Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 29-2018 (18-103)File Number: 18 -103 City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) City Council South San Francisco, CA Resolution: RES 29 -2018 Enactment Number: RES 29 -2018 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND A DETERMINATION THAT THE 988 EL CAMINO REAL MIXED -USE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15332 AND 15183, AND PER PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21155.4, AND THAT THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE EL CAMINO REAL /CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15168. WHEREAS, the SummerHill Homes has proposed construction of a high- density mixed -use residential development, consisting of 172 residential units, 10,900 sq. ft. of retail space, and 259 parking spaces over 1.67 acres at 988 El Camino Real, APNs 011 - 325 -030, 011- 325 -070, 011 - 325 -260, and 011 - 014 -280 (collectively referred to as the "Project ") in the City of South San Francisco ( "City "); and WHEREAS, the proposed Project is located within the El Camino Real / Chestnut Area Plan ( "ECR/C ") area; and WHEREAS, the applicant seeks approval of a Conditional Use Permit (UP17- 0013), Design Review (DR17- 0049), Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM17- 0006), and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (PM 17-0004) for the Project; and WHEREAS, approval of the applicant's proposal is considered a "project" for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code §21000, et seq. (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on July 27, 2011 (State Clearinghouse number 2010072015), in accordance with the provisions of the CEQA (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq., CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the development of the ECR/C Area Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) on July 27, 2011, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq., CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines, which carefully considered each significant and Gity of South San Francisco Page 1 File Number. 18 -103 Enactment Number. RES 29 -2018 unavoidable impact identified in the EIR and found that the significant environmental impacts are acceptable in light of the ECR/C Area Plan's economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits; and WHEREAS, the City Council certified a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) on December 13, 2017 (State Clearinghouse number 1996032052) in accordance with the provisions of the CEQA (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq., CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of amendments to the ECR/C Area Plan and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332 as it is a qualified in -fill development project; and WHEREAS, the Project is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15183, as it is consistent with the General Plan and the ECR/C Area Plan and would have no environmental impacts that would be peculiar to the Project; and WHEREAS, the Project is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section per Public Resources Code section 21155.4 as the Project is a mixed -use development project that meets three specific criteria and has no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the EIR and applicable portions of the SEIR ( "EIRs "), and is statutorily exempt from CEQA review; and WHEREAS, the City and applicant prepared an Environmental Consistency Analysis ( "ECA ") for the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15183 and an Environmental Checklist pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15168(c)(4) that concluded that even if the Project was not exempt from CEQA pursuant to the above - listed exemptions, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines § 15168, the Project is within the scope of the ECR/C Area Plan and would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the ECR/C EIRs certified by City Council nor would new mitigation be required; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2018, the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed entitlements and environmental effects of the Project and take public testimony; and WHEREAS, on February 28, 2018, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed entitlements and environmental effects of the Project, and take public testimony; and City of South San Francisco Page 2 File Number: 18 -103 Enactment Number: RES 29 -2018 WHEREAS, the City Council exercised its independent judgment and analysis, and considered all reports, recommendations, and testimony before making a determination on the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR; the El Camino / Chestnut Area Plan and Area Plan Program EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations; the SEIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code ( "SSFMC "); the Environmental Consistency Analysis, as prepared by the applicant and City staff, including all appendices thereto; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed February 28, 2018 meeting; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS General 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. 2. The Exhibits attached to this resolution, including the Environmental Consistency Analysis, as prepared by the applicant and City staff (Exhibit A), and Environmental Consistency Analysis Supporting Documents (Exhibits B -H) are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager, Sailesh Mehra. CEOA Findings 1. For the reasons stated in this Resolution, the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15332: Class 32 as an infill development project because: a. As described in the record, the Project is consistent with the City's General Plan, all applicable General Plan policies and zoning designations and regulations. b. The Project will be located within the City's limits, on a site of less than 5 acres and will be surrounded by urban uses in a built -out environment. c. The Project site no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species as it is in a built -out environment and is currently disturbed as the site of an existing carwash and parking areas. Citv of South San Francisco Paue 3 File Number: 18 -103 Enactment Number: RES 29 -2018 d. As supported by the findings of the ECA, approval of the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. e. The Project can be adequately serviced by all required utilities and public services. 2. For the reasons stated in this Resolution, the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15183 as the Project is consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan or Zoning because as supported by the findings of the ECA: a. The Project is consistent with the development density established by existing ECR/C zoning, Area Plan, and General Plan policies for which the ECR/C Area Plan Program EIR was certified. b. There are no project - specific effects which are peculiar to the Projector its site. c. There are no project - specific impacts which the ECR/C Area Plan Program EIR failed to analyze as significant effects. d. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which the ECR/C Area Plan Program EIR failed to evaluate. e. There is no substantial new information which results in more severe impacts than anticipated by the ECR/C Program EIR 3. For the reasons stated in this Resolution, there is not substantial evidence in the record to support a fair argument that approval of the Project will result in significant environmental effects beyond those adequately evaluated and addressed by the ECR/C Program EIRs nor would the Project require any new mitigation measures and therefore the Project is within the scope of the ECR/C Area Plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 because: a. The Project does not propose substantial changes to the ECR/C Area Plan Project, which will require major revisions of the ECR/C Program EIRs due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; b. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the ECR/C Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the ECR/C Program EIRs due to the involvement of new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; c. No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the ECR/C Program EIRs was certified as complete, shows any of the following: i. The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the ECR/C Program EIRs; ii. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIRs; iii. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or City of South San Francisco Page 4 File Number: 18 -103 Enactment Number: RES 29 -2018 iv. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the ECR/C Program EIRs would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. 4. For reasons stated in this resolution, the Project is statutorily exempt from CEQA per Public Resources Code section 21155.4 as it is a mixed -use transit priority project as defined by Senate Bill (SB) 375, and meets the following criteria: a. The Project is proposed within a transit priority area, as it is within one -half mile of an existing major transit stop that is served by at least two major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods; and b. The Project implements and is consistent with the ECR/C Chestnut Area Plan, which was approved pursuant to a certified Program EIR; and c. The Project is consistent is with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies for the ECR/C Area in Plan Bay Area 2040, which is the Bay Area Sustainable Communities Strategy. 5. Based upon the testimony and information presented at the hearing and upon review and consideration of the environmental documentation provided, including but not limited to the Environmental Consistency Analysis, as prepared by City staff and the applicant, attached hereto as Exhibit A the City Council, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, finds that the Project is statutorily and categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15332: Class 32, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15183, and pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21155.4, the Project falls within the environmental parameters analyzed in the ECR/C EIRs, and further finds that the Project is within the scope of the ECR/C Area Plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15168 because the Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the ECR/C Program EIRs certified by City Council nor would new mitigation be required by the Project. These findings are supported by the fact that, the Project implements the policies of the ECR/C Area Plan, and the Project prepared an Historic Resources Analysis, an Archaeological Report, a Geotechnical Investigation, a Solar Study, a Noise Assessment, a Traffic and Circulation Analysis, and a Sewer Analysis, all of which determined that the Project would not result in any new impacts not adequately evaluated and addressed by the ECR/C Program EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations. SECTION 2 DETERMINATION BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the City of South San Francisco Page 5 File Number. 18 -103 Enactment Number: RES 29 -2018 findings contained in this Resolution and a determination that the Project is statutorily and categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15332: Class 32, Public Resources Code § 21155.4, and CEQA Guidelines §15183 and the Project is within the scope of the ECR/C Area Plan under CEQA Guidelines § 15168 because the environmental effects of the Project were sufficiently analyzed under the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan (ECR/C) Program Environmental Impact Report and Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIRs), per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as analyzed in the Environmental Consistency Analysis. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. At a meeting of the City Council on 2/28/2018, a motion was made by Richard Garbarino, seconded by Mark Addiego, that this Resolution be approved. The motion passed. Yes: 5 Mayor Normandy, Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto, Councilmember Garbarino, Councilmember Gupta, and Councilmember Addiego City of South San Francisco Page 6 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 1 INTRODUCTION This document is a Consistency Checklist to examine the environmental effects of the proposed 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development (the “Project”). This document has been prepared in accordance with the relevant provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (as amended) and the State CEQA Guidelines as implemented by the City of South San Francisco (the “City”). According to Section 15168(c)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a program EIR can be used in compliance with CEQA to address the effects of a subsequent activity so long as the activity is within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR and no new effects are found and no new mitigation measures would be required. As supported by the analysis presented in this document, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than what was analyzed in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue (ECR/C) Area Plan Program EIR (“ECR/C EIR”) as modified by the Community Civic Campus Project Subsequent EIR (“Civic Project SEIR”). The ECR/C EIR and Civic Campus SEIR are collectively referred to as the ECR/C EIRs. This document includes a description of the Project and a comparison of the potential impacts of the Project to those identified in the ECR/C EIRs. This document also examines the consistency of the Project with the ECR/C Area Plan for the purposes of CEQA Guidelines 15183, which allows a streamlined environmental review process for projects that are consistent with the densities established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified. BACKGROUND On July 27, 2011, after public review and comment, the City certified the ECR/C EIR (State Clearinghouse #2010072015), adopted CEQA findings and a statement of overriding considerations, and adopted the ECR/C Area Plan. The ECR/C EIR assessed the potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the ECR/C Area Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Code amendments, which collectively established new land use, development, and urban design regulations for the Plan Area for a 20- year planning period. Subsequent to approval of the ECR/C Area Plan, the City modified it to permit a proposed Community Civic Center Campus Project and make other minor modifications, including updating the Zoning Code and General Plan (the “Civic Project”). The Civic Project SEIR reviewed the proposed modifications, concluding that new mitigation measures would be required from those disclosed in the ECR/C EIR. The City Council certified the Civic Project SEIR (State Clearinghouse #2010072015), adopted CEQA findings and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and adopted the changes to the ECR/C Area Plan, as well as associated zoning and General Plan amendments, on December 13, 2017. The full, original ECR/C EIRs are available for public review at the City of South San Francisco Planning Division, 315 Maple Avenue, in South San Francisco and online on the City of South San Francisco website at http://weblink.ssf.net/weblink/Browse.aspx?startid=341385&row=1&dbid=0 and http://weblink.ssf.net/weblink/0/fol/341385/Row1.aspx. Both of the ECR/C EIRs are incorporated by reference. The City has prepared this document to analyze the Project, which meets the relevant development standards in the General Plan, Zoning Code, and ECR/C Area Plan, and would implement the vision set forth in the ECR/C Area Plan as amended by the Civic Project (the “Area Plan”). LEGAL AUTHORITY CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 The Project is a component of the Area Plan and would implement the vision and goals described in the Area Plan 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 2 for the Project area. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines establish the type of environmental documentation which is required for subsequent actions in a program. Specifically, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines allow for limited environmental review of subsequent projects within the scope of a project analyzed in a Program EIR. Subsequent activities in a proposed program are examined in the light of the Program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. The CEQA Guidelines require agencies to use checklists or similar mechanisms to conduct this analysis. CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c) explains how the City should use the ECR/C EIR with later activities within the scope of the Area Plan: Use with Later Activities: Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. 1. If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new initial study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a negative declaration. 2. If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measure would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. 3. An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into subsequent actions in the program. 4. Where the subsequent activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the program EIR. 5. A program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with subsequent activities if it deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible. With a good and detailed analysis of the program, many subsequent activities could be found to be within the scope of the project described in the program EIR, and no further environmental documents would be required. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 The Project also is designed to be consistent with the development standards in the Area Plan and Zoning Code, which were analyzed in the ECR/C EIRs. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines mandate that projects consistent with the development density established by existing zoning policies or community plan for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. Specifically, in approving a project meeting the requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 15183, the City must limit its examination of environmental effects to those that the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis: 1. Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located, 2. Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan or community plan with which the project is consistent, 3. Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action, or 4. Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, then no additional EIR is required to address that impact. Uniformly applied development policies and standards include those policies in the General Plan, Area Plan, and Municipal Code, as well as applicable regional, state, 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 3 and federal laws. PURPOSE One purpose of the Consistency Checklist is to analyze whether the Project is within the scope of the Area Plan and whether its construction or operation could result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts than those identified in the ECR/C EIRs or require new mitigation measures. A second purpose of this Consistency Checklist is to analyze whether the Project would result in peculiar impacts that was not analyzed as significant in the ECR/C EIRs and would not be reduced to less-than-significant levels by uniformly applied development policies or standards. Another purpose of the Consistency Checklist is to make sure the Project is consistent with the zoning and Area Plan and has no impacts that are peculiar to the Project or Project site that either were not analyzed in the ECR/C EIRs or would be more severe than previously disclosed and would not be addressed by uniformly applied development policies or standard. As determined in the analysis provided in the Consistency Checklist, the Plan will not involve “new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects” that were not previously identified ECR/C EIRs. Additionally no new mitigation measures would be required; mitigation measures that were adopted for the ECR/C EIRs continue to remain applicable. The environmental impacts associated with the Project would be within the scope of impacts analyzed in the ECR/C EIRs and would not be new or greater. In addition, the Consistency Checklist shows that the Project is consistent with the Area Plan and zoning and has no impacts that would more severe than discussed in the ECR/C EIRs or that would be peculiar to the Project or the Project site. On the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, the City has determined that no further CEQA documentation is required for adoption of the Project because the Project meets the requirements under CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c) and that the Project qualifies for a CEQA exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15183. OTHER AVAILABLE CEQA EXEMPTIONS The City has chosen to rely on the CEQA review processes provided by CEQA Guidelines sections 15168 and 15183. Nevertheless, because the Consistency Checklist shows that the Project would have no new or more significant impacts on the environment than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs, the Project also may qualify for a few additional CEQA exemptions related to projects consistent with a Specific Plan that require the same findings. Although not specifically called a Specific Plan, the Area Plan has all of the information required by Government Code section 65451: text and diagrams that specify the (1) distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan, (2) distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan, (3) standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable, and (4) measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to implement paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). The Area Plan also includes a statement of its relationship to the General Plan. Accordingly, the CEQA exemption provided by Public Resources Code section 21155.4 applies to the Project. That section provides that residential, employment center, and mixed-use development projects that meet three specific criteria and has no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in applicable EIRs are statutorily exempt from CEQA review. The first criterion is that the project must be located within a transit priority area, which is “an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned.” A major transit stop includes an area served by at least two major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. (Pub. Resources Code § 21064.3.) The second criterion is that the project is undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan that was approved pursuant to a certified EIR. The third criterion is that the project is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specific for the project area in a sustainable communities strategy (“SCS”). The Consistency Checklist shows the 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 4 Project meets the criteria required to be exempt from CEQA under Public Resources Code section 21155.4. 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 5 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INITIAL STUDY AND CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST 1. Project Title 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development 2. Lead Agency Name and Address City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 3. Contact Person Adena Friedman, Senior Planner Economic and Community Development Department - Planning Division (650) 877-8535 Adena.friedman@ssf.net 4. Project Location 988 and 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, California, APNs: 011-325-030, 011-325-070, 014- 011-260, and 014-011-280. See Figure 1. 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address Elaine Breeze, Vice President of Development SummerHill Apartment Communities 777 South California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ebreeze@shapartments.com (650) 842-2404 6. General Plan Designation El Camino Real Mixed Use North, High Intensity 7. Zoning El Camino Real/Chestnut Mixed Use, High Density (ECR/C-MXH) 8. Project Description Overview The Project site consists of approximately 1.67 acres bounded by Chestnut Avenue to the northwest, Centennial Way Trail to the northeast, a developed commercial site to the southeast, and El Camino Real to the southwest. The Project site is an infill site that is currently developed with a car wash and surrounded by other urban uses and is located within the area covered by the Area Plan. The Project proposes to redevelop the Project site with a mixed residential/commercial development that would have 172 apartments above approximately 10,915 square feet of commercial space. The Project would consist of a single building that would be up to six stories tall over two floors of underground parking. The building would have a contemporary architectural style, using high-quality materials (primarily 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 6 brick and steel) that reference to the City’s historic industrial fabric. The Project also would be consistent with height limits and development standards for the Project site in the Area Plan and Zoning Code. Uses The Project would provide 172 residential units. Additionally, consistent with the Area Plan’s vision, the Project proposes active uses along its ground-floor frontages on El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue, with residential units above. Ground-floor active uses would include residential amenities and retail uses. Additional proposed active uses include a landscaped open space area along Centennial Way Trail with a publicly accessible outdoor fitness park. Below is a list of the Project’s amenities: • Publicly Accessible Amenities o Publicly accessible outdoor fitness park on the Project site and, pending landowner approval, on the adjacent Centennial Way Trail; and o An outdoor dining area facing the Centennial Way Trail • Resident Amenities o Two podium-level landscaped courtyards for resident use that would have lounge areas, fire pits, outdoor dining, games, BBQs, and a spa; o A club room off the spa courtyard; o Cyber cafe on the third floor; o Ground floor lobby and leasing office; and o Ground floor fitness studio and Wi-Fi lounge The Project would be approximately 178,315 square feet, including non-ground floor open spaces, broken down as follows (all sizes are approximate and in square feet): Residential: 152,280 Ground-floor retail: 10,360 Other ground-floor uses: Fitness 1,315 Lobby, Leasing, &Wi-Fi Lounge 2,800 Resident Amenities: North Courtyard 4,175 South Courtyard 5,925 Club Room 1,075 Cyber Café 350 In addition to the residential courtyards, the project includes publicly accessible open spaces including a plaza and fitness park area. Figure 2 shows a conceptual site plan for the Project. Parking, Circulation, and Transportation Demand Management Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via one 2-way entrance on El Camino Real close to the southern end of the Project site and a one-way entrance on Chestnut Avenue at the eastern end of the Project site. Pedestrians and cyclists would have access the Project site from El Camino Real, Chestnut Avenue, and Centennial Way Trail. 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 7 The Project would include 259 off-street parking spaces for residents, visitors, and the ground floor commercial uses, as well as 130 bicycle parking spaces. The Area Plan does not include a specific parking requirement for the multi-family portion of the Project and permits a maximum of one space for every 300 square feet of commercial space. As such, the Proposed Project includes 35 commercial parking spaces, the most permitted by the zoning district. A summary of the vehicle parking follows: Parking: Retail Max Permitted: 35 Retail Proposed: 35 Residential Required: N/A Residential Proposed: 224 (1.3 spaces:1 unit) Total Parking: 259 As noted above, there is no parking standard for residential uses on the Project site. The proposed 1.3 parking spaces per unit is consistent with the parking ratio used at other mixed-use developments within the City and meets the demand anticipated for residential multi-family development in the City and similar areas. The Proposed Project also includes a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program designed to reduce the number of peak-hour vehicle trips generated by the project by 28% through measures that include providing introductory transit passes, bike share, and carpool subsidies to new residents, bike parking and repair facilities, an online transportation information kiosk, carpool/rideshare matching, emergency rides home, and onsite facilities to encourage residents to telecommute. The TDM Program, together with the Project’s location near bicycle lanes and transit, will help reduce the need for vehicle use (and parking) by Project residents and employees. Frontage and Off-Site Improvements The El Camino Real and Chestnut frontages will be improved with 10-foot wide sidewalks, planting strips with street trees at the curb, benches, and other landscape treatments, consistent with the Grand Boulevard Plan. A public plaza with sculptural seating, landscaping and architectural pottery would be located at the intersection of Chestnut and El Camino Real. A pedestrian crossing at Chestnut and Antoinette will be constructed to continue the Centennial Way Trail across Chestnut Avenue, connecting the Project site to the future Community Civic Campus and the rest of the Centennial Way Trail. In addition, as mentioned above, with approval from Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), the Project would make improvements to a portion of Centennial Way Trail adjacent to the Project site. Infrastructure Improvements The Project would construct new on-site infrastructure to serve the Project, utilities that would be placed underground (water, sewer, site drainage, electrical wires, telephone wires, and cable), site lighting, and drainage. The Project would abandon existing public utility easements associated with previously abandoned Mission Road and reroute the public sewer main and place underground utilities within a new utility easement. 9. Existing Setting 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 8 Currently, the Project site contains a full-service car wash, with a two-way vehicular entrance provided from Chestnut Avenue and separate ingress and egress driveways on El Camino Real. The car wash is housed in a one-story building surrounded by parking and queuing areas, and includes a materials and storage area. The site also contains a vacant area in the northwest corner that contained a gas station, which was removed in 2007. The site is relatively level in elevation, at approximately 45 feet above mean sea level (msl). A 50-foot wide PG&E easement that contains a gas transmission line installed in 2014 is located along the eastern boundary of the Project site. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The Project site is within the El Camino Real / Chestnut Area Plan area (Figure 1). The Project site is bordered by Chestnut Avenue to the northwest; El Camino Real to the southwest; a PG&E easement, BART right-of-way (underground train), and open space (Centennial Way Trail) to the northeast; and commercial property (Burger King fast food restaurant) to the southeast. A gas station and bank are located on the western side of El Camino Real, while a currently vacant area is located on the northern side of Chestnut Avenue. The area north of Chestnut Avenue is the future site of the City’s Community Civic Campus, which would contain a library and recreation center, a police station, and offices for several City departments. 11. Required approval s (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): City: The Project requires CEQA clearance, a Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan and approval of a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map. Caltrans: The Project requires encroachment permits from Caltrans for improvements within the El Camino Real right-of-way. BART: The Project requires encroachment permits for improvements (i.e. pedestrian access to Centennial Trail from the Project and an outdoor fitness park) within the BART right-of-way. 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 9 FIGURE 1 – PROJECT VICINITY MAP 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 10 FIGURE 2 – CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN Sizes, measurements, and location of Project uses are conceptual. All measurements are approximate. 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 11 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation and Consistency Checklist: □ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. □ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. □ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. □ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ■ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed and addressed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) its effects are less than or equal to the effects disclosed in the earlier EIR(s) or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, nothing further is required. _______________________________________ January 26, 2018 Sailesh Mehra, Chief Planner Date 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 12 Significant and Unavoidable Impact, greater than identified in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs I. AESTHETICS/VISUAL RESOURCES. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified ECR/C EIRs, would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X Documentation: a. The ECR/C EIR identified that new development could affect scenic views of San Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill from some viewpoints in the area. However, according to the ECR/C EIR, development standards based on policies in the Area Plan limit tower dimensions and require a minimum tower separation. Design guidelines in the Area Plan would help ensure that views of Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain would be available. Additionally, such views from public streets and intersections would remain uninterrupted. As such, according to the ECR/C EIR, compliance with the City’s Zoning Ordinance and the Area Plan’s policies and design guidelines would ensure a less than significant impact on scenic views of Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.8-9). The Civic Project SEIR also concluded that impacts on scenic vistas would be less than significant without mitigation (Civic Project SEIR, p. 3.1-7). There are no designated scenic outlooks within the Area Plan area and no designated places where people would gather in order to gain a view of San Bruno Mountain or Sign Hill Park. The Project complies with the Area Plan policies designed to protect scenic vistas and has a height (80 feet to the top of the parapet) allowed under the Area Plan and El Camino Real/Chestnut Mixed-Use High Density (ECR/C-MXH) Zoning District, which permits a maximum height of 120 feet on the Project site with discretionary approval. As noted in the Civic Project SEIR, buildings in the Plan Area would be visible from Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain. However, the Plan Area is already developed and new construction would blend with existing structures. No changes have occurred since certification of the ECR/C EIRs that would change the conclusions of those documents. The Project would not have a significant impact any scenic vista, consistent with the conclusions in the ECR/C EIRs. b. The Plan Area is not visible from a State Scenic Highway and the ECR/C EIRs determined there would be no impact on state scenic highways (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.8-7; Civic Project SEIR, p. 3.1-8). El Camino Real is a State Highway, but it is not an official designated State Scenic Highway, nor is it eligible to 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 13 become a State Scenic Highway.1 The Plan Area is just over one mile east of U.S. Highway 101, which is not a scenic highway. Highway 280 is a State Scenic Highway located approximately one mile from the Plan Area, but is not visible from the Plan Area nor can the Plan Area be seen from it. There have been no changes to officially designated scenic highways in the Project vicinity since certification of the ECR/C EIRs. As such, the Project would continue to have no impact on a state scenic highway, consistent with the findings in the ECR/C EIRs. c. The ECR/C EIR concluded that implementation of the ECR/C Area Plan would improve the existing visual character of the Area Plan area. The Area Plan includes policies supporting development of a vibrant corridor that is walkable and pedestrian-scaled. The Area Plan established development standards for new construction that the ECR/C EIR concluded would minimize adverse aesthetic impacts and ensure harmony with the scale and character of existing surrounding development. The Area Plan would implement a comprehensive urban design scheme and includes policies that would ensure common design elements across the Area Plan area. As such, the ECR/C EIR found impacts on the existing visual character would be beneficial (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.8-7). The Civic Project SEIR agreed with the conclusions in the ECR/C EIR (Civic Project SEIR, p. 3.1-9). No changes have occurred since certification of the ECR/C EIRs that would change the conclusions of those documents. Implementation of the Project is consistent with the Area Plan’s aesthetic vision for the Project site. The Project would replace a car-oriented use with uses that would activate El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue, consistent with the Area Plan’s goal to create a walkable, pedestrian-oriented area. This goal also is supported by the Project’s proposed construction of significant pedestrian and streetscape enhancements along El Camino Real and Chestnut Area, as well as attractive and usable publicly accessible open space amenities. The Project would be subject to the Area Plan’s design guidelines, which ensure conformity with the Area Plan’s vision. Therefore, the Project would not substantially degrade the visual character of the area. As such, the Project’s impact on visual character remains less than significant, consistent with the findings in the ECR/C EIRs. d. The ECR/C EIR concluded that impacts of the original Area Plan from construction and operation as a result of light and glare would be less than significant because the Area Plan area is highly developed and has a number of existing light sources. The Area Plan allows residential uses, which the ECR/C EIR found may increase the amount of nighttime lighting. Nighttime lighting impacts are significant when they interfere with or intrude into neighboring residences. Light pollution is typically related to the use of high voltage light fixtures with inadequate shields and improper positioning or orientation. The ECR/C EIR found that compliance with the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which contains general standards for lighting, including standards that control outdoor artificial light, would reduce potentially significant long-term light and glare impacts to less than significant levels (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.8-11). The Civic Project SEIR reached the same conclusion (Civic Project SEIR, p. 3.1-9). No changes have occurred since certification of the ECR/C EIRs that would change those documents’ conclusions. The Project has been designed to adhere to the City’s requirements regarding lighting and architectural materials. In addition, the Project is consistent with the massing allowed under the Area Plan and Zoning Code. Therefore, no new sources of substantial light or glare not evaluated by the ECR/C EIRs would result from implementation of the Project. Consistent with the ECR/C EIRs, the Project would continue to result in less than significant impacts due to light and glare. In addition, to confirm that the Project would not adversely affect the light received by neighboring uses, the applicant submitted a solar study (August, 2017), which demonstrates that there will be little to no adverse shading effects to the adjacent properties as a result of the project (attached to this ECA). 1 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/guidelines/scenic_hwy_guidelines_04-12-2012.pdf 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 14 Significant and Unavoidable Impact, greater than identified in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs II. AGRICULTURE and FORESTRY RESOURCES. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified ECR/C EIRs, would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the d h X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland (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)). X d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forestland to non-forest use? X Documentation: a, b, e. (Farmland) As described in the ECR/C EIR and Civic Project SEIR, there are no agricultural resources in the Area Plan area. Therefore, development with the Plan Area would have no impact on any agriculture and forestry resources (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.12-2; Civic Project SEIR, p. 3.0-2). The Project site is located in an urbanized area and is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Department of Conservation. There are no Williamson Act contracts covering the Project site (California Department of Conservation 2007) and the site is not zoned for agricultural uses. Additionally, no changes have occurred in the planning area since the certification of the ECR/C EIRs. Therefore, the Project would not involve direct or indirect conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use and would have no impact on agricultural resources. c, d, e. (Forestland) As described in the ECR/C EIR and Civic Project SEIR, there are no forestry resources in the Area Plan area. Therefore, development with the Plan Area would have no impact on any forestry 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 15 resources (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.12-2; Civic Project SEIR, p. 3.0-2). The Project site is located in an urbanized area and is not designated as forestland, timberland, or zoned for forestland or timberland. There is no timber production in the Plan Area. No changes have occurred in the Area Plan area since the certification of the ECR/C EIRs. Therefore, the Project would not involve direct or indirect conversion of forestland to non-forest use and would have no impact on forestry resources. Significant and Unavoidable Impact, greater than identified in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs III. AIR QUALITY. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified ECR/C EIRs, would the Project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative threshold for ozone precursors? X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, including, but not limited to, substantial levels of toxic air contaminants? X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X Documentation: a. The ECR/C EIR found that new development under the Area Plan would be consistent with the 2010 Bay Area Clean Area Plan, in that the projected Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) increase for the Plan Area is less than the projected population increase, and the Area Plan policies are consistent with the air quality plan control measures in the 2010 Bay Area Clean Area Plan (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.2-17). The ECR/C EIR’s analysis followed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) guidelines, which specify that plan-level air quality impact is evaluated by determining the proposed plan’s VMT increase and comparing it to the project population increase. The Area Plan would increase the City’s population by 20.4 percent, while VMT would increase by approximately 16.6 percent. The 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 16 ECR/C EIR also found that the City’s General Plan policies conformed to the control strategies included in the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan and concluded that impacts would be less than significant (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.2-17). As noted in the Civic Project SEIR, since the ECR/C EIR was prepared, BAAQMD has prepared a new Clean Air Plan (the 2017 Clean Air Plan). Civic Project SEIR found that the Area Plan would remain consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan because development planned for the City, including in the Area Plan area is consistent with the growth projections used by BAAQMD to develop the 2017 Clean Air Plan. (Civic Project SEIR, p. 3.2-21.) The Project is consistent with the land use designations and development density presented in the General Plan and Area Plan, and therefore would not cause the City to exceed the population or job growth projections used to inform the air quality forecasts of the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The Project also supports the primary goals in the 2017 Clean Air Plan, which, among other goals, aims to reduce Bay Area greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and promote locating new development near transit and pedestrian and cycling opportunities. The Project is a transit-oriented mixed-use development, and will improve the City’s pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to help encourage alternative modes of transportation. The Project also includes a transportation demand management (TDM) plan designed to reduce trip generation and associated emissions. Accordingly, the Project remains consistent with the Clean Air Plan, consistent with the conclusions in the ECR/C EIRs. b, c. The ECR/C EIR did not calculate whether development of the Plan Area would violate air quality standards during construction, but, as discussed above, did conclude that operation of development permitted by the Plan Area would be consistent with the goals and policies of the 2010 Clean Air Plan. The Clean Air Plan is BAAQMD’s strategy reduce emissions and ambient concentrations of ozone, fine particulate matter, toxic air contaminants, as well as greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change and thus consistency with the Clean Air Plan indicates that the Area Plan would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The Civic Project EIR calculated construction-related, operational, and cumulative emissions (Civic Project EIR, pp. 3.2-22–3.2-23). According to that document, all construction projects in South San Francisco are required to implement the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (see Table AQ-1, below) as a condition of project approval, making the measures generally applicable standards. With implementation of the measures, the Civic Center Project would conform to BAAQMD recommendations related to fugitive dust emissions and all criteria pollutant emissions would remain below their respective thresholds, with the exception of NOx. But implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2.2, which requires all diesel-powered construction equipment comply with California Air Resource Board (CARB) regulations (have Tier 3 engines or better) would reduce impacts to less than significant (Civic Project EIR, p. 3.2-23). Operational emissions were less than significant without any mitigation. (Id.) The Civic Project EIR also concluded that the Civic Project would make a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to any air quality violations because its project-level impacts were less than significant and air quality analysis is inherently cumulative. (Civic Project EIR, p. 3.2- 28.) There have been no changes in circumstances since the preparation of the Civic Project EIR. Like that project, the Project would comply with General Plan Policy 7.3-I-3, which requires projects to incorporate BAAQMD’s recommended BMPs during construction to ensure that the Project would not exceed the significance threshold for construction projects. These BMPs would be included as a Condition of Approval and are listed in Table AQ-1 below. In addition, the Project would need to comply with the generally applicable state requirement for construction equipment to meet CARB’s Tier 3 engine requirements as well as the BAAQMD regulations listed in Table AQ-2 below. Given that the 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 17 Project has less construction than the Civic Project and would need to comply with the same generally applicable standards, the Project would have less than significant impacts related to air emissions from construction. The Project’s operational emissions also would not violate any air quality standards because the Project would need to comply with the City’s TDM policies and the state’s energy efficiency requirements. Because the Project’s project-level emissions would be less than significant, the Project also would make a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative air quality impacts. Therefore, the Project’s impacts would not be any different from the impacts disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no new mitigation would be required. TABLE AQ-1 BAAQMD BASIC AND ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION MEASURES BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered. 3. 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. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. 8. 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. BAAQMD Additional Construction Mitigation Measures 1. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe. 2. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph. 3. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Windbreaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity. 4. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. 5. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time. 6. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. 7. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. 8. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent. 9. Minimizing the idling time of diesel-powered construction equipment to 2 minutes. 10. The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet- 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 18 average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available. 11. Use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings). 12. Requiring that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM. 13. Requiring all contractors use equipment that meets CARB’s most recent certification standard (Tier 4) for off- road heavy-duty diesel engines. TABLE AQ-2 ADDITIONAL BAAQMD REGULATIONS BAAQMD Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) Requirements. The construction contractor shall implement the following measures during demolition and construction to reduce TAC emissions: Notify BAAQMD at least ten business days before any demolition activities. The purpose of the notification process is to assure that buildings are demolished in compliance with procedures that assure asbestos is not released into the environment. Require surveys and removal of lead-based paints by licensed contractors certified in the handling methods requisite to protect the environment, public health, and safety. BAAQMD Architectural Coating Requirement. The construction contractor shall implement the following measures to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs): Use paints and solvents with a VOC content of 100 grams per liter or less for interior and 150 grams per liter or less for exterior surfaces. BAAQMD Hearth Emissions. If fireplaces or wood burning stoves are installed in new residential units, require cleaner-burning (e.g., natural gas or propane) USEPA-certified stoves and inserts. d. The ECR/C EIR (p. 3.2-25) concluded that two permitted sources of toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions exist within the Plan Area: a dry cleaner located at 1053 El Camino Real, and a stand-by diesel generator located at 1040 Old Mission Road, which is a site owned by the County of San Mateo. As stated in the ECR/C EIR, BAAQMD’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook recommends a 300-foot buffer around dry cleaning operations, but the dry cleaner is required to phase out perchloroethylene operations by 2023, which would reduce health risks to a less than significant level. Projects proposed prior to the phase-out will be required to complete a site-specific analysis. The risks from the generator were considered de minimus because it is less than 50 horsepower and operates only one day per week. The Area Plan area did not have sufficient traffic volumes to pose a significant risk from mobile sources of air pollutants to sensitive receptors. Therefore, the ECR/C EIR concluded that development pursuant to the Area Plan would have less than significant impacts. Consistent with the ECR/C EIR, the Civic Project EIR concluded that the Civic Project would have less than significant impacts related to TACs. (Civic Project EIR, pp. 3.2-24–3.2-25.) Regarding construction TACs, the Civic Project EIR found that the use of TAC sources (diesel-powered equipment) would be temporary and episodic, reduced by compliance with BAAQMD’s regulations and California regulations limiting the idling of vehicles, and that diesel fumes disperse rapidly over relatively short distances. For these reasons, construction emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial amounts of air toxics. The Civic Project EIR also concluded that the project’s operational emissions would not create 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 19 significant TAC impacts because the proposed use would not include any stationary sources. Since publication of the ECR/C EIR, business records indicate that the dry cleaner in the Area Plan Area has closed and TAC sources outside of the Area Plan area are more than 300-feet from the Project site. The Project would be subject to the same BAAQMD and state regulations discussed in the ECR/C EIRs and does not include any stationary sources. The Project also would not increase traffic volumes to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing of pollutants and atmosphere is substantially limited (i.e., an enclosed parking structure), which are the screening levels BAAQMD uses to determine if a project would contribute to CO hotspots. Consistent with the analysis in the ECR/C EIRs, the Project would not generate substantial levels of TACs and therefore would not expose sensitive receptors to such emissions. No new mitigation is required. e. The ECR/C EIRs (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.2-27; Civic Project EIR, p. 3.2-26) identifies BAAQMD- recommended screening distances for known odor-emitting sources, and determines that none of them are located within the Area Plan area, or within a one-mile distance. New industrial uses are not permitted in the Area Plan area. The ECR/C EIRs thus conclude that development consistent with the Area Plan would not result in significant impacts related to odor. There have been no changes in circumstances related to odor since preparation of the ECR/C EIRs. The Project does not propose uses typically associated with objectionable odors, such as wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, food processing facilities, chemical manufacturing plants, rendering plants, paint/coating operations, asphalt batch plants, agricultural feedlots, and dairies. Instead the Project would consist of commercial and residential uses. The Project may contain a café or restaurant, but would not contain uses that would cause objectionable odors. As part of standard project review, equipment used for outdoor food preparation (courtyard) and the outdoor fireplace (courtyard) would be subject to City approval for safety and odor control. The Project will also be required to comply with zoning standards related to odors. Furthermore, the Project will accommodate refuse and recycling in an enclosed trash rooms at the street level lower/street level of the garage fed by trash chutes. Refuse and recycling pick-up would be provided by a local waste service provider (South San Francisco Scavenger) and would occur on a weekly basis. As discussed in the Civic Project EIR, Project odors generated during construction would be intermittent, temporary, and would disperse rapidly with distance from the source, and therefore construction-related odors would not result in the frequent exposure of a substantial number of individuals to objectionable odors. The Project is required to comply with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3, Architectural Coatings, and Rule 15, Emulsified Asphalt, which establish volatile organic compound (VOC) content limits for these construction materials. VOCs are the main sources of odors from these sources. For the reasons stated above, the Project would not result in new or more significant odor impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required. 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 20 Significant and Unavoidable Impact, greater than identified in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified ECR/C EIRs, would the Project: 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? X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? X d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? X Documentation: a. The ECR/C EIR did not find any impacts to special-status species within the Area Plan area. The Area Plan area is developed with medical, commercial, and office uses and is located within an urbanized Area of South San Francisco. There is some vacant land, and parcels that are currently vacant are generally paved with asphalt and concrete. The one exception is the vacant site previously owned by the City of San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), and currently owned by the City. Although Colma Creek is located in the Area Plan area (immediately east of the eastern Project site), it is completely 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 21 channelized and lined with concrete sides, with no aquatic vegetation present and is not suitable to support special-status aquatic species. Three special-status species were analyzed for the potential to occur in the Area Plan area: San Francisco garter snake, Alameda song sparrow, and congested-headed hayfield tarplant. The analysis concluded that there were no wetlands, coastal resources, or other habitats within the Area Plan area suitable to support those species. In addition, there have been no reported occurrences of those species within the Area Plan area. (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.12-9.) As disclosed in the Civic Project EIR, there have been no substantial changes in circumstances in the Area Plan area (p. 3.3-15). The Project site is currently developed with a car wash and associated surface paving and has no potential habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Therefore, the Project would not 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 beyond what was disclosed in the ECR/C EIR and no new mitigation measures are required. b, c. The ECR/C EIR did not identify any riparian habitats or other natural communities or wetlands or Waters of the United States in the Area Plan area. The conditions on the Project site have not changed since the ECR/C EIR analysis was done with regard to such habitat. There are still no riparian habitats or special- status vegetation communities or wetlands or Waters of the United States in the Project site. Therefore the Project would continue to have no impact, as disclosed in the ECR/C EIR, and no mitigation is required. d. The ECR/C EIR analysis showed that the Area Plan area was highly urbanized, was not located in a migratory corridor, and would not interfere with any wildlife migration routes. As noted in the Civic Project EIR, the conditions in the Area Plan area have not changed since the ECR/C EIR analysis was performed with regard to wildlife movements and nursery sites. Available data on movement corridors and linkages was accessed via the CDFW BIOS Viewer (CDFW 2017). Data reviewed includes the Essential Connectivity Areas [ds623] layer and the Missing Linkages in California [ds420] layer. The Project site is not located within an identified corridor. In addition, the Project site is urbanized, does not provide suitable movement opportunities, and is surrounded by additional urban land uses. Construction and development associated with implementation of the Project would not occur within an area containing habitat or wildlife corridors that supports biological resources. Further, there are no watercourses on the Project site and therefore the Project would have no impact on migratory fish. Nevertheless, landscaping vegetation, including within the Project site, could provide potential nesting habitat for migrating birds. If Project vegetation removal were to occur during the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting period, construction would be required to comply with generally applicable regulations in the California Fish and Game Code (Section 3503, 3513, or 3800), which would protect nesting birds from construction disturbances; compliance is required as a standard condition of approval. Therefore the Project would continue to have no impact on wildlife corridors and nursery sites, consistent with the conclusions in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required. e. The ECR/C EIR analysis identified that tree removals may be required under implementation of the Area Plan. Tree removals would be subject to City Municipal Code, Chapter 13.30, Tree Preservation (Tree Preservation Ordinance). The Tree Preservation Ordinance also requires replacement trees of three 15- gallon-size or two 24-inch-box-minimum-size landscape trees for each tree removed as approved with a tree permit. In addition, the ECR/C EIR found that implementation of the Area Plan would not conflict with the City’s 1999 General Plan. 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 22 Landscaped areas in the Project area may contain trees project by the Tree Preservation Ordinance and development activities could involve removal or pruning of such trees. However, such activities would be required to comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance as part of the Project approval process, including obtaining a permit for any tree removals or alterations of protected trees, and avoiding tree roots during trenching for utilities. Compliance with the Tree Preservation Ordinance would be required as a condition of approval. Therefore, the Project remains consistent with the analysis in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required. f. As disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs, there is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan applicable to the Area Plan area. Consistent with the conclusions in the ECR/C EIRs, the Project would have no impact on the implementation of any such plan and no mitigation measures are required. Significant and Unavoidable Impact, greater than identified in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs V. CULTURAL and TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified ECR/C EIRs, would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5? X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5? X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, features, 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, and that is: 1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code X 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 23 Section 5020.1(k), or cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(k); or 2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. Documentation: a. The ECR/C EIR identified one recorded historic resource within the Area Plan area, however, the resource has since been demolished. The ECR/C EIR also identified seven unrecorded properties in and around the Area Plan area that meet the State Office of Historic Preservation’s minimum age standard that buildings, structures, and objects 45 years or older may be of historical value. However, in addition to age, these unrecorded buildings would have to possess architecturally significant elements or integrity in order to be eligible to be determined for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The 1985-1986 South San Francisco Historic Preservation Survey does not identify any local historic resources within the Area Plan area. The ECR/C EIR concluded that compliance with federal, state, and local laws would reduce potential impacts on historic resources to less than significant. (ECR/C EIR, pp. 3.14-12–3.14-13.) The Civic Project EIR reached the same conclusion (p. 3.4-11). There have been no changes in circumstances that would affect historic resources. Holman & Associates, an archaeological firm, prepared a Phase One Historic Assessment for the Project site. (Holman & Associates Archaeological Consultants, November, 2017, attached to this ECA) The existing car wash on the Project site is over 50 years old, but according to the Historic Assessment, it no longer retains enough historic integrity to be deemed eligible for a National, State, or Local historic registers and thus is not a historic resource. There are no other potential historic resources on the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. There is no new or more significant impact on historic resources than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no new mitigation is required. b. The ECR/C EIR concluded that there exists sensitivity for historic archaeological materials within the Plan area, since it includes the former edge of marshlands. According to that document, there may be potential for construction activities in the Plan Area to impact prehistorical archaeological resources. The ECR/C EIR outlines state regulations that provide guidance on the steps that must be taken if significant resources are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities associated with construction. Specifically, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f), if potentially significant cultural resources are discovered, work would stop in that area until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find, and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City and other appropriate agencies and interested parties. If the archaeologist determines that the find does not meet the CEQA standards of significance, construction may proceed. On the other hand, if the archaeologist determines that further information is needed to evaluate significance, Department of Economic and Community Development staff would be notified and a data recovery plan would be prepared. In addition, General Plan Policy 7.5-I-5 requires the preparation of a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program by a qualified archaeologist in the event archaeological resources are uncovered. Based on required compliance with state law and General Plan Policy 7.5-I-5, the ECR/C EIR concluded 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 24 that impacts from development within the Area Plan area on archeological resources would be less than significant. (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.4-13.) The Civic Project EIR concluded that construction of the Civic Project could have a potentially significant impact on archeological resources. Specifically, the Civic Project EIR noted that the NWIC identified two archaeological Native American sites within one-quarter mile of the Civic Project site, which is across the street from the Project site. Those resources consisted of a shell midden site and a past habitation site near the western boundary of the Civic Project site. Further, the Civic Project EIR disclosed that there were two identified archaeological resources near the eastern boundary of the Civic Project site. The Civic Project EIR concluded that impacts would be reduced to less than significant with the following mitigation measures: MM 3.4.2a An archaeologist approved by the City and meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archeology shall conduct a preconstruction meeting for all construction workers who will be disturbing the ground on the eastern project site. The preconstruction meeting shall cover archaeological and tribal cultural resources sensitivity, safety, and next steps if a resource is identified, and shall be conducted on the first day of construction. MM 3.4.2b An archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archeology shall monitor all ground disturbance on the east project site. If an archaeological resource is identified, the archaeologist will assess the find and evaluate whether it is eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources, if applicable. MM 3.4.2c If deposits of prehistoric or historic period archaeological resources are encountered during project construction on the west project site, all work within 50 feet will be halted until an archaeologist can evaluate the findings and make recommendations. Prehistoric materials can include flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, choppers) or obsidian, chert, or quartzite toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (i.e., midden soil often containing heat- affected rock, ash, and charcoal, shellfish remains, and cultural materials); and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones). Historic period materials might include wood, stone, or concrete footings, walls, and other structural remains; debris-filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood, metal, glass, ceramics, and other refuse. The City shall consider the mitigation recommendations and agree on implementation of the measure(s) that are feasible and appropriate. Such measures may include avoidance, preservation in place, excavation, documentation, curation, or other appropriate measures. After the measures have been put into place, construction activities may resume. (Civic Project EIR, p. 3.4-12.) There have been no other changes in circumstances with respect to archaeological resources in the Area Plan area. The Project site has been surveyed for the potential of archeological resources. (Report prepared by Holman & Associates, dated May 2017. Per State law, this report may contain confidential information regarding archaeological resources, and thus is not available for public review). The Project site has been previously graded, filled, and developed, which decreases the likelihood of finding undamaged archeological resources. Nevertheless, of the twelve geoprobes tests conducted by the archaeologist, four found evidence of likely prehistoric Native American archaeological deposits in the form of a thin layer of shell midden deposit, ranging from 57.5 to 89 inches below current surface. The archaeological report concluded that there may be a roughly oval-shaped deposit in the north/south middle of the Project site, perhaps all within the Old Mission Road right-of-way. Thus, as stated in the ECR/C EIR, development of the Area Plan, including Project site construction, has the potential to adversely impact archeological resources during ground disturbance. However, compliance with state law (particularly CEQA Guidelines sections 15064.5(f) and 15126.4(b)(3) and the City’s General Plan 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 25 policies and standard conditions of approval would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. These provisions require a Project sponsor to monitor during construction and if there is a find, first consider preservation in place and only if preservation in place is infeasible, data recovery. Although not required to reduce impacts, the Project sponsor proposes to include Mitigation Measures 3.4.2a and 3.4.2c as conditions of approval because they provide more detail about how to meet state law requirements. In addition, to clarify the City’s standard conditions of approval, the City would require the following implementation measures, which provide additional detail about how to achieve the requirements of the standard conditions for the Project: (1) site monitoring by a qualified archaeologist which shall be governed by a written Archaeological Monitoring Agreement (AMA), (2) recordation of archaeological prehistoric shell midden deposit, submitted to the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) to California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) standards, (3) submittal of a final report of the site monitoring and impact mitigation efforts to the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the CHRIS. With state law and City policies and standard conditions of approval, the Project would have no new or more significant impacts than disclosed and analyzed in the ECR/C EIRs and no new mitigation is required. c. The ECR/C EIR determined that future development in the Plan Area would not have any impact on paleontological resources (p. 3.4-14). The ECR/C EIR analysis states that according to the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP), South San Francisco contains a record for Equus, which includes horses, donkeys, and zebras. However, the lithology of the record indicates that the fossil is most likely found in the San Bruno Mountains or near the Bay, both outside the Planning Area. The Civic Project EIR indicates that even though there are no known paleontological resources in the area, the project may impact unknown paleontological resources. The Civic Project EIR imposed the following mitigation measure (MM 3.4.3) to reduce impacts to less than significant: If deposits of paleontological resources are encountered during project construction on the west project site, all work within 50 feet will be halted until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the findings and make recommendations. Work will not commence until significance of the find has been determined and the find has been evaluated. (Civic Project EIR, p. 3.4-13.) There have been no changes in circumstances related to paleontological resources. The Project would not cause a potentially significant impact to any known paleontological resources because no such resources existing in the Project vicinity. As discussed in the ECR/C EIR, compliance with state law and the City’s General Plan policies concerning resources would reduce the potential to impact unknown paleontological resources to less than significant. Nevertheless, the Project proposes that compliance with Civic Project EIR Mitigation Measure MM 3.4.3, which provides further detail about how to ensure state law is followed, be added as a condition of approval. With compliance with state law and City policies, the Project will not result in new or more significant impacts to paleontological resources than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no new mitigation is required. d. The ECR/C EIR concluded that development in the Area Plan area would not cause a potentially significant impact to any known or unknown cemeteries or human remains in the project vicinity (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.4-13). There are no known cemeteries in the Area Plan area. As noted in the ECR/C EIR, should any unknown human remains be found during development of the Plan Area, the developer would have to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which requires that no further disturbances shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains, pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. PRC Section 5097.98 outlines the Native American Heritage Commission notification process and the required 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 26 procedures if the County Coroner determines the human remains to be Native American. The Civic Project EIR (p. 3.4-13) also concluded that because compliance with state law concerning the discovery and disposition of human remains is required, project construction would result in a less than significant impact. There have been no changes in circumstances related to treatment or knowledge of human remains since preparation of the ECR/C EIRs. The Project also would be required to comply with state law. The archaeologist that prepared the archeological report for the Project recommended that if human remains are found during ground- disturbing activities, all work within 30 feet should be halted until a qualified archaeologist has assessed the find and that the requirements of the state laws identifed in the ECR/C EIR be strictly followed. These recommendations are consistent with the City’s standard practice under state law and its General Plan. Through compliance with federal, state, and local law, the Project would not have any additional or more significant impact on human remains than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no new mitigation is required. e. The ECR/C EIR did not evaluate tribal cultural resources other than those that also would be considered historic or archaeological resources because at the time of ECR/C EIR preparation, the CEQA Guidelines did not contain a tribal cultural resources section. According to the Civic Project EIR, no Native American or tribal resources were found in the Civic Project site and the City has not designated any resources as locally significant tribal resources. The Civic Project EIR concluded that with implementation of the mitigation measures for archeological resources, the Civic Project would not have a significant impact on Tribal Cultural Resources. The Project’s archaeological report did not identify any Tribal Cultural Resources other than resources that would also qualify as archaeological or historic resources, which are discussed above. As such, the Project would not have a new or more significant impact on Tribal Cultural Resources than disclosed in the Civic Project EIR and no new mitigation measures are required. Significant and Unavoidable Impact, greater than identified in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: X 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 (Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42)? X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 27 iv) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? X d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? X e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? X Documentation: a. (i.) The ECR/C EIR found that the Area Plan would have a less than significant impact due to fault rupture because of the lack of active faults in the Area Plan area. The San Andreas Fault, located approximately two miles west of the project site, is the nearest active fault. Because ground rupture generally only occurs at the location of a fault, and no active faults are known to traverse the ECR/C area, the Project would not be subject to a substantial risk of surface fault ruptures. The ECR/C EIR also indicated that any projects in the planning area would implement the California Building Code and Chapters 19.40 and 20.170 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Chapter 19.40 requires a preliminary soils report as part of the City’s standard subdivision procedures. Chapter 20.170 requires all areas identified as seismic and geologic hazard areas in the City’s General Plan to prepare a soils and geologic report prior to construction. (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.10-8). The Civic Project EIR concluded that because the project would be required to comply with the building standards in the California Building Code (contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), the project would have a less than significant impact due to fault rupture. Specifically, compliance with the law would protect against building collapse and major injury. (Civic Project EIR, p. 3.5-7.) There have been no changes in circumstances related to this impact since preparation of the ECR/C EIRs. The Project is not on an active fault and also would comply with the California Building Code. Therefore, there would be no new or more significant impacts related to fault rupture than discussed in the ECR/C EIRs and no new mitigation is required. (ii, iii) The ECR/C EIR states that structures and infrastructure in the Area Plan area would likely experience at least one major earthquake during their functional lifetime. Building codes and construction standards established by the California Building Code and contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations would protect against building collapse and major injury. Additionally, the ECR/C EIR found that the Area Plan area has a high liquefaction potential. Liquefaction-induced ground failure can result in damage to underground utilities, shallow foundations, and paved areas. The ECR/C EIR noted that all projects in the Area Plan area would need to comply with the California Building Code as well as Chapters 15.08 and 19.40 of the City’s Municipal Code. Chapter 15.08 adopts and amends the California 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 28 Building Code. Chapter 19.40 requires a preliminary soils report using the City’s standard subdivision procedure (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.10-9). The ECR/C EIR concluded that compliance with existing building codes and construction standards would reduce seismic-related ground shaking and liquefaction to less than significant levels. There have been no changes in circumstances since the preparation of the ECR/C EIR. The Civic Project EIR also noted that the area is susceptible to seismic activity and susceptible to liquefaction, and development would be required to comply with the California Building Code, which contains policies to reduce impacts from earthquakes and liquefaction. Nevertheless, the Civic Project EIR concluded that there could be potentially significant impacts that would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5.2, which requires a site-specific geotechnical report for the Civic Project site. (Civic Project EIR, p. 3.5-8.) There have been no changes in circumstances related to this impact since the preparation of the ECR/C EIRs. The Project also would have to comply with the California Building Code and City Municipal Code Chapters 15.08 and 19.40 and prepare a final site-specific geotechnical in accordance with the City’s standard conditions of approval. In addition, the Project would not cause or exacerbate the area’s susceptibility to seismic ground shaking or liquefaction. Accordingly, the Project would have no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no new mitigation is required. (iv.) The ECR/C EIR stated that the Area Plan area is "flatland” and potential slope hazards related to slope instability are minimal. The Civic Project EIR came to the same conclusion. There have been no changes in circumstances since the preparation of the ECR/C EIRs that would alter these conclusions. Because the Project is not in a location subject to slope instability it would have no impacts related to landslides and no new mitigation is required. b. The ECR/C EIR evaluated whether there is significant risk of development in the Plan Area resulting in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The ECR/C EIR outlines policies required in the City’s Municipal Code for compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit requirements. The ECR/C EIR determined that mandatory compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and NPDES General Construction Permit requirements would reduce impacts from development in the Plan Area due to soil erosion to less than significant levels. (ECR/C EIR, pp. 3.10-8–3.10-9). The Civic Project EIR noted that development would disturb soil, but would be subject to the State’s General Construction Permit (CGP) and would be required by federal law to prepare and implement an approved storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). As the Civic Project EIR noted, SWPPPs provide a schedule for the implementation and maintenance of erosion control measures and a description of erosion control practices, including appropriate design details and a time schedule. Additionally, Municipal Code Chapter 15.08 requires development projects to obtain grading permits from the City Engineer prior to excavation, grading, filling, clearing, or erosion control measures. The Civic Project EIR concluded that compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including the requirement to prepare a soils report and a SWPPP that would include measures to control erosion during construction would prevent construction from having a significant impact on soil erosion and loss of topsoil. (Civic Project EIR, p. 3.5-8.) There have been no changes in circumstances that would change this impact analysis since the ECR/C EIRs were prepared. The Project would remove the topsoil for the portion of the Project site that would be excavated for the underground parking garage and also move soil around during other ground-disturbing activities. As discussed in the ECR/C EIRs, the Project is required to prepare and implement a SWPPP and comply 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 29 with the NPDES permit, as well as City Municipal Code Chapter 15.08. Thus, with compliance with applicable rules and regulations, the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil and has no new or more significant impacts than described in the ECR/C EIR and requires no new mitigation. c., d. As described in the ECR/C EIR, due to the variability of soils in the planning area, it is possible that future development could be subject to soil expansion and settlement. The ECR/C EIR outlines provisions in the South San Francisco Municipal Code for development that require the preparation of a site-specific soil report as a way of reducing hazards related to expansive or unstable soils. The ECR/C EIR concluded that compliance with the City’s Municipal Code would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The Civic Project EIR noted that the site there is not in an area where landslides have historically occurred and is relatively flat. That document noted that the area where the Civic Project would be located is known to have a high shrink-swell potential and the potential for soil settlement and has potential for unstable soils. The Civic Project EIR found that implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5.2, which requires the preparation of a geotechnical report and requires that any recommended building techniques be implemented in the project’s construction plans, would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. No changes in circumstances have occurred since the preparation of the ECR/C EIRs that would change the impact analysis. The Project is in an area that has soils similar to the Civic Project site. The Project would be required with the City’s Municipal Code provisions requiring preparation of a site-specific soil report and compliance with its recommendations. A site-specific geotechnical report (attached to this ECA) determined that the threat of lateral spreading on the project site is very low and that although the Project site is located within a zone of high liquefaction susceptibility, the potential for liquefaction induced ground failure at the ground surface is low. Project construction also would not cause soil to become unstable or exacerbate the risk of landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Accordingly, the Project would have no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no new mitigation is required. e. The ECR/C EIR did not evaluate Area Plan impacts from soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks because the development in the Area Plan will be served by the City’s municipal sewer system, and all future projects would be connected to this system. The Area Plan was found to have no impact with respect to use of septic tanks. No changes in circumstances have occurred since preparation of the ECR/C EIRs related to the use of septic tanks. The Project would not use them because it would be connected to the City’s sanitary sewer system, which has adequate capacity to serve the Project. The Project has no new or more significant impacts related to septic tanks than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and requires no new mitigation. 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 30 Significant and Unavoidable Impact, greater than identified in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified ECR/C EIRs, would the Project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? X b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? X Documentation: a. To determine if the Area Plan would generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment, the ECR/C EIR examined (1) whether implementation of the Area Plan would decrease GHG emissions by 2020 and 2030 from the City’s 2005 baseline inventory (“Analysis 1”) and (2) comply with BAAQMD’s project-level service population threshold, which is 4.6 metric tons (MT) CO2e per year per service population, where service population is residents and employees (“Analysis 2”). With respect to Analysis 1 and Analysis 2, baseline inventory emissions were 604,988 MT and 9.8 MT per capita. Analysis 1 accounted for the following state and local programs: Renewable Portfolios Standard, assuming energy providers will achieve a 26 percent renewable portfolio by 2020; Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, assuming a 6.6 percent reduction in emissions from the City’s transportation sector compared to 2005; Pavley Phase 1 and 2, assuming a 14 percent reduction in emissions from the City’s transportation sector compared to 2005; and the City’s Construction and Waste Ordinance, assuming that emissions from construction and demolition wastes would stay constant through 2030. In addition, Analysis 1 and Analysis 2 accounted for the following Area Plan measures that would reduce GHG emissions: local serving retail within half-mile of a project, and 100 percent increase in the diversity of land uses, design, and density; a 15 percent reduction from 2005 levels was applied to the GHG emissions generated from City’s transportation sector. Under Analysis 1, the ECR/C EIR concluded that the Area Plan would decrease emissions from the baseline inventory, with 2020 emissions falling to 566,541 MT and 7.3 MT per capita. But 2030 emissions would rise to 639,511 MT, although per capita emissions, at 8.3 MT would be less than the baseline inventory. Under Analysis 2, the ECR/C EIR showed that Area Plan emissions in both 2020 and 2030 would be 4.6 MT CO2e per year per service population. The ECR/C EIR concluded that even though total emissions would increase slightly by 2030 from baseline conditions, because emissions associated with the Area Plan would not exceed BAAQMD’s service population threshold, emissions were less than cumulatively considerable. The Civic Project EIR did not recalculate emissions for the entire Plan Area. As noted in that EIR, there have been a few regulatory changes since publication of the ECR/C EIR. First, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP), which includes goals, policies, and programs to reduce GHG emissions, adapt to climate change, and support the goals of AB 32 and SB 375. In addition, the state has enacted Senate Bill (SB) 32, which codified the goal to reduce GHG emissions 40 percent by 2030 first articulated in Executive Order B-30-15. SB 32 states that the intent is for the legislature and appropriate agencies to adopt complementary policies that ensure the long-term emissions reductions advance specified criteria. CARB has updated the state Scoping Plan to reflect the requirements of SB 32. The state also enacted SB 350, which updates the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require the amount of electricity generated 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 31 and sold by utilities to retail customers per year from eligible renewable energy resources to be increased to 50 percent by December 31, 2030. That bill also made other revisions to the RPS program and to certain other requirements on public utilities and publicly owned electric utilities. Additionally, the state amended Title 24 to require more energy efficiency from new development. Finally, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) adopted an updated Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS)/Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) (known as Plan Bay Area). These regulatory changes will help the state and the City continue to decrease GHG emissions and therefore do not result in any new or more significant impacts than accounted for in the ECR/C EIR analysis. The Project implements the Area Plan and this is within the scope of development analyzed in the ECR/C EIR. For this reason, the Project would not result in new or more significant impacts than discussed in the ECR/C EIR and no new mitigation is required. b. The ECR/C EIR noted that in 2011, the City did not have a CAP, but was working to develop one. Therefore the ECR/C EIR analyzed the Area Plan’s consistency with AB 32 and Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. The ECR/C EIR concluded that the Area Plan would not conflict with AB 32 or the Clean Air Plan. Regarding AB 32, the ECR/C EIR found that the City’s GHG emissions will be reduced to below current levels as a result of State mandates and further reduced as a result of implementing the Area Plan and that these reductions would assist California in achieving its reduction goal. Regarding the Clean Air Plan, the ECR/C EIR found that the Area Plan and the City’s General Plan policies conform to the control strategies included in the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan and therefore the Area Plan is consistent with the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan control measures. For these reasons, the ECR/C EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant. (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.3-43.) The Civic Project EIR analyzed the Area Plan’s consistency with the City’s CAP and the current version of Plan Bay Area. The CAP contains separate policy provisions addressing the increase of pedestrian, bicycle, and private shuttle systems. The Civic Project EIR noted that consistent with the CAP, the Area Plan is a transit-oriented development in support of the South San Francisco BART station. The CAP contains environmental sustainability related policy provisions in the categories of land use and mixed- use development, open space, efficient and alternative transportation, transportation demand management, and parking that promotes transit. The Area Plan would provide moderate- to high-density housing in locations within convenient walking distance of employment centers, shopping centers, and transit routes. As such, the Area Plan would result in improved access to local and regional transit services, and promote alternative means of transportation through increased access to pedestrian and bicycle facilities and is consistent with the CAP. Plan Bay Area is ABAG’s plan to achieve a 7 percent per capita reduction in GHG emissions from cars and light-duty trucks compared to 2005 vehicle emissions by 2020 and a 15 percent per capita reduction by 2035. Plan Bay Area contains funding priorities for individual transportation projects and transportation and land use strategies that help the region achieve state GHG emissions reduction targets and federal Clean Air Act requirements. The Civic Project EIR notes that the Area Plan area is characterized as an Urbanized Area in Plan Bay Area, as opposed to a Priority Conservation Area, and is surrounded by lands identified as Urbanized Area. Therefore, ABAG predicts urban growth will occur in the Area Plan area. Development of the Area Plan area is consistent with Plan Bay Area’s goal to encourage mixed-use development and development in proximity to transit options. The Project is consistent with the Area Plan’s planning strategy to encourage mixed-use development near transit. The Project is mixed-use development with a robust transportation demand management (TDM) program and in close proximity to bicycle paths, bus stops, and less than one mile from the South San Francisco BART station. Accordingly, the Project would have no new or more significant impacts related to plan consistency than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no new mitigation is required. 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 32 Significant and Unavoidable Impact, greater than identified in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified ECR/C EIRs, would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? X Documentation: a, b. The ECR/C EIR concluded there would be no impacts related to hazardous materials use, including uses near schools, because the land use designations and zoning would limit development to commercial and residential uses. No hazardous materials handlers (e.g., auto repair/vehicle service) would be permitted by the Area Plan and associated zoning as a future commercial land use. The ECR/C EIR thus concluded that the Area Plan would have no impact related to creating a significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or by a reasonably foreseeable upset or accident. (ECR/C EIR, pp. 3.12-15–3.12-16.) 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 33 The Civic Project EIR noted that demolition and construction activities would require the temporary transport, handling, use, storage, and disposal of common products used in construction equipment such as gasoline, diesel fuel, oils, and construction materials such as solvents, asphalt, glues and cements, and paints. That EIR also found that uses allowed by the Area Plan would involve the routine use of common items such as cleaning and maintenance products, but would not involve uses that handle large quantities of hazardous materials or industrial uses that would pose a substantial adverse risk to people and the environment. The Civic Project EIR found that numerous existing regulations at the federal, state, and local levels would minimize potential hazards to the public and the environment from the improper handling or accidental release of hazardous materials, including compliance with the State’s Construction General Permit and SWPPP requirements. Accordingly, it concluded that impacts would be less than significant. There have been no changes in circumstances that would alter this analysis. The Project includes residential and commercial uses, which do not handle large amounts of hazardous materials. As the Civic Project EIR noted, construction would involve the use of hazardous materials, but those are regulated at the federal, state, and local levels to ensure that they are not mishandled. In addition, the existing car wash may contain asbestos and other hazardous materials, but the demolition and disposal of those materials would comply with state and regional regulations designed to ensure the safety of the public and environment. Accordingly, the Project would have no new or more substantial impacts related to the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through a reasonably foreseeable upset or accident and no new mitigation is required. c. The ECR/C EIR noted that there are five schools within a quarter mile of the Planning Area: El Camino High School, Baden Continuation High School, Buri Buri Elementary School, Urban Sprouts Pre-School and RW Drake Pre-School. The ECR/C EIR concluded that there would be no impact to these schools because no hazardous materials handlers are anticipated to be built under the Area Plan. The Civic Project EIR also concluded that none of that project’s activities or uses would result in hazardous air emissions within 0.25 mile of the preschools in the vicinity. There are no changes in circumstances that would alter these conclusions. The Project is consistent with the Area Plan and zoning and for the reasons stated above would have no new or more significant impacts related to the emission of hazards and hazardous materials or waste than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required. d. The ECR/C EIR stated that the Area Plan area does not contain any sites listed on the Cortese List. The Civic Project EIR did not state whether that site was on the Cortese List. A search of the State Waterboard’s GeoTracker and Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) EnviroStor databases2 does not show any changes in circumstances. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared by Engeo on March 7, 2017, for the Project site. The ESA found that a portion of the site was formerly used as a gas station but that the underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed and the local health department issued a letter indicating that no further action is necessary. As such, the Project site is not a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and would have no new or more significant impacts related to this issue than disclosed in the ECR/C EIR and no new mitigation is required. e, f. The ECR/C EIR noted that the Area Plan area is located north of San Francisco International Airport 2 State Water Board’s GeoTracker website accessed 12/22/17; DTSC’s EnviroStor website accessed 1/2/18. 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 34 (SFO) and concluded that the Area Plan is consistent with 1996 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (amended 1998). The ECR/C EIR noted that future development would need to adhere to the limits in the most recently adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. It also mentioned that General Plan Policy 2-I-22, which requires that “all future development conforms with relevant height, aircraft noise, and safety policies and compatibility criteria contained in to the most recently adopted version of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the environs of San Francisco International Airport,” reinforces that requirement. The ECR/C EIR was sent to SFO who responded that they had no comments concerning the Area Plan and that the height limits that comply with the FAA’s requirements. The Civic Project EIR concluded that air hazards did not require evaluation. There have been no changes in circumstances would alter these conclusions. The Proposed Project is consistent with the development standards in the Area Plan and General Plan, including height limits. There are no private airports within two miles. As such, there is no new or more significant impact related to air hazards than disclosed in the ECR/C EIR and no mitigation is required. g. The ECR/C EIR states that the Area Plan would not block access to roadways or on-site emergency vehicle access and that new development under the Area Plan would not interfere with and would comply with all applicable emergency response or evacuation plans. The ECR/C EIR concluded that there would be no impact to emergency response or excavation plans. (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.12-17.) (Potential impacts from transportation are discussed in the Transportation Section, below.) The Civic Project EIR did not disclose any new or different impacts. There have been no changes in circumstances that would alter the ECR/C EIRs’ conclusions. The Project does not propose any changes to roadways and is designed to meet the City’s emergency vehicle access requirements in its Municipal Code. Therefore the Project has no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required. h. The ECR/C EIR states that there is no wildland fire risk in the vicinity of the Area Plan area, which is not within a fire hazard management unit and concludes that there would be no impact. The Civic Project EIR notes that the area is completely urbanized and also concludes that there is no risk of wildland fires. There have been no changes in circumstances that would affect the “no impact” conclusion. The Project site is located in an urban environment not adjacent to wildlands and, therefore, would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Therefore there would be no new or more significant impacts related to wildland fires than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required. Significant and Unavoidable Impact, greater than identified in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified ECR/C EIRs, would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer X 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 35 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 that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? X e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Documentation: a. The ECR/C EIR evaluated whether implementation of the plan would result in a violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The ECR/C EIR concluded that development permitted by the Area Plan would not result in a significant impact because all development would have to comply with the Construction General Permit, which requires development to provide permanent treatment for site runoff, prepare SWPPPs for construction related activities, and implement best management practices (BMPs) as part of its storm water management program. The ECR/C EIR concluded that adherence to federal, state, and local laws protecting water quality would ensure that impacts from Area Plan development will be less than significant. The Civic Project EIR analyzed whether the Civic Project would result in a violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements as a result of construction activity, its operations, and whether it would contribute to a cumulative impact. It found that because the construction period contractors would be required to implement a SWPPP and BMPs in accordance with the Construction General Permit requirements, the Civic Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to water quality or waste discharge during the construction period than had been analyzed in the ECR/C EIR. In relation to water quality, it found that with compliance with the stormwater runoff reduction measures in Area Plan Policies UD-7 and DG-40, and as required by Municipal Code Chapter 14.04, Stormwater 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 36 Management and Discharge Control, in compliance with the MRP Provision of C.3 of the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance Manual, the Civic Project’s operation would not result in any violations of water quality standards. The Proposed Project is consistent with the development considered in the Area Plan’s environmental reviews, and will be subject to the federal, state, and local regulations listed above that ensure that both the construction of the project and its operation will not cause a violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Accordingly, the Project would have no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no new mitigation is required. b. The ECR/C EIR concluded that implementation of the Area Plan would have no impact on groundwater supplies or recharge (South San Francisco 2011b). The Civic Project EIR noted that there are no changed circumstances since certification of the ECR/C EIR in 2011 and there would be no impact relative to depletion of groundwater supply or recharge. The Project does not include a well and would not substantially alter the percentage of the Project site that is impervious. Accordingly, the Project will not 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. Thus the Project would have no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required. c, d. ECR/C EIR found that within the Area Plan area, the majority of the storm water run-off is conveyed to a network of drain inlets and pipes that discharge to Colma Creek. The ECR/C EIR also found that the Area Plan area is largely developed with impermeable surfaces and the underlying soils are typically clays with low permeability and erosivity. It concluded that as buildout occurs, compliance with the General Permit would require the preparation of a SWPPP which would include BMPs that would reduce potential erosion and/or siltation impacts to less than significant. The Civic Project EIR analyzed the impacts that could result from construction and operation of the Civic Project. It found that adherence to SWPPP and best management practices in accordance with the Construction General Permit requirements as described in the ECR/C EIR would ensure that construction activities would not result in any new or more severe impacts than previously identified related to construction runoff, changes in drainage patterns, or erosion. The Project site in its current state is largely impervious and construction of the Project will not result in a significant net increase in impervious area. The Project will comply with all applicable rules and regulations including SWPPP and BMPs as required by regulation. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would have no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required. e, f. On pages 3.11-11 thru 3.11-12 of the ECR/C EIR, that EIR found that by following the federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations and the development requirements contained within the Area Plan during the development application and review process that development permitted by the Area Plan would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff or otherwise substantially degrade water quality at a significant level. The Civic Project EIR found that while construction site runoff has the potential to contribute soil and pollutants from equipment and materials handling to Colma Creek, which could affect water quality, the implementation of SWPPP and BMPs in accordance with the Construction General Permit requirements 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 37 would ensure that the potential impact did not require any new mitigations and would remain less than significant. Similarly, it found that operation the Civic Project would not result in an increase in stormwater not already considered by the ECR/C Program EIR. Further, new development would be required to implement stormwater runoff reduction measures as directed under Area Plan Policies UD-7 and DG-40, and as required under Municipal Code Chapter 14.04, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, in compliance with the MRP Provision C.3 of the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance Manual. Compliance with these policies would ensure that there would be no new or unidentified impact. The Project is consistent with the development considered in the Area Plan. The Project was reviewed by the Public Works Department, which determined that no additional capacity was needed for the Project’s storm water discharged. Further, during construction and operation the Project will be subject to the federal, state, and local laws, rules and regulations regarding storm water discharge. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would have no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required. g–j. As discussed on page 3.11-10 of the ECR/C EIR, there are no structures such as levees or dams that would expose people and structures in the Plan Area to significant loss, injury, or death as the result of their failure. The Civic Project EIR noted that there are no changes in circumstances that would alter this conclusion. Examination of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) shows that the Project site is in an area delineated as an “Area of Minimal Flood Hazard”, or Zone X. This zone is outside the 100-year flood hazard area. The Proposed Project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other authoritative flood hazard delineation map or place structures that would impede or redirect flood flows in a 100-year flood zone, or 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, or expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Considering that the Proposed Project site is outside a 100 year floor hazard zone and is not in a dam or levee failure flood inundation area, the Proposed Project would have no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no new mitigation is required. 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 38 Significant and Unavoidable Impact, greater than identified in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified ECR/C EIRs, would the Project: a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Note: the Airport Land Use Plan is discussed in Section VIII.) X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X Documentation: a. The ECR/C EIR (p. 3.9-7) concludes that implementation of the Area Plan would reinforce, with no substantial change in, established community-wide land use patterns. The Area Plan would make areas within the Area Plan’s boundaries more compatible with Station Area Transit Village development to the north and the South El Camino Real area to the south. The Area Plan allows high-intensity mixed-use development and multi-family residential development on El Camino Real and along Mission Road, as well as permit heights and densities similar to those allowed to the north and south of the Planning Area. The Area Plan would result in a corridor with more compatible land use and urban design patterns, resulting in a more cohesive community. The ECR/C EIR also finds that implementation of the Area Plan will improve connections to and continuity with surrounding communities, by increasing compatibility along El Camino Real, increasing opportunities for housing, and improving linkages. Therefore, the ECR/C EIR concluded that the Area Plan would have a less than significant impact on an established community. There are no changes in circumstances that would alter the ECR/C EIR’s conclusions. The Project is consistent with the Area Plan and would have no new or more significant impacts related to dividing communities than discussed in the ECR/C EIR and no mitigation is required. b. General Plan amendments for the Area Plan area were adopted concurrently with the Area Plan. These amendments ensure consistency between the Area Plan and General Plan. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance also were adopted to include development standards that apply to the Area Plan area. The Civic Project EIR noted that it would update the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to allow for proposed Civic Project uses in the Area Plan and amend the General Plan land use designation on the western project site from Public to ECR/C Mixed Use North, High Intensity. With these amendments, the Civic Project EIR concluded that the Civic Project would be consistent with all applicable plans. There 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 39 have been no other changes in land use plans that would affect the conclusions in the ECR/C EIR. The Project is consistent with the Area Plan, General Plan, and the City Municipal Code. The Project complies with all applicable ECR/C standards, guidelines, and regulations. The applicant will be requesting a Conditional Use Permit for construction of multi-family residential development and density and FAR increases, as allowed under the Area Plan’s incentive program, as well as that the Planning Commission approve commercial spaces with a depth of 56 feet (where 75 feet is the minimum permitted without Planning Commission approval), and an approval to allow parking within 40 feet of the Centennial Way Trail, consistent with the City’s adopted Zoning Ordinance. Overall density for this project will be consistent with the standards set forth in City Municipal Code section 20.270 at 103 dwelling units per acre. As such, the Proposed Project would have no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required. c. There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan that is applicable to the Area Plan area and the project remains consistent with the analysis of the ECR/C EIR and no mitigation is required. 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 40 Significant and Unavoidable Impact, greater than identified in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified ECR/C EIRs, would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? X Documentation: a, b. The ECR/C EIR found the Area Plan area does not contain any mineral resources within its limits (p. 3.12-4). According to the South San Francisco General Plan, no areas in the City are designated as having significant mineral resources. There have been no changes in circumstances that would alter the ECR/C EIR’s conclusion. Because there are no mineral resource areas in the Area Plan area, the Project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State or 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. The Project would have no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIR and no mitigation is required. 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 41 Significant and Unavoidable Impact, greater than identified in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs XII. NOISE. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified ECR/C EIRs, would the Project: a) Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X b) Expose persons to or generate excessive ground- borne vibration or ground- borne noise levels? X c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X Documentation: a. The ECR/C EIR concluded that construction activities associated with the project could substantially increase ambient noise levels at noise-sensitive locations, which could result in potentially significant, but temporary, impacts to sensitive receptors. However, compliance with the limitations on construction activity and associated noise standards established in Title 8 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, including limiting the hours during which such construction activity may occur, would ensure that construction noise impacts were less than significant (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.5-15). The ECR/C EIR concluded that the plan could increase noise over existing conditions due to traffic volume increases. Noise was calculated to increase by less than 3 dB over existing conditions by 2030. This increase would not be noticeable, and therefore the ECR/C EIR concluded the impact would be less than significant (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.5-16). The Civic Center EIR did not include any information that would alter the conclusions of the ECR/C EIR with respect to noise and no other changes in circumstances have occurred. The Project is consistent with the Area Plan, the ALUCP, the General Plan, and the Municipal Code, and is required to continue to comply with these documents. This ensures that the Proposed Project will not expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of applicable standards. The Project would have no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIR and no mitigation is required. 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 42 b. The ECR/C EIR found that the risk of Area Plan development causing an impact is less than significant because new development would have to adhere to Section 20.300.010 of the Zoning Ordinance which contains performance standards regarding vibrations. This portion of the municipal code includes a provision requiring that “no vibration shall be produced that is transmitted through the ground and is discernible without the aid of instruments by a reasonable person at the lot lines of the site. Vibrations from temporary construction, demolition, and vehicles that enter and leave the subject parcel (e.g., construction equipment, trains, trucks, etc.) are exempt from this standard.” (City Code § 20.300.010 (F).) The Civic Project EIR did not find changed circumstances related to vibration. The Project would consist of apartments above ground-level retail and underground parking. None of these uses will generate ground-borne vibrations and ground-borne noise. During construction, the Project will generate ground-borne vibrations and noise, but the vibrations will be temporary and exempted by the City’s Municipal Code as disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs. The Project is compliant with both the Area Plan’s and the Municipal Code’s requirements and would not produce impacts beyond those disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs. Considering this, the Project will not expose people to or generate excessive ground- borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. The Project would have no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required. c-d. On pages 3.5-14 thru 3.5-17, the ECR/C EIR found that buildout of the Area Plan area would raise the ambient noise levels in that area by approximately three decibels. The ECR/C EIR concluded that this increase is a less-than-significant impact. On page 3.5-16 the ECR/C EIR found that because the development permitted by the ECR/C Area Plan would be required to comply with the noise standards in Title 8 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the temporary noise impacts generated by buildout of the Area Plan area would be less than significant. The Civic Project EIR confirmed that there have been no changes in circumstances that would alter the ECR/C EIR’s conclusions. The Project is required to and would comply with the acoustical requirements of the General Plan and Municipal Code. (Attached to this ECA, Environmental Noise Assessment, prepared by Charles M. Salter and Associates, July 7, 2017). Further, the proposed project is consistent with the Area Plan, the implementation of which was found to have a less than significant impact. Considering this, the proposed project will not create any new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no new mitigation is required. e–f. The ECR/C EIR found that per the San Francisco International Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, the 2001 Noise Exposure Map (NEM) placed a small portion of the Area Plan area in the 60-65 dB and CNEL 65 dB areas in the southwest portion of the Area Plan area. However, it found that there are no noise/land use compatibility standards that apply within these noise contours (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.5-10). For this reason, implementation of the Area Plan would have no impact. The Civic Campus EIR found that as analyzed in the ECR/C EIR, there are no private airports in the vicinity of the project site and there had been no changes in circumstances that would affect the ECR/C EIR’s analysis. San Francisco International Airport is the closest public or private airstrip to the Project site. The Project is approximately 2.5 miles from the airport. Examination of the current and 2019 Noise Contour Maps published by the airport indicates that the project site is outside of the current and future 65 dB CNEL contour3. Further, the Project is consistent with the Area Plan and the analysis contained within the 3 2014 SFO Noise Exposure Map accessed on 12/26/17: https://media.flysfo.com/media/sfo/noise-abatement/sfo_p150_2014-nem-36x24-plot- signed_ada.pdf ; and 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 43 ECR/C EIRs. As such, the Project would have no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required. Significant and Unavoidable Impact, greater than identified in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified ECR/C EIRs, would the Project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X Documentation: a. The ECR/C EIR estimated the population in the Area Plan area to be 400. It found that with the Area Plan, the planning area’s population would grow to approximately 4,800. Although the population in the Area Plan area was projected to increase substantially, the Area Plan was not considered growth inducing, as it would accommodate almost half of the growth projected for the City by ABAG. Additionally, because the Area Plan area is located near public transit and has available land, it was determined that the additional growth induced by the plan would be a redistribution of growth from other areas of the City, and not growth on top of what was projected by ABAG (ECR/C EIR, p. 5-1). The Civic Campus EIR found that the proposed modifications to the Area Plan would not induce population growth above what was analyzed in the ECR/C EIR. It found that because the Civic Project would not increase population over what was analyzed in the ECR/C EIR, the project would have a less than significant impact. According, there have been no changes in circumstances that would alter the conclusions in the ECR/C EIR. The Project would construct 172 units of housing above ground-floor retail and under-ground parking. This is consistent with the Area Plan, General Plan, and the City’s Municipal Code, which together control the population growth in the City through the regulations contained within them. The Area Plan plans for approximately 1,455 additional residential units and approximately 298,400 additional square feet of non-residential development. The Project is a small portion of this planned increase and is consistent with the density and intensity the Area Plan envisioned on the Project site. Thus, the Project would have no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is 2019 SFO Noise Exposure Map accessed on 12/26/17: https://media.flysfo.com/media/sfo/noise-abatement/sfo_p150_2019-nem-36x24-plot-signed_ada.pdf 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 44 required. b, c. The ECR/C EIR found that it was possible for residential uses to convert to high density or mixed uses. Any loss of housing units due to conversion of residential uses to high density or mixed uses would be offset because of the significant increase of the total number of dwelling units allowed under the Area Plan in the Area Plan area. Therefore, ECR/C EIR concluded the Area Plan would have a less than significant impact. The Civic Project EIR concluded that the Civic Project would not displace any existing housing or people in the Area Plan area and thus would not alter the conclusions of the ECR/C EIR. The Project site is currently occupied by a car wash. There is no housing on the site. The Project is consistent with the Area Plan as well as the analysis of the ECR/C EIRs. The Project would have no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required. 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 45 Significant and Unavoidable Impact, greater than identified in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified ECR/C EIRs, would the Project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? X Police protection? X Schools? X Parks? (Note: impacts to parks are analyzed in the Recreation Section) X Other public facilities? (Note: impacts to water supply, wastewater, and landfill capacity are analyzed in the Utilities and Service Systems Section) X Documentation: a. (Fire, Police) The ECR/C EIR found that the population increase from development allowed under the Area Plan would not put the City over the National Fire Protection Association’s standard of one firefighter per 1,000 residents at full buildout, taking into consideration current fire station staffing levels. The ECR/C EIR concluded that the Area Plan had a less than significant impact on fire services. (ECR/C EIR, p. 3l.7-17.) The ECR/C EIR found that population at full buildout of the Area Plan area would require the addition of 4 police officers based on the standard of 1.5 police officers per 1,000 residents, but that these additional police officers would not require the construction of new facilities. The ECR/C EIR concluded that the Area Plan had a less than significant impact on police services. The Civic Project EIR noted that the Civic Project would change the land use designation in a portion of the Plan Area and that this change would allow additional housing to be developed. The Civic Project EIR concluded, however, that the change would not result in a population that would exceed the population analyzed in the ECR/C EIR and therefore there the ECR/C EIR’s “no impact” conclusion remained accurate. There have been changes in circumstances that would alter the “no impact” conclusion. The Project is consistent with the Area Plan and its construction will not result in additional residents or employees beyond what was analyzed in the ECR/C EIRs. Therefore, the Project would have no new or more significant impact on fire and police services and no mitigation is required. a. (Schools, Parks) The ECR/C EIR concluded that the schools had sufficient capacity to accommodate the 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 46 projected new students and that all new residential development would pay state-required school impact fees, resulting in less than significant impacts on school facilities. The Civic Center EIR noted that the Civic Project would allow more housing than the original Area Plan, but concluded that because the Civic Project would not increase the population beyond that considered in the Area Plan the ECR/C EIR conclusions remained valid. There have been no changes in circumstances that would alter the ECR/C EIRs’ conclusions. The Project’s proposed development is consistent with the Area Plan and the Project would be required to pay the Schools Facilities Impact Fee. Therefore the Project would have no new or more significant impact on schools facilities than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required. Significant and Unavoidable Impact, greater than identified in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs XV. RECREATION. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified ECR/C EIRs, would the Project: a) Result in an increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X b) Include recreational facilities, or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X Documentation: a, b. As described in the ECR/C EIR, while the Area Plan would increase population in the City, the planned increase in parkland within and near the Area Plan area would accommodate the recreational needs of future Area Plan residents and employees. The new parks planned as part of the Area Plan and under the General Plan will limit the physical deterioration of existing parkland. Therefore, the ECR/C EIR concluded that the Area Plan would have a less than significant impact on recreational resources (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.6-4). The Civic Project noted that it would include public parkland and open space and also would not increase the Plan Area’s projected population beyond what was contemplated by the ECR/C EIR and therefore would have no impact on recreational resources. There have been no changes in circumstances that would alter the conclusions in the ECR/C EIRs. The Project is adding 172 units, or approximately 523 people using 3.04 persons per household as was used in the ECR/C EIR (p. 4.2). This would require slightly over 1.5 acres of parkland to serve the Project. This increase in demand is accounted for in the ECR/C EIR because the Project’s density is consistent with that allowed by the Area Plan and Zoning Code. Moreover, the Project includes recreation facilities for its residents, decreasing the need for residents to use parkland for recreational needs (impacts from the construction of these facilities is accounted for in other sections of this document). In addition, consistent with the ECR/C EIR’s analysis, the Project would improve the 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 47 portion of Centennial Way Trail adjacent to it, including by adding a fitness park, and would pay the City’s acquisition and park construction fees. Accordingly, the Project would have no new or more significant impacts to recreational resources than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required. Significant and Unavoidable Impact, greater than identified in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified ECR/C EIRs, would the Project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? X 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? X c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses? X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X 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? X 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 48 Documentation: a, b. The ECR/C EIR analyzed twelve intersections and four freeway segments. The ECR/C EIR’s findings with respect to intersection level-of-service impacts are summarized in Table TRA-1: TABLE TRA-1 ECR/C INTERSECTION TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS Intersection ECR/C EIR Existing Plus Project Impact Conclusions ECR/C EIR Cumulative Impact Conclusions 1. El Camino Real/Hickey Boulevard Less than significant with mitigation (Policy C-6 of the proposed plan to modify signal operations to include an eastbound right turn overlap phase would improve LOS in 2010 Existing plus Project to LOS C) Cumulatively significant, project contribution less than significant with mitigation 2. El Camino Real/McLellan Boulevard Less than significant Significant and unavoidable – mitigation involved the construction of a third southbound lane along El Camino Real 3. El Camino Real/Arroyo Drive/Oak Extension Less than significant Less than significant with mitigation 4. El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Less than significant Significant and unavoidable – mitigation involved the construction of a second eastbound right turn land and a second eastbound left turn lane 5. El Camino Real/Orange Avenue Less than significant Significant and unavoidable – the construction of a second westbound right turn lane would require the taking of property from a private business. 6. Mission Road/Grand Avenue Less than significant Less than significant with mitigation 7. Chestnut Avenue/Grand Avenue Less than significant Less than significant 8. Mission Road/Oak Avenue Less than significant Significant and unavoidable – the construction of additional travel lanes would require additional right of way, which makes the mitigation infeasible. 9. Mission Road/Chestnut Avenue Less than significant Significant and unavoidable 10. Junipero Serra Boulevard/Arroyo Drive (Worst Approach) No impact. No project trips are being added to this intersection; therefore, there is no impact at this intersection as a result of the proposed plan. No impact. No project trips are being added to this intersection; therefore, there is no impact at this intersection as a result of the proposed Plan. 11. Westborough Boulevard/I-280 SB Off- Ramp Less than significant Cumulatively significant, project contribution less than significant. 12. Westborough Boulevard/I-280 NB On- Less than significant with mitigation Cumulatively significant, project contribution less than significant 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 49 Ramp/Junipero Serra Boulevard with improvements The ECR/C EIR found that the Area Plan would have less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated under existing plus project conditions. The mitigation involved the restriping of streets to improve the level of service, which the ECR/C EIR found to be feasible (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.1-25). The ECR/C EIR found impacts on freeway segments to be less than significant under the existing plus project scenario, because all freeway segments would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (id., p. 3.1-33). Under the 2030 cumulative conditions plus project scenario, the ECR/C EIR concluded that the Area Plan would have multiple impacts, some of which could be mitigated and others that were significant and unavoidable. These conclusions are summarized in Table TRA-1, above. The City Council determined that certain traffic impacts could not be avoided and no other feasible mitigations or alternatives would avoid or lessen the impacts. Consequently, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the ECR/C EIR that determined the Area Plan’s benefits outweighed the traffic impacts. The Civic Project EIR analyzed level of service impacts at the same intersections and on the same freeway segments as analyzed in the ECR/C EIR. The Civic Project EIR concluded that the project would result in significant impacts at Intersections 1, 4, and 12, but impacts could be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. The project would have no project-level impacts at the other study intersections or on freeway segments. In the cumulative scenario plus project scenario, the project would make a cumulative considerable contribution to cumulative impacts at Intersections 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8. These impacts could be reduced to less than cumulatively considerable with mitigation. The project would make a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to the other study intersections and freeway segments. The cumulative analysis considered project trips associated with implementation of the Area Plan. For Intersection 4, the Civic Project EIR concluded that Mitigation Measure 3.10.6c would be required under the cumulative plus project scenario: The City shall optimize the traffic signal cycle length in both the AM and PM peak hours. The City shall also modify traffic signal operations at the intersection of El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue to include a right turn overlap phase for vehicles traveling eastbound on Chestnut Avenue. If feasible within the existing right-of-way, the City shall also add an eastbound left turn lane from Chestnut Avenue to El Camino Real. Mitigation Measure 3.10.6c includes the requirements of Mitigation Measure 3.10.1b, which requires the Civic Project to modify the signal timing to optimize the cycle length at the intersection of El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue. It also includes additional recommendations, including adding an eastbound left turn lane. Even though the City was uncertain whether an eastbound left turn lane could be added, the Civic Project EIR concludes that project impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable because General Plan Policy 4.2-G-14 allows for LOS E or LOS F if there is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the impact and if the proposed uses are of clear and overall public benefit. The Civic Project EIR concludes that the Civic Project has an overall public benefit and therefore, even if the intersection would continue to operate at LOS F or LOS E, the City would not consider it a significant impact. There have been no changes in circumstances that would alter the level-of-service impact conclusions of the ECR/C EIRs. The Project is consistent with the development contemplated and analyzed in the ECR/C EIRs. To ensure that the Project would not create new or more substantial impacts than disclosed in the Program EIR, a traffic consultant prepared a transportation impact analysis (Attached to this ECA, Hexagon 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 50 Transportation Consultants, January 5, 2018) for the Project. The Project’s transportation impact analysis shows that the Project could have a potentially significant impact at the intersection of El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue (Intersection 4), but that implementation of Civic Project EIR Mitigation Measure 3.10.1b (which is the same as the first part of Mitigation Measure 3.10.6c) would reduce the impact to less than significant. It is anticipated that the City would perform the signal optimization as required by the Civic Project EIR for that project. Nevertheless, to ensure that the signal optimization occurs by the time this Project is constructed, the conditions of approval for the Project would require the Project sponsor to work with the City to accomplish the signal timing optimization prior to occupancy of the Project if optimization has not already been accomplished. With this existing signal optimization measure from the SEIR, the Project would not have any significant level of service impacts and has no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no new mitigation is required. Similarly, the Project is within the scope of development analyzed in the ECR/C EIR and remains consistent with the CMP and therefore would not create new or more significant impacts to freeway segments than discussed in the ECR/C EIRs and no new mitigation is required. c. The EIR/C EIRs concluded that the Area Plan, including the Civic Project, would not have any impacts on air traffic. There have been no changes in circumstances that would alter these conclusions. The Project also would not result in a change in air traffic patterns at San Francisco International Airport and would have no impact on air traffic. Therefore the Project would have no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required. d, e. The ECR/C EIR concluded that development of the Plan Area would not increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses and instead would increase the design quality of the Plan Area through policies and design guidelines in the Plan, including the policies promoting active frontages along certain streets and streetscape improvements such as public plazas and pedestrian connections. The ECR/C EIR also found that the Area Plan would not change emergency vehicle access routes, which would remain adequate to serve the Plan Area. The Civic Project EIR concluded that project also would not increase hazards due to a design feature. The project did not change Area Plan policies and design guidelines, and would follow applicable policies to ensure compliance with the General Plan, resulting in less than significant impacts. There have been changes in circumstances that would alter the ECR/C EIRs’ impact conclusion. The Project’s traffic impact analysis confirmed that the Project would have no new or greater impacts related to hazardous features than discussed in the ECR/C EIRs. The Project’s traffic impact analysis concluded that the Project would conform to all engineering and fire safety standards related to transportation design features of the site, including the design of the driveways and on-site circulation. The Project does not propose incompatible uses or offsite roadway alterations or alterations that would make the existing, adequate emergency access inadequate. Additionally, the Project would pay the City’s Public Safety Impact Fee that funds improvements to infrastructure or public services necessitated by new development to ensure adequate emergency access. The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or use with incompatible vehicles such as farm equipment and would not result in inadequate emergency vehicle access. Thus the Project would not result in any new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required. f. The ECR/C EIR found that the Area Plan 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. According to the ECR/C EIR, the Area Plan supports the City’s plans concerning alternative transportation in numerous ways. For example, the Area Plan would establish pedestrian and bicycle connections through the Plan Area. The Area Plan also permits residential uses near existing 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 51 transit and retail services to encourage use of alternative transportation methods. The Civic Project EIR confirmed that full buildout of the Area Plan will not cause any significant impact on the performance of transit, pedestrian and bicycle networks. There have been no changes in circumstances that would alter this conclusion. The Project is well situated to take advantage of the existing and planned pedestrian, bicycle, and transit services in the immediate vicinity that would allow project residents and employees to travel to various destinations without a car. The Project would provide a direct connection to the Centennial Way Trail that connects to the South San Francisco BART Station. While the Project would increase use of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities, because the Project is consistent with the development anticipated by the Area Plan, the project would not result in significant impacts on the performance of such facilities. In addition, the Project would pay the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact fee to offset any potential impacts to bicycle and pedestrian facilities to less than significant levels. For these reasons, the Project would not have new or more significant impacts on such facilities than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required. Significant and Unavoidable Impact, greater than identified in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified ECR/C EIRs, would the Project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment or distribution facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X c) Require or result in the construction of a new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? X e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves the project area that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project area’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? X f) Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? X g) Fail to comply with federal, state, and local X 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 52 statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Documentation: a, b, e. (Wastewater) As described in the ECR/C EIR, all wastewater produced in South San Francisco is treated at the City’s Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP), which also treats water from San Bruno. As further described in the ECR/C EIR, the plant is permitted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and, has an average dry weather flow (ADWF) design capacity of 13 mgd. In its analysis on Page 3.7-21, the ECR/C EIR found that implementation of the Area Plan (i.e., buildout under the Area Plan) would have less-than-significant impacts on wastewater treatment facilities and that no mitigation would be required because there is adequate wastewater treatment capacity to accommodate the proposed development. The WQCP complies with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and therefore there would be no exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements. According to the SEIR, in 2016, there is still sufficient permitted influent capacity at the WQCP to treat effluent from Area Plan development. Accordingly, no changes in circumstances have occurred that would alter the ECR/C EIR’s assessment that there is sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to serve the development contemplated by the Area Plan, including the Project, as well as existing development. As the Project is consistent with the Area Plan, it will not cause an excess in wastewater beyond that which the existing facilities can treat. The WQCP complies with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and because the Project’s wastes would be treated at that facility, its wastes would be treated in compliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. Further, the Project would pay the City’s sewer capacity fee, which helps to offset impacts on sewer capacity from new development projects. Accordingly, there are no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required. b. (Water) On pages 3.7-20, the ECR/C EIR found that based on discussions with California Water Service (CWS), the existing water distribution system is generally in good condition and should be able to support the Plan Area’s proposed development without the need for major repairs or upgrades to the existing system, although minor upgrades could be required. The Civic Project EIR confirmed that no improvements to infrastructure beyond what was identified and analyzed in the ECR/C EIR would be required to serve the Plan Area. Thus there are no changes in circumstances that would alter the ECR/C EIR’s conclusions. CWS has provided confirmation that they can serve the Project. As the Area Plan was found to have a less than significant impact, and the Proposed Project is consistent with the Area Plan, the Project will not require the construction of significant water facilities that would have a significant impact. As such, the Proposed Project would have no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIR and no mitigation is required. c. The ECR/C EIR stated that the planning area is largely covered with impermeable surfaces. As noted in the Area Plan, the existing and future storm drain system discharges into the Colma Creek canal, and an increase in stormwater flows and accompanying major infrastructure improvements is not anticipated. The ECR/C EIR noted that the addition of the community park, as well as other open spaces, would likely improve runoff in the area. It also noted that future projects would be subject to incentives and guidelines to include plazas and open spaces with permeable surfaces in project design to potentially decrease on- site stormwater runoff. The ECR/C EIR concluded that with implementation of these measures, the capacity of the storm drain system would not be exceeded, and impacts would be less than significant. The Civic EIR found that changes to the Area Plan would not result in new increases not previously anticipated. The EIR also noted that development in the Area Plan area would be required to implement 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 53 stormwater runoff reduction measures as directed under Area Plan Policy DG-40 and in compliance with the Provision C.3 of the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program Technical Guidance Manual. There are no changes in circumstances that would change the conclusions in the ECR/C EIRs. The Project is consistent with the development planned under the Area Plan and would implement stormwater runoff reduction measures as directed under Area Plan Policy DG-40 and in compliance with the Provision C.3 of the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program Technical Guidance Manual. Thus the Project would have no new or more significant impacts than those disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required. d. The ECR/C EIR stated that the population growth associated with the Area Plan (a combination of residential and nonresidential) uses would increase the demand for water in the CWS area, but such growth would be within the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) projections. The ECR/C EIR concluded that the development contemplated by the Area Plan would not require additional water supply in excess of the supply contemplated by the UWMP. The Civic Project EIR noted that Cal Water’s South San Francisco District (the City’s water supplier) had adopted a new UWMP in 2016 (the “2015 UWMP”). As the Civic Project EIR notes, the 2015 UWMP concluded that the South San Francisco District has sufficient water supply during years under normal conditions, but during one-year or multiyear droughts, shortfalls of up to 20 percent or more are projected. Under such conditions, Cal Water will implement its Water Shortage Contingency Plan. In recent drought years, customers were asked to reduce their demand by 8 percent as specified by the State Water Resources Control Board. The South San Francisco District exceeded this amount (20 percent reduction based on June 2015 to March 2016 totals). Cal Water is also working toward increasing the water supply portfolio for the South San Francisco District (Cal Water 2016). California Water Service serves the Project site and has issued the applicant a “will serve” letter dated January 2, 2018 stating that it will provide water to the Project. Further, the existing Project site’s use is as a car wash, which is a water intensive use. The Project would replace that use with less water-intensive uses that are consistent with the development allowed by the Area Plan. Thus the Project would have no new or more significant impacts than disclosed by the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required. f, g. The ECR/C EIR evaluated whether future development under the proposed Plan will be served by a landfill with adequate permitted capacity and would not fail to fully comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste on page 3.7-22. The ECR/C EIR found that buildout consistent with the Area Plan’s development standards would not necessitate any mitigations as there is adequate capacity at Ox Mountain to accommodate the solid waste needs of development permitted by the Area Plan while maintaining compliance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The ECR/C EIR also noted that diversion rates would likely continue, resulting in less solid waste that would need to be landfilled, and that General Plan policies addressed the need for solid waste reduction. The ECR/C EIR concluded impacts were less than significant. The Civic Project EIR confirmed that there remains adequate capacity at Ox Mountain to accommodate solid waste from buildout of the Area Plan. It also noted that solid waste requiring landfill disposal would be reduced compared to 2011 with continued implementation of the City’s recycling programs and state mandates for increased diversion and enactment of legislation requiring additional increases in diversion (e.g., AB 341 and AB1826). Thus there are no changes in circumstances that would result in new or more severe impacts. The Project is consistent with the Area Plan and will not result in landfill waste beyond that contemplated in the ECR/C EIR. Thus, the Project will not result in new or more significant impacts related to landfills 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 54 than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required. Significant and Unavoidable Impact, greater than identified in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified ECR/C EIRs, would the Project: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (“cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? X c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X Documentation: a. Based on the preceding discussion and the ECR/C EIRs prepared for the Area Plan, it has been determined that the Project is consistent with the analysis of the ECR/C EIRs and 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, 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. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15355, “Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual 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. The potential cumulative impacts of the Project have been considered for each environmental topic evaluated above. Given the relatively short-term nature of the Project’s construction schedule, and the fact that it would serve an existing community within an urbanized area consistent with the adopted Area Plan, the Project will not have any cumulatively considerable impacts that are different or more significant than those as disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs. 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 55 c. The Project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, as analyzed in the ECR/C EIRs. Conclusions As discussed, the Environmental Checklist confirms that 1) the Project does not exceed the environmental impacts analyzed in the ECR/C EIRs, 2) that no new impacts have been identified, and 3) no new mitigation measures are required. As detailed in the analysis presented above, the Project would not result in greater impacts than were identified for the ECR/C EIRs. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 56 References 1. ECR/C Draft and Final Program EIR 2. Community Civic Center Campus Project Subsequent EIR 3. FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer: http://fema.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=cbe088e7c8704464aa0fc34eb99e7f30 &extent=-122.45397202661182,37.649016688411635,-122.41242997338809,37.660228901797346 4. State Water Board GeoTracker Website: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ 5. Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency website: http://bawsca.org/members/profiles/cws-san- francisco accessed 12/23/17 6. 2014 SFO Noise Exposure Map accessed on 12/26/17: https://media.flysfo.com/media/sfo/noise- abatement/sfo_p150_2014-nem-36x24-plot-signed_ada.pdf 7. 2019 SFO Noise Exposure Map accessed on 12/26/17: https://media.flysfo.com/media/sfo/noise- abatement/sfo_p150_2019-nem-36x24-plot-signed_ada.pdf 8. US Census Website “Quick Facts” for South San Francisco accessed on 12/26/17: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/southsanfranciscocitycalifornia#viewtop 9. Rockridge Geotechnical Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Mixed-Use Development 988 El Camino Real, South San Francisco dated 3/6/17. 10. Hexagon Traffic Analysis dated January 4, 2018 11. Holman and Associates Historical Resources Records Search and Subsurface Archaeological Reconnaissance dated May 2017 12. Holman and Associates Phase I Historical Site Assessment 13. Project Plans, dated 12/1/17, submitted 12/4/17 14. Cortese List accessed 12/27/17: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&site_type=CSI TES,OPEN,FUDS,CLOSE&status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SU BSTANCES+SITE+LIST; see also Reference Number 4. 15. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment from Engeo Incorporated dated March 7, 2017 16. California Water Services “Will Serve” letter dated 1/2/18 17. Environmental Noise Assessment dated July 7, 2017, Charles M. Salter and Associates 18. SummerHill Apartment Communities Response to City Comments dated September 26, 2017 19. KTGY Solar Study dated August 15, 2017 988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development City of South San Francisco February 2018 Page 57 20. VA Consulting Sewer Study dated December 2017 21. Hexagon Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan dated December 15, 2017 2915362.1 Memorandum Date: January 5, 2018 To: Ms. Elaine Breeze, SummerHill Apartment Communities From: Trisha Dudala and Gary Black Subject: 988 El Camino Real Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA Introduction This report presents the results of the traffic study for the proposed mixed-use project at 988 El Camino Real in South San Francisco, CA. The project is located East of El Camino Real, bounded by Centennial Way Trail to the east, Chestnut Avenue to the north, El Camino Real to the west and an existing Burger King restaurant to the south (see Figure 1). The project site is located across the street from the future site of the South San Francisco Community Civic Campus. The project site is currently occupied by South City Car Wash, which will be replaced by the project. The proposed project is a 6-story mixed use residential and commercial building with two additional subterranean levels for parking. The project will provide 172 residential units and 10,360 sf of retail space (see Figure 2). The project proposes one driveway on El Camino Real and one driveway on Chestnut Avenue. The driveway on El Camino Real will accommodate right turns in and out of the project and the driveway on Chestnut Avenue will allow right turns in only. Because of the raised median on El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue along the project frontages, left turns in or out of the project will not be possible. Parking for the retail space and residential guests will be provided on the ground floor of the project. Residential parking will be provided in the two-level subterranean garage. The project is located within the El Camino Real/Chestnut (ECR/C) Avenue Area Plan District, which covers areas generally to the west of downtown South San Francisco, and are bordered by the South San Francisco BART station on the north, El Camino Real to the west, Mission Road to the east and the existing retail development just south of Chestnut Avenue. The City of South San Francisco adopted the El Camino Real/ Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated Zoning Ordinance amendments in 2011. Because the project is located in the ECR/C district, and is consistent with the land use approved for the site in that plan, the transportation impact analysis from that plan was utilized as a reference for this analysis. The Community Civic Campus Project SEIR is a subsequent environmental impact report that was prepared in June 2017 to analyze the impacts of the inclusion of the Community Civic Campus to the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan. An updated traffic study for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan associated with the Community Civic Campus Project SEIR was completed in April 2017 by Kimley Horn. The cumulative impact analysis prepared for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan amendment adequately captures the project’s contribution to cumulative transportation impacts because the project is consistent with the land use assumptions about the project site used in the SEIR’s transportation impact analysis. Scope of Study The impacts of the project were evaluated consistent with the Community Civic Campus Project SEIR, following the standards and methodologies set forth by the City of South San Francisco, San 988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018 Page | 2 Mateo County, Caltrans, and the applicable provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Traffic operations for the following seven intersections were analyzed based on direction provided by City staff. Intersections 1, 2, 4 and 7 were analyzed in the updated traffic study for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan. This list of study intersections was reviewed and approved by City staff. Study Intersections 1. El Camino Real/Arroyo Drive/Oak Extension 2. El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue 3. El Camino Real/Southwood Drive/1st Street (Unsignalized) 4. El Camino Real/W Orange Avenue 5. Camaritas Avenue/Arroyo Drive (Unsignalized) 6. Westborough Boulevard/Camaritas Avenue/W Orange Avenue 7. Mission Road/Chestnut Avenue Traffic conditions at the intersections were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours of traffic. The AM peak hour of traffic is generally between 7:00 and 9:00 AM, and the PM peak hour is typically between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. It is during these periods that the most congested traffic conditions occur on an average weekday. Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios: 1. Existing Conditions. Existing traffic conditions were evaluated based on the level of service analysis described for existing conditions in the Community Civic Campus Project SEIR. 2. Existing Plus Project Conditions. Project-generated traffic was added to the existing traffic volumes to analyze existing plus project conditions. Project generated traffic was estimated using the vehicular trip generation rates recommended by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual entitled Trip Generation, 9th Edition. The ITE manual has limited survey data for car washes. Therefore, peak-hour trips generated by the existing car wash were obtained from driveway counts conducted at the existing driveways in February 2017. These trips were subtracted from the trips generated by the project to determine the net trips generated by the project. The total net trips were added to the existing traffic volumes to generate existing plus project conditions. 988 El Camino Real Figure 1 Site Location and Study Intersections X = City of South San Francisco = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l W O r a n g e A v e Ch e s t n u t A v e F a i r w a y D r Oak A v e Arro y o D r Comm e r c i a l A v e An t o i n e t t e L n Westborough Blv d South w ood D r Ca m a r i t a s A v e M i s s i o n R d First S t 988 El Camino Real Figure 2 Site Plan 18 '10 ' 56 ' - 8 " 25' 6' 8'-9" 24 ' - 8 " 25 ' 22' 15' 20' 10' 5' 7'5' 8 ' 2 2 ' 1 6 ' 124'-9"40'-2"164'-6" 78 ' - 6 " 33'-5" 26 ' - 9 " 407'9 0 ' - 3 " 15 1 ' - 5 " 5 ' - 9 " 5 1 ' - 9 " 56 ' - 8 " 1 8 ' 8'-6" 18 ' 9' 30' 20 ' 9 4 ' - 4 " 1 4 ' - 9 " 5' 56' 12' 10' 9'-8" 12 ' - 6 " 6' - 1 0 " 17 ' - 6 " 5' 25' Architecture + Planning 3rd SUBMITTAL, DECEMBER 1, 2017SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986 988 EL CAMINO REAL SummerHill Apartment Communities 777 S. California Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94304 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORSPLANNERS www.cbandg.com 0204010 SP.2CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN GROUND LEVEL PROJECT SUMMARY EXISTING ZONINGECR/C - MIXED USE HIGH DENSITY SITE AREA1.67 AC, 72,603 SF COMMERCIAL AREA10,915 SF GROSS (INCL. TRASH) RESIDENTIAL AREA167,400 SF GROSS FLOOR AREA178,315 SF FLOOR AREA RATIO2.5 FAR (3.0 MAX.) TOTAL UNITS172 DENSITY103 DU/AC (110 DU/AC MAX.) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUIRED PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT120' MAX.80', 6 STORIES + 2 LEVELS SUB-T COMMERCIAL DEPTH75' MIN.56' COMMERCIAL HEIGHT15' MIN. 17.5' (12' CEILING)(16' CEILING) STREET WALL HEIGHT25' - 35' ECR31' ECR 40' - 50' CHEST.41' CHESTNUT YARDS (SETBACKS) EL CAMINO REAL0' FROM PL, 10' FROM PL, 18' FROM CURB18' FROM CURB CHESTNUT AVE0' FROM PL, 15' FROM PL 15' FROM CURB20' FROM CURB INTERIOR SIDE 0' MIN.5' MIN. REAR0' MIN.14-9" MIN., 50' AT PG&E ESMT. BUILDING COVERAGE AT GROUND LEVEL90% MAX.48,000 SF @ 66% ABOVE 45'80% MAX.36,000 SF @ 50% USABLE OPEN SPACE REQUIRED 150 SF / DU X 172 DU =25,800 SF REQUIRED USABLE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 9,380 SF 10,100 SF (20' MIN. DIMENSION) PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 6,350 SF (6' MIN. DIMENSION) TOTAL USABLE O.S.25,830 SF PROVIDED ADDITIONAL AMENITIES / COMMON AREAS PROVIDED FITNESS 1,315 SF LOBBY/WIFI LOUNGE 2,835 SF CLUB ROOM 1,075 SF CYBER CAFE 350 SF PARKING PROVIDED SECURE RESIDENT212 SPACES FUTURE RESIDENT 4 SPACES (9' X 18') VISITOR, OUTDOOR 8 SPACES SUBTOTAL RES.224 SPACES @ 1.3 SPACES / UNIT COMMERCIAL 32 SPACES (9' X 18') COMMERCIAL, 3 SPACES SUBTOTAL COMM. 35 SPACES @ 1 SPACE / 300 SF TOTAL PARKING259 SPACES PROVIDED (8 ADA) @ 1.5 SPACES / UNIT BIKE PARKING LONG-TERM 43 SPACES REQUIRED @ 1 / 4 DU 65 SPACES PROVIDED (BIKE ROOMS) + 25 ADDITIONAL VERT. SPACES SHORT-TERM 26 SPACES REQUIRED @ 10% AUTO 32 SPACES PROVIDED (BIKE RACKS) 988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018 Page | 5 Methodology Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. Signalized Intersections The City of South San Francisco evaluates level of service at signalized intersections based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service methodology. This method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. Table 1 shows the level of service definitions for signalized intersections. Intersection traffic operations were analyzed using Traffix traffic analysis software. The HCM 2000 methodology was used for intersection analysis to maintain consistency with the updated traffic study prepared for the Community Civic Campus Project SEIR. Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay Unsignalized Intersections Similar to signalized intersections, the City of South San Francisco evaluates level of service at unsignalized intersections based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p10-16. Level of Service Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (sec.) Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to the very low vehicle delay. 10.0 or lessA B Operations characterized by good signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average vehicle delay. 10.1 to 20.0 Higher delays may result from fair signal progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, though may still pass through the intersection without stopping. 20.1 to 35.0C This level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes of such delay levels. greater than 80.0F The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lenghts, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. 35.1 to 55.0D This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently. 55.1 to 80.0E 988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018 Page | 6 methodology. This methodology determines the LOS based on delay. Similar to signalized intersections, the measure of effectiveness of an unsignalized intersection is measured in average control delay. However, the delay is reported for the worst-case approach of the intersection. The LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections are summarized in Table 2. Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay Regulatory Framework Existing policies, laws and regulations that apply to the proposed project are summarized below. The City of South San Francisco has jurisdiction over all City streets and City-operated traffic signals. State Routes, including US-101, are under the jurisdiction of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Public transit agencies with operations in the study area are SamTrans, Caltrain, and BART. City of South San Francisco General Plan The Transportation and Circulation Element of the City of South San Francisco General Plan addresses the location and extent of existing and planned transportation routes, terminals, and other public utilities and facilities. The General Plan identifies roadway and transit goals and policies that have been adopted to ensure that the transportation system of the City will have adequate capacity to serve planned growth. These goals and policies are intended to provide a plan and implementation measures for an integrated, multi-modal transportation system that will safely and efficiently meet the transportation needs of all economic and social segments of the City. Level of Service Policies The following Level of Service (LOS) guidelines are outlined in the City of South San Francisco General Plan (City of South San Francisco 1999):  Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all intersections, and on principal arterials during peak hours.  Accept LOS E or F after finding that there is no feasible and practical way to mitigate the lower level of service, and the uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear overall public benefit.   ALittle or no traffic delay 10.0 or less BShort traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0 CAverage traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0 DLong traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0 EVery long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0 FExtreme traffic delays greater than 50.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p17-2. Level of ServiceDescriptionAverage Delay Per Vehicle (Sec.) 988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018 Page | 7  Exempt development within 0.25 mile of a Caltrain or BART station, or a ferry terminal, from LOS standards. The project site is located on an arterial street, and is not located within 0.25 mile of a Caltrain or BART station. The City follows the significance criteria in the CEQA guidelines. Under the CEQA guidelines, a project would have a significant impact if it would: 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. City Clarification of (a) According to impact criteria established administratively, the project would result in a significant traffic impact at a signalized or unsignalized intersection if either of the following criteria are met:  An intersection with base traffic volumes operating at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) deteriorates to an unacceptable operation (LOS E or F) with the addition of project traffic; or  An intersection is already operating at an unacceptable LOS and the proposed project would add any traffic to that intersection. 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 a county congestion management agency for designated roadways or highways. c. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). d. Result in inadequate emergency vehicle access. e. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Analysis and Performance of the Circulation System (Threshold a) The current transportation network within the study area, including roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities are described under Existing conditions. Also, the existing traffic operations of the study intersections are analyzed and described. Impacts of the project on existing intersection operations are analyzed and described under Existing pus Project conditions. Existing Conditions Existing Roadway Network Regional access to the project site is provided by US 101, I- 380, I- 280 and SR 82/El Camino Real. Local access to the project site is provided via Westborough Boulevard/ Chestnut Avenue and Mission Road. US 101 is a north-south freeway that extends through and beyond the Bay Area, connecting San Francisco to San Jose. US 101 is eight lanes wide (four mixed-flow lanes in each direction) in the 988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018 Page | 8 vicinity of the project site. US 101 provides site access via a full interchange at I 380, and partial interchanges at Produce Avenue, Grand Avenue and Sister Cities Boulevard. I-280 is a north/south freeway that extends from San Francisco through San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Near the project vicinity, I-280 is eight lanes wide. Regional access to the project site is provided via an interchange with Westborough Boulevard. I-380 is a six-lane east/west freeway that connects I-280 and US-101 within San Bruno. El Camino Real provides access to I-380 via an interchange. SR-82/El Camino Real is a six-lane north-south arterial with a raised center median within the project area. El Camino Real extends northward to San Francisco where it changes designation to Mission Street and San Jose Avenue, and southward through San Jose. El Camino Real provides direct access to the project site. Westborough Boulevard /Chestnut Avenue is a four-lane major arterial with a raised median west of Mission Road. Chestnut Avenue begins at Hillside Boulevard and terminates at the intersection with El Camino Real and becomes Westborough Boulevard. Inbound access to the project is provided via Chestnut Avenue. Mission Road is a four-lane roadway that is aligned mostly north-south in the vicinity of the site. Mission Road extends north-south between El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue. Mission Road provides access to the project site via El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue. Arroyo Drive is a two-lane collector that extends between Junipero Serra Boulevard to the west and El Camino Real to the east. Arroyo Drive provides access to the project via Chestnut Avenue. Camaritas Avenue is a north-south roadway which is classified as an “Other Street” in the City’s General Plan. It is generally two lanes except between Arroyo Drive and Westborough Road, where it is four lanes wide. Existing Transit Service Existing transit service to the study area is provided by SamTrans, BART and the shuttle operated by SamTrans. The transit services are described below and shown on Figure 3. SamTrans Bus Routes Route ECR travels between the Daly City BART station and the Palo Alto Transit Center. Along the route, it connects with the Daly City, Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno and Millbrae BART stations, the Millbrae and Redwood City Transit Centers and various Caltrain stations. On weekdays, it operates with approximately 15-minute headways during peak hours and 30-minute headways from 4:00 AM to 2:00 AM. On the weekends, it operates with 15- to 30-minute headways from 5:00 AM to 2:00 AM. The closest bus stop is located near the El Camino Real and 1st Street intersection, about 500 feet from the project site. Route 122 travels between Stonestown Shopping Center in San Francisco and the South San Francisco BART station, providing service to the Colma BART Station, San Francisco State University and many retail and medical centers along the way. On weekdays, it operates with approximately 20-minute headways during the peak hours and approximately 30-minute headways for the rest of the day, from 5:00 AM to 11:15 PM. It operates on weekends and holidays with 30- minute headways. In the project vicinity, it travels on El Camino Real south of the South San Francisco BART Station and then travels west on Arroyo Drive. The closest bus stop is located near the El Camino Real and Arroyo Drive intersection, about 1,200 feet from the project site. 988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018 Page | 9 Route 131 travels between the Serramonte Center in Daly City and the intersection of Airport Boulevard & Linden Avenue in South San Francisco. It also provides service to the South San Francisco BART station. On weekdays, it operates with 15- to 20-minute headways during the peak hours and approximately 15- to 30-minute headways for the rest of the day, from 5:00 AM to 11:00 PM. It operates on weekdays with 30-minute headways. In the project vicinity, it travels on Grand Avenue, Mission Road, and El Camino Real. The closest bus stop is located near the Chestnut Avenue and Grand Avenue intersection, about 2,000 feet from the project site. Route 37 travels through South San Francisco from the intersection of Grove Avenue and Hillside Boulevard to Alta Loma Middle School. It provides service during school start and dismissal times at Alta Loma Middle School. The service is only provided on school days and operates one morning and one afternoon bus from 7:59 to 8:20 AM and 3:35 to 3:59 PM, respectively. In the project vicinity, it travels on El Camino Real between Arroyo Drive and Orange Avenue. Route 39 travels through South San Francisco from the intersection of Hazelwood Drive and Northwood Drive to Alta Loma Middle School. It provides service during school start and dismissal times at Alta Loma Middle School. The service is only provided on school days and operates one morning and one afternoon bus from 8:16 to 8:32 AM and 3:25 to 3:40 PM, respectively. In the project vicinity, it travels on El Camino Real between Arroyo Drive and Orange Avenue. Route 28 travels between the Serramonte Center in Daly City and South San Francisco High School. Along the route, it connects with regional shopping centers in Daly City and South San Francisco. It operates with 10-minute headways during the AM period and 6-minute headways during the PM period except for Wednesdays. The service is only provided on school days. In the project vicinity, it travels on Westborough Boulevard and then heads south on El Camino Real. The bus stops for Routes 37, 39 and 28 are located near the El Camino Real/1st Street intersection, about 500 feet from the project site, and on West Orange Ave near the West Orange Library, about 1,200 feet from the project site. South City Shuttle The South City shuttle is the City of South San Francisco’s free public shuttle service, which travels around South San Francisco, with trips to local stores, senior center, libraries, city hall and parks. This shuttle provides transit connections with SamTrans and BART. In the vicinity of the project site, the shuttle stops at the bus stop near the El Camino Real and 1st Street intersection. The shuttle operates between 7:30 AM and 6:30 PM on weekdays with 40 to 45-minute headways. This shuttle is wheelchair accessible and can accommodate 2 bikes. The shuttle service is a pilot program of the City of South San Francisco, funded in part by the San Mateo County Transportation Authority. BART Service Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) operates regional rail service in the Bay Area, connecting between San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco to the north, and cities in the East Bay. The Richmond-Daly City/Millbrae Line on weekdays provides service from 5:00 AM to 9:15 PM with typical headways (frequency of service) of 15 minutes during peak and mid-day hours. The Pittsburg/Bay Point-SFO Airport-Millbrae Line on weekdays provides service between 5:15 AM to 1:30 AM with typical headways of 15 minute during peak and mid-day hours and 20 minutes headway after 8:00 PM. There are bicycle racks and bicycle lockers available at the South San Francisco BART Station. This station has monthly reserved, single day reserved and carpool parking. The South San Francisco BART station is located less than a mile from the project site. The BART station is served by SamTrans Buses 37 and 122 and the South City shuttle. Alternatively, project residents could access the BART station via the Centennial Way trail, which provides a safe and easy pedestrian and bicycle connection to the BART station. 988 El Camino Real Figure 3 Existing Transit Service LEGEND = City of South San Frencisco = Site Location = SamTrans School-day Only Routes = SamTrans Routes Connecting to BART and Caltrain Stations = SamTrans Routes Connecting to BART = South City Shuttle = BART E l C a m i n o R e a l Mi s s i o n R d Arroy o D r Ch e s t n u t A v e Holl y A v e Grand A v e M i l l e r A v e Ca m a rita s A v e W O r a n g e A v e We s t b o r o u g h B l v d Alt a L o m a D r Del M o n t e A v e Eve r g r e e n D r Fair w ay D r Mc L e l l a n D r Comm ercial Av e Oak A v e Law n d a l e B l v d An t o i n e tte L n First S t Miss i o n R d 122 122 37 39 35 37 37 37 28 39 122 122 131 131 131 131 ECR ECR South San Francisco BART Station 988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018 Page | 11 Caltrain Caltrain provides commuter rail service between San Francisco and Gilroy. The project is located approximately 2 miles from the South San Francisco Caltrain station, which is located at 590 Dubuque Avenue, on the east side of US-101, immediately north of East Grand Avenue. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station serves local and limited trains. Weekday peak commute headways are between 20 and 60 minutes, with more frequent service for AM northbound and PM southbound trips. Transfers between the Caltrain and BART system can occur at the Millbrae BART station. Residents can access Caltrain via SamTrans bus routes. East of US-101 Area Shuttles Since no SamTrans bus service exists east of US-101 in South San Francisco, project residents who work in the east of US-101 area and rely on public transit must rely on supplementary shuttle services. The Commute.org, a public agency representing 17 cities and the County of San Mateo, operates seven shuttles to the east of US-101 area from the Caltrain and BART stations. The following shuttles connect the South San Francisco BART station to the east of US-101 area. Oyster Point BART Shuttle The Oyster Point BART shuttle provides service between the South San Francisco BART station and the Oyster Point area office buildings with seven shuttles leaving from the South San Francisco BART station every 30 minutes in the morning (6:40 AM – 9:40 AM) and eight shuttles arriving at the South San Francisco BART station every 30 minutes in the evening (3:30 PM – 7:00 PM) Monday through Friday. Utah-Grand BART Shuttle The Utah-Grand BART shuttle provides service between the South San Francisco BART Station and the Utah-Grand area office buildings with eight shuttles leaving from the South San Francisco BART station every 30 minutes in the morning (6:10 AM to 9:40 AM) and seven shuttles arriving at the South San Francisco BART station every 30 minutes in the evening (3:30 PM – 6:30 PM) Monday through Friday. Genenbus Genentech provides a comprehensive bus service for its employees (but not available to the general public). Multiple routes serving 57 communities across the Bay Area provide direct access to the Genentech campus. Also, as a “last mile” connection, shuttles opereate between both the South San Francisco BART station and South San Francisco Caltrain station, serving the campus; these buses operate every 30 minutes in the morning period (6:10 AM – 9:40 AM) and the evening period (3:30 PM – 6:35 PM). Existing Bicycle Facilities Bicycle facilities include bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes. Bike paths (Class I facilities) are pathways, separate from roadways, which are designated for use by bicycles. Often, these pathways also allow pedestrian access. Bike lanes (Class II facilities) are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes (Class III) are existing rights-of-way that accommodate bicycles but are not separate from the existing travel lanes. Routes are typically designated only with signs. Existing bicycle facilities in the project study area are shown on Figure 4. 988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018 Page | 12 The following bicycle facilities exist in the project study area. Class I Bikeway (Multi-Use Path)  Centennial Way Trail is a bike path that extends from the South San Francisco BART station to the San Bruno BART station. This path connects to Class III bike routes on Chestnut Avenue and W. Orange Avenue in the immediate project vicinity. Class II Bikeways (Bike Lanes)  Westborough Boulevard between I-280 and Camaritas Avenue/West Orange Avenue  Grand Avenue between Chestnut Avenue and Spruce Avenue  Mission Road north of McLellan Drive  Antoinette Lane between Chestnut Avenue and Centennial Way Trail Class III Bikeways (Bike Routes)  Camaritas Avenue -West Orange Avenue south of Arroyo Drive  Commercial Avenue between Chestnut Avenue and Lindon Avenue  Del Monte Avenue between Bryon Drive to Arroyo Drive  El Camino Real through the City of South San Francisco  Mission Road between McLellan Drive and Sequoia Avenue  Westborough Boulevard-Chestnut Avenue between Camaritas Avenue/West Orange Avenue and Hillside Boulevard  Grand Avenue between Mission Road and Chestnut Avenue Existing Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities in the study area consist of sidewalks that are ADA (American with Disabilities Act) compatible along most of the surrounding streets. Crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads are located at all of the signalized intersections in the study area. There are a few gaps within the sidewalk network in the project area. Most prominent is the lack of a sidewalk on the west side of El Camino Real from BART Road to just north of Arroyo Drive. This is identified as an improvement and is recommended by the City’s El Camino Real Master Plan, prepared in 2006. Overall, the existing pedestrian facilities provide adequate connectivity between the site and all of the surrounding land uses in the area. 988 El Camino Real Figure 4 Existing Bicycle Network E l C a m i n o R e a l Mi s s i o n R d Arroy o D r Ch e s t n u t A v e Holl y A v e Grand A v e M i l l e r A v e Ca m a rita s A v e W O r a n g e A v e Westboroug h B l v d Alt a L o m a D r Del M o n t e A v e Eve r g r e e n D r Fai r w ay D r Mc L e l l a n D r Comm ercial Av e Oak A v e Law n d a l e B l v d A n t o i n e t t e L n First S t Miss i o n R d Ce n t e n n i a l W a y T r ail C e n t e n n i a l W a y T r a i l = City of South San Francisco = Site Location LEGEND = Class II Bike Lanes = Class III Bike Routes = Class I Bike Paths South San Francisco BART Station 988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018 Page | 14 Existing Intersection Operations This section describes existing operations based on the analysis presented in the Community Civic Campus Project SEIR. Each study intersection was analyzed using existing lane configurations, existing AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts and existing traffic signal timing data, as presented in the SEIR except at the following intersections which were not analyzed in the SEIR:  El Camino Real/Southwood Drive/1st Street  Camaritas Avenue/Arroyo Drive  W. Orange Avenue/Westborough Boulevard AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts were conducted at these three intersections on July 12, 2017. Lane geometry and signal timing information were collected from field observations. As these counts were conducted during non-school days, the counts were adjusted based on the traffic counts conducted for nearby intersections in September 2016 presented in the Community Civic Campus Project SEIR. The existing lane configurations at the study intersections are shown on Figure 5 and the existing traffic volumes are shown on Figure 6. A traffic operations model was developed for the study area using TRAFFIX software. As shown in Table 3, the analysis shows that most of the study intersections currently operate at acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours, with the following exceptions: El Camino Real/ Chestnut Avenue – The analysis shows that this intersection currently operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. Field observations showed long queues (up to 16 vehicles) for the northbound left-turn movement that exceeded the available storage during the PM peak hour. The westbound approach has a short storage length due to the close proximity of the adjacent signal at Chestnut Avenue/Antoinette Lane. This short storage length resulted in vehicles consistently backing up into the Chestnut Avenue/Antoinette Lane intersection during the AM and PM peak hours. EL Camino Real/1st Street/Southwood Drive – The analysis shows that this intersection currently operates at LOS B or better during both the AM and PM peak hour periods based on the weighted average delay for all vehicles entering the intersection. However, the analysis shows that vehicles on the eastbound and westbound stop-controlled approaches of Southwood Drive and 1st Street experience long wait times, resulting in LOS F conditions for those movements. It should be noted that the volumes on both of the stop controlled approaches were very low, less than 35 vehicles during both the AM and PM peak hours. This intersection was evaluated for the CA MUTCD peak- hour signal Warrant 3, and the analysis showed that the intersection would not meet the warrant during either of the peak hours under existing conditions due to the low traffic volumes on the side street approaches. X = City of South San Francisco = Traffic Signal = Stop Sign = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 El C a m i n o R e a l Arro y o D r F a i r w a y D r W O r a n g e A v e Westborough Blv d Ca m a r i t a s A v e Ches t n u t A v e An t o i n e t t e L n Sou t h w o o d D r Miss i o n R d First S t Comm e r c i a l A v e Oak A v e 5 1 67 2 3 4 Av e Or a n g e Av e Ca r m a r i t a s Dr Arroyo Blvd Westborough Dr Southwood Ave Orange Dr Arroyo Blvd Westborough Ave Chestnut El Ca m i n o Re a l Chestnut Ave El Ca m i n o Re a l El Ca m i n o Re a l El Ca m i n o Re a l Ca r m a r i t a s Av e Mi s s i o n Rd STOP ST O P ST O P STOP ST O P ST O P STOP 988 El Camino Real Figure 5 Existing Lane Configurations X = City of South San Francisco = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX) = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 El C a m i n o R e a l Arro y o D r F a i r w a y D r W O r a n g e A v e Westborough Blv d Ca m a r i t a s A v e Ches t n u t A v e An t o i n e t t e L n Sou t h w o o d D r Miss i o n R d First S t Comm e r c i a l A v e Oak A v e 5 1 67 2 3 4 Av e Or a n g e Av e Ca r m a r i t a s Dr Arroyo Blvd Westborough Dr Southwood Ave Orange Dr Arroyo Blvd Westborough Ave Chestnut El Ca m i n o Re a l Chestnut Ave El Ca m i n o Re a l El Ca m i n o Re a l El Ca m i n o Re a l Ca r m a r i t a s Av e Mi s s i o n Rd 14 1 ( 1 7 3 ) 94 7 ( 1 2 2 5 ) 7( 1 ) 91 2 ( 9 2 6 ) 15 4 ( 2 6 0 ) 200(110) 244(157) 44 8 ( 7 2 8 ) 59 6 ( 1 0 5 6 ) 28 4 ( 4 0 7 ) 20 8 ( 2 0 7 ) 88 7 ( 7 3 4 ) 76 ( 1 8 8 ) 366(300) 603(647) 148(184) 314(176) 659(534) 475(355) 63 ( 3 3 ) 89 7 ( 1 7 5 8 ) 11 9 ( 1 6 4 ) 19 0 ( 1 9 2 ) 14 2 7 ( 1 1 1 7 ) 77 ( 5 4 ) 110(137) 63(56) 197(210) 151(82) 63(68) 45(35) 13 ( 4 5 ) 2( 9 ) 21 ( 3 5 ) 80 ( 8 4 ) 36 ( 3 3 ) 10 3 ( 1 9 3 ) 19(50) 1011(1225) 97(288) 60(106) 1342(918) 89(98) 76 ( 7 2 ) 37 2 ( 3 0 4 ) 733(696) 84(81) 226(300) 888(793) 20 ( 3 7 ) 12 5 3 ( 2 0 5 5 ) 8( 1 6 ) 33 ( 7 2 ) 16 7 2 ( 1 3 3 8 ) 22 ( 4 0 ) 2(1) 4(14) 14(16) 17(11) 47 ( 1 4 6 ) 26 ( 9 0 ) 50 ( 1 0 4 ) 34 ( 1 7 ) 47 ( 3 5 ) 0( 2 ) 68(182) 33(114) 5(30) 0(5) 175(79) 97(60) 988 El Camino Real Figure 6 Existing Traffic Volumes 988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018 Page | 17 Table 3 Existing Conditions Intersection LOS Analysis Existing Plus Project Conditions This section describes the impacts of the proposed project on existing intersection conditions. The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear are estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, an estimate is made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets. These procedures are described further in the following sections. Project Trip Generation The proposed project will provide 172 residential units and 10,360 square feet of retail space within a 6-story building. Ave Delay (sec/veh) AM25.5C PM20.5C AM56.7E PM52.4D AM9.2A Northbound Left17.8C Southbound Left 12.7B Eastbound LeftOVRF Westbound Left65.0F PM12.0B Northbound Left14.0B Southbound Left25.9D Eastbound LeftOVRF Westbound Left101.7F AM36.8D PM40.7D AM9.7A PM11.7B AM18.8B PM33.4C AM26.7C PM26.4C Italics indicates specific movement. OVR - Delay longer than 120 seconds Signal Intersection El Camino Real and West Orange AvenSignal Camaritas Avenue and Arroyo DriveAll-way Stop Wes tborough Boluevard and Camaritas Avenue/W Orange Avenue Signal Mission Road and Chestnut Avenue El Camino Real and Chestnut AvenueSignal El Camino Real and Southwood Drive/First Street Two-way Stop El Camino Real and Arroyo DriveSignal ControlPeak Hour LOS Existing 988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018 Page | 18 AM and PM peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed project are based on regression equations obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) publication Trip Generation, Ninth Edition, for Apartments (ITE Land Use 220) and average rates for Shopping Center (ITE Land Use 820) and are shown in Table 4. Trip reductions were taken for the mixed-use internalization of the project, as well as its proximity to regional rail transit, in accordance with the El Camino Real/Chestnut (ECR/C) Avenue Area Plan District; these reductions were reviewed and approved by City of South San Francisco staff. Specific reductions include the following:  Due to the mixed-use nature of the project some residents of the apartments are expected to be customers at the retail stores, thus not creating any new trips. A 5% reduction was applied to the total trips to account for mixed-use internalization.  Since the project is within a mile of the South San Francisco BART station and walking distance from other transit services, the trip estimates can be reduced further. A 15% reduction was applied to the residential trips, and a 5% reduction was applied to the retail trips to account for transit usage.  A 20% pass-by trip reduction was also applied to the retail space during the PM peak hour to account for any traffic attracted from the traffic stream on El Camino Real. The Community Civi Campus Project SEIR calculated an additional 10 to 14% trip reduction rate for the ECR/C plan area due to the incorporation of Travel Demand Management (TDM) plans by development within the plan area. The 988 El Camino Real project will implement a TDM plan. However, no TDM credit was taken in the trip generation calculations, which is a conservative approach. Thus, the actual trip generation of the project could be less than analyzed in this traffic study. Trip credits were applied for the existing car wash on the site. The number of trips generated by the car wash was determined by traffic counts conducted during the AM and PM peak periods on February 14, 2017 at the existing driveways. Based on existing traffic counts, the AM peak hour in the study area generally occurred between 7:45 to 8:45 and the PM peak hour occurred between 5 to 6 PM. Accordingly, trips generated by the car wash during these peak hours were credited for existing uses on site. Also, a 20% pass-by was applied to the car wash trip generation before taking trip credits for existing uses on site. As shown in Table 4 below, it is estimated that the proposed project would generate a net total of 59 AM peak hour trips and 101 PM peak hour trips on a regular weekday after accounting for all reductions. Trip Distribution Pattern and Trip Assignment The trip distribution pattern for the project was estimated consistent with the trip distribution assumptions presented in the Community Civic Campus Project SEIR and shown on Figure 7. These distribution estimates were developed based on the location of complementary land uses, existing travel patterns in the area and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) regional travel demand model. The net project trips assigned to the study intersections are shown on Figure 8. 988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018 Page | 19 Table 4 Project Trip Generation Land UseUnitRateInOutTotalRateInOutTotal Proposed Uses Multi-Family Housing1 172DU0.511871890.627339112 Transit Trip Reduction for Residential (15%) 2 -3-11-14-11-6-17 Residential & Retail Internal Capture (5%) 3 000-1-1-2 Retail 4 10,360s.f.0.9664103.71182038 Transit Trip Reduction for Retail (5%) 2 000-1-1-2 Residential & Retail Internal Capture (5%) 3 000-1-1-2 Retail Pass-By Reduction (20%) 5 000-3-4-7 Primary Project Trips2164857447121 Existing Use Full-Service Car Wash6 ---22-11-33-8-18-26 Retail Pass-By Reduction (20%) 5 527246 Overall Net Project Trips455596833101 Notes: 1. Based on Fitted Curved Equation for Apartments (220) land use, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 9th Edition. 4. Based on average trip generation rates for Shopping Center (820) lane use, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 9th Edition. 6. Based on AM and PM peak hour driveway counts conducted on February 14, 2017. 5. Given the location of the project site, a 20% pass-by trip reduction was applied to the retail component of the project and to the existing uses. The pass- by trips account for the vehicular traffic already present on El Camino Real that stops at the retail as they pass by the site. AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour 3. A 5% residential/retail mixed-use trip reduction was applied to the project. The 5% reduction was first applied to the smaller generator (retail). The same number of trips were subtracted from the larger generator (residential) to account for both trip ends. Size 2. A 15 % transit reduction was applied to the residential component of the project and a 5% transit reduction was applied to the retail component of the project to account for the close proximty of the project to the South San Francisco BART station. Trip rates for multi-family and retail uses are from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012. The ECR/C Supplementary Environmental Impact Report SEIR), calculated a 28% trip reduction rate for the plan area due to the proximity to transit and the incorporation of Travel Demand Management (TDM) plans. The 988 El Camino Real project will implement a TDM plan. However, no TDM credit was taken in the trip generation calculations, which is a conservative approach. Thus, the actual trip generation of the project could be less than shown in this table. 988 El Camino Real Figure 7 Project Trip Distribution X = City of South San Francisco = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Grand A v e Grand Ave Grand A v e E l C a m i n o R e a l M i s s i o n R d Arr oyo D r Ch e s t n u t A v e Ca m a r i t a s A v e We s t b o r o u g h B lv d W Oran g e A v e Law n d a l e B l v d F a i r w a y D r Hickey Blvd J u n i p e r o S e r r a B l v d Mc L e l l a n D r Comm e r c i a l A v e Oak A v e An t o i n e t t e L n Sou t h w o o d D r First S t M i s s i o n R d 280 15% 2 5 % 8% 5% 2% 1 0 % 5% 10 % 2 0 % X = City of South San Francisco = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Trips = Project Driveway XX(XX) = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 El C a m i n o R e a l Arro y o D r F a i r w a y D r W O r a n g e A v e Westborough Blv d Ca m a r i t a s A v e Ches t n u t A v e An t o i n e t t e L n Sou t h w o o d D r Miss i o n R d First S t Comm e r c i a l A v e Oak A v e 55( 3 3 ) 3(5 4 ) 1(1 4 ) 5 1 67 2 3 4 Av e Or a n g e Av e Ca r m a r i t a s Dr Arroyo Blvd Westborough Dr Southwood Ave Orange Dr Arroyo Blvd Westborough Ave Chestnut El Ca m i n o Re a l Chestnut Ave El Ca m i n o Re a l El Ca m i n o Re a l El Ca m i n o Re a l Ca r m a r i t a s Av e Mi s s i o n Rd 6( 4 ) 27 ( 1 6 ) 2( 3 3 ) 10 ( 7 ) 8( 4 ) 33 ( 2 0 ) 4( 2 ) 2( 3 3 ) 0(5) 3(2) 1( 1 4 ) 11 ( 6 ) 3( 2 ) 3( 2 ) 10(7) 1(17) 1(17) 0(5) 4(2) 1( 1 4 ) 11 ( 6 ) 6(4) 988 El Camino Real Figure 8 Project Trip Assignment (Net New Trips) 988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018 Page | 22 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes The project trips were added to the existing traffic volumes to obtain existing plus project traffic volumes (see Figure 9). Existing plus Project Intersection Operations The results of the intersection level of service analysis for all the study intersections for both AM and PM peak period are shown in Table 5 below. Table 5 Existing Plus Project Intersection Operations As shown in Table 5, the analysis shows that most study intersections would operate at acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours, with the following exception: El Camino Real/ Chestnut Avenue – The analysis shows that this intersection currently operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour under existing conditions. Ave Delay Ave Delay (sec/veh)(sec/veh) AM25.5C25.5C PM20.5C20.4C AM56.7E57.4E PM52.4D53.1D AM9.2A9.5A Northbound Left 17.8C18.0C Southbound Left 12.7B 12.7B Eastbound OVRFOVRF Westbound 65.0F65.6F PM12.0B 12.4B Northbound Left14.0B14.1B Southbound Left 25.9D26.3D Eastbound LeftOVRFOVRF Westbound Left101.7F106.7F AM36.8D36.8D PM40.7D40.8D AM9.7A9.8A PM11.7B11.7B AM18.8B19.0B PM33.4C33.4C AM26.7C26.7C PM26.4C26.4C Italics indicates specific movement. OVR - Delay exceed 120 seconds SignalEl Camino Real and West Orange Aven Camaritas Avenue and Arroyo Drive Westborough Boluevard and Camaritas Avenue/W Orange Avenue El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue El Camino Real and Southwood Drive/First Street Signal Existing + Project Existing IntersectionControlPeak Hour LOSLOS Signal All-way Stop El Camino Real and Arroyo DriveSignal Mission Road and Chestnut Avenue Signal Two-way Stop 988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018 Page | 23 With the proposed project, the analysis shows that this intersection would continue to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. Based on the significance criteria used in the Community Civic Campus Project SEIR to evaluate project impacts to signalized intersections, the project is considered to have an impact if trips generated by the project would add any additional traffic to an intersection that does not meet the current City LOS standard. As the subject intersection does not meet the current LOS standard during the AM peak hour and as the project would add traffic to this intersection, the project would cause a significant impact to this intersection during the AM peak hour. The Community Civic Campus Project SEIR identified the following mitigation at this intersection: Mitigation Measure TRAF-1b: The City will modify the signal timing to optimize the cycle length at the intersection of El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue. The proposed mitigation measure would alleviate the project’s impact at this intersection and would improve the intersection level of service to an acceptable LOS D for both AM and PM peak hours. As shown in Table 5, the analysis shows that the following intersection would operate at acceptable LOS but experience long delays: EL Camino Real/1st Street/Southwood Drive – This intersection would continue to operate at LOS A during the AM peak hour and LOS B during the PM peak hour with the proposed project based on the average control delay at this intersection. The analysis shows that the eastbound and westbound stop-controlled approaches of Southwood Drive and 1st Street would continue to experience long delays in finding gaps on El Camino Real, but the project would not add any vehicles to these congested movements. Because the project would not add any traffic to the unacceptably-congested movements, and the overall intersection delay would remain acceptable, no traffic impact would result and no mitigation is required. Design Features and Emergency Access (Thresholds c, d) The proposed project would conform to all engineering and fire safety standards related to transportation design features of the site, including the design of the driveways and on-site circulation (as further discussed below). The project does not propose incompatible uses or offsite roadway alterations. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or use with incompatible vehicles such as farm equipment. The project would not result in inadequate emergency vehicle access. Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Impacts (Thresholds a, e) The project is well situated to take advantage of the existing and planned pedestrian, bicycle, and transit services in the immediate vicinity. These services would allow project residents to access employment, shopping, restaurants and many services without a car. The project would provide a direct connection to the Centennial Way Trail that connects to the South San Francisco BART Station. According to the Community Civic Campus Project SEIR, with the full buildout of the El Camino Real/ Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, there will not be any significant impact on the performance of transit, pedestrian and bicycle networks. The project is consistent with the El Camino Real/ Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and would reinforce, the planned pedestrian, bicycle, and transit orientation of the neighborhood. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact on the existing transit, pedestrian, and bicycle networks. X = City of South San Francisco = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX) = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 El C a m i n o R e a l Arro y o D r F a i r w a y D r W O r a n g e A v e Westborough Blv d Ca m a r i t a s A v e Ches t n u t A v e An t o i n e t t e L n Sou t h w o o d D r Miss i o n R d First S t Comm e r c i a l A v e Oak A v e 5 1 67 2 3 4 Av e Or a n g e Av e Ca r m a r i t a s Dr Arroyo Blvd Westborough Dr Southwood Ave Orange Dr Arroyo Blvd Westborough Ave Chestnut El Ca m i n o Re a l Chestnut Ave El Ca m i n o Re a l El Ca m i n o Re a l El Ca m i n o Re a l Ca r m a r i t a s Av e Mi s s i o n Rd 14 7 ( 1 7 7 ) 97 3 ( 1 2 4 1 ) 7( 1 ) 91 4 ( 9 5 9 ) 15 4 ( 2 6 0 ) 200(110) 244(157) 46 7 ( 7 3 9 ) 63 0 ( 1 0 7 6 ) 28 8 ( 4 0 9 ) 21 0 ( 2 4 0 ) 88 7 ( 7 3 4 ) 76 ( 1 8 8 ) 366(305) 603(647) 148(184) 314(176) 660(551) 478(357) 63 ( 3 3 ) 89 8 ( 1 7 7 2 ) 11 9 ( 1 6 4 ) 19 0 ( 1 9 2 ) 14 3 8 ( 1 1 2 3 ) 77 ( 5 4 ) 110(137) 63(56) 197(210) 151(82) 63(68) 45(35) 13 ( 4 5 ) 2( 9 ) 21 ( 3 5 ) 83 ( 8 6 ) 36 ( 3 3 ) 10 6 ( 1 9 5 ) 19(50) 1021(1231) 97(288) 60(106) 1343(935) 89(98) 76 ( 7 2 ) 37 2 ( 3 0 4 ) 733(701) 84(81) 226(300) 892(795) 20 ( 3 7 ) 12 5 4 ( 2 0 6 9 ) 8( 1 6 ) 33 ( 7 2 ) 16 8 3 ( 1 3 4 4 ) 22 ( 4 0 ) 2(1) 4(14) 14(16) 17(11) 47 ( 1 4 6 ) 26 ( 9 0 ) 50 ( 1 0 4 ) 34 ( 1 7 ) 47 ( 3 5 ) 0( 2 ) 74(186) 33(114) 5(30) 0(5) 175(79) 97(60) 64( 4 7 ) 18( 6 0 ) 4(1 5 ) 988 El Camino Real Figure 9 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes 988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018 Page | 25 Non-CEQA Transportation Considerations Several transportation considerations are not related to CEQA, but are presented here for informational purposes. Project Vehicular Site Access and Circulation The site access and circulation evaluation is based on the September 25, 2017 site plans prepared by KTGY Architecture and Planning (see Figure 2, Figure 10A and Figure 10B). Access to the project would be provided via one driveway on El Camino Real and one driveway on Chestnut Avenue. The driveway on El Camino Real would be located approximately 325 feet south of Chestnut Avenue and the driveway on Chestnut Avenue would be located approximatey 120 feet east of El Camino Real. The driveway on El Camino Real will accommodate right turns in and out of the project and the driveway on Chestnut Avenue will allow right turns in only. Because of the raised median on El Camino Real and on Chestnut Avenue, left turns in or out will not be possible. Both driveways would provide access to the ground floor commercial/visitor parking spaces and the subterranean resident parking. The Chestnut Avenue driveway is shown to measure approximately 12 feet wide at the throat, which is adequate for a one-way access, and the El Camino Real driveway is shown to measure 25 feet wide, which is adequate for two-way traffic for residential developments. The ground floor parking would include 47 spaces. The first level subterranean parking would provide 103 parking spaces (see Figure 10A), and the second level subterranean parking would provide 109 parking spaces (see Figure 10B). 988 El Camino Real Figure 10A Residential Parking Level 1 - Site Plan DN U P MECH SECURE RESIDENT PARKING 101 STANDARD SPACES (4 ADA), 2 COMPACT SPACES DN UP CMPCT MECH VENT INTAKE ELEC 27'-0" x 21'-6" UP ELEC 6'-2" x 21'- 6 " STOR. CMPCT 9'-0" 18 ' - 0 " 2 8 ' - 0 " 20'-0" 25 ' - 0 " 25 ' - 0 " 988 El Camino Real Figure 10B Residential Parking Level 2 - Site Plan SECURE RESIDENT PARKING 105 STANDARD SPACES, 4 COMPACT SPACES UP CMPCT STOR. VENT UP INTAKE U P STOR. CMPCT CMPCTCMPCT 9'-0" 18 ' - 0 " 2 5 ' - 0 " 25 ' - 0 " 25 ' - 0 " 988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018 Page | 28 Driveway Operations The project-generated trips that are estimated to occur at the project driveways are 21 inbound and 64 outbound trips during the AM peak hour and 74 inbound and 47 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. While the inbound trips would be split between the two driveways, all project outbound trips would occur at the El Camino Real driveway. Vehicle queuing issues are not expected to occur at the project driveways based on the relatively low number of peak hour trips generated by the project. The driveway on El Camino Real is located approximately 325 feet south of the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue intersection. A queue of more than 13 vehicles in the northbound right-turn lane on El Camino Real at the Chestnut Avenue intersection would block the southern driveway. As a result, outbound vehicles would experience some delay until the queue dissipates. This could cause some minor temporary vehicle queuing to develop on-site, especially during the PM peak hour based on field observations. The site plan shows that there is adequate space to accommodate a queue of 6 outbound vehicles at the southern driveway. Outbound vehicular queues longer than that would extend into the parking aisle but would not block any inbound vehicles. The site plan also shows that the residential parking would be gated, and residents could enter the parking garage using card readers. Any vehicular queues that might develop on site attributable to the operation of the gates would be contained within the project site. The site plan shows that approximately 7 inbound vehicles could be accommodated on site between the driveway entrance on El Camino Real and the gated entry to the resident parking. Sight Distance at the Project Driveways In general, the project driveways should be free and clear of any obstructions to optimize sight distance. On-street parking is prohibited along El Camino Real and exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk, as well as vehicles on the road. Providing the appropriate sight distance reduces the likelihood of a collision at a driveway or intersection, and provides drivers with the ability to exit a driveway or locate sufficient gaps in traffic. Sight distance generally should be provided in accordance with Caltrans standards. The minimum acceptable sight distance is often considered the Caltrans stopping sight distance. Sight distance requirements vary depending on the roadway speeds. For driveways on El Camino Real, which has a posted speed limit of 35 mph in the study area, the Caltrans stopping sight distance is 250 feet. Thus, a driver must be able to see 250 feet down El Camino Real in order to stop and avoid a collision. Any landscaping and signage should be located in such a way to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers exiting the site. The site plan shows a setback of 18 feet from the curb on El Camino Real which would satisfy this requirement. Since the project is located within a pedestrian priority zone, it is recommended that a pedestrian warning system be installed at the El Camino Real driveway to alert pedestrians when a vehicle is exiting the project. On-Site Circulation On-site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance and generally accepted traffic engineering standards. All three parking garage levels would contain 90-degree parking. The City’s standard width for two- way drive aisles is 25 feet where 90-degree parking is provided. This allows sufficient room for vehicles to back out of parking spaces. According to the site plan, the drive aisles on all three parking levels measure approximately 25 feet wide. The width of the ramps that provide access to the subterranean parking also measure 25 feet. The width of the parking aisle in the outside visitor parking lot is shown to measure 22 feet. The standard width for a two-way parking aisle is 25 feet where 90 degree parking is provided on both sides of the aisle. Since parking would be provided only on one side of the aisle and vehicles would 988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018 Page | 29 be able to back into the landscaping area behind the parking spaces when leaving, no significant issues are anticipated with the 22-foot parking aisle. The site plan does not show any dead-end parking spaces on the ground floor or the two basement floors. Therefore, vehicles should be able to circulate within the structure efficiently. The site plan shows a designated turnaround area on the main parking level near the Chestnut Avenue driveway, adjacent to the commercial loading zone. Since vehicles would not be able to exit via the Chestnut Avenue driveway, this turnaround area would allow vehicles approaching from the south to be able to turn around and exit via the El Camino Real driveway. Adequate turning radius would be provided for commercial and auto vehicles coming from the south to be able to enter and back out of the designated turnaround area. The outside visitor parking lot provides a backup area for cars parked in the dead-end space at the very end. Truck Access The site plan shows two designated on-site loading zones: one located near the Chestnut Avenue driveway and the other located adjacent to the El Camino Real driveway. The City’s municipal code requires that for on-site loading zones, the loading space shall not be less than 12 feet wide, 50 feet long, and 14 feet high. Both loading zones measure 12 feet wide and 50 feet long and meet the city’s standard. The loading zone located near the El Camino Real driveway is intended also to be used for garbage collection. The site plan shows that the trash enclosures for residential and commercial uses will be located on the ground floor. The maintenance staff would move the garbage bins to the loading zone for collection. Garbage trucks would exit the project by backing out onto El Camino Real, which would require backing into to the middle travel lane on El Camino Real and would momentarily block the traffic on the two outside travel lanes. Since garbage collection is expected to occur every day before 7 AM, backing out of the garbage trucks onto El Camino Real would not cause any significant impacts to the through traffic on El Camino Real. The El Camino Real loading zone would also be used for residential move-in and move-out parking. Large two-axle single-unit trucks (SU-30) in and out of the loading area would also need to maneuver over to the middle lane and would momentarily block the traffic on the two outside travel lanes. Peak commute direction on northbound El Camino Real occurs during the PM peak. It is recommended that residential move-in and move-out operations be restricted to outside of the afternoon peak hours to minimize conflict with through traffic on El Camino Real. The loading zone near the Chestnut Avenue entrance would be used primarily by trucks making deliveries to the commercial uses on site. These trucks would enter via the Chestnut Avenue driveway and exit via the El Camino Real driveway. The vehicular and truck turning templates are included in the appendix. Vehicle Queuing Analysis The operations analysis is based on vehicle queuing for high-demand movements at signalized intersections. Vehicle queues were estimated using a Poisson probability distribution, which estimates the probability of “n” vehicles for a vehicle movement using the following formula: P (x=n) = n e – ( n! Where: P (x=n) = probability of “n” vehicles in queue per lane n = number of vehicles in the queue per lane average number of vehicles in the queue per lane (vehicles per hour per lane/signal cycles per hour) The basis of the analysis is as follows: (1) the Poisson probability distribution is used to estimate the 95th percentile maximum number of queued vehicles per signal cycle for a particular 988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018 Page | 30 movement; (2) the estimated maximum number of vehicles in the queue is translated into a queue length, assuming 20 feet per vehicle; and (3) the estimated maximum queue length is compared to the existing or planned available storage capacity for the movement. This analysis thus provides a basis for estimating future turn pocket storage requirements at intersections. The 95th percentile queue length value indicates that during the peak hour, a queue of this length or less would occur on 95 percent of the signal cycles. Likewise, a queue length larger than the 95th percentile queue would only occur on 5 percent of the signal cycles (about 3 cycles during the peak hour for a signal with a 60-second cycle length). Therefore, left-turn storage pocket designs based on the 95th percentile queue length would ensure that storage space would be exceeded only 5 percent of the time. The 95th percentile queue length is also known as the “design queue length”. The following four left-turn movements were analyzed:  Northbound left-turn at El Camino Real and Arroyo Drive  Northbound left-turn at El Camino Real and Westborough/Chestnut Avenue  Westbound left-turn at El Camino Real and Westborough/Chestnut Avenue  Southbound left-turn at El Camino Real and Westborough/Chestnut Avenue Vehicle queuing for these turn movements were analyzed under existing and existing plus project conditions. The estimated queue lengths based on the Poisson numerical calculations show queuing deficiencies for two of the four studied turn pockets, as discussed below (see Table 6 and Table 7). El Camino Real and Westborough/Chestnut Avenue The queuing analysis shows that the northbound left-turn vehicle queue on El Camino Real exceeds the turn pocket storage during the PM peak hour under existing conditions. The northbound left-turn pocket consists of two lanes and provides approximately 300 feet of vehicle storage in each of the two lanes, which can accommodate about 15 vehicles per lane. The analysis shows a 95th percentile vehicle queue of 22 vehicles per lane for the northbound left-turn pocket during the PM peak hour under existing conditions. The project would add approximately 6 vehicles to each of the left-turn lanes over a duration of 60 minutes during the PM peak hour. This calculates to 1 vehicle every 4 signal cycles (based on a cycle length of 150 seconds). The addition of project trips to the northbound left-turn movement would not increase the 95th percentile queue during the PM peak hour. The queuing analysis also shows that the westbound left-turn vehicle queue on Chestnut Avenue currently exceeds the turn pocket storage during the AM peak hour by approximately 4 vehicles and during the PM peak hour by 2 vehicles. AM and PM peak hour field observations showed that due to the close spacing of the signalized intersection of Antoinette Lane to the east, the westbound left- turn queues were contained in the through lane along Chestnut Avenue. The project would not add any traffic to this movement during the AM peak hour and would add 5 vehicles during the PM peak hour (over a duration of 60 minutes). This calculates to approximately 1 project trip per lane every 8 signal cycles (based on a cycle length of 150 seconds) during the PM peak hour. The 95th percentile vehicle queues during the AM and PM peak hour would not increase with the proposed project. 988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018 Page | 31 Table 6 AM Queueing Analysis NBLNBLWBLSBL MeasurementAMAMAMAM Existing Cycle/Delay 1 (sec)144144144144 Volume (vph)141224183104 Avg. Queue (veh)6974 Avg. Queue (ft.)12018014080 95th %. Queue (veh)1014128 95th %. Queue (ft.)200280240160 Storage240300160280 Adequate (Yes/No)YesYes No Yes Project 1 Cycle/Delay 1 (sec)144144144144 Volume (vph)147234183106 Avg. Queue (veh)6974 Avg. Queue (ft.)12018014080 95th %. Queue (veh)1014128 95th %. Queue (ft.)200280240160 Storage240300160280 Adequate (Yes/No)YesYes No Yes 1 Vehicle queue calculations based on cycle length for signalized intersections. 2 Assumes 20 Feet Per Vehicle Queued El Camino Real/ Chestnut Avenue El Camino Real/ Arroyo Drive El Camino Real/ Chestnut Avenue El Camino Real/ Chestnut Avenue 988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018 Page | 32 Table 7 PM Queueing Analysis Parking Calculation of Vehicular Parking Requirement Parking requirements for the proposed project were evaluated based on the parking requirement provided under the supplemental regulations established in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan District, as follows: Required parking for any use in ERC/C sub-districts shall be established by the Chief Planner based on the particular characteristics of the proposed use and any other relevant data regarding parking demand. The Chief Planner may require the provision of parking studies or any other information at the applicant’s cost as needed to assess parking demand for the proposed project. Where a Conditional Use Permit is required for the use, the Planning Commission will establish the ultimate parking requirement during the Conditional Use Permit application process. Generally, parking shall not exceed two spaces per unit for residential uses and one space per 300 square feet of commercial use. Based on these guidelines, the maximum parking that may be provided on site calculates to 381 spaces, which comprises 344 residential parking spaces (2 spaces per unit for 172 units) and 35 retail parking spaces (1 space per 300 s.f. for 10,360 s.f.). The site plan shows that the project would provide a total of 259 parking spaces on-site within the three levels of the parking garage and the out-door visitor parking lot. The project would provide 212 secured residential parking spaces within the two gated parking levels and 4 future resident parking spaces, 35 retail parking spaces NBLNBLWBLSBL MeasurementPMPMPMPM Existing Cycle/Delay1 (sec)150150150150 Volume (vph)173364150104 Avg. Queue (veh)71564 Avg. Queue (ft.)175375150100 95th %. Queue (veh)1222108 95th %. Queue (ft.)240440200160 Storage240300160280 Adequate (Yes/No)Yes NoNo Yes Project 1 Cycle/Delay1 (sec)150150150150 Volume (vph)177370153120 Avg. Queue (veh)71565 Avg. Queue (ft.)175375150125 95th %. Queue (veh)1222109 95th %. Queue (ft.)240440200180 Storage240300160280 Adequate (Yes/No)Yes NoNo Yes 1 Vehicle queue calculations based on cycle length for signalized intersections. 2 Assumes 20 Feet Per Vehicle Queued El Camino Real / Chestnut Ave El Camino Real/ Arroyo Drive El Camino Real/ Chestnut Avenue El Camino Real/ Chestnut Avenue 988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018 Page | 33 and 8 visitor parking spaces within the main parking level and the outside visitor parking lot. The project would provide retail parking at the rate of 1 space per 300 square feet. Residential parking would be provided at the rate of 1.3 spaces per unit. The proposed on-site residential parking is based on other comparable projects and in the context of the project’s TDM (Travel Demand Management) Program as described below. Hexagon Parking Studies In the past, Hexagon has conducted parking studies at existing apartment complexes in San Mateo County to determine the ratios of parked cars to the number of dwelling units and to the number of bedrooms. Parking counts were conducted on three consecutive days in September 2014 at the following four apartment complexes that are large-scale, with on-site amenities and constructed within the last 15 years.  The Plaza at 1 Plaza View Lane, Foster City,  Avalon San Bruno at 1099 Admiral Court, San Bruno,  Metropolitan Apartments at 338 S. Fremont Street, San Mateo,  Archstone San Mateo Apartments at 1101 Park Plaza, San Mateo, Peak parking demand for residential developments occurs overnight. Parking occupancy counts were performed after midnight in order to capture peak residential demand. A summary of the parking counts is shown in Table 8. The parking study concluded that, overall, the typical average peak parking demand for apartment complexes comparable to the proposed project is approximately 1.34 parking spaces per unit and approximately 0.80 parking spaces per bedroom. Table 8 Comparable Parking Studies by Hexagon Comparing these ratios to the proposed on-site parking, the project would provide parking at a ratio of 1.3 spaces per dwelling unit (inclusive of visitor and future resident parking) and1.09 space per bedroom (including the 20 studio units). Hexagon believes that the proposed on-site parking would be adequate to accommodate the peak parking demand. Given the project’s proximity to the BART station, it is expected that many residents would use public transportation and might not need a car. The project would be required to implement a TDM 988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018 Page | 34 (Travel Demand Management) Program (such as providing trial transit passes to residents, providing expanded bike parking and repair facilities on-site, on site transit coordinator to educate new residents on TDM programs, etc.). Per the California Building Code (CBC) Table 11B-6, based on the parking provision of 259 parking spaces, the project would need to dedicate seven of those parking spaces as accessible stalls, two of which are required to be van accessible. The project currently proposes eight accessible parking spaces (3 on the ground floor commercial parking, 1 on the visitor parking lot and 4 on the first floor of the parking garage) with all of them being van accessible. The project meets the parking requirements for accessible parking spaces. Parking Dimensions Based on the site plan, the proposed parking would consist of a mix of standard, compact and ADA (American Disability Act) compliant parking stalls. The minimum basic dimension for standard parking spaces is 8.5 feet by 18 feet. The site plan shows 242 standard parking spaces measuring 9 feet by 18 feet, 6 compact parking spaces measuring 8.5 feet by 16 feet and 11 parking spaces measuring 9 feet by 16 feet with 2 feet overhang. Out of the 259 spaces 8 would be ADA spaces. Calculation of Bicycle Parking Spaces Bicycle parking requirements were calculated based on the following criteria from the zoning ordinance.  Short-term bicycle parking spaces shall be provided at a rate of 10 percent of the number of required automobile parking spaces.  A minimum of one long-term bicycle parking space shall be provided for every four units for multi-unit residential and group residential projects. With a total of 259 parking spaces provided on site, the proposed project would require 26 short- term bicycle parking spaces and 43 long term parking spaces (1/4 of 172 dwelling units). The site plan shows that long-term bicycle parking would be accommodated within two bike rooms on the ground level with 65 horizontal spaces and 25 vertical spaces for maximum space efficiency and to accommodate different styles of bikes. The total number of long term bicycle parking that would be provided on site exceeds the code by 47 spaces. The total number of short term bicycle spaces required by the code is 26 spaces (10% of 259 on-site vehicular spaces). The site plan shows a total of 32 short term bicycle spaces. 18 short term bicycle parking spacing would be provided in front of the fitness center fronting El Camino Real, 2 short term bicycle parking spaces will be provided outside the pedestrian tunnel on El Camino Real and 12 short term bicycle parking spaces would be provided adjacent to the pedestrian/bicycle pathway that connects to the Centennial Trail. Adequate short-term bicycle parking would be provided on site. Conclusions – CEQA Impacts The potential impacts of the project were evaluated consistent with the Community Civic Campus Project SEIR. The traffic generated by the project was found to be consistent with the assumptions in the SEIR for El Camino Real/ Chestnut Avenue Area Plan. The study included the analysis of AM and PM peak hour traffic operations for 5 signalized intersections, 4 of these intersections were analyzed in the Community Civic Campus Project SEIR. The study also included 2 unsignalized intersections that were not analyzed in the SEIR. The analysis shows that under existing conditions, six out of seven study intersections currently operate at an acceptable level of service D or better during both AM and PM peak hour. 988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018 Page | 35 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue - The intersection at El Camino real/ Chestnut Avenue currently operates at an unacceptable LOS E during the AM peak hour and acceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour. As this intersection does not meet the current LOS standard during the AM peak hour and as the project would add traffic to this intersection, the project would cause a significant impact to this intersection during the AM peak hour. The Community Civic Campus Project SEIR identified the following mitigation at this intersection: Mitigation Measure TRAF-1b: The City will modify the signal timing to optimize the cycle length at the intersection of El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue. The proposed mitigation measure would alleviate the project’s impact at this intersection and would improve the intersection level of service to an acceptable LOS D for both AM and PM peak hours. Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Impacts The project is consistent with the City’s pedestrian and bicycle plans and according to the SEIR for El Camino Real/ Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, the project plus other development in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan would not decrease the performance or safety of public transit system or pedestrian/bicycle network. Non-CEQA Conclusions Site Access and On-site Circulation Site access and on-site circulation were evaluated based on the site plan dated November 6, 2017, prepared by KTGY Architecture + Planning. A review of the site plan for the proposed project showed that the two driveways into the project would provide adequate access and circulation to the site. The parking aisles and ramps connecting the different levels of parking would be designed according to City’s standards for accommodating two-way traffic. The site plan does not show any dead-end parking aisles on the three levels. The driveway leading to the outside parking lot for visitor parking does not meet the width standard set by the city. The two loading zones shown on the site plan meet the standard set forward by the city. Recommendation: It is recommended that the residential move-in and move-out operations be restricted to outside of the afternoon peak hours on weekdays so that trucks backing in or out of the southern loading zone have minimal impact on the through traffic on El Camino Real. The peak commute direction on northbound El Camino Real occurs during the PM peak hour. The site plan shows that the three parking levels consist of standard spaces, standard overhang spaces, and ADA accessible spaces. On-site Parking Based on parking studies conducted by Hexagon at existing apartment complexes in San Mateo County, adequate parking would be provided on site. The project will be required to implement a TDM (Travel Demand Management) Program that will encourage residents to meet their daily needs by walking, bicycling or taking transit to support a healthy community, and reduce traffic congestion and resulting greenhouse gas emissions. The site plan shows that adequate long-term and short-term bicycle parking would be provided on site. 988 El Camino Real South San Francisco, California Environmental Noise Assessment 7 July 2017 Prepared for: SummerHill Homes Ellen Huynh 777 S. California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94304 Email: ehuynh@shhomes.com Prepared by: Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. Justin P. Reidling Greg Enenstein Joshua M. Roper, PE, LEED® AP 100 W. San Fernando, Suite 430 San Jose, CA 95113 Phone: 408.295.4944 Email: justin.reidling@cmsalter.com greg.enenstein@cmsalter.com josh.roper@cmsalter.com Salter Project Number: 17-0084 988 El Camino Real – South San Francisco, CA Environmental Noise Assessment 7 July 2017 Page 2 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes our environmental noise assessment for the 988 El Camino Real project in South San Francisco, California. The mixed-use project will consist of a six-story building with 172 residential units and 12,245 square feet of commercial space over two levels of subterranean parking. The 1.67-acre site is currently occupied by a car wash. Following is a summary of our findings: 1. The site is between the CNEL 60 and 65 dB contours of the San Francisco International Airport. This falls into the satisfactory category for residential, commercial, and open space use, per the South San Francisco General Plan land use compatibility guidelines. 2. Estimates show that sound-rated windows and exterior doors with sound insulation ratings of up to approximately STC 40 will be needed to meet the CNEL 45 dB criterion indoors, due to exterior sources. Exterior wall assemblies at some units along El Camino Real will need to be upgraded. 3. Estimates show that storefront assemblies at the non-residential areas with sound insulation ratings of approximately STC 35 will be needed to meet the CalGreen criterion of Leq(h) 50 dB indoors, due to exterior sources. 4. Incorporating solid noise barriers at residential and common outdoor use space would help reduce noise due to local traffic in these spaces. ACOUSTICAL CRITERIA South San Francisco General Plan The Noise Element of the South San Francisco General Plan (1999) includes land use compatibility guidelines in terms of Community Noise Equivalent Level 1 (CNEL) for various land uses. We understand these should be applied to aircraft noise at this site. A summary of these guidelines for residential, commercial, and open space land usages is shown in Table 1, below. Table 1: Land Use Compatibility Guidelines (Table 9.2-1 of the General Plan) Exterior CNEL Range Land Use Compatibility Level Residential Commercial Open Space 65 dB 2 or less 70 dB or less 75 dB or less Satisfactory; no special insulation requirements 65 to 70 dB 70 to 80 dB n/a Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and noise insulation as needed 70 dB or higher 80 dB or higher 75 dB or higher Development should not be undertaken Policy 9-I-4 of the General Plan Noise Element states that new residential units proposed within the CNEL 60 dB to CNEL 69 dB aircraft noise contours need to include an acoustical study, prepared by a professional acoustic engineer, that specifies the appropriate noise mitigation features to be included in the design and construction of these uses, to achieve an interior noise level of not more than CNEL 45 dB in any habitable room. 1 CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) – A descriptor for a 24-hour A-weighted average noise level. CNEL accounts for the increased acoustical sensitivity of people to noise during the evening and nighttime hours. CNEL penalizes sound levels by 5 dB during the hours from 7 PM to 10 PM and by 10 dB during the hours from 10 PM to 7 AM. 2 A-Weighted Sound Level (dB) — A term for the A-Weighted sound pressure level. The sound level is obtained by use of a standard sound level meter and is expressed in decibels. All noise data in this report are A-Weighted. 988 El Camino Real – South San Francisco, CA Environmental Noise Assessment 7 July 2017 Page 3 California Building Code (CBC) The California Building Code limits indoor noise from outdoor sources to CNEL 45 dB in habitable rooms of attached housing.3 Section 5.507.4 of the 2013 CALGreen Code provides both prescriptive and performance based criteria for interior noise levels in non-residential spaces where day/night or hourly average sound levels exceed CNEL or Leq(h)4 65 dB, which are summarized as follows:5 • Prescriptive method: Wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source shall have a composite STC rating of at least 45, with exterior windows having a minimum STC rating of 40 • Performance method: Wall and roof-ceiling assemblies shall reduce average hourly noise levels to Leq(h) 50 dB, or lower, in occupied areas during any hour of operation This analysis uses the CALGreen performance method to determine the necessary sound insulation at non-residential spaces. NOISE ENVIRONMENT Environmental noise levels at the site are most influenced by traffic on El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue. Noise from aircraft flyovers also contributes. To quantify the existing noise environment, two multi-day monitors continuously measured noise levels at the site between 10 and 15 February 2017. In addition, two short-term “spot” measurements were conducted, and compared with corresponding time periods of the multi-day monitors to determine how noise levels vary with location and elevation. Table 2 summarizes existing noise levels. Figure 1, attached, shows the approximate measurement locations. Table 2: Existing Noise Environment Site Location Date/Time CNEL Leq(h) L1 El Camino Real Monitor Approximately 65’ east of El Camino Real centerline, 12’ above grade 10 to 15 February 2017 76 dB 74 dB L2 Chestnut Avenue Monitor Approximately 65’ south of Chestnut centerline, 12’ above grade 72 dB* 74 dB* S1 El Camino Real Spot Approximately 60’ east of El Camino Real centerline, 5’ above grade 12:15 to 12:30 PM 15 February 2017 75 dB n/a S2 Corner of El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue Spot Approximately 65’ east of El Camino Real centerline, 65’ south of Chestnut centerline, 5’ and 16’ above grade 11:20 to 11:35 AM 15 February 2017 74 dB n/a *Siren noise events excluded from the data during the 8:00 AM hour on 12 February and the 4:00 PM hour on 14 February. The site is between the CNEL 60 and 65 dB contours on the Forecast 2020 Noise Exposure Map, found in the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of the San Francisco 3 California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2: 2016 California Building Code, Chapter 12, Section 1207: Sound Transmission. 4 Leq (Time-Average Sound Level) – The average sound level for a specified measurement period (in this case, one hour), as described in ASTM 1686 and ANSI S1.1. 5 California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11: 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, Chapter 5, Section 5.507.4: Acoustical Control. 988 El Camino Real – South San Francisco, CA Environmental Noise Assessment 7 July 2017 Page 4 International Airport.6 This falls into the satisfactory land use compatibility category for residential, commercial, and open spaces. For reference, the typical maximum noise level due to noise events identified as aircraft is 82 dB.7 A draft traffic impact analysis by DKS Associates for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment, dated 28 October 2009, contains existing year 2009 and projected future year 2030 peak hour traffic volumes for the intersection of El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue. In summary, peak hour traffic volumes along El Camino Real are expected to increase from 2,742 to 5,732 vehicles, and along Chestnut Avenue from 2,175 to 3,701 vehicles. Accounting for increases between 2009 and the current year, this corresponds with approximately a 2 dB and 1 dB increase in CNEL at the site by 2030, respectively. Therefore, the noise levels identified in the Analysis and Recommendations section below are based on the levels we measured at the site, and include a 2 dB increase for future traffic along El Camino Real and a 1 dB increase for future traffic along Chestnut Avenue. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Exterior-to-Interior Noise Residential Units The estimated future noise level at the residential facades ranges from approximately CNEL 65 dB at the shielded courtyard facades to CNEL 78 dB at facades along El Camino Real. Exterior building assemblies will need to be sound-rated to reduce environmental noise to the CNEL 45 dB criterion indoors. Preliminary estimates suggest that window and exterior door sound insulation ratings up to STC 8 40 will be needed, as indicated in Figure 3, attached. These estimates are based on the following: • Conceptual Site Plan dated 5 July 2017 • Typical room sizes of 12 by 15 feet in living rooms, and 10 by 12 feet in bedrooms, with 9-foot ceilings throughout and carpeted bedrooms • Approximately 30% of the exterior wall consisting of windows or doors • Exterior walls equivalent to 7/8-inch thick stucco over wood sheathing with batt insulation in stud cavities and 1 layer of gypsum board on the interior • Where upgraded walls are noted on Figure 3, a second layer of gypsum board should be added to interiors, and wall assemblies will either be staggered stud assemblies or the interior gypsum board will be attached with resilient clips (e.g., Pac International RSIC-1 clips) For reference, standard construction grade dual-pane windows and sliding glass doors typically have sound insulation ratings of STC 26 to 28. Sound insulation ratings should be for the complete assembly, 6 Figure D-3, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, dated July 2012. 7 Lmax30 (Typical Maximum Sound Level) – There is no standardized metric to quantify “typical” maximum sound levels in an environment (instead of the absolute maximum sound level for a measurement period). The metric Lmax30 comes from a paper by Rob Greene (“Max Level Intrusive Noise Limit: 1982 National Conference on Environmental and Occupational Noise”). It is based on the logarithmic average of the noisiest 30 percent of single events (e.g., train passbys, aircraft flyovers). 8 STC (Sound Transmission Class) – A single-number rating defined in ASTM E90 that quantifies the airborne sound insulating performance of a partition under laboratory conditions. Increasing STC ratings correspond to improved airborne sound insulation. 988 El Camino Real – South San Francisco, CA Environmental Noise Assessment 7 July 2017 Page 5 including glass and frame, and should be based on laboratory test reports of similar sized samples from an NVLAP accredited lab. Since windows will need to be closed to meet the interior noise criterion, an alternate means of providing outside air to habitable spaces should be provided. Commercial Space Commercial space is planned along the north and west facades on the ground level. Based on the measured data, the estimated future Leq(h) during the louder hours at the proposed setback of the commercial space is 74 dB. Figure 2, attached, shows recommended minimum STC ratings for exterior windows and doors at commercial spaces intended to meet the CALGreen criterion of Leq(h) 50 dB indoors (due to exterior sources). These estimates are based on the Conceptual Site Plan dated 5 July 2017, and assume that commercial spaces will have sound-absorbing ceilings. Outdoor Use Spaces We understand that outdoor use spaces will be provided at a podium-level pool deck in the northeast courtyard, a podium-level courtyard at the south portion of the building with an opening perpendicular to El Camino Real, and elevated decks along El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue. We understand that decks along El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue will incorporate 5-foot tall noise barriers at the railings. In addition, an open space is planned for the eastern portion of the site, opposite El Camino Real. The General Plan does not identify an appropriate noise level for outdoor use spaces. Consider the following: • Pool Deck and Courtyard - Estimated future noise levels at the podium-level pool deck and courtyard are approximately CNEL 65 to 72 dB, depending on receiver location. For reference, incorporating 36- inch tall solid noise barriers at the pool deck edge and the courtyard edge, would reduce noise due to local traffic to approximately CNEL 70 dB and below for seated persons. • Residential Decks – o For reference, estimates suggest that the 5-foot tall noise barriers along El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue would reduce local traffic noise levels to CNEL 70 dB or below for seated persons. o The estimated future noise levels at elevated decks elsewhere in the site are CNEL 60 to 65 dB without noise reduction measures. • Public Open Space - Estimated future noise levels at the public open space to the east of the building are approximately CNEL 65 to CNEL 72 dB. Effective noise barriers may be comprised of various materials including CMU, plaster, wood (enhanced fencing), glass and plastic. They should be solid from bottom to top with no cracks or gaps, and should have a minimum surface density of approximately three pounds per square foot. Prepared for SummerHill Homes PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT 988 EL CAMINO REAL South San Francisco, California UNAUTHORIZED USE OR COPYING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE CLIENT FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT March 6, 2017 Project No. 17-1272 March 6, 2017 Project No. 17-1272 Ms. Ellen Huynh SummerHill Homes 777 California Avenue Palo Alto, California 94304 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report Proposed Mixed-Use Development 988 El Camino Real South San Francisco, California Dear Ms. Huynh: We are pleased to present our preliminary geotechnical investigation report for the proposed mixed-use development in support of the due diligence evaluation of the property located at 988 El Camino Real in South San Francisco, California. Our geotechnical investigation was performed in accordance with our contract for consultant services dated January 26, 2017. The project site is an irregular-shaped parcel with plan dimensions of about 150 to 200 feet by 400 feet. The site encompasses an area of about 1.7 acres. The site is bordered by Chestnut Avenue to the northwest, El Camino Real to the southwest, PG&E easement/open space to the northeast, and commercial property to the southeast. The site is currently occupied by a carwash building surrounded by a surface parking lot. Preliminary plans are to develop the subject property for construction of a mixed-use building with ground floor commercial space and five stories of residential units above. The building will also have two levels of subterranean parking. On the basis of the results of our geotechnical investigation, we conclude the site can be developed as planned. The primary geotechnical concerns are:  providing adequate foundation support for the proposed building;  the presence of soil layers underlying the foundation level that are susceptible to liquefaction and may result in liquefaction-induced settlement and reduction in bearing capacity during a major seismic event; and  a design groundwater depth above the proposed finished floor for the below-grade parking. Ms. Ellen Huynh SummerHill Homes March 6, 2017 Page 2 We preliminarily conclude a mat foundation would be the most appropriate foundation system for the proposed building. Preliminary conclusions and recommendations regarding seismic hazards, foundation design, basement wall design, seismic design, temporary shoring, and other geotechnical aspects of the project are presented in the attached report. The recommendations contained in our report are based on limited subsurface exploration and review of available data for the site, and are not intended for final design. Prior to final design, additional borings and/or CPTs should be performed within the proposed building footprint to supplement existing subsurface information and to develop final geotechnical conclusions and recommendations. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services to you on this project. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely yours, ROCKRIDGE GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Darcie Maffioli, P.E. Linda H. J. Liang, P.E., G.E. Project Engineer Associate Engineer Enclosure QUALITY CONTROL REVIEWER: Craig S. Shields, P.E., G.E. Principal Engineer TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1  2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES .......................................................................................................1  3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION ..................................................................................................2  4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..........................................................................................3  5.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ..........................................................................................4  5.1 Regional Seismicity and Faulting ............................................................................4  5.2 Seismic Hazards .......................................................................................................7  5.2.1 Ground Shaking ...........................................................................................7  5.2.2 Ground Surface Rupture ..............................................................................7  5.2.3 Liquefaction and Associated Hazards ..........................................................8  5.2.4 Cyclic Densification ...................................................................................10  6.0 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................10  6.1 Design Groundwater Table ....................................................................................11  6.2 Foundation and Settlement ....................................................................................11  6.3 Basement Walls .....................................................................................................13  6.4 Excavation Considerations.....................................................................................14  6.4.1 Temporary Shoring ....................................................................................14  6.4.2 Dewatering .................................................................................................16  6.5 Seismic Design.......................................................................................................16  7.0 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ...............................................................17  8.0 LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................................17  FIGURES APPENDIX A – Cone Penetration Test Results LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Site Plan Figure 3 Regional Geologic Map Figure 4 Regional Fault Map Figure 5 Liquefaction Susceptibility Map APPENDIX A Figures A-1 Cone Penetration Test Results CPT-1 through through A-4 CPT-4 17-1272 1 March 6, 2017 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT 988 EL CAMINO REAL South San Francisco, California 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the preliminary geotechnical investigation performed by Rockridge Geotechnical, Inc. in support of the due diligence evaluation of the property located at 988 El Camino Real in South San Francisco, California. The subject property is located to the east of the intersection of El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue at the approximate location shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1. The project site is an irregular-shaped parcel with plan dimensions of about 150 to 200 feet by 400 feet. The site encompasses an area of about 1.7 acres. The site is bordered by Chestnut Avenue to the northwest, El Camino Real to the southwest, PG&E easement/open space to the northeast, and commercial property to the southeast, as shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The site is currently occupied by a carwash building surrounded by a surface parking lot. Preliminary plans are to develop the subject property for construction of a mixed-use building with ground floor commercial space and five stories of residential units above. The building will also have two levels of subterranean parking. 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES Our preliminary geotechnical investigation was performed in accordance with our proposal dated January 26, 2017. Our scope of services consisted of reviewing available subsurface information and geologic maps of the site and vicinity, exploring subsurface conditions at the site by performing four cone penetration tests (CPTs), and performing engineering analyses to develop preliminary conclusions and recommendations regarding: 17-1272 2 March 6, 2017  subsurface soil and groundwater conditions  site seismicity and seismic hazards, including the potential for liquefaction and lateral spreading, and total and differential resulting from liquefaction and/or cyclic densification  the most appropriate foundation type(s) for the proposed structure  preliminary design criteria for the recommended foundation type(s)  estimates of foundation settlement under static and seismic conditions  permanent wall pressures  temporary shoring  dewatering  2016 California Building Code (CBC) site class and design spectral response acceleration parameters  construction considerations. 3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION Our subsurface investigation consisted of performing four CPTs to provide continuous in-situ soil data. The CPTs, designated as CPT-1 through CPT-4, were advanced at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2. Prior to performing the CPTs, we obtained a drilling permit from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD), contacted Underground Service Alert (USA) to notify them of our work, as required by law, and retained Precision Locating, LLC, a private utility locator, to check that the CPT locations were clear of underground utilities. The CPTs were performed by Middle Earth Geo Testing, Inc. of Orange, California on February 20, 2017. CPT-3 was advanced to a depth of approximately 50 feet below the ground surface (bgs). CPT-1, CPT-2 and CPT-4 were planned to be advanced to 50 feet bgs, but were terminated in hard or very dense soil at depths of approximately 28, 47, and 44 feet bgs, respectively. 17-1272 3 March 6, 2017 The CPTs were performed by hydraulically pushing a 1.4-inch-diameter cone-tipped probe with a projected area of 10 square centimeters into the ground using a 25-ton truck rig. The cone- tipped probe measured tip resistance and the friction sleeve behind the cone tip measured frictional resistance. Electrical strain gauges within the cone continuously measured soil parameters for the entire depth advanced. Soil data, including tip resistance, frictional resistance, and pore water pressure, were recorded by a computer while the test was conducted. Accumulated data were processed by computer to provide engineering information such as the soil behavior types, approximate strength characteristics, and the liquefaction potential of the soil encountered. The CPT logs, showing tip resistance, friction ratio, and pore water pressure by depth, as well as correlated soil behavior type (Robertson, 2010), are presented in Appendix A on Figures A-1 through A-4. Groundwater was measured in CPT-2 and CPT-4 and the depth of groundwater and measurement method is noted on the CPT logs. Upon completion, the CPTs were backfilled with cement grout and patched with concrete. 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS A regional geologic map prepared by Graymer, et al. (2006), a portion of which is presented on Figure 3, indicates the site is underlain by Holocene-aged alluvium (Qha). The results of the CPTs indicate the site is underlain by alluvium predominantly consisting of clay and silty clay interbedded with sand layers. The clay and silty clay above a depth of 18 to 32 feet bgs is generally medium stiff to very stiff. Below a depth of about 18 and 22 feet bgs in CPT-1 and CPT-4, respectively, the subsurface becomes dense to very dense sand with occasional layers of clay and silty clay. Below a depth of 22 and 31 feet bgs in CPT-2 and CPT-3, respectively, the subsurface soil becomes stiff to very stiff clay and silty clay interbedded with dense to very dense silty sand. Pore pressure dissipation tests performed in CPT-2 and CPT-4 indicate the depth to groundwater was at about 21.8 and 17.7 feet bgs, respectively, at the time of our field investigation. Based on the existing groundwater level data, we conclude a preliminary design high groundwater level of about 15 feet below the existing ground surface should be used for planning purposes. The 17-1272 4 March 6, 2017 groundwater level at the site is expected to fluctuate several feet seasonally with potentially larger fluctuations annually, depending on the amount of rainfall. 5.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS The San Francisco Bay Area is considered to be one of the more seismically active regions in the world. This section provides an evaluation and identifies geologic and seismic considerations for the project site. 5.1 Regional Seismicity and Faulting The major active faults in the area are the San Andreas, San Gregorio, Hayward and Calaveras faults. These and other faults of the region are shown on Figure 4. The fault systems in the Bay Area consist of several major right-lateral strike-slip faults that define the boundary zone between the Pacific and the North American tectonic plates. Numerous damaging earthquakes have occurred along these fault systems in recorded time. For these and other active faults within a 50-kilometer radius of the site, the distance from the site and estimated mean characteristic moment magnitude1 [Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP, 2008) and Cao et al. (2003)] are summarized in Table 1. 1 Moment magnitude is an energy-based scale and provides a physically meaningful measure of the size of a faulting event. Moment magnitude is directly related to average slip and fault rupture area. 17-1272 5 March 6, 2017 TABLE 1 Regional Faults and Seismicity Fault Segment Approximate Distance from Site (km) Direction from Site Mean Characteristic Moment Magnitude N. San Andreas - Peninsula 2.3 Southwest 7.23 N. San Andreas (1906 event) 2.3 Southwest 8.05 San Gregorio Connected 11 West 7.50 N. San Andreas - North Coast 19 Northwest 7.51 Total Hayward 27 Northeast 7.00 Total Hayward-Rodgers Creek 27 Northeast 7.33 Monte Vista-Shannon 29 Southeast 6.50 Total Calaveras 42 East 7.03 Mount Diablo Thrust 43 Northeast 6.70 Point Reyes 48 Northwest 6.90 Green Valley Connected 48 Northeast 6.80 Rodgers Creek 48 North 7.07 In the past 200 years, four major earthquakes (i.e., Magnitude > 6) have been recorded on the San Andreas Fault. In 1836, an earthquake with an estimated maximum intensity of VII on the Modified Mercalli (MM) Intensity Scale occurred east of Monterey Bay on the San Andreas Fault (Toppozada and Borchardt, 1998). The estimated moment magnitude, Mw, for this earthquake is about 6.25. In 1838, an earthquake occurred on the Peninsula segment of the San Andreas Fault. Severe shaking occurred with an MM of about VIII-IX, corresponding to an Mw of about 7.5. The San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 caused the most significant damage in the history of the Bay Area in terms of loss of lives and property damage. This earthquake created a surface rupture along the San Andreas Fault from Shelter Cove to San Juan Bautista 17-1272 6 March 6, 2017 approximately 470 kilometers in length. It had a maximum intensity of XI (MM), an Mw of about 7.9, and was felt 560 kilometers away in Oregon, Nevada, and Los Angeles. The most recent earthquake to affect the Bay Area was the Loma Prieta Earthquake of October 17, 1989 with an Mw of 6.9. This earthquake occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains about 84 kilometers southwest of the site. In 1868, an earthquake with an estimated maximum intensity of X on the MM scale occurred on the southern segment (between San Leandro and Fremont) of the Hayward Fault. The estimated Mw for the earthquake is 7.0. In 1861, an earthquake of unknown magnitude (probably an Mw of about 6.5) was reported on the Calaveras Fault. The most recent significant earthquake on this fault was the 1984 Morgan Hill earthquake (Mw = 6.2). The U.S. Geological Survey's 2014 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities has compiled the earthquake fault research for the San Francisco Bay area in order to estimate the probability of fault segment rupture. They have determined that the overall probability of moment magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake occurring in the San Francisco Bay Region during the next 30 years (starting from 2014) is 72 percent. The highest probabilities are assigned to the Hayward Fault, Calaveras Fault, and the northern segment of the San Andreas Fault. These probabilities are 14.3, 7.4, and 6.4 percent, respectively. 17-1272 7 March 6, 2017 5.2 Seismic Hazards During a major earthquake on a segment of one of the nearby faults, strong to very strong ground shaking is expected to occur at the project site. Strong shaking during an earthquake can result in ground failure such as that associated with soil liquefaction,2 lateral spreading,3 and cyclic densification4. We used the results of the CPTs to evaluate the potential of these phenomena occurring at the project site. 5.2.1 Ground Shaking The ground shaking intensity felt at the project site will depend on: 1) the size of the earthquake (magnitude), 2) the distance from the site to the fault source, 3) the directivity (focusing of earthquake energy along the fault in the direction of the rupture), and 4) site-specific soil conditions. The site is less than 5 kilometers from the San Andreas Fault. Therefore, the potential exists for a large earthquake to induce strong to very strong ground shaking at the site during the life of the project. 5.2.2 Ground Surface Rupture Historically, ground surface displacements closely follow the trace of geologically young faults. The site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and no known active or potentially active faults exist on the site. We therefore conclude the risk of fault offset at the site from a known active fault is very low. In a seismically active area, the remote possibility exists for future faulting in areas where no faults previously existed; however, we conclude the risk of surface faulting and consequent secondary ground failure from previously unknown faults is also very low. 2 Liquefaction is a phenomenon where loose, saturated, cohesionless soil experiences temporary reduction in strength during cyclic loading such as that produced by earthquakes. 3 Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which surficial soil displaces along a shear zone that has formed within an underlying liquefied layer. Upon reaching mobilization, the surficial blocks are transported downslope or in the direction of a free face by earthquake and gravitational forces. 4 Cyclic densification is a phenomenon in which non-saturated, cohesionless soil is compacted by earthquake vibrations, causing ground-surface settlement. 17-1272 8 March 6, 2017 5.2.3 Liquefaction and Associated Hazards When a saturated, cohesionless soil liquefies, it experiences a temporary loss of shear strength created by a transient rise in excess pore pressure generated by strong ground motion. Soil susceptible to liquefaction includes loose to medium dense sand and gravel, low-plasticity silt, and some low-plasticity clay deposits. Flow failure, lateral spreading, differential settlement, loss of bearing strength, ground fissures and sand boils are evidence of excess pore pressure generation and liquefaction. The site has been mapped within a zone of high liquefaction susceptibility as shown on the map titled Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Central San Francisco Bay Region, California, 2006 (see Figure 5). Liquefaction susceptibility was assessed using the software CLiq v2.06.92 (GeoLogismiki, 2016). CLiq uses measured field CPT data and assesses liquefaction potential, including post‐earthquake vertical settlement, given a user-defined earthquake magnitude and peak ground acceleration (PGA). We evaluated the liquefaction potential of soil encountered below groundwater at the site using data collected in our CPTs. Our liquefaction analyses were performed using the methodology proposed by Boulanger and Idriss (2014). We also used the relationship proposed by Zhang, Robertson, and Brachman (2002) to estimate post-liquefaction volumetric strains and corresponding ground surface settlement; a relationship that is an extension of the work by Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992). Our analyses were performed using an assumed “during earthquake” groundwater depth of 15 feet bgs. In accordance with the 2016 CBC, we used a peak ground acceleration of 0.90 times gravity (g) in our liquefaction evaluation; this peak ground acceleration is consistent with the Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean (MCEG) peak ground acceleration adjusted for site effects (PGAM). We also used a moment magnitude 8.05 earthquake, which is consistent with the mean characteristic moment magnitude for the Northern San Andreas Fault (1906 rupture), as presented in Table 1. 17-1272 9 March 6, 2017 The results of our preliminary liquefaction analyses indicate there are interbedded layers of potentially liquefiable soil underlying the site, which is typical for younger alluvial deposits in this area. Our liquefaction analyses indicate there are thin layers of potentially liquefiable soil underlying the southern side of the site near CPT-3 and CPT-4. These potentially liquefiable layers are below a depth of about 24 feet bgs and are generally less than two feet thick. On the northern side of the site near CPT-1 and CPT-2, our liquefaction analyses indicate there are 4- to 9-foot-thick layers of potentially liquefiable soil. In CPT-1 this layer is approximately between depths of 16 and 18 feet bgs, which will be excavated for construction of the subterranean levels. In the northwestern corner near CPT-2, the layer of potentially liquefiable soil is between depths of approximately 24 and 33 feet bgs, which underlies the finished floor of the subterranean structure. The majority of the material identified as potentially liquefiable in the liquefaction analyses has a soil behavior type of “silty sand” and “silty clay” based on the soil behavior type interpretations of the CPT data. Considering the proposed project will be founded two levels below-grade, we judge that there is a potential for reduction of soil strength and bearing capacity during an earthquake due to liquefaction under the northwestern corner of the site near CPT-2. Therefore, soil samples should be obtained from these potentially liquefiable soil layers to confirm soil type, susceptibility to liquefaction, and the potential for temporary reduction of bearing capacity below foundations during the final geotechnical investigation. Based on the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation, we estimated total and differential settlements associated with liquefaction at the site during a MCE event generating a PGAM of 0.90g will be up to one inch and 1/2 inch across a horizontal distance of 30 feet, respectively. These settlement estimates are for “free-field” conditions. If there is shear strength loss resulting from seismically induced excess pore pressure in soil underlying foundations, the building may settle more than that estimated for free-field conditions during an MCE event. Ishihara (1985) presented empirical relationship that provides criteria that can be used to evaluate whether liquefaction-induced ground failure, such as sand boils, would be expected to occur under a given level of shaking for a liquefiable layer of given thickness overlain by a 17-1272 10 March 6, 2017 resistant, or protective, surficial layer. We conclude the non-liquefiable soil overlying the potentially liquefiable soil layers is sufficiently thick such that the potential for liquefaction- induced ground failure at the ground surface is low Considering the site topography is relatively flat and the potentially liquefiable layers are discontinuous, we conclude the risk of lateral spreading is very low. 5.2.4 Cyclic Densification Cyclic densification (also referred to as differential compaction) of non-saturated sand (sand above groundwater table) can occur during an earthquake, resulting in settlement of the ground surface and overlying improvements. The soil encountered above the groundwater table is not susceptible to cyclic densification because of it cohesion. Therefore, we conclude the potential for cyclic densification to occur at the site is nil. 6.0 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation, we conclude there are no major geotechnical issues that would preclude development of the site as proposed. The primary geotechnical issues affecting the proposed development include:  providing adequate foundation support for the proposed building;  the presence of soil layers underlying the foundation level that are susceptible to liquefaction and may result in liquefaction-induced settlement and reduction in bearing capacity during a major seismic event; and  a design groundwater depth above the proposed finished floor for the below-grade parking. Our preliminary conclusions and recommendations regarding these issues are presented in the following sections. 17-1272 11 March 6, 2017 6.1 Design Groundwater Table As discussed in Section 4.0, groundwater was measured in the CPTs at depths of 17.7 and 21.8 feet bgs. Based on the existing groundwater level data, we conclude a preliminary groundwater depth of 15 feet bgs should be used for design. The basement walls, building foundations, and mat/floor slabs extending below the design groundwater level should be waterproofed and designed to resist hydrostatic pressures. 6.2 Foundation and Settlement The factors influencing the selection of a safe, economical foundation system are adequate foundation support, total and differential settlement of the structure resulting from new building loads, and liquefaction-induced ground settlement. Based on the results of our preliminary investigation, we anticipate the foundation of the proposed building with two subterranean levels will be underlain by alluvium that can provide adequate foundation support for moderate loads under static conditions. However, the foundation level is underlain by potentially liquefiable soil layers in localized areas that may result in liquefaction-induced settlement up to about one inch and reduction in bearing capacity for shallow foundations. On the basis of our experience, we judge the anticipated total and differential settlements due to static foundation loads and post- liquefaction reconsolidation will exceed the typical tolerance of a conventional spread footing foundation system; in addition, spread footings bearing on localized liquefiable layers may experience bearing failures during a major seismic event. We preliminarily conclude a mat foundation would be the most appropriate foundation system for the proposed building. The mat is capable of minimizing distortion of the superstructure from static and seismically induced differential settlement and redistributing the building foundation loads over localized areas of liquefied soil with temporary reduction in bearing capacity during a major seismic event. The foundation will be bottomed below the preliminary design groundwater table of 15 feet bgs; therefore, the mat foundation should be designed to resist hydrostatic uplift forces and be waterproofed. 17-1272 12 March 6, 2017 We recommend the mat be designed for an average allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead-plus-live loads; this value may be increased by one-third for total loads (including seismic and wind loads). The allowable bearing pressure for total load conditions has been reduced to account for strength loss of the underlying soil during a seismic event. Localized higher bearing pressures may be acceptable; however, this should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. To develop adequate mat rigidity, we recommend the mat be designed for dead-plus-live-load conditions using a modulus of vertical subgrade reaction of 30 pounds per cubic inch (pci); this value should also be used for total load conditions (no increase due to potential for liquefaction-induced settlement. The modulus of vertical subgrade reaction has been reduced to account for the size of the mat (therefore, this is not kv1 for a one-foot-square plate). We estimate the total settlement of a mat supported building under the static building loads would be about 3/4 inch and differential settlement would be approximately 1/2 inch over a horizontal distance of 30 feet. As discussed in Section 5.2.3, the mat should be designed for an additional 1 inch of total liquefaction-induced settlement and 1/2 inch of differential liquefaction-induced settlement over a horizontal distance of 30 feet. Lateral loads may be resisted by a combination of friction along the base of the mat and passive resistance against the vertical faces of the mat foundation. To compute lateral resistance, we recommend using a uniform pressure of 1,200 psf for transient load conditions and an equivalent fluid weight of 150 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for sustained loading; the upper foot of soil should be ignored unless confined by a slab. For bentonite-based waterproofing membranes, such as Paraseal or Voltex, a friction factor of 0.12 should be used (assumes a bentonite friction angle of 10 degrees). If Preprufe is used, a base friction factor of 0.20 should be used. Friction factors for other types of waterproofing membranes can be provided upon request. The passive pressure and frictional resistance values include a factor of safety of at least 1.5. The soil subgrade at foundation level will be saturated and sensitive to disturbance from construction equipment. The final two feet of excavation and fine grading of the building 17-1272 13 March 6, 2017 subgrade should be performed with tracked equipment to minimize heavy concentrated loads that may disturb the wet soil. The subgrade should be free of standing water, debris, and disturbed materials and be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to placing a mud slab. A three- inch-thick mud slab should be placed on the mat subgrade to protect it from disturbance during placement of waterproofing and reinforcing steel. 6.3 Basement Walls Basement walls should be designed to resist both static lateral earth pressures, hydrostatic pressures, and lateral pressures caused by earthquakes. We recommend basement walls at the site be designed for the more critical of the following criteria:  At-rest equivalent fluid weight of 56 pcf above the design groundwater table and 89 pcf below, plus a traffic increment where the wall will be within 10 feet of adjacent streets.  Active pressure of 37 pcf plus a seismic increment of 36 pcf (triangular distribution) above the design groundwater level, and 80 pcf plus a seismic increment of 17 pcf (triangular distribution) below the groundwater level. The recommended pressures above are based on a level backfill condition with no additional surcharge loads. Where the permanent wall will be subject to vehicular loading within 10 feet of the wall, an additional uniform lateral pressure of 50 psf applied to the upper 10 feet of the wall. The design pressures recommended for above the design water level are based on fully drained walls. One acceptable method for back-draining a basement wall is to place a prefabricated drainage panel against the back of the wall. The drainage panel should extend down to the design groundwater table. To protect against moisture migration, below-grade basement walls should be waterproofed and water stops should be placed at all construction joints. In recent years, we have observed numerous leaks in below-grade portions of buildings constructed with waterproofed, shotcrete walls. In areas where there is a high sensitivity to leaks, we recommend cast-in-place concrete be considered. 17-1272 14 March 6, 2017 If backfill is required behind below-grade walls, the walls should be braced, or hand compaction equipment used, to prevent unacceptable surcharges on walls (as determined by the structural engineer). 6.4 Excavation Considerations We estimate construction of the proposed building with two subterranean levels will require an excavation extending to a depth of about 23 feet bgs. Excavations that will be deeper than five feet and will be entered by workers should be sloped or shored in accordance with CAL-OSHA standards (29 CFR Part 1926). We judge that temporary cuts in on-site soil inclined in accordance to OSHA guidelines for Type B soil will be stable provided the excavation is not surcharged by equipment or building material. Temporary shoring will be required where temporary slopes are not possible because of space constraints. Excavations will extend about eight feet below the design groundwater table and, therefore, temporary dewatering will be needed. 6.4.1 Temporary Shoring We preliminarily conclude a soldier pile and lagging shoring system or a continuous soil-cement mixing (SMX) system with tiebacks and/or internal bracing would be the most suitable and economical temporary shoring systems for the project site. A soldier pile and lagging system usually consists of steel H-beams and concrete placed in predrilled holes extending below the bottom of the excavation. Wood lagging is placed between the piles as the excavation proceeds. About 18 inches of horizontal space is required for installation of this type of shoring. Seepage through the sides of the excavation should be expected with the construction of a soldier pile-and-lagging system. As an alternative to the soldier pile-and-lagging system, a continuous SMX, also called deep soil mixing (DSM), is a viable option for creating a continuous shoring wall that supports the excavation, as well as provides a hydraulic barrier when properly constructed. SMX columns are installed by injecting and blending cement into the soil using a drill rig equipped with single or 17-1272 15 March 6, 2017 multiple augers/paddles, or a specialized proprietary cutterhead. The soil is mixed with the binder material(s) in situ, forming continuous, overlapping, soil-cement columns or a continuous wall of uniform thickness. Steel beams are placed in the soil-cement columns to provide rigidity. The SMX system, in combination with steel soldier beams and tiebacks, serves to shore the excavation as well as cut off lateral groundwater flow, thus reducing the potential for groundwater seepage into the excavation and reduce dewatering costs. Considering the height of excavation is on the order of 23 feet, tiebacks and/or internal bracing will be needed to limit lateral deflections of the shoring system. Tiebacks will extend beneath the neighboring properties, which will require encroachment agreements with neighboring property owners; these property owners include the property owner for the commercial property to the southwest, PG&E for the PG&E easement to the southeast, City of South San Francisco for Chestnut Street, and the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for El Camino Real. Based on our experience, Caltrans does not allow tiebacks or soldier piles to be installed beneath its property (i.e. El Camino Real, which is a State highway). Internal braces may be required if there are obstructions precluding the use of tiebacks such as the PG&E easement on the northeastern side of the site or if the adjacent property owners will not agree to a temporary easement for installation of the tiebacks. The selection, design, construction, and performance of the shoring system should be the responsibility of the contractor. A structural engineer/civil engineer knowledgeable in this type of construction should design the shoring. We should review the geotechnical aspects of the proposed shoring system to ensure that it meets our requirements. During construction, we should observe the installation of the shoring system and check the condition of the soil encountered during excavation. 17-1272 16 March 6, 2017 6.4.2 Dewatering The proposed excavation will extend about eight feet below the design groundwater level. During excavation of the subterranean levels, groundwater will flow into the excavation unless collected and removed prior to reaching the work area. Therefore, a temporary dewatering system should be installed to provide a firm, relatively dry base from which to construct the foundation system. We anticipate an active dewatering system consisting of a series of extraction wells installed outside the excavation would be the most appropriate temporary dewatering system. Where the temporary shoring system consists of a groundwater cut-off wall (i.e. secant pile wall or SMX wall), an active dewatering system will not be required. We anticipate a passive system, in which water is collected from a series of trench drains around the perimeter and across the base of the excavation, would be the most appropriate temporary dewatering system to be used in combination with a cut-off wall shoring system. The method used to dewater the excavation should be the responsibility of the contractor. 6.5 Seismic Design As discussed in Section 5.2.3, the site is underlain by thin zones of potentially liquefiable soil. Although the 2016 CBC calls for a Site Class F designation for sites underlain by potentially liquefiable soil, we conclude a Site Class D designation is more appropriate because the potentially liquefiable layers are relatively thin and the site will not incur significant nonlinear behavior during strong ground shaking. Therefore, for seismic design we recommend Site Class D be used. The latitude and longitude for the site are 37.6546° and -122.43357°, respectively. Hence, in accordance with the 2016 CBC, we recommend the following:  SS = 2.320g, S1 = 1.112g  SMS = 2.320, SM1 = 1.668g  SDS = 1.547g, SD1 = 1.112g  Seismic Design Category E for Risk Categories I, II, and III. 17-1272 17 March 6, 2017 7.0 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Prior to final design, additional borings and/or CPTs should be performed within the proposed building footprint to supplement existing subsurface information and to develop final geotechnical conclusions and recommendations. 8.0 LIMITATIONS This preliminary geotechnical investigation has been conducted in accordance with the standard of care commonly used as state-of-practice in the profession. No other warranties are either expressed or implied. The preliminary recommendations made in this report are based on the assumption that the subsurface conditions do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed in the exploratory CPTs. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, we should be notified so that additional recommendations can be made. The preliminary foundation recommendations presented in this report are developed exclusively for the proposed development described in this report and are not valid for other locations and construction in the project vicinity. 17-1272 18 March 6, 2017 REFERENCES 2016 California Building Code Boulanger, R.W and Idriss, I.M., (2014). “CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures,” Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, Report No. UCD/CGM-14/01, April. Cao, T., Bryant, W. A., Rowshandel, B., Branum D. and Wills, C. J. (2003). The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps. Field, E.H., and 2014 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, (2015). UCERF3: A new earthquake forecast for California’s complex fault system: U.S. Geological Survey 2015- 3009, 6 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/fs20153009. GeoLogismiki, (2016). CLiq, Version 2.0.6.92. Graymer, R.W., Moring, B.C., Saucedo, G.J, Wentworth, C.M., Brabb, E.E., and Knudsen, K.L. (2006). Geologic Map of the San Francisco Bay Region, prepared in cooperation with U.S. Geological Survey and California Geological Survey, March 6. Ishihara, K., (1985). “Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes,” proceedings of the 11th International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, CA, Vol 1, 321-376. Ishihara, K. and Yoshimine, M., (1992). Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Soils and Foundations, Volume 32, No. 1, pp 173-188. Robertson, P.K. (2010). “Soil Behaviour type from the CPT: an update”, 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Huntington Beach, CA, Vol.2. pp575-583. Toppozada, T.R. and Borchardt G. (1998). “Re-evaluation of the 1936 “Hayward Fault” and the 1838 San Andreas Fault Earthquakes.” Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 88(1), 140-159. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (2006). Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Central San Francisco Bay Region, prepared in cooperation with the California Geological Survey (CGS). U.S. Geological Survey, (2008). The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2): prepared by the 2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2007-1437. U.S. Geological Survey, (2017). U.S. Seismic Design Maps, (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php), accessed March 1, 2017 17-1272 19 March 6, 2017 Zhang, G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., (2002). “Estimating Liquefaction Induced Ground Settlements from the CPT”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39: pp 1168-1180. FIGURES Pr o j e c t N o . F i g u r e Da t e 1 R O C K R I D G E G E O T E C H N I C A L SI T E SI T E L O C A T I O N M A P Base map: Google Map, 2016. 02 / 1 6 / 1 7 17-1272 98 8 E L C A M I N O R E A L So u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a 0 2 0 0 0 F e e t Ap p r o x i m a t e s c a l e 10 0 0 0 Approximate scale 100 Feet Base map: Google Earth Pro, 2016. 02/16/17 17-1272 2 SITE PLAN Date Project No.Figure ROCKRIDGE GEOTECHNICAL 988 EL CAMINO REAL South San Francisco, California EXPLANATION Approximate location of cone penetration test by Rockridge Geotechnical Inc., February 20, 2017 Approximate project limits Approximate PG&E Easement CPT-1 E L C A M I N O R E A L A N T O I N E T T E L A N E CHE S T N U T A V E N U E C E N T E N N I A L W A Y T R A I L CPT-1 CPT-2 CPT-3 CPT-4 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP ROCKRIDGE GEOTECHNICAL Approximate scale 500 Project No.FigureDate3 01000 Feet 02/16/17 17-1272 988 EL CAMINO REAL South San Francisco, California Base map: Google Earth with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), San Mateo County, 2016. Geologic contact: dashed where approximate and dotted where concealed, queried where uncertin Hillslope Deposits (Quaternary)Qsl SITE afArtificial Fill QoaAlluvium (Early Pleistocene) Qha Alluvium (Holocene) EXPLANATION QoaQoa QhaQha QslQsl afaf Project No.FigureDate Base Map: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Seismic Hazards Maps - Fault Sources, 2008. 10 Miles Approximate scale 0 5 4 ROCKRIDGE GEOTECHNICAL REGIONAL FAULT MAP SITE EXPLANATION Strike slip Thrust (Reverse) Normal 02/16/17 17-1272 988 EL CAMINO REAL South San Francisco, California Point Reyes Fault S a n A n d r e a s F a u l t S a n G r e g o r i o F a u l t M o n te Vista-S ha nno n Fa ult W e s t N a p a M ou nt Diablo T hrust G r e e n v ill e F a u lt G r e a t V a l l e y 0 5 G r e a t V a l l e y 4 b C a l a v e r a s F a u l t G r e e n V a l l e y H a y w a r d - R o d g e r s C r e e k F a u l t H a y w a r d - R o d g e r s C r e e k F a u l t Project No.FigureDate LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH Contact, dashed where location uncertainty is greater than about +- 100 m. Lines 5 03 Miles Approximate scale 1.5 SITE LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY MAP Reference: Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Central San Francisco Bay Region, California, by USGS, 2006 ROCKRIDGE GEOTECHNICAL 03/02/17 17-1272 988 EL CAMINO REAL South San Francisco, California APPENDIX A Cone Penetration Test Results A-1CPT-1 To t a l d e p t h : 2 7 . 8 9 f t , D a t e : 2 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 7 As s u m e d G r o u n d w a t e r D e p t h : 2 1 . 8 f e e t ( f r o m C P T - 2 ) Co n e O p e r a t o r : M i d d l e E a r t h G e o T e s t i n g , I n c . Co n e r e s i s t a n c e q t Ti p r e s i s t a n c e ( t s f ) 40 0 20 0 0 Depth (ft) 2726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210 Co n e r e s i s t a n c e q t Po r e p r e s s u r e u Pr e s s u r e ( p s i ) 0 -5 Depth (ft) 2726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210 Po r e p r e s s u r e u Fr i c t i o n r a t i o Rf ( % ) 10 8 6 4 2 0 Depth (ft) 2726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210 Fr i c t i o n r a t i o SB T I n d e x Ic S B T 4 3 2 1 Depth (ft) 2726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210 SB T I n d e x Soil Behaviour Type SBT (Robertson, 2010)18161412108642 0 Depth (ft) 2726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210 Soil Behaviour Type Sensitive fine grained Organic soil Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clayClay Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Very dense/stiff soil Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Very dense/stiff soil Pr o j e c t N o . F i g u r e Da t e SB T l e g e n d 1. S e n s i t i v e f i n e g r a i n e d 2. O r g a n i c m a t e r i a l 3. C l a y t o s i l t y c l a y 4. C l a y e y s i l t t o s i l t y c l a y 5. S i l t y s a n d t o s a n d y s i l t 6. C l e a n s a n d t o s i l t y s a n d 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained CO N E P E N E T R A T I O N T E S T R E S U L T S R O C K R I D G E G E O T E C H N I C A L 02 / 2 7 / 1 7 17-1272 98 8 E L C A M I N O R E A L So u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a CPT-2 A-2 To t a l d e p t h : 4 7 . 0 8 f t , D a t e : 2 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 7 Me a s u r e d G r o u n d w a t e r D e p t h : 2 1 . 8 f e e t ( p o r e p r e s s u r e d i s s i p a t i o n t e s t ) Co n e O p e r a t o r : M i d d l e E a r t h G e o T e s t i n g , I n c . Co n e r e s i s t a n c e q t Ti p r e s i s t a n c e ( t s f ) 40 0 20 0 0 Depth (ft) 4644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Co n e r e s i s t a n c e q t Po r e p r e s s u r e u Pr e s s u r e ( p s i ) 10 0 Depth (ft) 4644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Po r e p r e s s u r e u F r i c t i o n r a t i o Rf ( % ) 10 8 6 4 2 0 Depth (ft) 4644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 F r i c t i o n r a t i o SB T I n d e x Ic S B T 4 3 2 1 Depth (ft) 4644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 SB T I n d e x Soil Behaviour Type SBT (Robertson, 2010)18161412108642 0 Depth (ft) 4644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Soil Behaviour Type Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Clay Silty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Clay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Very dense/stiff soil Sand & silty sand Pr o j e c t N o . F i g u r e Da t e SB T l e g e n d 1. S e n s i t i v e f i n e g r a i n e d 2. O r g a n i c m a t e r i a l 3. C l a y t o s i l t y c l a y 4. C l a y e y s i l t t o s i l t y c l a y 5. S i l t y s a n d t o s a n d y s i l t 6. C l e a n s a n d t o s i l t y s a n d 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained CO N E P E N E T R A T I O N T E S T R E S U L T S R O C K R I D G E G E O T E C H N I C A L 02 / 2 7 / 1 7 17-1272 98 8 E L C A M I N O R E A L So u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a CPT-3 A-3 To t a l d e p t h : 5 0 . 3 6 f t , D a t e : 2 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 7 As s u m e d G r o u n d w a t e r D e p t h : 1 7 . 7 f e e t ( f r o m C P T - 4 ) Co n e O p e r a t o r : M i d d l e E a r t h G e o T e s t i n g , I n c . Co n e r e s i s t a n c e q t DR I L L O U T Ti p r e s i s t a n c e ( t s f ) 30 0 20 0 10 0 0 Depth (ft) 50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Co n e r e s i s t a n c e q t Po r e p r e s s u r e u DR I L L O U T Pr e s s u r e ( p s i ) 10 5 0 Depth (ft) 50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Po r e p r e s s u r e u F r i c t i o n r a t i o DR I L L O U T Rf ( % ) 10 8 6 4 2 0 Depth (ft) 50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fr i c t i o n r a t i o SB T I n d e x Ic S B T 4 3 2 1 Depth (ft) 50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 SB T I n d e x Soil Behaviour Type DRILL OUT SBT (Robertson, 2010)18161412108642 0 Depth (ft) 50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Soil Behaviour Type Silty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Clay Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty clayClay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Sand & silty sand Very dense/stiff soil Silty sand & sandy silt Pr o j e c t N o . F i g u r e Da t e SB T l e g e n d 1. S e n s i t i v e f i n e g r a i n e d 2. O r g a n i c m a t e r i a l 3. C l a y t o s i l t y c l a y 4. C l a y e y s i l t t o s i l t y c l a y 5. S i l t y s a n d t o s a n d y s i l t 6. C l e a n s a n d t o s i l t y s a n d 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained CO N E P E N E T R A T I O N T E S T R E S U L T S R O C K R I D G E G E O T E C H N I C A L 02 / 2 7 / 1 7 17-1272 98 8 E L C A M I N O R E A L So u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a CPT-4 A-4 To t a l d e p t h : 4 3 . 8 0 f t , D a t e : 2 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 7 Me a s u r e d G r o u n d w a t e r D e p t h : 1 7 . 7 f e e t ( p o r e p r e s s u r e d i s s i p a t i o n t e s t ) Co n e O p e r a t o r : M i d d l e E a r t h G e o T e s t i n g , I n c . Co n e r e s i s t a n c e q t DR I L L O U T Ti p r e s i s t a n c e ( t s f ) 40 0 20 0 0 Depth (ft) 424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Co n e r e s i s t a n c e q t Po r e p r e s s u r e u DR I L L O U T Pr e s s u r e ( p s i ) 10 0 -1 0 Depth (ft) 424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Po r e p r e s s u r e u F r i c t i o n r a t i o DR I L L O U T Rf ( % ) 10 8 6 4 2 0 Depth (ft) 424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fr i c t i o n r a t i o SB T I n d e x Ic S B T 4 3 2 1 Depth (ft) 424038363432302826242220181614121086420 SB T I n d e x Soil Behaviour Type DRILL OUT SBT (Robertson, 2010)18161412108642 0 Depth (ft) 424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Soil Behaviour Type Sand & silty sand Clay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Clay Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Very dense/stiff soil Silty sand & sandy silt Very dense/stiff soil Silty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Very dense/stiff soil Sand & silty sand Pr o j e c t N o . F i g u r e Da t e SB T l e g e n d 1. S e n s i t i v e f i n e g r a i n e d 2. O r g a n i c m a t e r i a l 3. C l a y t o s i l t y c l a y 4. C l a y e y s i l t t o s i l t y c l a y 5. S i l t y s a n d t o s a n d y s i l t 6. C l e a n s a n d t o s i l t y s a n d 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained CO N E P E N E T R A T I O N T E S T R E S U L T S R O C K R I D G E G E O T E C H N I C A L 02 / 2 7 / 1 7 17-1272 98 8 E L C A M I N O R E A L So u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a November 9, 2017 Richard Norris Associate Development Manager SummerHill Apartment Communities 777 South California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304 Re: Phase One Historic Assessment for South City Car Wash 988 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Norris, SummerHill Apartment Communities has retained Holman & Associates to conduct a Phase One Historic Assessment to determine if the proposed project will have a negative impact on the integrity of any built resource over 50 years old located on-site. The historic integrity of the building was examined through the seven criteria of historic integrity used to evaluate structures for the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Resources. The survey was carried out by Architectural Historian Fallin E. Steffen, M.P.S., who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards to identify, evaluate, register and treat historic properties. The integrity of the subject building is essential when determining whether or not it will qualify for the National, State, or Local registers. The following evaluation addresses the condition of the property observed during the survey on 10/26/2017 as it relates to the period of significance and the seven aspects of historic integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Period of Significance: 1957 was chosen as the period of significance because it was the year that the South City Car Wash was completed. The building was modified shortly thereafter, in 1958., concluding the period of significance. Location: The building remains in its original configuration on the parcel. There is no record or indication that it was moved at any point since its construction in 1957. Additionally, the building remains in its original roadside context in South San Francisco, therefore, the integrity of location remains intact. Design: The building retains several features that are intrinsic to the Mid-Century Modern Commercial style; a low, boxy repetitive profile, a tar and gravel roof system that dynamically projects over the uncovered eaves, and a series of original-era fixed picture windows across the front facade. However, as a result of multiple insensitive renovation campaigns, some of the more subtle features of the architectural style, have been lost altogether. These include Nov. 9, 2017 - Re: Phase One Historic Assessment for South City Car Wash 988 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, CA 94080 altering the traditional Mid-Century Modern Commercial view of the mechanical car wash systems, and several additions that distorted the massing and overall profile. As a result, the building retains little to no historic design integrity. Setting: While the building remains located in its original historical location in busy South San Francisco, the closure and demolition of the original Petrocchi Brothers 76 Gas Station drastically reduced the integrity of setting. Additionally, while there are other contemporaneous structures of a similar design in the neighborhood, the buildings located within close proximity of the Car Wash are predominately post-modern. Materials: The character-defining materials found throughout the building are inconsistent and suggest that in many cases, they have been incompatibly replaced. At best the fenestration and door programs can be described as mismatched. The doors throughout the building are of different styles and sizes. The row of fixed picture windows featured on the western façade are original, suggesting what the building would have once appeared like when the glass once wrapped around the whole building. The loss of these important features coupled with no effort to replace historic components in-kind, has led to a loss of material integrity altogether. Workmanship: Evidence of workmanship is difficult to uncover on this style of building, as Mid- Century Modern Commercial buildings were often constructed using mass-produced, affordable construction materials. The South City Car Wash is no different, and any indication of workmanship has been erased through subsequent renovations and removal of original material like windows, window surrounds and doors. Feeling: Due to the extensive modifications, the building no longer evokes the aesthetic of the place at the chosen period of significance. This includes a loss of character defining features, such as the massing and profile, windows and doors, but also a loss of the association with the 76 Service station. The failure to foster a continued connection to the 1957 ethos has caused the building to lose all integrity of feeling. Association: As the property no longer retains integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, or feeling, it cannot retain any integrity of association, which is the ultimate summation of the aforementioned criteria. In conclusion, it is the opinion of the professional preparing this Phase One Assessment that the one-story commercial resource located at 988 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, CA should be classified as Historic without Integrity, because the South City Car Wash building no longer retains enough historic integrity to be deemed eligible for a National, State, or Local register. Respectfully, Fallin E. Steffen, M.P.S. Architectural History Consultant 916/838-1595 fallin.steffen@gmail.com Page 1 of 9 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) South City Car Wash P1. Other Identifier: None. DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date *P2. Location: þ Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County San Mateo *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: South San Francisco Date: 1995 (Rev. 1999) T 3 S ; R 4 W c.Address: 988 El Camino Real City: South San Francisco Zip: 94080 d.UTM: Zone 10S, 549998 mE/ 4167447 mN e.Other Locational Data: Located at on the Southeastern corner of El Camino Real & Chestnut Avenue. *P3a. Description: Architect Leslie C. Irwin designed the South City Car Wash in 1957 as an adjunct to the Petrocchi Bros. 76 Service Station that was formerly located on the southeastern corner of El Camino Real and Chestnut Ave. in South San Francisco. The one-story, 2,775 ft2 Mid-Century Modern Commercial style building was built atop a concrete slab foundation, with the principle façade facing west onto El Camino Real. *See DPR523L: Continuation Sheet, page 4. *P3b.Resource Attributes: HP6:1-3 story commercial building *P4. Resources Present: þ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other P5b. Description of Photo: West Facade,looking east, 10/26/17. *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: þ Historic Prehistoric Both 1957/60 Years Old; Digitized plans from South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Archives. *P7. Owner and Address Frederick M. Bravo 3490 Old San Jose Road Soquel, CA 95073*P8. Recorded by: Fallin E. Steffen, M.P.S. Holman & Associates Archaeological Consultants 3615 Folsom Street San Francisco, CA 94110 *P9. Date Recorded: 10/26/2017 *P10. Survey Type: This reconnaissance survey was conducted to determine the existing level of integrity and historic significance retained by the resource located on the property. *P11. Report Citation: None. *Attachments: NONE þ Location Map þ Continuation Sheet þ Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List): P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.) *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) South City Car Wash *NRHP Status Code 6Z Page 2 of 9 DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD (This space reserved for official comments.) B1. Historic Name: South City Car Wash B2. Common Name: South City Car Wash B3. Original Use: Car Wash B4. Present Use: Car Wash *B5. Architectural Style: Mid-Century Modern Commercial *B6. Construction History: Constructed in 1957. In 1958, an existing on-site, wood framed and sided structure measuring approximately 100 ft2 was relocated to the northeast corner of the building to act as an office, and to also create a space for an Electrical Room. This office space was subsequently expanded at an unknown later date to allow for more storage. In 1974, a 687 ft2 concrete block addition was completed on the southern end of the building, lengthening the wash room and viewing passage, and also creating space for a Cashier’s Counter and two, single-occupancy bathrooms extending forward from the principle elevation. The southern end of the building was further elongated in 1983 when a permanent trellis was added onto the end of the 1974 addition. In addition to these various expansion campaigns, the northwestern corner was enclosed to enlarge to the waiting area, and the belvedere-style vent housing on the roof were all completed at an unknown time. The Hurst Systems car wash system was a replaced at an unknown time, and presently the building houses a more modern car washing system. *B7. Moved? þ No Yes Unknown Date: N/A Original Location: N/A *B8. Related Features: A non-contributing, wood framed vernacular building measuring approximately 8’ x 20’ is located on the South City Car Wash site to the west of the main building. Its origin, morphology, and current use are unknown. Two non-contributing storage sheds sit along the southern property line B9a. Architect: Leslie C. Irwin & Associates Architects b.Builder: Unknown *B10. Significance: Theme: Mid-Century Modern Commercial Architecture Area: South San Francisco Period of Significance: 1957 Property Type: Commercial Applicable Criteria: N/A In 1957, Brothers E.A. and C.J. Petrocchi commissioned the South City Car Wash on the site where they owned and operated a 76 service station in the developing suburban community of South San Francisco. The modest example of Mid-Century Modern Commercial architecture was designed by Leslie C. Irwin & Associates to confidently showcase the mechanical carwash systems in action through the many windows. This self-promotional function is at the core of Commercial Modernism. *See DPR523L: Continuation Sheet, page 5. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: None. *B12. References: •Gelernter, Mark. A History of American Architecture. Lebenon, NH: University Press of New England, 1999. •Liebs, Chester. Main Street to Miracle Mile: American Roadside Architecture. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995. •Digitized plans and permits, South San Francisco Economic & Community Development. B13. Remarks: None. *B14. Evaluator: Fallin E. Steffen, M.P.S. *Date of Evaluation: 10/26/2017 Page 3 of 9 *Resource Name or #: South City Car Wash *Map Name: USGS Quadrangle South San Francisco *Scale: 1:24 000 *Date of map: 1995(Revised 1999) DPR 523J (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information State of California C Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# LOCATION MAP Trinomial age of *ResourceName or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date 9 Continuation 9 Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California C Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: South City Car Wash Page 4 of 9 Continued from DPR523A: Primary Record, Section *P3a: Description: While the building is in good condition overall, several insensitive alteration campaigns have negatively impacted the building’s historic integrity. An existing onsite building was relocated and attached to the northeastern corner as an office in 1958. A 1974 expansion to the southern end of the building was inconsistent with the massing and stylistic expression of the existing building. The large trellis was built in 1983 to enhance the drive-thru, however the bulky wood structure is not a characteristic feature of Mid-Century Modern Commercial designs, which otherwise frequently include innovative drive-thru solutions. The horizontal profile of the concrete-block and wood-framed South City Car Wash building features a gently sloping tar and gravel roof that extends out to form deep, unenclosed soffits. A nearly continuous band of large, square, aluminum-framed windows runs across the front façade. Two windows straddling a corner in the waiting room have been replaced with FRP panels painted to match the exterior. The far right section of the front elevation, added in 1974, projects out towards El Camino Real and terminates several feet above the shallow pitch of the original roof. Three narrow fixed windows at even intervals highlight this bay, further distinguishing it from the remainder of the original design. A non-contributing, wood framed vernacular building measuring approximately 8’ x 20’ is located on the South City Car Wash site to the west of the main building. Its origin, morphology, and current use are unknown, and due to its condition, it maintains no historical integrity. Two non-contributing storage sheds also sit along the southern property line. age of *ResourceName or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date 9 Continuation 9 Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California C Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: South City Car Wash Page 5 of 9 Continued from DPR523B: Building, Structure, Object Report, Section *B10: Significance: After WWII, the automobile expanded middle-class American’s ability to travel beyond the fixed locations historically determined by train, bus or streetcar stops. Effective advertising became a vital tool necessary to entice motorists to slow down, park and consume. Chester Lieb, a noted Mid-Century Modern architecture scholar, asserts that Mid-Century Modern Commercial buildings evolved to be the perfect solution to this dilemma by literally becoming a recognizable, physical advertisement for the product being sold beneath the roof. The iconic characteristics that make Mid-Century Modern architecture so unique are precisely the reasons it translated well to a successful, eye-catching, commercial architectural style. The chosen site for the Car Wash was in the midst of a developing commercial area of South San Francisco, actively trying to cater to the automobile. Large setbacks and sprawling parcels allowed for a wide-open consumer experience when compared to the congested experience of city life in nearby San Francisco. As such, visible legibility was a key element of commercial success duirng this time, and the South City Car Wash was designed to succeed. South City Car Wash’s initial 1957 design featured an automatic Hurst Systems drive- thru car wash from San Carlos, CA at the center of the building. A customer waiting area and a narrow passageway extending towards El Camino Real from the washroom, allowed customers and passersby a view of the cars going through the washroom. Moreover, the building was designed to have windows or a void panel furnishing the upper half of the buildings’ exterior. This allowed for an unobstructed view of cars passing through the washroom from a distance in almost any direction. In this way, the architecture was poised to function as an overt advertising scheme for itself. While there are other examples of Mid-Century Modern Commercial architecture in the immediate proximity surrounding the South City Car Wash, the historical setting of the Car Wash has changed drastically since its completion. In an effort to draw in more business, the Petrocchi Bros. built the South City Car Wash as an addendum to their existing 76 Station. Since that time, the 76 Station has been demolished, effectively eliminating the South City Car Wash’s integrity of Setting and Feeling. Only portions of the innovative character-defining features of the building are still visible today, such as the bands of large windows and the nearly horizontal roof. Otherwise insensitive additions and removals from the building have obscured or erased the unique qualities of the 1957 design altogether. Each of the 1958, 1974 and 1983 additions compromised the once uninterrupted view of the washroom, altered the distinctive massing and utilized period inappropriate materials, which has subsequently caused the building to lose integrity in the areas of Design, Workmanship & Materials. Due to the insensitive past alterations carried out on the building, it only retains one of seven aspects of historic integrity, as it is laid out by the National Register criteria, and that is integrity of Location. In conclusion, the South City Car Wash no longer retains enough historic integrity to be deemed eligible for the National, State, or Local registers. age of *ResourceName or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date 9 Continuation 9 Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California C Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: South City Car Wash Page 6 of 9 Front (West) Elevation, 1957. [Source: Leslie C. Irwin & Associates Architects] Rear (East) Elevation, 1957. [Source: Leslie C. Irwin & Associates Architects] Plan View, 1957. [Source: Leslie C. Irwin & Associates Architects] age of *ResourceName or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date 9 Continuation 9 Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California C Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: South City Car Wash Page 7 of 9 North Elevation, 2017. West Façade, Side view of 1974addition. 2017.West Façade, Eaves detail. 2017. North and West Facades. 2017. age of *ResourceName or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date 9 Continuation 9 Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California C Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: South City Car Wash Page 8 of 9 West Elevation, 2017. East Façade. 2017.East Façade. 2017. Entrance to Car Wash, South Facade. 2017. West/South Elevation, 2017. age of *ResourceName or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date 9 Continuation 9 Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California C Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: South City Car Wash Page 9 of 9 East Elevation view showing the small building added as an office in 1958, 2017. Two sheds located at south property line. 2017. Noncontributing onsite building, 2017. Electrical Room, North Facade. 2017.Noncontributing onsite building, 2017. I. I ,I� I II ( I ilk ( I I � I r r r - - - -- s _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ 9AM _�. S_7, I � , — _ -------------- �► h �I4) I " I II 1 I� ilk 1 � I I� x.. I r r r - - - - -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ - - - -- IT- �J p — — - - - - - -- - -- - - - 9AM I � _ I- F x ij� I I I� I I� _xv I • COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION SummerHill Apartment Communities 777 S. California Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94304 • N � / Architecture + Planning Mw [MEN — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ — — — _ • COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION SummerHill Apartment Communities 777 S. California Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94304 • N � / Architecture + Planning Mw [MEN APRIL PHILIPS DESIGN WORKS, INC. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS — cbandg.com I. I — — ,I� I II I I I I 41 4 I I r r r - - - -- s _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ 12PM i h �I4 " I II I I� '!41 I x.. I r r r - - - - -- — — — — — — — — — — — — _ _ _ 12PM I O 4 h I I " I I I� I 12PM OEM GIACALONE OM DESIGN SERVICES, INC. r r r — — — — — — — — — — — — _ _ _ — y 988 EL CAM I N O REAL SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986 AUGUST 15, 2017 I. I 7 Q x ij� I II I I I I III ( 4 I I — r r r -------- ----- _ _ p - — — -- - - - - - -- - - -- 3PM SUMMER SOLSTICE �a �► h � 1 lip 1 " I II I I� '!41 I x.. I r r r - - - - -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ 3PM SPRING / FALL EQUINOX - -- I 1 / / �► h t` I I I " I J .I 41 ti _xv I r r r - - - -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — - - - -- - - - - - -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ — — — _ -- - - - -- - - -- �I T� p — — - - - - - -- - -- - - - -- -- 3PM WINTER SOLSTICE I I I I NTS SOLAR STUDY SP.7 P:\2700 - 2799\2718-000\Memos\Memo-001.docx December 21, 2017 Job No.: 2718-000 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Ray Towne – City of South San Francisco (Public Works) Sam Bautista – City of South San Francisco (Public Works) FROM: Ryan Hansen, P.E. – Associate SUBJECT: Sewer Capacity Analysis Findings 988 El Camino Real South San Francisco, California The following Memorandum is a response to Engineering Comments provided by City Staff on August September 25, 2017 as well as a meeting held between SummerHill Apartments (SHAC) and Public Works regarding potential existing downstream sewer capacity issues and how the proposed development 988 El Camino Real will affect the existing sewer system. In order to obtain existing flow monitoring data CBG consulted with V&A Engineers to perform flow tests at three specific sites downstream of the proposed project. The main objective of the study was to identify any existing surcharged conditions in not only the surrounding property sewer mains that will serve as points of connection to the development, but at a junction near the intersection of Mission Road and Chestnut Avenue where 15” and 18” trunk lines connect and discharge to a single 24” main along Colma Creek. It is at this junction where two large tributary areas join together based on available City system maps and was discussed as an area of focus in the meeting with Public Works. A secondary objective was to specifically identify the capacity of the existing 12” sewer main that is anticipated to be rerouted by the proposed development to Chestnut Avenue, as the City indicted a potential upsize to a 15” main would be required given there was an anticipated surcharge condition if all properties within the nearby Chestnut Area Plan were to connect to this portion of the system. The results in the attached V&A report identify the specific three test sites which were coordinated with the City prior to commencing work. See Table 3-1 for details on each individual section of sewer main. In summary, the test sites are as follows: Site 1: A 12” VCP sewer main immediately downstream of the proposed 988 El Camino Real development. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866-0322 • www.cbandg.com SAN RAMON • SACRAMENTO Sewer Flow Analysis December 21, 2017 Page 2 of 2 Job No.: 2719-000 P:\2700 - 2799\2718-000\Memos\Memo-001.docx Sites 2 and 3: A 15” VCP sewer main and 18” VCP sewer main upstream of the manhole placed within the Mission Road and Chestnut Avenue intersection, before discharging to an existing 24” VCP sewer main along Colma Creek, flowing southeast to the treatment plant. The attached report first identifies the Average Dry Weather Flows and the Peak Dry Weather Flows for each site and then also identifies expected flow for the combined 24” main immediately downstream of the Site 2 and 3 junctions. The City of South San Francisco does not have available sewer design standards and therefore V&A has used City of San Jose criteria for the purposes of this report. Assumptions and field notes regarding the flow monitoring tests, which took place from 11/17 to 12/1, are also listed in the report. CBG then provided expected development flows as well as existing site flows from the operational car wash in order to obtain a net development flow which would be added to the Site 1 and Site 2 PDWF analysis. Table 3- 4 includes a summary of each PDWF, including the net development flow, and a comparison to the 2/3 full capacity of each individual main. The combined Site 2 and 3 flows are compared to the available 2/3 capacity flow within the downstream 24” main, as seen on the page 1 graphic of the report. Conclusion Site 1: The 12” main immediately downstream of the proposed development is at 15% capacity in the existing condition and only 19% capacity in the PDWF condition with the proposed development included, which is well below that 2/3 full requirement. An upsize of the 12” main to a 15” main as requested by the City is not required by the proposed development and only potentially required based on future development land use changes within the Chestnut Area Plan. Site 2: The downstream 15” main prior to the system junction is at 7% capacity in the existing condition and 9.5% including the proposed development. No additional upsize or capacity issues are anticipated. Site 3: Site three is upstream of the sewer system junction and therefore not directly affected by the project development flows Downstream 24” Sewer Main: The combined Site 2 and 3 flows in the PDWF existing condition result in roughly 23% capacity of the 24” main and result in a negligible increase when the proposed development flow of 0.093 MGD is included. No additional upsize or surcharge condition is anticipated. Given the presented sewer flow monitoring data provided by V&A, there are no known capacity issues at the three test sites, nor will the proposed 988 El Camino Real development attribute to any future capacity issues. Should the City have any questions regarding the report or information provided, please do not hesitate to call. Copyright © 2017 by ENGEO Incorporated. This document may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means whatsoever, nor may it be quoted or excerpted without the express written consent of ENGEO Incorporated. 988 AND 998 EL CAMINO REAL SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT SUBMITTED TO Ms. Ellen Huynh SummerHill Homes 777 South California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94304 PREPARED BY ENGEO Incorporated March 7, 2017 PROJECT NO. 13715.000.000 GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL WATER RESOURCES CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 6399 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite 150  San Jose, CA 95119  (408) 574-4900  Fax (888) 279-2698 www.engeo.com Project No. 13715.000.000 March 7, 2017 Ms. Ellen Huynh SummerHill Homes 777 South California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94304 Subject: 988 and 998 El Camino Real South San Francisco, California PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Dear Ms. Huynh: ENGEO is pleased to present our phase I environmental site assessment of the subject property (Property), located in South San Francisco, California. The attached report includes a description of the site assessment activities, along with ENGEO's findings, opinions, and conclusions regarding the Property. ENGEO has the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess the nature, history, and setting of the Property, and has developed and performed all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312. We declare that, to the best of our professional knowledge and belief, the responsible charge for this study meets the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in Section 312.10 of 40 CFR Part 312 and ASTM 1527-13. We are pleased to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning the contents of our report, please contact us. Sincerely, ENGEO Incorporated Jeanine T. Ruffoni, PE Shawn Munger, CHG jtr/sm/bvv SummerHill Homes 988 and 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco 13715.000.000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment i of ii March 7, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Letter of Transmittal EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 4 1.1 SITE LOCATION ................................................................................................................. 4 1.2 SITE AND VICINITY CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................ 4 1.3 CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY/DESCRIPTION OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS ................ 5 1.4 CURRENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES ............................................................... 5 1.5 PURPOSE OF PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT .................................. 5 1.6 DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES .................................................................................... 5 1.7 SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS OR DEVIATIONS FROM ASTM STANDARD PRACTICE .......................................................................................................................... 6 1.8 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF ASSESSMENT ..................................................... 6 1.9 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ............................................................................... 6 2.0 USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION ..................................................................... 7 2.1 PROPERTY RECORDS ..................................................................................................... 7 2.1.1 Title Report/Ownership .......................................................................................... 7 2.2 USER KNOWLEDGE OF PROPERTY ............................................................................... 7 3.0 RECORDS REVIEW ............................................................................................ 7 3.1 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS ................................................................. 7 3.2 HISTORICAL RECORD SOURCES ................................................................................... 9 3.2.1 Historical Topographic Maps ............................................................................... 10 3.2.2 Aerial Photographs .............................................................................................. 11 3.2.3 Fire Insurance Maps ............................................................................................ 12 3.2.4 City Directory ........................................................................................................ 12 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES........................................................................ 13 3.3.1 Standard Environmental Records ........................................................................ 13 3.3.2 Additional Environmental Records ....................................................................... 14 3.4 REGULATORY AGENCY FILES AND RECORDS .......................................................... 16 4.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE................................................................................. 17 4.1 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 17 4.2 GENERAL SITE SETTING ............................................................................................... 18 4.3 EXTERIOR OBSERVATIONS .......................................................................................... 18 4.4 INTERIOR OBSERVATIONS ........................................................................................... 19 4.5 ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIALS AND LEAD-BASED PAINT ............................. 19 4.6 INDOOR AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................... 19 5.0 INTERVIEWS ..................................................................................................... 20 6.0 EVALUATION .................................................................................................... 20 6.1 FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................... 20 6.2 OPINIONS AND DATA GAPS .......................................................................................... 20 6.3 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 21 SummerHill Homes 988 and 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco 13715.000.000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) ii of ii March 7, 2017 REFERENCES FIGURES APPENDIX A – Environmental Data Resources, Inc., Radius Map Report APPENDIX B – Environmental Data Resources, Inc., Sanborn Map Report APPENDIX C – Environmental Data Resources, Inc., Historical Topographic Map Report APPENDIX D – First American Title Insurance Company, Preliminary Title Report APPENDIX E – Environmental Data Resources, Inc., Aerial Photo Decade Package APPENDIX F – Environmental Data Resources, Inc., City Directory APPENDIX G – 998 El Camino Real, UST Closure Letter APPENDIX H – Qualifications of Environmental Professional SummerHill Homes 988 and 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco 13715.000.000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Page | 1 March 7, 2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ENGEO conducted a phase I environmental site assessment for the property located at 988 and 998 El Camino Real in South San Francisco, California (Property). The Property is approximately 1.66 acres in area and is identified by Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 011-325- 030, 011-325-070, 014-011-260, and 014-011-280. The Property consists of a car wash facility, an open space area that formerly supported a gas station up until 2007, a PG&E easement, and a materials and storage yard with a small wooden structure. Review of historical topographic maps indicate that a creek historically traversed the southern portion of the Property, generally trending west to east from at least 1896 to at least 1939. Review of historical topographic maps and Sanborn maps also indicates that a historic road traversed the southern portion of the Property extending north from present-day El Camino Real from at least 1915 to at least 1950. The northern portion of the Property (identified as 998 El Camino Real) supported a gas station facility from at least 1950 to 2007, at which time the facility was demolished. The southern portion of the Property (identified as 988 El Camino Real) has supported a car wash structure from at least 1958 to present day. This assessment included a review of local, state, tribal, and federal environmental record sources, standard historical sources, aerial photographs, fire insurance maps and physical setting sources. A reconnaissance of the Property was conducted to review site use and current conditions to check for the storage, use, production or disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials and interviews with persons knowledgeable about current and past site use. The northern portion of the Property (identified as 998 El Camino Real) supported a gas station facility from at least 1950 to 2007. Based on review of files from the San Mateo County Health Services Agency (SMCHSA), presently identified as the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD), we understand two fuel underground storage tanks (UST) and one waste oil UST were originally installed in 1950 and removed in 1986. In 1986, we understand the removed USTs were replaced with two 12,000-gallon gasoline USTs and one 750-gallon waste oil UST. As indicated in a 1997 letter prepared by the SMCHSA to the Property owner, “impacted soil and water that was apparently contained to the excavations was removed and disposed of” and “the site was not opened as case in our Remedial Oversight Program and therefore a ‘closure’ letter cannot be issued from our office”. The SMCHSA recommended an environmental investigation to provide current data on the soil and/or groundwater conditions at the site. In 2005, TEC Accutite (TECA) prepared a subsurface investigation report to assess if there was any impact of petroleum hydrocarbons on the soil and groundwater in the area of the gasoline USTs and to obtain an extension on the temporary closure of the gasoline USTs. Four borings were drilled in the vicinity of the two gasoline USTs. The samples were analyzed for TPH - gasoline, BTEX, and MTBE. Review of the laboratory results indicated nondetectable concentrations of TPH-gasoline and BTEX; however, the soil sample collected at 40 feet bgs resulted in a MTBE concentration of 0.170 mg/kg. TECA indicated the MTBE concentration exceeded the Environmental Screening Level (ESL) developed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) of 0.023 mg/kg for deep soil greater than 3 meters of depth and assuming a residential land use scenario where potentially impacted groundwater is a current or potential drinking water source. TECA concluded that the source of the MTBE in the deep soil at 40 feet bgs is not known; however, it is possible that MTBE originated from offsite sources such as nearby gasoline stations. Based on our review of the laboratory results, the MTBE SummerHill Homes 988 and 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco 13715.000.000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Page | 2 March 7, 2017 concentration is below both the current Regional Screening Level (RSL) developed by the USEPA and the current ESL for residential soil. In October - November 2007, three hydraulic hoists, the three USTs, and associated piping were removed from the Property during demolition activities. Representatives of the SMCEHD and City of South San Francisco were onsite during removal activities. In general, the soil sampling was performed under the direction of TECA and the SMCEHD representative. After completion of the sample collection activities, the overburden material generated from the excavated hoist, UST, and piping areas was reportedly used as backfill, in addition to imported aggregate base rock. Based on TECA’s review of the laboratory results, concentrations for the hoist and piping soil samples were reportedly below corresponding residential ESLs. The soil sample collected from 10 feet bgs at the base of the waste oil UST excavation resulted in a TPH-motor oil concentration of 2,720 mg/kg; however, TECA noted this concentration was below the residential ESL for soils at 10 feet bgs. However, a soil sample collected at an approximate depth of 18 feet bgs at the base of the gasoline UST excavation resulted in a MTBE concentration of 0.60 mg/kg, which was reportedly above the residential ESL. Based on our review of the soil data, concentrations are below current corresponding ESLs for residential soil. Although the sample collected from below the waste oil UST resulted in a TPH-motor oil concentration that exceeds the RSL of 2,500 mg/kg, the concentration is less than the ESL of 5,100 mg/kg. Sampling and removal activities are further discussed in Section 3.1. In August 2008, in reference to the above 2008 TECA investigation, the SMCEHD provided a letter confirming the completion of removal activities for three USTs (two 12,000-gallon fuel USTs and one 750-gallon waste oil UST) located at the Property identified as 998 El Camino Real. The County indicated that no further action is required; however, the County noted that “changes in the present or proposed use of the site may require further site characterization and mitigation activity.” Also, review of SMCHSA files indicates correspondence in 2002 to 2003 regarding liquid sludge that was observed to be washed from a driveway on the Property, identified as 998 El Camino Real. However, no further information was available. During our site reconnaissance, no staining was observed in the paved driveway areas. We understand the proposed redevelopment will consist of two levels of subterranean parking with overlying residential units. While vapor intrusion has not been assessed at the Property, with consideration of the available soil data along with the design of the proposed development, it is our opinion that the risk of vapor intrusion is low. The site reconnaissance and records review did find documentation of soil impairments associated with the past use of the Property. A review of regulatory databases maintained by county, state, tribal, and federal agencies did identify documentation of discharge on the Property, in association with the former USTs. Records review did not identify contaminated facilities within the appropriate American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) search distances that would reasonably be expected to impact the Property. Based on the findings of this assessment, no Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), no historical RECs, and one controlled REC were identified for the Property.  In August 2008, the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department provided a letter confirming the completion of removal activities for three USTs (two 12,000-gallon fuel USTs and one 750-gallon waste oil UST) located at the Property identified as 998 El Camino Real. SummerHill Homes 988 and 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco 13715.000.000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Page | 3 March 7, 2017 The County indicated that no further action is required; however, the County noted that “changes in the present or proposed use of the site may require further site characterization and mitigation activity.” Based on the review of regulatory databases and site reconnaissance, we present information on features of potential environmental concern that were either contained in the databases or observed on the Property. These features were not considered to be RECs. We briefly discuss each feature below.  During our site reconnaissance, two suspected hydraulic lifts were observed adjacent to a storm drain inlet at the existing car wash facility. If the facility is planned for demolition, the hydraulic lifts should be properly removed under permit.  Given the age of the structures, it is conceivable that asbestos containing building material and/or lead-based paint exist within the structures.  Review of SMCHSA files indicates correspondence in 2002 to 2003 regarding liquid sludge that was observed to be washed from a driveway on the Property, identified as 998 El Camino Real. However, no further information was available. During our site reconnaissance, no staining was observed in the paved driveway areas. ENGEO has performed a phase I environmental site assessment in general conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM E1527 of APNs 011-325-030, 011-325-070, 014-011-260, and 014-011-280 in South San Francisco, California, the Property. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 6.2 of this report. ENGEO recommends the following:  Due to the past and current uses of the Property, we recommend preparation of a Site Management Plan for construction activities and an environmental professional be present during site demolition and grading in the event of unforeseen environmental issues are encountered.  An asbestos and lead-based paint survey should be performed prior to renovation or demolition of structures to determine if special handling requirements will be necessary. SummerHill Homes 988 and 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco 13715.000.000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Page | 4 March 7, 2017 1.0 INTRODUCTION ENGEO conducted a phase I environmental site assessment for the Property located at 988 and 998 El Camino Real in South San Francisco, California (Figure 1). The approximately 1.66- acre Property is identified as APNs 011-325-030, 011-325-070, 014-011-260, and 014-011-280. The Property consists of a car wash facility, an open space area that formerly supported a gas station up until 2007, a PG&E easement, and a materials and storage yard with a small wooden structure. 1.1 SITE LOCATION The Property is located 988 and 998 El Camino Real in South San Francisco, California (Figure 1). The approximately 1.66-acre Property is identified as 011-325-030, 011-325-070, 014-011- 260, and 014-011-280. 1.2 SITE AND VICINITY CHARACTERISTICS According to published topographic maps, the Property is relatively level in elevation at approximately 45 feet above msl (Figure 3). Review of regional geologic mapping by Brabb, Graymer, and Jones (1998), the Property is underlain by Holocene-age alluvium (Qha). Geocheck – Physical Setting Source Summary of the Environmental Resources Data report (Appendix A) indicated no Federal United States Geological Survey (USGS) wells are located within 1 mile of the Property. The Physical Setting Source Summary also provided hydrogeologic information for use as an indicator of groundwater flow direction in the immediate area. This section indicated 27 wells within 1 mile of the Property. Information gathered from this site indicates the groundwater flow direction was observed predominately to the east, north, and northeast and the depth to groundwater ranged from approximately 4½ to 59 feet. During TECA’s 2005 subsurface investigation, groundwater was not encountered with a maximum explored depth to approximately 40 feet bgs. During UST removal activities in 2007, groundwater was not encountered with a maximum excavated depth to approximately 17 to 18 feet bgs. The Property is underlain by shallow and deeper aquifers that are separated by silty clay. We reviewed EnviroStor, a website maintained by the State of California, Department of Toxic Substances Control, and GeoTracker, a website maintained by the State of California, Water Resources Control Board, for nearby facilities with records that include depth to groundwater measurements. The following information was obtained regarding local groundwater conditions. TABLE 1.2-1: Local Groundwater Conditions PROXIMITY TO PROPERTY REPORTED DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER REPORTED GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION Southern neighboring site 29½ to 32 feet bgs East ¼- to ½-mile South 32 to 41 feet bgs Northeast The site-specific depth to groundwater and direction of groundwater flow was not determined as part of this assessment. Fluctuations in groundwater levels may occur seasonally and over a period of years due to variations in precipitation, temperature, irrigation and other factors. SummerHill Homes 988 and 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco 13715.000.000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Page | 5 March 7, 2017 We reviewed the Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) web site and map database to determine if any historic oil and/or gas wells were located within the Property. No wells were mapped within 1 mile of the Property. 1.3 CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY/DESCRIPTION OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS The southern portion of the Property is predominantly occupied by a car wash facility surrounded by asphalt and concrete pavement. The southeastern portion of the Property is occupied by materials and storage yard with a small wooden structure. The northern portion of the Property consists of asphalt and concrete pavement and well-graded gravel in areas of the demolished gas station facility. 1.4 CURRENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES The Property is generally bound by an open space park area that overlies the BART tunnel to the east, a fast-food restaurant and associated parking lot to the south, El Camino Real to the west, and Chestnut Avenue to the north. A gas station and bank are located on the western side of El Camino Real, while open space area is located on the northern side of Chestnut Avenue. 1.5 PURPOSE OF PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT This assessment was performed at the request of SummerHill Homes for the purpose of environmental due diligence during property acquisition. The objective of this phase I environmental site assessment is to identify Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) associated with the Property. As defined in the ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-13, an REC is “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.” 1.6 DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services performed included the following:  A review of publicly available and practically reviewable standard local, state, tribal, and federal environmental record sources.  A review of publicly available and practically reviewable standard historical sources, aerial photographs, fire insurance maps and physical setting sources.  A reconnaissance of the Property to review site use and current conditions. The reconnaissance was conducted to check for the storage, use, production or disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials.  Interviews with owners/occupants and public sector officials.  Preparation of this report with our findings, opinions, and conclusions. SummerHill Homes 988 and 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco 13715.000.000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Page | 6 March 7, 2017 1.7 SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS OR DEVIATIONS FROM ASTM STANDARD PRACTICE No significant assumptions or deviations were encountered during this assessment. 1.8 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF ASSESSMENT The professional staff at ENGEO strives to perform its services in a proper and professional manner with reasonable care and competence but is not infallible. The recommendations and conclusions presented in this report were based on the findings of our study, which were developed solely from the contracted services. The findings of the report are based in part on contracted database research, out-of-house reports and personal communications. The opinions formed by ENGEO are based on the assumed accuracy of the relied upon data in conjunction with our relevant professional experience related to such data interpretation. ENGEO assumes no liability for the validity of the materials relied upon in the preparation of this report. This document must not be subject to unauthorized reuse; that is, reuse without written authorization of ENGEO. Such authorization is essential because it requires ENGEO to evaluate the document's applicability given new circumstances, not the least of which is passage of time. The findings from a phase I environmental site assessment are valid for one year after completion of the report. Updates of portions of the assessment may be necessary after a period of 180 days after completion. This phase I environmental site assessment is not intended to represent a complete soil or groundwater characterization, nor define the depth or extent of soil or groundwater contamination. It is intended to provide an evaluation of potential environmental concerns associated with the use of the Property. A more extensive assessment that would include a subsurface exploration with laboratory testing of soil and groundwater samples could provide more definitive information concerning site-specific conditions. If additional assessment activities are considered for the Property and if other entities are retained to provide such services, ENGEO cannot be held responsible for any and all claims arising from or resulting from the performance of such services by other persons or entities. ENGEO can also not be held responsible from any and all claims arising or resulting from clarifications, adjustments, modifications, discrepancies or other changes necessary to reflect changed field or other conditions. 1.9 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ENGEO has prepared this report for the exclusive use of our client, SummerHill Homes. It is recognized and agreed that ENGEO has assumed responsibility only for undertak ing the study for the client. The responsibility for disclosures or reports to a third party and for remedial or mitigative action shall be solely that of the Client. Laboratory testing of soil or groundwater samples was not within the scope of the contra cted services. The assessment did not include an asbestos survey, an evaluation of lead -based paint, an inspection of light ballasts for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), a radon evaluation, or a mold survey. This report is based upon field and other conditions discovered at the time of preparation of ENGEO's assessment. Visual observations referenced in this report are intended only to represent conditions at the time of the reconnaissance. ENGEO would not be aware of site SummerHill Homes 988 and 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco 13715.000.000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Page | 7 March 7, 2017 contamination, such as dumping and/or accidental spillage, that occurred subsequent to the reconnaissance conducted by ENGEO personnel. 2.0 USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION 2.1 PROPERTY RECORDS 2.1.1 Title Report/Ownership The Title Report lists recorded land title detail, ownership fees, leases, land c ontracts, easements, liens, deficiencies, and other encumbrances attached to or recorded against a subject property. Laws and regulations pertaining to land trusts vary from state to state and the detail of information presented in a Title Report can vary greatly by jurisdiction. As a result, ENGEO utilizes a Title Report, when provided to us, as a supplement to other historical record sources. A Preliminary Title Report for the Property, prepared by First American Title Insurance Company and dated January 18, 2017, was provided for our review. The Property title is vested in Petrocchi Trust. No references to environmental liens, deed restrictions or other potential environmental issues were noted. This report is included in Appendix D. 2.2 USER KNOWLEDGE OF PROPERTY A completed environmental site assessment questionnaire from the client was not provided for our review prior to publication of this report. 3.0 RECORDS REVIEW 3.1 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS San Mateo County Health Services Agency, Service Station at 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, California; March 20, 1997. The San Mateo County Health Services Agency prepared a letter briefly summarizing the status of 998 El Camino Real for the property owner at the time. The letter indicates the following: Information in the file indicates that two fuel tanks and one waste oil tank were removed from the site in 1986. At that time, impacted soil and water that was apparently contained to the excavations was removed and disposed of. A soil boring drilled to forty-five (45) feet below grade did not encounter groundwater. The site was not opened as case in our Remedial Oversight Program and therefore a ‘closure’ letter cannot be issued from our office. At this time, we recommend that you perform an en vironmental investigation to provide current data on the soil and/or groundwater conditions at the site. SummerHill Homes 988 and 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco 13715.000.000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Page | 8 March 7, 2017 TEC Accutite, Subsurface Investigation Report, Gasoline Station, 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco; July 29, 2005. TEC Accutite (TECA) prepared a subsurface investigation report to assess if there was any petroleum hydrocarbon impact to soil and groundwater in the area of the gasoline USTs and to obtain an extension on the temporary closure of the gasoline USTs. Four borings were drilled in the vicinity of the two gasoline USTs. From each of the four borings, soil samples were collected from approximately 13 to 14 feet bgs (reportedly 1 to 2 feet below the UST depths) and an additional soil sample was collected at approximately 40 feet bgs from one of the borings. Groundwater was not encountered during the investigation. The samples were analyzed for TPH-gasoline, BTEX, and MTBE. Review of the laboratory results indicated nondetectable concentrations of TPH-gasoline and BTEX; however, the soil sample collected at 40 feet bgs resulted in a MTBE concentration of 0.170 mg/kg. TECA indicated the MTBE concentration exceeded the Environmental Screening Level (ESL) of 0.023 mg/kg for deep soil greater than 3 meters of depth and assuming a residential land use scenario where potentially impacted groundwater is a current or potential drinking water source. TECA concluded that the source of the MTBE in the deep soil at 40 feet bgs is not known; however, it is possible that MTBE originated from offsite sources such as nearby gasoline stations. The MTBE concentration is below both the current Regional Screening Level (RSL) developed by the USEPA and the current ESL developed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for residential soil. Therefore, we consider the risk of the MTBE concentration to the soil and groundwater at the Property to be low. TEC Accutite, Underground Storage Tank Removal Report, 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco; January 31, 2008. TECA prepared a report summarizing the activities of hydraulic hoist removals, building demolition, and removal of three USTs from the former gas station located on the northern portion of the Property. The activities were reportedly performed between October and November 2007. Three hydraulic hoists were removed from the service station building and soil samples were collected approximately 2 feet beneath the hoists at approximately 9 feet bgs. The soil samples were analyzed for TPH-diesel, TPH-motor oil, hydraulic oil, BTEX, and MTBE. Based on TECA’s review of the laboratory results, concentrations were reportedly below corresponding residential ESLs. Two 12,000-gallon gasoline USTs were reportedly removed from the approximate locations shown on Figure 2. Representatives of the SMCEHD and City of South San Francisco were onsite during removal activities. A total of four soil samples were collected from the USTs with one sample approximately 2 feet below each end of the UST at an approximate depth of 17 and 18 feet bgs. The soil samples were analyzed for TPH-gasoline, BTEX, and MTBE. Based on TECA’s review of the laboratory results, concentrations were reportedly below corresponding residential ESLs, with exception to the soil sample collected at an approximate depth of 18 feet bgs that resulted in a MTBE concentration of 0.60 mg/kg, which was reportedly above the residential ESL. For safety purposes and agreed to by the SMCEHD, the originally excavated UST overburden, which reportedly consisted of pea gravel, in addition to imported aggreg ate base rock, was placed in the excavation after completion of sample collection activities. SummerHill Homes 988 and 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco 13715.000.000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Page | 9 March 7, 2017 In addition, one 750-gallon waste oil UST was reportedly removed from the approximate location shown on Figure 2. Representatives of the SMCEHD and the City of South San Francisco were onsite during removal activities. At the direction of the SMCEHD, one soil sample was collected from 2 feet below the UST at an approximate depth of 10 feet bgs and four samples were collected from the excavated tank overburden stockpile and composited for testing. Both soil samples were analyzed for TPH-gasoline, TPH-diesel, TPH-motor oil, various metals, BTEX, and MTBE. Based on TECA’s review of the laboratory results, concentrations were reportedly below corresponding residential ESLs with exception to the composited stockpile sample which resulted in a TPH-motor oil concentration of 1,070 mg/kg, which was reportedly above the residential ESL. Also, the soil sample collected from 10 feet bgs resulted in a TPH-motor oil concentration of 2,720 mg/kg; however, TECA noted this concentration was below the residential ESL for soils at 10 feet bgs. For safety purposes and agreed to by the SMCEHD, the originally excavated UST overburden, which reportedly consisted of sandy clay, in addition to imported aggregate base rock was placed in the tank excavation after completion of sample collection activities. The product piping from the USTs to the former dispensing areas were also excavated. A total of nine soil samples were collected approximately 2 feet below the piping and dispenser areas (approximately 4 feet bgs). The soil samples were analyzed for TPH-gasoline, BTEX, and MTBE. Based on TECA’s review of the laboratory results, concentrations were reportedly below corresponding residential ESLs. The excavations were reportedly backfilled with the originally excavated piping overburden. TECA concluded the elevated concentration of TPH-motor oil is “not a concern due to its low mobility in soils” and with the consideration that the “estimated depth of groundwater [is] 60 feet bgs”. Regarding the elevated concentrations of MTBE, TECA concluded that the “concentrations [are] low enough that travel to groundwater is not of any significant concern.” TECA ultimately recommended no further action at the site. Based on our review of the soil data, the MTBE concentration is below both the current RSL and the current ESL for residential soil. Although the TPH-motor oil concentration exceeds the RSL of 2,500 mg/kg, the concentration is less than the ESL of 5,100 mg/kg for residential soil. Therefore, we consider the risk of the MTBE and TPH-motor oil concentrations to the soil and groundwater at the Property to be low. San Mateo County Environmental Health Department, USTs Removal Letter, 998 El Camino Real; August 8, 2008. In August 2008, in reference to the above 2008 TECA investigation, the SMCEHD provided a letter confirming the completion of removal activities for three USTs (two 12,000-gallon fuel USTs and one 750-gallon waste oil UST) located at the Property. The County indicated that no further action is required; however, the County noted that “changes in the present or proposed use of the site may require further site characterization and mitigation activity.” The letter is presented in Appendix G. 3.2 HISTORICAL RECORD SOURCES The purpose of the historical record review is to develop a history of the previous uses or occupancies of the Property and surrounding area in order to identify those uses or occupancies that are likely to have led to recognized environmental conditions on the Property. SummerHill Homes 988 and 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco 13715.000.000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Page | 10 March 7, 2017 3.2.1 Historical Topographic Maps Historical USGS topographic maps were reviewed to determine if discernible changes in topography or improvements pertaining to the Property had been recorded. The following maps were provided to us through an EDR Historical Topographic Map Report, presented in Appendix C. TABLE 3.2.1-1: Historical Topographic Maps QUAD YEAR SERIES SCALE San Mateo 1896 15-minute 1:62500 San Mateo 1899 15-minute 1:62500 San Mateo 1915 15-minute 1:62500 San Mateo 1939 15-minute 1:62500 San Francisco South 1947 7.5-minute 1:24000 San Francisco South 1950 7.5-minute 1:24000 San Francisco South 1956 7.5-minute 1:24000 San Francisco South 1968 7.5-minute 1:24000 San Francisco South 1973 7.5-minute 1:24000 San Francisco South 1980 7.5-minute 1:24000 San Francisco South 1995 7.5-minute 1:24000 San Francisco South 1996 7.5-minute 1:24000 San Francisco South 2012 7.5-minute 1:24000 1896 and 1899 Maps – Although the resolution is poor, the Property appears to support one to two structures fronting a street shown along the western portion of the Property. A creek is also mapped to encroach the southern portion of the Property trending west to east. The Southern Pacific Railroad is mapped east of the Property traversing northwest to southeast. 1915 and 1939 Maps – By the 1915 Map, structures are no longer visible on the Property and a road is shown traversing the southern portion of the Property trending northwest to southeast , extending from the eastern adjacent road. 1947 and 1950 Maps – Property conditions appear similar to the 1939 Map; however, the creek is no longer shown encroaching the Property. 1956 Map – A rectangular structure is shown on the northern portion of the Property and the road previously traversing the Property is no longer visible. The creek, identified as Twelvemile Creek, is shown trending west to east mapped south of the Property. Present-day Chestnut Avenue is mapped along the northern Property boundary. Development is visible south of the Property and in the greater Property vicinity. 1968, 1973, and 1980 Maps – The Property conditions appear similar to the 1956 Map. 1995, 1996, and 2012 Maps – The topographic maps do not provide detailed information in regards to structures; however, the Property is shown as developed. SummerHill Homes 988 and 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco 13715.000.000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Page | 11 March 7, 2017 3.2.2 Aerial Photographs The following aerial photographs, provided by EDR, were reviewed for information regarding past conditions and land use at the Property and in the immediate vicinity. These photographs are presented in Appendix E. TABLE 3.2.2-1: Aerial Photographs FLYER YEAR SCALE USDA 1943 1” = 500’ USGS 1946 1” = 500’ USGS 1956 1” = 500’ USGS 1963 1” = 500’ USGS 1968 1” = 500’ USGS 1974 1” = 500’ USDA 1982 1” = 500’ USGS/DOQQ 1993 1” = 500’ USDA 1998 1” = 500’ USDA/NAIP 2005 1” = 500’ USDA/NAIP 2006 1” = 500’ USDA/NAIP 2009 1” = 500’ USDA/NAIP 2010 1” = 500’ USDA/NAIP 2012 1” = 500’ 1943 and 1946 Photographs – The northeast portion of the Property appears to support dense vegetation and small shed-like structures are shown in the southeastern corner of the Property. Also, a road is shown traversing the southern portion of the Property, generally trending northwest to southeast. A railroad is mapped east of the Property traversing northwest to southeast. A road is shown in similar alignment to present-day El Camino Real along the southern portion of the Property. The adjacent creek appears to trend under this road along the southern portion of the Property and continues easterly. Neighboring properties appear generally undeveloped. 1956 Photograph – In the northern portion of the Property, a rectangular structure is shown. The southern portion of the Property appears to support parking and equipment storage. Remnants of the road previously observed traversing the Property is visible. A road is shown in similar configuration to present-day Chestnut Avenue, along the northwestern portion of the Property. The southern neighboring property appears to support a few structures. 1963 and 1968 Photograph – The Property appears similar to the 1956 Photograph; however, a second structure is shown in the central portion of the Property by the 1963 Photograph. In addition, El Camino Real appears to have widened to four travel lanes by the 1963 Photograph. 1974 and 1982 Photographs – The Property appears similar to the 1968 Photograph. The southeastern portion of the Property supports an equipment and vehicle storage yard. By the 1974 Photograph, the El Camino Real appears to have widened to six travel lanes, similar to present-day conditions. SummerHill Homes 988 and 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco 13715.000.000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Page | 12 March 7, 2017 1993, 1998, 2005, and 2006 Photographs – The Property appears similar to the 1982 Photograph. By the 1993 Photograph, the southern neighboring property resembles present -day conditions with a single rectangular structure visible and the southeastern portion of the Property supports a small structure and materials and equipment storage yard. By the 1998 Photograph, the eastern adjacent railroad is no longer visible and grading is apparent likely in support of the present-day open space landscaped area. 2009 and 2012 Photographs – By the 2009 Photograph, the site resembles present-day conditions with the previously visible northern structure no longer shown , while the southern structure appears similar to previous Photographs. 3.2.3 Fire Insurance Maps EDR prepared a Sanborn Fire insurance map search for the Property and surrounding properties. EDR reported maps from 1925, 1950, 1956, and 1970 were available for the southern portion of the Property and surrounding properties. 1925 Map – The road identified as Mission Road is shown traversing the southern portion of the Property extending from the adjacent El Camino Real. Neighboring properties to the south are identified as “Standard Oil Co. of California, South San Francisco Sub-Station”. 1950 Map – Two structures are shown along the southeastern portion of the Property fronting Mission Road. The southern neighboring property is identified as a construction company and various structures are shown. 1956 and 1970 Maps – Property conditions appear similar to the 1950 Map; however, by the 1956 Map two additional small structures are mapped in the southeastern corner of the Property. 3.2.4 City Directory City Directories, published since the 18th century for major towns and cities, lists the name of the resident or business associated with each address. A city directory search conducted by EDR is located in Appendix F. A summary of the city directory search results are provided below. 988 El Camino Real Coffee Mug (1970) Ideal Gifts Inc (2008) South City Car Wash Inc (1970, 1977, 1980, 1985, 1992, 1995, 1999, 2003, 2008, 2013) U Haul Neighborhood Dealer (2013) 998 El Camino Real Bob and Pete’s Union Service (1970) Pete’s Union Service (1977) U Haul Co Neighborhood Dealer (1977, 1980) Omar L Grimes Inc (1985) South City Union (1980, 1985, 1992, 1995, 1999) South City Gas & Auto Repair (2003) Thomas Koulouris (2003) SummerHill Homes 988 and 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco 13715.000.000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Page | 13 March 7, 2017 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES EDR performed a search of federal, tribal, state, and local databases regarding the Property and nearby properties. Details regarding the databases searched by EDR are provided in Appendix A. A list of the facilities documented by EDR within the approximate minimum search distance of the Property is provided below. 3.3.1 Standard Environmental Records 3.3.1.1 Subject Property The Property is listed on the following Standard Environmental Record source.  UST South City Gas & Auto 998 El Camino Real 3.3.1.2 Other Properties The following databases include facilities listed within the appropriate ASTM search distances of the Property on Standard Environmental Records sources.  RCRA-SQG Pacific Bell 965 El Camino Real Daland Body Shop 890 El Camino Real Daytona Auto Body Shop 136 A S Linden Avenue Chestnut Cleaners 26 Chestnut Avenue  ENVIROSTOR Rotometals Inc. 980-82 Harrison Hillside Nursery Hillside Avenue Mantegani Site 735 Commercial Avenue Morena Trust 111 Starlite Street  LUST (32)  SLIC (10)  AST City of South San Francisco Fire Station 33 Arroyo Drive  VCP Mantegani Site 735 Commercial Avenue SummerHill Homes 988 and 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco 13715.000.000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Page | 14 March 7, 2017 3.3.2 Additional Environmental Records 3.3.2.1 Subject Property The Property is listed on the following Additional Environmental Record sources.  HIST UST Union Oil SS#4523 998 El Camino Real South City Gas & Auto 998 El Camino Real  FINDS South City Gas & Auto 998 El Camino Real  ECHO South City Gas & Auto 998 El Camino Real  SWEEPS UST Union Oil Service Station 998 El Camino Real  CA FID UST South City Gas & Auto 998 El Camino Real  San Mateo County Building South City Car Wash 988 El Camino Real South City Gas & Auto 998 El Camino Real  US AIRS South City Gas & Auto 998 El Camino Real  HAZNET Unocal Service Station 998 El Camino Real Fred Brovo 998 El Camino Real  EDR Hist Auto --- 998 El Camino Real 3.3.2.2 Other Properties The following databases include facilities listed within the appropriate ASTM search distances of the Property on the Additional Environmental Record sources. SummerHill Homes 988 and 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco 13715.000.000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Page | 15 March 7, 2017  SWEEPS UST Westborough Chevron 1 Westborough Boulevard Stan the Roof Man 103 1st Municipal Services B 33 Arroyo Drive Emergency Operations 840 West Orange Avenue Ron Price 1 Chestnut Avenue Auto Studio 45 Chestnut Avenue California Water Service 80 Chestnut Avenue Mazzanti Carnations 820 Tennis Drive  HIST UST (11)  CA FID UST Westborough Chevron 1 Westborough Boulevard Emergency Operations 840 West Orange Avenue Ron Price 1 Chestnut Avenue Auto Studio 45 Chestnut Avenue California Water Service 80 Chestnut Avenue Mazzanti Carnations 820 Tennis Drive  DEED Former US Steel Facility Cross Oyster Point  RCRA NonGen / NLR Chevron Station 9038 1 Westborough Boulevard Mott & Allen 49-A Moss Street Ron Price 1 Chestnut Avenue  San Mateo Co. BI (26)  DRYCLEANERS Carriage Cleaners 1121 El Camino Real Chestnut Cleaners 26 Chestnut Avenue  HIST CORTESE (11)  EDR Hist Auto Not Reported 1 Westborough Boulevard Not Reported 66 A Street Not Reported 890 El Camino Real Not Reported 872 El Camino Real Not Reported 1 Chestnut Avenue SummerHill Homes 988 and 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco 13715.000.000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Page | 16 March 7, 2017  EDR Hist Cleaner A 6 A Launderette 28 Not Reported 1053 El Camino Real R 1 The A 7N A Not Reported 26 Chestnut Avenue Based on the distances to the identified database sites, regional topographic gradient, and the EDR findings, it is unlikely that the above-stated database sites pose an environmental risk to the Property. Properties that are on the “Orphan Summary” list appear to be located beyond the ASTM recommended radius search criteria. 3.4 REGULATORY AGENCY FILES AND RECORDS The following agencies were contacted pertaining to possible past development and/or activity at the Property.  City of South San Francisco Building and Planning Departments  City of South San Francisco Fire Department  San Mateo County Environmental Health Department  San Mateo County Fire Department  San Mateo County Assessor’s Office City of South San Francisco Building and Planning Departments – We contacted the City of South San Francisco Building and Planning Departments for files related to the Property. The following is a brief summary of files reviewed. 988 El Camino Real  1957-08-21 – Planning document granting permission to operate a car wash  1958-11-10 – Building permit for office addition  1958-11-22 – Building permit for snack bar  1983-08-22 – Building permit for trellis extension 998 El Camino Real  1976-12-14 – Planning document granting permission to establish a truck and trailer rental and storage yard.  1977-03-31 – Application for building permit for new island canopy at the service station Property Area  1969-December – Westborough Boulevard Extension construction plans indicating the channelized concrete-lined creek trending along the southern Property boundary. City of South San Francisco Fire Department – We contacted the City of South San Francisco Fire Department for files related to the Property. As part of the City of South San Francisco’s file package, no relevant Fire Department documents were reviewed. San Mateo County Environmental Health Department – We contacted the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD) for files related to the Property. The following is a brief summary of files reviewed. 988 El Camino Real SummerHill Homes 988 and 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco 13715.000.000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Page | 17 March 7, 2017  Various Hazardous Waste Generator reports from as early as 2002. 998 El Camino Real  1950 – UST installation permit for three USTs: one 7,500-gallon, one 6,000-gallon, and one 550-gallon UST.  1985 – Notice to apply for UST permits.  1986 – Removal of three USTs intended for replacement.  2004 – Temporary closure granted for two 12,000-gallon gasoline USTs and one 750-gallon waste oil UST. [Closure indicates 520-gallon waste oil UST; however, we anticipate this was in error]  2007 – Notification to owner that USTs have been inactive for over 2 years and action is needed to remove or upgrade.  2007 – Closure for two 12,000-gallon gasoline USTs and one 750-gallon waste oil UST. [Closure indicates 550-gallon waste oil UST; however, we anticipate this was in error] Inspector noted the following:  No open Groundwater Protection Program case  Condition was noted as “good, no visible holes”  2002 to 2003 – Various correspondence between the City of South Francisco Fire Department, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Bart, and the SMCHSA regarding liquid sludge observed being washed down the driveway at 998 El Camino Real.  2002-08-28 – In a letter prepared by the SMCHSA, the agency identified the “operator of the facility at 998 El Camino Real” as the responsible party.  2003-02-11 – In a letter prepared by the SMCHSA, the agency indicated the site would be more appropriately handled by the SMCHSA Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste Program rather than the Groundwater Protection Program. San Mateo County Fire Department – We contacted the San Mateo County Fire Department for files related to the Property. The Department referred us to the San Mateo County of Environmental Health Department. San Mateo County Assessor’s Office – The San Mateo County Assessor’s Department online tool was accessed to confirm the Property addresses, APNs, and acreages. We also reviewed GeoTracker, a website maintained by the State of California, Water Resources Control Board, and EnviroStor, a website maintained by the State of California, Department of Toxic Substances Control for information regarding the Property. The Property is not listed on either website. 4.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE 4.1 METHODOLOGY ENGEO conducted a reconnaissance of the Property on February 16, 2017. The reconnaissance was performed by Jeanine Ruffoni, Project Engineer of ENGEO. The Property was viewed for hazardous materials storage, superficial staining or discoloration, debris, stressed vegetation, or other conditions that may be indicative of potential sources of soil or groundwater contamination. The site was also checked for evidence of fill/ventilation pipes, ground subsidence, or other evidence of existing or preexisting underground storage tanks. Photographs taken during the site reconnaissance are presented in Figure 4. SummerHill Homes 988 and 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco 13715.000.000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Page | 18 March 7, 2017 The interior of the small wooden structure located on the southeastern portion of the Property was not observed. 4.2 GENERAL SITE SETTING The Property is generally located in a commercial neighborhood of South San Francisco. A channelized creek is located south of the Property generally trending we st to east and a BART tunnel is located east of the Property trending northwest to southeast, overlying an open-space landscaped area. The Property consists of a car wash facility, an open space area that formerly supported a gas station up until 2007, a PG&E easement, and a materials and storage yard with a small wooden structure. 4.3 EXTERIOR OBSERVATIONS Structures. Two structures were observed during the site reconnaissance. The car wash structure is located in the central portion of the Property and the structure appeared to consist of wood and concrete block construction. A wooden rectangular structure was located in the southeastern portion of the Property. Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products in Connection with Identified Uses . Various 5- to 15-gallon containers of car cleaning and detailing products were observed in exterior and interior storage areas. Two suspected hydraulic lifts were observed adjacent to a storm drain inlet at the existing car wash facility. Storage Tanks. With exception to two air pressure tanks observed in the car wash facility, no above-ground storage tanks or evidence of existing underground storage tanks was observed during the site reconnaissance. Odors. No odors indicative of hazardous materials or petroleum material impacts were noted at the time of the reconnaissance. Pools of Potentially Hazardous Liquid. No pools of potentially hazardous liquid were observed within the Property at the time of our reconnaissance. Drums. No drums were observed on the Property at the time of the reconnaissance. Hazardous Substance and Petroleum Product Containers. No hazardous substance or petroleum product containers were observed on the Property at the time of our reconnaissance. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). With exception to pole-mounted transformers observed on power poles along the overhead power lines that trend along the eastern portion of the Property, no other PCB-containing materials were observed within the Property during our site reconnaissance. Pits, Ponds and Lagoons. No pits, ponds or lagoons were observed within the Property at the time of our reconnaissance. Stained Soil/Pavement. No stained soil or pavement was observed within the Property at the time of our reconnaissance. SummerHill Homes 988 and 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco 13715.000.000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Page | 19 March 7, 2017 Stressed Vegetation. No signs of stressed vegetation were observed on the Property at the time of our reconnaissance. Solid Waste/Debris No disposal of solid waste was observed at the subject property. We understand the sediment from the car wash water accumulates likely in a sump-pit feature and is regularly removed and disposed of. No further details were provided. Stockpiles/Fill Material No stockpiles or fill material was observed on the Property during the reconnaissance. Wastewater. We understand the water used in the car wash facility is recycled in the car wash system. No other wastewater conveyance systems were observed at the Property during the reconnaissance. Wells. No wells were found within the Property during our site reconnaissance. Septic Systems. No septic systems were found within the Property during our site reconnaissance. 4.4 INTERIOR OBSERVATIONS The interior of the car wash facility generally consisted of concrete-floored storage rooms, an employee locker room, and a front office. Laundry washing and drying machines were also observed. 4.5 ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIALS AND LEAD-BASED PAINT An asbestos and lead-based paint survey was not conducted as part of this assessment. Given the age of the existing structures, it is conceivable that asbestos-containing materials and lead- based paint materials may exist within the structures. 4.6 INDOOR AIR QUALITY An evaluation of indoor air quality, mold, or radon was not included as part of the contracted scope of services. The California Department of Health Services has conducted studies of radon risks throughout the state, sorted by zip code. Results of the studies indicate that 92 tests were conducted within the Property zip code, with 2 tests exceeding the current EPA action level of 4 picocuries per liter [pCi/L]1). In accordance with ASTM E2600-10 (Tier 1) (Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions); there are no potential petroleum hydrocarbon sources for vapor intrusion within 1/10 mile of the Property or volatile organic compound (VOCs) sources within 1/3 mile of the Property. 1 California Department of Health Services – Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management – Radon (http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/environhealth/Documents/Radon/CaliforniaRadonDatabase.pdf). SummerHill Homes 988 and 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco 13715.000.000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Page | 20 March 7, 2017 5.0 INTERVIEWS A completed key site manager questionnaire was not provided for our review prior to publication of this report. 6.0 EVALUATION 6.1 FINDINGS The reconnaissance and records research did find documentation of soil impairments associated with the past use of the Property. A review of regulatory databases maintained by county, state and federal agencies found documentation of discharge on the Property, in association with the former USTs. No documented soil or groundwater contamination associated with abutting properties was found from the records research.  The northern portion of the Property, identified as 998 El Camino Real, supported a gas station facility from at least 1950 to 2007.  In August 2008, the SMCEHD provided a letter confirming the completion of removal activities for three USTs (two 12,000-gallon fuel USTs and one 750-gallon waste oil UST) located at the Property The County indicated that no further action is required; however, the County noted that “changes in the present or proposed use of the site may require further site characterization and mitigation activity.”  Review of SMCHSA files indicates correspondence in 2002 to 2003 regarding liquid sludge that was observed to be washed from a driveway on the Property, identified as 998 El Camino Real. However, no further information was available. During our site reconnaissance, no staining was observed in the paved driveway areas.  We understand the proposed redevelopment will consist of two levels of subterranean parking with overlying residential units. While vapor intrusion has not been assessed at the Property, with consideration of the available soil data along with the design of the proposed development, it is our opinion that the risk of vapor intrusion is low. 6.2 OPINIONS AND DATA GAPS It is our opinion that the findings of this study are based on a sufficient level of information obtained during our contracted scope of services to render a conclusion as to whether additional appropriate investigation is required to identify the presence or likely presence of a REC. The data gaps identified during this process, as described below, do not affect the conclusions as to the presence or lack of presence of RECs at the Property. The following data gap was identified during the assessment:  Completed Client and Key Site Manager questionnaires were not provided for our review prior to publication of this report. SummerHill Homes 988 and 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco 13715.000.000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Page | 21 March 7, 2017 6.3 CONCLUSIONS The study included a review of local, state and federal environmental record sources, standard historical sources, aerial photographs, fire insurance maps and physical setting sources; a reconnaissance of the Property to review site use and current conditions to check for the storage, use, production or disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials; and interview with persons knowledgeable about current and past site use. The site reconnaissance and records review did find documentation of soil impairments associated with the past use of the Property. A review of regulatory databases maintained by county, state, tribal, and federal agencies did identify documentation of discharge on the Property, in association with the former USTs. Records review did not identify contaminated facilities within the appropriate American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) search distances that would reasonably be expected to impact the Property. Based on the findings of this assessment, no Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), no historical RECs, and one controlled REC were identified for the Property.  In August 2008, the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department provided a letter confirming the completion of removal activities for three USTs (two 12,000-gallon fuel USTs and one 750-gallon waste oil UST) located at the Property identified as 998 El Camino Real. The County indicated that no further action is required; however, the County noted t hat “changes in the present or proposed use of the site may require further site characterization and mitigation activity.” Based on the review of regulatory databases and site reconnaissance, we present information on features of potential environmental concern that were either contained in the databases or observed on the Property. These features were not considered to be RECs. We briefly discuss each feature below.  During our site reconnaissance, two suspected hydraulic lifts were observed adjacent t o a storm drain inlet at the existing car wash facility. If the facility is planned for demolition, the hydraulic lifts should be properly removed under permit.  Given the age of the structures, it is conceivable that asbestos containing building material and/or lead-based paint exist within the structures.  Review of SMCHSA files indicates correspondence in 2002 to 2003 regarding liquid sludge that was observed to be washed from a driveway on the Property, identified as 998 El Camino Real. However, no further information was available. During our site reconnaissance, no staining was observed in the paved driveway areas. ENGEO has performed a phase I environmental site assessment in general conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM E1527 of APNs 011-325-030, 011-325-070, 014-011-260, and 014-011-280 in South San Francisco, California, the Property. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 6.2 of this report. SummerHill Homes 988 and 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco 13715.000.000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Page | 22 March 7, 2017 ENGEO recommends the following:  Due to the past and current uses of the Property, we recommend preparation of a Site Management Plan for construction activities and an environmental professional be present during site demolition and grading in the event of unforeseen environmental issues are encountered.  An asbestos and lead-based paint survey should be performed prior to renovation or demolition of structures to determine if special handling requirements will be necessary. SummerHill Homes 988 and 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco 13715.000.000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment March 7, 2017 SELECTED REFERENCES Brabb, Graymer, and Jones, 1998, Geology of the Onshore Part of San Mateo County, California: Derived from the Digital Database Open-File 98-137, United States Geological Survey. California Department of Water Resources (http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/) California Department of Conservation (DOGGR) (http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doms/doms- app.html) California Department of Health Services – Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management – Radon (http://ww2.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/environhealth/Documents/Radon/CaliforniaRadonDatabase. pdf) Google Maps (http://maps.google.com) San Mateo County Health Services Agency, Service Station at 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, California; March 20, 1997. San Mateo County Environmental Health Department, USTs Removal Letter, 998 El Camino Real; August 8, 2008. TEC Accutite, Subsurface Investigation Report, Gasoline Station, 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco; July 29, 2005. TEC Accutite, Underground Storage Tank Removal Report, Fred Bravo Property, 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, CA 94080; January 31, 2008.