was reviewed:
Brabb, Earl E., Fred A. Taylor, and George P. Miller
1982 Geologic, Scenic, and Historic Points of Interest in San Mateo County, California.
Miscellaneous Investigations Series, Map I-1257-B, 1:62,500. Department of the
Interior, United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
Department of Environmental Management
1980 Coastside Cultural Resources. Planning Division, San Mateo County, Redwood
City, CA.
Fickewirth, Alvin A.
1992 California Railroads. Golden West Books, San Marino, CA.
General Land Office
1858 Survey Plat for Buri Buri Rancho.
1864 Survey Plat for Buri Buri Rancho.
1866 Survey Plat for Township 3 South/Range 5 West.
1868 Survey Plat for Township 3 South/Range 5 West.
Gudde, Erwin G.
1969 California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical
Names. Third Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Hamman, Rick
1980 California Central Coast Railways. Pruett Publishing Company, Boulder, CO.
Hart, James D.
1987 A Companion to California. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los
Angeles.
Heizer, Robert F., editor
1974 Local History Studies, Vol. 18., “The Costanoan Indians.” California History Center,
DeAnza College, Cupertino, CA.
Helley, E.J., K.R. Lajoie, W.E. Spangle, and M.L. Blair
1979 Flatland Deposits of the San Francisco Bay Region - Their Geology and
Engineering Properties, and Their Importance to Comprehensive Planning.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 943. United States Geological Survey and
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, and Ethel Rensch, revised by William N. Abeloe
1966 Historic Spots in California. Third Edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, and Ethel Rensch, William N. Abeloe, revised by
Douglas E. Kyle
1990 Historic Spots in California. Fourth Edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford,
CA.
Hope, Andrew
2005 Caltrans Statewide Historic Bridge Inventory Update. Caltrans, Division of
Environmental Analysis, Sacramento, CA.
Kroeber, A.L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (Reprint by Dover Publications, Inc., New
York, 1976)
Levy, Richard
1978 Costanoan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of
North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.
Milliken, Randall
1995 A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco
Bay Area 1769-1810. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 43, Menlo Park,
CA.
Myers, William A. (editor)
1977 Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks of San Francisco and Northern California.
Prepared by The History and Heritage Committee, San Francisco Section, American
Society of Civil Engineers. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, CA.
Nelson, N.C.
1909 Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region. University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 7(4):309-356. Berkeley.
(Reprint by Kraus Reprint Corporation, New York, 1964)
Nichols, Donald R., and Nancy A. Wright
1971 Preliminary Map of Historic Margins of Marshland, San Francisco Bay, California.
U.S. Geological Survey Open File Map. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological
Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Washington, D.C.
Roberts, George, and Jan Roberts
1988 Discover Historic California. Gem Guides Book Co., Pico Rivera, CA.
San Mateo County Historic Resources Advisory Board
1984 San Mateo County: Its History and Heritage. Second Edition. Division of Planning
and Development Department of Environmental Management.
San Mateo County Planning and Development Department
n.d. “Historical and Archaeological Resources, Section 5” from the San Mateo County
General Plan.
State of California Department of Parks and Recreation
1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. State of California Department of Parks
and Recreation, Sacramento.
State of California Department of Parks and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation
1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California. State of California Department
of Parks and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
State of California Office of Historic Preservation **
2012 Historic Properties Directory. Listing by City (through April 2012). State of
California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
Williams, James C.
1997 Energy and the Making of Modern California. The University of Akron Press, Akron,
OH.
Works Progress Administration
1984 The WPA Guide to California. Reprint by Pantheon Books, New York. (Originally
published as California: A Guide to the Golden State in 1939 by Books, Inc.,
distributed by Hastings House Publishers, New York.)
Yamada, Gayle K. and Dianne Fukami
2003 Building a Community: The Story of Japanese Americans in San Mateo County.
AACP, Inc., San Mateo, CA.
**Note that the Office of Historic Preservation’s Historic Properties Directory includes National
Register, State Registered Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the California
Register of Historical Resources as well as Certified Local Government surveys that have
undergone Section 106 review.
400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083
CITY COUNCIL 2017
PRADEEP GUPTA, PH.D., MAYOR
LIZA NORMANDY, VICE MAYOR
MARK ADDIEGO, COUNCILMEMBER
RICHARD A. GARBARINO, COUNCILMEMBER
KARYL MATSUMOTO, COUNCILMEMBER
MIKE FUTRELL, CITY MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
(650) 829-6620
FAX (650) 829-6657
E-MAIL WEB-ECD@SSF.NET
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista August 31, 2017
Irenne Zwierlein, Chairperson
789 Canada Road
Woodside, CA 94062
RE: Tribal Cultural Resources under the California Environmental Quality Act, Assembly Bill 52
Formal Notification of Project Consideration and Notification of Consultation Opportunity, pursuant
to Public Resources Code §21080.3.1
Dear Chairperson Irenne Zwierlein:
The City of South San Francisco has received a complete project application for the 560 Eccles Avenue United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Office Project (Project) and has begun environmental analysis of
the project. While no notice has been formally requested under Public Resources Code (PRC) §21080.1(d),
this letter has been sent upon the recommendation of the Native American Heritage Commission to tribes
that are culturally and traditionally affiliated with the area.
Below and on the subsequent pages, please find a description of the proposed Project, a map showing the
Project location, and the name of our Project point of contact, pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (d).
Project Description
The Project parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number 015-082-210) is a vacant, generally triangular-shaped 7.5-acre
flag lot located between Forbes Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard in the East of 101 planning area of
the City of South San Francisco, California. The Applicant proposes to subdivide the 560 Eccles Avenue parcel
into two separate parcels: an approximately 3.6-acre western parcel for proposed development of a building
designed for use by the USDA and a 3.8-acre eastern out-parcel that is not proposed for development at this
time and would remain vacant. The proposed Project would involve construction of a new 21,807-square-
foot office/laboratory/warehouse building and an associated surface parking lot on a portion of the parcel.
Site preparation is anticipated to include the removal of approximately 7,400 cubic yards of soil to replace
the existing soils contaminated with burn ash and prepare the site with generally flat engineered fill for
development. An aerial photograph depicting the location of the Project site indicated is included with this
letter.
Results of Records Searches
A search of the Sacred Lands File conducted through Native American Heritage Commission (attached) had
negative results in the Project quadrangle.
Page 2 of 3
Subject: Formal Notification of Project Consideration – USDA Project at 560 Eccles Avenue
400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083
A search of the California Historical Resources Information System through the Northwest Information
Center has been requested but is not yet complete. Based on searches performed for nearby properties, no
known resources are expected in the immediate vicinity.
No other known relevant surveys or studies have been performed.
Lead Agency Point of Contact
Attn: Ryan Wassum, Associate Planner
City of South San Francisco
Department of Economic and Community Development
315 Maple Street
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Email: ryan.wassum@ssf.net
Pursuant to PRC §21080.3.1 (b), you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to request consultation, in
writing, with the City of South San Francisco.
Very Respectfully,
Ryan Wassum, Associate Planner
City of South San Francisco
Page 3 of 3
Subject: Formal Notification of Project Consideration – USDA Project at 560 Eccles Avenue
400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083
Site Location Figure: 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Office Project
400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083
CITY COUNCIL 2017
PRADEEP GUPTA, PH.D., MAYOR
LIZA NORMANDY, VICE MAYOR
MARK ADDIEGO, COUNCILMEMBER
RICHARD A. GARBARINO, COUNCILMEMBER
KARYL MATSUMOTO, COUNCILMEMBER
MIKE FUTRELL, CITY MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
(650) 829-6620
FAX (650) 829-6657
E-MAIL WEB-ECD@SSF.NET
Coastanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe August 31, 2017
Tony Cerda, Chairperson
244 E. 1st Street
Pomona, CA 91766
RE: Tribal Cultural Resources under the California Environmental Quality Act, Assembly Bill 52
Formal Notification of Project Consideration and Notification of Consultation Opportunity, pursuant
to Public Resources Code §21080.3.1
Dear Chairperson Tony Cerda:
The City of South San Francisco has received a complete project application for the 560 Eccles Avenue United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Office Project (Project) and has begun environmental analysis of
the project. While no notice has been formally requested under Public Resources Code (PRC) §21080.1(d),
this letter has been sent upon the recommendation of the Native American Heritage Commission to tribes
that are culturally and traditionally affiliated with the area.
Below and on the subsequent pages, please find a description of the proposed Project, a map showing the
Project location, and the name of our Project point of contact, pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (d).
Project Description
The Project parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number 015-082-210) is a vacant, generally triangular-shaped 7.5-acre
flag lot located between Forbes Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard in the East of 101 planning area of
the City of South San Francisco, California. The Applicant proposes to subdivide the 560 Eccles Avenue parcel
into two separate parcels: an approximately 3.6-acre western parcel for proposed development of a building
designed for use by the USDA and a 3.8-acre eastern out-parcel that is not proposed for development at this
time and would remain vacant. The proposed Project would involve construction of a new 21,807-square-
foot office/laboratory/warehouse building and an associated surface parking lot on a portion of the parcel.
Site preparation is anticipated to include the removal of approximately 7,400 cubic yards of soil to replace
the existing soils contaminated with burn ash and prepare the site with generally flat engineered fill for
development. An aerial photograph depicting the location of the Project site indicated is included with this
letter.
Results of Records Searches
A search of the Sacred Lands File conducted through Native American Heritage Commission (attached) had
negative results in the Project quadrangle.
Page 2 of 3
Subject: Formal Notification of Project Consideration – USDA Project at 560 Eccles Avenue
400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083
A search of the California Historical Resources Information System through the Northwest Information
Center has been requested but is not yet complete. Based on searches performed for nearby properties, no
known resources are expected in the immediate vicinity.
No other known relevant surveys or studies have been performed.
Lead Agency Point of Contact
Attn: Ryan Wassum, Associate Planner
City of South San Francisco
Department of Economic and Community Development
315 Maple Street
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Email: ryan.wassum@ssf.net
Pursuant to PRC §21080.3.1 (b), you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to request consultation, in
writing, with the City of South San Francisco.
Very Respectfully,
Ryan Wassum, Associate Planner
City of South San Francisco
Page 3 of 3
Subject: Formal Notification of Project Consideration – USDA Project at 560 Eccles Avenue
400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083
Site Location Figure: 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Office Project
400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083
CITY COUNCIL 2017
PRADEEP GUPTA, PH.D., MAYOR
LIZA NORMANDY, VICE MAYOR
MARK ADDIEGO, COUNCILMEMBER
RICHARD A. GARBARINO, COUNCILMEMBER
KARYL MATSUMOTO, COUNCILMEMBER
MIKE FUTRELL, CITY MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
(650) 829-6620
FAX (650) 829-6657
E-MAIL WEB-ECD@SSF.NET
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan August 31, 2017
Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson
P.O. Box 28
Hollister, CA 95024
RE: Tribal Cultural Resources under the California Environmental Quality Act, Assembly Bill 52
Formal Notification of Project Consideration and Notification of Consultation Opportunity, pursuant
to Public Resources Code §21080.3.1
Dear Chairperson Ann Marie Sayers:
The City of South San Francisco has received a complete project application for the 560 Eccles Avenue United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Office Project (Project) and has begun environmental analysis of
the project. While no notice has been formally requested under Public Resources Code (PRC) §21080.1(d),
this letter has been sent upon the recommendation of the Native American Heritage Commission to tribes
that are culturally and traditionally affiliated with the area.
Below and on the subsequent pages, please find a description of the proposed Project, a map showing the
Project location, and the name of our Project point of contact, pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (d).
Project Description
The Project parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number 015-082-210) is a vacant, generally triangular-shaped 7.5-acre
flag lot located between Forbes Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard in the East of 101 planning area of
the City of South San Francisco, California. The Applicant proposes to subdivide the 560 Eccles Avenue parcel
into two separate parcels: an approximately 3.6-acre western parcel for proposed development of a building
designed for use by the USDA and a 3.8-acre eastern out-parcel that is not proposed for development at this
time and would remain vacant. The proposed Project would involve construction of a new 21,807-square-
foot office/laboratory/warehouse building and an associated surface parking lot on a portion of the parcel.
Site preparation is anticipated to include the removal of approximately 7,400 cubic yards of soil to replace
the existing soils contaminated with burn ash and prepare the site with generally flat engineered fill for
development. An aerial photograph depicting the location of the Project site indicated is included with this
letter.
Results of Records Searches
A search of the Sacred Lands File conducted through Native American Heritage Commission (attached) had
negative results in the Project quadrangle.
Page 2 of 3
Subject: Formal Notification of Project Consideration – USDA Project at 560 Eccles Avenue
400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083
A search of the California Historical Resources Information System through the Northwest Information
Center has been requested but is not yet complete. Based on searches performed for nearby properties, no
known resources are expected in the immediate vicinity.
No other known relevant surveys or studies have been performed.
Lead Agency Point of Contact
Attn: Ryan Wassum, Associate Planner
City of South San Francisco
Department of Economic and Community Development
315 Maple Street
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Email: ryan.wassum@ssf.net
Pursuant to PRC §21080.3.1 (b), you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to request consultation, in
writing, with the City of South San Francisco.
Very Respectfully,
Ryan Wassum, Associate Planner
City of South San Francisco
Page 3 of 3
Subject: Formal Notification of Project Consideration – USDA Project at 560 Eccles Avenue
400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083
Site Location Figure: 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Office Project
400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083
CITY COUNCIL 2017
PRADEEP GUPTA, PH.D., MAYOR
LIZA NORMANDY, VICE MAYOR
MARK ADDIEGO, COUNCILMEMBER
RICHARD A. GARBARINO, COUNCILMEMBER
KARYL MATSUMOTO, COUNCILMEMBER
MIKE FUTRELL, CITY MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
(650) 829-6620
FAX (650) 829-6657
E-MAIL WEB-ECD@SSF.NET
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area August 31, 2017
Rosemary Cambra, Chairperson
P.O. Box 360791
Milpitas, CA 95036
RE: Tribal Cultural Resources under the California Environmental Quality Act, Assembly Bill 52
Formal Notification of Project Consideration and Notification of Consultation Opportunity, pursuant
to Public Resources Code §21080.3.1
Dear Chairperson Rosemary Cambra:
The City of South San Francisco has received a complete project application for the 560 Eccles Avenue United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Office Project (Project) and has begun environmental analysis of
the project. While no notice has been formally requested under Public Resources Code (PRC) §21080.1(d),
this letter has been sent upon the recommendation of the Native American Heritage Commission to tribes
that are culturally and traditionally affiliated with the area.
Below and on the subsequent pages, please find a description of the proposed Project, a map showing the
Project location, and the name of our Project point of contact, pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (d).
Project Description
The Project parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number 015-082-210) is a vacant, generally triangular-shaped 7.5-acre
flag lot located between Forbes Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard in the East of 101 planning area of
the City of South San Francisco, California. The Applicant proposes to subdivide the 560 Eccles Avenue parcel
into two separate parcels: an approximately 3.6-acre western parcel for proposed development of a building
designed for use by the USDA and a 3.8-acre eastern out-parcel that is not proposed for development at this
time and would remain vacant. The proposed Project would involve construction of a new 21,807-square-
foot office/laboratory/warehouse building and an associated surface parking lot on a portion of the parcel.
Site preparation is anticipated to include the removal of approximately 7,400 cubic yards of soil to replace
the existing soils contaminated with burn ash and prepare the site with generally flat engineered fill for
development. An aerial photograph depicting the location of the Project site indicated is included with this
letter.
Results of Records Searches
A search of the Sacred Lands File conducted through Native American Heritage Commission (attached) had
negative results in the Project quadrangle.
Page 2 of 3
Subject: Formal Notification of Project Consideration – USDA Project at 560 Eccles Avenue
400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083
A search of the California Historical Resources Information System through the Northwest Information
Center has been requested but is not yet complete. Based on searches performed for nearby properties, no
known resources are expected in the immediate vicinity.
No other known relevant surveys or studies have been performed.
Lead Agency Point of Contact
Attn: Ryan Wassum, Associate Planner
City of South San Francisco
Department of Economic and Community Development
315 Maple Street
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Email: ryan.wassum@ssf.net
Pursuant to PRC §21080.3.1 (b), you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to request consultation, in
writing, with the City of South San Francisco.
Very Respectfully,
Ryan Wassum, Associate Planner
City of South San Francisco
Page 3 of 3
Subject: Formal Notification of Project Consideration – USDA Project at 560 Eccles Avenue
400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083
Site Location Figure: 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Office Project
400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083
CITY COUNCIL 2017
PRADEEP GUPTA, PH.D., MAYOR
LIZA NORMANDY, VICE MAYOR
MARK ADDIEGO, COUNCILMEMBER
RICHARD A. GARBARINO, COUNCILMEMBER
KARYL MATSUMOTO, COUNCILMEMBER
MIKE FUTRELL, CITY MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
(650) 829-6620
FAX (650) 829-6657
E-MAIL WEB-ECD@SSF.NET
The Ohlone Indian Tribe August 31, 2017
Andrew Galvan, Chairperson
P.O. Box 3152
Fremont, CA 94539
RE: Tribal Cultural Resources under the California Environmental Quality Act, Assembly Bill 52
Formal Notification of Project Consideration and Notification of Consultation Opportunity, pursuant
to Public Resources Code §21080.3.1
Dear Chairperson Galvan:
The City of South San Francisco has received a complete project application for the 560 Eccles Avenue
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Office Project (Project) and has begun environmental
analysis of the project. While no notice has been formally requested under Public Resources Code (PRC)
§21080.1(d), this letter has been sent upon the recommendation of the Native American Heritage
Commission to tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated with the area.
Below and on the subsequent pages, please find a description of the proposed Project, a map showing the
Project location, and the name of our Project point of contact, pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (d).
Project Description
The Project parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number 015-082-210) is a vacant, generally triangular-shaped 7.5-
acre flag lot located between Forbes Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard in the East of 101 planning
area of the City of South San Francisco, California. The Applicant proposes to subdivide the 560 Eccles
Avenue parcel into two separate parcels: an approximately 3.6-acre western parcel for proposed
development of a building designed for use by the USDA and a 3.8-acre eastern out-parcel that is not
proposed for development at this time and would remain vacant. The proposed Project would involve
construction of a new 21,807-square-foot office/laboratory/warehouse building and an associated surface
parking lot on a portion of the parcel. Site preparation is anticipated to include the removal of
approximately 7,400 cubic yards of soil to replace the existing soils contaminated with burn ash and
prepare the site with generally flat engineered fill for development. An aerial photograph depicting the
location of the Project site indicated is included with this letter.
Results of Records Searches
A search of the Sacred Lands File conducted through Native American Heritage Commission (attached) had
negative results in the Project quadrangle.
Page 2 of 3
Subject: Formal Notification of Project Consideration – USDA Project at 560 Eccles Avenue
400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083
A search of the California Historical Resources Information System through the Northwest Information
Center has been requested but is not yet complete. Based on searches performed for nearby properties,
no known resources are expected in the immediate vicinity.
No other known relevant surveys or studies have been performed.
Lead Agency Point of Contact
Attn: Ryan Wassum, Associate Planner
City of South San Francisco
Department of Economic and Community Development
315 Maple Street
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Email: ryan.wassum@ssf.net
Pursuant to PRC §21080.3.1 (b), you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to request consultation, in
writing, with the City of South San Francisco.
Very Respectfully,
Ryan Wassum, Associate Planner
City of South San Francisco
Page 3 of 3
Subject: Formal Notification of Project Consideration – USDA Project at 560 Eccles Avenue
400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083
Site Location Figure: 560 Eccles Avenue USDA Office Project
ATTACHMENT B: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
ATTACHMENT C: AMENDED SITE CLOSURE PLAN AND POST-
CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE PLAN
Amended Site Closure Plan and
Post-Construction Maintenance Plan
560 Eccles Avenue
South San Francisco, California
Prepared for:
SMPO ELS, LLC
5858 Ridgeway Center Parkway
Memphis, Tennessee 38120
Prepared by:
SCS ENGINEERS
7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 135
Pleasanton, California 94566
(925) 426-0080
April 5, 2017
File No. 01216361.00
Offices Nationwide
www.scsengineers.com
560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California
Table of Contents
Section Page
Certification ......................................................................................................................................................... i
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... ii
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose and Scope ..................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Site Location, Setting and Land Use ......................................................................................... 2
1.4 Site Plan and Topography ......................................................................................................... 2
1.5 Site Historyand Features ............................................................................................................ 2
1.6 Summary of Previous Environmental Investigations ............................................................... 3
2 Proposed Development Plans .............................................................................................................. 4
3 Proposed Remedial Plan ...................................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Previously Proposed Remedial Components ........................................................................... 5
3.2 Currently Proposed Remedial Strategies ................................................................................ 5
3.3 Construction Quality Assurance ............................................................................................... 10
3.4 Land Use Deed Restriction....................................................................................................... 10
4 Post-Construction Maintenance Plan ................................................................................................. 11
4.1 Cap Inspection and Maintenance ........................................................................................... 11
4.2 Drainage System Inspections and Maintenance .................................................................. 12
4.3 Methane Mitigation System Maintenance and Monitoring ............................................... 12
4.4 Groundwater Monitoring Wells ............................................................................................. 13
4.5 Future Subsurface Maintenance Activities ............................................................................ 13
5 References ............................................................................................................................................. 15
List of Figures
No.
1 Site Location Map
2 Site Vicinity and Surrounding Land Use
3 Site Plan
4 Site Development Plan
5 Final Cover Plan
6 Final Cover Details
7 Combustible Gas Protection System Plan
8 Combustible Gas Protection System Details (1 of 2)
9 Combustible Gas Protection System Details (2 of 2)
560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California
Appendices
A Site Characterization Cross Sections
B Preliminary Architectural Plans and Elevations
C Risk Management Plan (Environ, 2011)
D Health and Safety Plan (Environ, 2011)
E Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan
560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California
ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BGS Below ground surface
BMP Best Management Practice
BTP Business Technology Park (City Zoning Designation)
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
COPC Contaminants of Potential Concern
CQA Construction Quality Assurance
DDC Drill Displacement Column foundation system
ESL Environmental Screening Levels
GPP Groundwater Protection Program (San Mateo County Environmental Health)
HASP Health and Safety Plan
H:V Horizontal to vertical slope ratio
HDPE High density polyethylene
LEA Local Enforcement Agency (San Mateo County Environmental Health Division)
LEL Lower explosive limit
LID Low Impact Development
MRP Monitoring and Reporting Program
MSL Mean sea level
MSW Municipal solid waste
NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum
OPS On base plus slugging percentage
PCMP Post-Construction Maintenance Plan (Environ, 2011)
RMP Risk Management Plan
RWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay
SCP Site Closure Plan (Environ, 2011)
SWIS Solid Waste Information System
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TPH Total petroleum hydrocarbons
VOC Volatile organic compound
560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California
1
1 I NTRODUCTION
SCS Engineers (SCS) has prepared this Amended Site Closure Plan (SCP) and Post-Construction
Maintenance Plan (PCMP, collectively, the Amended Plan) for land located at 560 Eccles
Avenue, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California (Property, or Site). A Site location
map is provided on Figure 1.
1.1 BACKGROUND
The Site is approximately 7.5 acres and is currently vacant. SMPO ELS, LLC (SMPO, or
Owner) recently purchased and now proposes to develop the westerly 2.7 acres, to consist of an
approximate 21,800 square foot single-story office building with associated parking and planter
area landscaping. The easterly portion of the Site will not be developed at this time.
A portion of the Site was once used as a burn dump that reportedly contains burn ash material.
This material is overlain by 5 to 55 feet of sandy clay fill soils, to create an elevated, relatively
flat top deck surface with slopes to the south and east. The proposed developable area is
confined to the top deck only. Site development will occur with the burn ash left in place, per
regulatory agency requirements and conditions of approval as described herein.
An SCP and PCMP were prepared on behalf of the previous Property owner with the intent of
developing the Site for commercial uses (Environ, 2011). These plans were prepared in
accordance with land use requirements at landfill properties under Title 27 of the California
Code of Regulations (27 CCR). Then-proposed development plans included a multi-story office
building, asphalt parking and landscape areas.
The SCP provided a thorough assessment of Site history and environmental conditions, results of
previous investigations, a human health and ecological risk evaluation, and proposed remedial
measures that would allow Site development to safely proceed. Proposed remedial strategies
included subfloor barriers to protect Site structures from combustible gas (methane, identified as
originating from off-Site sources), and to place a cap over the fill soils. The SCP also included a
Risk Management Plan (RMP) and Health and Safety Plan (HASP) describing how excavated
soils would be managed during Site development to minimize risk to construction workers, and
nearby human and ecological receptors. These remedial measures generally remain valid and
will be incorporated into Site development plans by SMPO, with minor modification as
described herein.
It is understood that the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (local
enforcement agency, or LEA) will serve as the lead agency for 27 CCR compliance affecting
Site development, with input as needed from the California Department of Resources, Recycling
and Recovery (CalRecycle). Other agencies including the San Francisco Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) and the California Department of Toxics Substances Control (DTSC)
may be involved with deed restriction and water quality issues. The LEA has reviewed and
conceptually approved the remedial strategies outlined in the original SCP and PCMP (San
Mateo County, 2014).
560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California
2
1.2 P URPOSE AND S COPE
The purpose of this Amended Plan is to describe currently-proposed Site improvements and
remedial measures to allow development of the westerly 2.7 acres of the Site. The proposed
remedial measures are consistent with the previously approved SCP. However, some
modifications to those remedial measures are proposed to be consistent with current Site
development plans by SMPO and the intent of 27 CCR. These proposed modifications are
described herein for agency review and approval.
1.3 SITE LOCATION, SETTING AND LAND USE
The Site is located northwest of the intersection of Gull Drive and Forbes Boulevard in South
San Francisco, California (Figure 1). The Property is identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number
(APN) 015-082-210 in San Mateo County Assessor’s office records. The Site is currently
vacant. Access is through a 30-foot wide ingress/egress easement originating from Eccles
Avenue on the west end of the Site and from Oyster Point Boulevard on the east end of the Site.
The Site is bordered to the east by Gull Drive. To the northeast and beyond Gull Drive is land
formerly used as the City of South San Francisco’s Oyster Point Landfill. Portions of the closed
Oyster Point Landfill have been developed for commercial uses and the Oyster Point Marina.
Commercial and industrial warehouse buildings border the Site to the north, northwest, west and
south. The Site and adjacent properties to the north, south and east are in the City of South San
Francisco Business-Technology Park (BTP) zoning district. The Site and surrounding land uses
are shown on Figure 2.
1.4 SITE PLAN AND TOPOGRAPHY
A Site Plan showing property boundaries and existing features is provided as Figure 3. The
majority of the Property is relatively flat, with downward slopes on the eastern and southern
boundaries. These side slopes are approximately 2:1 horizontal to vertical (H:V). Elevations on
the top deck area range from approximately 57 to 63 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Slope
area elevations range from approximately 17 to 61 feet above MSL (Cornerstone, 2017). Slope
areas extend onto adjacent properties to the south.
1.5 SITE HISTORY A ND FEATURES
During the 1950’s a portion of the Site was reportedly used to burn trash. This was common
practice before the advent of modern solid waste management and sanitary landfill regulations.
The Site was not used for disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW) (Environ, 2014). By 1985,
fill soils were imported and placed over the burn debris and the Site was graded to its current
configuration.
Previous subsurface investigations were performed by others over the period 2006 through 2009.
This work included installation of soil borings and test pits to determine characteristics of fill
deposits beneath the Site, and to evaluate the lateral and vertical extent of burn ash material.
Results are summarized in the SCP (Environ, 2011).
560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California
3
Data obtained from these Site investigations suggest that burn ash material is generally contained
below the upper 10 feet of soil fill, with some exceptions. The approximate lateral extent of the
burn ash is shown on Figure 3 and cross sections are provided in Appendix A. The areal extent
is approximately 4 acres within the 7.5-acre Site. The in-place volume was estimated at 346,000
cubic yards (Environ, 2011).
As shown in the cross sections, burn ash was typically encountered at depths of 30 to 50 feet
below ground surface (BGS) in the south-central and eastern portions of the Site. Burn ash is
present at depths of 5 feet BGS in a small area in the north-central portion of the Site. Fill soils
overlying the burn ash were reported to consist of layers of sand, gravel and clay materials.
More recently, a geotechnical investigation was performed to determine basis of design for
proposed Site development features including earthwork, foundations, pavements, utilities and
drainage features. Fill soils in the SMPO development area were reported to consist of clayey
sand, sandy lean clay, and interbedded layers of sands, gravels and clay (Cornerstone, 2017). No
burn ash debris was noted in borings within the proposed SMPO development area.
SMPO will develop the westerly 2.7 acres of the Site. Our review of the Site investigation cross
sections (Appendix A) indicates that the majority of the development area does not overlie burn
ash debris (Figure 4). The burn ash debris is confined to the eastern end of the development
area. Where burn ash is present in the development area, it is generally at depths ranging from
18 to 30 feet BGS, and overlain by sandy clay fill soils.
1.6 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL
INVESTIGATIONS
Environmental investigations were performed as part of the SCP in addition to the soil borings
and test pits described above. This work included soil sampling, soil gas surveys, installation of
groundwater monitoring wells, and groundwater monitoring and sampling. Details including
sample methods and results are reported in the SCP (Environ, 2011) and key findings are
summarized below.
1.6.1 Soil Sampling
Based on soil sampling over the period 2006-09, shallow fill soils not characteristic of burn ash
material were reported to contain relatively low concentrations of metals, with most within the
typical ranges of naturally occurring background concentrations. Within the burn ash material,
select metals concentrations were reported at concentrations above industrial/commercial
environmental screening levels (ESLs) then in effect. The highest metals concentrations in soils
and underlying debris were detected in what has been referred to as the “Northeast Corner”
portion of the Site (Environ 2011). This area of the Site is not proposed for development at this
time.
1.6.2 Soil Vapor Sampling
A soil vapor survey was performed at the Site in 2006 in accordance with DTSC protocols. This
work included installation of 16 temporary vapor probes to depths of 5 and 10 feet BGS at each
560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California
4
sample location. Combustible gas (methane) concentrations above the lower explosive limit
(LEL) for that gas were detected in soils at three on-Site locations. The locations of these LEL
exceedances were along the eastern side of the Property, adjacent to Gull Drive and adjacent to
the closed Oyster Point Landfill. The adjacent Oyster Point Landfill, which was used for
disposal of MSW, was identified as the likely source of the combustible gas detected on the
Property (Environ, 2011; 2014).
In 2007, the City of South San Francisco, the operator of record for the Oyster Point Landfill,
installed passive vent trenches in soils along Gull Drive and Oyster Point Boulevard. The vent
trenches were intended to mitigate combustible migration potential from the Oyster Point
Landfill toward off-site locations. The City currently monitors for combustible gas at the Oyster
Point Landfill property, and in the headspace of groundwater monitoring well GW-5, located on
the SMPO Property (see below). SCS’s review of the CalRecycle Solid Waste Information
System (SWIS) database indicates that there are no current enforcement action notices for the
Oyster Point Landfill regarding combustible gas migration or other 27 CCR issues (CalRecycle,
2017).
1.6.3 Groundwater Sampling
Five groundwater monitoring wells, designated S-1 through S-5 were installed at the Site in
2008. Groundwater monitoring and sampling was conducted over the period 2008-09 as part of
previous Site investigation and characterization activities. Results of groundwater monitoring
and sampling are provided in the SCP (Environ, 2011). The five groundwater monitoring wells
remain in place today. Locations are shown on Figure 3.
Previous investigations concluded that shallow groundwater at the Site appears to have been
impacted with metals consistent with the presence of burn ash material below the water table. It
was also concluded that shallow groundwater in the vicinity of monitoring well MW-5 was
impacted by low concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) (Environ, 2011).
To our knowledge, the Site is not now subject to any regulatory agency order or directive to
perform water quality monitoring and sampling.
1.6.4 Risk Evaluations and Mitigation Strategies
As part of the SCP, human health and ecological risk evaluations were performed based on the
results of previous environmental investigations. These risks were found to be insignificant,
assuming that specified remedial measures were incorporated into then-proposed Site
development plans and construction activities for an office building with asphalt parking and
landscaping. These remedial measures are described above in Section 1.1 and evaluated
elsewhere herein. We understand that these previously proposed remedial measures, which are
generally consistent with 27 CCR closure and post-closure requirements, were acceptable to the
agencies.
2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLANS
SMPO proposes to develop the westerly 2.7 acres of the Site, which will be used by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) as an office building. This use is consistent with the BTP
560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California
5
zoning classification for the Site. The easterly area of the Site will remain vacant with no
planned development or improvements. Proposed development features will include (Figure 4):
• An approximate 21,800 square foot, single story office structure. The building will be
supported on shallow slab-on-grade foundations overlying ground improvement per the
structural engineer’s recommendations. The ground improvement beneath the shallow
foundation is expected to consist of Drill Displacement ColumnTM (DDC) grouting.
• Employee and visitor parking (asphalt pavement surface).
• Irrigated ornamental landscaping confined to median (island) and perimeter strips in the
parking area. These areas constitute approximately 15,200 square feet, or 14 percent of
the developable area.
• Surface water drainage system to route storm water through lined bioretention areas
(bioswales) that in turn will connect to the storm drain system. Bioretention and flow-
through planters will be lined with an impermeable barrier to prevent water infiltration
into subsurface soils.
Preliminary architectural plans including a building floor plan and elevations are provided in
Appendix B. Preliminary landscape features are shown on Figure 5.
3 PROPOSED REMEDIAL PLAN
3.1 PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED REMEDIAL COMPONENTS
The 2011 SCP described remedial measures for then-proposed office development of the Site.
This development was to occur in the northeast and east areas of the Site. These remedial
measures were designed to minimize potential exposure of workers and building occupants to
contaminated environmental media during and after Site development. Those remedial strategies
specifically included: (1) capping Site soils with asphalt, concrete and vegetative barriers; (2)
installation of a vapor barrier and passive venting system below the building foundation; and (3)
implementation of an RMP and HSAP for excavation and soil handling during construction.
3.2 CURRENTLY PROPOSED REMEDIAL STRATEGIES
SMPO proposes the following primary remedial measures to allow development of the westerly
2.7 acres of the Site, which are consistent with the previously approved SCP and PCMP:
• Placement of a landfill cap in the work area to consist of: (1) concrete slab for building
foundation; and (2) asphalt parking surface.
• Placement of an alternate landfill cap in landscape areas, described below.
• Install building combustible gas protection and monitoring features to consist of a
subfloor vapor barrier and passive venting system, and interior alarm system.
560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California
6
• Proper decommissioning and abandonment of existing groundwater monitoring wells in
the footprint of proposed Site improvement areas.
• Adherence to applicable provisions of the existing RMP and HASP for soil handling
during excavations for utility trenches, foundations, and other Site work. The RMP is
provided for reference as Appendix C. The Health and Safety Plan is provided as
Appendix D. As noted in the appended RMP and HASP, these documents will serve as
guidelines for SMPO contractors who will prepare their own safety plans specific to
known Site conditions and proposed development plans. Note that excavations will be
confined to the sandy clay soil fill layer and will not extend into the underlying burn ash
debris.
• Adherence to LEED and federal government water conservation standards for
landscaping and irrigation. This in combination with landfill cap measures proposed
below will reduce or eliminate the potential for water infiltration into the underlying fill
materials, and potential water quality impacts.
3.2.1 Grading and Cap Placement
An asphalt, concrete and alternate vegetative cap will be constructed throughout the 2.7-acre top
deck (work area). A final cover / capping plan is provided as Figure 5. Final cap details are
shown in Figure 6.
Site preparation will include clearing, grubbing, re-grading and re-compaction of existing clean
fill soils in the top deck area (work area) per geotechnical engineer’s recommendations, to
provide suitable subgrade for the building and parking surfaces. A preliminary grading plan is
provided in Appendix E. A final grading plan will be prepared by SMPO for review and
approval by the City of South San Francisco.
An approximate 21,800 square foot area, the building footprint, will be capped with concrete.
The concrete slab foundation will be constructed in accordance with foundation
recommendations specified by the geotechnical and structural engineer. The preliminary design
concept is for a slab-on-grade construction, overlying a DDC ground improvement system. A
uniform gravel bed will underlie the foundation slab.
The parking surface cap area will consist of re-compacted subgrade, overlain by an aggregate
base layer, overlain by asphalt concrete layer with minimum thickness 3 inches, or as specified
by the geotechnical engineer. A cross section of the asphalt surface is shown in Figure 6.
The SCP proposed installation of a vegetative soil cap in landscape areas. This vegetative cap
was to consist of a 2-foot thick foundation soil layer (re-worked, on-Site soils), overlain by a 1-
foot thick low-permeability soil layer (imported materials), overlain by a 1-foot thick soil/erosion
layer to support vegetation (Environ, 2011). Based on SCS’s understanding of Site development
plans, we advise against installation of the vegetative cap in landscape areas as described above.
This is particularly critical for the slope areas.
560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California
7
Based on our experience, the previously proposed vegetative cap system with low-permeability
soil layer will be unstable on sideslopes of 2H:1V or steeper under both static and seismic
conditions. For these slope configurations, the same is true of geosynthetic alternatives to low
permeability soil that are commonly used as landfill cover components. Thus, placement of a
soil (clay) cap or geosynthetic materials on side slope areas could present a public safety hazard.
As an alternative, we recommend re-compacting the slope areas or implementing other ground
improvements per the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations, and re-vegetating with a native
erosion control mix of native grasses and wildflowers to provide appropriate drainage and
erosion control. This in combination with the existing 5 to 55 feet of existing fill soils and top
deck cap system as described above, and minimum 18 feet of fill soils in the SMPO development
area, will appropriately encapsulate and isolate the underlying ash debris. The proposed limits of
slope improvements are shown on Figure 5. A section detail for slope area improvements is
shown on Figure 6.
SCS also recommends against installation of the 4-foot thick vegetative cap in landscape areas
on the 2.0 acre work area. Landscape areas will be confined to median (island) and perimeter
strips in the parking area only. These areas constitute approximately 15,200 square feet, or 14
percent of the developable area. A patchwork soil cap in these planter/median strip areas would
be impractical to construct and would only provide minimal value with respect to environmental
protection.
Instead, we recommend that a surface water subdrain system be installed below the median and
perimeter landscape strips. This subdrain would be underlain by an impermeable geomembrane
liner. Underdrain piping would discharge to storm water collection bioswales and/or drain
systems. This underdrain and liner system will prevent water infiltration into the underlying fill
materials. Limits of the vegetative cap placement for landscape strip areas are shown on Figure
5. A detail for the lined underdrain system is shown on Figure 6.
3.2.2 Methane Mitigation and Monitoring System
Previous testing showed no indication of elevated combustible gas concentrations on the west
end (development area) of the Site (Environ, 2014). Nonetheless, a methane mitigation and
monitoring system (MMS) will be installed as a conservative measure as a barrier to potential
combustible gas intrusion. The MMS will include the following elements, consistent with 27
CCR 21190 requirements:
• An impermeable membrane barrier, installed below the structural building slab. A 30- or
60-mil thick, spray-applied vapor barrier is proposed (Liquid BootTM, GeoSeal barrier, or
equal). The barrier will impede potential vapor intrusion through the building slabs. The
limits of membrane placement will extend throughout the entire footprint area of the
building. A plan showing limits of membrane placement is provided on Figure 7.
Membrane system details are shown on Figures 8 and 9. The membrane barrier shall be
designed to withstand anticipated settlements. Per the geotechnical engineers’ report,
settlement on the order of 1 inch or less could occur, resulting in differential settlement
on the order of ⅔-inch (Cornerstone, 2017).
560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California
8
• A passive vent system installed below the membrane barrier. This will consist of a
uniform gravel bed, installed beneath the geomembrane throughout the entire building
footprint. The venting system would consist of a gravel layer or GeoVent or equivalent
product, connected to a subfloor piping system with vertical risers that vent above the
building roof line, or outside the building footprint in parking lot landscape areas. Gravel
bed thickness will be a function of building foundation requirements as specified by the
project structural engineer. A plan showing passive vent system layout is provided on
Figure 7. Details for the venting system are shown on Figures 8 and 9.
• Automated, combustible gas sensors will be installed at critical locations in the building
interior. A network of 4 to 6 sensors would be tied to a central control alarm panel
(Sierra Sentra IT, RKI Beacon 410, or equivalent). Signals from individual sensors
would activate audio and visual alarms, and/or alert responsible Site personnel via
telephone dialer if pre-set trigger levels for methane concentrations are detected at any
sensor location. A low alarm would trigger at 10 percent LEL. A high alarm would
trigger at 20 percent LEL. Recommended sensor locations include the electrical /
maintenance room; server room; storage room and hallways. Refer to architectural floor
plan, (Appendix B) for interior layout.
• Gas barriers or seals in utility trenches and conduit penetrations through the slab.
These measures are consistent with 27 CCR requirements for construction near landfills and
appropriate based on SCS’s understanding of Site conditions.
3.2.3 Storm Water Management
The proposed project falls under the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
requirements to incorporate post construction Low Impact Development (LID) and Best
Management Practice (BMP) storm water C.3 measures in compliance with the City of South
San Francisco and the County of San Mateo’s Permit with the RWQCB NPDES Permit (MRP)
Order No. R2-2009-0074. Site storm water runoff generated from the building and site will be
collected, treated and detained on-Site to meet the MRP through the use of site design measures,
source control measures, and C.3 treatment measures (BKF, 2017).
Due to Site soil characteristics including the presence of buried burn debris, encapsulated and
overlain by 5 to 55 feet of clean sandy clay fill soils (minimum 18 feet thick in the 2.7 acre
SMPO development area), combined with the existence of bay deposits (known as bay mud)
with low soil infiltration rates, proposed storm water C.3 treatment measures will include lined
bioretention areas and lined flow-through planters. Lined bioretention areas and lined flow-
through planter treatment measures function as a soil and plant-based filtration device that
removes pollutants through a variety of physical, and biological treatment processes. These
facilities consist of the following layers starting from the top: a surface ponding area, an organic
layer of mulch, planting soil and plants, and an underlying rock layer with a perforated
underdrain that connects to the storm drain system. Planned bioretention areas are shown on
Figure 5. Drainage and bioretention system details are provided in Appendix E.
560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California
9
Bioretention and flow-through planters will be lined with an impermeable barrier to
prevent infiltration into the subsurface soils (Figure 6). An overflow structure is incorporated to
convey runoff volumes that are greater than the water quality treatment design volume.
In order to limit impacts to the downstream storm drainage system, storm water detention
measures will be provided to detain the post-development runoff increase from the
development and release the peak flow through an orifice-controlled outlet at a rate that shall
not exceed the pre-project levels for the 25-year storm event.
3.2.4 Groundwater Monitoring Well Abandonment
There are five existing groundwater monitoring wells on-Site. Monitoring well locations are
shown in Figure 3. Two of those wells, MW-1 and MW-2, are in the proposed 2.5-acre work
area and will likely be damaged or rendered inoperable as a result of construction work such as
grading, asphalt placement, and building construction. Formal destruction/abandonment of these
two wells in advance of Site development work will be necessary.
The wells will be abandoned in accordance with California Department of Water Resources and
San Mateo County Groundwater Protection Program (GPP) requirements. This will entail:
• Prepare and submit a well destruction permit application with the permit fees to the GPP,
and secure the permit.
• Provide on-Site observation during well destruction to confirm the work is done in
accordance with GPP requirements.
• Prepare a close-out report and provide proper documentation to oversight agencies.
A licensed C-57 drilling contractor will decommission the wells per GPP guidelines. At this
time it is envisioned that each well will be grouted in place. The work will also include removal
of all in-well hardware (pumps, fittings, tubing, etc.) and above-ground well features.
Other wells will be left in place, for future use, should SMPO elect to perform ground water
monitoring and sampling for its internal planning purposes, or if required by agencies.
3.2.5 Risk Management and Health and Safety Plans
A risk assessment evaluating on-Site worker exposures to contaminants of potential concern
(COPC) was performed for the Site (Environ, 2011). Excavation and grading activities were
not expected to extend more than 10 feet below grade and no significant exposure pathways were
identified for soil gas or groundwater.
Potential worker exposures to COPCs for grading and excavation activities were also performed
based on results of soil sampling to depths of 10 feet BGS in what are referred to as the
“Northeast Corner” and “Main Areas” of the Site, respectively (Environ 2011; refer to RMP,
Appendix C). Concentrations of metals in soils were generally higher in the “Northeast Corner”
of the Site. Again, no development is currently contemplated in this area of the Site.
560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California
10
For the currently-proposed SMPO development, excavation and grading activities are not
expected to extend deeper than 10 feet BGS, and will be in fill soils well above any burn ash
materials. The burn ash is overlain by 18 to 30 feet of sandy clay soils in the development area.
Thus we do not anticipate any adverse change in worker exposures to COPCs in soils, soil gas or
groundwater.
Nonetheless SMPO contractors will implement measures to minimize worker and public
exposures to COPCs during grading, pile installation, and trenching activities. These measures
will utilize the existing RMP as a guideline, using criteria established for the “Main Area” of the
Site (Appendix C).
SMPO contractors will also prepare a worker HASP, using the existing plan as a guideline
(Appendix D). The HASP will identify personnel responsible for safety, potential worker
hazards, general work practices, environmental and personnel safety monitoring procedures,
personal protective safety and equipment, emergency response plans, and employee training
provisions. This Site-specific HASP will be prepared concurrent with final construction
documents and provided to the LEA or other agencies upon request.
3.3 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE
Construction of earthwork improvements will be carried out in accordance with a Construction
Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan, prepared under the direction of a registered professional
engineer or certified engineering geologist. It is anticipated that re-compaction of fill soils and
placement of the vegetative cap components will generally be in accordance with current 27
CCR requirements for placement of a vegetative/erosion resistant soil layer of a final cover
system.
The CQA Plan will specify: CQA personnel qualifications; responsibility and lines of authority
between the Owner, its engineer, CQA officer and contractor; inspection and testing methods to
verify that soil placement/compaction and drainage features are completed in accordance with
approved design plans, specifications and regulatory requirements as applicable; and
recordkeeping and reporting provisions.
Project-specific CQA Plans will be provided to the LEA for review in advance of construction
work as applicable. As-built plans will be prepared at the construction of completion based on
field observations and surveys.
3.4 LAND USE DEED RESTRICTION
The DTSC identified land use restrictions required as part of Site mitigation which would use
engineering and administrative controls, while leaving residual contaminants of potential
concern (COPC) in place (DTSC, 2007). Engineering controls including the cap, drainage and
MMS are as described above. Per DTSC conditions of approval, administrative requirements
were to “… run with the land, prohibit Site use for residences, schools, day care facilities for
children, hospitals or other sensitive uses without the prior approval of the LEA and use of an
LEA-approved Soil Management Plan”.
560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California
11
SMPO will prepare a draft deed restriction to be placed on the Site. Following receipt of LEA
approval of the draft deed restriction, SMPO will record the deed restriction with the County of
San Mateo.
4 POST-CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE PLAN
Post-construction Site inspections and maintenance is required to maintain Site remedial features
which include the cap areas (pavement and landscape planters), drainage and stormwater
management features, groundwater systems, and the methane mitigation system (MMS). These
measures are generally consistent with the PCMP (Environ, 2011), summarized below.
4.1 CAP INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
Inspections of the cap integrity will be performed on an annual basis by a qualified engineer,
geologist, or other professional experienced in the environmental remediation field.
4.1.1 Asphalt Surface Inspections and Maintenance
The purpose of the asphalt cap is to minimize water infiltration into and through the underlying
ash debris, isolate the buried wastes from the surface, promote drainage, minimize erosion or
abrasion of the cover, and accommodate settlement and subsidence so that cover integrity is
maintained.
The asphalt surface will be inspected on an annual basis to look for evidence of penetration of
the surface by precipitation. The inspections will include observations of the following:
• Evidence of asphalt surface cracking.
• Visible depressions.
• Ponded water.
• Differential settlement and subsidence.
• Areas where underlying layers of the cover (structural earth fill) are exposed.
• Areas damaged by vehicle traffic.
Asphalt surface repair and/or reconstruction activities shall be conducted in a manner to maintain
its as-built condition. Maintenance of the asphalt surface may include:
• Periodic asphalt seal coating of cracks and worn surfaces.
• Asphalt removal, re-grading and repair to areas deemed to be worn, damaged or affected
by settlement. The asphalt surface will be saw cut and removed in the affected area.
Clean fill soils will be imported and placed to fill in low spots and restore to proper
drainage conditions. Aggregate base and new asphalt surface will placed over the
compacted fill. The asphalt surface will be restored in kind per the specifications of the
original cap surface.
560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California
12
4.1.2 Vegetation Area Cap Inspection and Maintenance
The vegetation landscape areas will be inspected for evidence of erosion, damage to curb, gutter
and drainage features. Vegetated slope areas will be inspected for signs of erosion, excessive
rilling and slope failure.
Erosion on sideslope areas will be repaired by scarifying the affected area, placing and
compacting clean soil fill, and placement of temporary straw mulch to prevent further damage.
The affected area will be re-vegetated via hydroseeding or hand broadcasting of appropriate seed
mix when conditions permit.
Should a slope failure occur, the area will be closed off to prevent damage to equipment or harm
to individuals. A qualified engineer, geologist or engineering geologist will assess the failure
and make recommendations for appropriate corrective action.
4.1.3 Recordkeeping
Records of cap inspection, maintenance and repair activities will be maintained. The record will
include the date of inspection(s), personnel, weather conditions, conditions observed, and a
summary of the extent and nature of any repairs made. The LEA will be notified of any
conditions that require corrective action or non-routine maintenance.
4.2 DRAINAGE SYSTEM INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE
The surface water drainage system will consist of a series of area drains and drop inlet structures
integral to SMPO development parking infrastructure. Collected storm water will discharge
from these structures to bioswales, and in turn to the municipal storm drain system.
Post-construction maintenance of the surface-water management system is intended to ensure
adequate performance of the system. The drainage structures in the parking area will be
inspected on an annual basis for evidence of ponding water, presence of sediments and debris
that can block flow, and damage to system components. Maintenance of the surface water
drainage system will include removal of sediment and debris from area drain inlet grates, drop
inlet structures and drainage ditches. Permanent repairs and restoration will be made consistent
with final development plans for the SMPO Site improvements.
4.3 METHANE MITIGATION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE AND
MONITORING
Inspection and maintenance of the MMS components will include:
• Periodic inspections of passive vent risers for signs of damage (cracked casing). Repairs
will be made to the piping, support or vent structures as required.
• Testing and calibration of automated combustible gas sensors, following manufacturer’s
specifications.
560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California
13
• As-needed replacement of combustible gas sensors that are no longer functional based on
calibration tests.
Inspection and calibration will be performed on a quarterly basis. Results will be reported to the
LEA. Depending on test results, and after one year of successful operation without incident,
SMPO may petition the LEA to reduce inspection and reporting frequency to semi-annually.
The Site was never used for disposal of MSW or decomposable organic wastes and methane
concentrations above the LEL have not been detected in soils in the western portion of the Site
(the proposed development area). In the unlikely event of a sustained high alarm condition in the
building interior, immediate steps to protect public health and safety will be taken in accordance
with 27 CCR 20937 requirements. Such steps will include:
• Perform confirmatory testing using field instruments to rule out any potential sensor
malfunction or interferences (utility gas, for example);
• Notify the LEA in writing if the gas intrusion has been confirmed and compliance levels
have been exceeded. The regulatory compliance level for combustible gas concentration
in the building interior is 25 percent of the LEL (1.25 percent by volume);
• Conduct additional monitoring, if necessary, to further identify the extent of migration or
infiltration.
If testing confirms the presence of elevated combustible gas levels and a safety hazard exists, a
remediation plan will be developed within 90 days for submittal to the LEA. The plan shall
describe the nature of the hazard and proposed remedy. The specific mitigation measures to be
employed will be a function of Site-specific conditions and hazards (i.e., geology, utility
locations, on- and off-Site gas generation potential, MMS barrier design) and will be developed
by personnel familiar with combustible gas hazards and controls.
4.4 GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS
While in place at the Site, and in advance of any monitoring and sampling by SMPO, all
groundwater monitoring wells will be visually inspected. Visual inspections of the integrity of
the well caps, casings and protective structures will be made. Damaged or inoperative caps,
locks or monument boxes will be replaced or repaired as needed.
4.5 FUTURE SUBSURFACE MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
Potential post-development receptors to COPCs include building occupants, maintenance/utility
workers who may be involved with subsurface or intrusive repair work, and landscape
maintenance workers.
The burn ash material is contained below 18 to 30 feet of fill soil in the development area of the
Site. Potential exposure for maintenance and utility workers is considered a minimal risk and
will be mitigated by the overlying fill soils, building footprint, paved parking areas, MMS, and
the vegetated cap.
560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California
14
Nonetheless, future maintenance and utility workers performing intrusive subsurface activities
that involve excavations greater than 10 feet BGS should review the HASP (Appendix D) prior
to conducting any work that has a potential for exposure to underlying burn ash debris. A
modified HASP may be needed depending on the nature of the work. Any proposed post-
construction activities including maintenance activities that may compromise the integrity of the
cap at the Site, will be subject to LEA review and approval prior to implementation of such
activity.
560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California
15
5 R EFERENCES
BKF Engineers. USDA PPQ & VS Facility, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco,
Stormwater Management Narrative Description. February 16, 2017.
CalRecycle. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) database, Enforcement Action Details,
Sierra Point Disposal Site http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/41-AA-
0003/Enforcement/. March 2017.
Cornerstone Earth Group. Geotechnical Investigation, USDA APHIS Building SF, 560 Eccles
Avenue, South San Francisco, California (Draft). March 13, 2017.
Department of Toxics Substances Control. Letter to San Mateo County Environmental Health
Services Department. July 18, 2007.
Environ. Site Closure Plan, Vacant Land at 560 Eccles Avenue, Northwest of the Intersection of
Gull Drive and Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, California. August 11, 2011.
Environ. Post Construction Maintenance Plan, Vacant Land at 560 Eccles Avenue, Northwest of
the Intersection of Gull Drive and Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, California. August
11, 2011.
Environ. 560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, Site Closure Plan and Post Construction
Maintenance Plan, Compliance with Title 27, California Code of Regulations Section 21190.
Letter to San Mateo County Environmental Health Division. February 26, 2014.
Professional Land Services. ALTA/ASCM Title Survey, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San
Francisco, California 94080. November 3, 2016.
San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health. Proposed Site Closure Plan (SCP) and
Post Closure Maintenance Plan (PCMP), 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco. Letter from
Greg Schirle to Nick Walchuk, Environ Corporation. May 13, 2014.
560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California
FIGURES
560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California
APPENDIX A
SITE CHARACTERIZATION CROSS SECTIONS
(ENVIRON, 2011)
560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California
APPENDIX B
PRELIMINARY ARCHITECTURAL PLANS
CONSULTANTS
STAMP
KEY PLAN
CLIENT
PROJECT
ADDRESS
PROJECT NO.
SCALE
TITLE
DGA planning | architecture | interiors 2016
Civil Engineer
Landscape Architect
Structural Engineer
Mechanical & Plumbing
Engineer
255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 200
Redwood City, CA 94065
650-482-6300
BKF Engineers
1700 N. Broadway, Suite 401
Walnut Creeek, CA 94596
925-945-0300
Environmental
Foresight Inc.
55 Harrison Street, Suite 550
Oakland, CA 94607
510-208-3300
KPW
33225 Western Ave.
Union City, CA. 94587
510-477-3000
Southland Industies
DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.
Electrical Engineer
-
-
-
1050 Bing St.
San Carlos, CA. 94070
650-634-0682
Morrow-Meadows
Corporation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
GI001
COVER SHEET
SMPO Properties
USDA APHIS / PPQ / VS FACILITY
560 ECCLES AVE.
SOUTH SAN FRANSICSCO, CA
16129
USDA BUILDING
560 ECCLES AVE.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
PROJECT DATA
ADJACENT PROPERTY
ZONING DESIGNATIONS:
APN:
PROJECT NAME:United States Department of Agriculture (USDA),
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS),
Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) and
Veterinary Services (VS)
015-082-210
GOVERNING CODES
PART 2:2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC)
PART 3: 2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC)
PART 4: 2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC)
PART 5: 2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC)
PART 6: 2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
PART 9: 2016 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CFC)
PART 11: 2016 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
PART 12: 2016 CALIFORNIA REFERENCE STANDARDS CODE
CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 8 (CAL OSHA)
OTHER REGULATIONS
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (BAAQMD)
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ADOPTED CODES, REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES
TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 21,807 SF
SITE PLAN
VICINITY PLAN
DRAWING INDEX
SITE
PRELIMINARY PLANNING
SUBMITTAL
17FEB2017
ZONING CLASIFICATION:BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY PARK (BTP)
OVERLAY DISTRICT:NONE
NORTH:BTP
SOUTH:BTP
WEST:OPSD (Oister Point Specific Plan District)
EAST:BTP
LOT STANDARDS:
MINIMUM LOT SIZE:
ALLOWEDPROPOSED
43,560 S.F.158,049 S.F.
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH:50 FT.98 FT.
MAXIMUM HEIGHT:N/A25 FT.
MINIMUM YARDS:
FRONT:20 FT.
INTERIOR SIDE:10 FT.
STREET SIDE:10 FT.
REAR:10 FT.
250 FT.
32 FT.
68 FT. 4 IN.
144 FT
MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE:60%13.8%
MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO:50%13.8%
MINIMUM AMOUNT OF
LANDSCAPE:
15%
OVERALL CURRENT SITE AREA:325,524 S.F.7.473 AC.
30%
NON-IRRIGATED HYDROSEED PLANTING:32,000 SF
IRRIGATED ORNAMENTAL PLANTING:15,250 SF
GI001 COVER SHEET
AS101 SITE PLAN
AE101 FLOOR PLAN
AQ101 EQUIPMENT AND FURNISHINGS PLAN
AE201 EXTRIOR ELEVATIONS
C1.0
C2.0
C3.0
C4.0
EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
UTILITY PLAN
CROSS SECTIONS
LS100 LANDSCAPE AREA EXHIBIT
PROGRESS SET
10 MAR 2017
G
P
S
1
6
0
.
9
2
c
p
1
5
8
.
3
5
C
P
2
6
3
.
0
9
C
P
3
5
9
.
6
2
C
M
5
6
.
2
5
C
P
4
5
6
.
6
3
C
P
5
5
7
.
2
0
P
C
5
5
.
7
0
C
P
6
5
6
.
9
4
C
P
7
5
8
.
7
6
C
P
8
5
8
.1
0
C
P
9
1
8
.1
1
C
P
1
0
1
8
.
3
3
F
L
1
7
.
2
3
F
L
1
7
.
8
1
F
L
1
8
.
2
9
DI
1
8
.
6
0
L
G
1
8
.
8
7
L
G
1
8
.
9
6
L
G
1
9
.
0
2
L
G
1
9
.
0
2
F
L
2
0
.
8
5
F
L
2
4
.
6
9
F
L
3
0
.
4
7
F
L
3
6
.
2
7
F
L
4
1
.
2
9
F
L
4
6
.
3
9
F
L
5
0
.
8
6
F
L
5
3
.
8
8
F
L
5
3
.
8
6
F
L
5
0
.
8
8
F
L
4
6
.
3
0
F
L
4
1.
3
1
F
L
3
5
.
7
5
F
L
3
0
.
2
2
F
L
2
4
.
4
0
F
L
2
0
.
5
0
L
G
1
9
.1
5
L
G
1
9
.
0
1
L
G
1
8
.
9
7L
G
1
8
.
8
6
D
I
1
8
.
5
9
F
L
1
8
.
0
5
F
L
1
7
.
6
2
F
L
1
7
.
2
1
C
L
1
7
.
6
3
C
L
1
7
.
6
6
C
L
1
7
.
9
8
C
L
1
8
.1
6
C
L
1
8
.
5
5
C
L
1
9
.
3
5
C
L
2
1.
3
1
C
L
2
5
.
3
1
C
L
3
0
.
9
4
C
L
3
6
.
5
1
C
L
4
1.
6
3
C
L
4
6
.
7
7
C
L
5
1.
3
3
C
L
5
4
.
4
7
C
O
M
M
H
4
1.1
2
W
V
3
6
.
6
8
V
G
2
2
.
9
3
V
G
2
3
.
3
3
V
G
2
3
.
2
8
V
G
1
9
.
7
9
V
G
1
7
.
0
2
V
G
1
4
.
7
9
T
W
1
7
.
4
8
T
W
1
7
.
5
5
S
D
M
H
2
0
.
1
4
V
G
1
4
.
9
7
T
W
1
6
.
6
7
T
W
1
6
.
7
5
DI
1
5
.
7
5
V
G
1
5
.
7
2
V
G
1
6
.
7
5
V
G
1
6
.
6
7
V
G
1
6
.
2
7
V
G
1
6
.
4
5
V
G
1
6
.
7
2
M
W
1
9
.1
4
V
G
1
6
.
7
8
V
G
1
6
.
4
9
V
G
1
6
.
8
0
V
G
1
7
.
6
7
V
G
1
8
.
9
0
V
G
1
9
.
4
8
V
G
1
9
.
7
4
V
G
2
0
.
4
0
V
G
2
3
.
7
4
V
G
3
0
.
3
6
V
G
3
6
.
4
8
M
W
6
0
.
9
7
B
O
L
B
O
5
7
.
5
1
M
W
5
9
.
3
5
B
O
L
5
9
.
2
7
M
W
6
0
.
0
3
B
O
L
6
0
.
0
6
P
I
V
5
6
.
2
2
S
T
N
D
P
5
8
.1
2
W
F
5
9
.
2
5
E
P
5
6
.
8
3
E
P
5
7
.
5
0
E
P
5
6
.
9
1
S
S
M
H
5
6
.
7
2
W
V
5
6
.
5
8
D
I
5
6
.
3
2
E
P
5
6
.1
5
E
O
P
5
7
.
9
9
E
O
P
5
7
.
9
4
P
5
7
.
3
3
E
P
5
7
.
2
9
E
P
5
7
.
0
5
E
P
5
7
.
2
1
W
V
5
6
.
2
3
H
Y
D
5
6
.
4
2
E
P
5
7
.
5
4
E
P
5
7
.
6
4
E
P
5
6
.
8
9
E
P
5
6
.
8
3
P
5
6
.
8
5
D
I
5
6
.
2
9
E
P
5
6
.
5
9
S
S
M
H
5
6
.
8
5
E
P
5
7
.
3
0
P
5
7
.
3
9
E
P
5
7
.
0
0
E
P
5
7
.
0
0
E
P
5
6
.
7
4
D
I
5
6
.
3
0
E
P
5
6
.
6
1
W
V
5
6
.
6
6
H
Y
D
5
6
.
7
6
E
P
5
6
.
8
2
E
P
5
6
.
7
4
P
5
7
.
3
6
E
P
5
7
.
2
6
E
P
5
7
.1
1
E
P
5
7
.
2
3
S
S
M
H
5
6
.
9
3
E
P
5
6
.
6
2
E
P
5
6
.
6
3
E
P
5
6
.
5
9
E
P
5
6
.
5
8
E
P
5
6
.
3
1
D
I
5
6
.
2
5
W
V
5
6
.
4
5
W
V
5
6
.
5
1
E
P
E
P
5
7
.
2
6
E
P
5
7
.
5
1
E
P
5
8
.
7
0
P
5
7
.
3
5
E
P
5
8
.
3
3
E
P
5
8
.
0
8
E
P
5
8
.1
3
E
P
5
7
.
7
3
E
P
5
7
.
8
5
W
V
5
7
.
7
1
H
Y
D
5
7
.1
8
E
P
5
7
.
4
6
E
P
5
8
.
6
6
E
P
5
9
.
0
8
D
I
5
6
.
2
4
E
P
5
6
.
4
0
E
P
5
6
.
4
4
W
V
5
7
.
2
1
E
P
5
8
.
7
9
P
5
7
.
8
3
E
P
5
7
.
8
7
E
P
5
8
.
0
3
E
P
6
0
.
3
7
E
P
6
0
.
2
5
E
P
6
0
.
2
9
E
P
6
2
.
2
6
E
P
6
3
.
0
4
F
L
6
2
.
7
2
F
L
6
2
.
9
2
F
L
6
2
.
9
1
E
P
6
4
.
0
3
P
6
3
.
8
6
E
P
6
4
.
2
5
E
P
6
4
.
0
5
E
P
6
4
.
2
8
E
P
6
2
.
7
8
E
P
6
2
.
8
3
E
P
6
2
.
6
7
E
P
6
2
.
5
5
E
P
6
3
.
8
8
E
P
6
3
.
7
8
E
P
6
2
.
5
7
E
P
6
2
.
4
9
E
P
6
3
.
5
2
E
P
6
3
.
5
0
E
P
6
3
.
4
3
E
P
6
3
.
4
2
E
P
6
3
.
4
4
E
P
6
3
.
3
9
F
L
6
2
.
3
9
F
L
6
2
.
2
6
F
L
6
2
.
2
9L
G
6
2
.
3
7
L
G
6
2
.
2
6
F
L
6
2
.
2
3 F
L
6
2
.
6
5
F
L
6
2
.
8
8
F
L
6
2
.
5
8
F
L
6
2
.
8
9
C
O
6
2
.
5
0
S
V
6
2
.
4
4
S
V
6
2
.
4
2
S
V
6
2
.
3
5
F
L
6
2
.
2
7
F
L
6
2
.
8
1
F
L
6
2
.
6
7
F
L
6
2
.1
3
S
V
6
2
.
2
1
P
6
2
.
5
2
F
L
6
1.
7
8
S
V
6
1.
5
2
F
L
6
1.
6
3
F
L
6
0
.
8
7
L
G
6
0
.
8
7
L
G
6
0
.
7
0
L
G
6
0
.
6
0
D
I
6
0
.
6
6
L
G
6
0
.
5
3
F
L
6
0
.
5
8
F
L
6
0
.1
2
S
V
6
0
.
2
5
S
V
6
0
.
2
3
F
L
6
0
.
7
6
F
L
6
0
.
4
3 F
L
5
9
.
5
3
F
L
5
9
.
3
2
L
G
5
9
.
2
8
L
G
5
9
.
2
3
L
G
5
9
.
2
6
D
I
5
9
.
1
2
L
G
5
9
.
3
3
F
L
5
9
.
3
9
D
W
5
9
.
5
4
D
W
5
9
.
6
9
F
L
5
9
.1
7
F
L
5
8
.
9
1
F
L
5
8
.
9
1
F
L
5
9
.
3
1
F
L
5
9
.
6
0
F
L
5
9
.
8
9
F
L
5
9
.
8
4
F
L
5
9
.
4
8
D
W
6
0
.
0
1
D
W
5
9
.
5
8
F
L
5
6
.
7
1
F
L
5
6
.
6
7
F
L
5
6
.
4
2
F
L
5
6
.
2
3
F
L
5
6
.
0
6
F
L
5
5
.
9
5
F
L
5
6
.
8
8
F
L
5
7
.
2
9F
L
5
7
.
2
6
S
S
M
H
5
7
.
2
5
F
L
5
7
.
4
6
B
E
W
5
7
.
2
5
B
E
W
5
7
.1
4
B
E
W
5
7
.
0
1
B
E
W
5
6
.
8
0
B
E
W
5
6
.
5
8
B
E
W
5
6
.
5
4
DI
5
6
.
2
6
V
L
T
5
7
.
2
3
V
L
T
5
7
.1
2
V
L
T
5
7
.
5
2
S
S
M
H
5
7
.
3
4
L
P
5
6
.
8
0
P
O
L
E
5
5
.
7
7
P
O
L
E
5
5
.
7
3
P
O
L
E
5
5
.
7
6
P
O
L
E
5
5
.
7
5
P
B
5
5
.
3
5
D
I
5
6
.
6
5
E
B
5
6
.
4
5
D
I
5
6
.
0
8
DI
5
6
.
0
1
V
L
T
5
6
.
9
3
V
L
T
5
6
.
8
3
V
L
T
5
6
.
8
1
L
B
5
6
.
7
2
C
O
N
C
5
6
.
8
7
C
O
N
C
5
7
.
8
1
B
L
D
G
N
E
5
8
.
6
2
F
L
5
8
.1
4
F
L
5
8
.
2
0
F
L
5
8
.
5
0
P
O
L
E
5
7
.
9
2
P
O
L
E
5
7
.
9
3
G
5
9
.
9
6
S
T
A
I
R
6
0
.
0
8
S
T
A
I
R
6
0
.
0
6
P
O
L
E
5
9
.1
6
P
O
L
E
5
9
.
2
0
G
6
0
.
3
7
R
A
M
P
6
0
.1
8
R
A
M
P
6
0
.
4
5
R
A
M
P
6
0
.
4
8
R
A
M
P
6
0
.
5
9
P
O
L
E
5
9
.
4
8
P
O
L
E
5
9
.
2
4
G
6
0
.
9
5
G
6
1.
0
3
P
O
L
E
6
0
.
6
9
P
O
L
E
6
0
.
7
2
G
6
0
.
3
6
G
5
9
.
7
6
G
6
1.1
0
P
O
L
E
5
8
.
8
8
P
O
L
E
5
9
.
0
5
P
O
L
E
5
8
.
9
7
G
6
0
.
4
8
G
6
0
.
3
7
G
6
0
.
5
8
G
6
0
.
4
1
G
5
8
.
9
0
G
5
8
.
8
6
P
O
L
E
5
8
.
5
0
P
O
L
E
5
8
.
8
9
P
O
L
E
5
8
.
7
0
G
5
9
.
8
8
G
5
9
.
9
3
G
5
9
.
8
6
G
5
9
.
8
3
G
5
8
.
7
2
G
5
8
.
5
7
P
O
L
E
5
7
.
9
7
P
O
L
E
5
8
.
5
2
P
O
L
E
5
8
.
4
1
G
5
9
.
3
9
G
5
9
.
4
3
G
5
9
.
4
0
G
5
9
.
2
5
G
5
8
.
3
7
G
5
8
.
4
1
G
5
8
.
3
8
P
O
L
E
5
5
.
7
1
P
O
L
E
5
5
.
6
5
P
O
L
E
5
5
.
5
4
P
O
L
E
5
5
.
9
5
P
O
L
E
5
6
.
3
7
P
O
L
E
5
6
.1
7
DI
5
6
.
2
6
V
G
5
6
.
6
7
V
G
5
6
.
7
3
V
G
5
6
.
7
2
V
G
5
6
.
2
9
V
G
5
6
.
9
6
F
N
C
5
4
.
3
0
B
L
D
G
N
E
5
2
.
9
8
V
G
5
7
.
7
6
S
T
A
I
R
5
8
.1
1
S
T
A
I
R
5
8
.
3
8
V
G
5
7
.
9
8
S
T
A
I
R
5
8
.
3
9
S
T
A
I
R
5
8
.1
3
V
G
5
8
.
2
0
S
T
A
I
R
5
8
.
2
0
S
T
A
I
R
5
8
.
2
6
V
G
5
8
.
4
4
G
P
S
1
6
0
.
0
0
S
D
M
H
5
6
.
7
4
B
O
5
7
.
5
3
D
I
5
5
.
4
0
6
0
6
0
6 0
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
2
0
2
0
2 5
3 0
3 5
4 0
4 5
5 0
5 5
60
60
6 0
55
50
45
4 0
3 5
3
0
2
5
2
0
60
60 6 0
6 0
6
0
6
0
6 0
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
2
0
2
0
2 5
3 0
3 5
4 0
4 5
5 0
5 5
60
60
6 0
55
50
45
4 0
3 5
3
0
2
5
2
0
60
60 6 0
6 0
250' - 0"215' - 0"
14
SECURED
PARKING
ROLLING
GATE
GEN.
TRASH
INGRESS / EGRESS EASEMENT
(N) SIDEWALK
VISITOR /
EMPLOYEE
PARKING
(E) A.C. PAVING
REQUIRED PARKING:
1 SPACE PER 350 S.F.
21,807 S.F. / 350 = 62 SPACES
3 ACCESSIBLE STALLS
REQUIRED
SECURITY
FENCE
12' - 0"10' - 0"
45' - 0"
PEDESTRIAN GATE
20' - 0"
7
7
5
6
5
8
T.
18
'
-
0
"
18
'
-
0
"
SLOPE
DOWN
FRONT
ENTRY
8
5
5
7
62 SPACES PROVIDED
EMPLOYEE
PARKING
NEW BUILDING
25
'
-
0
"
18' - 0"26' - 0"18' - 0"
PLAN
NORTH
EXISTING ADJACENT BUILDING
EXISTING ADJACENT BUILDING
ECCLES AVE
BIO-RETENTION
AREA, SEE CIVIL
DRAWINGS
BIO-RETENTION
AREA, SEE CIVIL
DRAWINGS
PROPOSED NEW
PROPERTY LINE
OYS
TER
PO
INT
BLDV.
32
'
-
0
"
144' - 0"
68' - 4"
NEW 5' WIDE
SIDEWALK
NEW 5' WIDE
SIDEWALK
CONNEST NEW
SIDEWALK WITH
EXISTING
GULL DRIVE
KEYNOTE LEGEND:
1 PARKING STALL DESIGNATED FOR CARPOOL / VANPOOL
DROP-OF AND PICKUP. STRIPE STALL AND PLACE SIGN ON
POLE IN FRONT OF STALL; READING "CARPOOL / VANPOOL
DROP-OFF & PICKUP"
2 PAINT IN PAINT USED FOR STALL STRIPING AT THE
BEGGINING OF EACH STALL THE WORDS "CLEAN AIR /
VANPOOL / EV"
1
2
2
3 THREE BYCICLE LOCKERS FOR LONG TERM PARKING AND
4 DOUBLE CAPACITY BYCYCLE RACKS FOR SHORT TERM
PARKING. (8 BIKES)
3
CONSULTANTS
STAMP
KEY PLAN
CLIENT
PROJECT
ADDRESS
PROJECT NO.
SCALE
TITLE
DGA planning | architecture | interiors 2016
Civil Engineer
Landscape Architect
Structural Engineer
Mechanical & Plumbing
Engineer
255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 200
Redwood City, CA 94065
650-482-6300
BKF Engineers
1700 N. Broadway, Suite 401
Walnut Creeek, CA 94596
925-945-0300
Environmental
Foresight Inc.
55 Harrison Street, Suite 550
Oakland, CA 94607
510-208-3300
KPW
33225 Western Ave.
Union City, CA. 94587
510-477-3000
Southland Industies
DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.
Electrical Engineer
-
-
-
1050 Bing St.
San Carlos, CA. 94070
650-634-0682
Morrow-Meadows
Corporation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1" = 50'-0"
AS101
SITE PLAN
SMPO Properties
USDA APHIS / PPQ / VS FACILITY
560 ECCLES AVE.
SOUTH SAN FRANSICSCO, CA
16129
SCALE: 1" = 50'-0"1 SITE PLAN
PRELIMINARY PLANNING
SUBMITTAL
17FEB2017
AE201
3
AE201
4
AE201
1
AE201
2
MAIN ENTRY
6'
-
0
"
215' - 0"
73
'
-
0
"
13
7
'
-
0
"
6'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
3062 SF
RECEIVING
DEVANNING
AREA
P.1
48' - 7"
7'
-
0
"
110 SF
BROKER
WAITING
P.1.B
80 SF
GENDER
NEUTRAL
BATHROOM
P.1.A
1507 SF
INSPECTION
ROOM
P.2
1099 SF
ENTOMOLOGY
P.13
504 SF
ENTOMOLOGY
COLLECTION
ROOM
P.13.A
453 SF
BOTANY
P.17
446 SF
BOTANY
COLLECTION
ROOM
P.17.A
123 SF
VETERINARY
OFFICE
V.1
182 SF
VETERINARY
SERVICES
PROCESSING
ROOM
V.3 123 SF
VETERINARIAN
CLERK'S
OFFICE
V.2
71 SF
GENDER
NEUTRAL
RESTROOM
C.3
400 SF
PIS GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION
AREA
P.9
6'
-
0
"
466 SF
PLANT
PATHOLOGY
P.15
184 SF
PLANT
PATHOLOGY
COLLECTION
ROOM
P.15.A307 SF
MOLECULAR
ROOM
P.21
119 SF
SAMPLE
EXTRACTION
ELISA ROOM
P.20
102 SF
ENTOMOLOGIST
OFFICE 1
P.10
101 SF
ENTOMOLOGIST
OFFICE 2
P.11
101 SF
ENTOMOLOGIST
OFFICE 3
P.12
102 SF
BOTANIST
OFFICE
P.16
102 SF
PLANT
PATHOLOGIST
OFFICE
P.14
6' - 6"
85 SF
LACTATION
ROOM
C.9
201 SF
CITES ROOM
P.18
658 SF
STORAGE
C.10
1698 SF
SQUAD ROOM
P.3
103 SF
LIVE INSECT
INSPECTION
ROOM
P.7
6' - 6"
101 SF
SERVER
ROOM
T.1
237 SF
COMMON
ENTRY
C.1
44 SF
JANITOR
C.11
267 SF
MEN'S
BATHROOM
C.8
267 SF
WOMEN'S
BATHROOM
C.7
91 SF
MEN'S
LOCKER ROOM
C.8.1
72 SF
MEN'S
SHOWER
C.8.2
89 SF
WOMEN'S
LOCKER ROOM
C.7.1
71 SF
WOMEN'S
SHOWER
C.7.2
628 SF
CONFERENCE
ROOM
C.4
5'
-
6
"
122 SF
PIS OIC OFFICE
P.8
200 SF
HUDDLE ROOM
S.2
16
'
-
6
"
121 SF
NATIONAL
CITES OFFICE
H.1
119 SF
PIM DEPUTY
DIRECTOR'S
OFFICE
H.2
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
8
8
22' - 0"
9
9
A A
B B
24
'
-
0
"
C C
24
'
-
0
"
D D
25
'
-
0
"
E E
23
'
-
0
"
F F
H H
24
'
-
0
"
17
'
-
0
"
25
'
-
0
"
24
'
-
0
"
24
'
-
0
"
20' - 0"16' - 5"15' - 7"20' - 0"9' - 6"20' - 6"
10' - 6"13' - 10"7' - 0"
32' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"29' - 0"
6
6
20' - 0"
2530 SF
CIRCULATION
C.12
11' - 9"
SITC
STORAGEPIS
STORAGE
PIM
STORAGE
15
'
-
1
1
"
413 SF
DIRTY
HOLDING
ROOM
P.4
256 SF
FITNESS ROOM
C.6
499 SF
BREAK ROOM
C.5
214 SF
MAINTENANCE
ROOM
M.1
279 SF
ELECTRICAL
ROOM
E.1 404 SF
CLEAN
HOLDING
ROOM
P.6
404 SF
TREATMENT
ROOM
P.5
121 SF
SITC
SUPERVISOR
OFFICE
S.1
160 SF
SITC
CONFERENCE
ROOM
M.3
912 SF
SITC GENERAL
OFFICE
(SQUAD
ROOM)
S.3
14
'
-
8
"
10
'
-
4
"
7
7
20' - 0"32' - 0"
12' - 2"15' - 0"5' - 0"19' - 7"17' - 10"21' - 8"4"17' - 0"13' - 0"
7'
-
6
"
8'
-
1
"
4'
-
6
"
14
'
-
4
"
9'
-
8
"
6'
-
6
"
13' - 6"3' - 10"
9'
-
1
0
"
8'
-
8
"
12
'
-
2
"
29' - 0"
6'
-
0
"
10
'
-
2
"
7'
-
0
"
14
'
-
6
"
6' - 6"13' - 6"
10' - 3"23' - 6"
6' - 6"19' - 4"12' - 8"
8' - 11"13' - 3"9' - 10"
P.1-F
P.1-E
P.1-D
P.1-C
P.1-B
P.1-A
P.1.B
P.
1
.
A
C.
1
-
A
E.
1
P.4-A
P.4
P.5
T.
1
C.8C.
1
1
C.7 C.8.1
C.
8
.
2
C.7.1
C.
7
.
2
241
V.
3
V.
1
H.
2
P.
1
4
P.
1
6
P.
1
2
P.
1
1
P.
1
0
P.
2
0
P.
1
5
P.
1
7 P.
1
3
C.12
C.1
P.
2
-
A
P.
2
V.2
P.
7
-
A
P.1
P.6-A
C.
4
-
A
C.
4
H.
1
C.10-A
P.
2
-
E
C.
3
C.
1
0
P.
8
S.
2
P.13.A
P.17.A
P.15.A
P.
9
S.
3
P.20-A
P.6
M.
1
M.3
S.1
E.1-A
M.
1
-
A
P.
3
C.5
303
P.2-CP.18
P.2-D
1
AE301
2
AE301
3
AE301
4
AE301
5
AE301
6
AE301AE401
1
AE402
1
AE401
2
AE402
6
AE403
1
CONSULTANTS
STAMP
KEY PLAN
CLIENT
PROJECT
ADDRESS
PROJECT NO.
SCALE
TITLE
DGA planning | architecture | interiors 2016
Civil Engineer
Landscape Architect
Structural Engineer
Mechanical & Plumbing
Engineer
255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 200
Redwood City, CA 94065
650-482-6300
BKF Engineers
1700 N. Broadway, Suite 401
Walnut Creeek, CA 94596
925-945-0300
Environmental
Foresight Inc.
55 Harrison Street, Suite 550
Oakland, CA 94607
510-208-3300
KPW
33225 Western Ave.
Union City, CA. 94587
510-477-3000
Southland Industies
DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.
Electrical Engineer
-
-
-
1050 Bing St.
San Carlos, CA. 94070
650-634-0682
Morrow-Meadows
Corporation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1/8" = 1'-0"
AE101
FLOOR PLAN - OVERALL
SMPO Properties
USDA APHIS / PPQ / VS FACILITY
560 ECCLES AVE.
SOUTH SAN FRANSICSCO, CA
16129
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 FLOOR PLAN - OVERALL
PLAN
NORTH
TOTAL BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE = 21,807
15% SUBMITTAL19Dec2016
15% DESIGN CHARRETTE11Jan2017
15% DESIGN CHARRETTE RESPONSE13Jan2017
PRELIMINARY PLANNING
SUBMITTAL
17FEB2017
1ST LEVEL
0' - 0"
PARAPET
18' - 0"
7'
-
0
"
1
4
7
ABCDEFH
8
9
6
4
11
5
AE3016
AE301
1ST LEVEL
0' - 0"
PARAPET
18' - 0"
12345896
12
1
2
3
4
6
10
7
1
AE301
2
AE301
3
AE301
4
AE301
1ST LEVEL
0' - 0"
PARAPET
18' - 0"
12
4
1
A B C D E F H
FRONT DOOR 2
3
5
6
5
AE301 6
AE301
13
1ST LEVEL
0' - 0"
PARAPET
18' - 0"
1 2 3 4 5 8 96
6
1
4
10
3
5
6
2
4
7
1
AE301
2
AE301
3
AE301
4
AE301
13
CONSULTANTS
STAMP
KEY PLAN
CLIENT
PROJECT
ADDRESS
PROJECT NO.
SCALE
TITLE
DGA planning | architecture | interiors 2016
Civil Engineer
Landscape Architect
Structural Engineer
Mechanical & Plumbing
Engineer
255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 200
Redwood City, CA 94065
650-482-6300
BKF Engineers
1700 N. Broadway, Suite 401
Walnut Creeek, CA 94596
925-945-0300
Environmental
Foresight Inc.
55 Harrison Street, Suite 550
Oakland, CA 94607
510-208-3300
KPW
33225 Western Ave.
Union City, CA. 94587
510-477-3000
Southland Industies
DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.
Electrical Engineer
-
-
-
1050 Bing St.
San Carlos, CA. 94070
650-634-0682
Morrow-Meadows
Corporation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1/8" = 1'-0"
AE201
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
SMPO Properties
USDA APHIS / PPQ / VS FACILITY
560 ECCLES AVE.
SOUTH SAN FRANSICSCO, CA
16129
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3 EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"4 SOUTH ELEVATION
KEYNOTE LEGEND:
1 METAL PANEL ROOF EQUIPMENT SCREEN
2 CEMENT PLASTER OVER METAL FRAMING
PILASTERS TYP.
3 METAL ACCENT PANELS, TO MATCH ROOF
SCREEN
4 CONCRETE TILT UP WALL PANELS, PAINTED
TYP.
5 ALUMINUM SUN SCREEN
6 DUAL GLAZED WINDOWS IN ALUMINUM FRAME
7 8'X 9' ROLL -UP DOOR WITH AIR SEALS
8 DOCK LEVELER TYP.
9 8' x 9' ROLL-UP DOOR
10 ALUMINUM PANEL OVERHANG AND
PILASTER
11 HOLLOW METAL DOOR, PAINTED TYP.
12 ALUMINUM CLAD COLUMN
15% SUBMITTAL19Dec2016
15% DESIGN CHARRETTE11Jan2017
PRELIMINARY PLANNING
SUBMITTAL
17FEB2017
13 5 1/2" x 3/4" REVEAL TYP.
1ST LEVEL
0' - 0"
ROOF
16' - 6"
PARAPET
18' - 0"
A B C D
5
AE301
6
AE301
1ST LEVEL
0' - 0"
ROOF
16' - 6"
PARAPET
18' - 0"
A B C D E
5
AE301
6
AE301
1ST LEVEL
0' - 0"
ROOF
16' - 6"
PARAPET
18' - 0"
A B C D E F
5
AE301
6
AE301
1/
4
"
1ST LEVEL
0' - 0"
ROOF
16' - 6"
PARAPET
18' - 0"
A B C D E F
5
AE301
6
AE301
1/
4
"
1ST LEVEL
0' - 0"
ROOF
16' - 6"
PARAPET
18' - 0"
123458967
1
AE301
2
AE301
3
AE301
4
AE301
1ST LEVEL
0' - 0"
ROOF
16' - 6"
PARAPET
18' - 0"
123458967
1
AE301
2
AE301
3
AE301
4
AE301
CONSULTANTS
STAMP
KEY PLAN
CLIENT
PROJECT
ADDRESS
PROJECT NO.
SCALE
TITLE
DGA planning | architecture | interiors 2016
Civil Engineer
Landscape Architect
Structural Engineer
Mechanical & Plumbing
Engineer
255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 200
Redwood City, CA 94065
650-482-6300
BKF Engineers
1700 N. Broadway, Suite 401
Walnut Creeek, CA 94596
925-945-0300
Environmental
Foresight Inc.
55 Harrison Street, Suite 550
Oakland, CA 94607
510-208-3300
KPW
33225 Western Ave.
Union City, CA. 94587
510-477-3000
Southland Industies
DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.
Electrical Engineer
-
-
-
1050 Bing St.
San Carlos, CA. 94070
650-634-0682
Morrow-Meadows
Corporation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1/8" = 1'-0"
AE301
BUILDING SECTIONS
SMPO Properties
USDA APHIS / PPQ / VS FACILITY
560 ECCLES AVE.
SOUTH SAN FRANSICSCO, CA
16129
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 BUILDING SECTION A-A
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 BUILDING SECTION B-B
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3 BUILDING SECTION C-C
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"4 BUILDING SECTION D-D
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"5 BUILDING SECTION 1-1
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"6 BUILDING SECTIO 2-2
560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California
APPENDIX C
RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN
(ENVIRON 2011
560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California
APPENDIX D
HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN
(ENVIRON 2011)
560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California
APPENDIX E
PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
CONSULTANTS
STAMP
KEY PLAN
CLIENT
PROJECT
ADDRESS
PROJECT NO.
SCALE
TITLE
DGA planning | architecture | interiors 2016
Civil Engineer
Landscape Architect
Structural Engineer
Mechanical & Plumbing
Engineer
255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 200
Redwood City, CA 94065
650-482-6300
BKF Engineers
1700 N. Broadway, Suite 401
Walnut Creeek, CA 94596
925-945-0300
Environmental
Foresight Inc.
55 Harrison Street, Suite 550
Oakland, CA 94607
510-208-3300
KPW
33225 Western Ave.
Union City, CA. 94587
510-477-3000
Southland Industies
DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.
Electrical Engineer
-
-
-
1050 Bing St.
San Carlos, CA. 94070
650-634-0682
Morrow-Meadows
Corporation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SMPO Properties
16129
USDA PPQ & VS FACILITY
560 ECCLES AVE.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
02.17.2017
C2.0
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
PLAN
1"=20'
CONSULTANTS
STAMP
KEY PLAN
CLIENT
PROJECT
ADDRESS
PROJECT NO.
SCALE
TITLE
DGA planning | architecture | interiors 2016
Civil Engineer
Landscape Architect
Structural Engineer
Mechanical & Plumbing
Engineer
255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 200
Redwood City, CA 94065
650-482-6300
BKF Engineers
1700 N. Broadway, Suite 401
Walnut Creeek, CA 94596
925-945-0300
Environmental
Foresight Inc.
55 Harrison Street, Suite 550
Oakland, CA 94607
510-208-3300
KPW
33225 Western Ave.
Union City, CA. 94587
510-477-3000
Southland Industies
DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.
Electrical Engineer
-
-
-
1050 Bing St.
San Carlos, CA. 94070
650-634-0682
Morrow-Meadows
Corporation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SMPO Properties
16129
USDA PPQ & VS FACILITY
560 ECCLES AVE.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
02.17.2017
C4.0
CROSS SECTIONS
AS SHOWN
CONSULTANTS
STAMP
KEY PLAN
CLIENT
PROJECT
ADDRESS
PROJECT NO.
SCALE
TITLE
DGA planning | architecture | interiors 2016
Civil Engineer
Landscape Architect
Structural Engineer
Mechanical & Plumbing
Engineer
255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 200
Redwood City, CA 94065
650-482-6300
BKF Engineers
1700 N. Broadway, Suite 401
Walnut Creeek, CA 94596
925-945-0300
Environmental
Foresight Inc.
55 Harrison Street, Suite 550
Oakland, CA 94607
510-208-3300
KPW
33225 Western Ave.
Union City, CA. 94587
510-477-3000
Southland Industies
DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.
Electrical Engineer
-
-
-
1050 Bing St.
San Carlos, CA. 94070
650-634-0682
Morrow-Meadows
Corporation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SMPO Properties
16129
USDA PPQ & VS FACILITY
560 ECCLES AVE.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
02.17.2017
C3.0
UTILITY PLAN
1"=20'
ATTACHMENT D: PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND
LANDFILL DUE DILIGENCE REPORT
{00083192.DOC-1 }
PHASE I
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
AND LANDFILL DUE DILIGENCE REPORT
560 Eccles Avenue
South San Francisco, California 94080
(APN) 015-082-210-4
Prepared For:
SMPO ELS, LLC.
5858 Ridgeway Center Parkway
Memphis, Tennessee 38120
(901) 327-7676
Prepared By:
SCS ENGINEERS
7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 135
Pleasanton, California 94566
(925) 426-0080
June 21, 2017
File No. 01216361.00
Offices Nationwide
www.scsengineers.com
SMPO Properties, Inc.
{00083192.DOC-1 }
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND LANDFILL DUE DILIGENCE REPORT
560 ECCLES AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94080
Prepared for:
SMPO ELS, LLC.
5858 Ridgeway Center Parkway
Memphis, Tennessee 38120
(901) 327-7676
Prepared by:
SCS ENGINEERS
7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 135
Pleasanton, California 94566
(925) 426-0080
June 21, 2017
File No. 01216361.00
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } i
Table of Contents
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... III
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1
2 PURPOSE .................................................................................................................................................. 1
3 SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................................................................................................. 1
4 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 2
5 LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................... 2
6 GENERAL PROPERTY AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................ 5
Property and Site Location ............................................................................................................. 5
General Property and Site Description ....................................................................................... 5
Adjoining Property Use ................................................................................................................... 5
7 PHYSICAL SETTING ................................................................................................................................ 6
Physiographic Setting ...................................................................................................................... 6
Property Inspection ....................................................................................................................... 10
Visual Inspection of Adjoining Sites ........................................................................................... 14
8 INTERVIEWS ......................................................................................................................................... 15
User Requirements ......................................................................................................................... 15
Environmental Lien and Activity and Use Limitation Search .................................................. 16
9 SITE HISTORY ....................................................................................................................................... 17
Historical Use Summary ................................................................................................................ 23
Historical Use of Adjoining Sites ................................................................................................. 24
10 COMMONLY KNOWN OR REASONABLY ASCERTAINABLE INFORMATION ......................... 24
Previous Landfill Environmental Reports.................................................................................... 24
Regulatory Agency Records ........................................................................................................ 25
11 REVIEW OF FEDERAL, STATE, TRIBAL, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT DATABASES .................. 28
Property Listings ............................................................................................................................ 31
Adjacent Site Listings .................................................................................................................... 32
Other Database Sites ................................................................................................................... 32
Additional Research and Reports ............................................................................................... 33
Additional Non-ASTM Scope Items ............................................................................................ 36
12 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION ..................................................................................................... 38
Title Records ................................................................................................................................... 38
Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) ...................................................... 38
Specialized Knowledge ............................................................................................................... 38
Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues .......................................................................... 38
13 DEGREE OF OBVIOUSNESS OF THE PRESENCE/LIKELY PRESENCE OF CONTAMINATION
ON THE PROPERTY ............................................................................................................................ 38
14 DATA GAPS .......................................................................................................................................... 39
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } ii
15 FINDINGS AND OPINIONS ............................................................................................................... 39
16 REPORT USAGE AND FUTURE SITE CONDITIONS ........................................................................ 40
17 LIKELIHOOD STATEMENTS ................................................................................................................ 41
18 SPECIAL CONTRACTUAL CONDITIONS BETWEEN USER AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PROFESSIONAL .................................................................................................................................. 42
19 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 43
20 GLOSSARY/DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................. 45
List of Appendices
Appendices
A Figures and Maps
Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Site Vicinity and Surrounding Land Use
Figure 3 – Site Plan and Proposed Development
Topographical Maps (from EDR®)
Sanborn Map Report (from EDR®)
B Site and Vicinity Photographs and Aerial Photographs (from EDR®)
C EDR® Building Permits
D City Directory (EDR®)
E All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) User Questionnaire Responses, Environmental Lien and
Activity Use Limitiation Search, Property Tax Report, and Title Report
F EDR® Radius Report
G Agency Records
H EDR® NEPA Check
I Select Historical Reports and Documents
J Qualifications of Environmental Professionals
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SCS Engineers (SCS) was retained by SMPO ELS, LLC (SMPO or the “User”) to prepare a Phase
I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and Landfill Due Diligence Report of the land located at
560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California (the “Property”). This assessment was
performed in conformance with 40 CFR 312, Standards for Conducting All Appropriate Inquiries
(AAI), and in general conformance with American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM)
Standard E1527-13.
The Property is located in the northeastern portion of the City of South San Francisco, San Mateo
County, California, approximately 1,000 feet from San Francisco Bay. The approximately 7.5
acre Property is currently vacant and is identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 015-082-
210, in San Mateo County Assessor’s office records. The majority of the Property is relatively
flat, with downward slopes on the eastern and southern boundaries. These side slopes are
approximately 2:1 horizontal to vertical (H:V). Elevations on the top deck area range from
approximately 57 to 63 feet above mean sea level (msl). Slope area elevations range from
approximately 17 to 61 feet above mean sea level or msl (Cornerstone Earth Group or CEG,
2017a). Slope areas extend onto adjacent properties to the south.
SMPO recently purchased the Property, and now proposes to develop the westerly 3.648 acres of
the Property (referred to as the Site or the Development Site), to consist of an approximate 21,800
square foot single-story office building with associated parking and planter area landscaping. The
easterly portion of the Property will not be developed at this time.
Access to the Property is through a 30-foot wide strip of land (easement) originating from Eccles
Avenue on the west end of the Property and from Oyster Point Boulevard on the east end of the
Property. The Property is bordered to the east by Gull Drive. To the northeast and beyond Gull
Drive is land formerly used as the City of South San Francisco’s Oyster Point Landfill. Portions
of the closed Oyster Point Landfill have been developed for commercial uses and the Oyster Point
Marina.
Commercial and industrial warehouse buildings border the Property to the north, northwest, west
and south. The Property and adjacent properties to the north, south and east are in the City of
South San Francisco Business-Technology Park (BTP) zoning district.
The Property is bounded to the north by commercial and light industrial buildings and Oyster
Point Boulevard to the northwest, by Gull Drive and the closed Oyster Point Landfill to the
northeast, by Gull Drive and commercial and light industrial buildings to the west, and by parking
lots and commercial and light industrial buildings to the south, which line Forbes Boulevard.
The Property was historically undeveloped land on a hillside adjacent to San Francisco Bay.
Gradual industrial and commercial development in the South San Francisco area east of the
current Highway 101 led to filling along the bay shoreline. The Property appears to have been
undeveloped since at least the mid-1930s at which time disturbed land surface areas are
apparent on aerial photographs. During the 1950’s a portion of the Property was reportedly used
to burn trash. This was common practice before the advent of modern solid waste management
and sanitary landfill regulations. The Site was not used for disposal of municipal solid waste or
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } iv
MSW (Environ, 2014). The areal extent of the residual ash material is approximately four acres
within the 7.5-acre Property, with an estimated in-place volume of 346,000 cubic yards (Environ,
2011).
Burn ash has been encountered at depths of 30 to 50 feet below ground surface (bgs) in the south-
central and eastern portions of the Property and at depths of five feet bgs in a small area in the
north-central portion of the Property (in the eastern portion of the Development Site). The burn
ash material is overlain by 5 to 55 feet of sandy clay fill soils, to create an elevated, relatively flat
top deck surface with slopes to the south and east. The proposed developable area is confined to
the top deck only.
The burn dump was not licensed, and was apparently inactive in the 1960s to 1980s. There
are no records of Property use or development, although significant filling occurred on the
Bay margin, resulting in creation of man-made land, and a new shoreline located roughly
1,500 feet further east. By 1985, the Property was graded to its current configuration and soil
fill materials appear to have been placed over the burn debris at the Property. Subsequently, the
northwestern portion of the Property was used for storage of items such as trailers or shipping
containers. Beginning in the 1990s, aerial photographs show the Property to be vegetated, with
some vacant areas in the northwestern portion.
A closure/post-closure development plan (PCMP, SCS 2017) for the Property has been approved
by San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health (SMCDEH). In light of this
approval, SCS concludes the presence of the burn dump on the Property is a controlled recognized
environmental condition (CREC). Site development will occur with the burn ash left in place, per
regulatory agency requirements and conditions of approval as described in the PCMP.
The Phase I ESA did not identify any additional areas of environmental concern other than the
residual burn dump ash material present beneath a portion of the Property.
Conclusions
As discussed above, the Property has a complicated history with areas of environmental concern.
Based on the findings of this Phase I ESA, the following areas of known or suspected
contamination are present on the Property:
• The Property includes a former landfill, which was operated as a burn dump in the 1950s,
and which subsequently became inactive, covered, graded, and then closed. The burn
dump residual is an estimated 346,000 cubic yards of ash material covered by an overlying
fill layer of between 5 and 55 feet thick. The majority of the ash residual is present
beneath the eastern portion of the Property, with a very limited amount of ash located
beneath the proposed Development Site.
• Based upon the original SCP and Amended SCP documents respectively prepared by
Environ and SCS, and discussions with SMCDEH, SCS considers the Site and Property to
contain a CREC associated with the former burn dump. Assuming the Amended SCP is
followed and the elements of Site development are also followed, SCS does not consider
the CREC to be an impediment to development.
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } v
• Our review of available documents and records did not identify RECs, HRECs or
additional CRECs with respect to surrounding properties. However, the nearby Oyster
Point Landfill is subject to on-going monitoring and reporting associated with historic
landfill operations. The primary areas of potential environmental concern associated with
Oyster Point Landfill related to the Property include the discovery, removal and possible
remaining presence of waste drums and chemically-affected soils beneath Gull Drive,
northeast of the Property, and elevated methane concentrations detected in monitoring
points between the Property and Oyster Point Landfill. These concerns do not appear to
affect the Site development, and do appear to be the responsibility of the City of South
San Francisco with respect to any further assessment and/or mitigation.
• The available documents indicate historic use of hazardous substances and petroleum on
surrounding properties, and releases of same. However, based on the closed-case status of
the prior petroleum releases and the distance, nature of other chemical releases, and
affected media, SCS does not consider the listed facilities to represent areas or features of
environmental concern with respect to the Site and Property.
Based on the results of the assessment and the assumptions noted above, SCS does not
recommend additional investigation.
Data Gaps
An area of data deficiency or data gap represents an inability on the part of the environmental
professional to obtain information required by the standards and practices of 40 CFR 312 to fully
identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances on, at, in,
or to the Property.
• Access Limitations – The Property owner did not limit access to any areas of the Property.
SCS made an effort to visually inspect as much of the Property as possible, however, due
to steep slopes on two sides, our reconnaissance and inspection focused on the readily
accessible “upper deck” portion of the Property. SCS did not enter adjacent buildings and
structures.
• Physical Obstructions to Observations – The presence of vegetation and ground cover
across much of the Property did not afford visual observation of the entire Property ground
surface.
• Outstanding Information Requests – None.
• Historical Data Sources Failure – SCS interviewed Mr. Steve Williams, a representative of
the current Property owner; however we were unable to contact prior Property owners.
This is considered an Historic Data Gap, however, based upon our review of the
significant amount of available information, this Data Gap is not considered significant
with respect to our ability to evaluate historic land use at or in the vicinity of the Property.
• Other Limitations – None.
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 1
1 INTRODUCTION
SCS Engineers (SCS) was retained by SMPO ELS, LLC (SMPO or the “User”) to prepare a
Phase I Environmental Assessment (Phase I ESA) and Landfill Due Diligence Report (Report) of
an approximately 7.5-acre parcel of land (Assessor’s Parcel Number or APN 015-082-210)
addressed as 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California (the “Property”). SMPO
intends to develop the western 3.648-acres of the Property and the development area is referred
to throughout this Report as the “Site” or the “Development Site”. A location map for the
Property is presented as Figure 1. This and all other figures discussed below are presented in
Appendix A. This assessment was performed in conformance with 40 CFR 312, Standards for
Conducting All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) and in general conformance with American Society
of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E1527-13.
2 PURPOSE
The purpose of the Phase I ESA is to identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened
releases of hazardous substances as defined in Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) section 101, and petroleum products, on, at, in, or to
the Property.
The Phase I ESA is intended to constitute appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and
uses of the property, as required to support the assertion of the innocent landowner, contiguous
property owner, and/or bona fide prospective purchaser defenses to liability (collectively the
landowner liability protections or LLPs) under CERCLA 1980 (a.k.a. Superfund) as amended by
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and the Small Business
Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002.
If known or suspected contamination is identified, users seeking to maintain LLPs have
responsibilities in addition to completion of an AAI-compliant Phase I ESA. These “continuing
obligations” include taking “appropriate care” and “reasonable steps” with respect to known or
suspected releases of hazardous substances during the term of property ownership. In addition to
these requirements under Federal law, there are different requirements under state law with
respect to liability protections. On request, SCS Engineers can provide support for clients with
continuing obligations, as appropriate.
3 SCOPE OF SERVICES
This Report is based on:
• Interviews with past and/or present owners, operators, and/or occupants of the Property.
• Reviews of federal, state, and local government records.
• Visual inspections of the Property and adjoining sites performed on March 14 and 31,
2017.
• Review of historical Property use information (topographic maps, aerial photographs, fire
insurance maps, existing reports, etc.).
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 2
• Commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the Property (e.g.,
interviews with appropriate regulatory agency personnel and review of agency files
review of available documents, interviews with other knowledgeable persons).
• Degree of obviousness of the presence or likely presence of contamination at the
Property, and the ability to detect the contamination by appropriate investigation.
• Information provided as a result of the additional inquiries conducted by the User.
Copies of the USGS topographic maps and a report indicating that there were no historical
Sanborn maps for the Property are included in Appendix A. Historical aerial photographs are
included in Appendix B. Building permits for the Property are included in Appendix C and a
City Directory Report for the Property and vicinity is included in Appendix D. The
Environmental Lien, AUL, Property Tax and Title Reports are included in Appendix E. The
EDR Radius Report is included as Appendix F, and copies of pertinent regulatory agency records
are included in Appendix G. Appendix H contains the EDR NEPA Report, and copies of select
previous environmental reports (partial and/or whole reports) gathered from various sources are
included in Appendix I. The qualifications of the Environmental Professionals responsible for
preparing and reviewing this Report are included in Appendix J.
4 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
This Report for the property located at 560 Eccles Avenue, City of South San Francisco,
California has been prepared specifically for SMPO ELS, LLC. The Report has been prepared in
accordance with the care and skill generally exercised by reputable professionals, under similar
circumstances, in this or similar localities. No other warranty, express or implied, is made as to
the professional opinions presented herein.
No other party, known or unknown to SCS, is intended as a beneficiary of this work product, its
content or information embedded therein. Third parties use this Report at their own risk. Third
party reliance letters may be issued on request to SCS, subject to approval of SMPO ELS, LLC
and payment to SCS of a fee for such letters.
5 LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
The Phase I ESA focused on releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances or
petroleum products that could be considered a recognized environmental condition (REC) and/or
a liability due to their possible presence in significant concentrations (e.g., above acceptable
limits set by the Federal or state government) or due to the potential for contaminant migration
through exposure pathways (e.g., groundwater). The purpose of this ESA was to identify
evidence of RECs that may have an adverse environmental impact on the Property or in the
immediately adjoining area. The ASTM Standard E 1527-13 defines REC as:
"The presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum
products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under
conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that
pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis
conditions are not recognized environmental conditions."
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 3
Furthermore, a Historic REC (HREC) is defined as:
"a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has
occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the
satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use
criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to
any required controls (e.g., property use restrictions, AULs [Activity and Use
Limitations], institutional controls, or engineering controls). Before calling the
past release an HREC, the EP [Environmental Professional] must determine
whether the past release is a REC at the time the Phase I ESA is conducted (e.g.,
if there has been a change in the regulatory criteria). If the EP considers this
past release to be a REC at the time the Phase I ESA is conducted, the condition
shall be included in the Conclusions Section of the report as a REC."
A Controlled REC (CREC) is defined as:
"a REC resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum
products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory
authority (e.g., as evidenced by the issuance of a NFA [No Further Action] letter
or equivalent, or meeting risk-based criteria established by regulatory
authority), with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain
in place subject to the implementation of required controls (e.g., property use
restrictions, AULs, institutional controls, or engineering controls)…a CREC
shall be listed in the Findings Section of the Phase I ESA report, and as a REC*
in the Conclusions Section of the….report."
*Section 12.8 of E1527-13 requires that the Conclusions Section of the report summarize all RECs (including CRECs)
connected with the property.
This ESA is intended to constitute an appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of
the Property consistent with good commercial or customary practice, required by the innocent
landowner defense under CERCLA, a.k.a. Superfund, the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields
Revitalization Act of 2002. This process satisfies one requirement to qualify for the innocent
landowner defense, contiguous property owner, or bona fide prospective purchaser limitations on
CERCLA liability. Materials that may contain substances which are not currently deemed
hazardous by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) or state of California
Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) were not considered as part of this study.
Unless specifically included in our scope of services, formal surveys for asbestos-containing
materials, lead-based paints, fire safety, vapor intrusion, indoor air quality, mold, and similar
matters were not part of this assessment. The Property was not evaluated for compliance with
land use, zoning, wetlands, or similar laws. This Report is not intended to be an environmental
compliance audit.
Hazardous substances naturally occurring in plants, soils, and rocks (e.g., heavy metals, naturally
occurring asbestos, or radon) are not typically considered in these investigations. Similarly,
construction debris (e.g., discarded concrete, asphalt) is not considered to be of concern unless
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 4
observations suggest that hazardous substances are likely to be present in significant
concentrations.
Unless otherwise noted, sampling and laboratory analyses of soil, water, air, building materials,
or other media, were not performed as part of this investigation. Positive identification of
hazardous substances can only be accomplished through sampling and appropriate laboratory
analysis.
SCS assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of information obtained from, compiled by, or
provided by third-party sources, such as regulatory agency listings. Unless obviously inaccurate
or if information exists to the contrary, SCS assumes that information collected during our
assessment is accurate and correct. Unless warranted, information collected has not been
independently validated as part of this assessment.
The following information is the responsibility of the User (40 CFR 312.22) and has been
addressed by the User via a User Questionnaire, which is summarized later in this Report:
• Specialized knowledge or experience of the User.
• The relationship of the purchase price to the fair market value of the Property. The
purchaser of a Property is required to consider whether any differential between the
purchase price and the fair market value of the Property is due to the presence of releases
or potential releases of hazardous substances at the Property.
Certain other limitations could affect the accuracy and completeness of this Report, as follows:
• Access Limitations – The Property owner did not limit access to any areas of the
Property. SCS made an effort to visually inspect as much of the Property as possible,
however steep slopes on two sides, the reconnaissance and inspection focused on the
readily accessible “upper deck” portion of the Property. SCS did not enter into adjacent
buildings and structures.
• Physical Obstructions to Observations – The presence of vegetation and ground cover
across much of the Property did not afford visual observation of ground surface.
• Outstanding Information Requests – None.
• Historical Data Sources Failure – SCS interviewed Mr. Steve Williams, a representative
of the current Property owner, however we were unable to contact prior Property owners.
This is considered an Historic Data Gap, however, based upon our review of the
significant amount of available information, this Data Gap is not considered significant
with respect to our ability to evaluate historic land use.
• Other Limitations – None.
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 5
6 GENERAL PROPERTY AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
P ROPERTY AND SITE LOCATION
The Site is approximately 3.648 acres of land within the southwestern portion of the larger
triangular-shaped 7.5-acre Property. The Property is currently vacant. SMPO recently purchased
and now proposes to develop the Site with an approximate 21,800 square foot single-story office
building, associated parking and planter area landscaping. The easterly portion of the Property is
not planned for development at this time. The Property is located northwest of the intersection of
Gull Drive and Forbes Boulevard in South San Francisco, California (Figure 1). The Property is
identified as APN 015-082-210 in San Mateo County Assessor’s office records. Access is
through a 30 foot wide strip of land (easement) originating from Eccles Avenue on the west end
of the Site and from Oyster Point Boulevard on the east end of the Site. There are also two 30-
foot access easements from Oyster Point Boulevard on the east end of the Property.
The Property is bordered to the east by Gull Drive, beyond which is land formerly used as the
City of South San Francisco’s Oyster Point Landfill. Portions of the closed Oyster Point Landfill
have been developed for commercial uses and the Oyster Point Marina.
The Property is located east of U.S. Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway), in an area primarily
consisting of commercial, industrial, and recreational properties. Commercial and industrial
warehouse buildings border the Property to the north, northwest, west and south. The Property
and adjacent properties to the north, south and east are in the City of South San Francisco
Business-Technology Park (BTP) zoning district. The Property and surrounding land uses are
shown on Figure 2. A Site Plan showing Property boundaries and existing features, as well as
the area to be included in this assessment is provided as Figure 3.
The majority of the Property is relatively flat, with downward slopes on the eastern and southern
boundaries. These side slopes are approximately 2:1 horizontal to vertical (H:V). Elevations on
the top deck area range from approximately 57 to 63 feet above mean sea level (msl). Slope area
elevations range from approximately 17 to 61 feet above msl (Cornerstone Earth Group or CEG,
2017a). Slope areas extend onto adjacent properties to the south.
GENERAL P ROPERTY AND S ITE DESCRIPTION
According to the information provided by the User, the Property comprises approximately 7.5
acres of vacant land in a commercial, light industrial and recreational area of South San
Francisco. Figure 2 shows the Property and surrounding land uses. Note that the Site comprises
approximately one-half of the Property. The eastern half of the Property is not part of the
proposed development.
ADJOINING PROPERTY USE
• North – Commercial buildings (addressed as 570 to 586 Eccles Avenue and 330 Oyster
Point Boulevard) are located immediately north of the Property. The buildings are
bordered by parking lots and access roads, including the access road/easement which
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 6
affords access to the Property from Eccles Avenue. Other commercial and research/light
industrial businesses are located across Eccles Avenue further north.
• East – Gull Drive bounds the eastern Property perimeter, with the western edge of the
Oyster Point Landfill, a tidal creek, and the UPS facility located at 657 Forbes Boulevard
on the eastern side of Gull Drive.
• South – Commercial buildings (543 and 573 Forbes Boulevard) and parking lots are
located south of the Property, beyond which lies Forbes Boulevard and then additional
commercial buildings. A parking lot intended for United Parcel Service (UPS) personnel
is present at the northern corner of the intersection of Gull Drive and Forbes Boulevard,
and is bordered to the west by a commercial building and then a parking lot used by
Genentech employees.
• West – The Property is bordered to the west by a parking lot serving the adjoining
commercial buildings addressed as 526 to 550 Eccles Avenue and is the point of entry for
the Property access road leading from Eccles Avenue.
7 PHYSICAL SETTING
PHYSIOGRAPHIC SETTING
The Property is located in the Coastal Range Geological Province in close proximity to several
faults, including the Hillside Fault, located approximately 1/2 mile to the southwest, the San
Andreas Fault, located approximately 4 1/2 miles to the southwest, and the Hayward Fault,
located approximately 14 miles to the northeast (Environ, 2011a).
Topographic Conditions
A topographic map for the Property vicinity was reviewed and is summarized in the following
table:
Reported Site Elevation 54 feet abovel (msl)
Reported Slope Direction Topography is sloped in general to the northeast.
Source EDR Geocheck and USGS San Francisco South 7.5 Minute
Quadrangle, 2012
The northwestern portion of the Property is relatively flat, with the eastern portion sloping
downward to the east, and the southern and western portions sloping downward to the south.
The main portion of the Property, including the Site, lies at elevations ranging from
approximately 50 to 60 feet msl, and the sloped portions range from approximately 20 to 50 feet
msl (USGS, San Francisco South Quadrangle, 2012). Land in the Property vicinity has some
gentle hills with a general slope downward to the east toward San Francisco Bay.
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 7
Soil Survey
A soil survey for the Property vicinity was reviewed and is summarized in the following table:
Reported Soil Type Urban land
Reported Description Clayey soils, with very slow infiltration rates, high water table, or shallow to
an impervious layer.
Source EDR® Radius Report with GeoCheck
Soils at the Property consist of fill overlying up to 25 feet of clayey to silty natural deposits,
which are underlain by bedrock. The bedrock and clay/silt deposits are generally near the ground
surface along the northwestern Property boundary and slope downward toward the southeast. The
fill materials reportedly consist of pre-1985 fill over the clayey to silty deposits, which are
overlain by post-1985 fill-in portions of the Property. Glass, porcelain, and large rock fragments
were reportedly found in samples of fill material as deep as approximately 45 feet bgs (Harlan
Tait Associates or HTA, 2000), with the combined thickness of older and younger soil fill
materials at the Property ranging from approximately 5 to 55 feet.
Environ’s observations during Property subsurface investigations were generally consistent with
those reported by HTA. In general, relatively clean fill (typically 5 to 25 feet thick) was
underlain by a dark-colored fill (typically 10 to 30 feet thick) containing significant debris. In all
locations on the Property investigated, the dark colored fill containing debris (referred to herein
as "burn ash material") consisted of ash, brick, concrete, metal fragments, and glass. The burn
ash material was typically underlain by clay deposits followed by bedrock. Fill deposits in the
northwestern portion of the Property (primarily beneath the Site) were typically unsaturated, but
thin saturated zones were observed at various depths in the central and southeastern portions of
the Property.
Geology
A geologic map for the Property vicinity was reviewed and is summarized in the following table:
Reported Formation Stratified Sequence
Reported Description Not reported in EDR® Radius Report with GeoCheck. Stratified Sequence
often refers to alluvial or colluvial material consisting of uncemented or
poorly cemented clasts with relatively high permeability. In general, high
permeability geologic formations allow contaminant plumes to move more
quickly.
Source USGS, Geology Map of Conterminous U.S., 1:2,500,000 Scale, 1974;
USGS Digital Data Series (DDS) - 11, 1994.
The Property is located on the San Francisco Peninsula; adjacent to San Francisco Bay, along the
edge of a broad alluvial plain formed the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west and San Francisco
Bay to the east. The Site is located at an approximate elevation of 54 feet above msl. In the area,
artificial fill and Quaternary alluvium overlie bedrock. Bedrock consists primarily of sandstone
with lesser amounts of claystone and shale (HTA, 2000). The bedrock material is part of the
Cretaceous and Jurassic-aged Franciscan Complex, which consists of sandstone with smaller
amounts of shale, chert, limestone, and conglomerate and Franciscan melange, except where
separated. The overlying alluvial formation is described by the Department of Water Resources
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 8
(DWR, 2003) DWR as the most important water-bearing formation of the Santa Clara Valley
Groundwater Basin; however, the viability of alluvium as a water-bearing formation in the
Property vicinity is much less.
In the lower lying areas along the peninsula, underlying soils generally consist of a soft, dark
gray silty clay, commonly referred to as Bay Mud. Older Bay Mud underlies Bay Mud, and is a
stiff, greenish gray silty clay. Sandy alluvial deposits may be interbedded within Older Bay
Mud as former stream channel sediments derived from erosion of the hills formerly west of the
Property. Bedrock underlies Older Bay Mud and the alluvial deposits.
The Property lies within one of the most seismically active regions of the United States, with one
of the primary hazards being ground shaking. The potential for fault ground rupture at the
Property and Site is low, as no mapped fault traces pass through or project towards the Property.
The potential for secondary effects of ground shaking such as seismic settlements, seiches, and
inundation by tsunami is also very low; however, the potential for liquefaction exists.
Layers of loose, saturated, sandy fill were encountered below the Property and Site could
potentially liquefy during a strong earthquake. This hazard can be mitigated by removing and
replacing loose fill, and compacting the replaced material during Site grading or use of deepened
foundations to develop support in firm materials below the loose fill.
The nearest, controlling fault, with respect to seismicity, is the active San Andreas fault located
about 4.1 miles (6.6 kilometers or km) to the southwest. The active Hayward fault and the
potentially active (Quaternary) San Bruno fault are mapped approximately 14.3 miles (23 km)
and 2.3 miles (3.7 km) to the southeast and southwest, respectively (CDMG, 1994; Brabb, 1983;
Bonilta, 1971). As noted by CEG (2017a), the Property is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Fault
Zone.
Recommendations for Site development, including soil stabilization and provisions for building
foundations, pavements and utilities have been made to account for anticipated seismic and
geotechnical conditions (CEG, 2017b).
Groundwater Quality Survey
The following table summarizes the reported groundwater quality in the Property vicinity:
Reported Hydrologic Subarea San Mateo Plain Groundwater Basin
Reported Hydrologic Area San Mateo Vicinity
Reported Hydrologic Unit Alluvium Deposits
Reported Beneficial Use Municipal and Industrial with potential for Agricultural
Source (Regional Water Quality Control Board or RWQCB, 2011.)
The Property is located within the Visitacion Valley (2-32) DWR Basin of the Santa Clara
Valley Groundwater Basin. The sub-basin is bounded on the west by the Santa Cruz
Mountains, by San Francisco Bay on the east, by the Westside Basin on the north and by San
Francisquito Creek on the south (DWR, 2003). Groundwater in the basin has been designated as
beneficial for municipal and industrial uses and potentially beneficial for agricultural use. The
Property is also located within the South Bay - San Mateo Bayside (204.40) Watershed.
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 9
Hydrogeology
As reported by Environ (2009a) and HTA (2000), groundwater in the lower portion of the fill
deposits flows to the southea st, generally toward the San Francisco Bay . Although
groundwater was encountered in seven of the eleven geotechnical borings drilled by HTA in
2000 at depths ranging from 14 to 77 feet bgs static water levels measured in temporary
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) casing after drilling of three of the eleven borings indicate the
static ground water depth was between 29 and 40 feet deep (elevations of 18 to 26 feet msl).
Groundwater was not encountered in four borings drilled by HTA, all of which were located
in the northwestern portions of the Property, beneath the Site, where bedrock was
encountered at shallow depths. On this part of the Property, essentially beneath the Site, the
fill deposits appear to be unsaturated.
Groundwater is typically found in fill deposits at shallower depths along the northern
Property boundary due to the presence of shallow bedrock and a think clay layer overlain by
fill material (Environ, 2009b). Along the southern portion of the Property, fill deposits are
thicker and the clayey unit and bedrock are deeper. In this part of the Property, groundwater
is present at greater depths.
In 2008 and 2009, the calculated groundwater flow direction in the fill material was consistently
to the southeast, generally toward San Francisco Bay. Consistent with the steep slope of native
clay and bedrock surfaces beneath the Property, the hydraulic gradient at the Property is relatively
steep and the depth to groundwater is highly variable. These findings are consistent with
Environ’s review of the HTA geotechnical report. Information about the depth to groundwater
and flow direction for groundwater in the underlying bedrock at the Property is not available.
Groundwater beneath the Site and Property is not currently being used, and is considered
inappropriate for domestic and municipal uses based on high, naturally occurring concentrations
of Total Dissolved Solids or TDS (Environ, 2009b).
Surface Water, Flooding and Wetlands
The Property does not fall under requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) and storm water runoff is directed to drainage channels at the base of the slope
to the east and south of the Property which route storm water to the municipal storm water
system.
The EDR Radius Report (Appendix E) depicts the Property and immediate vicinity as being
above the 100- and 500-year flood zones, and there are no wetlands identified on or adjacent to
the Property.
General Information
The following table summarizes general information in connection with the Site:
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 10
APN 015-082-210-4
Address 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080
Area Westernmost 3.648 acres of 7.473 acre property
Site Land Use Vacant
Occupant SMPO ELS LLC
Figure Reference Figures 1 and 2
Buildings
The following table summarizes information in connection with the current Site structures:
Number of Buildings None
Interpreted Construction Date Not Applicable
Number of Stories Not Applicable
Construction Type Not Applicable
Figure Reference Figure 2
PROPERTY INSPECTION
James Ritchie of SCS conducted an inspection of the Property and surrounding area on March 14
and 31, 2017. Photographs from the inspection are provided in Appendix B. Access to the
Property was authorized by Mr. Steve Williams of SMPO and the visit was unaccompanied. SCS
made an effort to visually inspect as much of the Property as possible, however, due to the
presence of vegetation covering much of the ground surface, and steep slopes along the southern
and eastern Property perimeters, SCS was not able to view the entire Property.
The Property is vacant and undeveloped and is accessed via an easement/access road from Eccles
Avenue which passes between commercial buildings addressed as 526 to 550 Eccles Avenue on
the west, and a parking lot and commercial building addressed as 570 to 586 Eccles Avenue on
the east.
The western-most portion of the Property has degrading asphalt paving with interspersed weeds
and vegetation. The majority of the Property is covered with weeds and vegetation, both on the
upper deck and along the steeply sloping southern side. The northernmost portion of the upper
deck area was generally at grade with the asphalt parking lot and access road to the north, and
was roughly two to three feet lower than ground surface across the majority of the upper deck.
Ground surface on the southeastern portion of the Site and Property appeared to slope downward
from the upper deck area, particularly the eastern portion of the Property.
During our visit, SCS did not observe significant physical, manmade features other than
monitoring wells surrounded by bollards, water line risers with spigots, and a drainage channel at
the base of the slope along the southern Property boundary. Vegetation obscured much of the
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 11
Property ground surface. SCS did not observe significant volumes of trash or discarded debris as
had been reported previously (Environ, 2006a, Clayton, 1996).
Photographs of the Site and Property grounds and features are included in Appendix B.
IDENTIFIED
Y N
Hazardous Substances in Connection with Site Use
Petroleum Products in Connection with Site Use
Hazardous Wastes in Connection with Site Use
Evidence of USTs
ASTs
Unidentified Containers or Suspect Containers Not in Connection with Site Use
Electrical or Mechanical Equipment Likely to Contain Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs)
Interior Stains or Corrosion
Wastewater Clarifiers, Drains, or Sumps
Septic or Sewage Tanks
Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons
Pools of Liquid or Standing Water
Drums
Solid Waste Dumping, Landfills, or Suspected Fill Material
Pesticide and Herbicide Management
Stained Soil or Pavement, Leaking Pipes and Equipment
Stressed Vegetation
Wells
Odors
Other Uses or Conditions of Concern
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 12
Hazardous Substances/Petroleum Products
During our reconnaissance, SCS did not observe hazardous materials or petroleum products at
the Property.
Hazardous Wastes and/or Drums
SCS did not observe any indications of hazardous wastes at the Property; however, as
documented in various reports cited elsewhere in this Report, the on-Site landfill contains
landfilled burn ash material, which may be considered hazardous or regulated waste. During our
reconnaissance, SCS did not observe drums on the Property.
Indications of Releases of Hazardous Materials/Wastes or
Petroleum Products
SCS did not observe any indications of releases of hazardous materials/wastes or petroleum
products such as staining or discoloration of soils.
On-Site Utilities
The Property is currently vacant and undeveloped. Maps prepared by others as well as
observations during our reconnaissance identified the presence of utilities at and adjacent to the
Property.
Domestic water is reportedly supplied by the City via the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC). Sanitary sewer service is provided by the City.
Septic System
There is no indication that a septic system is present on the Property.
Hazardous Substances
SCS did not observe any hazardous substances on the Property during our reconnaissance.
Natural Drainage
Storm water infiltrates into the ground across much of the Property. Surface water runoff on the
southern side of the Property is directed to concrete-lined and corrugated metal-type drainage
diverts at the base of the Property slope. These drainages route storm water to larger storm water
drainage collectors.
Disturbed Areas
As noted above, virtually the entire Property has been altered from its original topography, as
part of construction, operation and closure as a landfill. The upper deck portion of the Property
is topographically uneven, with a central area of the upper deck raised approximately three feet
above grade along the adjacent northern strip which parallels the access road. The majority of
the ground surface is covered by vegetation and weeds. The westernmost portion of the Property
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 13
(the western edge of the Site) exhibits deteriorating asphalt paving with interspersed vegetation
and weeds.
The closed landfill on the Property and Site is a CREC.
Elevators and Other Hydraulic Equipment
Our reconnaissance did not identify evidence of elevators or other hydraulic equipment on the
Property.
Wells, Cisterns, Pits, Sumps, or Dry Wells
There are five groundwater monitoring wells located across the Property including two wells
(MW-1 and MW-2) on the Site (Figure 2). The monitoring wells were installed in 2008 to
depths of between 20 and 42 feet bgs. There are no landfill gas or methane gas recovery wells
currently at the Property, nor were there other obvious indications of cisterns, pits, sumps, or dry
wells at the Property.
Ponds, Pools or Standing Liquid
During our reconnaissance, SCS did not observe evidence of ponds, pools or other types of
standing liquid.
Electrical Equipment
During our reconnaissance, SCS did not observe transformers on the Property.
Wastewater
Due to the lack of existing structures, wastewater is not generated at the Property.
Bulk Storage Tanks
There are no recorded current or historic bulk storage tanks including aboveground storage tanks
(ASTs) and underground storage tanks (USTs) at the Property. Our reconnaissance did not
identify evidence of such features.
Non-ASTM Items Considered
During the course of this ESA, SCS considered potential non-ASTM scope items that could have
an environmental impact on the current or future use of the Site. The non-scope items include
the potential presence of asbestos containing building materials (ACBM), lead based paint
(LBP), and water intrusion/mold related to current or historic on-Site buildings; however, given
the lack of current or historic structures on the Property these items were not deemed to be
features of potential environmental concern.
In accordance with the contract for services between SMPO and SCS, several additional non-
ASTM scope items were evaluated including:
• Radon Gas;
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 14
• Wetlands;
• Historic Buildings and/or Landmarks;
• Endangered Species or Species Habitat; and,
• Pipelines in, on, or under the Property.
SCS research regarding each of these non-ASTM scope items is presented in Section 11 of this
Report.
VISUAL INSPECTION OF ADJOINING SITES
• North – Commercial buildings (addressed as 570 to 586 Eccles Avenue and 330 to 336
Oyster Point Boulevard) are located immediately north of the Property. The buildings are
bordered by parking lots. Other commercial and research/light industrial businesses are
located across Eccles Avenue further north. During our reconnaissance, SCS did not
observe evidence of the use of features of potential environmental concern associated
with these adjoining sites.
• East – Gull Drive bounds the eastern Property perimeter, with the western edge of the
Oyster Point Landfill, a tidal creek, and the UPS facility located on the eastern side of
Gull Drive. Other than the materials contained within the Oyster Point Landfill, SCS is
not aware of nor did we observe evidence of features of potential environmental concern
associated with these adjoining sites.
• South – Commercial buildings (543 and 573 Forbes Boulevard) and parking lots are
located south of the Property, beyond which lies Forbes Boulevard and then additional
commercial buildings. A parking lot intended for UPS personnel is present at the
northern corner of the intersection of Gull Drive and Forbes Boulevard, and is bordered to
the west by a commercial building and then a parking lot used by Genentech employees.
During our reconnaissance, SCS did not observe evidence of the use of features of
potential environmental concern associated with these adjoining sites.
• West – The Property is bordered to the west by a parking lot serving the adjoining
commercial buildings addressed as 526 to 550 Eccles Avenue and the access
road/easement which affords access to the Property from Eccles Avenue. During our
reconnaissance, SCS did not observe evidence of the use of features of potential
environmental concern associated with these adjoining sites.
The only adjoining site with obvious activities that could affect the environmental condition of
the Property observed during the Site reconnaissance was the inactive Oyster Point Landfill
located across Gull Drive to the east. The City of South San Francisco has the responsibility for
conducting Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring at this site, including groundwater and
landfill gas sample collection, analysis and reporting.
The landfill history includes discovery of drums buried at the western portion of the landfill and
beneath Gull Drive, during construction of Gull Drive. Remedial activities included removal of
drums and soil in this area, followed by completion of Gull Drive with approvals from the DTSC
and San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health (SMCDEH). The affected area and
potential for residual impacts from the drums associated with the Oyster Point Landfill is a
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 15
feature of potential environmental concern. However, as discussed in Section 12 of this Report,
this feature does not pose a threat to impact development of the Site.
8 INTERVIEWS
The above-referenced EPA and ASTM standards require that attempts be made to conduct
interviews with past and present owners and occupants of the Property to obtain information
regarding recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Site. As part of this ESA,
SCS contacted or attempted to contact the following personnel.
Contact Affiliation to Site Contact Information Description
Mr. Steve Williams
Current Owners
Executive Vice President,
Operations
and Legal Affairs, SMPO
ELS, LLC
(901) 327-7676
Discussed below
Mr. Jesse Nelson
Past Owners
Vice President - San
Francisco Region
Alexandria Real Estate
Equities, Inc.
(415) 355-3041 Unable to reach by
telephone
Mr. Williams is a representative of SMPO and SCS interviewed Mr. Williams via telephone on
March 31, 2017. A User Questionnaire discussed below and included as Appendix F
summarizes the interview.
Mr. Nelson is a representative of Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc., the past Site owner. SCS
attempted to reach Mr. Nelson by telephone to conduct an interview but was unsuccessful.
USER REQUIREMENTS
In order to qualify for one of the landowner liability protections offered by the Small Business
Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002 (discussed in the Background section
above), 40 CFR Part 312 requires that the user (Client) provide the following information to the
environmental professional. The following table summarizes the responses by the Client – the
AAI Questionnaire was completed by the Client and their responses are contained in Appendix
F.
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 16
Question Response
Have environmental cleanup liens been filed or recorded against
the Site? No (see Appendix F)
Are activity or land use limitations in place at the Site or have they
been filed or recorded in the registry? No
Does the user have specialized knowledge or experience in
connection with the Site?
Yes as it relates to existing, known
documentation.
Does the purchase price being paid for the Site reasonably reflect
the fair market value of the Site? Yes
Is the Client aware of commonly known or reasonably
ascertainable information about the Site, which would indicate
releases or threatened releases?
Yes, as documented by available
reports.
Are there obvious indications that point to the presence of
contamination at the Site? No
ENVIRONMENTAL LIEN AND ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATION
S EARCH
With authorization from SMPO, SCS requested that EDR conduct an Environmental Lien and
Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) search. As shown in Appendix E, the Property is not subject
to any Environmental Liens or AULs.
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 17
9 SITE HISTORY
Reference Source Years Available
Aerial Photographs EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package, 3/02/17
1943, 1946, 1956, 1963,
1968, 1974, 1982, 1993,
1998, 2005, 2006, 2009,
2010, 2012
Topographic Maps EDR Historical Topo Map Report, 3/02/17
1896, 1899, 1915, 1939,
1947, 1950, 1956, 1968,
1973, 1980, 1995, 1996,
2012
City Directory EDR City Directory Abstract, 3/02/17
1970, 1977, 1980, 1985,
1990, 1995, 1999, 2003,
2008, 2013
Environmental Lien
and AUL Search EDR Report, 3/02/17
2017- No AULs or
Environmental Liens
Recorded
NEPACheck EDR NEPACheck®, 3/14/17 2017
Certified Sanborn®
Map Report EDR Certified Sanborn® Map Report, 3/02/17 None available for the
Site or Site vicinity
AAI-User
Questionnaire Not applicable 2017
Interviews Not applicable 2017
Copies of the USGS topographic maps and a report indicating that there were no historical
Sanborn maps for the Property are included in Appendix A. Historical aerial photographs are
included in Appendix B. Building permits for the Property are included in Appendix C and a
City Directory Report for the Property and vicinity is included in Appendix D. The
Environmental Lien, AUL, Property Tax and Title Reports are included in Appendix E. The
EDR Radius Report is included as Appendix F, and copies of pertinent regulatory agency records
are included in Appendix G. Appendix H contains the EDR NEPA Report, and copies of select
previous environmental reports (partial and/or whole reports) gathered from various sources are
included in Appendix I. The qualifications of the Environmental Professionals responsible for
preparing and reviewing this Report are included in Appendix J. Further discussion of previous
environmental reports and regulatory agency file information is provided in Sections 11 and 12
of this Report.
Aerial Photograph and Topographic Map Review
SCS reviewed historic aerial photographs dated 1943, 1946, 1956, 1963, 1968, 1974, 1982,
1993, 1998, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010, and 2012 provided by EDR. SCS’ summary of the
aerial photograph review is as follows:
On the 1943 and 1946 aerial photographs, the Property appears to be substantially vacant
and undeveloped and the southeastern corner of the Property (prior to placement of fill
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 18
material) appears to be part of San Francisco Bay. The 1946 photograph appears to show a
disturbed area in the northeastern portion of the Property. Adjacent sites to the north and
west appear undeveloped, except for two unpaved roads to the north-northeast of the
Property. A possible wetland area appears on the adjacent property to the south. San
Francisco Bay is located east of the Property and the 1946 photograph shows a possible sandy
shoreline in the southeastern portion of the Property.
On the 1956 aerial photograph, the disturbed soil area appears to have expanded and may
represent the historic burn dump, covering roughly two-thirds of the Property. Smoke is
evident from the southern portion of the Property. The sandy shoreline remains in the
southeastern corner of the Property. Properties in the area exhibit more disturbed ground,
possibly as part of new development and/or landfilling activities. Bay filling appears to be
underway to the north of the Property in the Oyster Point area and the wetland area is still
present south of the Property.
The 1963 photograph shows most of the Property to be a landfill/dump as on the prior
photograph with a slightly increased footprint into San Francisco Bay, while the sandy
beach in the southeastern comer remains. San Francisco Bay is evident to the east of the
Property. Adjacent sites to the north, northwest, and west appear with enlarged disturbed
soil and/or landfill areas. The adjacent site to the south appears undeveloped; two wetland
areas appear on the southern adjacent site. Significant filling into San Francisco Bay to
the northeast of the Property is evident, and a marina is located north of the bay fill.
On the 1968 photograph, the Property appears unchanged from the 1963 aerial
photograph, with the exception of a possible unpaved road, which traverses the Property
from the western corner to the northern corner, and a roadway in the eastern portion of the
Property, along the bay shoreline. A large industrial building is evident to the northwest of
the Property. Other sites to the west and south have been developed with buildings, the
wetlands south of the Property appears to have been filled and the bay area south of the
Oyster Point marina has been filled, creating a continuous new water front approximately
1,500 further east of the prior bay front.
The 1974 and 1982 aerial photographs show the Property as generally the same, with the
exception that an unpaved road is evident along the northwestern Property line, the road
through the center of the Property appears to be vegetated, and area that was filled to the
east of the Property is now developed with industrial buildings and parking. An increase
in density of development is to the southeast and additional unpaved roads are evident
throughout the Property. Adjacent sites appear generally unchanged from the 1973
photograph.
On the 1993 aerial photograph, a northeast-southwest trending elliptical shaped area of
darker (vegetated) ground is surrounded by a lighter colored perimeter, perhaps indicating
a depression. The property to the south has been developed with a building and adjacent
parking lot, and the large filled area east of the Property is nearly completely developed
with buildings and parking lots. Further development is also evident to the north,
including structures as part of Oyster Point extending into San Francisco Bay.
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 19
The 1998 aerial photograph shows the majority of the Property to be the same, exhibiting
the same elliptical pattern, with a paved roadway in the location of Gull Drive. Infill
development has continued in areas north, west and south of the Property, but adjacent
sites appear generally unchanged from the 1993 photograph.
The photographs from 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010 and 2012 show relatively little change with
respect to the Property, with the exception of changes in the ground surface coloring.
Ground surface in the 2005 photograph is darker, possibly representing more vegetation,
while the 2006 photograph appears to show areas of lighter coloring, possibly representing
less vegetation/bare ground. Continued, limited infill development is evident to the north
beyond Oyster Point Boulevard.
SCS also reviewed EDR-supplied USGS topographic maps dated 1896, 1899, 1915, 1939,
1947, 1950, 1956, 1968, 1973, 1980, 1995, 1996 and 2012 for the Property and immediate
vicinity. Our summary of the topographic map review is as follows:
The 1896 and 1899 topographic maps show the vicinity of the Property to be undeveloped,
with the eastern portion of the Property as part of San Francisco Bay. A water body, such
as a pond is evident south of the Property and a rail spur and two east-west trending roads
are shown along the southern part of San Bruno Point, south of the Property.
The 1915 map again shows the Property vicinity to be undeveloped, however there is an
increase in the number of rail lines to the west near the current Highway 101, and a rail
spur encircles the topographic high which houses the Property, with the rail spur passing
through the western third of the Property.
The 1939 map depicts additional roadways, primarily unpaved, and rail lines in the area
including Oyster Point Boulevard and roads along the bay shoreline. The map also depicts
an increase in buildings primarily on the southern portion of San Bruno Point, and along
the roadways and rail lines.
The Property and adjacent areas remain depicted as undeveloped land on the 1947
topographic map and a small pond is evident to the south of the Property. There are
several roadways (depicted as being unpaved) in the vicinity of the Property, and an
apparently paved roadway called Butler Road in the approximate location of the current
Oyster Point Boulevard. Rail lines and spurs are depicted in the vicinity to the south and
west. Continued development in the area, primarily along roadways and rail lines shows
the presence of larger, warehouse type structures.
The Property and adjacent sites remain depicted as undeveloped land on the 1950 and
1956 topographic maps. The small pond remains to the south of the Property and a gravel
pit is to the southwest. A portion of Oyster Cove, to the northeast of the Property has been
filled and a small pier is shown at the southeastern edge of Oyster Point. The wetlands in
the San Bruno Channel area to the southwest is shown as being roughly 2/3 filled.
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 20
The 1968 topographic map depicts the Property as undeveloped land, and the small pond
to the south is no longer evident. The area of the current Oyster Point landfill is listed as a
Park. The bay margin east and south of Oyster Point has been filled, creating a shoreline
approximately 1,500 eastward from the prior shoreline. The made land surface extends
south to Point San Bruno. Commercial buildings are located to the north-northwest and to
the south-southwest of the Property. There is commercial development in the vicinity to
the west, and a marina has been constructed on fill to the east.
The 1973 and 1980 topographic maps are similar to the 1968 map, showing the Property
as undeveloped with the addition of a commercial building north of the Property, and a
road in the location of Gull Road, adjacent to the east of the Property. The maps also
show an increase in developed land, primarily with warehouse type structures, including
structures on the filled are near the shoreline, east of the Property. The 1980 map also
appears to show a roadway in the vicinity of the current location of Gull Drive.
The 1995, 1996 and 2012 topographic maps depict the Property and surrounding areas as
densely developed, within which individual buildings are not shown. The 2012 map
depicts a change in the name of Butler Road to Oyster Point Boulevard.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Review
The request to EDR for a Sanborn Fire Insurance Map resulted in a return which indicated the
Property is unmapped.
City Directory Listings
The EDR City Directory Image Report did not result in any listings for the Property. Those
addresses listed as adjacent to the Property had the listings provided in the table below. Listings
for nearby, but not adjacent addresses may be found in the City Directory Report provided in
Appendix D.
Year
526 – 550
Eccles
Avenue
570 – 586
Eccles Avenue
543 Forbes
Boulevard
Description
573 Forbes
Boulevard
657 Forbes
Boulevard
2017 (visual
observation)
Audentes
Therapeutics
Better Home
Products
Foodservice
Partners
UPS Supply
Chain Solutions
NNR Global
Logistics USA
Sanrio
Datasafe
The Lab Store
See Jane Farm
Pacific Produce
Multi Air
Pak Inc/CalStar
Genentech
Parking Lot REI United Parcel
Service
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 21
Year
526 – 550
Eccles
Avenue
570 – 586
Eccles Avenue
543 Forbes
Boulevard
Description
573 Forbes
Boulevard
657 Forbes
Boulevard
2013
Better Home
Products
Fritz Cos Inc
NNR Global
Logistics USA
Inc
Sanrio
Datasafe South
San Francisco
Datasafe Inc
AFC Worldwide
Express
Expeditors
International of
Washingt
Inovatex LLC
PK Sound SF
Cyclops Logistics
Service
Kamino
International
Transport
No Listing
Market Pioneer
International
Corp
No Listing
2008
Better Home
Products
Fritz Air
Freight
Fritz Cos Inc.
Kawanishi
Warehouse Co
Ltd
UPS Supply
Chain Solutions
Inc.
UPS
Sanrio
Datasafe South
San Francisco
Datasafe Inc.
K Lee
GM Miller & Co
Intl
UTI Inc.
UTI San Francisco
UTI United States
Inc.
United Parcel
Service Inc.
2003
Better Home
Products
FNC
International
Fritz Cos Inc.
Kawanishi
Warehouse Co
Ltd
Kazuyuki Ueto
Unistar Air
Cargo
UPS Custom
House
Brokerage
Mira Luki
Sanrio Surprises
Roberts of San
Francisco
Asiana Transport
Inc.
Central Shipping
Corp
Integrated Info
Systems
JH International
Shipping
KCC Transport
Systems
Occupant
Unknown
US KTL
International Inc.
Work Wide
Corp
Silk Botanica
K Lee
Continental
Cargo Logistics
Occupant
Unknown
UTI
Occupant
Unknown
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 22
Year
526 – 550
Eccles
Avenue
570 – 586
Eccles Avenue
543 Forbes
Boulevard
Description
573 Forbes
Boulevard
657 Forbes
Boulevard
1999 Fritz Cos Inc.
Sanrio
Incorporated
Expeditors
Internatl
PAC Bridge
Shipping Limited
KCC Transport
Systems
Incorporated
Kenney Transport
Incorporated
Curtis Archives
China Light
Keeco
Miller GM &
Company
International
No Listing
1995
xxx
Fritz Arthur J &
Co
Fritz
Companies Inc
Konica Bsns
Mach
Sanrio Inc.
Xxx
Expeditors Intrntl
Pac Bridge
Shipping
Baxter Valuelink
Allied Signal
Aerspce
Keeco GM Miller & Co
Intl No Listing
1990
Kinetsu Wrld
Exprs
Kinetsu Wrld
Exprs
Superior Trnsp
Co
xxx
Bay Ar
Trnsf&Strg
Royal Cathay
Datasafe
U Freight
America
Bendix
Corporation
China Light
Keeco Sega of Amer Inc No Listing
1985 xxx
Xerox
Corporation
xxx
Bedford
Westco Co
E Martinoni Co
Holmes BJ Sales
Martinoni E Co
Wagner Constr
Co
Wagner Levine
Wine
Warehouse
No Listing United Parcel
Serv
1980
Daido Corp
Steelcraft Tool
Div
Toolcraft Tool
Div
Xerox Corp
Customer
Xerox Corp
Supplies
Woolworth F W
Co
Baruh E
Martinoni
Bedford
Distributing
E Martinoni Co
Martinoni E Co
No Listing No Listing
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 23
Year
526 – 550
Eccles
Avenue
570 – 586
Eccles Avenue
543 Forbes
Boulevard
Description
573 Forbes
Boulevard
657 Forbes
Boulevard
1977
Daido Corp
Steelcraft Tool
Div
Xerox Corp
Customer
Xerox Corp
Supplies
Woolworth F W
Co
Baruh E
Martinoni
Bedford
Distributing
E Martinoni Co
Martinoni E Co
No Listing No Listing
1970 Xerox
Corporation
Woolworth F W
Co
Woolworth F W
Co
Baruh Liquors
Inc
Martinoni E Co
No Listing No Listing
Note: xxx = apparently vacant tenant space
HISTORICAL USE SUMMARY
Based on a review of the available historical documents, the Property was historically
undeveloped land on a hillside adjacent to and part of San Francisco Bay. Gradual industrial and
commercial development in the South San Francisco area east of the current Highway 101 led to
filling along the bay shoreline and into San Francisco Bay. The Property appears to have been
undeveloped since at least the mid-1930s at which time disturbed land surface areas are
apparent on aerial photographs. During the 1950’s a portion of the Property was reportedly
used to burn trash. This was common practice before the advent of modern solid waste
management and sanitary landfill regulations. The Site was not used for disposal of MSW
(Environ, 2014).
The burn dump was not licensed, and was apparently inactive in the 1960s to the 1980s.
There are no records of Property use or development, although significant filling occurred on
the Bay margin, resulting in creation of made land, and a new shoreline located roughly
1,500 feet further east. By 1985, the Property was graded to its current configuration and fill
materials appear to have been placed over the burn debris at the Property. Subsequently, the
northwestern portion of the Property was used for storing materials, such as trailers or shipping
containers. Beginning in the 1990s, aerial photographs show the Property to be vegetated, with
some vacant areas in the northwestern portion.
The following table provides a chronology of the apparent historical land uses at the Property, as
interpreted from a review of information from the sources referenced:
Years Interpreted Tenants Interpreted Land Use
Pre-1950 Vacant Undeveloped land
1950s Unknown Burn Dump
1960s to 1980s Unknown Inactive Dump, Graded and Filled with soil
over burn materials by 1985
1990s to Present Vacant Limited materials and debris storage
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 24
HISTORICAL USE OF ADJOINING SITES
The area surrounding the Property was largely undeveloped prior to the 1960s. Filling of the
cove adjacent to and east of the Property occurred in large part in the 1960s. Development of
properties surrounding the Property began in the late 1960s and continued into the mid-1990s, at
which point the majority of open space had been developed with commercial/industrial buildings
and roadways.
Years Interpreted Property Vicinity Tenants Interpreted Property Vicinity Use
North
1939 – 1973 None Vacant land
1968 – Present Unknown Various commercial and industrial buildings;
Eccles Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard
East
1942 – 1963 None San Francisco Bay
1968 None Vacant land
1974 -1982 Unknown Vacant land; Industrial property
1993 – Present United Parcel Service Gull Drive; Industrial property
South
1939 – 1963 None Undeveloped land; San Francisco Bay
1968 – 1982 Unknown Vacant land; Industrial building
1993 – 2005 Unknown Industrial property
2006 – Present Unknown Industrial property and parking lots
West
1939 – 1968 None Vacant land
1974 – 2012 Unknown Industrial property
10 COMMONLY KNOWN OR REASONABLY
ASCERTAINABLE INFORMATION
In order to identify commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the Property,
SCS reviewed previous environmental reports and various regulatory agency files and
interviewed regulatory agency personnel.
PREVIOUS LANDFILL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS
In addition to copies of correspondence letters not specifically listed here, SCS obtained and
reviewed the numerous documents relating to the recently closed landfill. The results of our
review are incorporated into the text in Sections 11 and 12, and the documents are listed in the
References Section of this Report (Section 19).
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 25
REGULATORY AGENCY RECORDS
As part of our assessment, SCS accessed regulatory agency records in an effort to identify any
known or suspected contamination sites or incidents of hazardous waste storage or disposal
which might have resulted in soil or groundwater contamination within a one-mile radius of the
Property. Given its history as a burn dump that could potentially affect soil and groundwater
quality, the regulatory agency records review focused on facility names and addresses associated
with the Property. Regulatory oversight of closed landfills occurs at both a state and local level.
SCS contacted the following regulatory agencies with a request to review any files or records that
could potentially be relevant to an assessment of the environmental condition of the Property:
• The USEPA
• The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)
• The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
• The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB)
• The California Department of Water Resources (DWR)
• The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
• The SMCDEH and Groundwater Protection Program (GPP)
• The City of South San Francisco Departments of Building, Planning and Public Works
(CSSF)
• The City of South San Francisco Fire Department (CSSFFD)
A summary of the results of file requests for each agency are provided below. While file review
requests were submitted to each of these entities, not all of them had records related to the
Property. The following is a discussion of relevant information obtained by reviewing regulatory
agency records and/or a notation is provided where no records were available.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) File
Review
On March 3, 2017, SCS accessed the USEPA website, Envirofacts. No cases were listed in the
Envirofacts website for the Property. On May 11, 2017, SCS contacted the USEPA via the EPA
FRS Facility Query database (note the MyProperty database was being refurbished at the time)
regarding any pertinent records for the Property. No records were found for the Property. SCS
also reviewed the EPA ECHO database and found no records for the Property.
CalRecycle File Review
On March 14, 2017, SCS submitted a public records request via the CalRecycle website and were
informed that there are no pertinent records for the Property. Note that SCS’s work included a
review of the CalRecycle Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) database.
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 26
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
On March 3, 2017, SCS contacted the DTSC regarding any pertinent records for the Property.
DTSC indicated there were no pertinent records for Property.
San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB)
On March 3, 2017, SCS contacted the SFRWQCB regarding any pertinent records for the
Property. On March 10, 2017, the SFRWQCB representative searched their databases and found
no records on file for the Property.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Records Review
On March 8, 2017, SCS contacted the DWR for potential records in connection with the
Property. On March 17, 2017 DWR responded that they had no records on file for the Property.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
On March 3, 2017, SCS contacted BAAQMD regarding any pertinent records for the Property.
On March 6, 2017, the BAAQMD representative searched their databases and found no records
on file for the Property.
San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health (SMCDEH) -
Groundwater Protection Program (GPP) File Review
On March 3, 2017, SCS contacted the SMCDEH for potential records in connection with the
Property. The SMCDEH oversees the GPP and provided records including information
pertaining to installation and sampling of five groundwater monitoring wells at the Property by
Environ (2008). The results of that work are described in Section 12 of this Report.
The SMCDEH is also the local enforcement agency, or LEA, and serves as the lead agency for
development of the Property as well as oversight of landfill or solid waste-related activities. The
SMCDEH did not have records or notices of violation related to past use of the Property as a
landfill or burn dump. However, development of the Site is to be in accordance with land use
requirements at landfill properties under Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations (27
CCR). Further information is provided in Section 11 below.
San Mateo County Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) File
Review
On March 3, 2017, SCS contacted the San Mateo County CUPA for potential records in
connection with the Property. The San Mateo County CUPA indicated there were no pertinent
records for the Property.
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 27
San Mateo County Vector Control File Review
On March 10, 2017, SCS contacted the San Mateo County Vector Control for potential records
in connection with the Property. On June 20, 2017, the Vector Control Division reported that no
records or files existed for the Property.
San Mateo County Agricultural Commission File Review
On March 10, 2017, SCS contacted the San Mateo County Agricultural Commission for potential
records in connection with the Property. On March 21, 2017 the Commission responded that
their database search regarding pesticide use and other office files and found no record of
pesticide use related permits, business pest control registrations or reported pesticide use or
incidents for the Property, although they also noted that they keep pesticide regulatory related
records for the current year and the three previous fiscal years.
.
San Mateo County Public Works/Flood Control District (SMCPW)
File Review
On March 10, 2017, SCS contacted the SMCPW for potential records in connection with the
Property and the agency representative indicated the Property is not within SMCPW jurisdiction.
S an Mateo County Fire Department (SMCFD) File Review
On March 3, 2017, SCS contacted the SMCFD for potential records in connection with the
Property and the agency representative indicated the Property is not within SMCFD jurisdiction.
City of South San Francisco Police Department (SSFPD) File Review
On March 3, 2017, SCS contacted the SSFPD for potential records in connection with the
Property. The agency indicated there were no pertinent records for the Property.
City of South San Francisco Department of Public Works (SSFDPW)
File Review
On March 3, 2017, SCS contacted the SSFDPW for potential records in connection with the
Property. The agency indicated there were no pertinent records for the Property.
City of South San Francisco Zoning and Planning File Review
On March 3, 2017, SCS contacted the City of South San Francisco Zoning and Planning Division
regarding any Building records in connection with the Property. The City Clerk issued an
extension letter for internal review until March 27, 2017 and then provided information
pertaining to a permit issued in 1997 to Berkeley Farms for a temporary power pole to provide
power to operate a chiller and cooling tower, and a permit application for construction of a
54,000 square foot concrete shell structure in 1988.
City of South San Francisco Fire Department (SSF FD) Review
On March 3, 2017, SCS contacted the SSFFD for potential records in connection with the
Property. The agency provided records including two Case Details reports. The reports pertain
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 28
to complaints and violations regarding weed growth and debris and litter at the Property, with
corrections made by the landowner to address the violations in 2007, 2010 and 2013.
California Water Bayshore District Records Review
On March 8, 2017, SCS contacted the California Water Bayshore District for potential records in
connection with the Property. The agency indicated there were no pertinent records for the
Property.
11 REVIEW OF FEDERAL, STATE, TRIBAL, AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT DATABASES
A database search for facilities listed on various federal, state, tribal, and local databases in the
area around the Property was obtained from EDR (March 2, 2017). A description of each of the
databases searched is included in the EDR Report, which is attached as Appendix F. Among the
databases included in the EDR Report are NPL (federal, tribal, and state-equivalent), proposed
and delisted NPL, CORRACTS (RCRA facilities subject to corrective actions), hazardous waste
facilities identified for investigation or remediation (CERCLIS, State CERCLIS, VCP,
Brownfields Calsites, EnviroStor, etc.), LUST, cases with engineering controls, former
CERCLIS (NFRAP), RCRA and state hazardous waste generators, ERNS, SWLF, USTs, and
Toxic Pits.
Review of these records satisfies all requirements as set forth in 40 CFR Section 312.26 (b) and
(c) with regard to the review of federal, tribal, and state government records of databases of such
government records and local government records and databases of such records pertaining to
both the Property and the nearby or adjoining properties. Further, the search distances for each
particular database are as specified in 40 CFR 312.26 and ASTM E1527-13.
Facilities or listings such as TSD facilities, hazardous waste generators, HAZNET, FINDS,
SQGs, LQGs, USTs, HIST UST, RCRA violations, and TRIS facilities with toxic chemical
releases (generally in accordance with permitting requirements - into the air, water, or land as
reported under SARA Title III) use or store hazardous materials and thus may pose a potential
problem in the event of a spill or leak. However, unless these facilities also appear in an agency
list of contaminated sites, there is no evidence of any problems at this time. Therefore, facilities
on these lists will not be discussed unless on or in close proximity to the Property.
When evaluating the databases for sites or cases which could potentially impact the Property,
SCS used the following criteria to refine the list of sites or cases for further review:
1) UST open release cases within 1,000 feet and hydraulically upgradient, or
open/adjacent UST release cases. Based on “Technical Justification for Groundwater
Media-Specific Criteria,” (Groundwater Study) developed to support the State of
California “Low Threat Closure Policy” (SWRCB, 2012), “plume length studies
recognize that petroleum plumes stabilize in length due to natural attenuation.” The
Groundwater Study goes on to cite Shih et. al., 2004 that a peer-reviewed study of plume
lengths at 500 petroleum UST sites in the Los Angeles area is widely accepted as
representative of plume lengths at California UST sites. Shih et. al. reports benzene,
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), and total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg)
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 29
with 90th percentile maximum plume lengths of 540 feet for MTBE. Therefore, the
detailed review radius for open groundwater cases has been conservatively established by
SCS at 0.20 miles (approximately 1,000 feet). For non-release cases (e.g., permitted
facilities), only those facilities that were judged to be immediately adjacent to the
Property were interpreted to have the potential to represent a REC;
2) Open volatile organic compound (VOC) release cases within 1/3 mile (1,600 feet) and
hydraulically upgradient, or open/adjacent VOC release cases. Empirical studies
show that natural attenuation is much more prevalent at fuel-impacted sites compared to
solvent-impacted sites. In the mid-1990s, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
(LLNL) conducted a study of fuel-impacted sites in California, finding evidence of
natural attenuation that limited plume length at more than 90% of 271 sites examined in
detail. The study led to an October 1995 report to the State Water Board (Rice, et al,
1995). A 1999 study of approximately 250 solvent plumes nation-wide found much less
evidence of natural attenuation (“Historical Case Analysis of Chlorinated Volatile
Organic Compound Plumes”) by a group that included the U.S. Department of Energy
and LLNL. This study concluded that the median solvent plume length was about 1,600
feet (as compared to 130 feet for fuel plumes) and that in general, chlorinated solvent
plume length is more sensitive to source strength (i.e., concentration and flow rate) than
to natural attenuation. Therefore, the detailed review radius for open groundwater cases
has been conservatively established by SCS at 0.30 miles (approximately 1,600 feet). For
non-release cases (e.g., permitted facilities), only those facilities that were judged to be
immediately adjacent to the Property were interpreted to have the potential to represent a
REC; and,
3) Open/adjacent release cases for all other (low mobility) chemicals such as metals,
semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and PCBs. Due to the limited mobility of
chemicals such as metals, PCBs, and SVOCs, SCS reviewed only those facilities with
open cases which were adjacent to the Property
The following sections summarize reviewed cases including facility name, address, distance and
direction from the Property, status, the likelihood that the facility has resulted in a REC at the
Property, and the rationale for this judgment.
Known, Reported, or Suspected Releases within the Property Vicinity
The EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck did not list Federal CERCLIS NFRAP or NPL
sites, RCRA Corrective Action Activity (CORRACTS), State and Tribal Equivalent NPL sites,
State and Tribal voluntary cleanup sites, Solid Waste Disposal sites, Local lists of Hazardous
Waste/Contaminated sites, Formerly Used Defense sites, California Bond Expenditure Plan sites,
HWP sites, or MGP sites within search radii applicable to the Property.
California LUSTs
These databases list facilities where a release, usually from a UST (i.e., leaking underground
storage tank or LUST), is known to have occurred. As noted earlier, the detailed review radius
for open groundwater cases has been conservatively established by SCS at 0.2 mile
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 30
(approximately 1,000 feet). The following table summarizes the LUST cases identified on the
regulatory database within a 0.2 mile radius from the Property:
Number of Reported Facilities 27
Number of Reported Facilities Within 0.20 Mile 7
Actual Number of Facilities Within 0.20 Mile 4
Number of Facilities Within 0.20 Mile With Open LUST Cases 0
Number of Facilities Within 0.20 Mile With Open Groundwater LUST Cases 0
Also discussed below are Hist Auto Stat, Hist UST, registered UST and Hist Cortese sites within
1,000 feet, each of which typically pertains to UST cases.
EnviroStor Database
The DTSC’s Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program’s (SMBRP’s) EnviroStor database
identifies sites that have known contamination or sites for which there may be reasons to
investigate further. EnviroStor provides site information, including, but not limited to,
identification of formerly-contaminated properties that have been released for reuse, properties
where environmental deed restrictions have been recorded to prevent inappropriate or
incompatible land uses, and risk characterization information that is used to assess potential
impacts to public health and the environment at contaminated sites.
There are no listed facilities within one mile of the Property.
Federal or State Government Database
Search
Radius
(mile)
Number of
Reported
Facilities
On-site
Adjacent
to the
Property
CERCLIS 0.5 5 No No
Haznet List 0.001 1 Yes No
HWP List 1.0 3 No No
California Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
(LUST) 0.50 26 No Yes
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act-
Corrective Action (CORRACTS) 1.0 2 No No
CA Bond Exp. Plan 1.0 1 No No
CORTESE database and CORTESE HIST Sites 0.50 17 No Yes
RCRA Generators (RCRA GEN) 0.25 19 No Yes
RCRA Generators (RCRA NonGEN) 0.25 3 No No
Notify 65 1.0 3 No No
San Mateo County BI Plan 0.25 49 No Yes
AST List 0.25 7 No No
SWEEPS UST List 0.25 11 No No
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 31
Federal or State Government Database
Search
Radius
(mile)
Number of
Reported
Facilities
On-site
Adjacent
to the
Property
Brownfields Sites 0.5 1 No No
State and Tribal Voluntary Cleanup Sites 0.5 2 No No
CA FID UST 0.25 8 No No
RESPONSE 1.0 3 No No
HIST Cal-Sites 1.0 2 No No
Toxic Pit Cleanup Sites 1.0 1 No No
FUDS Listing 0.25 3 No No
SWF/LF Solid Waste Disposal Site List 0.5 1 No No
EnviroStor State and Tribal Equivalent CERCLIS 1.00 12 No No
EDR Hist Cleaner 0.125 1 No No
DEED List 0.5 2 No No
Historic UST Registered 0.25 12 No No
The following table summarizes the LUST cases identified on the regulatory database report:
Number of Reported Facilities Within 1 Mile 26
Number of Reported Facilities Within 0.20 Mile 11
Actual Number of Facilities Within 0.20 Mile 11
Number of Facilities Within 0.20 Mile With Open LUST Cases 1
Number of Facilities Within 0.20 Mile With Open Groundwater LUST Cases 1
PROPERTY LISTINGS
The Property appears in the EDR database report under the following listings:
Gull Avenue LLC, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco - EDR Database Report Page 2
(Executive Summary) and Pages 8 and 9 – HazNet Database. The HazNet database contains
manifest data extracted from hazardous waste manifests each year by the DTSC.
According to the information associated with this listing, in 2008 and 2009, 0.9174 and 0.22925
tons of a metals containing aqueous solution were respectively disposed to a landfill or surface
impoundment that will be closed as a landfill. In addition, the EDR listing indicates that in 2008,
3.775 tons of other inorganic solid was disposed to a landfill or surface impoundment that will be
closed as a landfill. No other information was provided for the Property or Property in the EDR
Report. The Property was not listed under any other databases included in the EDR Report
search.
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 32
ADJACENT SITE LISTINGS
Adjacent sites that appear in the EDR database report include the following listings:
1) SANRIO, INC 570 Eccles Avenue, RCRA-SQG, FINDS, ECHO San Mateo Co. BI,
HAZNET database listings.
2) UTI, 573 Forbes Boulevard, San Mateo Co. BI database listing.
3) UPS Supply Chain, 550 Eccles Avenue, San Mateo Co. BI database listing.
4) Expeditors International, 578 Eccles Avenue, San Mateo Co. BI database listing.
5) Seaboard Paper Company, 336 Oyster Point Boulevard, LUST, San Mateo Co. BI, HIST
CORTESE database listings.
6) Better Homes Products, 534 Eccles Avenue, San Mateo Co. BI database listing.
7) Audentes Therapeutic, 528 B Eccles Avenue, RCRA-SQG, ECHO database listings.
8) Solstice Neuroscience, 528 Eccles Avenue, San Mateo Co. BI database listing.
9) Elan Pharmaceutical, 528-B Eccles Avenue, San Mateo Co. BI database listing.
A review of the information associated with each listing did not identify any open chemical
release cases or cases which appeared to represent a threat to impact environmental conditions at
the Property. The majority of listings pertain to business use or storage of hazardous substances,
typically under permit, and with one exception, none had associated violations that represented
unauthorized release of chemicals.
The Seaboard Paper LUST case at 336 Oyster Point Boulevard was opened in June 1987 for
release of gasoline from an on-site UST. The case was closed by the GPP in November 1995
without any further information or required action. SCS therefore does not consider any of the
adjacent facility listings to represent areas or features of potential environmental concern.
OTHER DATABASE SITES
The EDR Report provides a summary table of regulatory database sites within specified distances
of the Property, including: 1) standard environmental records, 2) additional environmental
records, and 3) high risk historical records. This summary table is provided beginning on page 2
of the EDR Report (Appendix F). In addition to the Property and adjacent sites listings
discussed above, SCS also reviewed the EnviroStor and Geotracker datbases for facilities of
potential concern near the Property:
1) Seaboard Paper Company, 336 Oyster Point Boulevard. Closed LUST Case. Opened in
June 1987 and Closed in November 1995. Discussed above.
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 33
2) Wildberg Brothers, 349 Oyster Point Boulevard. Closed LUST Case. Opened November
1997 and Closed in July 2001 with no further information available.
3) Berkeley Farms, 561 Eccles Avenue. Closed LUST Case. Opened November 1994 and
Closed June 2001 with no further information available.
Although each facility is within 1,000 feet of the Property, none are interpreted to represent a
threat to impact Property environmental conditions due to the case closed status, type of
documented releases and/or mitigation, and based upon our experience with similar cases in the
vicinity.
Unmappable or Orphan Sites
Three unmappable sites were identified in the EDR Report (see Page 377). Unmappable sites
cannot be plotted due to inaccurate or incomplete addresses. Based on review of the provided
data, including the estimated locations of the unmappable sites in relation to the Property, it
appears unlikely that the unmappable sites have adversely affected the environmental condition
of the Property.
Landfills
As discussed throughout this Report, one closed landfill is located on the Property.
In addition, the EDR-provided Solid Waste Information System database identified one
closed/inactive landfill within 0.5 mile of the Property. The City of South San Francisco
Municipal Landfill, also referred to as the Oyster Point Landfill, is located east-northeast from
the Property across Gull Avenue. While EDR identifies the Oyster Point Landfill as being 0.348
miles north-northeast, other available records indicate the cap overlying the western edge of the
Oyster Point Landfill abuts the northeastern Property boundary along Gull Drive.
Oil and Gas Wells
The EDR Report did not list any oil and gas wells within a one-mile radius of the Property.
Water Supply Wells
The EDR Report did not list any water supply wells within a one-mile radius of the Property.
A DDITIONAL R ESEARCH AND R EPORTS
Amended Site Closure Plan
SCS prepared an Amended Site Closure Plan (SCP) for the Property (SCS, 2017) and submitted
the document to the SMCDEH on April 5, 2017. The SMCDEH approved the SCP on April 25,
2017. The following is excerpted from the SCP and presents a summary of historic
environmental activities at the Site and Property.
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 34
Previous subsurface investigations were performed by others over the period 2006 through 2009.
This work included installation of soil borings and test pits to determine characteristics of fill
deposits beneath the Property, and to evaluate the lateral and vertical extent of burn ash material.
Results are summarized in the SCP first prepared by Environ in 2011 (Environ, 2011a).
Data obtained from these Property investigations suggest that burn ash material is generally
contained below the upper 10 feet of soil fill, with some exceptions. The approximate lateral
extent of the burn ash is shown on figures and cross-sections contained in the SCS document,
which is included in Appendix I to this Report. The areal extent is approximately four acres
within the 7.5-acre Property. The in-place volume was estimated at 346,000 cubic yards
(Environ, 2011).
As shown in the cross sections, burn ash was typically encountered at depths of 30 to 50 feet bgs
in the south-central and eastern portions of the Property. Burn ash is present at depths of five
feet bgs in a small area in the north-central portion of the Property, including an area beneath the
Site. Fill soils overlying the burn ash were reported to consist of layers of sand, gravel and clay
materials.
More recently, a geotechnical investigation was performed to determine basis of design for
proposed Property development features including earthwork, foundations, pavements, utilities
and drainage features. Fill soils in the SMPO development area were reported to consist of clayey
sand, sandy lean clay, and interbedded layers of sands, gravels and clay (CEG, 2017a and b).
SMPO will develop the westerly 3.648 acres of the Property. Our review of the Site
investigation cross- sections indicates that the majority of the Site or development area does not
overlie burn ash debris (Figure 3). The burn ash debris is confined to the eastern end of the
development area (the Site). Where burn ash is present beneath the Site, it is reportedly present
at depths ranging from 18 to 30 feet bgs, and is overlain by sandy clay fill soils.
Environmental investigations were performed as part of the Environ SCP (2011a) in addition to
the soil borings and test pits described above. This work included soil sampling, soil gas
surveys, installation of groundwater monitoring wells, and groundwater monitoring and
sampling. Details including sample methods and results are reported in the SCP (Environ,
2011a) and key findings are summarized below.
Soil Sampling
Based on soil sampling over the period 2006 to 2009, shallow fill soils not characteristic of burn
ash material were reported to contain relatively low concentrations of metals, with most within
the typical ranges of naturally occurring background concentrations. Within the burn ash
material, select metals concentrations were reported at concentrations above industrial or
commercial environmental screening levels (ESLs) promulgated by the RWQCB then in effect.
The highest metals concentrations in soils and underlying debris were detected in what has been
referred to as the “Northeast Corner” portion of the Property (Environ 2011a). This area of the
Property is not currently proposed for development.
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 35
Soil Vapor Sampling
A soil vapor survey was performed at the Property in 2006 in accordance with DTSC protocols.
This work included installation of 16 temporary vapor probes to depths of five and ten feet bgs at
each sample location. Combustible gas (methane) concentrations above the lower explosive
limit (LEL) for that gas were detected in soils at three locations, each along the eastern side of the
Property, adjacent to Gull Drive and adjacent to the closed Oyster Point Landfill. The adjacent
Oyster Point Landfill, which was used for disposal of MSW, was identified as the likely source
of the combustible gas detected on the Property (Environ, 2011a; 2014).
In 2007, the City of South San Francisco, the operator of record for the Oyster Point Landfill,
installed passive vent trenches in soils along Gull Drive and Oyster Point Boulevard. The vent
trenches were intended to mitigate combustible gas migration potential from the Oyster Point
Landfill toward off-site locations. The City currently monitors for combustible gas at the Oyster
Point Landfill property, and in the headspace of groundwater monitoring well GW-5, located on
the SMPO Property (see Figure 3). SCS’s review of the CalRecycle Solid Waste Information
System (SWIS) database indicates that there are no current enforcement action notices for the
Oyster Point Landfill regarding combustible gas migration or other 27 CCR issues (CalRecycle,
2017).
Groundwater Sampling
Five groundwater monitoring wells, designated MW-1 through MW-5 were installed at the
Property in 2008. Groundwater monitoring and sampling was conducted over the period 2008 to
2009 as part of previous subsurface investigation and characterization activities. Results of
groundwater monitoring and sampling are provided in the SCP (Environ, 2011a). The five
groundwater monitoring wells remain in place today (Figure 3).
Previous investigations concluded that shallow groundwater at the Property appears to have been
impacted with metals consistent with the presence of burn ash material below the water table. It
was also concluded that shallow groundwater in the vicinity of monitoring well MW-5 was
impacted by low concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons or TPH (Environ, 2011a).
Based upon SCS’ review of the available and identified documents, the Property and Site are not
now subject to any regulatory agency order or directive to perform water quality monitoring and
sampling.
Risk Evaluations and Mitigation Strategies
As part of the SCP (Environ 2011a), human health and ecological risk evaluations were
performed based on the results of previous environmental investigations. These risks were found
to be insignificant, assuming that specified remedial measures were incorporated into the Environ
SCP and previously-proposed development plans and construction activities consisting of an
office building with asphalt parking and landscaping. The remedial measures are summarized
below. We understand that the previously proposed remedial measures, which are generally
consistent with 27 CCR closure and post-closure requirements, are acceptable to the agencies.
The prior development plan called for construction in the northeast and east areas of the Property.
The remedial measures were designed to minimize potential exposure of workers and building
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 36
occupants to contaminated environmental media during and after Property development. Those
remedial strategies specifically included: (1) capping Property soils with asphalt, concrete and
vegetative barriers; (2) installation of a vapor barrier and passive venting system below the
building foundation; and (3) implementation of a Risk Management Plan (RMP) and Health and
Safety Plan (HASP) for excavation and soil handling during construction.
Currently Proposed Remedial Strategies
SMPO has proposed and received regulatory agency approval for the following primary remedial
measures to allow development of the Site (the westerly 3.648 acres of the Property):
• Placing a landfill cap in the work area to consist of: (1) concrete slab for building
foundation; and (2) asphalt parking surface;
• Placing an alternate landfill cap in landscape areas;
• Installing building combustible gas protection and monitoring features to consist of a
subfloor vapor barrier and passive venting system, and interior alarm system;
• Properly decommissioning and abandoning existing groundwater monitoring wells in the
footprint of proposed Site improvement areas.
• Adhering to applicable provisions of the existing RMP and HASP for soil handling
during excavations for utility trenches, foundations, and other Site work. The
excavations will be confined to the sandy clay soil fill layer and will not extend into the
underlying burn ash debris.
• Adhering to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and federal
government water conservation standards for landscaping and irrigation. This in
combination with landfill cap measures proposed below will reduce or eliminate the
potential for water infiltration into the underlying fill materials, and potential water
quality impacts.
These measures were approved by the SMCDEH as indicated in a letter dated April 25, 2017.
The Amended SCP (SCS, 2017) was also reviewed by the RWQCB. On April 24, 2017, Mr. Vic
Pal of the RWQCB gave his verbal concurrence on the Amended SCP findings and proposed
mitigation strategies to allow Site development as currently proposed by SMPO.
A DDITIONAL N ON-ASTM SCOPE I TEMS
Radon Gas
Based upon review of USEPA and California Department of Public Health (CDPH) supplied
information, San Mateo County (which includes the Property) is an area of “Moderate Potential”
where the predicted average indoor radon screening level is between 2 and 4 picoCuries per liter
(pCi/L).
According to the California Department of Health Service’s May 2010 Radon Program report,
screening in the area of the Property (94080 zip code) found only two locations out of 96 where
buildings had radon levels greater than or equal to 4 pCi/L (the EPA action level). The geology
of the area is not normally associated with elevated radon levels. Based on the available
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 37
information, elevated radon gas is not expected in the area of the Property. A map of Radon
Zones published by USEPA and the CDPH Radon by Zip Code listing are included in Appendix
G.
Wetlands
The EDR Report included in Appendix H, includes a map which identifies a tidal creek located
east of the Property, along the southern boundary of the Oyster Point Landfill, which is
considered a National Wetland. The EDR National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Report
(Appendix H) used the US Fish and Wildlife Service Inventory database which identifies the
drainage channel as R4SBAx, meaning Riverine, Intermittent, Streambed, Temporarily Flooded,
and Excavated. There are no apparent connections between the Property and the identified
wetlands, and no wetlands are identified on the Property.
Historic Buildings and/or Landmarks
According to the EDR NEPA Report, there are no Historic Sites on or in the immediate vicinity
of the Property.
Endangered Species or Species Habitat
The NEPA Check Report identified California Protected Areas, California Land Ownership
listings within 1/8 mile of the Property as part of Section 1.1307a (2) Officially Designated
Wildlife Preserve for California Protected Areas.
The Report also identified one listing of Endangered Species Critical Habitat within 1/8 mile of
the Property as part of Section 1.1307a (3) Threatened or Endangered Species or California
Endangered Species Critical Habitat.
Pipelines
SCS reviewed the NPMS website (https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/PublicViewer/) for the
Property and surrounding area to identify any hazardous materials pipelines. The NPMS is a
geographic information system (GIS) created by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS)
in cooperation with other federal and state governmental agencies and the pipeline industry.
The NPMS consists of geospatial data, attribute data, public contact information, and metadata
pertaining to the interstate and intrastate hazardous liquid trunklines and hazardous liquid low-
stress lines as well as gas transmission pipelines, liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants, and
hazardous liquid breakout tanks (tanks that receive and store liquids transported by pipeline)
jurisdictional to PHMSA. The nominal accuracy of geospatial data in the NPMS is +/-500 feet.
The NPMS does not contain information on interconnects, pump and compressor stations,
valves, direction of flow, capacity, throughput, or operating pressure. In addition, distribution
and gathering pipelines are not included in the NPMS.
The NPMS is built from data submitted by pipeline, LNG plant, and breakout tank facility
operators. Since 2002, transmission pipeline and LNG plant facility operators are required to
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 38
submit mapping information to the NPMS and to update their submissions annually. Breakout
tank operators are able to submit data to the NPMS on a voluntary basis.
Based on review of the NPMS website, there are no hazardous materials pipelines within 0.25
miles of the Property.
However, review of the EDR Report indicates the presence of an unidentified pipeline between
1/8 and 1/16 mile to the west of the western Property boundary. There are no reported spills or
releases listed in either database with respect to pipelines. Therefore, SCS does not consider the
pipeline listed by EDR to represent a threat to impact the environmental condition of the
Property.
12 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION
A User Questionnaire has not yet been returned to SCS for inclusion in the Report. However,
SMPO provided numerous reports and documents in addition to the information discussed above.
TITLE RECORDS
The Title Report provided by the User is included in Appendix E to this Report.
ENVIRONMENTAL LIENS OR ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATION
(AUL)
No information regarding environmental liens or activity and use limitations was provided to
SCS by SMPO; however, the EDR-supplied Environmental Lien and AUL Report (included as
Appendix E) did not identify Environmental Liens or AULs associated with the Property.
SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE
No specialized knowledge regarding the Property was provided to SCS by the User.
VALUATION REDUCTION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
No property valuation information was provided to SCS.
13 DEGREE OF OBVIOUSNESS OF THE
PRESENCE/LIKELY PRESENCE OF CONTAMINATION
ON THE PROPERTY
As discussed above, the Property has the following areas of known or suspected environmental
concern:
• The Property was historically vacant land, which was subsequently used as a burn dump.
The burn dump activities and related placement of fill material extended the land surface
eastward into San Francisco Bay. The burn dump activities left approximately 346,000
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 39
cubic yards of residual burn ash, which were subsequently buried beneath soil fill
material placed during grading operation which created a relatively flat ground surface
generally consistent with the surface grade for adjacent land to the north and northwest.
• The burn dump operated without a license and there are no records with respect to the
wastes received. Historic investigation results indicate the dump did not receive MSW.
• Based upon the original SCP and Amended SCP documents respectively prepared by
Environ and SCS, and discussions with SMCDEH, the landfill is considered closed,
subject to the provisions of the Amended SCP document.
• On that basis, SCS considers the Site and Property to contain a CREC associated with the
former burn dump. Assuming the Amended SCP is followed and the elements of Site
development are also followed, SCS does not consider the CREC to be an impediment to
development.
14 DATA GAPS
A data gap represents an inability on the part of the environmental professional to obtain
information required by the standards and practices of 40 CFR 312 to fully identify conditions
indicative of releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances on, at, in, or to the Property.
The following data gaps were identified:
• Access Limitations – The Property owner did not limit access to any areas of the
Property. SCS made an effort to visually inspect as much of the Property as possible,
however steep slopes on two sides, our reconnaissance and inspection focused on the
readily accessible “upper deck” portion of the Property. SCS did not enter into adjacent
buildings and structures.
• Physical Obstructions to Observations – The presence of vegetation and ground cover
across much of the Property did not afford visual observation of ground surface.
• Outstanding Information Requests – None.
• Historical Data Sources Failure – SCS interviewed Mr. Williams, a representative of the
current Property owner, however we were unable to contact prior Property owners. This
is considered an Historic Data Gap, however, based upon our review of the significant
amount of available information, this Data Gap is not considered significant with respect
to our ability to evaluate historic land use.
• Other Limitations – None.
15 FINDINGS AND OPINIONS
Based on the scope of work performed, SCS finds the following:
• The Property is located in the northeastern portion of the City of South San Francisco,
San Mateo County, California, approximately 1,500 feet from San Francisco Bay. The
approximately 7.5 acre Property is currently vacant and is identified as APN 015-082-
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 40
210, in San Mateo County Assessor’s office records. The property address is 560 Eccles
Avenue.
• SMPO recently purchased the Property, and now proposes to develop the westerly 3.648
acres (referred to as the Site or the Development Site) of the Property, to consist of an
approximate 21,800 square foot single-story office building with associated parking and
planter area landscaping. The easterly portion of the Property will not be developed at this
time.
• The Property is bounded to the north by commercial buildings and Eccles Avenue, to the
east by Gull Drive, to the south by commercial buildings, parking lots, and Forbes
Boulevard, and to the west by a parking lot. An access road at the western end of the
Property affords access from Eccles Avenue.
• The Property includes a former landfill, which operated as a burn dump in the 1950s, and
which subsequently became inactive, covered with soil, graded, and then closed. The
burn dump residual is an estimated 346,000 cubic yards of ash material covered by an
overlying soil fill layer of between 5 and 55 feet thick. The majority of the ash residual is
present beneath the east-southeastern portion of the Property, with a very limited amount
of ash located beneath the central portion of the Property in the area of proposed
development.
• Based upon the original SCP and Amended SCP documents respectively prepared by
Environ and SCS, and discussions with SMCDEH, SCS considers the Site and Property
to contain a CREC associated with the former burn dump. Assuming the Amended SCP
is followed and the elements of Site development are also followed, SCS does not
consider the CREC to be an impediment to development.
• Our review of available documents and records did not identify RECs, HRECs or CRECs
of concern with respect to surrounding properties. However, the nearby Oyster Point
Landfill is subject to on-going monitoring and reporting associated with historic landfill
operations. The primary areas of potential environmental concern associated with Oyster
Point Landfill related to the Property include the discovery, removal and possible
remaining presence of drums and chemically affected soils beneath Gull Drive, northeast
of the Property, and elevated methane concentrations detected in monitoring points
between the Property and Oyster Point Landfill. These concerns do not appear to affect
the Site development, and do appear to be the responsibility of the City of South San
Francisco with respect to any further assessment and/or mitigation.
• The available documents regarding surrounding properties indicate historic use of
hazardous substances and petroleum, and releases of same. However, based on the close
case status of the prior petroleum releases and the distance, nature of other chemical
releases, and affected media, SCS does not consider the listed facilities to represent areas
or features of environmental concern with respect to the Site and Property.
16 REPORT USAGE AND FUTURE SITE CONDITIONS
This Report is intended for the sole usage of the Client and other parties designated by SCS. The
methodology used during this ESA was in general conformance with the requirements of the
Client and the specifications and limitations presented in the Agreement between the Client and
SCS. This Report contains information from a variety of public and other sources, and SCS
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 41
makes no representation or warranty about the accuracy, reliability, suitability, or completeness
of the information. Any use of this Report, whether by the Client or by a third party, shall be
subject to the provisions of the Agreement between the Client and SCS. Any misuse of or
reliance upon the Report shall be without risk or liability to SCS.
Phase I ESAs are qualitative, not comprehensive, in nature and may not identify all
environmental problems or eliminate all risk. For every property, but especially for properties in
older downtown or urban areas, it is possible for there to be unknown, unreported RECs, USTs,
or other features of concern that might become apparent through demolition, construction, or
excavation activities, etc. In addition, the scope of services for this project was limited to those
items specifically named in the scope of services for this Report. Environmental issues not
specifically addressed in the scope of services for this project are not included in this Report.
Land use, condition of the Property, and other factors may change over time. The information
and conclusions of this Report are judged to be relevant at the time the work described in this
Report was conducted. This Report should not be relied upon to represent future Site conditions
unless a qualified consultant familiar with the practice of Phase I ESAs in the City of South San
Francisco is consulted to assess the necessity of updating this Report.
The property owners at the Property are solely responsible for notifying all governmental
agencies and the public of the existence, release, or disposal of any hazardous materials/wastes or
petroleum products at the Property, whether before, during, or after the performance of SCS
services. SCS assumes no responsibility or liability for any claim, loss of property value, damage,
or injury that results from hazardous materials/wastes or petroleum products being present or
encountered within the Property.
Although this ESA has attempted to assess the likelihood that the Property has been impacted by
a hazardous material/waste release, potential sources of impact may have escaped detection for
reasons that include, but are not limited to: 1) our reliance on inadequate or inaccurate
information rightfully provided to us by third parties, such as public agencies and other outside
sources; 2) the limited scope of this ESA; and 3) the presence of undetected, unknown, or
unreported environmental releases.
17 LIKELIHOOD STATEMENTS
Statements of “likelihood” have been made in this report. Likelihood statements are based on
professional judgments of SCS. The term “likelihood,” as used herein, pertains to the probability
of a match between the prediction for an event and its actual occurrence. The likelihood
statement assigns a measure for a “degree of belief” for the match between the prediction for the
event and the actual occurrence of the event.
The likelihood statements in this Report are made qualitatively (expressed in words). The
qualitative terms can be approximately related to quantitative percentages. The term “low
likelihood” is used by SCS to approximate a percentage range of 10 to 20 percent; the term
“moderate likelihood” refers to an approximate percentage range of 40 to 60 percent; and the
term “high likelihood” refers to an approximate percentage range of 80 to 90 percent.
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 42
18 SPECIAL CONTRACTUAL CONDITIONS BETWEEN
USER AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL
There were no special contractual conditions between the User of this ESA and the
Environmental Professional, SCS. Statements regarding qualifications of the Environmental
Professionals that prepared this Phase I ESA Report are contained in Appendix J.
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 43
19 REFERENCES
BKF Engineers. 2017. USDA PPQ & VS Facility, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco,
Stormwater Management Narrative Description. February 16.
Bonilla, M.G. 1971. Preliminary geologic map of the San Francisco South and part of the
Hunters Point quadrangle, California: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies
Map MF-311, scale 1:24,000.
Brabb, E.E. 1983. Geologic map of San Mateo County, California: U.S. Geological Survey
Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1257-A, scale 1:62,500.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources
Website: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/Pages/Index.aspx.
California Department of Health Services. 2016. California Indoor Radon Levels Sorted by Zip
Code, https://archive.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/environhealth/Documents/Radon/RnReport02262016.pdf,
Updated March 26.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Solid Waste
Information System (SWIS) facility database website.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). EnviroStor website:
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2003, California’s Groundwater, Bulletin
118 - Update 2003 Groundwater Basin Descriptions,
http://wwwdwr.water.ca.gov/groundwater/bulletin118/gwbasins2003.cfm
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG, now Department of Conservation, Division
of Mines and Geology), 1994, Special Publication 42, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in
California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, Revised 1997.
California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker
website: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Region. 2017. Personal
communication with Mr. Vic Pal. April 24.
CalRecycle. 2017. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) database, Enforcement Action
Details, Sierra Point Disposal Site: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/41-AA-
0003/Enforcement/. March.
Clayton Environmental Consultants. 1996. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.
September 30.
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 44
Cornerstone Earth Group (CEG). 2017a, Preliminary Geotechnical Summary, USDA PPQ & VS
Facility, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California, February 14.
CEG. 2017b, Geotechnical Investigation, USDA APHIS Building SF, 560 Eccles Avenue, South
San Francisco, California (Draft). March 13.
Department of Toxics Substances Control. 2007. Letter to San Mateo County Environmental
Health Services Department. July 18.
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) correspondence available on EnviroStor
website, 2017.
Environ International Corporation (Environ). 2006a. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment,
Vacant Land Northwest of the Intersection of Gull Road and Forbes Boulevard, South San
Francisco, California. June 28.
Environ. 2006b. Phase II Environmental Site Investigation Report, Vacant Land along Gull
Drive Between Oyster Point Boulevard and Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco,
California. June 14.
Environ. 2007. Revised Conceptual Plan for Future Site Development and Preliminary Waste
Characterization Study Work Plan for Additional Investigation, Vacant Land Northwest of the
Intersection of Gull Drive and Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, California. November
30.
Environ. 2009a. Preliminary Waste Characterization Study of Burn Ash Material, Vacant Land
at 560 Eccles Avenue Northwest of the Intersection of Gull Drive and Forbes Boulevard, South
San Francisco, California. January 30.
Environ. 2009b. Groundwater Monitoring Report, Vacant Land at 560 Eccles Avenue Northwest
of the Intersection of Gull Drive and Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, California.
September 17.
Environ. 2011a. Site Closure Plan, Vacant Land at 560 Eccles Avenue, Northwest of the
Intersection of Gull Drive and Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, California. August 11.
Environ. 2011b. Post Construction Maintenance Plan, Vacant Land at 560 Eccles Avenue,
Northwest of the Intersection of Gull Drive and Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco,
California. August 11.
Environ. 2014. 560 Eccles Avenue South San Francisco, Site Closure Plan and Post
Construction Maintenance Plan, Compliance with Title 27, California Code of Regulations
Section 21190. Letter to San Mateo County Environmental Health Division. February 26.
Environmental Data Resources (EDR), 2017, APN 015-082-210-4, South San Francisco, CA
94080, Inquiry Number: 4868105, March 02, 2017
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 45
Geomatrix. 2006. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, 560 Eccles Avenue (near Gull Drive at
Forbes Boulevard), South San Francisco, California. March 29.
Harlan Tait Associates (HTA). 2000. Geotechnical Investigation Report (progress draft).
November 20.
National Pipeline Mapping System online maps. https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/PublicViewer/.
Professional Land Services. 2016. ALTA/ASCM Title Survey, 560 Eccles Avenue, South San
Francisco, California 94080. November 3.
Rice, D.W., R.D. Grose, J.C. Michaelsen, B.P. Dooher, D.H. MacQueen, S.J. Cullen, W.E.
Kastenberg, L.G. Everett, M.A. Marino, 1995. California leaking underground fuel tank
(LUFT) historical case analyses. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). UCRL-
AR-122207. November.
Rice, D.W., B.P. Dooher, S.J. Cullen, L.G. Everett, W.E. Kastenberg, and R.C. Ragaini, 1997.
Response to USEPA comments on the LLNL/UC LUFT cleanup recommendations and
California historical case analysis. LLNL. UCRL-AR-125912. January.
San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health (SMCDEH). 2014. Proposed Site
Closure Plan (SCP) and Post Closure Maintenance Plan (PCMP), 560 Eccles Avenue, South
San Francisco. Letter from Greg Schirle to Nick Walchuk, Environ Corporation. May 13.
SCS Engineers (SCS), 2017, Amended Site Closure Plan (SCP) and Post-Construction
Maintenance Plan (PCMP), 560 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, California, April 5.
Shih, T., Rong, T., Harmon, and Suffet, M . 2004. Evaluation of the impact of fuel
hydrocarbons and oxygenates on groundwater resources. Environmental Science &
Technology. Vol. 38, No. 1: 42-48.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2012. State Water Board Resolution No. 2012-
0016, Low Threat Underground Storage Tank Case Closure Policy. August 17.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2012. South San Francisco, 7.5-Minute Topographic
Map.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Facility Registry Services website:
http://www.epa.gov/envirofw/html/fii/fii_query_java.html
Technical Justification for Groundwater Media-Specific Criteria,” (Groundwater Study) (March
2012) developed to support the State of California “Low Threat Closure Policy” (adopted May
2012),
20 G LOSSARY/DEFINITIONS
AAI -- All Appropriate Inquiry
ACBM -- Asbestos Containing Building Materials
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 46
APN -- Assessor’s Parcel Number
AST -- Aboveground Storage Tank
ASTM -- American Society of Testing and Materials
AUL -- Activity and Use Limitations
BAAQMD -- Bay Area Air Quality Management District
bgs -- below ground surface
BTP -- Business-Technology Park
BTEX -- benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes
CalEPA -- California Environmental Protection Agency
CERCLA -- Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLIS -- Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System
CFR -- Code of Federal Regulations
CORRACTS -- Corrective Action Against Responsible Parties at a RCRA site
CREC -- Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition
CUPA -- Certified Unified Program Agency
DOGGR -- Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources
DTSC -- California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWR -- Department of Water Resources
EDR -- Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
ERNS -- Emergency Response Notification System
ESA -- Environmental Site Assessment
FINDS -- Facility Index System
GIS -- Geographic Information System
GPP -- Groundwater Protection Program
HASP -- Health and Safety Plan
HAZNET -- California EPA Hazardous Waste Facility and Manifest Data
HREC -- Historical Recognized Environmental Condition
LBP -- Lead Based Paint
LLP -- Landowner Liability Protections
LNG -- Liquefied Natural Gas
LQG -- Large Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator
LUST -- Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MSW -- Municipal Solid Waste
MCL -- Maximum contaminant level
msl -- mean sea level
MTBE -- Methyl tertiary butyl ether
NEPA -- National Environmental Policy Act
NFA -- No Further Action
NFRAP -- No Further Remedial Action Planned
NPL -- National Priority List (Superfund)
NPMS -- National Pipeline Mapping System
PAHs -- Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
PCBs -- Polychlorinated biphenyls
PCMP -- Post Closure Maintenance Plan
PHMSA -- Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
PRGs -- Preliminary Remediation Goals
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 } 47
PVC -- polyvinyl chloride
RCRA -- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRIS -- Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
RECs -- Recognized Environmental Conditions
RMP -- Risk Management Plan
ROD -- Record of Decision
RBSLs -- Risk-Based Screening Levels
RWQCB -- Regional Water Quality Control Board
SARA -- Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SCP -- Site Closure Plan
SLIC -- Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups database
SMCDEH -- San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health
SMCPW -- San Mateo County Public Works
SQG -- Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator
SSFDPW -- South San Francisco Department of Public Works
SSFFD -- South San Francisco Fire Department
SSFPD -- South San Francisco Police Department
SWIS -- Solid Waste Information System
SWLF -- Solid Waste Facility/Landfills
TPH -- Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TRIS -- Toxic Release Inventory System
TSDF -- Treatment, Storage, and/or Disposal Facility
USEPA -- United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS -- United States Geologic Survey
UST -- Underground Storage Tank
VCP -- Voluntary Cleanup Program
VOCs -- Volatile organic compounds
SMPO ELS, LLC
{00083192.DOC-1 }
APPENDIX A
FIGURES AND MAPS
ATTACHMENT E: TRAFFIC STUDY
TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT
560 ECCLES AVENUE
USDA OFFICE
August 10, 2017
Prepared for: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
LAMPHIER-GREGORY
Prepared by: Mark D. Crane, P.E.
California Registered Traffic Engineer (#1381)
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
2621 E. Windrim Court
Elk Grove, CA 95758
(916) 647-3406
cranetransgroup@gmail.com
CTG
08/10/17 560 Eccles Avenue Page 1
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
I. INTRODUCTION
This study ha been prepared to determine whether the 21,807-square-foot USDA building
proposed for 560 Eccles Avenue in the East of 101 employment area will result in any significant
circulation system impacts along the main commute routes between the project site and the
U.S. 101 freeway. Due to the project’s expected low volumes, a preliminary screening
methodology has been utilized to eliminate locations for further evaluation depending upon the
percent increase in traffic due to the project.
A 1% increase in traffic is the City’s significance criteria limit at interchanges, freeway ramps or
freeway mainline locations already operating unacceptably, while a 2% increase in traffic is the
City’s significance criteria limit at surface street intersections away from the freeway. Any
location not having volumes increased by the 1 to 2% limits was eliminated from further
evaluation.
In addition to off-site analysis, evaluation was also conducted of the project’s proposed access
connections to Eccles Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard which would be via easements along
existing driveways.
II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
1. For analysis purposes, the proposed project would generate 21 inbound and 2 outbound
trips during the AM peak hour, with 0 inbound and 19 outbound trips during the PM peak
hour.
2. Project traffic would not increase either Existing or 2040 volumes at any interchange
intersections, freeway ramps or freeway mainline segments by 1% or more, or at any
surface street intersections away from the U.S. 101 freeway by 2% or more. Therefore,
there would be no off-site circulation system significant impacts.
3. The project access stop sign controlled driveway connection to Eccles Avenue has
acceptable sight lines as well as low volumes and should operate acceptably.
4. The project access driveway connection to Oyster Point Boulevard has very low volumes
and should operate acceptably.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & LOCATION
The project site is located just west of Gull Road (see Figure 1). However, access would be
provided to the local circulation network via two easements along existing driveways: one to an
unsignalized connection to Eccles Avenue about 660 feet south of the Oyster Point
Boulevard/Eccles Avenue intersection (where all turn movements would be allowed) and one to
Oyster Point Boulevard (where right turns in and out only would be allowed) just east of the
signalized intersection serving businesses at 345-347 Oyster Point Boulevard. An internal
CTG
08/10/17 560 Eccles Avenue Page 2
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
connection between the Oyster Point access driveway and the adjacent signalized intersection is
in place.
The proposed project would be a 21,807-square-foot building used by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. The number and scheduling of employees, deliveries and customers would be as
follows.
19 employees working in the office 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM
4 employees working in the field visiting the office once or twice a week
1 employee starting work at the office at 6:00 AM and leaving in the middle of the afternoon
1 employee arriving at the office after 9:00 AM and leaving at 6:00 PM
Total = 25 existing employees, all working 40 hours/week Monday through Friday
Estimated increase in employees by 2040 = 1 to 2
Existing customers/day = 15, hours are 8:00 AM-4:30 PM
Existing deliveries/day = 20. Some by existing UPS & FedEx trucks.
Estimated increase in customers/day by 2040 = 2
USDA operations are now located at 389 Oyster Point Boulevard to the northeast of the 560
Eccles site.
IV. ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
The following intersections, freeway ramps and U.S. 101 freeway mainline segments were
requested for evaluation by the City
Intersections
1. Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard (Signal)
2. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp
(Signal)
3. Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp and Southbound On-Ramp
(Signal)
4. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp
Flyover (Signal)
5. Oyster Pont Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard
6. Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue (Signal)
7. Oyster Point Boulevard/329-333 Driveways
8. Forbes Boulevard/Eccles Avenue (Signal)
9. Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue (Signal)
10. Grand Avenue Overcrossing/Dubuque Avenue (Signal)
11. East Grand Avenue/Grand Avenue Overcrossing (Signal)
12. East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard (Signal)
13. East Grand Avenue/Forbes Boulevard/Harbor Way (Signal)
14. Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue (Signal)
15. Gateway Boulevard/South Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue (Signal)
CTG
08/10/17 560 Eccles Avenue Page 3
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Mainline Segments Of U.S. 101
1. North of Oyster Point Boulevard, northbound direction
2. North of Oyster Point Boulevard, southbound direction
3. North of I-380, northbound direction
4. North of I-380, southbound direction
U.S. 101 Off-Ramps
1. Southbound off-ramp flyover to Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway Blvd.
2. Northbound off-ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive
3. Northbound off-ramp to Dubuque Avenue
U.S. 101 On-Ramps
1. Southbound on-ramp from Dubuque Avenue
2. Southbound on-ramp from Produce Avenue
3. Northbound on-ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue
V. ANALYSIS TIME PERIODS & SCENARIOS
A. TIME PERIODS
• Weekday AM & PM peak hours
B. SCENARIOS
• Existing + Project
• 2040 + Project
VI. VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT
Weekday AM and PM peak hour Existing & 2040 Without Project volumes at all locations were
obtained from the ongoing East of 101 & Downtown Specific Plan traffic model update.
Volumes are presented in the following figures.
• Existing Intersection Without Project AM Peak Hour Volumes: Figure 2
• Existing Intersection Without Project PM Peak Hour Volumes: Figure 3
• Existing Freeway Without Project Mainline & Ramp AM Peak Hour Volumes: Figure 4
• Existing Freeway Without Project Mainline & Ramp PM Peak Hour Volumes: Figure 5
• 2040 Intersection Without Project AM Peak Hour Volumes: Figure 6
• 2040 Intersection Without Project PM Peak Hour Volumes: Figure 7
• 2040 Freeway Without Project Mainline & Ramp AM Peak Hour Volumes: Figure 8
• 2040 Freeway Without Project Mainline & Ramp PM Peak Hour Volumes: Figure 9
CTG
08/10/17 560 Eccles Avenue Page 4
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
VII. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
At the direction of City staff the maximum hourly trip generation that could occur between 7:00-
9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM was assumed to take place during the specific commute peak hours.
A resultant trip generation summary is presented below while trip generation details are provided
in Table 1.
AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
INBOUND OUTBOUND INBOUND OUTBOUND
21 2 0 19
Source: Crane Transportation Group, Lamphier-Gregory, City of South San Francisco
VIII. PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Project employee regional distribution is projected to be similar to past findings of other
employers in the East of 101 area.
South (U.S. 101 & S. Airport Boulevard) 50%
North (U.S. 101 & Bayshore Boulevard) 35%
West of U.S. 101 freeway 15%
Project traffic is shown distributed to the local circulation system network in the following
figures.
• AM Peak Intersection Distribution: Figure 10
• AM Peak Hour Freeway Distribution: Figure 11
• PM Peak Intersection Distribution: Figure 12
• PM Peak Hour Freeway Distribution: Figure 13
It should be noted that the amount of project traffic using Oyster Point Boulevard and passing
through the Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue intersection would be the same regardless of
whether all of the traffic would use the Eccles Avenue driveway, all would use the Oyster Point
Driveway, or it would be split between the two.
CTG
08/10/17 560 Eccles Avenue Page 5
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
IX. PERCENT INCREASE IN TRAFFIC DUE TO PROJECT
A. EXISTING + PROJECT CONDITIONS
As shown in Figures 14 & 15, project traffic would only increase existing peak hour volumes
less than 1% on the freeway mainline, on freeway ramps and at intersections within the U.S. 101
freeway interchanges. In addition, peak hour increases at intersections away from the freeway
interchanges would be less than 2%. The highest contribution would be 1% traffic added to the
Oyster Point/Eccles Avenue intersection during the AM peak hour.
B. 2040 + PROJECT CONDITIONS
As shown in Figures 16 & 17, project traffic would only increase 2040 peak hour volumes less
than 1% on the freeway mainline, on freeway ramps and at intersections within the U.S. 101
freeway interchanges. In addition, peak hour increases at intersections away from the freeway
interchanges would be less than 2%.
X. ECCLES AVENUE/PROJECT ACCESS DRIVEWAY
TRAFFIC VOLUMES & DRIVEWAY OPERATION
Weekday AM and PM peak period traffic counts were conducted in late July 2017 at the Eccles
Avenue intersection with the driveway that will be serving project traffic. Volumes are presented
in Figures 2 & 3 for the AM and PM peak traffic hours. As shown, the two-way traffic flow on
the driveway was 51 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 48 vehicles during the PM peak
hour. Two-way volumes on Eccles Avenue at the driveway during the same time period were
262 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 240 vehicles during the PM peak hour.
The project would be expected to add at most about 14 vehicles to the driveway during the AM
peak hour (for a total of 65 vehicles), and 13 vehicles to the driveway during the PM peak hour
(for a total of 61 vehicles). Although level of service evaluation is typically not conducted for
stop sign controlled driveway intersections, analysis shows that both AM and PM peak hour
operation for Existing + Project or Year 2040 + Project volumes would be an acceptable level of
service A or B. While project distribution assumed use of both the Eccles and Oyster Point
driveway easements, if all project vehicles would use the Eccles easement driveway there would
be little difference in the acceptable level of service results at the Eccles driveway intersection.
CTG
08/10/17 560 Eccles Avenue Page 6
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
ECCLES AVENUE/USDA EASEMENT DRIVEWAY INTERSECTION
EXISTING 2040
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
W/O
PROJECT
+
PROJECT
W/O
PROJECT
+
PROJECT
W/O
PROJECT
+
PROJECT
W/O
PROJECT
+
PROJECT
B-10.0* B-10.2 A-9.5 A-9.6 B-11.3 B-11.3 B-10.5 B-10.6
Source: Crane Transportation Group
* Unsignalized level of service – control delay in seconds. Driveway stop sign controlled approach to Eccles
Avenue.
Year 2010 Highway Capacity Manual analysis methodology.
XI. OYSTER POINT BOULEVARD/PROJECT ACCESS
DRIVEWAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES & DRIVEWAY
OPERATION
The driveway with an easement allowing project traffic to access Oyster Point Boulevard would
connect to the boulevard just east of the signalized intersection serving 345-347 Oyster Point
Boulevard. Right turns in/out only to the eastbound Oyster Point travel lanes would be allowed.
However, there would be a paved internal connection just south of Oyster Point Boulevard
between the easement driveway and the signalized intersection.
All inbound project traffic using the Oyster Point easement driveway would pass through the
signal at 345-347 Oyster Point and then make a right turn into the easement driveway. All
outbound project traffic using the Oyster Point easement would be expected to divert through the
adjacent property to access the 347-347 signal for a left turn to westbound Oyster Point
Boulevard.
Weekday AM and PM peak period traffic counts were conducted in May 2016 at the 345-347
Oyster Point Boulevard signalized intersection. Counts conducted at the same time at the Oyster
Point Boulevard/Gull Drive intersection to the east showed little or no change in eastbound
traffic between the 345-347 and Gull intersections, indicating minimal use of the driveway with
the project easement. Volumes are presented in Figures 2 & 3 for the AM and PM peak traffic
hours. As shown, the two-way traffic flow on the driveway south of Oyster Point Boulevard at
the signal was 9 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 8 vehicles during the PM peak hour.
Two-way volumes on Oyster Point Boulevard at the signal during the same time period were
1,732 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 1,567 vehicles during the PM peak hour.
The project would be expected to add at most about 9 inbound vehicles to the easement driveway
during the AM peak hour and 6 outbound vehicles to the driveway during the PM peak hour.
This level of increased traffic could be accommodated on the Oyster Point access driveway with
no significant capacity impacts. Also, should all project traffic use the Oyster Point access,
volume increases would still be lower than 2 percent at the signalized access intersection.
CTG
08/10/17 560 Eccles Avenue Page 7
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
XII. SIGHT LINES AT PROJECT DRIVEWAY CONNECTION
TO ECCLES AVENUE
Eccles Avenue is a 40-foot-wide street with a 30 mile per hour posted speed limit in the vicinity
of the driveway connection that will serve project traffic. On-street parking is prohibited. Sight
lines along Eccles Avenue at the driveway connection are as follows.
• To the north on Eccles Avenue (to see southbound traffic) = 480 feet
• To the south on Eccles Avenue (to see northbound traffic) = 300 feet
Sight line adequacy at private driveway connections to public streets is based upon stopping
sight distance. Based upon the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (March 2014), stopping sight
distances for 30 to 40 miles per hour speeds is as follows.
SPEED
STOPPING SIGHT
DISTANCE
30 mph 200 feet
35 mph 250 feet
40 mph 300 feet
Based upon this criteria, sight lines are acceptable at the driveway connection to Eccles Avenue.
XIII. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS & REQUIRED MITIGATION
The proposed project should not result in any significant impacts to the local surface street,
freeway, ramp or freeway mainline circulation system. Therefore, no mitigation measures would
be required.
This Report is intended for presentation and use in its entirety, together with all of its supporting exhibits, schedules, and
appendices. Crane Transportation Group will have no liability for any use of the Report other than in its entirety, such as
providing an excerpt to a third party or quoting a portion of the Report. If you provide a portion of the Report to a third party,
you agree to hold CTG harmless against any liability to such third parties based upon their use of or reliance upon a less than
complete version of the Report.
Figures
Figure 1
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
2
Area Map
Map data @2017Google560 Eccles Traffic Study
PROJECT SITE
CR
A
N
E
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
G
R
O
U
P
NO
R
T
H
No
t
T
o
S
c
a
l
e
2
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
(
2
0
1
6
)
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
W
e
e
k
d
a
y
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
Veterans 5
10
1
10
1
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
Sis
t
e
r
C
i
t
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Airpor
t
San Mateo Av
Produce Ave
Littlefield Ave
Harbor Way
Blv
d
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
Bl
v
d
Blv
d
Av
e
Mi
l
l
e
r
A
v
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
U
t
a
h
A
v
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
Grand
Av
e
F
o
r
b
e
s
B
l
v
d
A
v
e
Alle
r
t
o
n
A
v
e
Dr Gull
E
c
c
l
e
s
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
Dubuq
u
e
Ea
s
t
E
Wo
n
d
e
r
c
o
l
o
r
L
n
Mi
t
c
h
e
l
l
A
v
10
12
11
13
15
2
1
4
3
5
6
7
14
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
12
E
G
r
a
n
d
Gateway
E
G
r
a
n
d
HarborForbes
Gr
a
n
d
Ov
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
Ov
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
Dubuque
Gr
a
n
d
East
Grand
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
Airport Produce
15
Mi
t
c
h
e
l
l
Gateway S Airport
11
14
10
Gr
a
n
d
Airport
Si
s
t
e
r
Ci
t
i
e
s
Oy
s
t
e
r
Po
i
n
t
Airport
Dubuque
1
Oy
s
t
e
r
Po
i
n
t
NB
Onramp 2 Dubuque
SB
1
0
1
On
r
a
m
p
NB
1
0
1
O
f
f
r
a
m
p
3
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
t
345-347
OP
Oy
s
t
e
r
Po
i
n
t
Eccles Eccles6
7
Fo
r
b
e
s
Eccl
e
s
A
v
Driveway
Fly
o
v
e
r
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
t
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
t
Gateway
13
4
8
8
9
9
27
1
11
5
18
9
4 5
7
4
5
0 34
2
47
4
94
6
59
0
5
8
8
48
5
70
1
7
18
3
25
5
30
9
12 10
40
16
0
4
79
4
6
0
2
2
2
8
8
68
9
17
4
25
9
6
5
2
1
12
7
1
14
2
4
17
9
26
9
16
6
0
23
2
1
2
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
D
w
y
A
1
6
6
8
2
1
4
1
5
1
5
9
56
0
E
c
c
l
e
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
S
t
u
d
y
13
8
17
1
24
63
47
1
5
6
12
1
4
34
9
42
32
0
22
6
66
4
34
7
1
4
1
9
3
13
2
5
37
74 36
2
14
0
26
32
3
27
1
18
9
14
2
82
2
0
1
3
1
4
10
0
12
9
26
1
14
7
15
9
11
9
5
65
3
1
7
15
1
52
24
8
56
10
5
8
29
5
33
40
7
11
9
5
15
1
1
8
0
13
4
12
4
68
8
9
67
44
4
11
8
17
3
15
6
13
9
8
7
2
8
9
37
5
10
1
40
4
33
4
6
78
6
2
1
25
32 47
6
35
9
10
14
9
66
7
75
0
6
1
19
2
62
7
19
5
33
0
9
3
17
8 12
5
3
4
3
43
90
16
4
19
4
30
10
8
12
3
37
7
4
23
3
37
8
4
0
1
38
2
19
8
18
39
6
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
S
i
t
e
30
6
4
34
0
4
16
6
1
23
8
6
13
8
6
19
9
6
25
7
4
25
7
4
-
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
23
7
8
28
8
0
27
7
4
33
0
3
23
9
5
19
7
1
9
3
4
17
4
1
A
CR
A
N
E
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
G
R
O
U
P
NO
R
T
H
No
t
T
o
S
c
a
l
e
2
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
Veterans 5
10
1
10
1
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
Sis
t
e
r
C
i
t
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Airpor
t
San Mateo Av
Produce Ave
Littlefield Ave
Harbor Way
Blv
d
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
Bl
v
d
Blv
d
Av
e
Mi
l
l
e
r
A
v
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
U
t
a
h
A
v
G
r
a
n
d
Grand
Av
e
F
o
r
b
e
s
B
l
v
d
A
v
e
Alle
r
t
o
n
A
v
e
E
c
c
l
e
s
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
Dubuq
u
e
Ea
s
t
E
Wo
n
d
e
r
c
o
l
o
r
L
n
Mi
t
c
h
e
l
l
A
v
10
12
11
13
15
2
1
4
3
5
6
7
14
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
12
E
G
r
a
n
d
Gateway
E
G
r
a
n
d
HarborForbes
Gr
a
n
d
Ov
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
Ov
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
Dubuque
Gr
a
n
d
East
Grand
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
Airport Produce
15
Mi
t
c
h
e
l
l
Gateway S Airport
11
14
10
Gr
a
n
d
Airport
Si
s
t
e
r
Ci
t
i
e
s
Oy
s
t
e
r
Po
i
n
t
Airport
Dubuque
1
Oy
s
t
e
r
Po
i
n
t
NB
Onramp 2 Dubuque
SB
1
0
1
On
r
a
m
p
NB
1
0
1
O
f
f
r
a
m
p
3
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
t
345-347
OP
Oy
s
t
e
r
Po
i
n
t
Eccles6
7
Fly
o
v
e
r
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
t
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
t
Gateway
13
4
8
9
9
80
8
2
2
1
29
99
12
9
10
1
97
8
69
0
85
2
5 0
4
5
8
3 25
0
23
6
23
0
23
0
1
1
0
75
2
14
3
2
9
42
1
7
0
13
4
6
14
9
18
38
4 14
8
21
9
14
5
2
5
7
10
2
3
12
10
4
3
2
4
0
0
2
3
6
5
3
6
1
2
0
11
7
4
12
1
7
4
20
1
3
9
4
2
8
1
16
5
8
52
1
5
9
86
2
12
3
6
4
8
3
11
0
3
4
4
40
70 21
7
19
1
64
13
5
54
3
45
6
87
6
16
5
37
3
22
4
78
5
14
9
14
1
20
8
13
26
0
42
5
10
0
3
4
5
5
40
2
4
6
17
8
48
8
9
46
9
23
5
37
6
10
4
4
32
5
8
4
2
5
2
91
9
0
10
3
23
4
8
9
55
13
15
6
10
8
2
11
7
14
0
20
8
7
7
2
7
60
34
0
26
18
2
25
5
39
1
27
4
68
0
16
0
6
2
56
0
E
c
c
l
e
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
S
t
u
d
y
6
9
1
1
8
48
7
11
2
11
8
64
4
4
25
4
7
5
21
68
15
3
3
13
2
1
12
28
0
17
5
25
2
2
3
Dr Gull
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
S
i
t
e
25
7
4
-
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
38
2
2
31
8
2
22
2
8
17
6
1
15
7
1
27
9
0
19
9
4
20
6
3
32
6
7
24
7
9
29
7
8
24
2
8
17
4
7
32
1
1
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
(
2
0
1
6
)
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
W
e
e
k
d
a
y
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
A
Eccles
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
D
w
y
A
1
4
2
6
1
4
0
5
3
7
1
Fo
r
b
e
s
Eccl
e
s
A
v
Driveway8
4
8
60
0
68
23
13
6
8
9
1
1
3
3
3
1
9
7
6
101
101
Gateway
Blvd
Oyster Point Blvd
Sister Cit
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
E Grand
A
v
e
Air
p
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
Blv
d
Ave
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Du
b
u
q
u
e
S
.
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
Way
Southbound Mainline Fwy
Northbound Mainline Fwy
Offramps
Onramps
US 101 NB Mainline south
of Wondercolor Offramp
AM Peak Hour 10951
AM Peak Hour 8743
1011
779
711
793
US 101 SB Mainline north
of Airport Blvd Hookramps
AM Peak Hour 7692
US 101 SB Mainline south
of Produce Ave Onramp
AM Peak Hour 7936
1154
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
2
NORTH
Not To Scale
Existing (2016) AM Peak Hour (without Project)
Freeway and Ramp Volumes
Figure 4
US 101 NB Mainline north
of Oyster Point Onramp
AM Peak Hour
US 101 SB Offramp
to Oyster Point Blvd/
Gateway Blvd
AM Peak Hour
US 101 NB Offramp
to Dubuque Ave
AM Peak Hour
US 101 SB Onramp
from Produce Ave
AM Peak Hour
US 101 SB Onramp
from Dubuque Ave
AM Peak Hour
US 101 NB Onramp
from Oyster Point Blvd/
Dubuque Ave
1384AM Peak Hour
US 101 NB Offramp
to E Grand Ave/
Executive Dr
560 Eccles Traffic Study
101
101
Gateway
Blvd
Oyster Point Blvd
Sister Cit
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
E Grand
A
v
e
Air
p
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
Blv
d
Ave
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Du
b
u
q
u
e
S
.
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
Way
Southbound Mainline Fwy
Northbound Mainline Fwy
Offramps
Onramps
US 101 NB Mainline south
of Wondercolor Offramp
187
486
1052
1289
US 101 SB Mainline north
of Airport Blvd Hookramps
US 101 SB Mainline south
of Produce Ave Onramp
1925
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
2
NORTH
Not To Scale
Existing (2016) PM Peak Hour (without Project)
Freeway and Ramp Volumes
Figure 5
US 101 NB Mainline north
of Oyster Point Onramp
PM Peak Hour
US 101 SB Offramp
to Oyster Point Blvd/
Gateway Blvd
PM Peak Hour
US 101 NB Offramp
to Dubuque Ave
PM Peak Hour
US 101 SB Onramp
from Produce Ave
PM Peak Hour
US 101 SB Onramp
from Dubuque Ave
PM Peak Hour
US 101 NB Onramp
from Oyster Point Blvd/
Dubuque Ave
481PM Peak Hour
US 101 NB Offramp
to E Grand Ave/
Executive Dr
PM Peak Hour 7551
PM Peak Hour 8607
PM Peak Hour 6852
PM Peak Hour 8677
560 Eccles Traffic Study
54
C
R
A
N
E
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
G
R
O
U
P
NO
R
T
H
No
t
T
o
S
c
a
l
e
2
Fi
g
u
r
e
6
Y
e
a
r
2
0
4
0
(
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
)
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
W
e
e
k
d
a
y
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
Veterans 5
10
1
10
1
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
Sis
t
e
r
C
i
t
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Airpor
t
San Mateo Av
Produce Ave
Littlefield Ave
Harbor Way
Blv
d
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
Bl
v
d
Blv
d
Av
e
Mi
l
l
e
r
A
v
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
U
t
a
h
A
v
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
Grand
Av
e
F
o
r
b
e
s
B
l
v
d
A
v
e
Alle
r
t
o
n
A
v
e
Dr Gull
E
c
c
l
e
s
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
Dubuq
u
e
Ea
s
t
E
Wo
n
d
e
r
c
o
l
o
r
L
n
Mi
t
c
h
e
l
l
A
v
10
12
11
13
15
2
1
4
3
5
6
7
14
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
12
E
G
r
a
n
d
Gateway
E
G
r
a
n
d
HarborForbes
Gr
a
n
d
Ov
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
Ov
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
Dubuque
Gr
a
n
d
East
Grand
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
Airport Produce
15
Mi
t
c
h
e
l
l
Gateway S Airport
11
14
10
Gr
a
n
d
Airport
Si
s
t
e
r
Ci
t
i
e
s
Oy
s
t
e
r
Po
i
n
t
Airport
Dubuque
1
Oy
s
t
e
r
Po
i
n
t
NB
Onramp 2
Dubuque
SB
1
0
1
On
r
a
m
p
3
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
t
345-347
OP
Oy
s
t
e
r
Po
i
n
t
Eccles6
7
Fo
r
b
e
s
Eccl
e
s
A
v
Driveway
Fly
o
v
e
r
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
t
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
t
Gateway
13
4
8
8
9
9
62
1
49
3
70
11
11
0
38
3
26
5
0
70
25
7
8
2
3
21
5
55
9
1
5
6
3
28
23
1
5
24
9
5
22
7
26
1
52
1
92
6
1
38
4
8
3
18
6
17
2
84
86
10
6
9
1
4
2
3
1
2
4
2
5 29
0
75
9
22
3
36
7
10
3
25
5 21
6
3
9
8
44
14
9
15
5
19
5
31
12
0
16
9
38
13
2
23
4
44
2
5
9
4
10
3
7
28
3
19
42
8
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
S
i
t
e
41
4
7
50
0
2
23
0
9
24
9
5
36
9
3
30
9
2
31
5
4
25
7
4
-
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
35
2
7
46
8
6
49
1
6
41
9
2
34
3
4
17
5
6
31
9
2
37
0
17
9
29
6
5 1
1
2
6
0
1 51
3
49
3
17
3
1
59
7
10
3
9
49
6
71
1
8
24
8
3
8
4
80
6
20
4
0
49
2
10
2
77
73
0
29
9
11
7
4
34
6
2
0
8
9
4
17
3
4
38
99 42
7
26
8
27
66
0
29
8
17
4
24
5
83
55
2
2
12
8
20
6
26
5
16
2
17
8
20
7
8
98
7
8
2
35
8
10
8
23
9
84
67
12
3
34
0
42
68
0
22
6
7
15
2
1
8
1
55
1
12
5
29
8
9
0
68
51
8
12
7
19
9
15
7
30
7
1
6
6
4
7
0
47
5
10
2
10
5
2
52
10
5
17
2
4
4
1
26
38 55
8
44
6
11
15
0
66
8
16
8
6
6
4
Eccles
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
D
w
y
A
A
1
6
6
1
5
9
1
4
1
5
56
0
E
c
c
l
e
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
S
t
u
d
y
CR
A
N
E
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
G
R
O
U
P
NO
R
T
H
No
t
T
o
S
c
a
l
e
2
Fi
g
u
r
e
7
Y
e
a
r
2
0
4
0
(
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
)
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
W
e
e
k
d
a
y
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
Veterans 5
10
1
10
1
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
Sis
t
e
r
C
i
t
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Airpor
t
San Mateo Av
Produce Ave
Littlefield Ave
Harbor Way
Blv
d
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
Bl
v
d
Blv
d
Av
e
Mi
l
l
e
r
A
v
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
U
t
a
h
A
v
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
Grand
Av
e
F
o
r
b
e
s
B
l
v
d
A
v
e
Alle
r
t
o
n
A
v
e
Dr Gull
E
c
c
l
e
s
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
Dubuq
u
e
Ea
s
t
E
Wo
n
d
e
r
c
o
l
o
r
L
n
Mi
t
c
h
e
l
l
A
v
10
12
11
13
15
2
1
4
3
5
6
7
14
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
12
E
G
r
a
n
d
Gateway
E
G
r
a
n
d
HarborForbes
Gr
a
n
d
Ov
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
Ov
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
Dubuque
Gr
a
n
d
East
Grand
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
Airport Produce
15
Mi
t
c
h
e
l
l
Gateway S Airport
11
14
10
Gr
a
n
d
Airport
Si
s
t
e
r
Ci
t
i
e
s
Oy
s
t
e
r
Po
i
n
t
Airport
Dubuque
1
Oy
s
t
e
r
Po
i
n
t
NB
Onramp 2
Dubuque
SB
1
0
1
On
r
a
m
p
3
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
t
345-347
OP
Oy
s
t
e
r
Po
i
n
t
Eccles6
7
Fo
r
b
e
s
Eccl
e
s
A
v
Driveway
Fly
o
v
e
r
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
t
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
t
Gateway
13
4
8
8
9
9
9
2
90
1
17
2
99
1
6
2
1
4
2
2
1
5
5
2
4
4
4
2
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
S
i
t
e
41
0
8
63
4
6
26
1
3
32
6
3
40
0
2
31
3
0
41
2
7
25
7
4
-
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
31
7
9
46
0
0
36
3
6
36
5
5
30
9
7
15
8
6
28
6
3
55
6
8
20
8
7
10
3
8
14
4
6
5 0
5
5
3
4 40
0
34
1
34
4
31
7
1
6
2
11
8
3
21
5
3
0
49
3
1
1
2
23
7
0
10
0
2
2
3
6
49
7
15
11
9 3
32
8
31
6
14
6
3
8
2
16
7
8
27
21
0
3
1
4
5
1
9
5
2
5
4
7
8
4
7
22
4
8
34
21
1
79
1
7
4
5
3
8
6
26
8
8
15
6
17
12
1
15
6
7
14
4
6
5
1
1
4
11
1
4
4
5
41
23
5 24
7
26
4
65
31
0
62
8
46
6
11
0
9
18
7
48
9
50
5
15
9
7
45
7
12
0
2
9
6
11
5
9
1
18
9
49
5
9
0
15
6
42
23
0
20
1
9
15
7
14
1
24
1
7
8
4
6
12
5
34
1
33
18
3
49
0
49
8
53
2
10
0
4
16
1
8
7
17
5
1
1
9
52
5
12
7
21
9
65
8
1
34
4
30
8
22
20
9
22
9
9
22
1
8
30
29
0
22
6
30
5
6
1
44
0
10
8
3
36
8
10
0
3
20
4
14
2
24
2
2
8
0
33
10
0
13
0
10
2
14
26
1
52
5
10
1
4
1
5
6
45
5
8
7
34
3
73
8
1
0
54
8
Eccles
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
D
w
y
A
A
1
4
2
6
24
5
5
3
56
0
E
c
c
l
e
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
S
t
u
d
y
101
101
Gateway
Blvd
Oyster Point Blvd
Sister Cit
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
E Grand
A
v
e
Air
p
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
Blv
d
Ave
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Du
b
u
q
u
e
S
.
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
Way
Southbound Mainline Fwy
Northbound Mainline Fwy
Offramps
Onramps
US 101 NB Mainline south
of Wondercolor Offramp
AM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
US 101 SB Mainline north
of Airport Blvd Hookramps
AM Peak Hour
US 101 SB Mainline south
of Produce Ave Onramp
AM Peak Hour
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
2
NORTH
Not To Scale
Year 2040 (Cumulative) AM Peak Hour (without Project)
Freeway and Ramp Volumes
Figure 8
US 101 NB Mainline north
of Oyster Point Onramp
AM Peak Hour
US 101 SB Offramp
to Oyster Point Blvd/
Gateway Blvd
AM Peak Hour
US 101 NB Offramp
to Dubuque Ave
AM Peak Hour
US 101 SB Onramp
from Produce Ave
AM Peak Hour
US 101 SB Onramp
from Dubuque Ave
AM Peak Hour
US 101 NB Onramp
from Oyster Point Blvd/
Dubuque Ave
AM Peak Hour
US 101 NB Offramp
to E Grand Ave/
Executive Dr
13478
1395
10426
912
825
1520
1312
1154
9623
9216
560 Eccles Traffic Study
101
101
Gateway
Blvd
Oyster Point Blvd
Sister Cit
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
E Grand
A
v
e
Air
p
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
Blv
d
Ave
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Du
b
u
q
u
e
S
.
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
Way
Southbound Mainline Fwy
Northbound Mainline Fwy
Offramps
Onramps
US 101 NB Mainline south
of Wondercolor Offramp
209
597
1708
2546
US 101 SB Mainline north
of Airport Blvd Hookramps
US 101 SB Mainline south
of Produce Ave Onramp
2366
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
2
NORTH
Not To Scale
US 101 NB Mainline north
of Oyster Point Onramp
PM Peak Hour
US 101 SB Offramp
to Oyster Point Blvd/
Gateway Blvd
PM Peak Hour
US 101 NB Offramp
to Dubuque Ave
PM Peak Hour
US 101 SB Onramp
from Produce Ave
PM Peak Hour
US 101 SB Onramp
from Dubuque Ave
PM Peak Hour
US 101 NB Onramp
from Oyster Point Blvd/
Dubuque Ave
483PM Peak Hour
US 101 NB Offramp
to E Grand Ave/
Executive Dr
PM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
10397
12567
8794
11332
Year 2040 (Cumulative) PM Peak Hour (without Project)
Freeway and Ramp Volumes
Figure 9
560 Eccles Traffic Study
CR
A
N
E
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
G
R
O
U
P
NO
R
T
H
No
t
T
o
S
c
a
l
e
2
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
0
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
Veterans 5
10
1
10
1
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
Sis
t
e
r
C
i
t
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Airpor
t
San Mateo Av
Produce Ave
Littlefield Ave
Harbor Way
Blv
d
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
Bl
v
d
Blv
d
Av
e
Mi
l
l
e
r
A
v
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
U
t
a
h
A
v
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
Grand
Av
e
F
o
r
b
e
s
B
l
v
d
A
v
e
Alle
r
t
o
n
A
v
e
Dr Gull
E
c
c
l
e
s
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
Dubuq
u
e
Ea
s
t
E
Wo
n
d
e
r
c
o
l
o
r
L
n
Mi
t
c
h
e
l
l
A
v
10
12
11
13
15
2
1
4
3
5
6
7
14
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
12
E
G
r
a
n
d
Gateway
E
G
r
a
n
d
HarborForbes
Gr
a
n
d
Ov
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
Ov
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
Dubuque
Gr
a
n
d
East
Grand
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
Airport Produce
15
Mi
t
c
h
e
l
l
Gateway S Airport
11
14
10
Gr
a
n
d
Airport
Si
s
t
e
r
Ci
t
i
e
s
Oy
s
t
e
r
Po
i
n
t
Airport
Dubuque
1
Oy
s
t
e
r
Po
i
n
t
NB
Onramp 2 Dubuque
SB
1
0
1
On
r
a
m
p
NB
1
0
1
O
f
f
r
a
m
p
3
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
t
345-347
OP
Oy
s
t
e
r
Po
i
n
t
Eccles6
7
Fo
r
b
e
s
Eccl
e
s
A
v
Driveway
Fly
o
v
e
r
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
t
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
t
Gateway
13
4
8
8
9
9
1 1
7
1
7
1
9 9
2
9
9
3
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
56
0
E
c
c
l
e
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
S
t
u
d
y
1
1
2
1
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
S
i
t
e
1
1
0
8
8
8
1
1
2
0
3
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
V
o
l
u
m
e
0
2
3
2
0
1
8
2
0
2
0
3
9
Eccles
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
D
w
y
Project Dwy
A
A
2
3
9
101
101
Gateway
Blvd
Oyster Point Blvd
Sister Cit
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
E Grand
A
v
e
Air
p
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
Blv
d
Ave
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Du
b
u
q
u
e
S
.
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
Way
Southbound Mainline Fwy
Northbound Mainline Fwy
Offramps
Onramps
US 101 NB Mainline south
of Wondercolor Offramp
AM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
US 101 SB Mainline north
of Airport Blvd Hookramps
AM Peak Hour
US 101 SB Mainline south
of Produce Ave Onramp
AM Peak Hour
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
2
NORTH
Not To Scale
AM Peak Hour Freeway and Ramp
Project Disribution
Figure 11
US 101 NB Mainline north
of Oyster Point Onramp
AM Peak Hour
US 101 SB Offramp
to Oyster Point Blvd/
Gateway Blvd
AM Peak Hour
US 101 NB Offramp
to Dubuque Ave
AM Peak Hour
US 101 SB Onramp
from Produce Ave
AM Peak Hour
US 101 SB Onramp
from Dubuque Ave
AM Peak Hour
US 101 NB Onramp
from Oyster Point Blvd/
Dubuque Ave
AM Peak Hour
US 101 NB Offramp
to E Grand Ave/
Executive Dr
10
3
1
1
1
8
7
0
8
1
560 Eccles Traffic Study
CR
A
N
E
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
G
R
O
U
P
NO
R
T
H
No
t
T
o
S
c
a
l
e
2
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
2
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
Veterans 5
10
1
10
1
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
Sis
t
e
r
C
i
t
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Airpor
t
San Mateo Av
Produce Ave
Littlefield Ave
Harbor Way
Blv
d
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
Bl
v
d
Blv
d
Av
e
Mi
l
l
e
r
A
v
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
U
t
a
h
A
v
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
Grand
Av
e
F
o
r
b
e
s
B
l
v
d
A
v
e
Alle
r
t
o
n
A
v
e
Dr Gull
E
c
c
l
e
s
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
Dubuq
u
e
Ea
s
t
E
Wo
n
d
e
r
c
o
l
o
r
L
n
Mi
t
c
h
e
l
l
A
v
10
12
11
13
15
2
1
4
3
5
6
7
14
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
12
E
G
r
a
n
d
Gateway
E
G
r
a
n
d
HarborForbes
Gr
a
n
d
Ov
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
Ov
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
Dubuque
Gr
a
n
d
East
Grand
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
Airport Produce
15
Mi
t
c
h
e
l
l
Gateway S Airport
11
14
10
Gr
a
n
d
Airport
Si
s
t
e
r
Ci
t
i
e
s
Oy
s
t
e
r
Po
i
n
t
Airport
Dubuque
1
Oy
s
t
e
r
Po
i
n
t
NB
Onramp 2 Dubuque
SB
1
0
1
On
r
a
m
p
NB
1
0
1
O
f
f
r
a
m
p
3
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
t
345-347
OP
Oy
s
t
e
r
Po
i
n
t
Eccles6
7
Fo
r
b
e
s
Eccl
e
s
A
v
Driveway
Fly
o
v
e
r
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
t
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
t
Gateway
13
4
8
8
9
9
7
2
3
6
6
8
6
14
14
6
1
1
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
S
i
t
e
1
1
4
6
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
3
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
V
o
l
u
m
e
3
2
2
1
4
1
4
1
4
5
6
2
3
5
5
1
56
0
E
c
c
l
e
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
S
t
u
d
y
Eccles
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
D
w
y
A
A
8 5
101
101
Gateway
Blvd
Oyster Point Blvd
Sister Cit
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
E Grand
A
v
e
Air
p
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
Blv
d
Ave
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Du
b
u
q
u
e
S
.
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
Way
Southbound Mainline Fwy
Northbound Mainline Fwy
Offramps
Onramps
US 101 NB Mainline south
of Wondercolor Offramp
PM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
US 101 SB Mainline north
of Airport Blvd Hookramps
PM Peak Hour
US 101 SB Mainline south
of Produce Ave Onramp
PM Peak Hour
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
2
NORTH
Not To Scale
PM Peak Hour Freeway and Ramp
Project Distribution
Figure 13
US 101 NB Mainline north
of Oyster Point Onramp
PM Peak Hour
US 101 SB Offramp
to Oyster Point Blvd/
Gateway Blvd
PM Peak Hour
US 101 NB Offramp
to Dubuque Ave
PM Peak Hour
US 101 SB Onramp
from Produce Ave
PM Peak Hour
US 101 SB Onramp
from Dubuque Ave
PM Peak Hour
US 101 NB Onramp
from Oyster Point Blvd/
Dubuque Ave
PM Peak Hour
US 101 NB Offramp
to E Grand Ave/
Executive Dr
0
0
7
7
6
0
0
3
0
9
560 Eccles Traffic Study
C
R
A
N
E
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
G
R
O
U
P
NO
R
T
H
No
t
T
o
S
c
a
l
e
2
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
4
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
W
e
e
k
d
a
y
A
M
a
n
d
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
10
1
10
1
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
Sis
t
e
r
C
i
t
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Airpor
t
San Mateo Av
Produce Ave
Littlefield Ave
Harbor Way
Blv
d
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
Bl
v
d
Blv
d
Av
e
Mi
l
l
e
r
A
v
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
U
t
a
h
A
v
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
Grand
F
o
r
b
e
s
B
l
v
d
A
v
e
Alle
r
t
o
n
A
v
e
Dr Gull
E
c
c
l
e
s
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
Dubuq
u
e
Ea
s
t
E
Wo
n
d
e
r
c
o
l
o
r
L
n
Mi
t
c
h
e
l
l
A
v
10
12
11
13
15
2
1
4
3
5
6
7
14
1
8
9
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
S
i
t
e
.0
3
%
.3
%
2
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
.5
%
3
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
.6
%
4
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
.8
%
5
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
1.
0
1
5
%
6
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
.5
%
7
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
.0
4
%
9
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
.0
7
%
10
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
.1
%
11
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
.0
7
%
12
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
.1
%
13
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
0
%
0
%
14
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
15
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
.3
%
8
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
.0
3
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.4
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.0
4
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.
0
5
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.0
9
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.
1
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.0
5
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.0
7
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.2
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.4
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.4
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.
6
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.
8
%
LO
S
B
*
*L
O
S
=
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.3
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.
5
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
56
0
E
c
c
l
e
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
S
t
u
d
y
101
101
Gateway
Blvd
Oyster Point Blvd
Sister Cit
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
E Grand
A
v
e
Air
p
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
Blv
d
Ave
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Du
b
u
q
u
e
S
.
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
Way
Southbound Mainline Fwy
Northbound Mainline Fwy
Offramps
Onramps
US 101 NB Mainline south
of Wondercolor Offramp
US 101 SB Mainline north
of Airport Blvd Hookramps
US 101 SB Mainline south
of Produce Ave Onramp
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
2
NORTH
Not To Scale
Existing (2016) AM and PM Peak Hour
Freeway and Ramp Project Percent
Figure 15
US 101 NB Mainline north
of Oyster Point Onramp
US 101 SB Offramp
to Oyster Point Blvd/
Gateway Blvd
US 101 NB Offramp
to Dubuque Ave
US 101 SB Onramp
from Produce Ave
US 101 SB Onramp
from Dubuque Ave
US 101 NB Onramp
from Oyster Point Blvd/
Dubuque Ave
US 101 NB Offramp
to E Grand Ave/
Executive Dr
AM - .1%PM - 0%
AM - .13%
AM - .01%
AM - .8%
AM - .9%
AM - .1%
AM - 0%
AM - 01%
AM - .2%
PM - .02%
PM - .16%
PM - 0%
AM - .14%PM - .1%
PM - 0%
PM - 0%
PM - 0%
PM - .03%
PM - .1%
560 Eccles Traffic Study
C
R
A
N
E
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
G
R
O
U
P
NO
R
T
H
No
t
T
o
S
c
a
l
e
2
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
6
Y
e
a
r
2
0
4
0
(
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
)
W
e
e
k
d
a
y
A
M
a
n
d
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
10
1
10
1
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
Sis
t
e
r
C
i
t
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Airpor
t
San Mateo Av
Produce Ave
Littlefield Ave
Harbor Way
Blv
d
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
Bl
v
d
Blv
d
Av
e
Mi
l
l
e
r
A
v
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
U
t
a
h
A
v
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
Grand
F
o
r
b
e
s
B
l
v
d
A
v
e
Alle
r
t
o
n
A
v
e
Dr Gull
E
c
c
l
e
s
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
Dubuq
u
e
Ea
s
t
E
Wo
n
d
e
r
c
o
l
o
r
L
n
Mi
t
c
h
e
l
l
A
v
10
12
11
13
15
2
1
4
3
5
6
7
14
1
8
9
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
S
i
t
e
.0
2
%
.2
%
2
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
.3
%
3
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
.4
%
4
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
.5
%
5
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
.
6
%
6
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
.3
%
7
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
.0
3
%
9
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
.0
4
%
10
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
.
0
7
%
11
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
.0
7
%
12
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
.
0
6
%
13
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
0
%
0
%
14
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
15
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
.2
%
8
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
.
0
2
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.2
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.0
2
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.
0
3
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.0
7
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.
0
9
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.
0
3
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.0
4
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.
1
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.3
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.2
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.4
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.
5
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.2
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
.
3
%
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
56
0
E
c
c
l
e
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
S
t
u
d
y
101
101
Gateway
Blvd
Oyster Point Blvd
Sister Cit
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
E Grand
A
v
e
Air
p
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
Blv
d
Ave
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Du
b
u
q
u
e
S
.
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
Way
Southbound Mainline Fwy
Northbound Mainline Fwy
Offramps
Onramps
US 101 NB Mainline south
of Wondercolor Offramp
US 101 SB Mainline north
of Airport Blvd Hookramps
US 101 SB Mainline south
of Produce Ave Onramp
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
2
NORTH
Not To Scale
Year 2040 (Cumulative) AM and PM Peak Hour
Freeway and Ramp Project Percent
Figure 17
US 101 NB Mainline north
of Oyster Point Onramp
US 101 SB Offramp
to Oyster Point Blvd/
Gateway Blvd
US 101 NB Offramp
to Dubuque Ave
US 101 SB Onramp
from Produce Ave
US 101 SB Onramp
from Dubuque Ave
US 101 NB Onramp
from Oyster Point Blvd/
Dubuque Ave
US 101 NB Offramp
to E Grand Ave/
Executive Dr
AM - .08%PM - 0%
AM - .11%
AM - .01%
AM - .5%
AM - .5%
AM - .07%
AM - 0%
AM - 01%
AM - .2%
PM - .06%
PM - .3%
PM - 0%
AM - .12% PM - .4%
PM - 0%
PM - 0%
PM - 0%
PM - .08%
PM - .1%
560 Eccles Traffic Study
Table 1
CTG
08/10/17 560 Eccles
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Table 1
560 ECCLES SITE
USDA BUILDING TRIP GENERATION
DAILY AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
ACTIVITY
#
HOURS
2-WAY
TRIPS
INBOUND
OUTBOUND
INBOUND
OUTBOUND
Employees – Regular Shift
19 8:00 AM-
4:30 PM*
42 19 0 0 19
Field Employees
(usually not in office)
4 2 visits/week;
1 hour each
4 0 0 0 0
Employee – First In 1 6:00 AM-
3:00 PM
2 0 0 0 0
Employee – Last In 1 9:00 AM-
6:00 PM
2 0 0 0 0
Visitors/Customers
15/day 8:00 AM-
4:30 PM
30 1 1 0 0
Delivery Trucks
(Non-FedEx, UPS/ U.S. Mail)
14/day 8:00 AM-
4:30 PM
28 1 1 0 0
TOTAL
108 21 2 0 19
* 10% go out to lunch.
Source: Crane Transportation Group