HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 49-2024 (24-266)INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
101 TERMINAL COURT CLEAR CHANNEL BILLBOARD PROJECT
AND RELATED ZONING AMENDMENT
PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
315 MAPLE AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
PREPARED BY:
LAMPHIER – GREGORY
1944 EMBARCADERO
OAKLAND, CA 94606
JUNE 2013
Government Code Section
54957.5
SB 343 Item Agenda: 03/13/2024
REG CC - Item 13a
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction to this Document ................................................................................................................. 1
Project Information .................................................................................................................................. 2
Mitigated Negative Declaration ............................................................................................................. 13
Potentially Significant Impacts Requiring Mitigation ........................................................................ 13
Proposed Findings .............................................................................................................................. 17
Initial Study Checklist ............................................................................................................................ 19
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ....................................................................................... 20
Lead Agency Determination ............................................................................................................... 21
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................ 22
Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................................... 22
Agricultural and Forest Resources ................................................................................................. 32
Air Quality ..................................................................................................................................... 33
Biological Resources ..................................................................................................................... 37
Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................... 40
Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................................... 41
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................ 43
Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................. 44
Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................................ 46
Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................................. 48
Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................................... 49
Noise .............................................................................................................................................. 50
Population and Housing ................................................................................................................. 51
Public Services ............................................................................................................................... 52
Recreation ...................................................................................................................................... 53
Transportation/Traffic .................................................................................................................... 54
Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................................ 59
Mandatory Findings of Significance .............................................................................................. 60
Document Preparers ............................................................................................................................... 62
Sources ................................................................................................................................................... 62
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Biological Impacts Assessment
Attachment B: Northwest Information Center Records Search Results
ii
FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Location ................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 2: Proposed Billboard Site Plan ............................................................................................. 9
Figure 3: Proposed Billboard Design .............................................................................................. 11
Figure 4: Existing View from U.S. 101, facing north ..................................................................... 23
Figure 5: Proposed Billboard from U.S. 101, facing north (70’ height) ......................................... 23
Figure 6: Existing View from U.S. 101, facing north ..................................................................... 25
Figure 7: Proposed Billboard from U.S. 101, facing south (70’ height) ......................................... 25
Figure 8: Reduced Height Billboard from U.S. 101, facing north (55’ height) .............................. 27
Figure 9: Reduced Height Billboard from U.S. 101, facing south (55’ height) .............................. 27
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 1
INTRODUCTION TO THIS DOCUMENT
This document serves as the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed
Project, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public
Resources Code Sections 1500 et seq.).
Per CEQA Guidelines (Section 15070), a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be prepared to meet the
requirements of CEQA review when the Initial Study identifies potentially significant environmental
effects, but revisions in the Project and/or incorporation of mitigation measures would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur.
This document is organized in three sections as follows:
Introduction and Project Information. This section introduces the document and discussed the
project description including location, setting, and specifics of the lead agency and contacts.
Mitigated Negative Declaration. This section lists the impacts and mitigation measures identified
in the Initial Study and proposes findings that would allow adoption of this document as the
CEQA review document for the proposed project.
Initial Study Checklist. This section discusses the CEQA environmental topics and checklist
questions and identifies the potential for impacts and proposed mitigation measures to avoid these
impacts.
Page 2 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Project Title: 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project and
Related Zoning Amendment
2. Lead Agency Contact: City of South San Francisco
Gerry Beaudin, Principal Planner
Department of Economic and Community Development
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083
650-877-8535 or gerry.beaudin@ssf.net
3. Project Location: In the Park N Fly parking lot at 101 Terminal Court
(APN 015-116-240) adjacent to highway 101 in South
San Francisco.
4. Project Applicant's Name and Address: Patrick Powers
Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.
Northern California Division
555 12th Street, Suite 950
Oakland, CA 94607
(510) 835-5900 x7219
5. General Plan Designation: Community Commercial
6. Zoning: Freeway Commercial (FC)
7. Site and Vicinity: The regional location is shown in Figure 1 and the specific location on this site is
shown on Figure 2. The Project site is located within the paved parking area operated privately by
Park N Fly as off-site airport parking.
An approximately 40-foot wide landscape strip is located between the Project site and the highway to
the east, consisting largely of shrubs and grasses. Farther east, at approximately 275 feet to the other
side of the highway, is located a commercial complex with some retail and hotels. Beyond that are
largely industrial uses and Research and Development/office complexes.
The site is bordered to the west by the Golden Gate Produce Terminal, which houses multiple
produce purveyors in two large buildings. A separate off-site airport parking use is located farther to
the north.
The Park N Fly site extends for nearly 800 feet to the south from the location of the billboard. At the
southern boundary of the site is an approximately 150-foot wide unnamed channel and buffer area, on
the other side of which is located light industrial and retail uses.
The closest residential areas are located approximately 2,300 feet to the southwest, 3,000 feet to the
northwest and 3,800 feet to the south. There are no residences in the vicinity to the east.
8. Project Description:
Digital Billboard
The Project involves construction and operation of one new double-sided outdoor advertising LED
billboard located in South San Francisco, California. The billboard is proposed to reach a maximum
height of 70 feet. It is possible that, through the City approval process, including the design review,
the billboard height could be reduced. Reduced height is discussed in the Aesthetics section.
An “LED billboard” consists of a display surface that supports an image generated by rows of light
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 3
emitting diodes (LED). The image on the billboard is static for a period of time, not less than eight
seconds, before cycling to the next image. Operational details provided by the applicant include the
following:
Each LED display would be 48 feet wide by 14 feet tall mounted on a column so that the overall
height is approximately 70 feet above grade. The two display faces will be oriented in a “V”
shape such that the displays face the two directions of highway traffic. The design of the
billboard is shown in Figures 2 and 3.
Brightness of each digital display: Lighting levels on each face of the digital billboard will not
exceed 0.3 foot candles over ambient levels, as measured using a foot candle meter at a 250’
distance according to the guidelines of the Outdoor Advertising Association of America
(OAAA).
Power: Central breaker panel with a primary feed of 200 amps at 120/240 single phase or 200
amps at 208Y/120 three phase primary feed; electrical connections would be UL and IEC-
approved.
Signage would be controlled remotely and would have remote maintenance software, and the
applicant will immediately shut off, or go to “full black” in the event of a malfunction.
Light sensors would be installed with each face of the billboard to measure ambient light levels
and to adjust light intensity to respond to such conditions. Currently, “beehive” light sensor
enclosures are utilized, incorporating two light sensors into the enclosure.
The billboard will be programmed for nighttime reduced (4 percent of peak power) power
operation.
LED lighting has a directional nature and the projected viewing angle values for the proposed
billboard is ± 30° vertically and ± 60° horizontally. Shaders will be located above each row of
LEDs to prevent light from projecting upward into the sky.
Zoning Code Amendment
Digital billboards are currently not allowed under the City’s Zoning Code. Because a Zoning Code
amendment is required for approval of the proposed billboard, this amendment, including the
following assumptions, has been included as part of the Project description analyzed in this
document. While the final wording of the amendment was not available at the time of drafting of this
report, the City’s intent is that no more than 3 digital billboards could be allowed along the highway
in conjunction with negotiated Relocation Agreements. The location of proposed digital billboards
would be constrained to the western side of the highway between Sister Cities Boulevard and the
City’s southern boundary and otherwise following billboard locating restrictions (such as Caltrans
rule of 500 feet between billboards, discussed in more detail under item 11, Regulatory Provisions).
Approval and construction of any digital billboard would require a negotiated Relocation Agreement
involving removal of multiple similarly-sized existing billboards within the City.
Construction of the Billboard
The following information regarding the process involved in installing a digital billboard is based on
discussions with representatives of Clear Channel, and is the process typically followed. The
following description of activities has been included here as general project information, and has been
used as the basis for evaluating potential construction-period impacts for air quality and noise. The
specifics of the procedure could be modified if recommended by the structural engineer based upon
the results of a site-specific soil study. The construction would be subject to the Building Code, and a
Building Permit would be required for construction activities. The construction typically proceeds as
described below.
Day 1: On the first day at the site, a crew arrives with a drilling rig and drills a hole 5’ in diameter and
Page 4 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
32’ deep. A trench plate is placed over the hole before the crew leaves the site.
Day 2: The column for the billboard is delivered to the site. The column is typically 42” in diameter.
The column is lifted into place in the foundation hole by a crane, and is maintained in place by I-
beams that are welded to the column. A building inspection is required at this point, and the company
attempts to arrange for the inspection early enough in the day to allow pouring of concrete on Day 2.
Day 5: After the concrete cures for three days, the crew returns to the site. The I-beam welds are
ground off and the I-beams removed. The upper structure components are delivered to the site and
assembled on the ground by the crew (usually 4-5 persons). The crane returns to the site and lifts the
upper structure into place atop the column.
Electrical service: Arrangements to extend electrical service to the site are made in advance of the
construction activities. Underground electrical service will be extended to the billboard through
trenching, using a sleeve that will accommodate the electrical service inside a concrete foundation.
The typical electrical service is 200 amps for single phase, and 100 amps for 3-phase.
9. Required Approvals: Approval of the Project will require a Zoning Code amendment, Relocation
Agreement, and Design Review from the City of South San Francisco. Additionally, the following
reviews and approvals would be required:
Appropriate clearance through Caltrans is also required for highway-oriented signs. This may require
a relocation agreement if the freeway segment is determined to be classified as a “landscaped
freeway” (as discussed under Regulatory Provisions).
Construction activities will require appropriate administrative permits.
The City and applicant may also enter into a Development Agreement.
10. Regulatory Provisions: The following regulations are applicable to installation of billboards and
compliance has been assumed in analysis of this Project.
Federal
The federal Highway Beautification Act of 1965 (23 U.S.C. 131) provides for control of outdoor
advertising, including removal of certain types of signs, along the interstate highway system. The Act
is enforced by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
As part of its enforcement effort, FHWA has entered into agreements regarding the Act with state
departments of transportation. The agreements with California are described under the State
provisions, below.
State
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is involved in the control of “off-premise”
displays along state highways. Such displays advertise products or services of businesses located on
property other than the display. Caltrans does not regulate on-premise displays. (Caltrans Landscape
Architecture Program, 2008)
California has entered into two agreements with FHWA as part of the implementation of the Highway
Beautification Act: one dated May 29, 1965, and a subsequent agreement dated February 15, 1968.
The agreements generally provide that the State will control the construction of all outdoor
advertising signs, displays and devices within 660 feet of the interstate highway right-of-way. The
agreements provide that such signs shall be erected only in commercial or industrial zones and are
subject to the following restrictions:
No signs shall imitate or resemble any official traffic sign, signal or device, nor shall signs
obstruct or interfere with official signs;
No signs shall be erected on rocks or other natural features;
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 5
Signs shall be no larger than 25 feet in height and 60 feet in width, excluding border, trim and
supports;
Signs on the same side of the freeway must be separated by at least 500 feet; and
Signs shall not include flashing, intermittent or moving lights, and shall not emit light that could
obstruct or impair the vision of any driver.
California regulates outdoor advertising in the Outdoor Advertising Act (Business and Professions
Code, Sections 5200 et seq.) and the California Code of Regulations, Title 4, Division 6 (Sections
2240 et seq.), which incorporate the Federal Highway Beautification Act by reference. Caltrans
enforces the law and regulations. Caltrans requires applicants for new outdoor lighting to demonstrate
that the owner of the parcel consents to the placement of the sign, that the parcel on which the sign
would be located is zoned commercial or industrial, and that local building permits are obtained and
complied with. A digital billboard is identified as a “message center” in the statute, which is an
advertising display where the message is changed more than once every two minutes, but no more
than once every four seconds. (Business and Professions Code, Section 5216.4)
In brief, off-premises changeable electronic variable message signs (CEVMS) adjacent to controlled
routes shall incorporate standards pertaining to:
1. Duration of Message
2. Transition Time
3. Brightness
4. Spacing
5. Locations
Most importantly as a result of FHWA recommendations, to ensure driver safety, no billboard
manufacturers presently use moving displays or less than a 4 second duration time between messages.
Some freeways are classified as “landscaped freeways.” A landscaped freeway is defined as one that
is now, or may in the future be, improved by the planting of lawns, trees, shrubs, flowers or other
ornamental vegetation requiring reasonable maintenance on one or both sides of the freeway
(Government Code §5216). Off-premise displays are not allowed along landscaped freeways except
when approved as part of Relocation Agreements pursuant to §5412 of the Outdoor Advertising Act.
It appears the Project site is within a segment of U.S. 101 which is considered a classified
landscaped freeway, though such a determination would be made during the approval process with
Caltrans.1
The Outdoor Advertising Act contains a number of provisions relating to the construction and
operation of billboards:
The sign must be constructed to withstand a wind pressure of 20 pounds per square feet of
exposed surface (§5401);
No sign shall display any statements or words of an obscene, indecent or immoral character
(§5402);
No sign shall display flashing, intermittent or moving light or lights (§5403(h));
Signs are restricted from areas within 300 feet of an intersection of highways or of highway and
railroad right-of-ways, but a sign may be located at the point of interception, as long as a clear
1 California Department of Transportation, July 13, 2011, Classified “Landscape Freeways”, available at
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/lsfwy/pdf/class_ls_fwy.pdf.
Page 6 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
view is allowed for 300 feet, and no sign shall be installed that would prevent a traveler from
obtaining a clear view of approaching vehicles for a distance of 500 feet along the highway
(§5404); and
Message center signs may not include any illumination or message change that is in motion or
appears to be in motion or that change or expose a message for less than four seconds. No
message center sign may be located within 500 feet of an existing billboard, or 1,000 feet of
another message center display, on the same side of the highway (§5405).
Additional restrictions on outdoor signage are found in the California Vehicle Code. Section 21466.5
prohibits the placing of any light source “…of any color of such brilliance as to impair the vision of
drivers upon the highway.” Specific standards for measuring light sources are provided. The
restrictions may be enforced by Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol or local authorities.
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 7
Figure 1: Project Location
Source: Google Inc., Google Earth imagery date 10/31/2011, with project location noted by Lamphier-Gregory.
Proposed Billboard
Page 8 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
This page intentionally left blank
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 9
Figure 2: Proposed Billboard Site Plan
Source: Vincent Kevin Kelly & Assoc., Inc. for the applicant, dated May 1, 2012
Page 10 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
This page intentionally left blank
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 11
Figure 3: Proposed Billboard Design
Source: Vincent Kevin Kelly & Assoc., Inc. for the applicant, dated May 1, 2012
Notes:
The specifics of the decorative pole cover could be revised per the design review process.
The design review/approval process could also result in a lowered overall height, potentially a 55’ total height. The 70’ height
was utilized in this analysis because it is the maximum height that is being considered. See the Aesthetics section for a discussion
and visual modeling of both the 70’ and 55’ overall heights.
Page 12 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
This page intentionally left blank
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 13
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND SETTING
This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel
Billboard Project and related code amendments. See the Introduction and Project Information section of
this document for details of the Project.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS REQUIRING MITIGATION
The following is a list of potential Project impacts and the mitigation measures recommended to reduce
these impacts to a less-than-significant level. Refer to the Initial Study Checklist section of this document
for a more detailed discussion.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The digital billboard technology has the potential to operate at levels brighter than those specified as the
operational limits. Impacts would remain less than significant under specified operating conditions, which
are required to be tested under Mitigation Measure Visual-1, below.
Mitigation Measure
Visual-1: Billboard Brightness Field Testing. The Applicant shall demonstrate through field
testing compliance with a 0.3 footcandle increase over ambient light at 250 feet
during nighttime conditions upon initial start-up, at 6 months of operation and at the
request of the City for the life of the billboard. The Applicant shall fund field testing
by an independent contractor or City staff trained in the use of a handheld photometer
to demonstrate continued compliance. The City shall consider citizen complaints
consisting of direct personal impacts as cause for requesting field testing.
If increases in ambient light are found to be above the 0.3 footcandle level, the
dimming level shall be adjusted until this level can be demonstrated. This must be
completed and demonstrated through follow-up field testing within 24 hours or the
billboard shall not be operated until the lighting levels can be brought into
compliance.
If no above-threshold levels have been measured in the prior three tests, field testing
shall be requested no more often than twice yearly. Otherwise, field tests can be
requested up to once monthly.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Project air quality emissions would be below applicable threshold levels. However, the local Air District,
BAAQMD, recommends implementation of construction mitigation measures to reduce construction-
related emissions and fugitive dust for all projects. These basic measures are included in Mitigation
Measure Air-1, below and would further reduce already less than significant construction-period criteria
pollutant impacts.
Mitigation Measure
Air-1: Basic Construction Management Practices. The Project shall demonstrate
proposed compliance with all applicable regulations and operating procedures prior
to issuance of demolition, building or grading permits, including implementation of
the following BAAQMD “Basic Construction Mitigation Measures”:
i) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas,
and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
Page 14 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
ii) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
iii) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed
using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry
power sweeping is prohibited.
iv) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
v) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon
as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
vi) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use
or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at
all access points.
vii) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance
with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified
mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
viii) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at
the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Given the site characteristics, coupled with the regional archaeological sensitivity, there is a moderate
potential of unrecorded Native American resources (especially buried deposits with no surface
indications) within the proposed Project area. If present, these would be located below any artificial fill at
the surface, but potentially within the 35 foot depth of the proposed disturbance. Preparation and
implementation of a cultural monitoring and mitigation plan would assure that discovery of any cultural
resources would be identified and treated appropriately and therefore that any impact in this regard would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
Cultural-1: Cultural Monitoring and Mitigation Plan. The Project applicant shall fund
preparation and implementation of a cultural monitoring and mitigation plan by a
qualified archaeologist to address the potential for presence and disturbance of Native
American archaeological resources or remains during excavation of the billboard
pole footing. This will include at a minimum monitoring during excavation of the
billboard pole footing and may also include but is not limited to additional archival
research, hand auger sampling, shovel test units, geoarchaeological analysis, or other
common methods used to identify the presence of archaeological resources to be
determined per the recommendation of the qualified archaeologist. The archaeologist
and construction contractors shall follow the appropriate procedures should any
cultural resources or human remains be discovered during ground disturbance.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The site has not been assessed for the potential presence of hazardous materials. During the installation
process of the billboard, holes would be drilled and the excavated soil would be transported offsite. The
Project will also include trenching to connect to electrical supply. With implementation of Mitigation
Measure Haz-1, the site will be assessed for the presence of hazardous materials prior to construction
activities, which, if present, would be handled appropriately to ensure the impact would remain less than
significant.
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 15
Mitigation Measure
Haz-1: Phase I and/or Phase II Reports. Prior to issuance of construction permits, the City
of South San Francisco shall require the Project applicant to submit a Phase I
environmental site assessment report, and a Phase II report if warranted by the Phase
I report for the Project site. The reports shall make recommendations for remedial
action in accordance with State and Federal laws, if appropriate, and should be signed
by a Registered Environmental Assessor, Professional Geologist, or Professional
Engineer. The Applicant shall comply with these recommendations.
Mitigation Measure
Haz-2: E-Waste Disposal. Electronic components of the billboard may contain materials
considered “e-waste” when disposed of due to potentially hazardous metals, flame
retardants, and other chemicals. The operator shall be required to follow applicable
regulations regarding proper disposal and/or recycling, as appropriate, as components
are replaced or removed over time.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Significant effects could occur if the proposed digital billboard did not comply with restrictions regarding
location, intensity of light, light trespass, or other restrictions or includes visual effects or driver
interaction that would cause driver distraction. With implementation of these Mitigation Measures Traf-
1and Traf-2, the City will receive accurate information from the operator regarding compliance on an
ongoing basis to ensure that impacts on transportation and traffic safety would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-1: Annual Report. The operator of the digital billboard shall submit to the City, within
thirty days following June 30 of each year, a written report regarding operation of
each digital billboard during the preceding period of July 1 to June 30. The operator
may submit a combined report for all such digital billboards operated by such
operator within the City limits. The report shall, when appropriate, identify incidents
or facts that relate to specific digital billboards. The report shall be submitted to the
Director of the Economic and Community Development Department and shall
include information relating to the following:
a. Status of the operator’s license as required by California Business and
Professions Code §§5300 et seq.;
b. Status of the required permit for individual digital billboards, as required by
California Business and Professions Code §§5350 et seq.;
c. Compliance with the California Outdoor Advertising Act, California Business
and Professions Code §§5200 and all regulations adopted pursuant to such Act;
d. Compliance with California Vehicle Code §§21466.5 and 21467;
e. Compliance with provisions of written agreements between the U.S. Department
of Transportation and the California Department of Transportation pursuant to
the federal Highway Beautification Act (23 U.S.C. §131);
f. Compliance with mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration adopted as part of Project approval;
g. Each written or oral complaint received by the operator, or conveyed to the
operator by any government agency or any other person, regarding operation of
each digital billboard included in the report;
h. Each malfunction or failure of each digital billboard included in the report,
which shall include only those malfunctions or failures that are visible to the
Page 16 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
naked eye, including reason for the malfunction, duration and confirmation of
repair; and
i. Operating status of each digital billboard included in the report, including
estimated date of repair and return to normal operation of any digital billboard
identified in the report as not operating in normal mode.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-2: Operational Safety. The operation of the digital billboard shall comply with the
following at all times:
a. No special visual effects that include moving or flashing lights shall accompany
any message or the transition between two successive messages;
b. The operator shall not install or implement any technology that would allow
interaction with drivers, vehicles or any device located in vehicles, including, but
not limited to a radio frequency identification device, geographic positions
system, or other device without prior approval of the City of South San
Francisco, taking into consideration technical studies and CalTrans or US DOT
policies and guidance available at the time of the request.
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 17
PROPOSED FINDINGS
The City of South San Francisco has determined that with the implementation of mitigation measures
identified in this Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed Project will not have a significant effect
on the environment. If this Mitigated Negative Declaration is adopted by the City of South San Francisco,
the requirements of CEQA will be met by the preparation of this Mitigated Negative Declaration and the
Project will not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. This decision is supported by
the following findings:
a. The Project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels or threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. It does not reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. It does not eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or pre-history, since there is no identified area at the Project site
which is habitat for rare or endangered species, or which represents unique examples of California
history or prehistory. The Project does not have any significant, unavoidable adverse impacts.
Implementation of specified mitigation measures will avoid or reduce the effects of the Project on the
environment and thereby avoid any significant impacts.
b. The Project does not involve impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable,
because the described Project will incorporate mitigation measures to avoid significant impacts of the
Project in the context of continued growth and development in the City of South San Francisco.
c. The Project does not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly, because all adverse effects of the Project will be mitigated to less
than significant levels.
Page 18 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
This page intentionally left blank
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 19
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Environmental factors that may be affected by the Project are listed alphabetically below. Factors marked
with an “X” () were determined to be potentially affected by the Project, involving at least one impact
that required mitigation to reduce the impact to less than significant levels, as indicated in the
Environmental Evaluation Form Checklist and related discussion that follows. Unmarked factors ()
were determined to not be significantly affected by the Project, based on discussion provided in the
Checklist, including the application of mitigation measures which the applicant has agreed to implement.
Aesthetics Agricultural and Forest Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards/Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population/Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
There are no impacts that would remain significant with implementation of the identified mitigation
measures.
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 21
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The Checklist portion of the Initial Study begins below, with explanations of each CEQA issue topic.
Four outcomes are possible, as explained below.
1. A “no impact” response indicates that no action that would have an adverse effect on the environment
would occur due to the Project.
2. A “less than significant” response indicates that while there may be potential for an environmental
impact, there are standard procedures or regulations in place, or other features of the Project as
proposed, which would limit the extent of this impact to a level of “less than significant.”
3. Responses that indicate that the impact of the Project would be “less than significant with mitigation”
indicate that mitigation measures, identified in the subsequent discussion, will be required as a
condition of Project approval in order to effectively reduce potential Project-related environmental
effects to a level of “less than significant.”
4. A “potentially significant impact” response indicates that further analysis is required to determine the
extent of the potential impact and identify any appropriate mitigation. If any topics are indicated with
a “potentially significant impact,” these topics would need to be analyzed in an Environmental Impact
Report.
Note that this document does not indicate that any environmental topics would be considered to be
“potentially significant” after application of mitigation measures identified in this document and as agreed
to by the Project applicant.
Page 22 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
1. AESTHETICS
Would the project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
W
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
a) Scenic Vistas. The site and surrounding area is predominately developed with industrial uses and is
not a scenic resource or vista. The Project is located on a flat area near the highway with no
substantial views of the Bay from or across the site.
Sign Hill, which contains the prominent concrete “South San Francisco The Industrial City” sign on
the hillside, and San Bruno Mountain are visible from U.S. 101 across the site to the north. Distant
views of the ridge along Skyline Boulevard are visible from U.S. 101 across the site to the
south/southwest.
Figures 4 and 6 show existing views from U.S. 101 toward the site to the north and south and Figures
5 and 7 show visual models of the proposed billboard in these views. Views toward Sign Hill, San
Bruno Mountain and the Skyline Boulevard ridge from U.S. 101 are already partially and
intermittently obscured by existing development, signage and landscaping. As can be inferred from
these figures, the proposed billboard would contribute to temporary obstruction of these views as a
driver progresses toward and past the billboard.
There are no specific policies to protect views of Sign Hill from U.S. 101 and neither Sign Hill, San
Bruno Mountain, nor Skyline Boulevard ridge are designated as scenic vistas or scenic views. The
locations from which views are affected are not places where people would specifically gather in
order to gain a view of these landmarks. Blockage of views toward San Bruno Mountain and Skyline
Boulevard ridge would not be considered a potentially significant environmental impact. However,
Sign Hill is identified as a national historic landmark and regional landmark that is clearly visible to
travelers on nearby freeways, so is considered a scenic resource for purposes of this analysis. 2
The proposed billboard would contribute to blockage of views toward Sign Hill from the point of
view of a vehicle driving north along U.S. 101. This interruption of views would be temporary in that
the billboard would only block views for a short period as the vehicle progresses toward the billboard.
Signs in this area are not uncommon though cumulative blockage of views would be intermittent, as
views toward Sign Hill would be available between signs as a vehicle progresses north.
Figures 8 and 9 additionally show the billboard at a height of only 55’, which is currently being
considered as a modification to the Project. While these are static photos, it is important to consider
the perception of relative size. As a person approaches an object, the object’s perceived size will
2 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 240.
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 23
Figure 4: Existing View from U.S. 101, facing north
Figure 5: Proposed Billboard from U.S. 101, facing north (70’ height)
Page 24 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
This page intentionally left blank
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 25
Figure 6: Existing View from U.S. 101, facing south
Figure 7: Proposed Billboard from U.S. 101, facing south (70’ height)
Page 26 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
This page intentionally left blank
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 27
Figure 8: Reduced Height Billboard from U.S. 101, facing north (55’ height)
Figure 9: Reduced Height Billboard from U.S. 101, facing south (55’height)
Page 28 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
This page intentionally left blank
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 29
increase. This is why a person standing across a football field from you can be covered in your vision
by your own outstretched hand. We perceive something farther away as smaller (and therefore
shorter). In the case of this Project, the nearer object (the billboard) will appear to grow taller relative
to the more distant object (Sign Hill) as it is approached. At a height of 55’, the proposed billboard
would still be tall enough to block views toward Sign Hill from U.S. 101, though the lane position and
distance of the vehicle from the billboard would be different than where the blockage would occur for
a billboard at a 70’ height. Because a lower billboard would be observed as tall enough to block views
when the observer is closer to it than a 70’ billboard, a marginally shorter time would pass during
which views are blocked for the 55’ billboard. Therefore, it can be assumed that this height reduction
would result in a similar, though marginally reduced impact to an already less than significant impact
on Sign Hill views.
The Project also includes amending the Zoning Code to potentially allow up to 3 digital billboards,
including this one, along the western side of U.S. 101 within the city limits through Relocation
Agreements. With Relocation Agreements, billboards could be located as close together as 500 feet
and digital billboards as close as 1,000 feet to each other.
The two additional allowable digital billboards could contribute to intermittent blockage of views
toward Sign Hill. The specific proposals for the other two billboards have not yet been submitted and
would have to undergo appropriate review. However, any proposed billboards would be required to
conform to Caltrans spacing regulations, which would ensure space between signs and therefore only
intermittent blockage of views would result.
Taking both the regulatory and specific locational/scenic context into account, as well as the
temporary and intermittent nature of the obstruction from the point of view of a moving vehicle, the
Project’s impact on scenic vistas, including views of Sign Hill from U.S. 101, would be considered a
less than significant impact.
The City and applicant are considering a reduced height billboard, which would reach a maximum
height of 55’ instead of the proposed 70’. Reducing the height would result in impacts that are similar
to the Project at the proposed height and would not require additional environmental review. A
reduced height billboard would marginally reduce an already less-than-significant impact related to
blockage of views toward Sign Hill.
b) Scenic Highways. U.S. 101 is not a designated or eligible State Scenic Highway corridor in the
vicinity of the Project nor is it identified as a scenic corridor in the South San Francisco General Plan.3
The Project would have no impact on a state scenic highway or scenic resources viewable from such a
highway.
c) Visual Character. The proposed digital billboard site is located along a freeway in the Lindenville
area of South San Francisco, which is characterized by warehousing and distribution and light
industrial uses including storage, automobile repair, manufacturing, and small business parks. The
Project site and surrounding area is anticipated in the General Plan to ultimately transition to Regional
Commercial uses.
The new billboard would be visible primarily to drivers along U.S. 101 as well as adjacent and across-
highway industrial, hotel, and commercial uses. It is expected the billboard would be visible in some
mid- and long-range views from farther commercial and residential areas that are high enough to have
views across the area. The vicinity where the billboard is proposed already supports some highway-
oriented on-site signage, billboards, and roadway signage. The proposed billboard is not inconsistent
with the character of the area in which it is proposed.
3 California Department of Transportation, State Scenic Highway Mapping System,
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm
Page 30 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
Additionally, City staff will review the proposed design as part of the approval process, and design
parameters would be imposed by the City.
Therefore, given the context of the proposed billboard, the impact related to degrading visual
character would be considered less than significant.
The additional two digital billboards, including a maximum of four billboard faces, that could be
allowed under the Zoning Code amendment would be constrained to the western side of U.S. 101
adjacent to the freeway and between Sister Cities Boulevard and the southern boundary of the City.
There are numerous commercial or industrial areas in which they could be located, particularly
considering relocation or removal of existing billboards. There is no current proposal for the
additional billboards, so the specific locations cannot be analyzed. If/when additional digital
billboards are proposed, the City would perform the appropriate review. The Zoning Code amendment
that could allow two additional digital billboards would not change this impact conclusion.
It is also important to note that under the proposed Zoning Amendment, a digital billboard would only
be allowed pursuant to a Relocation Agreement, which would result in the removal of one or more
other billboards within the City for each proposed digital billboard. This could result in a net
reduction in the total number of billboards within the City.
d) Light and Glare. Digital billboards rely on LED technology to display messages on a lit screen. The
lighting is designed to make the message displays visible to passing motorists.
The brightness of the LED display on the billboard face is subject to adjustment based on ambient
conditions monitored by multiple light sensors. The display, for example, is brighter in the daytime
than in darkness, and responds to changes in the ambient light conditions. Restrictions on digital
billboards, imposed and enforced by Caltrans, preclude lighting that would be directed at motorists
that is so directed or intense that it could blind or confuse drivers, or create conditions that make
recognition of the roadway or official signage difficult.
Caltrans has imposed these restrictions for traffic safety reasons, and they are discussed in more detail
in the Transportation section. The resulting controls, however, effectively regulate light and glare to
ensure that the operation of any digital billboard does not create a substantial new source of light or
glare.
The billboards would also comply with guidelines of the Outdoor Advertising Association of America
(OAAA). These guidelines specify that lighting levels from a digital billboard will not exceed 0.3
footcandles over ambient levels, as measured using a footcandle meter at a pre-set distance based on
the size of the billboard face. For the 14’ by 48’ billboards, this would be 250 feet.4 It is anticipated
that the illuminance would be negligible beyond 500 feet.5
The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Lighting Handbook 10th Edition
recommendations are in units of “nits,” which are appropriate when light is being bounced off a
surface, as is the case with a conventional billboard, but is not the case with an LED billboard. With
assumptions about content, “nits” and footcandles can be converted for comparison of LED
illuminance to conventional billboard luminance. Conversion of nits using conservative assumptions
(80% reflectance) and IESNA Handbook recommendations for bright surrounds results in
recommendations of 0.256 footcandles at 250 feet. This is similar to digital billboard-specific
recommendations of 0.3 footcandles. 6
4 According to OAAA Methodology to Determine Billboard Luminance Levels, provided by Clear Channel.
5 OAAA prepared by Light Sciences Inc., November 29, 2006, Comparison of Digital and Conventional Billboards.
6 OAAA prepared by Light Sciences Inc., November 29, 2006, Comparison of Digital and Conventional Billboards.
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 31
The value of 0.3 footcandles is utilized here because, while relatively low, it is practical to measure
with a handheld photometer and therefore to verify following installation and during operation. This
0.3 footcandle level would be perceptible, but at the low end, to the human eye, over ambient light on
a surface. It would be equivalent to average residential street illumination provided by low wattage
street lights (i.e., similar to ambient conditions in the vicinity).
Mitigation Measure
Visual-1: Billboard Brightness Field Testing. The Applicant shall demonstrate through field
testing compliance with a 0.3 footcandle increase over ambient light at 250 feet
during nighttime conditions upon initial start-up, at 6 months of operation and at the
request of the City for the life of the billboard. The Applicant shall fund field testing
by an independent contractor or City staff trained in the use of a handheld photometer
to demonstrate continued compliance. The City shall consider citizen complaints
consisting of direct personal impacts as cause for requesting field testing.
If increases in ambient light are found to be above the 0.3 footcandle level, the
dimming level shall be adjusted until this level can be demonstrated. This must be
completed and demonstrated through follow-up field testing within 24 hours or the
billboard shall not be operated until the lighting levels can be brought into
compliance.
If no above-threshold levels have been measured in the prior three tests, field testing
shall be requested no more often than twice yearly. Otherwise, field tests can be
requested up to once monthly.
There are no residences within 500 feet of the proposed billboard, at which point the increases in
illuminance would be negligible. Hotel uses are located between 250 and 500 feet from the billboard,
where illuminance increases from the billboard would be barely perceptible and consistent with the
existing urban conditions. With implementation of Mitigation Measure Visual-1, light levels from the
proposed billboard will be assured to remain at these low levels and potential impacts related to light
and glare would be less than significant.
The additional two digital billboards that could be allowed under the Zoning Code amendment
through Relocation Agreements could be as close as 500 feet to the currently proposed billboard. As
noted above, the increase in illuminance is negligible at 500 feet and barely perceptible at 250 feet.
The potential for multiple digital billboards in the future, as allowed under the Zoning Code
amendment, would not substantially contribute to cumulative light and glare impacts and would not
change the impact conclusion. The specific locations of the other two billboards are not yet proposed.
Billboard-specific light and glare impacts of these future billboards would need to be assessed in
respect to any light-sensitive uses in their vicinity.
Page 32 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In
determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory
of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest
Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in
Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production(as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
a-e) Agriculture and Forestry Resources. The Project site is located in a developed urban area adjacent to
a highway. No part of the site is zoned for or currently being used for agricultural or forestry purposes
or are subject to the Williamson Act. There would be no impact to agriculture and forestry resources
as a result of this Project.
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 33
3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
a) Air Quality Plan. The Project site is subject to the Bay Area Clean Air Plan, first adopted by the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) (in association with the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments) in 1991 to meet state
requirements and those of the Federal Clean Air Act. As required by state law, updates are developed
approximately every three years. The plan is meant to demonstrate progress toward meeting the ozone
standards, but also includes other elements related to particulate matter, toxic air contaminants, and
greenhouse gases. The latest update to the plan, which was adopted in September 2010, is called the
Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan.
A project would be judged to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality plan
if it would be inconsistent with regional growth assumptions or implementation of control strategies.
The Project would have no effect on growth of population or vehicle travel and the Clean Air Plan
does not recommend measures directly applicable to this type of use. The Project, therefore, would be
generally consistent with the Clean Air Plan and have a less than significant impact in this regard.
b-c) Air Quality Standards/Criteria Pollutants. Ambient air quality standards have been established by
state and federal environmental agencies for specific air pollutants most pervasive in urban
environments. These pollutants are referred to as criteria air pollutants because the standards
established for them were developed to meet specific health and welfare criteria set forth in the
enabling legislation and include ozone (O3) precursors (NOx and ROG), carbon monoxide (CO), and
suspended particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The Bay Area is considered “attainment” for all of the
national standards, with the exception of ozone. It is considered “nonattainment” for State standards
for ozone and particulate matter.
Past, present and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on
a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project
is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a
project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality
impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact
on air quality would be considered significant.7
7 BAAQMD, May 2011, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, p. 2-1.
Page 34 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
BAAQMD’s updated CEQA Guidelines including thresholds of significance were adopted on June 2,
2010. On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that
BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted its 2010 Thresholds. The court did not
determine whether the Thresholds were valid on the merits, but found that the adoption of the
Thresholds was a project under CEQA. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering BAAQMD to set
aside the Thresholds and cease dissemination of them until BAAQMD had complied with CEQA.
The 2010 Thresholds are more conservative than the previous 1999 version and have been used in
this analysis for a conservative determination of impact significance. Current thresholds of
significance for Criteria Air Pollutants are set by BAAQMD as summarized below:
BAAQMD CRITERIA POLLUTANT THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Pollutant Construction-Related Operational-Related
Average Daily Emissions
(lbs./day)
Average Daily Emissions
(lbs./day)
Maximum Annual
Emissions (tpy)
ROG 54 54 10
NOX 54 54 10
PM10 82 (exhaust only) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (exhaust only) 54 10
PM10/PM2.5
(fugitive dust)
Best Management
Practices
None
Source: BAAQMD Adopted Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance - June 2, 2010
Project-related air quality impacts fall into two categories: short-term impacts that would occur during
construction of the Project and long-term impacts due to Project operation.
Construction Emissions
BAAQMD presents screening criteria in their CEQA Guidelines that identify project sizes by type
that could have the potential to result in emissions over criteria levels. For example, this table
includes a construction-period criteria pollutant screening level of 114 single family dwelling units or
277,000 square feet of retail uses.8 While construction of billboards is not specifically listed on this
screening table, it can be reasonably concluded from a comparison to the entries on this table that the
minimal construction activities required for this Project, including only a few days of activity, would
be well below threshold levels.
However, BAAQMD recommends implementation of construction mitigation measures to reduce
construction-related emissions and fugitive dust for all projects, regardless of the significance level of
construction-period impacts. These basic measures are included in Mitigation Measure Air-1, below
and would further reduce construction-period criteria pollutant impacts.
Mitigation Measure
Air-1: Basic Construction Management Practices. The Project shall demonstrate
proposed compliance with all applicable regulations and operating procedures prior
to issuance of demolition, building or grading permits, including implementation of
the following BAAQMD “Basic Construction Mitigation Measures”.
i) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas,
and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
ii) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
8 BAAQMD, May 2011, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, pp. 3-2 to 3-3.
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 35
iii) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed
using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry
power sweeping is prohibited.
iv) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
v) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon
as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
vi) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use
or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at
all access points.
vii) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance
with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified
mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
viii) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at
the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Operational Emissions
Similar to the analysis for construction-period impacts above, the Project was compared to BAAQMD
screening criteria for operational pollutants. As it relates to operational pollutants, this table includes
screening levels of 325 single family dwelling units or 99,000 square feet of regional shopping center
uses.9 These example uses would utilize over 1,000,000 kilowatt-hours per year.10
In 2010 (the most recent data available), Clear Channel billboards average annual usage for double-
sided digital billboards of the same size as that proposed was 86,400 kilowatt-hours (kwh), or less
than one tenth the emissions of a project that would be expected to have emissions above threshold
levels.
While operation of digital billboards is not specifically listed on this screening table, it can be
reasonably concluded from a comparison to the BAAQMD screening table that operational emissions
resulting from this Project would be well below threshold levels.
Additionally, BAAQMD presents as screening criteria for carbon monoxide impacts traffic-based
criteria. As operation of the proposed Project would not impact traffic levels, the Project would be
below carbon monoxide threshold levels.
Therefore, the Project impact related to operational pollutant emissions would be less than
significant.
d) Sensitive Receptors
For the purpose of assessing impacts of a proposed Project on exposure of sensitive receptors to risks
and hazards, the threshold of significance is exceeded when the project-specific cancer risk exceeds
10 in one million or the non-cancer risk exceeds a Hazard Index of 1.0. Examples of sensitive
9 BAAQMD, May 2011, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, pp. 3-2 to 3-3.
10 Calculated using energy utilization rates from BAAQMD’s Greenhouse Gas Model (BGM).
Page 36 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
receptors are places where people live, play or convalesce and include schools, hospitals, residential
areas and recreation facilities.
The Project itself is not considered a sensitive receptor and operation of the Project would not be
considered a source of hazardous emissions. However, construction activity that uses traditional
diesel-powered equipment results in the emission of diesel particulate matter, which is considered a
toxic air contaminant and potential health risk. The generation of these emissions would be
temporary, confined to the construction-period of a few active days at each site.
BAAQMD provides a document titled Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation during
Construction to estimate the potential for significant air quality health risk impacts associated with
construction activity based on general project characteristics, such as type and size, utilizing worst-
case and conservative assumptions. The table is not intended to be used for projects substantially
different from the described residential, commercial and industrial projects.11 Therefore, the table
cannot be used directly for this Project. However, a brief comparison of the BAAQMD Screening
Table to Project characteristics is used to analyze the health risk impacts. The smallest projects
identified in the Screening Table include construction of a 5 unit residential project on 1.7 acres and
construction of a 5,000 square foot commercial project on 0.2 acres. The screening table reports that
under worst-case conditions, there is the potential for significant health risk if a sensitive receptor is
located within 95 or 100 meters (up to 328 feet) of such a construction site.
The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project site is over 2,300 feet away. Additionally, BAAQMD
Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation use a two-year construction period for screening
purposes, the shortest period they recommend with the health risk modeling. While it is inappropriate
to use this table to quantify an approximate risk for such a different project than those listed, it is
reasonable to conclude that emissions and the resultant health risks from an exposure period of only a
few days would be substantially less than emissions over a 2 year period. The health risk models and
methods are not considered accurate for such short durations as the construction-period of this
Project.
Given the distance to sensitive uses and that the exposure duration would be shorter than that able to
be accurately modeled as well as substantially shorter than projects in BAAQMD’s Screening Table,
it can reasonably be assumed that the potential health risk from construction-period emissions would
be less than significant.
Additionally, as recommended by the BAAQMD, standard construction Best Management Practices
would be implemented to reduce emissions as outlined in mitigation measure Air-1. This would
further reduce diesel and particulate matter emissions.
e) Objectionable Odors. Operation of the billboard would not result in objectionable odors. During
construction, diesel-powered vehicles and equipment would create odors that some may find
objectionable. However, these odors would be temporary and not likely to be noticeable much beyond
the Project site’s boundaries. Therefore, the potential for objectionable odor impacts is considered
less than significant.
11 BAAQMD, May 2010, Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During Construction, Version 1.0.
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 37
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
W
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish
and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
a-c) Special Status Species and Habitat and Wetlands. A biological assessment was conducted by H.T.
Harvey and associates, as included in full as Attachment A. This included both daytime and evening
site visits on August 27, 2012 and another daytime visit on August 31, 2012.
The Project site is located on the perimeter of a large commercial parking lot. The project site is
paved and completely devoid of vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the proposed billboard.
A chain-link fence separates the Project site from an approximately 45-ft wide strip of ruderal (i.e.,
disturbance-associated) vegetation that occupies the area between the Project site and U.S. 101 to the
east. Dominant species present in the adjacent ruderal habitat include cypress (Cupressus sp.), toyon
(Heteromeles arbutifolia), and non-native French broom (Cytisus monspessulanus). The ruderal
habitat immediately east of the Project site (approximately 26 ft east of the proposed billboard pole)
also supports a wetland with a dense stand of horsetail (Equisetum sp.). This wetland appears to be
supported by runoff from the adjacent parking lot, and meets the physical criteria and regulatory
definition of “waters of the United States”.
Direct Effects of Billboard Installation
Due to the highly disturbed nature of the Project site and the immediately surrounding vicinity, it is
extremely unlikely that any special-status species would occur in the Project area. The vast majority
of plant and animal species occurring here are very common species associated with urban,
developed, and ruderal conditions throughout the San Francisco Bay area. There was no evidence that
Page 38 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
sensitive species were present on the Project site and no habitat capable of supporting sensitive
species is present within or immediately adjacent to the site.
No wetlands, riparian habitats, or other sensitive habitats are present within the immediate Project
site. Thus, since construction does not extend into the horsetail-lined wetland to the east, no sensitive
habitats would be impacted by the construction of the billboard. Further, no special-status plant or
wildlife species are expected to occur within the Project area. The only wildlife species that may be
using habitats in the immediate vicinity of the Project site during construction are common birds such
as the house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), American robin (Turdus migratorius), and northern
mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). These species are locally and regionally abundant, and Project
effects on these species will not be significant under the CEQA.
The impact related to direct effects on special-status species and habitats would be less than
significant.
Indirect Effects of Illuminance on Off-Site Areas
The potential for impacts related to illuminance of the billboard on wildlife in off-site areas was
assessed. Some animals are extremely sensitive to light queues, which influence their physiology and
shape their behaviors, particularly during breeding season. Artificial lighting may indirectly impact
mammals and birds by increasing the nocturnal activity of predators and/or causing avoidance of
well-lit areas resulting in a net loss of habitat availability and quality.
The Project site is completely surrounded by urban habitats that do not support sensitive species that
might be significantly impacted by illuminance from the proposed LED billboard. Similarly, the small
wetland immediately adjacent to the Project site is not expected to support sensitive species. The San
Francisco Bay to the east provides suitable habitat for a variety of wildlife, including the federally and
state listed California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus), and the federally listed mission blue
butterfly (Aricia icarioides missionensis) has been observed at Sign Hill Park to the north of the
Project site. However, these habitats are located too far from the Project site to be affected by
illuminance from the proposed LED billboard. Similarly, Colma Creek to the north of the Project site
and the unnamed channel to the south are located too far from the Project site to be affected by
illuminance from the proposed billboard. The indirect impact of illuminance from the billboard on
sensitive habitats and species is less than significant.
d) Wildlife Corridors. The physical structure of the billboard itself would not impact the movement of
any wildlife species. However, avian flight behavior could be impacted by artificial illuminance. The
primary way in which the luminance of an LED billboard might impact the movements of birds in the
Project area is through the disorientation of nocturnally migrating birds. Such birds may alter their
orientation upon sighting the light and become drawn toward the billboard, potentially striking
objects such as buildings, adjacent power lines, or even the billboard itself.
The visibility of the proposed LED billboard to birds in flight, and thus the risk they pose to flying
birds, depends primarily on the beam angle of the billboards relative to the flightlines of birds and on
the luminance (brightness) of the billboards as perceived by the birds. The directional nature of LED
lighting and the projected viewing angle values of ± 30° vertically and ± 60° horizontally suggest that
the viewing angle of the billboards will be narrow enough to preclude attracting migrating birds on
clear nights, when they fly high enough to be outside the viewing angle of the billboard. Shaders
located above each row of lights will prevent light from projecting upward into the sky. As a result,
birds flying more than 30° above the center of the billboard’s beam angle will not be affected by light
from the billboard. However, migrating birds are forced to fly low during foggy and rainy conditions,
which may bring them into the viewing angle of the billboard.
The LED display on the billboard face can be changed every 8 seconds from a static image to a static
image, resulting in a changing light source. Colors and patterns of color on the billboard would thus
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 39
be changing, and birds flying near the billboard would not perceive it as a fixed, unchanging light, the
type of light that appears to be most attractive to birds.
It is possible that some birds that find themselves near the center of the beam angle may be attracted
to the billboard. However, this is not expected to result in long-term consequences, such as increased
bird-strike mortalities or substantial interference with bird movements because the billboard will be
focused on the highway, not on airspace above the highway. Thus, a relatively limited area at low
altitude above U.S. 101 will be within the center of the billboard’s beam angle.
Because the area surrounding the billboard is heavily urbanized and contains no habitats of value to
estuarine birds using the San Francisco Bay habitats to the east, we do not expect large numbers of
birds (especially species of conservation concern) to be flying in a north-south direction, and at low
altitudes that would be within the beam, close enough to the billboard for disorientation to occur at
all. Therefore, it is not expected that birds moving through or around the Project area to be attracted
to the billboard for such a long duration that bird-strike mortality occurs or substantial interference
with bird movements occurs.
Given the configuration of bird habitats in the vicinity of the site (which does not lend itself to
directed bird flights toward the billboard), the changing images that will be displayed on the LED
billboard, the narrow viewing angle, and the use of shaders to prevent light from projecting upward
into the sky, the Project’s impacts on avian flight behavior would be less than significant.
d) Local Policies and Ordinances. There are no local policies or ordinances directly applicable to this
Project. The landscaping on the adjacent Caltrans setback is maintained by Caltrans with billboard
visibility taken into consideration and would continue to operate that way. No tree removal is
proposed with this Project. Therefore, the Project would have no impact regarding conflicts with
local policies and ordinances, including tree preservation.
e) Habitat Conservation Plan. There is no Habitat Conservation Plan applicable to the Project site.
Therefore, the Project would have no impact in this regard.
Page 40 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
W
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
as defined in Public Resources Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Public Resources Section 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
a–d) Historic, Archaeological and Paleontological Resources and Human Remains. The Project site is
previously disturbed and there are no known resources at the site. A records search performed by the
Northwest Information Center (included as Attachment D) resulted in the following considerations:
Based on an evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with known sites, Native
American resources in this part of San Mateo County have been found in close proximity to sources
of water (including perennial and intermittent streams and springs), near the bay margin and its
associated wetlands, and near ecotones and other productive environments. The proposed Project area
is located within the lower reaches of the Colma Creek basin. Based on 19th century maps, the
Project area was dominated by estuaries that have since been covered in artificial fill. Given the
correlation of these environmental factors, coupled with the regional archaeological sensitivity, there
is a moderate potential of unrecorded Native American resources (especially buried deposits with no
surface indications) within the proposed Project area. If present, these would be located below any
artificial fill at the surface, but potentially within the 35 foot depth of the proposed disturbance. There
is a low potential of identifying other types of unrecorded cultural resources.
Mitigation Measure
Cultural-1: Cultural Monitoring and Mitigation Plan. The Project applicant shall fund preparation and
implementation of a cultural monitoring and mitigation plan by a qualified archaeologist to
address the potential for presence and disturbance of Native American archaeological
resources or remains during excavation of the billboard pole footing. This will include at a
minimum monitoring during excavation of the billboard pole footing and may also include
but is not limited to additional archival research, hand auger sampling, shovel test units,
geoarchaeological analysis, or other common methods used to identify the presence of
archaeological resources to be determined per the recommendation of the qualified
archaeologist. The archaeologist and construction contractors shall follow the appropriate
procedures should any cultural resources or human remains be discovered during ground
disturbance.
Preparation and implementation of a cultural monitoring and mitigation plan would assure that
discovery of any cultural resources would be identified and treated appropriately and therefore that
any impact in this regard would be less than significant.
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 41
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
W
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
a, d) Seismic Hazards. The San Francisco Bay Area is a seismically active region and the structure is
likely to encounter strong seismic ground shaking during its lifetime. Additionally, the Project
location is in the lowland zone of South San Francisco, which can be underlain by Bay Mud and
associated with shrink-swell, settlement, corrosivity and liquefaction.12 The billboard requires
building permits and would be constructed to the current building code standards. These standards
include consideration of geologic and seismic conditions. Soil conditions at the billboard site would
be identified and considered as part of the design process.
There are no active earthquake faults known to pass through the vicinity of the Project.13 There would
be no impact related to rupture of a known earthquake fault.
The Project site is in an area of relatively flat topography and the possibility of landslides is
considered unlikely.14 There would be no impact related to landslides.
Therefore, the impact related to seismic hazards would be less than significant.
12 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, pp. 246 to 250.
13 State of California Department of Conservation, State of California Special Studies Zones (Delineated in compliance with
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act), San Francisco South, January 1, 1982.
14 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p.250.
Page 42 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
b) Soil Erosion. The Project would not involve significant grading. The Project applicant must obtain
coverage under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (General Construction Permit)
issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which will address any erosion
potential from ground disturbance. With compliance with applicable regulations, the impact related to
soil erosion would be less than significant.
c, d) Unstable or Expansive Soil. Construction of the Project may require temporary groundwater
pumping as groundwater may be encountered during the drilling of the foundation hole. The hole
would be drilled and the following day, the pole structure would be installed and concrete poured to
fill the hole. As a result continuous groundwater pumping would not be required or cause subsidence
to occur. There are no other known conditions that could create substantial risks related to expansive
or unstable soils. The impact related to unstable and expansive soil would be less than significant.
e) Septic Tanks. The Project would not include the use of septic tanks and associated disposal facilities.
Therefore, the Project would have no impact in this regard.
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 43
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
W
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions. BAAQMD has determined that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and
global climate change represent cumulative impacts. BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold
of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. The operational threshold of 1,100 metric
tons carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year was used for both construction-period and operational
period for a conservative analysis.
BAAQMD’s GHG Emissions Model includes a GHG emission factor of 804.54 lbs of CO2 per
megawatt-hour of electricity usage. (Other GHGs would have a negligible contribution to overall
GHG levels from energy usage, so were not calculated here.) In 2010, Clear Channel billboards’
average annual usage for double-sided LED billboards of the same size as the current proposal was
86,400 kwh. This results in emissions of 31.53 metric tons CO2 per year for a 14’ by 48’ LED
billboard. This is well below the threshold level of 1,100 metric tons.
BAAQMD does not suggest a threshold for assessment of construction-period GHG emissions
impacts or provide a screening level at which to compare projects. However, with a construction
period of only a few days, construction-period GHG emissions would be minimal and would add a
negligible amount to the lifetime operational GHG emissions discussed above.
Therefore, the Project impact related to GHG emissions would be less than significant.
b) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans. The Project is not located in a community with an adopted
qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, so consistency with such a plan cannot be analyzed. GHG
emissions associated with the development of the proposed Project were analyzed per the BAAQMD
May 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. BAAQMD’s thresholds and methodologies take into
account implementation of state-wide regulations and plans, such as the AB 32 Scoping Plan and
adopted state regulations such as Pavley and the low carbon fuel standard. Therefore, there would be
no impact in relation to consistency with GHG reduction plans.
Page 44 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
W
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
a, b, d) Hazardous Materials. Digital billboards are designed to withstand wind forces as required by state
law, and are subject to building permit requirements that ensure compliance with applicable building
and electrical codes. Soil conditions are identified and considered in the design of such structures. No
hazardous materials are emitted during operation of the billboard.
Project operations are not expected to create a significant hazard through the routine transport, use or
disposal of hazardous materials. It is assumed that any materials used during construction activities or
for maintenance of the billboard that would be considered hazardous would be utilized in compliance
with applicable regulations. It is also noted that state and federal laws require proper handling, use
and disposal of hazardous materials. These same laws and regulations require the prevention and
reduction of injury to people and the environment in the event of an accidental release. Consequently,
there are no reasonably foreseeable operational upset or accidental conditions that would involve a
significant release of hazardous materials into the environment.
During the installation process of the billboard, holes would be drilled and the excavated soil would
be transported offsite. The Project will also include trenching to connect to electrical supply. Prior to
construction activities, the site will be assessed for the presence of hazardous materials, which, if
present, would be handled appropriately, as per the following mitigation:
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 45
Mitigation Measures
Haz-1: Phase I and/or Phase II Reports. Prior to issuance of construction permits, the City
of South San Francisco shall require the Project applicant to submit a Phase I
environmental site assessment report, and a Phase II report if warranted by the Phase
I report for the Project site. The reports shall make recommendations for remedial
action in accordance with State and Federal laws, if appropriate, and should be signed
by a Registered Environmental Assessor, Professional Geologist, or Professional
Engineer. The Applicant shall comply with these recommendations.
Haz-2: E-Waste Disposal. Electronic components of the billboard may contain materials
considered “e-waste” when disposed of due to potentially hazardous metals, flame
retardants, and other chemicals. The operator shall be required to follow applicable
regulations regarding proper disposal and/or recycling, as appropriate, as components
are replaced or removed over time.
With implementation of Mitigation Measures Haz-1 and Haz-2, the impact relating to the possible
presence of hazardous materials at this site would be less than significant.
c) Hazardous Materials Near Schools. No school is located within one-quarter mile of the Project site.
No hazardous materials with the potential for release during operation would be handled on or
emitted from the site. The Project would represent no impact relative to the potential exposure of
students at nearby schools to hazardous materials at the Project site.
e, f) Airport Hazards. The closest airport is the San Francisco Airport located approximately 1 mile
southeast from the Project site. This is within the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Plan for the
San Francisco International Airport, though the site is not directly within the approach pathway.
Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, limits structure heights to an elevation of 161 feet above mean
sea level in the most restricted areas, increasing at a slope of 20:1 to a height of 361 feet above mean
sea level.15 The proposed billboard would rise a maximum of 70 feet above a site approximately 11
feet above mean sea level. The billboard height would be below applicable height restrictions.
Additionally, the billboard would not be considered a hazard to air navigation as it would not generate
smoke or rising columns of air, would not attract large concentrations of birds, would not generate
electrical interference that would interfere with aircraft communications or aircraft instrumentation,
would not reflect sunlight, and would not direct steady or flashing lights toward aircraft. 16
There are no other airports, either public or private, within the vicinity of the Project. There would be
a less than significant impact related to airport hazards.
g) Emergency Response Plan. The Project would not alter traffic patterns and would not impair
implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore,
the Project would have no impact in this regard.
h) Wildland Fire. The Project site is located in an urbanized area removed from areas typically subject to
wildland fire. Therefore, the Project would have no impact related to wildland fire.
15 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, December 1996, San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport
Land Use Plan, Map SFO-4.
16 Ibid, p.V.-19.
Page 46 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
W
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) Result in a significant increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters
(marine, fresh, and/or wetlands) during or following construction
(considering water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved
oxygen, turbidity, and typical stormwater pollutants, e.g., heavy metals,
pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients,
oxygen-demanding substances, and trash?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the produc-
tion rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff (e.g., due to due
to increased impervious surfaces) in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site (i.e. within a watershed)?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems due to changes in runoff
flow rates or volumes?
f) Result in an increase in any pollutant for which a water body is listed as
impaired under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
a, f) Water Quality and Pollutants. Operation of the Project does not involve the use of water or
generation of waste water. Construction activities, such as drilling a hole for the foundation and
pouring concrete, have the potential to impact water quality. These activities have the potential to
increase sediment loads in runoff that would enter the combined sewer system. Fuel, oil, grease,
solvents, and other chemicals used in construction activities have the potential to create toxicity
problems if allowed to enter a waterway. Construction activities are also a source of various other
materials including trash, soap, and sanitary wastes.
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 47
Construction activities at the Project site would be limited to a few days for installation. Potential
impacts would be minimal, and compliance with City and State regulations would reduce any
potential impacts to surface water and drainage to a less than significant level.
b) The proposed Project is not expected to involve substantial excavation that would impact
groundwater. The Project involves drilling holes approximately 5 feet in diameter with a depth of
approximately 32 feet, which could result in groundwater being encountered. In the event that
groundwater is encountered and dewatering activities are required, it would be short-term as each site
installation is expected to take only a few days to complete and the hole would be filled with concrete
resulting in minimal effects to groundwater. Any dewatering activities associated with the proposed
Project must comply with the General Construction Permit and requirements established by the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board to ensure that such activities would not result in
substantial changes in groundwater flow or quality.
Following construction, the Project would not substantially change impervious surface area and
would not have a substantial impact on groundwater recharge.
Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on groundwater.
c-e, g-i) Runoff, Drainage and Flooding. The Project would not require service for water. Existing
drainage at each site would be maintained, and no increases in stormwater would result. The Project
is not located in a 100 year flood zone17 and does not consist of housing or present a risk for flooding
or redirection of flood flows. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to runoff, drainage or
flooding.
j) Inundation. The proposed Project is located over 4,000 feet from the San Francisco Bay, and over 6
miles from the Pacific Ocean. Project site elevations are between 10 and 11 feet above mean sea
level. Wave run up from a tsunami is estimated at 6 feet above mean sea level for a 500-year
tsunami.18 Climate change induced sea level rise is estimated at up to 17 inches by 2050 and 69
inches by 2100.19 Therefore, the site is not in danger of inundation from a tsunami or climate change
induced sea level rise. Further, the site is not located near an inland body of water, nor is it located
adjacent to a soil slope susceptible to rapid mass wasting or mudflows. Therefore, there would be a
less than significant impact due to inundation by seiche, tsunami, mudflow or sea level rise.
17 City of South San Francisco prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, October 199, South San Francisco General Plan, Figure 8-3.
18 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Health and Safety Element,
1999, p. 250.
19 Bay Conservation and Development Commission, adopted Oct 6, 2011, San Francisco Bay Plan.
Page 48 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
W
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
a) Physical Division of a Community. The Project site is at the boundary of currently developed parcels
and highways. The billboard would not involve any physical changes that would have the potential to
divide the established community. Thus, the Project would have no impact concerning community
division.
b) Conflict with Land Use Plan. Digital billboards are not currently allowed under South San Francisco
Zoning Code. Amendment of the Zoning Code as proposed with this Project could allow a limited
number of digital billboards (up to three total) if approved in conjunction with Relocation
Agreements. The Project will comply with Outdoor Advertising Association of America guidelines to
minimize light (see the Aesthetics section for additional detail) and applicable highway safety
regulations (see the Transportation section for additional detail) to minimize hazards. Therefore,
assuming approval of the Zoning Code amendments, the Project would have a less than significant
impact with regard to land use plan conflicts.
c) Conflict with Conservation Plan. The Project site is not subject to a conservation plan. It is
surrounded by urban development and has been designated for such land use for a considerable period
of time. The Project would, therefore, have no impact in relation to this item.
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 49
11. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
W
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
a, b) Mineral Resources. The site contains no known mineral resources and has not been delineated as a
locally important mineral recovery site on any land use plan.20 The Project would have no impact with
regard to mineral resources.
20 U.S. Geological Survey, 2005, Mineral Resources Data System: U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Available through:
http://tin.er.usgs.gov/mrds/
Page 50 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
12. NOISE
Would the project result in:
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
L
e
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
W
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
L
e
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, exposure of people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
a-d) Excessive Noise or Vibration. Noise impacts resulting from construction depend on the noise
generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise generating
activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise sensitive receptors.
Construction noise impacts primarily occur when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive
times of the day (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas
immediately adjoining noise sensitive land uses, or when construction durations last over extended
periods of time (typically greater than one year).
Significant noise impacts do not normally occur when standard construction noise control measures
are enforced at the Project site and when the duration of the noise generating construction period at a
particular receiver or group of receivers is limited to one construction season or less. In this case, the
construction period would span only a few days. Reasonable regulation of the hours of construction,
as well as regulation of the arrival and operation of heavy equipment and the delivery of construction
material, are necessary to protect the health and safety of persons, promote the general welfare of the
community, and maintain the quality of life.
The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal Code, Section 8.32.050)
restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also limits
noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the property line.
Construction activities will comply with the Noise Ordinance.
Operation of a digital billboard does not produce substantial levels of vibration or noise.
Impacts from noise and vibration generated by the construction and operation of the billboard are less
than significant.
e-f) Airport Noise. A billboard is not a noise sensitive use. Therefore, the Project would result in no
impact under this criterion.
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 51
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
W
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) 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)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
a-c) Substantial Population Growth. The proposed Project would not induce population growth and would
displace neither existing housing nor people. Therefore, there would be no impact in this regard.
Page 52 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following
public services? Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
W
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) Fire protection.
b) Police protection.
c) Schools.
d) Parks.
e) Other public facilities.
a-e) Public Services. The proposed Project would not increase the demand for public services. Therefore,
there would be no impact in this regard.
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 53
15. RECREATION
Would the project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
W
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated.
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment.
a-b) Recreation. The proposed Project would not construct or increase the use of recreational facilities.
Therefore, there would be no impact in this regard.
Page 54 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
16. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
W
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures
of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into
account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-
motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but
not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or
other standards established by the county congestion management agency
for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?
a-c, f) Vehicle and Air Traffic and Alternative Transportation. The operation of digital billboards would
not result in any increase in vehicle trips or changes in air traffic patterns or alternative transportation.
Traffic generated for construction would be minimal in both level and duration. There would be no
impact in this regard.
d) Hazards. The Project proposes to construct and operate one double-sided digital billboard and amend
the Zoning Code to also allow up to two additional digital billboards along U.S. 101 within the City
limits, if approved in conjunction with Relocation Agreements. The billboards would be visible from
the roadway.
Digital billboards employ LED technology and allow for periodic changes in display. The capability
of digital billboards to present changing images has raised concerns regarding the effect of such
signage on traffic safety. The primary concern has been effects on driver attention, but concerns have
also been raised regarding the potential for such signage to produce light of such intensity or direction
that it could interfere with driver vision.
FHWA has addressed signage issues in general, and digital signs in particular. As part of its
agreement with various states pursuant to the Highway Beautification Act, for example, FHWA has
confirmed that no sign is allowed that imitates or resembles any official traffic sign, and that signs
may not be installed in such a manner as to obstruct, or otherwise physically interfere with an official
traffic sign, signal, or device, or to obstruct or physically interfere with the vision of drivers in
approaching, merging or intersecting traffic. These provisions may be enforced by the FHWA, but the
agreement with the State of California also requires Caltrans to enforce these provisions.
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 55
The FHWA agreement with California includes specific provisions regarding the brightness of
signage:
Signs shall not be placed with illumination that interferes with the effectiveness of, or obscures any
official traffic sign, device or signal; shall not include or be illuminated by flashing, intermittent or
moving lights (except that part necessary to give public service information such as time, date,
temperature, weather or similar information); shall not cause beams or rays of light to be directed at
the traveled way if such light is of such intensity or brilliance as to cause glare or impair the vision of
any driver, or to interfere with any driver’s operation of a motor vehicle. (Agreement dated February
15, 1968)
The FHWA has responded to the development of signs that present changing messages, either
mechanically or digitally, with an interpretation of its agreements with the states pursuant to the
Highway Beautification Act. The FHWA discussed “changeable message signs” in a Memorandum
dated July 17, 1996, concluding that a state could reasonably interpret the provisions of its agreement
with the FHWA “…to allow changeable message signs… The frequency of message change and
limitation in spacing for these signs should be determined by the State.”
On September 25, 2007 the FHWA again issued a Memorandum on the subject of off-premises
changeable electronic variable message signs, or CEVMS. The Memorandum stated that proposed
laws, regulations and procedures that allowed CEVMS subject to acceptable criteria would not violate
the prohibition on “intermittent” or “flashing” or “moving” signs as used in the state agreements. The
Memorandum identified “ranges of acceptability” relating to such signage, as follows:
Duration of message: Duration of display is generally between 4 and 10 seconds; 8 seconds is
recommended;
Transition time: Transition between messages is generally between 1 and 4 seconds; 1 to 2
seconds is recommended;
Brightness: The sign brightness should be adjusted to respond to changes in light levels;
Spacing: Spacing between the signs should be not less than the minimum specified for other
billboards, or greater if deemed required for safety;
Locations: Location criteria are the same as for other signage, unless it is determined that specific
locations are inappropriate.
The Project as proposed will comply with these criteria.
The Memorandum also referred to other standards that have been found helpful to ensure driver
safety. These include a default designed to freeze the display in one still position if a malfunction
occurs; a process for modifying displays and lighting levels where directed by Caltrans to assure
safety of the motoring public; and requirements that a display contain static messages without
movement such as animation, flashing, scrolling, intermittent or full-motion video. Manufacturers and
operators of digital billboards currently use a full-black screen in the event of a malfunction.
In addition to the provisions of the Highway Beautification Act (23 U.S.C. §131) and the FHWA
memoranda discussed above, the state of California has adopted the Outdoor Advertising Act
(Business and Professions Code §§5200 et seq.) and regulations implementing its provisions
(California Code of Regulations, Title 4, Division 6, §§2240 et seq.). These include provisions that
deal specifically with “message centers,” which are defined as “…an advertising display where the
message is changed more than once every two minutes, but no more than once every four seconds.”
(§5216.4)
Consistent with the memoranda executed pursuant to the Highway Beautification Act, the Outdoor
Advertising Act provides that message center displays that comply with its requirements are not
considered flashing, intermittent or moving light. (§5405(d)(1)) The requirements provide that such
signs must not display messages that change more than once every four seconds, and that no message
Page 56 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
center may be placed within 1,000 feet of another message center display on the same side of the
highway.
The California Vehicle Code regulates the brightness of billboard lighting. Vehicle Code §21466.5,
which identifies the applicable standard, may be enforced by Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol,
or local authorities. Vehicle Code §21467 provides that each prohibited sign, signal, device or light is
a public nuisance and may be removed without notice by Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol or
local authorities.
Caltrans requires that any person engaged in the outdoor advertising business must obtain a license
from Caltrans and pay the required fee. (§5300) No person may place any advertising display in areas
subject to Caltrans authority without having a written permit from Caltrans. (§5350)
These provisions of law and regulation effectively regulate sign location and brightness to ensure that
digital billboards will not be located in such a manner as to create hazards due to lighting conditions
themselves. Digital billboards are equipped with sensors that modify the brightness of the sign in
response to ambient lighting conditions, thus ensuring that the brightness of the display in evening,
nighttime or dawn conditions does not present a traffic hazard.
As digital billboard technology has developed, the issue has been raised as to whether digital
billboards themselves, regardless of compliance with such operating restrictions, present a distraction
to drivers and thereby create conditions that could lead to accidents. FHWA has monitored the issue
closely, and released its report updating the agency’s view of the issues and research. The report is
entitled: “The Effects of Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs (CEVMS) on Driver
Attention and Distraction: An Update.”21
The FHWA report addressed the basic research question of whether operation of a CEVMS along the
roadway is associated with a reduction of driving safety for the public. The report identified three
fundamental methods for answering this question: (1) whether there is an increase in crash rates in the
vicinity of CEVMS, (2) whether there is an increase in near-crashes, sudden braking, sharp swerving
and other such behaviors in the vicinity of CEVMS, and (3) whether there are excessive eye glances
away from the roadway in the vicinity of CEVMS.
The report discusses existing literature and reports of studies, key factors and measures relating to
CEVMS and effects on traffic, and recommends a study approach. An extensive bibliography is
included in the report. The report does not purport to provide guidance to states on the control of
CEVMS. The report confirmed that there have been no definitive conclusions about the presence or
strength of adverse safety impacts from CEVMS. Similarly, a study performed under the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Project 20-7 (256) entitled “Safety Impacts of the
Emerging Digital Display Technology for Outdoor Advertising Signs” (NCHRP Report) reviewed
existing literature. Both reports agreed that digital billboards should be regulated as a means of
protecting the public interest.
Various restrictions have been identified in reports that relate to the location and operation of digital
billboards that seek to reduce safety concerns. These relate to brightness, message duration and
message change interval, billboard location with regard to official traffic control devices, roadway
geometry, vehicle maneuver requirements at interchanges (i.e., lane drops, merges and diverges), and
with regard to the specific constraints that should be placed on the placement and operation of such
signs. Regulation of operations could include, for example, the time any single message may be
displayed, the time of message transition, brightness of the sign and controls that adjust brightness
21 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, The Effects of Commercial Electronic Variable
Message Signs (CEVMS) on Driver Attention and Distraction: An Update, February 2009, Publication no. FHWA-HRT-09-018.
Available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/realestate/cevms.htm.
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 57
based on the ambient light environment, and design and placement that ensures that the sign does not
confuse drivers, or create dangerous glare.
Restrictions on digital billboards contained within the Outdoor Advertising Act and enforced by
Caltrans regulate many of the conditions that have been identified as relevant to traffic safety.
Caltrans regulates the location and size of each proposed digital billboard through its application
process as well as the distance between such signs. California statutory provisions regulate brightness
of displays. Through state law and the Vehicle Code, such signage would be prohibited from
displaying flashing lights or images.
It should be noted that there are various studies supporting conflicting conclusions regarding the
safety of digital billboards and incidence of driver distraction. This analysis has been performed
utilizing state and federal published studies and adopted regulations as the best information available
at this time.
Significant effects could occur if the proposed digital billboard did not comply with restrictions
regarding location, intensity of light, light trespass, or other restrictions, especially those enforced by
the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) pursuant to its authority under the agreements
between the U.S. Department of Transportation under the Highway Beautification Act, and the
Outdoor Advertising Act. Mitigation Measure Traf-1 would ensure that the City receives accurate
information from the operator regarding compliance on an ongoing basis.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-1: Annual Report. The operator the digital billboard shall submit to the City, within
thirty days following June 30 of each year, a written report regarding operation of
each digital billboard during the preceding period of July 1 to June 30. The operator
may submit a combined report for all such digital billboards operated by such
operator within the City limits. The report shall, when appropriate, identify incidents
or facts that relate to specific digital billboards. The report shall be submitted to the
Director of the Economic and Community Development Department and shall
include information relating to the following:
a. Status of the operator’s license as required by California Business and
Professions Code §§5300 et seq.;
b. Status of the required permit for individual digital billboards, as required by
California Business and Professions Code §§5350 et seq.;
c. Compliance with the California Outdoor Advertising Act, California Business
and Professions Code §§5200 and all regulations adopted pursuant to such Act;
d. Compliance with California Vehicle Code §§21466.5 and 21467;
e. Compliance with provisions of written agreements between the U.S. Department
of Transportation and the California Department of Transportation pursuant to
the federal Highway Beautification Act (23 U.S.C. §131);
f. Compliance with mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration adopted as part of Project approval;
g. Each written or oral complaint received by the operator, or conveyed to the
operator by any government agency or any other person, regarding operation of
each digital billboard included in the report;
h. Each malfunction or failure of each digital billboard included in the report,
which shall include only those malfunctions or failures that are visible to the
naked eye, including reason for the malfunction, duration and confirmation of
repair; and
Page 58 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
i. Operating status of each digital billboard included in the report, including
estimated date of repair and return to normal operation of any digital billboard
identified in the report as not operating in normal mode.
Another area of concern is the potential development of interactive billboards that would be capable
of communicating with vehicles or passengers. The use and development of this technology would
have consequences, and should be identified by the operator prior to any implementation. Mitigation
Measure Traf-2, set forth below, would require notice to the City in the event such features are
proposed. The mitigation measure also confirms prohibitions on visual effects.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-2: Operational Safety. The operation of the digital billboard shall comply with the
following at all times:
a. No special visual effects that include moving or flashing lights shall accompany
any message or the transition between two successive messages
b. The operator shall not install or implement any technology that would allow
interaction with drivers, vehicles or any device located in vehicles, including, but
not limited to a radio frequency identification device, geographic positions
system, or other device without prior approval of the City of South San
Francisco, taking into consideration technical studies and CalTrans or US DOT
policies and guidance available at the time of the request.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures Traf-1 and Traf-2 would ensure ongoing compliance with
traffic safety regulations and control the use of visual effects and driver interaction that could distract
drivers. With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts on transportation and traffic
safety would be less than significant.
e) Inadequate Emergency Access. The proposed digital billboard would be located outside travelled
portions of the roadway and would present no obstacles to emergency access.
The billboard would have the capacity to display official messages regarding emergencies, and could
perform as part of the emergency response system, thus resulting in beneficial impacts. Therefore, the
Project would have no impact with regard to inadequate emergency access.
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 59
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
W
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commit-
ments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
a-g) Utilities. The proposed billboard would require electrical service. Providing such service through
extension of existing electrical service in the vicinity would not result in any significant effects.
The Project would not generate any wastewater or require a supply of potable water. Construction and
operation of the digital billboard would not require other utility services, and would not affect
drainage.
Installation of the proposed billboard would require coordination with various other utility companies
via the Underground Service Alert (USA) to prevent conflicts with subterranean utilities. There
would be no impact on utility services.
Energy: In 2010, Clear Channel billboards’ average annual usage for double-sided digital billboards of
the same size as currently proposed was 86,400 kilowatt-hours (kwh). For a comparison, this equates
to the annual electricity usage of approximately 14.25 single family homes (calculated using
BAAQMD’s GHG Emissions Model rate of 6,047 kwh annual electricity usage). The latest
generation of LED equipment is anticipated to be approximately 15% more energy efficient, but this
technology was only beginning to be installed in November of 2011, so annual usage data was not
available for the newer generation for this analysis.
The digital billboard installed and operated as part of the Project would use electrical energy, and
would be constructed pursuant to current electrical codes, including Title 24. These standards would
ensure that electrical energy would be used efficiently. The GHG emissions associated with this
energy demand are addresed in Item 7, Greehouse Gas Emissions. The underlying question as to
whether digital billboards are an effective or desirable use of electrical energy is a policy question that
may be considered in the Project review process, but any environmental effects are less than
significant.
Page 60 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
W
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environ-
ment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
a) Environmental Quality. With the implementation of mitigation measures, the Project would not
degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, or threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community. The Project would not impact rare or endangered wildlife species, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b) Cumulative Impacts and Adverse Effects on Human Beings. The Project includes revision of the
Zoning Code to allow up to three digital billboards along U.S. 101 in South San Francisco if
approved in conjunction with Relocation Agreements. The analysis included in this document takes
into account the potential for two digital billboards in addition to the one currently proposed. No
additional digital billboards beyond these three would be allowed under the proposed Zoning Code
amendment.
Caltrans limits billboards to one every 500 feet along the length of the highway, which leaves the
possibility that additional conventional (as opposed to digital) billboards could be added along U.S.
101 in South San Francisco beyond the three digital billboards. This has the potential to result in
additional cumulative aesthetics impacts. The analysis in this report already considers that two
additional billboards could be located as close as 500 feet to either direction of the proposed
billboard, which represents a worst case scenario that covers either digital or conventional billboards.
Any additional billboards, whether digital or conventional, would be required to undergo design
review and City approval processes, which generally require relocation of one or more other
billboards for a net reduction in the total number of billboards. While the specific location of future
billboard proposals cannot be known at this point, it can be concluded that specifics of impacts to
views would be considered for each proposed location and that Relocation Agreements would keep
the same or reduce the total number of billboards in the area. Therefore, cumulative impacts in
relation to aesthetics would be considered less than significant.
The Project otherwise does not have individually limited but cumulatively considerable adverse
impacts and would not involve substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly, including effects for which project-level mitigation were identified to reduce impacts to
less than significant levels. These include impacts related to the discovery of unknown cultural
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project Page 61
resources, the potential presence of contaminated soil on the construction site, and traffic hazards
related to driver distraction. These potential effects would be less than significant with
implementation of mitigation measures identified in this document and would not contribute in
considerable levels to cumulative impacts.
Page 62 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
DOCUMENT PREPARERS
Lamphier – Gregory
(Primary Report Preparers)
Scott Gregory, President
Rebecca Gorton, Senior Planner
1944 Embarcadero
Oakland, Ca. 94606
510-535-6690
Vistarus
(Visual Modeling)
Niral Patel
H.T. Harvey & Associates
(Biological Impacts Assessment)
Ginger M. Bolen, Ph.D., Senior Wildlife Ecologist
City of South San Francisco
This document was prepared in consultation with Gerry Beaudin, Principal Planner, City of South San
Francisco.
SOURCES
1. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, May 2011, California Environmental Quality Act Air
Quality Guidelines.
2. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, May 2010, Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation
During Construction, Version 1.0.
3. California Department of Transportation, Outdoor Advertising Act and Regulations, 2011 Edition.
4. California Department of Transportation, State Scenic Highway Mapping System,
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm
5. City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999.
6. Federal Highway Administration- Highway Beautification Act (HBA) codified as Title 23 United
States Code 131, September 25, 2007, Guidance on Off-Premise Changeable Message Signs.
7. Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA), Lighting Handbook 9th Edition and
10th Edition.
8. Outdoor Advertising Association of America, prepared by Light Sciences Inc., November 29, 2006,
Comparison of Digital and Conventional Billboards.
9. U.S. Geological Survey, 2005, Mineral Resources Data System: U.S. Geological Survey, Reston,
Virginia. Available through: http://tin.er.usgs.gov/mrds/
10. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2009: The Effects of
Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs (CEVMS) on Driver Attention and Distraction: An
Update. Publication No. FHWA-HRT-09-018.
ATTACHMENT A
Biological Impacts Assessment
983 University Avenue, Building D Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ph: 408.458.3200 F: 408.458.3210
5 September 2012
Ms. Rebecca Gorton
Lamphier-Gregory
1944 Embarcadero
Oakland, CA 94606
Subject: South San Francisco Clear Channel Billboard Project Biological Impacts Assessment
(HTH #3410-01)
Dear Ms. Gorton:
Per your request, H. T. Harvey & Associates has performed a biological impacts assessment for
the construction of an LED billboard at 101 Terminal Court, South San Francisco, California
(Figure 1). The project site is bounded by Highway 101 to the east and extensive commercial
development to the north, west, and south.
According to information you provided, the new billboard would have an overall height of 70
feet (ft) and a width of 48 ft with a 14 ft by 48 ft LED display screen mounted above a pole with
a 56 ft clearance from grade. The billboard would display multiple advertisements, cycling
between ads every 8 seconds, and would be equipped with ambient light sensors, which would
adjust the brightness of the display correlating with ambient lighting conditions. We understand
that the billboard technology will be the same as that utilized for the Clear Channel LED
billboard along Highway 92 that we analyzed in 2008 and that the same assumptions can be
made regarding illuminance.
METHODS
I conducted a daytime site visit on 27 August 2012 to inspect habitat conditions immediately
surrounding the proposed sign location (which could potentially be disturbed during the
installation of the new LED sign) and in adjacent areas that could be indirectly affected by the
project. I returned to the site that evening to observe qualitatively the existing ambient lighting
in the vicinity of the project site to provide a basis for determining the potential direct and
indirect effects of the billboard’s lighting on wildlife. In addition, H. T. Harvey & Associates
senior plant/wetland ecologist Patrick Boursier, Ph.D., conducted a site visit on 31 August 2012
to assess the site for the presence of potentially sensitive habitats (e.g., wetlands). Following the
completion of the surveys, I determined the potential for the installation of the billboard to
impact biological resources, such as special-status species and sensitive/regulated habitats, based
on the conditions at the proposed billboard location.
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The project site is located on the perimeter of a large commercial parking lot (Park ‘N Fly). A
chain-link fence separates the project site from an approximately 45-ft wide strip of ruderal (i.e.,
disturbance-associated) vegetation that occupies the area between the project site and Highway
Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2012
2 0 21
Miles±
Project Site
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
September 2012
N:\Projects3400\3410-01\Reports\Figure 1 Vicinity Map.mxd
SSF Clear Channel Billboard (3410-01)
!.
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
Napa
Oakland
San Jose
StocktonMartinez
Hollister
Fairfield
Santa Cruz
San Rafael
Santa Rosa
Redwood City
San Francisco
S O L A N O
S A N T A C L A R A
A L A M E D A
N A PA
S O N O M A
C O N T R A C O S TA
M A R I N
S A N M AT E O
S A N TA C R U Z
S A N J O A Q U I N
S T A N I S L A U S
S A N B E N I T O
Y O L O
M O N T E R E Y
S A N F R A N C I S C O
M E R C E D
PACIFICOCEAN
Detail
California
0 20
Miles
±
Project Vicinity
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
3
101 to the east. The project site is paved and completely devoid of vegetation; however,
dominant species present in the adjacent ruderal habitat include cypress (Cupressus sp.), toyon
(Heteromeles arbutifolia), and non-native French broom (Cytisus monspessulanus). The ruderal
habitat immediately east of the project site (approximately 26 ft east of the proposed billboard
pole) also supports a wetland with a dense stand of horsetail (Equisetum sp.). This wetland
appears to be supported by runoff from the adjacent parking lot, and meets the physical criteria
and regulatory definition of “waters of the United States”.
Due to the highly disturbed nature of the project site and the immediately surrounding vicinity, it
is extremely unlikely that any special-status species would occur in the project area. The vast
majority of plant and animal species occurring here are very common species associated with
urban, developed, and ruderal conditions throughout the San Francisco Bay area. There was no
evidence that sensitive species were present on the project site and no habitat capable of
supporting sensitive species is present within or immediately adjacent to the site.
BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
Potential project impacts on biotic resources were evaluated from three different perspectives:
The direct effects of the installation of an LED billboard on biotic resources
The indirect effects of illuminance from the LED billboard (i.e., the amount of light from
the billboard that lands on a certain area) on sensitive species in adjacent areas
The potential effects of the LED billboard’s luminance (i.e., the amount of light leaving
the billboard’s surface in a particular direction, or brightness of the LED billboard’s
surface as seen by the eye) on the behavior of birds flying in the site vicinity
In each case, the standards against which we measured the significance of potential impacts were
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significance criteria. These potential impacts
are assessed in detail below.
DIRECT EFFECTS OF SIGN INSTALLATION
All activity associated with installation of the LED billboard at the project site is presumed to
take place within the paved parking lot, with most such activity concentrated in the immediate
vicinity of the billboard.
No wetlands, riparian habitats, or other sensitive habitats are present within the immediate
project site. Thus, as long as construction does not extend into the horsetail-lined wetland to the
east, no sensitive habitats would be impacted by the construction of the billboard. Further, no
special-status plant or wildlife species are expected to occur within the project area. The only
wildlife species that may be using habitats in the immediate vicinity of the project site during
construction are common birds such as the house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), American
robin (Turdus migratorius), and northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). These species are
locally and regionally abundant, and project effects on these species will not be significant under
the CEQA.
In summary, no biological impacts that are significant under CEQA will occur as a result of the
installation of a billboard at this location.
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
4
INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ILLUMINANCE OF ADJACENT AREAS
Many animals are extremely sensitive to light cues, which influence their physiology and shape
their behaviors, particularly during the breeding season (Ringer 1972, de Molenaar et al. 2006).
Artificial light has been used as a means of manipulating breeding behavio r and productivity in
captive birds for decades (de Molenaar et al. 2006), and has been shown to influence the
territorial singing behavior of wild birds (Longcore and Rich 2004, Miller 2006, de Molenaar et
al. 2006). While it is difficult to extrapolate results of experiments on captive birds to wild
populations, it is known that photoperiod (the relative amount of light and dark in a 24-hour
period) is an essential cue triggering physiological processes as diverse as growth, metabolism,
development, breeding behavior, and molting (de Molenaar et al. 2006). This holds true for
birds, mammals (Beier 2006), and other taxa as well, suggesting that increases in ambient light
may interfere with these processes across a wide range of species, resulting in impacts to wildlife
populations.
Artificial lighting may indirectly impact mammals and birds by increasing the nocturnal activity
of predators like owls, hawks, and mammalian predators (Negro et al 2000, Longcore and Rich
2004, DeCandido and Allen 2006, Beier 2006). The presence of artificial light may also
influence habitat use by rodents such as the salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys
raviventris) and salt marsh wandering shrew (Sorex vagrans halicoetes) (Beier 2006), and by
breeding birds (Rogers et al. 2006, de Molenaar et al. 2006), by causing avoidance of well-lit
areas, resulting in a net loss of habitat availability and quality.
The project site is completely surrounded by urban habitats that do not support sensitive species
that might be significantly impacted by illuminance from the proposed LED billboard.
Similarly, the small wetland immediately adjacent to the project site is not expected to support
sensitive species. The San Francisco Bay to the east provides suitable habitat for a variety of
wildlife, including the federally and state listed California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris
obsoletus), and the federally listed mission blue butterfly (Aricia icarioides missionensis) has
been observed at Sign Hill Park to the north of the project site (CNDDB 2012). However, these
habitats are located too far from the project site to be affected by illuminance from the proposed
LED billboard. Similarly, Colma Creek to the north of the project site and the unnamed channel
to the south are located too far from the project site to be affected by illuminance from the
proposed billboard.
According to material provided by Clear Channel Outdoor, the proposed LED billboard is
expected to provide a maximum of 2.23 foot candles (fc) of illuminance (above and beyond
ambient light conditions) at 100 ft (L. Musica, pers. comm.) within its viewing angle.
Illuminance would decrease with lateral distance from the center of the viewing angle, so that
areas 100 ft from the billboard on either side of the center of the viewing angle would experience
even less illuminance. The viewing angle of the proposed LED billboard would be 30
vertically and 60 horizontally on each side (R. Hatton, pers. comm.). The LED billboard
would be angled in such a way as to maximize the amount of visibility from a specific portion of
Highway 101, so the area of brightest night illuminance projected by the proposed billboard
would form a narrow cone directed at oncoming traffic. Further the illuminance would dissipate
so that illuminance beyond 100 ft would be minimal and that beyond 500 ft negligible. Thus, the
proposed LED billboard is not expected to substantially increase the amount of illuminance
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
5
currently experienced by sensitive habitats (and the species inhabiting them) within San
Francisco Bay, which is located over 3600 ft to the east, or Sign Hill Park, which is located over
5800 ft to the north. Therefore, we do not expect illuminance from the LED billboard to result in
significant impacts on these sensitive habitats or their associated wildlife species.
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF LED BILLBOARD’S LUMINANCE ON AVIAN FLIGHT BEHAVIOR
The primary way in which the luminance of an LED billboard might impact the movements of
birds in the project area is through the disorientation of nocturnally migrating birds. Such birds
may alter their orientation upon sighting the light and become drawn toward the sign, potentially
striking objects such as buildings, adjacent power lines, or even the sign itself. Migrating birds
are much more likely to be impacted by the billboard’s luminance during foggy or rainy weather,
when visibility is poor (Longcore and Rich 2004, Gauthreaux and Belser 2006).
Hundreds of bird species migrate nocturnally in order to avoid diurnal predators and to minimize
energy expenditures. Evidence that migrating birds are attracted to artificial light sources is
abundant in the literature as early as the late 1800s (Gauthreaux and Belser 2006). Although the
mechanism causing migrating birds to be attracted to bright lights is unknown, the attraction is
well documented (Longcore and Rich 2004, Gauthreaux and Belser 2006). Migrating birds are
frequently drawn from their migratory flight paths into the vicinity of an artificial light source,
where they end up circling the lit area, effectively “captured” by the light (Herbert 1970,
Gauthreaux and Belser 2006). When birds are drawn to artificial lights during their migration,
they become disoriented and possibly blinded by the intensity of the light (Gauthreaux and
Belser 2006). The disorienting and blinding effects of artificial lights directly impact migratory
birds by causing collisions with light structures, buildings, communication and power structures,
or even the ground (Gauthreaux and Belser 2006). Indirect impacts on migrating birds might
include orientation mistakes and increased length of migration due to light-driven detours.
Effects of the Proposed LED Billboards on Flight Behavior
The visibility of the proposed LED billboard to birds in flight, and thus the risk it poses to flying
birds, depends primarily on the beam angle of the sign relative to the flightlines of birds and on
the luminance (brightness) of the sign as perceived by the birds. The directional nature of LED
lighting and the projected viewing angle values of 30 vertically and 60 horizontally suggest
that the viewing angle of the sign will be narrow enough to preclude attracting migrating birds on
clear nights, when they fly high enough to be outside the viewing angle of the sign. Shaders
located above each row of lights will prevent light from projecting upward into the s ky. As a
result, birds flying more than 30 above the center of the sign’s beam angle will not be able to
see light from the sign at all. However, migrating birds are forced to fly low during foggy and
rainy conditions, which may bring them into the viewing angle of the billboard.
The proposed billboard could produce a peak value of approximately 641 cd/ft2 of luminance
(LSI 2006). However, in practice, the LED billboards will be operated so that their peak
luminance will be approximately 46 cd/ft2 in the center of the beam angle (R. Hatton, pers.
comm.). For comparison, a full moon at its brightest point produces approximately 232 cd/ft 2
(LRC 2006). The proposed billboard would be equipped with a light sensor that adjusts the
brilliance of the billboard in response to available ambient light, dimming the luminance as
ambient light lessens. The peak luminosity for an LED billboard cited in the 2006 Light
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
6
Sciences Inc. report to the Outdoor Advertising Association of America (LSI 2006) and indicated
above assumes that the display on the billboard is solid white. In practice, the displays on the
planned LED billboard will contain a variety of colors, which will substantially reduce the
amount of luminance produced.
Additionally, the LED display on the billboard can be changed every 8 seconds from a static
image to a static image, resulting in a changing light source. Colors and patterns of color on the
billboard would thus be changing, and birds flying near the sign would not perceive it as a fixed,
unchanging light, the type of light that appears to be most attractive to birds (Jones and Francis
2003, Gauthreaux and Belser 2006).
It is possible that some birds that find themselves near the center of the beam angle may be
attracted to the sign. However, we do not expect this effect to result in long-term consequences,
such as increased bird-strike mortalities or substantial interference with bird movements because
the sign will be focused on the highway, not on airspace above the highway. Thus, a relatively
limited area at low altitude above Highway 101 will be within the center of the sign’s beam
angle.
Because the area surrounding the sign is heavily urbanized and contains no habitats of value to
estuarine birds using the San Francisco Bay habitats to the east, we do not expect large numbers
of birds (especially species of conservation concern) to be flying in a north-south direction, and
at low altitudes that would be within the beam, close enough to the billboard for disorientation to
occur at all. Thus, we do not expect birds moving through or around the project area to be
attracted to the sign for such a long duration that bird-strike mortality occurs or substantial
interference with bird movements occurs.
Given the configuration of bird habitats in the vicinity of the site (which does not lend itself to
directed bird flights toward the signs), the changing images that will be displayed on the LED
billboard, the narrow viewing angle, and the use of shaders to prevent light from projecting
upward into the sky, we expect the sign’s impacts on avian flight behavior to be less than
significant.
SUMMARY
Based on the information provided by Clear Channel Outdoor concerning the LED billboard, our
review of literature concerning lighting effects on wildlife, our reconnaissance-level surveys of
the site, and our knowledge of likely avian flightlines in the vicinity of the project site, we do not
expect the construction of a new LED billboard to result in significant impacts on wildlife. If the
assumptions made in our analysis concerning the LED billboard’s characteristics (e.g.,
illuminance, luminance, or beam angle) differ from actual characteristics of the billboard,
additional analysis may be necessary to determine whether impacts are significant.
Please feel free to contact me at gbolen@harveyecology.com or (408) 458-3246 if you have any
questions regarding our report. Thank you very much for contacting H.T. Harvey & Associates
regarding this project.
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
7
Sincerely,
Ginger M. Bolen, Ph.D.
Senior Wildlife Ecologist
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
8
LITERATURE CITED
Beier, P. 2006. Effects of artificial night lighting on mammals in Rich, C. and T. Longcore, eds.
Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Covelo, CA: Island Press. Pp 19-
42.
[CNDDB] California Natural Diversity Database. 2012. Rarefind Version 3.1.1. California
Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic Data Branch.
DeCandido R. and D. Allen. 2006. Nocturnal hunting by peregrine falcons at the Empire State
Building, New York City. Wilson J. Ornithol. 118(1): 53-58.
de Molenaar, J.G., M.E. Sanders and D.A. Jonkers. 2006. Road lighting and grassland birds:
local influence of road lighting on a black-tailed godwit population in Rich, C. and T.
Longcore, eds. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Covelo, CA:
Island Press. Pp 114-136.
Gauthreaux, S.A. and C.G. Belser. 2006. Effects of artificial night lighting on migrating birds in
Rich, C. and T. Longcore, eds. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting.
Covelo, CA: Island Press. Pp 67-93.
Herbert, A.D. 1970. Spatial disorientation in birds. Wilson Bull. 82(4): 400-419.
Jones, J. and C.M. Francis. 2003. The effects of light characteristics on avian mortality at
lighthouses. J. Avian Biol. 34(4): 328-333.
Longcore, T. and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2(4): 191-
198.
[LRC] Lighting Research Center. 2006. Illumination fundamentals. Pasadena, CA: Optical
Research Associates. 48 pp.
[LSI] Light Sciences Inc. 2006. Comparison of Digital and Conventional Billboards. Report
prepared for the Outdoor Advertising Association of America. November 29, 2006.
Miller, M.W. 2006. Apparent effects of light pollution on singing behavior of American robins.
Condor 108(1): 130-139.
Negro, J.J., J. Bustamante, C. Melguizo, J.L. Ruiz, and J.M. Grande. 2000. Nocturnal activity
of lesser kestrels under artificial lighting conditions in Seville, Spain. J. Raptor Res.
34(4): 327-329.
Ringer, R.K. 1972. Effect of light and behavior on nutrition. J. Anim. Sci. 35: 642-647.
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
9
Rogers, D.I., T. Piersma, and C.J. Hassell. 2006. Roost availability may constrain shorebird
distribution: Exploring the energetic costs of roosting and disturbance around a tropical
bay. Biol. Conserv. 33(4): 225-235.
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
Hatton, Robert. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. Personal communication with Steve Rottenborn of
H. T. Harvey & Associates, on 18 September 2008.
Musica, Lou. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. Personal communication with Steve Rottenborn of
H. T. Harvey & Associates, on 09 September 2008.
ATTACHMENT B
Northwest Information Center Records Search Results
August 21, 2012 NWIC File No.: 12-0165
Rebecca Gorton
Lamphier-Gregory, Inc.
1944 Embarcadero
Oakland, CA 94606
Re: Record search results for the proposed project at 101 Terminal Court, City of South
San Francisco.
Dear Ms. Gorton:
Per your request received by our office on 15 August 2012, a records search was
conducted for the above referenced project by reviewing pertinent Northwest Information
Center (NWIC) base maps that reference cultural resources records and reports, historic-
period maps, and literature for San Mateo County. Please note that use of the term
cultural resources includes both archaeological resources and historical buildings and/or
structures.
Review of this information indicates that there has been no record of any cultural
resource studies that cover the proposed project area. While there are no archaeological
resources within the proposed project area, several Native American habitation sites are
present in the general vicinity. The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Historic Property
Directory (HPD) includes no recorded buildings or structures within the proposed project
area. In addition, the NWIC base maps show no recorded buildings or structures.
At the time of Euroamerican contact, the Native Americans that lived in this portion
of the peninsula were speakers of the Costanoan or Ohlone language, part of the Utian
language family (Levy 1978:485). The settlement patterns of Native Americans living on
the San Francisco peninsula were significantly disrupted earlier that in other regions of
the state. However, as in other areas, settlement patterns would indicate a mixture of
residential occupation of villages and seasonal rounds to exploit resources at their peak.
Reconstruction of tribal names and locations undertaken by Milliken (1995), based
principally on mission registers, would place the proposed project area as being located
within the northern portion of the area controlled by the Urebure (1995:258).
Based on an evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with
known sites, Native American resources in this part of San Mateo County have been
found in close proximity to sources of water (including perennial and intermittent streams
and springs), near the bay margin and its associated wetlands, and near ecotones and
other productive environments. The proposed project area is located within the lower
reaches of the Colma Creek basin. Based on 19th century maps, the project area was
dominated by estuaries that have since been covered in artificial fill. While this land was
adjacent to estuaries in the 19th century, this productive environment has undergone
significant changes as sea levels have rose over last 10,000 years. Given the correlation
of these environmental factors, coupled with the regional archaeological sensitivity, there
is a moderate potential of unrecorded Native American resources (especially buried
deposits with no surface indications) within the proposed project area.
Review of historical literature and maps gave no indication of the possibility of
historic-period archaeological resources within the proposed project area. With this in
mind, there is a low potential of identifying unrecorded historic -period archaeological
resources in the proposed project area.
The 1947 San Francisco South USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle fails to
depict any buildings or structures within the proposed project area; therefore, there is a
low possibility of identifying any buildings or structures 45 years or older within the project
area.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) There is a moderate possibility of identifying Native American archaeological
resources and a low possibility of identifying historic-period archaeological resources in
the project area. Given the depth of disturbance for the proposed project (approximately
35 feet below surface) buried terrestrial land surfaces that have the potential for
containing archaeological material may be present below the artificial fill at the surface.
We recommend a qualified archaeologist conduct further archival and field study to
identify cultural resources. Field study may include, but is not limited to, pedestrian
survey, hand auger sampling, shovel test units, or geoarchaeological analyses as well as
other common methods used to identify the presence of archaeological resources
(especially buried deposits with no surface indications). Please refer to the list of
consultants who meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards at http://www.chrisinfo.org.
2) If the proposed project area contains buildings or structures that meet the
minimum age requirement, prior to commencement of project activities, it is
recommended that this resource be assessed by a professional familiar with the
architecture and history of San Mateo County. Please refer to the list of consultants who
meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards at http://www.chrisinfo.org.
3) Review for possible historic-period buildings or structures has included only
those sources listed in the attached bibliography and should not be considered
comprehensive.
4) If archaeological resources are encountered during construction, work should
be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and workers should avoid
altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has
evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. Project personnel
should not collect cultural resources. Native American resources include chert or
obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and da rk friable soil containing
shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic-period
resources include stone or adobe foundations or walls; structures and remains with
square nails; and refuse deposits or bottle dumps, often located in old wells or privies.
5) It is recommended that any identified cultural resources be recorded on DPR
523 historic resource recordation forms, available online from the Office of Historic
Preservation’s website: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=1069
Thank you for using our services. Please contact this office if you have any
questions, (707) 588-8455.
Sincerely,
Bryan Much
Assistant Coordinator
LITERATURE REVIEWED
In addition to archaeological maps and site records on file at the Northwest Information Center of
the Historical Resources Information System, the following literature was reviewed:
Barrows, Henry D., and Luther A. Ingersoll
2005 Memorial and Biographical History of the Coast Counties of Central California.
Three Rocks Research, Santa Cruz (Digital Reproduction of The Lewis Publishing
Company, Chicago: 1893.)
Bowman, J.N.
1951 Adobe Houses in the San Francisco Bay Region. In Geologic Guidebook of the San
Francisco Bay Counties, Bulletin 154. California Division of Mines, Ferry Building,
San Francisco, CA.
Brabb, Earl E., Fred A. Taylor, and George P. Miller
1982 Geologic, Scenic, and Historic Points of Interest in San Mateo County, California.
Miscellaneous Investigations Series, Map I-1257-B, 1:62,500. Department of the
Interior, United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
General Land Office
1858 Survey Plat for Rancho Rancho Buriburi
1864 Survey Plat for Rancho Cañada de Guadalupe, la Visitación y Rodeo Viejo
Gudde, Erwin G.
1969 California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical
Names. Third Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Hamman, Rick
1980 California Central Coast Railways. Pruett Publishing Company, Boulder, CO.
Hart, James D.
1987 A Companion to California. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los
Angeles.
Heizer, Robert F., editor
1974 Local History Studies, Vol. 18., “The Costanoan Indians.” California History Center,
DeAnza College, Cupertino, CA.
Helley, E.J., K.R. Lajoie, W.E. Spangle, and M.L. Blair
1979 Flatland Deposits of the San Francisco Bay Region - Their Geology and
Engineering Properties, and Their Importance to Comprehensive Planning.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 943. United States Geological Survey and
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, and Ethel Rensch, revised by William N. Abeloe
1966 Historic Spots in California. Third Edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, and Ethel Rensch, William N. Abeloe, revised by
Douglas E. Kyle
1990 Historic Spots in California. Fourth Edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford,
CA.
Hope, Andrew
2005 Caltrans Statewide Historic Bridge Inventory Update. Caltrans, Division of
Environmental Analysis, Sacramento, CA.
Hynding, Alan
1984 From Frontier to Suburb: The Story of San Mateo Penninsula. Star Publishing
Company, San Mateo, CA.
Kroeber, A.L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (Reprint by Dover Publications, Inc., New
York, 1976)
Levy, Richard
1978 Costanoan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of
North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.
Milliken, Randall
1983 The Spatial Organization of Human Population on Central California's San
Francisco Peninsula at the Spanish Arrival. S-9580. Master’s Thesis. On file at the
Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park.
1995 A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco
Bay Area 1769-1810. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 43, Menlo Park,
CA.
Myers, William A. (editor)
1977 Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks of San Francisco and Northern California.
Prepared by The History and Heritage Committee, San Francisco Section, American
Society of Civil Engineers. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, CA.
Nelson, N.C.
1909 Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region. University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 7(4):309-356. Berkeley.
(Reprint by Kraus Reprint Corporation, New York, 1964)
Nichols, Donald R., and Nancy A. Wright
1971 Preliminary Map of Historic Margins of Marshland, San Francisco Bay, California.
U.S. Geological Survey Open File Map. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological
Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Washington, D.C.
Roberts, George, and Jan Roberts
1988 Discover Historic California. Gem Guides Book Co., Pico Rivera, CA.
San Mateo County Historic Resources Advisory Board
1984 San Mateo County: Its History and Heritage. Second Edition. Division of Planning
and Development Department of Environmental Management.
San Mateo County Planning and Development Department
n.d. “Historical and Archaeological Resources, Section 5” from the San Mateo
CountyGeneral Plan.
State of California Department of Parks and Recreation
1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. State of California Department of Parks
and Recreation, Sacramento.
State of California Department of Parks and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation
1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California. State of California Department
of Parks and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
State of California Office of Historic Preservation **
2012 Historic Properties Directory. Listing by City (through April 2012). State of
California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
Williams, James C.
1997 Energy and the Making of Modern California. The University of Akron Press, Akron,
OH.
Woodbridge, Sally B.
1988 California Architecture: Historic American Buildings Survey. Chronicle Books, San
Francisco, CA.
Works Progress Administration
1984 The WPA Guide to California. Reprint by Pantheon Books, New York. (Originally
published as California: A Guide to the Golden State in 1939 by Books, Inc.,
distributed by Hastings House Publishers, New York.)
Yamada, Gayle K. and Dianne Fukami
2003 Building a Community: The Story of Japanese Americans in San Mateo County.
AACP, Inc., San Mateo, CA.
**Note that the Office of Historic Preservation’s Historic Properties Directory includes National
Register, State Registered Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the California
Register of Historical Resources as well as Certified Local Government surveys that have
undergone Section 106 review.
SECOND ADDENDUM TO THE
INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
101 TERMINAL COURT CLEAR CHANNEL BILLBOARD PROJECT AND RELATED
ZONING AMENDMENT
RELATED TO THE
140 BEACON STREET BILLBOARD PROJECT
PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
315 MAPLE AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
PREPARED BY:
LAMPHIER – GREGORY
4100 REDWOOD RD, STE 20A - #601
OAKLAND, CA 94619
2ND ADDENDUM DATE SEPTEMBER 2023
ORIGINAL INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATE JUNE 2013
1ST ADDENDUM DATED MAY 2018
Government Code Section 54957.5
SB 343 Item Agenda: 03/13/2024
REG CC - Item 13a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
Introduction and Project Information...................................................................................................... 1
Environmental Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 13
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 25
FIGURES
Figure 1: Proposed Billboard Location ..................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2: Proposed Billboard Site Plan ..................................................................................................... 7
Figure 3: Proposed Billboard Design ........................................................................................................ 8
Figure 4: Proposed Billboard from U.S. 101, facing north ....................................................................... 9
Figure 5: Proposed Billboard from U.S. 101, facing south ....................................................................... 9
Figure 6: Sensitive Habitats in the Project Vicinity ................................................................................ 17
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Standard Conditions and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Attachment B: Biological Assessment
Attachment C: Cultural/Tribal Cultural Records Search Results
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND Page 1
INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT INFORMATION
This document serves as a second addendum to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND) for the currently proposed billboard, prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Sections 1500 et seq.).
Per CEQA Guidelines (Section 15164), an addendum may be prepared if only minor technical changes or
additions are necessary or none of the conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or
negative declaration have occurred.
This document is organized in three sections as follows:
• Introduction and Project Information. This section introduces the document and discusses the
project description including location, setting, and specifics of the lead agency and contacts.
• Environmental Analysis. This section analyzes the currently proposed billboard in comparison to the
analysis in the prior environmental review and discusses the CEQA environmental topics and
checklist questions with the potential to be changed from that previously assessed.
• Conclusions. This section summarizes the analysis and makes CEQA conclusions.
Attachment A includes full text of the standard conditions and IS/MND mitigation measures that are
applicable to the project in the proposed Standard Conditions and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program. Standard conditions apply to the project per the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and the
mitigation measures are unchanged from those presented in the IS/MND.
Attachments B and C include the biological assessment and cultural/tribal cultural records searches
respectively.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project and Related Zoning Amendment (shortened to
“101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment” in this document) was analyzed in an IS/MND
with State Clearinghouse Number 2013062062, circulated in June 2013, and adopted in August 2015.
As assessed in the IS/MND, the zoning amendment allowed up to a total of three digital billboards along
the U.S. 101 corridor in South San Francisco, as follows: “The location of proposed digital billboards
would be constrained to the western side of the highway between Sister Cities Boulevard and the City’s
southern boundary and otherwise following billboard locating restrictions (such as Caltrans rule of 500
feet between billboards, discussed in more detail under item 11, Regulatory Provisions).”
In 2018, the City issued an Addendum to the IS/MND, related to the 180 South Airport Boulevard
Billboard Proposal. The 2018 Addendum included assessment for allowing digital billboards on the
eastern side within the identified highway corridor.
The 2015 IS/MND and its first 2018 Addendum (referred to herein collectively as the “Prior IS/MND”)
are hereby incorporated by reference and can be obtained from the South San Francisco Planning
Department at https://weblink.ssf.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=151447&dbid=0&repo=SSFDocs.
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND Page 2
The current proposal is for a fourth billboard within the identified highway corridor, also on the eastern
side of the highway.
The purpose of this second Addendum is to assess the currently proposed digital billboard and
associated Zoning Amendment, which would allow it as a fourth digital billboard within the previously
identified U.S. 101 corridor in South San Francisco, and to demonstrate that a subsequent
environmental document is not required per Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as follows:
15164. Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration
(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if
some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162
calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
(b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical
changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling
for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the
final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
(d) The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative
declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162
should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or
elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.
Subsection (b) above presents the criteria for determining whether an addendum is the appropriate
document when the prior document was an adopted negative declaration, as is the case for this project.
Section 15164 references criteria in Section 15162, excerpted below:
15162. Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent
EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of
substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND Page 3
(3) 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 previous EIR was certified as
complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or
negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in
the previous EIR;
(C) 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
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects
on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation
measure or alternative.
(b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after
adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required
under subdivision (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a
subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.
(c) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency's role in project approval is completed,
unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an
approval does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the
conditions described in subdivision (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall
only be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the
project, if any. In this situation no other responsible agency shall grant an approval for the
project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted.
(d) A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the same notice and public
review as required under Section 15087 or Section 15072. A subsequent EIR or negative
declaration shall state where the previous document is available and can be reviewed.
The conclusions related to the above CEQA Guidelines criteria are discussed in the final section of this
document.
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND Page 4
PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Project Title: 140 Beacon Street Digital Billboard Proposal
(“currently proposed billboard”), which is located
within the highway corridor in which digital billboards
would be allowed and analyzed as part of the:
101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project
and Related Zoning Amendment
2. Lead Agency Contact: City of South San Francisco
Christy Usher, Senior Planner
Department of Economic and Community
Development
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083
650.829.6633 or Christy.Usher@ssf.net
3. Project Location: 140 Beacon Street (APN 015-171-999)
4. Project Applicant's Name and Address: Jeff McCuen
Outfront Foster Interstate
1111 Broadway, Suite 1515
Oakland, CA 94607
510.559.1135
5. General Plan Designation: Business Technology Park High
6. Zoning: Business Technology Park - High (BTP-H)
7. Site and Vicinity:
The project location and site are shown in Figures 1 and 2 (included with other project description
figures starting on page 6). The currently proposed billboard is located in a fenced vacant lot owned
by PG&E, behind a set of 3 connected commercial buildings on Beacon Street and associated
parking. One of the buildings is currently vacant, with the others occupied by Decker Electric
Company and K1 Speed – Indoor Go Karts.
The currently proposed billboard would be located on the eastern side of the site adjacent to U.S.
101 with the footing and overhang in a paved area.
An approximately 35-foot-wide landscape strip is located between the paved lot and the U.S. 101
highway to the west, consisting of mixed ruderal and wetland vegetation. Farther west across the
highway (at least 300 feet to the nearest building) is located a storage center, and then a
commercial complex with some restaurants, office, retail, and commercial uses, approximately
another 100 feet to the west.
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND Page 5
The project location lot is triangularly shaped, with the fence on the east side, behind the
commercial building, meeting the fence on the west side, between the lot and U.S. 101, at the
southernmost point. On the northern end are three electrical towers, beyond which is a paved
parking lot up to Colma Creek. The site is surrounded by various commercial uses on the same side
of the highway including largely offices and manufacturing uses, with some retail and other
commercial uses.
The closest residential areas are located approximately 2,400 feet both to the west and to the south.
Other residential uses can be found approximately 4,700 feet to the northwest and 6,800 feet to the
north. There are no residences in the vicinity to the east.
8. Project Description:
Digital Billboard
The current digital billboard proposal involves construction and operation of one new double-sided
outdoor advertising digital LED billboard located in South San Francisco, California. The billboard is
proposed to reach a maximum height of 65 feet.
An “LED billboard” consists of a display surface that supports an image generated by rows of light
emitting diodes (LED). The image on the billboard is static for a period of time, not less than eight
seconds, before cycling to the next image, and would operate 24 hours per day, seven days per
week. Operational details provided by the applicant include the following:
Each LED display would be 48 feet wide by 14 feet tall mounted on a column so that the overall
height is approximately 65 feet above grade. The two display faces will be oriented in a V-shape,
with each of the two sides angled 7.5 degrees from the centrally located access walkway. The V will
meet on the western side such that the displays face the two directions of highway traffic. The
design of the billboard is shown in Figure 3 and visual models of the billboard are shown in Figures 4
and 5.
The applicant is proposing to install Opto-Tech LED signs configured to minimize light spillage and
constrain brightness in accordance with the guidelines of the Outdoor Advertising Association of
America (OAAA) and consistent with standards established by California law. Shaders will be located
above each row of LEDs to prevent light from projecting upward into the sky. The diode pattern of
LED bulbs is based on a Nichia series 336 LED, with projected viewing angle values for the proposed
billboard at + 14.9°/ -34.6° vertically and ± 45° horizontally. The maximum light output level of the
billboard displays would be 0.3 foot-candles (fc) above ambient lighting conditions, measured at a
distance of 250 feet. In addition to light sensors measuring ambient light, a GPS calibrated sunlight
clock would control maximum brightness to ensure nighttime limits are not exceeded.
Construction of the Billboard
The currently proposed billboard would be connected via trenching to existing power lines in the
project area. The foundation used for the proposed structure would be a drilled shaft to an
approximate depth of 41 feet, with a poured concrete footing. Construction would proceed as
described in the Prior IS/MND with a few days of activity spread out over 1 to 2 weeks including (1)
drilling of the foundation hole, (2) erection of the column and pouring of foundation concrete, and
(3) assembly of the structure and installation of the displays.
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND Page 6
Figure 1: Proposed Billboard Location
Source: H.T. Harvey & Associates, dated July 14, 2023
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND Page 7
Figure 2: Proposed Billboard Site Plan
Source: Chappell Geomatics, Inc. for Applicant, dated 5/21/22, modified to highlight billboard
Proposed
Billboard
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND Page 8
Figure 3: Proposed Billboard Design
Source: RMG Outdoor, Inc. for Applicant dated 5/31/2022
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND Page 9
Figure 4: Proposed Billboard from U.S. 101, facing north
Source: Applicant (proposed billboard in green)
Figure 5: Proposed Billboard from U.S. 101, facing south
Source: Applicant (proposed billboard in green)
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND Page 10
Comparison to Project Description in the IS/MND
The proposed billboard sign faces are the same size and propose substantially the same LED
technology including proposed operation and light levels and construction activities as assumed in
the Prior IS/MND. The height of the currently proposed billboard (65’) is within the range assumed
in the Prior IS/MND (55’ to 70’).
The proposed billboard is in the same general area as assumed in the Prior IS/MND (U.S. 101
corridor between Sister Cities Boulevard and the City’s southern boundary) on the eastern side of
the highway, but is the fourth digital billboard in the City, whereas the Prior IS/MND assumed the
construction and placement of three digital billboards.
9. Required Approvals:
Approval of the currently proposed billboard would require a Zoning Ordinance Amendment
(because this would be the fourth billboard in the city, with a current limit of three), and Design
Review from the City of South San Francisco. The City and applicant may also enter into a
Development Agreement. Construction activities will require appropriate administrative permits.
Additionally, the following review/approval would be required:
Appropriate clearance through the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is also
required for highway-oriented signs.
10. Regulatory Provisions:
The following regulations are applicable to the installation of billboards and compliance has been
assumed in analysis of the currently proposed billboard.
Federal
The federal Highway Beautification Act of 1965 (23 U.S.C. 131) provides for control of outdoor
advertising, including removal of certain types of signs, along the interstate highway system. The Act
is enforced by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
As part of its enforcement effort, FHWA has entered into agreements regarding the Act with state
departments of transportation. The agreements with California are described under the State
provisions, below.
State
Caltrans is involved in the control of “off-premise” displays along state highways. Such displays
advertise products or services of businesses located on property other than the display. Caltrans
does not regulate on-premise displays. (Caltrans Landscape Architecture Program, 2008)
California has entered into two agreements with FHWA as part of the implementation of the
Highway Beautification Act: one dated May 29, 1965, and a subsequent agreement dated February
15, 1968. The agreements generally provide that the State will control the construction of all
outdoor advertising signs, displays, and devices within 660 feet of the interstate highway right-of-
way. The agreements provide that such signs shall be erected only in commercial or industrial zones
and are subject to the following restrictions:
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND Page 11
• No signs shall imitate or resemble any official traffic sign, signal, or device, nor shall signs
obstruct or interfere with official signs;
• No signs shall be erected on rocks or other natural features;
• Signs shall be no larger than 25 feet in height and 60 feet in width, excluding border, trim, and
supports;
• Signs on the same side of the freeway must be separated by at least 500 feet; and
• Signs shall not include flashing, intermittent, or moving lights, and shall not emit light that could
obstruct or impair the vision of any driver.
California regulates outdoor advertising in the Outdoor Advertising Act (Business and Professions
Code, Sections 5200 et seq.) and the California Code of Regulations, Title 4, Division 6 (Sections 2240
et seq.), which incorporate the Federal Highway Beautification Act by reference. Caltrans enforces
the law and regulations. Caltrans requires applicants for new outdoor lighting to demonstrate that
the owner of the parcel consents to the placement of the sign, that the parcel on which the sign
would be located is zoned commercial or industrial, and that local building permits are obtained and
complied with. A digital billboard is identified as a “message center” in the statute, which is an
advertising display where the message is changed more than once every two minutes, but no more
than once every four seconds. (Business and Professions Code, Section 5216.4)
In brief, off-premises changeable electronic variable message signs (CEVMS) adjacent to controlled
routes shall incorporate standards pertaining to:
1. Duration of Message
2. Transition Time
3. Brightness
4. Spacing
5. Locations
Most importantly as a result of FHWA recommendations, to ensure driver safety, no billboard
manufacturers presently use moving displays or less than a 4-second duration between messages.
Some freeways are classified as “landscaped freeways.” A landscaped freeway is defined as one that
is now, or may in the future be, improved by the planting of lawns, trees, shrubs, flowers or other
ornamental vegetation requiring reasonable maintenance on one or both sides of the freeway
(Government Code §5216). Off-premise displays are not allowed along landscaped freeways except
when approved as part of Relocation Agreements pursuant to §5412 of the Outdoor Advertising Act.
It appears the currently proposed billboard is within a segment of U.S. 101 that is considered a
classified landscaped freeway, though such a determination would be made during the approval
process with Caltrans.1
The Outdoor Advertising Act contains a number of provisions relating to the construction and
operation of billboards:
1 California Department of Transportation, Classified “Landscape Freeways”, available at
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-b-classified-landscaped-
freeways/classified-landscaped-freeways
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND Page 12
• The sign must be constructed to withstand a wind pressure of 20 pounds per square feet of
exposed surface (§5401);
• No sign shall display any statements or words of an obscene, indecent or immoral character
(§5402);
• No sign shall display flashing, intermittent or moving light or lights (§5403(h));
• Signs are restricted from areas within 300 feet of an intersection of highways or of highway and
railroad right-of-ways, but a sign may be located at the point of interception, as long as a clear
view is allowed for 300 feet, and no sign shall be installed that would prevent a traveler from
obtaining a clear view of approaching vehicles for a distance of 500 feet along the highway
(§5404); and
• Message center signs may not include any illumination or message change that is in motion or
appears to be in motion or that change or expose a message for less than four seconds. No
message center sign may be located within 500 feet of an existing billboard, or 1,000 feet of
another message center display, on the same side of the highway (§5405).
Additional restrictions on outdoor signage are found in the California Vehicle Code. Section 21466.5
prohibits the placing of any light source “…of any color of such brilliance as to impair the vision of
drivers upon the highway.” Specific standards for measuring light sources are provided. The
restrictions may be enforced by Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol or local authorities.
Local
The Billboard Relocation Agreement mandates that erection of a new billboard is paired with
removal of two existing billboards. Per South San Francisco Municipal Code 20.360.003 D(6)(b), if
there are no existing billboards to remove, the billboard applicant may instead request the City to
enter into a development agreement, which may include in-lieu contributions.
The currently proposed billboard would enter into a Development Agreement and contribute in-lieu
fees, as allowed under the Municipal Code.
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND Page 13
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
SUMMARY OF PROJECT CHANGES
The proposed billboard is of the same type and has the same sign-face size as those previously assessed
in the Prior IS/MND.
The difference from the Prior IS/MND is in the number of digital billboards only. The following discussion
is broken down by CEQA topic and focuses on assessment of the increased number.
AESTHETICS
Scenic Vistas
Impact remains Less than Significant
As under the Prior IS/MND, the site and surrounding area is predominately developed with
industrial/commercial uses and is not a scenic resource or vista. The site of the currently proposed
billboard is located on a flat area near the highway with no substantial views of the Bay from or across
the site.
Figures 4 and 5 (on page 9) are visual models showing the proposed billboard from views along U.S. 101.
Sign Hill, which contains the prominent concrete “South San Francisco The Industrial City” sign on the
hillside, was identified in the Prior IS/MND as the only scenic vista with the potential to be impacted by
billboards along U.S. 101, because they would have the potential to interrupt view of Sign Hill from
motorists traveling along U.S. 101. As noted in the Prior IS/MND, views toward Sign Hill, San Bruno
Mountain and the Skyline Boulevard ridge from U.S. 101 are already partially and intermittently
obscured by existing development, signage, and landscaping. Billboards along U.S. 101 would contribute
to temporary obstruction of these views as a driver progresses toward and past the billboard, however,
the Prior IS/MND determined that the temporary and intermittent nature of the obstruction from the
point of view of a moving vehicle, would be considered a less than significant impact. The currently
proposed fourth billboard would contribute to intermittent blockage of views, but as discussed in the
Prior IS/MND, with mandatory compliance with Caltrans spacing regulations, there would be space
between signs and the blockage would remain intermittent. Because the currently proposed billboard is
on the eastern side of U.S. 101, and therefore not between highway motorists and Sign Hill, there is no
potential to block these views from U.S. 101, but the same conclusion would hold true for roadways
farther to the east.
Scenic Highways and Visual Character
Impact remains Less than Significant/No Impact
There would be no substantial change to the assessment or conclusions related to scenic highways or
visual character. The currently proposed billboard would undergo the appropriate City review. The
character of the currently proposed billboard site is commercial, just as were the potential locations
assessed in the Prior IS/MND, and U.S. 101 is not a state scenic highway in the vicinity.
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND Page 14
Light and Glare
Impact remains Less than Significant with Mitigation
The Prior IS/MND identified a potential impact related to the light levels of the proposed digital
billboard and the potential to create substantial light and glare. The currently proposed billboard has
sign faces of the same size as those previously analyzed, and the closest residential uses are over 2,000
feet away (the increase in illuminance is barely perceptible at 250 feet and negligible at 500 feet), and
would comply with applicable regulation and guidelines. LED lighting has a directional nature and the
projected viewing angle values for the proposed billboard is +14.9°/- 34.6° vertically and ± 45°
horizontally. Shaders will be located above each row of LEDs to prevent light from projecting upward
into the sky.
As all billboards must be at least 500 feet apart, there would be no cumulative impact from light and
glare from more than one digital billboard. There would be no substantial change in the impact related
to light and glare under the currently proposed billboard.
The Prior IS/MND included Mitigation Measure Visual-1 (included in full in Attachment A), requiring
demonstration of compliance with light levels consistent with OAAA Guidelines. This mitigation measure
would remain applicable to the proposed billboard and would reduce the impact to less than significant.
Overall Aesthetics
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the currently proposed billboard would result in no
substantial changes to the Prior IS/MND Aesthetics analysis or conclusions, and impacts would remain
unchanged (no impact/less than significant or reduced to that level through mitigation).
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Impacts remain No Impact
As under the Prior IS/MND, the currently proposed billboard is located in a developed urban area
adjacent to a highway and no part of the site is zoned for or currently being used for agricultural or
forestry purposes or is subject to the Williamson Act. Therefore, the currently proposed billboard would
result in no substantial changes to the Prior IS/MND Agricultural and Forestry Resources analysis or
conclusions, and impacts would remain unchanged (no impact)
AIR QUALITY
Impacts remain Less than Significant/Less than Significant with Mitigation
The currently proposed billboard has the same size sign faces and would have substantially the same
construction activities assumed under the Prior IS/MND, and therefore the same construction emissions,
or less, due to increased emissions controls since the original analysis. Emissions from operations are
generally from energy usage. While a fourth digital billboard would increase the cumulative emissions
from digital billboards in the City, digital billboards have become more efficient since the Prior IS/MND
was analyzed. The currently proposed billboard would consume approximately 40,150 kilowatt-hours
(kwh) of electricity per year, compared to 86,400 kwh estimated in the Prior IS/MND. With emissions
below the amount analyzed in the Prior IS/MND, the currently proposed billboard would result in no
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND Page 15
changes to the Prior IS/MND Air Quality analysis or conclusions, and all impacts except the one below
would remain less than significant.
The Prior IS/MND identified a potentially-significant impact related to construction-period emissions and
fugitive dust and included Mitigation Measure Air-1 (included in full in Attachment A), requiring
standard construction management practices to reduce the impact to less than significant. This impact
and conclusion would remain applicable to the currently proposed billboard.
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the currently proposed billboard would result in no
substantial changes to the Prior IS/MND Air Quality analysis or conclusions, and impacts would remain
unchanged (less than significant or reduced to that level through mitigation).
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
A biological assessment was conducted by H.T. Harvey and Associates for the currently proposed
billboard, as included in full as Attachment B. This included a site visit on June 13, 2023. The following
analysis is informed by that assessment.
Special Status Species and Habitat and Wetlands
Impacts remain Less than Significant/No Impact
The Prior IS/MND assessed both direct effects of billboard installation in a developed urban area, and
the potential for indirect effects on off-site areas. As under the Prior IS/MND, the currently proposed
billboard is located on a developed urban site but is near the strip of vegetation between developed
sites and the U.S. 101, which can support wetlands. The Prior IS/MND concluded that standard billboard
construction on a developed site along the U.S. 101 corridor would not result in significant direct
impacts and that with proposed operational lighting parameters, billboard operation, including
illumination, would not have a significant indirect impact on off-site areas. As indicated above and
discussed below, a site-specific biological assessment was performed for the currently proposed
billboard project to confirm these conditions and conclusions (see Attachment B for the full biological
assessment).
While the project footprint would be entirely on paved ground, approximately 110 feet northwest of the
project site, on the other side of the chain link fence, is a small brackish pond that appears to be fed by
an underground culvert. This ponded water feeds a small wetted-channel that runs parallel to U.S. 101
and eventually ends approximately 285 feet north of the pond, just short of San Bruno Channel, which is
located approximately 530 feet north of the project site. During winter rain events, flows of this small
wetted-channel most likely increase, connecting with San Bruno Channel; but at the time of the
biological assessment site visit, there was no aquatic connectivity between the wetted-channel and San
Bruno Channel. No part of San Bruno Channel or the aquatic habitat are located within the boundaries
of the project site.
The project site and adjacent area were assessed for special-status species and sensitive habitats. The
vast majority of plant and animal species in the area are very common species associated with urban,
developed, and ruderal conditions found throughout the Bay Area.
There are 36 special-status plant species that have the potential to occur in the area of the project site;
however, all were determined to be absent from the project site and adjacent area due to at least one
of the following reasons: (1) lack of suitable habitat types; (2) absence of specific microhabitat or soil
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND Page 16
requirements; (3) the species is presumed to no longer exist in the area or is not expected to occur in
the project vicinity due to range; and/or (4) the project site and study area are too disturbed to be
expected to support the species.
A number of special-status animal species are known to occur in the project area vicinity, however, all of
these species have been determined to be absent from the project site because it lacks suitable habitat,
is outside of the known range of the species, and/or is isolated from the nearest known existing
populations by development or otherwise unsuitable habitat. The following animal species were among
those considered for occurrence: California Ridgway’s rail (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus), the Alameda
song sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula), the San Francisco common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas
sinuosa), the California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), the San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis
sirtalis tetrataenia), the Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), the green sturgeon
(Acipenser medirostris), longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), and 5 special-status butterflies.
No sensitive or regulated habitats (i.e., riparian, wetland or other waters of the U.S./State) occur on the
project site, and the project footprint has been located so as to specifically avoid adjacent wetlands and
other waters. However, the brackish marsh habitat, ponded areas, and the small wetted-channel that
are located within 50-110 ft of the project site would be considered waters of the U.S./State and thus
would be regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (and,
in the case of tidal waters, under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act) and by the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne
Water Quality Control Act. In addition, tidal marsh habitat (i.e., San Bruno Channel) that would be
considered waters of the U.S./State and regulated as described above, is found approximately 500 ft
north of the project site. The locations of those sensitive habitats in relation to the project site are
shown in Figure 6.
Standard construction practices are required per SSF Municipal Code Section 14.04.180 to be
implemented on all construction sites to minimize pollution and siltation in runoff during construction
activities. These standard practices would ensure that there would be no significant impact related to
pollution or siltation in construction runoff getting into nearby wetland areas.
Given the above (and full analysis included as Attachment B), wildlife species that may occur in the
project area are common species that are locally and regionally abundant. Billboard installation at the
project site would not result in the modification of any naturally occurring habitat. As a result, no
regional populations of these species would be significantly impacted by billboard construction.
However, all native bird species that occur within the project site are protected from take by the federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code. Direct destruction of an active
nest would violate the MBTA and Fish and Game Code, and abandonment of an active nest because of
project construction activities could be considered take under the Fish and Game Code. Based on the
biological assessment of the currently proposed billboard project, bird species that could nest close
enough to the project site are all regionally common, urban adapted species, which would have to be
tolerant of relatively loud urban noise levels in the immediate vicinity, including from the nearby U.S.
101, to have chosen to nest in the immediate vicinity. In the unlikely event that there are nests nearby
and that the few days of active construction activity resulted in abandonment, the biological assessment
determined that it would not be considered a significant impact under CEQA. It is recommended that
construction of the billboard should take place during the nonbreeding season (September 1 – January
31) if feasible or that a nesting survey is conducted within 30 days of construction to further minimize
less-than-significant impacts and fully comply with federal and state laws.
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND Page 17
Figure 6: Sensitive Habitats in the Project Vicinity
Source: H.T. Harvey & Associates, dated July 14, 2023
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND Page 18
As discussed in the Prior IS/MND, illumination from a digital billboard may also indirectly affect the
activity of birds and mammals, and this was examined specifically for the currently proposed billboard
site (see Attachment B). The project site is in an area with considerable artificial illumination as an
existing condition, including numerous streetlights, illuminated highway and street signs, light
emanating from commercial and industrial buildings, and existing digital billboards along U.S. 101. The
proposed LED billboard would be angled in such a way as to maximize the amount of visibility from
specific portions of U.S. 101, so the area of brightest night illuminance projected by the proposed
billboard would be directed at oncoming traffic, while illuminance would decrease with lateral distance
from the center of the viewing angle. The proposed LED billboard would increase the illuminance (above
current ambient conditions) across the 35-ft wide brackish marsh habitat found west of the project site.
However, this small, isolated patch of marsh habitat does not provide suitable habitat for any special-
status wildlife species, nor large numbers of non-special-status species, which may be affected by the
increase in illuminance in this area. Further, the proposed LED billboard is not expected to substantially
increase the amount of illuminance currently experienced by the San Bruno Channel (and the wildlife
species potentially inhabiting the channel), located approximately 530 ft north of the project site. Thus,
indirect impacts from increased illuminance on sensitive habitats and their wildlife communities would
be less than significant.
Wildlife Corridors
Impact remains Less than Significant
With respect to wildlife corridors, the Prior IS/MND acknowledged that avian flight behavior is known to
be potentially affected by artificial illuminance, primarily through the disorientation of nocturnally
migrating birds, which could be drawn off-path toward the source of illumination and other potential
nearby strike-risks. However, that analysis goes on to conclude that the impact of digital billboards
within the designated U.S. 101 corridor would not be significant due to the operational characteristics of
proposed billboards and of bird movement in the area. Specifically, the bases for this conclusion can be
summarized as a) that LEDs are direction in nature with shutters to minimize vertical light into higher-
altitude migratory flight paths, b) that a digital billboard would be a changing light source, and not a
fixed and unchanging light that attracts birds, and c) that the configuration of potential bird habitat in
the vicinity does not lend itself to directed lower-altitude bird flights toward the billboard.
Consistent with the analysis in the Prior IS/MND, the site-specific biological assessment concludes that
the vicinity of the currently proposed billboard is heavily urbanized and large numbers of birds are not
expected to be flying within the beam of light from the billboard. The majority of seabirds and large
numbers of shorebirds that move in the vicinity of the project site move and forage primarily along the
shoreline of the Bay east of the site. These birds forage in open waters of the Bay and in areas such as
the San Bruno Marsh Complex, Oyster Point Marina, Brisbane Lagoon, and Coyote Point. With the
exception of higher-altitude flights by some birds moving between the Bay and Ocean, movement of
waterbirds perpendicular to U.S. 101 (and thus in and out of the area that would be illuminated by the
project) would be limited due to the absence of suitable foraging or breeding habitat for these birds in
the areas immediately west of U.S. 101. Thus, it is unlikely that large numbers of seabirds and shorebirds
would move within areas of increased luminance from future billboard lights. Passerine bird species, of
which a few common species occur near the project site, are less susceptible to the attraction and
disorientation caused by luminance when they are not migrating.
The operational characteristics of the currently proposed billboard and bird movement in the project
vicinity are substantially similar to that analyzed in the Prior IS/MND and the site-specific biological
assessment (see Attachment B) confirms that the conclusions would remain the same. The impact on
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND Page 19
wildlife corridors, including indirect effects of illuminance on flight patterns, would therefore remain less
than significant.
Biological Policies and Conservation Plans
Impact remains No Impact
The project does not propose any tree removal and as discussed above, would not involve disturbance
of any protected habitat, species, or wetlands. There are no local policies, ordinances, or Habitat
Conservation Plans applicable to this site or project and the no impact conclusion would remain
unchanged.
Overall Biological Resources
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the currently proposed billboard would result in no
substantial changes to the Prior IS/MND Biological Resources analysis or conclusions, and impacts would
remain unchanged (no impact/less than significant).
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impacts remain Less than Significant/Less than Significant with Mitigation
Since the Prior IS/MND, additional checklist questions have been added to the CEQA Guidelines,
Appendix G, to make it clear that impacts to Native American Tribal Cultural Resources would be
considered an environmental impact. The analysis in the Prior IS/MND had already considered Native
American Tribal Cultural Resources under the Cultural Resources topic, so discussion of Tribal Cultural
Resources is included here.
As under the Prior IS/MND, the currently proposed billboard is located in a developed urban area
adjacent to a highway. The currently proposed billboard would have substantially the same construction
activities as analyzed under the Prior IS/MND.
The project would not modify or demolish any structures, and consistent with conclusions in the Prior
IS/MND, the currently proposed billboard would not have a significant impact related to historic
resources.
A records search of the California Historical Resources Information System at the Northwest Information
Center (NWIC), performed for the currently proposed billboard project and dated June 13, 2023
(included in Attachment C), indicated that the project site is within an area of artificial fill and bay mud,
but was historically within marshland along the margins of the San Francisco Bayshore, and adjacent to
San Bruno Slough, which describe the environmental setting and features associated with known sites of
Native American resources in this part of San Mateo County. The NWIC further concluded that the
project area may contain one recorded Native American archaeological resource, P-41-000047, Nelson
Shellmound #382, though its precise location, status, and nature remains unknown. Additionally, historic
maps show there could have been development at the site in the late 1800s and therefore a moderate
potential for unrecorded historic-period archaeological resources.
A search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands Files was completed for the
project and indicated there are no known sacred lands present in the vicinity of the site (see Attachment
C). While no tribes have requested consultation for projects in this area, notice was sent on July 19,
2023, to local tribes listed as being historic active in the area, per recommendation of the NAHC. While
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND Page 20
one tribe provided information in the event tribal monitoring services were required, no tribes identified
particular concerns with the project or site or requested coordination per Public Resources Code section
21080.3.1(d).
The above site-specific considerations are substantially consistent with the Prior IS/MND, which
identified discovery/disturbance of currently unknown cultural (or tribal cultural) resources during
billboard installation as a potentially-significant impact and included Mitigation Measure Cultural-1
(included in full in Attachment A), requiring a monitoring and mitigation plan to be implemented during
drilling that would reduce the impact to less than significant. This mitigation measure would remain
applicable to the currently proposed billboard.
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the currently proposed billboard would result in no
substantial changes to the Prior IS/MND Cultural/Tribal Cultural Resources analysis or conclusions, and
impacts would remain unchanged (less than significant or reduced to that level through mitigation).
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impacts remain Less than Significant/No Impact
As under the Prior IS/MND, the project site is in a seismically active region and could contain soils with
properties that would need to be appropriately taken into consideration. As for all projects, the
currently proposed billboard requires building permits and would be constructed to the current building
code standards, including consideration of site-specific soils, geologic, and seismic conditions. There are
no earthquake fault zones known to pass through the vicinity,2 and given the relatively flat topography
of the site, the possibility of landslides is considered unlikely. Standard construction practices are
required per SSF Municipal Code Section 14.04.180 to be implemented on all construction sites to
minimize erosion and siltation during construction activities. These standard practices would address
erosion potential from ground disturbance. The impact related to seismic and soil hazards would remain
less than significant.
The conclusion of no impact related to the use of septic tanks would remain unchanged as no septic
takes are proposed.
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the currently proposed billboard would result in no
substantial changes to the Prior IS/MND Geology and Soils analysis or conclusions, and impacts would
remain unchanged (no impact/less than significant).
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impacts remain Less than Significant/No Impact
The currently proposed billboard has substantially the same construction activities and size of the sign
faces as analyzed under the Prior IS/MND, but with the increase in energy efficiency of current models
of digital billboards, would have emissions of approximately 16 metric tons of CO2 per year, which is
about half the emissions assumed for a digital billboard of the same size analyzed in the Prior IS/MND.
2 California Geological Survey (CGS). Sept 23, 2021. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation San Francisco South
Quadrangle, available at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/EZRIM/SAN_FRANCISCO_SOUTH_EZRIM_a11y.pdf.
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND Page 21
This remains well below the Air District’s (Bay Area Air Quality Management District) threshold of 1,100
metric tons that was in place at the time of the Prior IS/MND, and the GHG emissions would be within
the less than significant impact identified in the Prior IS/MND.
Since the Prior IS/MND, the Air District issued new GHG emissions thresholds in April 2022, revising the
quantified threshold to a checklist of compliance, requiring consistency with applicable criteria to make
a finding of less-than-significant. However, because GHG issues were known or could have been known
when the Prior IS/MND was being prepared, revised thresholds or guidelines are not legally “new
information” as specifically defined under CEQA. That being said, the most closely applicable criteria are
those for a building, which requires no new natural gas appliances or plumbing, and no wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary electrical usage. The project does not propose gas usage or connections and
per the analysis under Utilities and Service Systems, would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary electrical usage. If compared to the new Air District GHG checklist thresholds, the currently
proposed billboard would be found to have a less than significant impact.
Additionally, the project would be required to comply with any applicable requirements of the City’s
recently updated Climate Action Plan and would be consistent with the no impact conclusion for this
topic in the Prior IS/MND.
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the currently proposed billboard would result in no
substantial changes to the Prior IS/MND Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis or conclusions, and impacts
would remain unchanged (no impact/less than significant).
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impacts remain No Impact/Less than Significant/Less than Significant with Mitigation
As under the Prior IS/MND, the currently proposed billboard is located in a developed urban area
adjacent to a highway and would have substantially the same construction and operational activities as
analyzed under the Prior IS/MND. The currently proposed billboard would not create hazardous
emissions/materials near a school, would not result in airport hazards, would not impact emergency
response, and is not located in a wildland fire hazard area and impacts related to these topics would
remain unchanged (less than significant/no impact).
The Prior IS/MND identified a potentially-significant impact related to unexplored potential for
hazardous materials and included Mitigation Measure Haz-1 (included in full in Attachment A), requiring
a Phase I environmental site assessment report, and a Phase II report if warranted by the Phase I
report); and Mitigation Measure Haz-2 (included in full in Attachment A), requiring the operator to
follow applicable regulations regarding proper disposal and/or recycling of billboard components; to
reduce the impact to less than significant. These mitigation measures would remain applicable to the
currently proposed billboard, and the impact would be within the less than significant with mitigation
impact conclusion identified in the Prior IS/MND.
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the currently proposed billboard would result in no
substantial changes to the Prior IS/MND Hazards and Hazardous Materials analysis or conclusions, and
impacts would remain unchanged (no impact/less than significant or reduced to that level through
mitigation).
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND Page 22
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impacts remain Less than Significant/No Impact
The currently proposed billboard would have substantially the same construction and operational
activities as the billboard analyzed under the Prior IS/MND. As under the Prior IS/MND, the currently
proposed billboard would not use water during operation, would not substantially change site drainage,
and is not located in an area subject to flooding or inundation.3 Standard construction practices are
required per SSF Municipal Code Section 14.04.180 to be implemented on all construction sites to
minimize the potential for construction-period runoff to impact off-site water quality. These standard
practices would ensure that there would be no significant impact related to water quality during the
construction period.
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the currently proposed billboard would result in no
substantial changes to the Prior IS/MND Hydrology and Water Quality analysis or conclusions, and
impacts would remain unchanged (less than significant/no impact).
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impacts remain Less than Significant/No Impact
As under the Prior IS/MND, the currently proposed billboard is located in a developed urban area
adjacent to a highway. Because the billboard would not involve any physical changes that would divide
the established community and because the site is not subject to a conservation plan, the conclusion of
no impact related to these items would remain unchanged.
Only three digital billboards are currently allowed under the South San Francisco Zoning Code.
Amendment of the Zoning Code as proposed with the currently proposed billboard would allow this
fourth digital billboard. Assuming approval of the Zoning Code amendment, there would be no conflict
with the Zoning Code or other planning document and impacts related to land use plan conflicts would
remain less than significant.
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the currently proposed billboard would result in no
substantial changes to the Prior IS/MND Land Use and Planning analysis or conclusions, and impacts
would remain unchanged (no impact/less than significant).
MINERAL RESOURCES
Impacts remain No Impact
As under the Prior IS/MND, the currently proposed billboard is located in a developed urban area and
the site contains no known mineral resources and has not been delineated as a locally important
3 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), effective 4/5/2019, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Map Number
06081C0044F, available at https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps.
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND Page 23
mineral recovery site on any land use plan.4 There would be no impact to mineral resources as a result
of the currently proposed billboard.
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the currently proposed billboard would result in no
substantial changes to the Prior IS/MND Mineral Resources analysis or conclusions, and impacts would
remain unchanged (no impact).
NOISE
Impacts remain Less than Significant/No Impact
As under the Prior IS/MND, the currently proposed billboard is located in a developed urban area
adjacent to a highway and would have substantially the same construction and operational activities as
the assumptions under the Prior IS/MND. Standard construction noise hours and volumes are specified
per SSF Municipal Code Section 8.32.050 and are required to be implemented on all construction sites to
minimize the potential for construction-period noise impacts. The proposed billboard would not be a
source of operational noise or vibration and construction activities will comply with noise regulations.
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the currently proposed billboard would result in no
substantial changes to the Prior IS/MND Noise analysis or conclusions, and impacts would remain
unchanged from the Prior IS/MND (no impact/less than significant).
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Impacts remain No Impact
As under the Prior IS/MND, a billboard would not induce population growth or displace housing or
people and would have no impact related to population and housing.
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the currently proposed billboard would result in no
substantial changes to the Prior IS/MND Population and Housing analysis or conclusions, and impacts
would remain unchanged (no impact).
PUBLIC SERVICES
Impacts remain No Impact
As under the Prior IS/MND, a billboard would not increase the demand for public services and would
have no impact related to public services.
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the currently proposed billboard would result in no
substantial changes to the Prior IS/MND Public Services analysis or conclusions, and impacts would
remain unchanged (no impact).
4 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey Information Warehouse: Mineral Land Classification.
2015.Special Report 146: Part II, Plate 2.65, available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc.
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND Page 24
RECREATION
Impacts remain No Impact
As under the Prior IS/MND, a billboard would not construct or increase the use of recreational facilities
and would have no impact related to recreation.
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the currently proposed billboard would result in no
substantial changes to the Prior IS/MND Recreation analysis or conclusions, and impacts would remain
unchanged (no impact).
TRANSPORTATION
Impacts remain No Impact/Less than Significant with Mitigation
As under the Prior IS/MND, operation of a billboard would not generate vehicle trips or otherwise
change traffic patterns or access. Consistent with the Prior IS/MND conclusions, except as discussed
below, the currently proposed billboard would have no impact related to transportation.
The Prior IS/MND identified a potentially-significant impact related to increase of traffic hazards and
included Mitigation Measure Traf-1 (included in full in Attachment A), requiring submission of an annual
report confirming compliance with traffic and safety regulations; and Mitigation Measure Traf-2
(included in full in Attachment A), requiring compliance with operational safety measures, to reduce the
impact to less than significant. These mitigation measures would remain applicable to the currently
proposed billboard and the project would be within the less than significant with mitigation conclusion
of the Prior IS/MND.
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the currently proposed billboard would result in no
substantial changes to the Prior IS/MND Transportation analysis or conclusions, and impacts would
remain unchanged (no impact/less than significant with mitigation).
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Impacts remain No Impact/Less than Significant
The currently proposed billboard would have substantially the same construction and operational
activities as the billboard analyzed under the Prior IS/MND, but with the increase in energy efficiency of
current models of digital billboards, is estimated to use about 40 MWh per year of electricity, which is
less than half of the energy use assumed for one billboard under the Prior IS/MND. While a digital
billboard would result in electrical use, it would be required to meet or exceed applicable electrical
codes and efficiencies and, as discussed under Regulatory Provisions beginning on page 10 of this
document, digital billboards are allowable under federal, state, and local codes with relocation
agreements or in-lieu fees. Therefore, the proposed electrical use would not be considered wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary for CEQA purposes and would be within the less than significant impact
conclusions in the Prior IS/MND.
Consistent with conclusions of the Prior IS/MND, operation of a digital billboard would not otherwise
require utilities and would have no impact related to utilities and service systems, and this conclusion
remains applicable to the currently proposed billboard.
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND Page 25
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the currently proposed billboard would result in no
substantial changes to the Prior IS/MND Utilities and Service Systems analysis or conclusions (no
impact/less than significant).
CONCLUSIONS
Given the substantial evidence presented in this document, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15164, some minor changes or additions to the Prior IS/MND were necessary to describe the currently
proposed billboard and its potential impacts, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162
calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred as demonstrated
by the following statements:
(1) The currently proposed billboard would not result in new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) There are no changes in circumstances that would result in the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects; and
(3) There is no new information resulting in a new significant effect not discussed in new significant
environmental effects, a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects, or a change in the feasibility (or acceptance) of mitigation measures.
While the currently proposed billboard would increase the cumulative total of digital billboards in the
city by one more than assumed under the Prior IS/MND and within the same geographic location, based
on the analysis in this document, the addition of the currently proposed billboard would be considered a
minor technical change or addition per CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. Therefore, this addendum, in
combination with the Prior IS/MND, is the appropriate CEQA document and no additional CEQA analysis
or documentation is required to make a decision on the currently proposed billboard.
All mitigation measures identified in the Prior IS/MND would remain applicable to the currently
proposed billboard, as listed in the MMRP for this project included as Attachment A. Standard
conditions applicable to the project and discussed in this document are also listed in Attachment A.
STANDARD CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
ATTACHMENT A
to the
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND, MMRP Page A-1
STANDARD CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR THE 140 BEACON STREET BILLBOARD PROJECT
In the first section of the table, standard conditions are listed from the South San Francisco Municipal Code as indicated.
In the second section, the mitigation measures from the 101 Terminal Court Clear Channel Billboard Project and Related Zoning Amendment are
listed, all of which are applicable to the 140 Beacon Street Billboard Project.
Standard Condition Timing/
Schedule
Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
Standard Condition: Construction Site Runoff BMPs.
Pursuant to South San Francisco Municipal Code 14.04.180
all construction sites in the city shall implement best
management practices (BMPs), including year round
effective erosion control, run-on and runoff control,
sediment control, active treatment systems (as
appropriate), good site management, and non-stormwater
management through all phases of construction (including,
but not limited to, site grading, building and finishing of
lots) until the site is stabilized by landscaping or the
installation of permanent erosion control measures. BMPs
means schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices,
general good housekeeping practices, pollution prevention
practices, maintenance procedures and other management
practices to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants
directly or indirectly to “waters of the United States.”
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits
Applicant
Verify inclusion
of requirements
in planning
documents
SSF Planning
Division
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND, MMRP Page A-2
Standard Condition Timing/
Schedule
Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
Standard Condition: Construction Noise. Section 8.32.050
of South San Francisco Municipal Code states that
construction, alteration, repair, or landscape maintenance
actives which are authorized by a valid City permit shall be
allowed on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and
8:00 p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of 9:00 a.m.
and 8:00 p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. or when authorized by a
permit and not exceeding 90 dB at a distance of 25 feet or
exceeds 90 dB at any point outside a proposed project’s
property plane.
Prior to
issuance of
demolition,
building or
grading
permits
Applicant
Verify inclusion
of requirements
in construction
documents
SSF Building
Division
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
Visual-1: Billboard Brightness Field Testing. The Applicant
shall demonstrate through field testing compliance with a
0.3 footcandle increase over ambient light at 250 feet
during nighttime conditions upon initial start-up, at 6
months of operation and at the request of the City for the
life of the billboard. The Applicant shall fund field testing
by an independent contractor or City staff trained in the
use of a handheld photometer to demonstrate continued
compliance. The City shall consider citizen complaints
consisting of direct personal impacts as cause for
requesting field testing.
If increases in ambient light are found to be above the 0.3
footcandle level, the dimming level shall be adjusted until
Before
operations
-and-
After 6 months
of operation
Applicant
Verify
requirements are
met during
grading and
construction
SSF
Building
Division
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND, MMRP Page A-3
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
this level can be demonstrated. This must be completed
and demonstrated through follow-up field testing within
24 hours or the billboard shall not be operated until the
lighting levels can be brought into compliance.
If no above-threshold levels have been measured in the
prior three tests, field testing shall be requested no more
often than twice yearly. Otherwise, field tests can be
requested up to once monthly.
Air-1: Basic Construction Management Practices. The
Project shall demonstrate proposed compliance with all
applicable regulations and operating procedures prior to
issuance of demolition, building or grading permits,
including implementation of the following BAAQMD
“Basic Construction Mitigation Measures”:
i) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging
areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access
roads) shall be watered two times per day.
ii) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose
material off-site shall be covered.
iii) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public
roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum
street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry
power sweeping is prohibited.
iv) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited
to 15 mph.
v) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved
shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads
shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
Prior to
issuance of all
grading and
construction
permits
-and-
During grading
and
construction
Applicant
Verify
construction
contractors
provide
acknowledgment
of requirements
-and-
Verify
requirements are
met during
grading and
construction
SSF
Building
Division
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND, MMRP Page A-4
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
vi) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting
equipment off when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the
California airborne toxics control measure Title 13,
Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).
Clear signage shall be provided for construction
workers at all access points.
vii) All construction equipment shall be maintained and
properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s
specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a
certified mechanic and determined to be running in
proper condition prior to operation.
viii) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number
and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding
dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s
phone number shall also be visible to ensure
compliance with applicable regulations.
Cultural-1: Cultural Monitoring and Mitigation Plan. The
Project applicant shall fund preparation and
implementation of a cultural monitoring and mitigation
plan by a qualified archaeologist to address the potential
for presence and disturbance of Native American
archaeological resources or remains during excavation of
the billboard pole footing. This will include at a minimum
monitoring during excavation of the billboard pole footing
and may also include but is not limited to additional
archival research, hand auger sampling, shovel test units,
geoarchaeological analysis, or other common methods
used to identify the presence of archaeological resources
to be determined per the recommendation of the
Prior to and
during
construction
activities
involving
ground
disturbance
Applicant
Verify inclusion
of requirements
in construction
documents
SSF Building
Division
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND, MMRP Page A-5
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
qualified archaeologist. The archaeologist and
construction contractors shall follow the appropriate
procedures should any cultural resources or human
remains be discovered during ground disturbance.
Haz-1: Phase I and/or Phase II Reports. Prior to issuance
of construction permits, the City of South San Francisco
shall require the Project applicant to submit a Phase I
environmental site assessment report, and a Phase II
report if warranted by the Phase I report for the Project
site. The reports shall make recommendations for
remedial action in accordance with State and Federal
laws, if appropriate, and should be signed by a Registered
Environmental Assessor, Professional Geologist, or
Professional Engineer. The Applicant shall comply with
these recommendations.
Prior to
issuance of
construction
permits
Applicant
Verify
requirements are
met
SSF Planning
Division
Haz-2: E-Waste Disposal. Electronic components of the
billboard may contain materials considered “e-waste”
when disposed of due to potentially hazardous metals,
flame retardants, and other chemicals. The operator shall
be required to follow applicable regulations regarding
proper disposal and/or recycling, as appropriate, as
components are replaced or removed over time.
Over the life of
the project Applicant
Verify
requirements are
met
SSF Building
Division
Traf-1: Annual Report. The operator of the digital
billboard shall submit to the City, within thirty days
following June 30 of each year, a written report regarding
operation of each digital billboard during the preceding
period of July 1 to June 30. The operator may submit a
combined report for all such digital billboards operated by
Annually Applicant
Verify
requirements are
met
SSF Planning
Division
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND, MMRP Page A-6
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
such operator within the City limits. The report shall,
when appropriate, identify incidents or facts that relate to
specific digital billboards. The report shall be submitted to
the Director of the Economic and Community
Development Department and shall include information
relating to the following:
a. Status of the operator’s license as required by
California Business and Professions Code §§5300 et
seq.;
b. Status of the required permit for individual digital
billboards, as required by California Business and
Professions Code §§5350 et seq.;
c. Compliance with the California Outdoor Advertising
Act, California Business and Professions Code §§5200
and all regulations adopted pursuant to such Act;
d. Compliance with California Vehicle Code §§21466.5
and 21467;
e. Compliance with provisions of written agreements
between the U.S. Department of Transportation and
the California Department of Transportation pursuant
to the federal Highway Beautification Act (23 U.S.C.
§131);
f. Compliance with mitigation measures identified in
the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted as part
of Project approval;
g. Each written or oral complaint received by the
operator, or conveyed to the operator by any
government agency or any other person, regarding
operation of each digital billboard included in the
report;
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND, MMRP Page A-7
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
h. Each malfunction or failure of each digital billboard
included in the report, which shall include only those
malfunctions or failures that are visible to the naked
eye, including reason for the malfunction, duration
and confirmation of repair; and
i. Operating status of each digital billboard included in
the report, including estimated date of repair and
return to normal operation of any digital billboard
identified in the report as not operating in normal
mode.
Traf-2: Operational Safety. The operation of the digital
billboard shall comply with the following at all times:
a. No special visual effects that include moving or
flashing lights shall accompany any message or the
transition between two successive messages;
b. The operator shall not install or implement any
technology that would allow interaction with drivers,
vehicles or any device located in vehicles, including,
but not limited to a radio frequency identification
device, geographic positions system, or other device
without prior approval of the City of South San
Francisco, taking into consideration technical studies
and CalTrans or US DOT policies and guidance
available at the time of the request.
Ongoing during
operations
Applicant /
Operator
Included in
Review of Annual
Report
SSF Planning
Division
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
ATTACHMENT B
to the
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MND
1
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
July 14, 2023
Rebecca Auld | Vice President
Lamphier-Gregory
4100 Redwood Rd Ste 20A - #601
Oakland, CA 94619
Subject: 140 Beacon Street Outfront Foster Interstate Billboard Project – Biological Impacts Assessment
(HTH #4762-01)
Dear Rebecca Auld:
Per your request, H. T. Harvey & Associates has performed a biological impacts assessment for the construction
of a new Outfront Foster Interstate LED billboard at 140 Beacon Street in South San Francisco, California,
located on the east side of U.S. Highway 101 (Hwy 101), and north of the Interstate 380 (I-380)/Hwy 101
interchange (Figure 1). The proposed project site at 140 Beacon Street is located on vacant Pacific Gas &
Electric (PG&E) land, on the west side of the K1 Speed Indoor Go Karts building. The new billboard would
have an overall height of 65 feet (ft) above existing grade, with north and south-facing 14 ft tall by 48 ft wide
LED displays visible to vehicles traveling in both directions on Hwy 101. The proposed billboard would display
a rotation of eight 8-second static images and will operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week. The billboard
would not show video or motion. Outfront Foster Interstate is proposing to install Opto-Tech LED signs
configured to minimize light spillage and constrain brightness in accordance with industry guidelines and
consistent with standards established by California law. Shaders will be located above each row of LEDs to
prevent light from projecting upward into the sky. The diode pattern of LED bulbs is based on a Nichia series
336 LED, with projected viewing angle values for the proposed billboard at + 14.9°/ -34.6° vertically and ±
45° horizontally. Light levels would be controlled by a daily clock and adjusted to ambient light conditions. The
maximum light output level of the billboard displays would be 0.3 foot-candles (fc) above ambient lighting
conditions, measured at a distance of 250 ft. The foundation for the proposed billboard would be a drilled shaft
with a poured concrete footing that would be located on existing pavement. The column foundation would be
5 ft in diameter and extend to an estimated depth of 41 ft below the pavement ground surface.
The construction of a new billboard on the project site is allowable under the existing zoning code and within
the area anticipated as described in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration: 101 Terminal Court
Clear Channel Billboard Project and Related Zoning Amendment, for which H. T. Harvey & Associates
prepared the biological impact assessment. In addition, H. T. Harvey & Associates had previously assessed this
^_^_
^_^_
^_^_
^_
^_
SAN
FRANCISCO
MARIN
SAN MATEO
Napa
Fairfield
San Rafael Martinez
San Francisco
Oakland
Redwood City
N:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
4
7
0
0
\
4
7
6
2
-
0
1
\
S
h
a
p
e
f
i
l
e
s
\
B
e
a
c
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
i
l
l
b
o
a
r
d
.
a
p
r
x
1,000 0 1,000500
Feet±
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
140 Beacon Street Outfront Foster Interstate Billboard Project –
Biological Impacts Assessment (4762-01)
July 2023
Project
Vicinity
California
140 Beacon Street
Legend
Proposed LED Billboard Location
3
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
general area in the 345 Shaw Road/South San Francisco Highway 101 Clear Channel Billboard Project –
Biological Impact Assessment report that we prepared for Lamphier-Gregory on August 27, 2019. Therefore,
our assessment in this report draws heavily from our research and analysis of that report and from other
previous billboard projects we have evaluated for Lamphier-Gregory.
Methods
Prior to conducting a field visit, we reviewed the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2023) and
also reviewed records of birds reported in nearby areas on eBird (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2023), to
determine whether there were known occurrences of special-status species in the vicinity of the project site
along Hwy 101, so that the potential effects of billboard construction and operation could be assessed in the
context of these species’ distributions. I then conducted a site visit on June 13, 2023, to provide a basis for
determining the potential direct and indirect effects of the billboard’s lighting on wildlife. I inspected habitat
conditions in areas immediately surrounding the proposed project site and in adjacent areas. Following the
completion of the survey, we determined the potential for installation and operation of the proposed new
billboard to impact biological resources, such as special-status species and sensitive/regulated habitats, based
on the conditions at the proposed project site.
Existing Site Conditions
Overall existing site conditions in the
project area along Hwy 101 consist
primarily of highly developed
industrial, commercial, and residential
land uses, where multiple digital and
traditional, non-digital billboards, as
well as street signs, are currently
located. Below, we describe project
site condition characteristics, and the
probability of special-status species or
sensitive/regulated habitats occurring
near or within the proposed project
site location.
Photo 1. Looking south from the proposed project site at 140
Beacon Street.
4
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
As described above, the proposed
project site is located on the east side
of Hwy 101, with the project footprint
located entirely on existing pavement.
The project footprint is located on
vacant PG&E property and is
bounded to the east by a chain link
fence, separating the PG&E property
from the K1 Speed Indoor Go Karts
building; and bounded to the west by
another chain link fence, separating
the PG&E property from an
approximately 35-ft wide strip of
mixed ruderal and wetland vegetation
that runs parallel to the east shoulder
of Hwy 101 (Photos 1 and 2). A vacant
pavement parking lot and three
electrical transmission towers (with
overhead lines) are located north of
the project footprint (Photo 3).
Dominant ruderal vegetation found
around the edges of the project
footprint and within the vegetated
strip separating the project site from
Hwy 101 includes nonnative species
such as fennel (Foeniculum vulgare),
bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca
echioides), and wild oat (Avena fatua).
Native species include panicled
willow herb (Epilobium brachycarpum)
and Canada horseweed (Erigeron
canadensis), both of which are
common in disturbed ruderal
habitats. Immediately west of the
project footprint is a cultivated Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa), surrounded by nonnative
Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) bushes. The southern end of the project site is composed primarily of
nonnative vegetation such as pampas grass (Cortaderia sp.), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), fennel, and wild
oat, bordered to the east by a few rock daphne (Daphne sericea) shrubs and privet trees (Ligustrum sp.).
Photo 2. Looking west towards the mixed ruderal and wetland
vegetation strip that separates the project site from Hwy 101.
The 345 Shaw Road billboard is seen on the west side of Hwy
101.
Photo 3. Looking north from the project site. Note the two
digital billboards behind the electrical transmission towers.
5
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
The vegetated strip on the west side of
the chain link fence, separating the
project site from Hwy 101 includes
characteristic plant species
representative of a brackish marsh
habitat. Those species include
saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), pickleweed
(Salicornia pacifica), gumplant (Grindelia
sp.), alkali Russian thistle (Salsola soda),
cut leaf plantain (Plantago coronopus),
and fat-hen (Atriplex prostrata), which
are interspersed by nonnative
vegetation as described above, as well
as native coyote brush (Baccharis
pilularis), which has been cut back. The
section of the brackish marsh habitat
directly west of the project site did not
contain any ponded water or support
a discernible channel. However,
approximately 110 ft northwest of the
project site on the west side of the
chain link fence, a pond of brackish
water occurs and appears to be fed by
an underground culvert (circled in red
in Photo 4). This ponded water feeds
a small wetted-channel (Photo 5) that
runs parallel to Hwy 101 and
eventually terminates approximately
285 ft north of the pond, just short of
San Bruno Channel, which is located
approximately 530 ft north of the
project site. During winter rain events,
flows of this small wetted-channel
most likely increase, connecting with
San Bruno Channel; but at the time of
the site visit, there was no aquatic connectivity between the wetted-channel and San Bruno Channel. No part
of San Bruno Channel, or the aquatic habitat are located within the boundaries of the project site.
The vast majority of plant and animal species occurring within the project area and on or immediately adjacent
to the proposed project site at 140 Beacon Street, are very common species associated with urban, developed,
Photo 4. Looking southwest towards the ponded water
location, approximately 110 ft northwest of the project site.
The underground culvert is circled in red.
Photo 5. Looking northwest towards the small wetted-
channel, which terminates approximately 285 ft north of the
ponded water location.
6
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
and ruderal conditions found throughout the Bay Area. Common bird species expected to occur here include
the Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans),
American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), and house finch (Haemorhous
mexicanus). Common waterbird species expected to occur along the San Bruno Channel include the snowy egret
(Egretta thula), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), American coot (Fulica americana),
and western gull (Larus occidentalis), all of which are expected to forage along the channel, as well as Canada
geese (Branta canadensis), who’s nests and young were observed in the channel during the site visit. These
waterbird species may occur occasionally within the small wetted-channel, along with the Pacific tree frog
(Hyliola regilla).
Special-Status Species and Sensitive Habitats
We collected and reviewed information from several sources, including the California Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB 2023), to determine whether there were known occurrences of special-status species, and
if they could potentially occur in the vicinity of the project site.
Special-Status Plant Species
A list of 36 special-status plants with some potential for occurrence in the project region was compiled using
CNDDB records (CNDDB 2023) and reviewed for each species potential to occur on the project site, or more
widely in the project area. Based on an analysis of the documented habitat requirements and occurrence records
associated with these species, all were determined to be absent from the project site/study area due to at least
one of the following reasons: (1) lack of suitable habitat types; (2) absence of specific microhabitat or edaphic
requirements; (3) the species is presumed extirpated or is not expected to occur in the project vicinity due to
range; and/or (4) the project site and study area are too disturbed to be expected to support the species.
Special-Status Animal Species
A number of special-status animal species are known to occur in the project area vicinity (CNDDB 2023).
However, all of these species have been determined to be absent from the project site because it lacks suitable
habitat, is outside of the known range of the species, and/or is isolated from the nearest known extant
populations by development or otherwise unsuitable habitat. Animal species considered for occurrence but
rejected, as well as the reasons for their rejection, include the following (among others):
• The state and federally endangered California Ridgway’s rail (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus), and the Alameda
song sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula) and San Francisco common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas
sinuosa), both California species of special concern, have all been recorded in the San Bruno Marsh
Complex, located approximately 0.45 mi east of the project site, where the San Bruno Creek and
Channel empties into the Bay (CNDDB 2023, Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2023). California Ridgway’s
rails have also been detected along San Bruno Channel, approximately 525 ft north of the project site
(Avocet Research Associates 2007). However, given the lack of suitable marsh or Bay shoreline habitat
on the project site, we do not expect any of these species to occur on the project site or within the
7
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
surrounding project area. Although aquatic and marsh habitat is present northwest of the project site,
this habitat does not constitute appreciable high-quality habitat for these species, and there is no other
areas adjacent to any portions of the project site, that are close enough for construction of a billboard
on the project site to adversely affect these marsh species. Further, the site visit was conducted at the
peak-time of the breeding season for the Alameda song sparrow and San Francisco common
yellowthroat, and neither species was detected (even in the marsh adjacent to the project site) at the
time.
• The California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), federally listed as threatened and a California species of
concern, is known to occur in the project vicinity (CNDDB 2023). Its preferred breeding habitat
consists of deep perennial pools with emergent vegetation for attaching egg clusters (Fellers 2005), as
well as shallow benches to act as nurseries for juveniles (Jennings and Hayes 1994). The proposed
project site lacks aquatic habitat for this species. Moreover, critical habitat, which was designated in
March 2010 (USFWS 2010), is not present on the project site. The nearest known record of the
California red-legged frog is approximately 1 mi southwest of the proposed project site, from a canal
just northwest of the San Francisco International Airport. This is within known dispersal distance for
this species (2.0 mi). However, this and all other known California red-legged frog locations are isolated
from the project site, and from all portions of the study area, by substantial urbanization and
infrastructure, including Hwy 101 and I-380, which are both barriers to overland dispersal of California
red-legged frogs to the project site. Thus, based on the lack of breeding habitat on the project site and
the isolation of the project site from all known or potential breeding locations by intensive
development, California red-legged frogs are not expected to occur within the project site.
• Likewise, the San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia), federal and state listed as
endangered and a fully protected species, is determined to be absent from the project area. The San
Francisco garter snake is closely associated with the California red-legged frog; adult snakes feed
primarily on adult frogs and occur in the same habitat. The project site is isolated from known San
Francisco garter snake populations by impediments to dispersal such as Hwy 101, I-380, city streets,
and commercial development; lacks suitable aquatic habitat and dense vegetative cover such as willows
(Salix spp.), bulrushes (Schoenoplectus spp.), and cattails (Typha spp.); and lacks breeding habitat for
California red-legged frogs, its primary prey species. Thus, San Francisco garter snakes are not expected
to occur on the project site or elsewhere within the project area.
• Although historically present within Colma Creek (approximately 0.6 mi north of the project site), the
federally listed Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) has not been observed in Colma
Creek since 1981, nor does any suitable habitat exist for steelhead within the creek due to the highly-
modified nature of the creek’s channel (HWE 2016). However, due to Colma Creek being tidally
influenced, steelhead may stray into the creek, typically during the migration period of December to
March (HWE 2016). In addition to the steelhead, two other special-status fish species, the green
sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris; federally threatened) and longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys; state
threatened), have the potential to occur in low numbers in the Colma Creek channel during high tide.
However, given that there is no suitable breeding habitat for either species within the reach of Colma
8
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Creek located north of the project site the potential for them to occur is low (HWE 2016).
Furthermore, billboard construction would have no impacts on any fish present in tidal waters of
Colma Creek or elsewhere in the vicinity of the project area due to the intervening distance between
the project site and these waters.
• No suitable habitat is present on the project site or within the project area for any of the special-status
butterflies associated with natural habitats on San Bruno Mountain, over two mi north of the project
site, such as the Bay checkerspot (Euphydryas editha bayensis), Callipe silverspot (Speyeria callipe callipe), San
Bruno elfin (Callophrys mossii bayensis), Mission blue (Plebejus icarioides missionensis), and monarch (Danaus
plexippus).
Sensitive/Regulated Habitats
No sensitive or regulated habitats (i.e., riparian, wetland or other waters of the U.S./State) occur on the project
site, and the project footprint has been located so as to specifically avoid adjacent wetlands and other waters.
However, sensitive marsh habitats are located close enough to the project site that they are worth considering
from the perspective of potential indirect impacts. The brackish marsh habitat, ponded areas, and the small
wetted-channel that are located within 50-110 ft of the project site would be considered waters of the U.S./State
and thus would be regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(and, in the case of tidal waters, under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act) and by the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water
Quality Control Act. In addition, tidal marsh habitat (i.e., San Bruno Channel) that would be considered waters
of the U.S./State and regulated as described above, is found approximately 500 ft north of the project site. The
locations of those sensitive habitats are shown in Figure 2.
Biological Impacts Assessment
Potential project impacts on biological resources were evaluated from three different perspectives:
• the direct and indirect effects of the installation of a digital billboard on biological resources (e.g.,
habitat impacts or disturbance during construction);
• the indirect effects of illuminance from a digital billboard (i.e., the amount of light from the billboard
that lands on a certain area) on sensitive species in adjacent areas; and
• the potential effects of a digital billboard’s luminance (i.e., the amount of light leaving the billboard’s
surface in a particular direction, or brightness of the digital billboard’s surface as seen by the eye) on
the behavior of birds flying in the site vicinity.
In each case, the standards against which we measured the significance of potential impacts were the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significance criteria.
N:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
4
7
0
0
\
4
7
6
2
-
0
1
\
S
h
a
p
e
f
i
l
e
s
\
B
e
a
c
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
i
l
l
b
o
a
r
d
.
a
p
r
x
100 0 10050
Feet±
Figure 2. Sensitive Habitats
140 Beacon Street Outfront Foster Interstate Billboard Project –
Biological Impacts Assessment (4762-01)
July 2023
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
1
0
1
Be
a
c
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Sh
a
w
S
t
r
e
e
t
Legend
Proposed LED Billboard Location
Sensitive Habitats:
Aquatic
Marsh San
B
r
u
n
o
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
San
B
r
u
n
o
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
140 Beacon Street
10
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Direct and Indirect Effects of Billboard Construction
All activity associated with the construction of a new LED billboard at the proposed project site at 140 Beacon
Street, is proposed to take place within the property boundaries of the vacant PG&E lot on existing pavement.
As described above, no wetlands, riparian habitats, or other sensitive and/or regulated habitats are present
within the boundaries of the proposed project site at 140 Beacon Street. Thus, no sensitive or regulated habitats
would be impacted by the construction of the billboard at 140 Beacon Street.
Sensitive habitats, in the form of wetlands and other waters of the U.S./State, are present in close proximity to
the west side of the project site. Although those habitats will not be impacted directly by billboard construction,
which would stay entirely out of those habitats, there is some potential for indirect impacts to those habitats to
occur during and shortly after construction. For example, ground disturbance associated with billboard
construction could loosen soil that could be washed into nearby wetlands and other waters. Given the very
small footprint of billboard construction, such impacts are expected to be minimal, if they occur at all. However,
fuel spills, leaks from equipment, or mobilization of sediments could adversely affect water quality in those
wetlands/waters, which could then adversely affect wildlife that use those waterbodies. Such an impact is
potentially significant given the ecological value of wetlands and other waters. However, implementation of the
following measure (which may be considered a CEQA mitigation measure, or which may be incorporated into
the project as Best Management Practices [BMPs]), would reduce indirect impacts on water quality to less-than-
significant levels.
Measure BIO-1: Implement Best Management Practices for Water Quality. The following measures shall be
implemented during billboard installation to avoid indirect impacts on water quality in adjacent wetlands and
other waters:
• No construction equipment shall be fueled within 100 feet of sensitive habitats as shown on Figure 2.
• All construction equipment shall be checked for leaks (and any leaks will be prepared) before it is used
for billboard installation within 100 feet of wetlands or other waters shown on Figure 2.
• During construction, standard erosion control and water quality measures such as fiber rolls, sand bag
barriers, or storm drain inlet protection will be implemented to ensure that no soil, construction debris,
or other materials shall be allowed to enter any sensitive habitat areas.
• Following the completion of construction, any temporarily disturbed ground shall be restored, and any
bare dirt present in temporary impact areas that could wash into wetlands or other waters during
subsequent rain events will be stabilized via seeding or other means.
As described above, no special-status plant or animal species are expected to occur within or immediately
adjacent to any portion of the project area, and wildlife species that may occur are common species that are
locally and regionally abundant. Billboard installation at 140 Beacon Street would not result in the modification
of any naturally occurring habitat. As a result, no regional populations of these species would be affected, and
project effects on these species would not be significant under CEQA. Further, no special-status bird species
are expected to nest close enough to the proposed project site to be disturbed by project construction.
11
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
However, all native bird species that occur within the project site are protected from take by the federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code. Direct destruction of an active
nest would violate the MBTA and Fish and Game Code, and abandonment of an active nest because of project
construction activities could be considered take under the Fish and Game Code. The bird species that could
nest close enough to potential billboard construction areas are all regionally common, mostly urban-adapted
species. As a result, impacts to small numbers of these species’ nests would not result in regional declines in
their populations. For this reason, impacts to nesting birds during billboard installation would not meet the
CEQA threshold of a substantial adverse effect, and we consider impacts to nesting birds less than significant.
However, to comply with the MBTA and Fish and Game Code, we recommend that construction of the
billboard take place during the nonbreeding season (September 1 – January 31) if feasible. If construction during
the nonbreeding season is not feasible, preconstruction surveys should be conducted to determine whether
nests of protected birds are present in areas where they may be disturbed, and a biologist should determine the
buffer around each nest necessary to avoid nest abandonment during construction.
Indirect Effects of Illuminance of Adjacent Areas
The intensity, spectral quality (i.e., the distribution of blue, green, red, and other portions of the light spectrum
emitted by a light source), duration, and periodicity of exposure to light affect the biochemistry, physiology,
and behavior of organisms (The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 2009). Many animals are
extremely sensitive to light cues, having evolved behavioral and/or physiological responses to natural variations
in light levels resulting from the day–night cycle, the cycle of the moon, and the seasonal light cycle. Responses
can affect processes as diverse as growth, metabolism, patterns of movement (e.g. migration), feeding, breeding
behavior, molting, and hibernation (Ringer 1972, de Molenaar et al. 2006). This holds true for birds (Longcore
and Rich 2004, Miller 2006, de Molenaar et al. 2006, Da Silva et al. 2015), mammals (Beier 2006, de Molenaar
et al. 2003 as cited in Longcore et al. 2016, Voigt et al. 2017), and other taxa as well, suggesting that increases
in ambient light may interfere with these processes across a wide range of species, resulting in impacts on
wildlife populations.
Artificial lighting may also indirectly affect birds and mammals. For example, artificial lighting has been shown
to increase the nocturnal activity of predators like owls, hawks, and mammalian predators (Negro et al 2000,
Longcore and Rich 2004, DeCandido and Allen 2006, Beier 2006). In addition, it has been found to affect the
composition of the invertebrate community present in the area (Davies et al. 2012), and some bat species have
been found to congregate around artificial light sources because of the high numbers of flying insects they
attract (Frank 1988, Eisenbeis 2006). The presence of artificial light may also influence habitat use by rodents
such as the salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris) (Beier 2006), and by breeding birds (Rogers et
al. 2006, de Molenaar et al. 2006), by causing avoidance of well-lit areas, resulting in a net loss of habitat
availability and quality.
Light from currently existing sources illuminates areas throughout the project area to a considerable extent.
Thus, our assessment of the impact of illuminance of adjacent areas by the proposed LED billboard took into
12
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
account the existing conditions as well as any expected changes in illuminance that would result from
construction of an LED billboard at 140 Beacon Street. Currently, artificial illumination from a variety of
sources affects the surrounding project area and the extent of Hwy 101 that the new proposed billboard would
face, as well as the proposed project site at 140 Beacon Street. There are numerous conventional lighted
billboards and commercial business signs on both the east and west side of Hwy 101. At least three double-
sided digital LED billboards are located along the corridor of Hwy 101 to be targeted by the new billboard –
the recently installed billboard at 345 Shaw Road in the Allstore Storage Units parking lot, and two billboards
located on the northeast and northwest banks of the San Bruno Channel, approximately 715 and 875 ft,
respectively, north of the project site. In addition, numerous streetlights and illuminated highway and street
signs are present along Hwy 101, and other lighting emanating from commercial and industrial buildings is
found along Hwy 101, west of the project site.
As described above, the proposed billboard would be configured to minimize light spillage and constrain
brightness by installing shaders above each row of LEDs to prevent light from projecting upward into the sky.
The proposed LED billboard is expected to provide a maximum of 7.49 fc of illuminance at 50 ft, 1.87 fc at
100 ft, and 0.07 fc at 500 ft (above and beyond ambient light conditions) within its viewing angle. Illuminance
would decrease with lateral distance from the center of the viewing angle. The projected viewing angle values
for the proposed billboard would be +14.9°/ -34.6° vertically and ±45° horizontally. Light levels would be
controlled by a daily clock and adjusted to ambient light conditions.
The proposed LED billboard would be angled in such a way as to maximize the amount of visibility from
specific portions of Hwy 101, so the area of brightest night illuminance projected by the proposed billboard
would be directed at oncoming traffic. Figure 3 illustrates the illuminance of the billboard from the project site.
The illuminance would dissipate from 7.49 fc at 50 ft, 1.87 fc at 100 ft, and to 0.07 fc at 500 ft, which would be
considered negligible (A. Belenson pers. comm.). The proposed LED billboard would increase the illuminance
(above current ambient conditions) across the 35-ft wide brackish marsh habitat found west of the project site.
However, this small, isolated patch of marsh habitat does not provide suitable habitat for any special-status
wildlife species, nor large numbers of non-special-status species, that may be affected by the increase in
illuminance in this area. Further, the proposed LED billboard is not expected to substantially increase the
amount of illuminance currently experienced by the San Bruno Channel (and the wildlife species potentially
inhabiting the channel), located approximately 530 ft north of the project site. Thus, indirect impacts from
increased illuminance on sensitive habitats and their wildlife communities would be considered less-than-
significant.
50'
7.49fc
N:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
4
7
0
0
\
4
7
6
2
-
0
1
\
S
h
a
p
e
f
i
l
e
s
\
B
e
a
c
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
i
l
l
b
o
a
r
d
.
a
p
r
x
100 0 10050
Feet±
Figure 3. Billboard Illumination Areas
140 Beacon Street Outfront Foster Interstate Billboard Project –
Biological Impacts Assessment (4762-01)
July 2023
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
1
0
1
Be
a
c
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
h
a
w
S
t
r
e
e
t
Legend
Proposed LED Billboard Location
Billboard Illumination Area
Sensitive Habitats:
Aquatic
Marsh
San B
r
u
n
o
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
San B
r
u
n
o
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
140 Beacon Street100'
1.87fc
500'
0.07fc
500'
0.07fc
50'
7.49fc
100'
1.87fc
14
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Potential Effects of LED Billboard’s Luminance on Avian Flight Behavior
Migrating Birds. The primary way in which the luminance of an LED billboard might affect the movements
of birds in the project area is through the disorientation of nocturnally migrating birds. Hundreds of bird species
migrate nocturnally in order to avoid diurnal predators and to minimize energy expenditures. Evidence that
migrating birds are attracted to artificial light sources is abundant in the literature as early as the late 1800s
(Gauthreaux and Belser 2006). Although the mechanism causing the attraction is unknown, the attraction is
well documented (Longcore and Rich 2004, Gauthreaux and Belser 2006). Migrating birds may alter their
orientation upon sighting an artificial light source, such as a billboard, and become drawn toward it. Once a
bird is within a lighted zone at night, it may become “trapped” and not leave the lighted area (Herbert 1970,
Longcore and Rich 2004). The disorienting effects of artificial lights directly affect migratory birds by causing
collisions with light structures, buildings, communication and power structures, or even the ground
(Gauthreaux and Belser 2006). Indirect effects might include orientation mistakes and increased length of
migration due to light-driven detours. Migrating birds are much more likely to be impacted by a billboard’s
luminance during foggy or rainy weather, when visibility is poor (Longcore and Rich 2004, Gauthreaux and
Belser 2006). Research also suggests that the color of the light may play a significant role in determining whether
birds become disoriented. Birds are able to orient to the Earth’s magnetic field under monochromatic blue or
green light, but apparently cannot do so under red or white light (van de Laar 2007, Poot et al. 2008, Longcore
and DelBusso 2016).
Local Birds. Seabirds may be especially vulnerable to artificial lights because many species are nocturnal
foragers that have evolved to search out bioluminescent prey (Imber 1975, Reed et al. 1985, Montevecchi 2006),
and thus are strongly attracted to bright light sources. Seabirds that use the San Francisco Bay and various
inland bodies of water on the Peninsula include primarily gulls, terns, and cormorants, none of which is
generally a nocturnal forager; however, they may still forage to some extent during the night. As described
above for migrating birds, when seabirds approach an artificial light, they seem unwilling to leave it and may
become “trapped” within the sphere of the light source for hours or even days, often flying themselves to
exhaustion or death (Montevecchi 2006).
In addition to seabirds, the San Francisco Bay complex hosts hundreds of thousands of breeding, migrant, and
wintering shorebirds. Approximately 0.5 mi east of the project site, where the San Bruno Creek and Channel
empty into the Bay, high-quality foraging habitat is found in the San Bruno Marsh Complex, for a large number
and diversity of waterbirds and shorebirds. A review of the eBird database, which has been established by the
Cornell University Laboratory of Ornithology to archive records of birds seen worldwide, indicated that nearly
160 species of birds have been recorded in the San Bruno Marsh Complex, including at the mouth of Colma
Creek and the SamTrans Marsh (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2023). Thousands of shorebirds forage along the
exposed mudflats in the Bay nocturnally as well as diurnally and move frequently between foraging locations in
response to tide levels and prey availability. Biologists and hunters have long used sudden bright light as a
means of blinding and trapping shorebirds (Gerstenberg and Harris 1976, Potts and Sordahl 1979), so evidence
that shorebirds are affected by bright light is well established, though impacts of a consistent bright light are
15
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
undocumented. Nevertheless, based on the above studies, it is reasonable to conclude that shorebirds, like other
bird species, may be disoriented by a very bright light in their flight path.
Some seabirds such as gulls, terns, and cormorants move back and forth over the project site, between the Bay
approximately 0.45 mi east of the study area and the shores of the Pacific Ocean, approximately 4.6 mi west of
the study area. However, the majority of seabirds and large numbers of shorebirds that move in the vicinity of
the study area move and forage primarily along the shoreline of the Bay east of the study area. These birds
forage in open waters of the Bay and in areas such as the San Bruno Marsh Complex (shown on Figure 1);
Oyster Point Marina, located 250 ft east of Area 8 and 145 ft east of Area 7; Brisbane Lagoon, located 0.37 mi
north of Area 8; and Coyote Point, located 5.5 mi south of Area 1. With the exception of higher-altitude flights
by some birds moving between the Bay and Ocean, movement of waterbirds perpendicular to Hwy 101 (and
thus in and out of the study area) would be limited due to the absence of suitable foraging or breeding habitat
for these birds in the areas immediately west of Hwy 101. Thus, we would not expect large numbers of seabirds
and shorebirds to move through the study area, within areas of increased luminance from future billboard lights.
Although the project area does not provide high-quality habitat for a large number or diversity of passerine
birds, a few common, urban-adapted species are expected to occur in the project vicinity, as described above.
Passerine birds have been documented responding to increased illumination in their habitats with nocturnal
foraging and territorial defense behaviors (Longcore and Rich 2004, Miller 2006, de Molenaar et al 2006), but
absent significant illumination, they typically do not forage at night, leaving them less susceptible to the
attraction and disorientation caused by luminance when they are not migrating.
Effects of the LED Billboard on Flight Behavior. The visibility of the proposed LED billboard to birds in
flight, and thus the risk they pose to flying birds, depends primarily on the beam angles of the signs relative to
the flight lines of birds and on the luminance (brightness) of the sign as perceived by the birds. The directional
nature of LED lighting and the projected viewing angle values of +14.9°/ -34.6° vertically and ±45°
horizontally suggest that the viewing angle of the signs would be narrow enough to preclude attracting migrating
birds on clear nights, when they fly high enough to be outside the viewing angle of the sign. Louvers that shade
the LED lights from above, creating a sharper image, assist in reducing reflection and help diffuse light –
concurrently preventing light from projecting upward into the sky; such louvers will be incorporated into the
proposed billboard. As a result, birds flying more than 14.9° above the center of the sign’s beam angle (i.e.,
north and south) will not be able to see light from the sign at all. However, migrating birds are forced to fly low
during foggy and rainy conditions, which may bring them into the viewing angle of the billboard.
The proposed LED billboard could produce a peak value of approximately 27.9 candelas (cd)/ft2 of luminance
as measured from a full white 14 ft by 48 ft frame at 250 ft (A. Belenson pers. comm.). However, this would
be the brightest case scenario with a full white screen when, in practice, most static images would run a mix of
non-white colors, making actual average luminance output closer to half of the maximum brightness (A.
Belenson pers. comm.), which would substantially reduce the amount of luminance produced and reduce the
potential for light to disorient birds. For comparison, a full moon at its brightest point produces approximately
16
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
232 cd/ft2 (LRC 2006). Further, the proposed billboard would be equipped with a light sensor that adjusts the
brilliance of the billboard in response to available ambient light, dimming the luminance as ambient light lessens.
Additionally, the LED display on the billboard can be changed every 8 seconds from a static image to a static
image, resulting in a changing light source. Colors and patterns of color on the billboard would thus be
changing, and birds flying near the sign would not perceive it as a fixed, unchanging light, the type of light that
appears to be most attractive to birds (Jones and Francis 2003, Gauthreaux and Belser 2006, Gehring et al.
2009).
As described above, the light beams from the proposed billboard would be angled in such a way as to maximize
the amount of visibility from specific portions of Hwy 101. Because the area immediately surrounding the
project site/study area is heavily urbanized, we do not expect large numbers of birds (including species of
conservation concern) to be flying through the study area in locations, and at altitudes, where they would be at
risk of confusion by or attraction to the luminance of the billboard.
It is possible that some birds that find themselves near the center of a sign’s beam angle may be attracted to
the sign. However, we do not expect this effect to result in long-term consequences, such as substantial numbers
of bird-strike mortalities or substantial interference with bird movements, because a relatively limited area at
low altitude above Hwy 101 would be within the center of the sign’s beam angle.
Further, we do not expect the operation of the LED billboard to have a significant impact on seabirds or
shorebirds. We also do not expect that the billboard would impact substantial numbers of roosting birds
because the developed habitat on and immediately adjacent to the study area does not provide high quality
roosting habitat.
Given the configuration of bird habitats in the vicinity of the study area (which does not lend itself to directed
bird flights toward the sign), the changing images that will be displayed on the LED billboard, the narrow
viewing angle, and the use of overhead louvers to prevent light from projecting upward into the sky, we expect
the sign’s impacts on avian flight behavior and avian roosting behavior to be less-than-significant under CEQA.
Summary
Based on the information provided by Outfront Foster Interstate concerning the proposed LED billboard, our
review of literature concerning lighting effects on wildlife, our reconnaissance-level survey of the project
site/area, and our knowledge of likely avian flight lines in the vicinity of the project site/area, we do not expect
the construction of new LED billboard at 140 Beacon Street to result in significant impacts on wildlife as a
result of increased luminance.
Best Management Practices to avoid significant impacts on water quality during billboard construction should
be implemented as described above under Measure BIO-1.
17
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
If the assumptions made in our analysis concerning the LED billboard’s characteristics (e.g., illuminance,
luminance, or beam angle) differ from actual characteristics of the billboard, additional analysis may be
necessary to determine whether impacts are significant.
Please feel free to contact me at speterson@harveyecology.com or (408) 300-8690 if you have any questions
regarding our report. Thank you very much for contacting H. T. Harvey & Associates regarding this project.
Sincerely,
Stephen L. Peterson, M.S.
Project Manager, Senior Wildlife Ecologist
18
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Literature Cited
Avocet Research Associates. 2007. Surveys of selected marshlands in the San Francisco Estuary California
Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus): Invasive Spartina Project, 2007. Prepared for Olofson
Environmental, Inc. Berkeley, California.
Beier, P. 2006. Effects of artificial night lighting on mammals. Pages 19-42 in Rich, C., and T. Longcore, editors.
Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Covelo, CA: Island Press.
[CNDDB] California Natural Diversity Database. 2023. Rarefind Version 5. California Department of Fish and
Game, Biogeographic Data Branch.
Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2023. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web
application]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org.
(Accessed: June 2023).
Da Silva, A., M. Valcu, and B. Kempenaers. 2015. Light pollution alters the phenology of dawn and dusk singing
in common European songbirds. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370: 20140126.
Davies, T. W., J. Bennie, and K. J. Gaston. 2012. Street lighting changes the composition of invertebrate
communities. Biol. Lett. 8, 764-767.
DeCandido R., and D. Allen. 2006. Nocturnal hunting by peregrine falcons at the Empire State Building, New
York City. Wilson J. Ornithol. 118(1):53-58.
de Molenaar, J. G., R. J. H. G. Henkens, C. ter Braak, C. van Duyne, G. Hoefsloot, and D. A. Jonkers. 2003.
Road illumination and nature, IV. Effects of road lights on the spatial behaviour of mammals. Alterra,
Green World Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
de Molenaar, J. G., M. E. Sanders, and D. A. Jonkers. 2006. Road lighting and grassland birds: Local influence
of road lighting on a black-tailed godwit population. Pages 114-136 in Rich, C., and T. Longcore,
editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Covelo, CA: Island Press.
Eisenbeis, G. 2006. Artificial night lighting and insects: Attraction of insects to streetlamps in a rural setting in
Germany. Pages 67-93 in Rich, C., and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial
Night Lighting. Covelo, CA: Island Press.
Fellers, G. M. 2005. Rana draytonii California red-legged frog. In M. Lannoo, ed. Amphibian Declines: The
Conservation Status of United States Species. University of California Press. CA: Berkeley. Pp 552-
554.
Frank, K. 1988. Impact of outdoor lighting on moths: An Assessment. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society
42(2) 63-93.
19
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Gauthreaux, S. A., and C. G. Belser. 2006. Effects of artificial night lighting on migrating birds. Pages 67-93 in
Rich, C., and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Covelo, CA:
Island Press.
Gehring, J., P. Kerlinger, and A. Manville II. 2009. Communication towers, lights, and birds: Successful
methods of reducing the frequency of avian collisions. Ecological Applications, 19(2):505-514.
Gerstenberg, R. H., and S. W. Harris. 1976. Trapping and marking of shorebirds at Humboldt Bay, California.
Bird Banding 47(1): 1-7.
Herbert, A. D. 1970. Spatial disorientation in birds. Wilson Bull. 82(4): 400-419.
[HWE] Horizon Water and Environment. 2016. Colma Creek Flood Control Channel Maintenance Project -
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. June 2016. (HWE 15.037) Oakland, CA. Prepared for
County of San Mateo, Department of Public Works, Redwood City, CA.
Imber, M. J. 1975. Behavior of petrels in relation to the moon and artificial lights. Notornis 22: 302-306.
Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California.
California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California.
Jones, J., and C. M. Francis. 2003. The effects of light characteristics on avian mortality at lighthouses. J. Avian
Biol. 34(4): 328-333.
Longcore, T., C. Rich, and L. DelBusso. 2016. Artificial Night Lighting and Protected Lands. Natural Resource
Report NPS/NRSS/NSNS/NRR-2016/1213.
Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2(4): 191-198.
[LRC] Lighting Research Center. 2006. Illumination fundamentals. Pasadena, CA: Optical Research Associates.
48 pp.
Miller, M. W. 2006. Apparent effects of light pollution on singing behavior of American robins. Condor 108(1):
130-139.
Montevecchi, W. A. 2006. Influences of Artificial Light on Marine Birds in Rich, C., and T. Longcore, editors.
Negro, J. J., J. Bustamante, C. Melguizo, J. L. Ruiz, and J. M. Grande. 2000. Nocturnal activity of lesser kestrels
under artificial lighting conditions in Seville, Spain. J. Raptor Res. 34(4): 327-329.
Poot, H., B. Ens, H. de Vries, M. Donners, M. Wernand, and J. Marquenie. 2008. Green light for nocturnally
migrating birds. Ecology and Society 13(2): 47.
Potts, W. K. and T. A. Sordahl. 1979. The gong method for capturing shorebirds and other ground-roosting
species. North Amer. Bird Band. 4(3): 106-107.
20
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Reed, J. R., J. L. Sincock, and J. P. Hailman. 1985. Light attraction in endangered Procellariform birds:
Reduction by shielding upward radiation. Auk 102(2): 377-383.
Ringer, R. K. 1972. Effect of light and behavior on nutrition. J. Anim. Sci. 35: 642-647.
Rogers, D. I., T. Piersma, and C. J. Hassell. 2006. Roost availability may constrain shorebird distribution:
Exploring the energetic costs of roosting and disturbance around a tropical bay. Biol. Conserv. 33(4):
225-235.
The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. 2009. Artificial Light in the Environment.
van de Laar, F. J. T. 2007. Green light to birds: investigation into the effect of bird-friendly lighting. NAM
Locatie L15-FA-1, Assen, The Netherlands.
Voigt, C. C., M. Roeleke, L. Marggraf, G. Petersons, and S. Voigt-Heucke. 2017. Migratory bats respond to
artificial green light with positive phototaxis. PLOS One 12(5): e0177748.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised
Designation of Critical Habitat for California Red-legged Frog; Final Rule. Federal Register 75:12815-
12959.
CULTURAL/TRIBAL CULTURAL RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS
ATTACHMENT C
to the
2nd Addendum to the 101 Terminal Court Billboard and Zoning Amendment IS/MN
May 30, 2023 NWIC File No.: 22-1833
Jenna Sunderlin
Lamphier-Gregory, Inc.
4100 Redwood Road, STE 20A - #601
Oakland, CA 94619
Re: Record search results for the proposed 140 Beacon Street Billboard Project
Dear Jenna Sunderlin:
Per your request received by our office on the 24th of May, 2023, a rapid response records
search was conducted for the above referenced project by reviewing pertinent Northwest
Information Center (NWIC) base maps that reference cultural resources records and reports,
historic-period maps, and literature for San Mateo County. Please note that use of the term
cultural resources includes both archaeological resources and historical buildings and/or
structures.
Outfront Media is proposing a new double-sided digital billboard at 140 Beacon Street (APN
015-171-999), in the City of South San Francisco, CA, on the east side of US-101, north of I-
380. The site is currently a paved, vacant lot. The sign foundation would be a drilled shaft with a
poured concrete footing, five feet in diameter and extending to an estimated depth of 41 feet
below the ground surface. A cone of additional grading around the column base would be
approximately 5 feet wide to a depth of approximately 5 feet, and some trenching through
developed sites for electrical connection would be required. The site would otherwise not be
disturbed.
Review of the information at our office indicates that there have been three cultural resource
studies that may have covered up to 100% of the 140 Beacon Street Billboard project area in
their Research Area, but is unclear if the area was covered in their Field Study (Meloy and
Kubal 2017: S-49125, McKale and Gillies 2000: S-23551, and Anatasio et al 1988: S010402).
This 140 Beacon Street Billboard project area may contain one recorded Native American
archaeological resource, P-41-000047, Nelson Shellmound # 382. The State Office of Historic
Preservation Built Environment Resources Directory (OHP BERD), which includes listings of the
California Register of Historical Resources, California State Historical Landmarks, California
State Points of Historical Interest, and the National Register of Historic Places, lists no recorded
buildings or structures within or adjacent to the proposed 140 Beacon Street Billboard project
area. In addition to these inventories, the NWIC base maps show no recorded buildings or
structures within the proposed 140 Beacon Street Billboard project area.
At the time of Euroamerican contact, the Native Americans that lived in the area were speakers
of the Ramaytush language, which is part of the Costanoan/Ohlone language family (Levy
1978:485). There is one Native American resource in or adjacent to the proposed project area
referenced in the ethnographic literature: a shellmound placed in the vicinity of San Bruno Point,
2
22‐1833
called Nelson 382, P-41-000047 (Nelson 1909: 350). According to recent field studies of this
resource, its precise location, status, and nature remains unknown, and the current location as
understood by this office may not be accurate (Meloy and Kubal 2017: 6-4/254).
Based on an evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with known sites,
Native American resources in this part of San Mateo County have been found in areas marginal
to the San Francisco bayshore, and inland near intermittent and perennial watercourses. The
140 Beacon Street Billboard project area is currently within an area of artificial fill and bay mud,
but was historically within marshland along the margins of the San Francisco Bayshore, and
adjacent to San Bruno Slough. Given the similarity of these environmental factors and the
archaeological sensitivity of the area, there is a high potential for unrecorded Native American
resources to be within the proposed 140 Beacon Street Billboard project area.
Review of historical literature and maps indicated the possibility of historic-period activity within
the 140 Beacon Street Billboard project area. Early San Mateo County maps indicate the project
area was located within the landholdings of South San Francisco Land & Improvement
Company adjacent to San Bruno Slough (Bromfield 1894). In addition, the 1896 and 1899 San
Mateo USGS 15-minute topographic quadrangles depict a road heading to the nearby Bel Air
Island within or adjacent to the project area. With this information in mind, there is a moderate
potential for unrecorded historic-period archaeological resources to be within the proposed 140
Beacon Street Billboard project area.
The 1939 San Mateo USGS 15-minute topographic quadrangle depicts a transmission line
immediately adjacent to the 140 Beacon Street Billboard project area. If present, this
unrecorded structure meets the Office of Historic Preservation’s minimum age standard that
buildings, structures, and objects 45 years or older may be of historical value.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) There may be one recorded archaeological resource in the proposed 140 Beacon
Street Billboard project area, P-41-000047, Nelson Shellmound 382. It is recommended that a
professional archaeologist assess the resource and provide project-specific recommendations.
Please refer to the list of consultants who meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards at
http://www.chrisinfo.org.
2) There is a high potential for Native American archaeological resources and a
moderate potential for historic-period archaeological resources to be within the project area.
Given the potential for archaeological resources in the proposed 140 Beacon Street Billboard
project area, our usual recommendation would include archival research and a field
examination. The proposed project area, however, has been highly developed and is presently
covered with asphalt and fill that obscures the visibility of original surface soils, which negates
the feasibility of an adequate surface inspection.
Therefore, prior to demolition or other ground disturbance, we recommend a qualified
archaeologist conduct further archival and field study to identify archaeological resources. Field
study may include, but is not limited to, hand auger sampling, shovel test units, or
geoarchaeological analyses as well as other common methods used to identify the presence of
3
22‐1833
buried archaeological resources. Please refer to the list of consultants who meet the Secretary
of Interior’s Standards at http://www.chrisinfo.org.
3) We recommend the lead agency contact the local Native American tribe(s) regarding
traditional, cultural, and religious heritage values. For a complete listing of tribes in the vicinity of
the project, please contact the Native American Heritage Commission at 916/373-3710.
4) If the proposed project area contains buildings or structures that meet the minimum
age requirement, prior to commencement of project activities, it is recommended that this
resource be assessed by a professional familiar with the architecture and history of San Mateo
County. Please refer to the list of consultants who meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards at
http://www.chrisinfo.org.
5) Review for possible historic-period buildings or structures has included only those
sources listed in the attached bibliography and should not be considered comprehensive.
6) If archaeological resources are encountered during construction, work should be
temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and workers should avoid altering
the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the
situation and provided appropriate recommendations. Project personnel should not collect
cultural resources. Native American resources include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points,
mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-
affected rock, or human burials. Historic-period resources include stone or adobe foundations or
walls; structures and remains with square nails; and refuse deposits or bottle dumps, often
located in old wells or privies.
7) It is recommended that any identified cultural resources be recorded on DPR 523
historic resource recordation forms, available online from the Office of Historic Preservation’s
website: https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28351
Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and
resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available
via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and
local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search
area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the
California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Inventory, and you should contact
the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal
contacts.
4
22‐1833
The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California
Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to
maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal
agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and the public.
Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the interpretation and
application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily
represent the evaluation or opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the
OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law.
Thank you for using our services. Please contact this office if you have any
questions, (707) 588-8455.
Sincerely,
Jillian Guldenbrein
Researcher
5
22‐1833
LITERATURE REVIEWED
In addition to archaeological maps and site records on file at the Northwest Information Center
of the Historical Resources Information System, the following literature was reviewed:
Anastasio, Rebecca Loveland, Donna M. Garaventa, Stuart A. Guedon, Robert M.
Harmon, and John W. Schoenfelder (Basin Research Associates, Inc.)
1988 A Cultural Resources Assessment for San Francisco Resource Supply
Study (San Mateo Substation to Martin Substation), Daly City to City of
San Mateo, San Mateo County, California. NWIC Report S-010402
Barrows, Henry D., and Luther A. Ingersoll
2005 Memorial and Biographical History of the Coast Counties of Central California.
Three Rocks Research, Santa Cruz (Digital Reproduction of The Lewis Publishing
Company, Chicago: 1893.)
Beck, Karin G., Kathleen Kubal, and Jay Rehor (AECOM)
2017 Archaeological Survey Report and Extended Phase I Study, US 101 High-
Occupancy Vehicle/Express (Managed) Lanes Project, San Francisco, San
Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, California, EA 04-1J5600.
NWIC Report S-049125b
Bowman, J.N.
1951 Adobe Houses in the San Francisco Bay Region. In Geologic Guidebook of the
San Francisco Bay Counties, Bulletin 154. California Division of Mines, Ferry
Building, San Francisco, CA.
Brabb, Earl E., Fred A. Taylor, and George P. Miller
1982 Geologic, Scenic, and Historic Points of Interest in San Mateo County, California.
Miscellaneous Investigations Series, Map I-1257-B, 1:62,500. Department of the
Interior, United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
Bromfield, Davenport
1894 Official Map of San Mateo County, California
Fickewirth, Alvin A.
1992 California Railroads. Golden West Books, San Marino, CA.
General Land Office
1858 Survey Plat for Buri Buri Rancho.
Heizer, Robert F., editor
1974 Local History Studies, Vol. 18., “The Costanoan Indians.” California History
Center, DeAnza College, Cupertino, CA.
6
22‐1833
Helley, E.J., K.R. Lajoie, W.E. Spangle, and M.L. Blair
1979 Flatland Deposits of the San Francisco Bay Region - Their Geology and
Engineering Properties, and Their Importance to Comprehensive Planning.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 943. United States Geological Survey and
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Hope, Andrew
2005 Caltrans Statewide Historic Bridge Inventory Update. Caltrans, Division of
Environmental Analysis, Sacramento, CA.
Hynding, Alan
1984 From Frontier to Suburb: The Story of San Mateo Penninsula. Star Publishing
Company, San Mateo, CA.
Kroeber, A.L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (Reprint by Dover Publications, Inc., New
York, 1976)
Levy, Richard
1978 Costanoan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of
North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.
McKale, George and Sara E.P. Gillies (LSA Associates, Inc.)
2000 Cultural Resources Assessment Golden Gate Power Project, San Francisco
International Airport, San Mateo County, California.
NWIC Report S-023551
Meloy, Michael and Kathleen Kubal (California Department of Transportation, District
4; AECOM)
2017 Historic Property Survey Report for the US 101 Managed Lanes Project, EA
04-1J560. NWIC Report S-049125
Milliken, Randall
1995 A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco
Bay Area 1769-1810. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 43, Menlo Park,
CA.
Myers, William A. (editor)
1977 Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks of San Francisco and Northern California.
Prepared by The History and Heritage Committee, San Francisco Section, American
Society of Civil Engineers. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, CA.
Nelson, N.C.
1909 Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region. University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 7(4):309-356. Berkeley.
(Reprint by Kraus Reprint Corporation, New York, 1964)
7
22‐1833
Nichols, Donald R., and Nancy A. Wright
1971 Preliminary Map of Historic Margins of Marshland, San Francisco Bay, California.
U.S. Geological Survey Open File Map. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological
Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Washington, D.C.
Postel, Mitchell P.
1994 San Mateo, A Centennial History. Scottwall Associates, San Francisco, CA.
Roberts, George, and Jan Roberts
1988 Discover Historic California. Gem Guides Book Co., Pico Rivera, CA.
San Mateo County Historic Resources Advisory Board
1984 San Mateo County: Its History and Heritage. Second Edition. Division of Planning
and Development Department of Environmental Management.
San Mateo County Planning and Development Department
n.d. “Historical and Archaeological Resources, Section 5” from the San Mateo
CountyGeneral Plan.
State of California Department of Parks and Recreation
1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. State of California Department of
Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
State of California Department of Parks and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation
1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California. State of California Department
of Parks and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
State of California Office of Historic Preservation **
2022 Historic Properties Directory. Listing by City (through September 23, 2022). State
of California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
VanderWerf, Barbara
1992 Granada: A Synonym for Paradise, The Ocean Shore Railroad Years. Gum Tree
Lane Books, El Granada, CA.
**Note that the Office of Historic Preservation’s Historic Properties Directory includes National
Register, State Registered Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the California
Register of Historical Resources as well as Certified Local Government surveys that have
undergone Section 106 review.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
Page 1 of 2
June 21, 2023
Rebecca Auld
Lamphier-Gregory
Via Email to: rauld@lamphier-gregory.com
Re: Native American Tribal Consultation, Pursuant to the Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), Amendments
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), Public
Resources Code Sections 5097.94 (m), 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09,
21084.2 and 21084.3, 140 Beacon Street Billboard Project, San Mateo County
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (c), attached is a consultation list of tribes
that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the above-listed
project. Please note that the intent of the AB 52 amendments to CEQA is to avoid and/or
mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources, (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)) (“Public
agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.”)
Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21084.3(c) require CEQA lead agencies to
consult with California Native American tribes that have requested notice from such agencies
of proposed projects in the geographic area that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with
the tribes on projects for which a Notice of Preparation or Notice of Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration has been filed on or after July 1, 2015. Specifically, Public
Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) provides:
Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a
public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the
designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated
California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by
means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed
project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the
California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section.
The AB 52 amendments to CEQA law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes
that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction prior to receiving requests for
notification of projects in the tribe’s areas of traditional and cultural affiliation. The Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) recommends, but does not require, early consultation
as a best practice to ensure that lead agencies receive sufficient information about cultural
resources in a project area to avoid damaging effects to tribal cultural resources.
The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that agencies should also include with their
notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been
completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as:
1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of
the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:
ACTING CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
COMMISSIONER
Vacant
COMMISSIONER
Vacant
COMMISSIONER
Vacant
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.
Hitchcock
Miwok, Nisenan
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
nahc@nahc.ca.gov
NAHC.ca.gov
Page 2 of 2
• A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded on or adjacent to the
APE, such as known archaeological sites;
• Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the
Information Center as part of the records search response;
• Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate, or high probability that unrecorded cultural
resources are located in the APE; and
• If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded
cultural resources are present.
2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.
All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary
objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure
in accordance with Government Code section 6254.10.
3. The result of any Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission
was negative.
4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and
5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE.
Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive and a negative
response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only
source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.
This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event that they do, having
the information beforehand will help to facilitate the consultation process.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your
assistance, we can assure that our consultation list remains current.
If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: Cody.Campagne@nahc.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Cody Campagne
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
Amah MutsunTribal Band of
Mission San Juan Bautista
Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson
3030 Soda Bay Road
Lakeport, CA, 95453
Phone: (650) 851 - 7489
Fax: (650) 332-1526
amahmutsuntribal@gmail.com
Costanoan
Costanoan Rumsen Carmel
Tribe
Tony Cerda, Chairperson
244 E. 1st Street
Pomona, CA, 91766
Phone: (909) 629 - 6081
Fax: (909) 524-8041
rumsen@aol.com
Costanoan
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of
Costanoan
Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson
P.O. Box 28
Hollister, CA, 95024
Phone: (831) 637 - 4238
ams@indiancanyon.org
Costanoan
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of
Costanoan
Kanyon Sayers-Roods, MLD
Contact
1615 Pearson Court
San Jose, CA, 95122
Phone: (408) 673 - 0626
kanyon@kanyonkonsulting.com
Costanoan
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe
of the SF Bay Area
Charlene Nijmeh, Chairperson
20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232
Castro Valley, CA, 94546
Phone: (408) 464 - 2892
cnijmeh@muwekma.org
Costanoan
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe
of the SF Bay Area
Monica Arellano, Vice
Chairwoman
20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232
Castro Valley, CA, 94546
Phone: (408) 205 - 9714
monicavarellano@gmail.com
Costanoan
The Ohlone Indian Tribe
Andrew Galvan, Chairperson
P.O. Box 3388
Fremont, CA, 94539
Phone: (510) 882 - 0527
Fax: (510) 687-9393
chochenyo@AOL.com
Bay Miwok
Ohlone
Patwin
Plains Miwok
Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eshom
Valley Band
Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson
1179 Rock Haven Ct.
Salinas, CA, 93906
Phone: (831) 443 - 9702
kwood8934@aol.com
Foothill Yokut
Mono
1 of 1
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of
the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for consultation with Native American tribes under Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 for the proposed 140 Beacon Street
Billboard Project, San Mateo County.
PROJ-2023-
003018
06/21/2023 02:20 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Tribal Consultation List
San Mateo County
6/21/2023
*Federally Recognized Tribe