HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiller Ave Parking Garage Revised ND 02-01-08
REVISED INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE
PREPARED BY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
315 MAPLE AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
FEBRUARY 1,2008
REVISED INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OFJ SOUIH SAN FRANCISCO
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE
PREPARED BY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
315 MAPLE AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
FEBRUARY 1,2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
MITIGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION .....................................................................................................5
ApPLICATION ...... ................ ............................................................... ......................................................................... ......................... 5
ApPLICANT ............ ............... .................... ....................................... .... ....................... ......................................................... .... .............5
PROJECT OBJECTIVE ........... ............... .............................. ...... ... ............................ .................. ..................... .................................. .... 5
LOCATION .... ... ............... ... ............... ................................... ................................................... .................. .... ........................................ 5
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................. .......................... ........................................................... ................. ............................................... 5
POTENTIALL Y SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS REQUIRING MITIGATION ..............................................................................................6
MITIGATION MEASURES FOR POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS....................................................................................... 6
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ..............................................................................................................7
CHIEF PLANNER' S DETERMINATION ....... ..................................................................... ................ .................................................. 7
PUBLIC REVIEW. ................... ........................................................................................... .................. ................................................. 8
LEAD AGENCY. ......................................... ..................................................................... .................... .................................................. 9
DETERMINATION ............... ................... ............................................ ..... ....................... .................. ..................................................... 9
INITIA L STUD Y ................................................................................................................................. .............. .10
GENERAL INFORMATION ................ .................................................................. .... ............................................................. ..............1 0
PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION ....... ... .................... ......... ........................................ ..................... ..................... .... ........... ...... ........ ... ..1 0
Location and Setting.. ...................... .......................................... ............................ ................... ................................................. 10
Circulation Characteristics........... ....................................... ............................ .................. ..................................................... 11
Zoning/General Plan... .................... ........................................ .......................... ................... ............................ ......................... 11
Site Owners hip ............. .................... ..................................... .......................... ..................... .................. ..................................... 11
PROJECT CONTEXT AND DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................................11
Required Discretionary Approvals................... ................................... ..................... .................... .............................. ........... 11
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ...... ....................................................... .............. ................. .............................13
A esth eti cs .............................................................................................................................. .......................................................................... 13
Agriculture Resources............. ....... .................... ........ ...................................... ...................... ...................... ............................. ... ... .... ......... 18
Ai r Qual ity ........... .................... ............................ ............................................... ....................... .................... ................................................. 19
B io logical Resources........ .... .......................... ......................... .................. ............... ............. .................... .......... .........................................28
Cultural Resources.............. ...... ................... ....................... ..... ................... ......................... ..................... .................................................... 29
Geology and Soils............ ......................... .............................................. ............................ ................... .......................................................32
Hazards and Hazardous Materials.. .................................................... ............................ .................. ........................................................36
Hydro logy and Water Qual ity........ ................................................... ............................... .................... ......................................................38
Land Use and Plann ing.................... ........................................................ .......................... ...................... ....................................................41
Mineral Resources..... ................... .... ................................................ ............................... .................... ........ .................................................43
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE i
Noise.................. .................. ................... .... ....................... ...................... ............................ ................... ............................... ...... .....................44
Population and Housing. ........................ ....................... ..................... ............................ ...................... .......................................................47
Pub Jic Services............... ........................ ..................................... .................. ................. ...... ..... .................... ... ..................... .......... ........ .... ... 47
Recreation ............ ................. .............................. ............................ ................. ........................ ...................... ... ......... ........... ................ ..........48
Transportation/Traffic............. .............................. ..... ............ ...... ................... ... ...................... ......................... ............ ..................... ..........49
Uti I ities and Service Systems........ ............................. ....... ................................... .................. ...................... ......................................... ..... 53
Mandatory Findings of Sign i ficance............................... ................................... ................... ..................... ...... ................................... ..... 55
REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................................57
REpORT AUTHOR ............... ................ .................................. ..... .......................... .... ................. ................. ........................................58
APPEND ICES............................................................................................................................... ..................... .59
LIST OF FIGURES
I. PROJECT LOCATION ............................................................................................................................................10
2. PROJECT SITE PLAN ................................................................................................................................. ............ 12
3. LOADING ANALySIS................... ........... ..................................................................... .........53
LIST OF TABLES
I. AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY FOR SAN FRANCISCO AND REDWOOD CITY, 2003 - 2005 .................................18
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE ii
This page was intentionally left blank.
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE iii
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ApPLICATION
This Mitigated Negative Declaration is for the proposed Downtown South San Francisco Miller
A venue Parking Structure.
ApPLICANT
The Project Applicant is the City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.
PROJECT OBJECTIVE
The Project objective is to enhance the economic viability of and implement the General Plan
policies for Downtown South San Francisco by:
-economically providing convenient public parking in the Downtown Business District
-nurturing the development of active street-level uses
-promoting infill development, intensification and reuse of underutilized sites
LOCATION
The Project site is located at the southerly side of the 300 Block of Miller Avenue, Downtown
South San Francisco, on four parcels of land measuring 175' x 140' total.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Miller Avenue Parking Structure is proposed to be a 4~ story public parking structure with
up to 13,700 square feet of ground floor commercial space, to be located on the three existing
surface parking lots on the south side of the 300 Block of Miller Avenue (APNs 012-312-040,
050 and 060) and the existing residential property at 323 Miller Avenue (APN 012-312-070) in
the Downtown Commercial (D-C) Zoning District.
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 5
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMP ACTS REQUIRING MITIGATION
The following is a summary of potential Project impacts. Refer to the Initial Study Checklist
and/or attached Appendices for a more detailed discussion of these impacts.
1. Air Quality - Violation of Air Quality Standards or Substantial Contribution to an
Existing or Projected Violation.
The proposed Project would require site grading and removal of an existing residential
structure. The physical removal of the existing parking lot and structures is a construction
activity with a high potential for creating air pollutants. In addition to the dust created
during removal activities, substantial dust and construction exhaust emissions could be
created during grading for the project.
2. Cultural Resources - Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Historic
Resource.
Development of the parking structure as proposed would necessitate the removal of an
existing residential duplex locally listed as a "potentially historic resource". Removal of
this structure could constitute a "substantial adverse change" in the significance of the
resource.
3. Noise - Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the
Project Vicinity Above Levels Existing Without the Project.
Construction of the project would result in temporary noise increases due to operation of
heavy equipment.
MITIGATION MEASURES FOR POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMP ACTS
The following is a summary of mitigation measures for potentially significant Project impacts.
Refer to the Initial Study Checklist and/or document appendices for a more detailed discussion of
these mitigation measures. These measures have been incorporated into a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program, attached hereto as Appendix A.
1. Air Quality
Rather than focus on a quantification of Project related emissions, the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has developed a menu of mitigation options to
control construction activity dust emissions. The BAAQMD considers implementation of
all applicable dust control measures (which vary according to Project magnitude) as
reducing Project related particulate (PMJO) emissions to less than significant levels. The
mitigation measures appropriate for the proposed Project are described in detail in the Air
Quality chapter of this document. These measures would reduce the Project's air quality
impacts to a less than significant level.
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 6
2. Cultural Resources
The project sponsor shall construct the Project in a manner that preserves the historical
significance of the residential duplex at 323 Miller Avenue, by developing and
implementing a Preservation Plan that shall be incorporated into the bid documents for
the project where applicable. The plan shall analyze alternatives to standard demolition
and disposal, and shall require either relocation of the structure intact or salvage of
historically significant building materials. This measure would reduce the Project's
impact to the significance of historic resources to a less than significant level.
3. Noise
The restrictions on construction actIVItIes promulgated by the City of South San
Francisco's Noise Ordinance shall be incorporated into bid documents for the project.
These limitations on hours of operation and noise generation of individual pieces of
equipment will ensure construction-related noise impacts remain at a less than significant
level.
ENVIRONMENT AL F ACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Environmental factors, which may be affected by a project, as defined by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are listed alphabetically below. Factors marked with a filled
in block (.) were determined to be potentially affected by the Project, involving at least one
impact that has been identified as a "Potentially Significant Impact", as indicated in the Initial
Study Checklist and related discussion that follows. Factors which are unmarked (D) were
determined to not be significantly affected by the Project, based on discussion also provided in
the Checklist.
o Aesthetics
o Agriculture Resources
. Air Quality
o Biological Resources
o Hazards and Hazardous Materials
o Hydrology and Water Quality
o Land Use and Planning
o Mineral Resources
o Population and Housing
o Public Services
o Recreation
o Transportation and
Circulation
o Utilities and Service
Systems
. Cultural Resources
o Mineral Resources
o Geology and Soils
. Noise
CHIEF PLANNER'S DETERMINATION
After due consideration, the Chief Planner of the City of South San Francisco has found 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. Therefore, the Project will
not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, and the requirements of the
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 7
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be met by the preparation of this Mitigated
Negative Declaration. 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 because 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. In addition, the Project is within the scope of use
contemplated in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and 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 have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
c. The Project does not involve impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable, because the described Project will incorporate both Project-specific
mitigation measures and cumulative mitigation measures to avoid significant impacts of
the Project in the context of continued growth and development in the City of South San
Francisco.
d. The Project does not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, because the proposed development
will enhance and complement the existing traditional commercial core of the City and
improve the appearance of the area, all adverse effects of the Project will be mitigated to
an insignificant level.
PUBLIC REVIEW
The Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be circulated for a 20-day
public review period. Written comments may be submitted to the following address:
Chadrick Smalley, Associate Planner
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Telephone: 650.877.8535
Fax: 650.829.6639
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE . PAGE 8
Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration does not constitute approval of the Project itself,
which is a separate action to be taken by the South San Francisco City Council.
LEAD AGENCY
The Lead Agency for this Mitigated Negative Declaration is the City of South San Francisco.
DETERMINA TION
On the basis of the evaluation in this Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study:
I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION wiII be prepared.
X I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there wiII not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been
made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARA TION wiII be prepared.
I find that the proposed Project MA Y have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed Project MAY have a "potentialIy significant impact" or "potentialIy
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentiaIly significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further
is required.
~)~~h
Susy Ka m~hiefPlanncr
;;:J. I; 200 Y
Date
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE . PAGE 9
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Department of Economic and Community Development
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083
GENERAL INFORMATION
Project Name: Miller Avenue Parking Structure
Property Owner/Applicant: City of South San Francisco
PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION
LOCATION AND SETTING
..
+
r ~....."'-'"';
~'
.'~.. ....... -
:. ';. .
10f 0 1. I<
\ l:\
)~~
/~-
~(
r -
.
,
,~ ,
,
":1 (
'~ ,
\< '" ~1 ~\ . . .. ~.
., ~' :. .' ,,:ttt ":'\"'""'H_
-. . '.' '- I~' \ , \ J.~"""'"'"'''''''''"'''
~m ~ ' . .c. "
\. '~f '.
, ."... ~,i. .~ 1
,<\.~~ I '.,. \~\.. I .
~K 0"'( \:\~..., f:r- ... ..','._ ,'" 1ANHU.t::J$tu
, !. : ."'~ JlI . R\ \, " - t~.. '~"'.." ..,,,,,,, I
. h~,,".;<i,..n '. . .\ M. \ ",, I
Figure 1: Location Map
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
INITIAL STUDY
As shown in Figure 1, the Project site is
located in the central portion of South San
Francisco, on the south side of Miller
A venue between Maple and Linden
A venues. The Project site is located in the
City's central business district, more
commonly known as Downtown. The site
is comprised of four separate assessor's
parcels in the 300 Block of Miller A venue
totaling 24,500 square feet of land area.
The bulk of the site (21,000 square feet) is
currently in use as three adjacent public
parking lots totaling 60 spaces, while the
easterly 3,500 square feet of the site is
occupied by a residential duplex totaling
1922 square feet.
The project site slopes slightly downward
from west to east. The site's primary
. frontage is along Miller A venue and the
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 10
site extends through to its secondary frontage along Fourth Lane, which is a paved alley that
services properties along both Miller and Grand A venues. The site and its surroundings are
substantially urbanized, with small pockets of vegetation in the form of landscaping including
small to medium trees, shrubs and ground cover.
Adjacent uses include multifamily residential to the east and west, single and multifamily
residential to the north across Miller Avenue, and various commercial uses to the south across
Fourth Lane. A few of these commercial properties are mixed-use; residential over commercial
configuration.
CIRCULATION CHARACTERISTICS
The Project site is currently accessible from the north via Miller A venue and from the south via
Fourth Lane. Miller Avenue is a two lane, bi-directional asphalt street with parallel parking on
both sides within 60 feet of right-of-way. The right-of-way also accommodates 5.5 foot wide
sidewalks on both sides of Miller Avenue.
Fourth Lane is a one-way alley allowing travel only in the East-West direction. The lane is
surfaced with asphalt and located within 20 feet of right-of-way.
ZONING/GENERAL PLAN
The Project site is currently zoned Downtown Commercial (D-C). The site's General Plan
designation is likewise Downtown Commercial.
SITE OWNERSHIP
The three parcels currently in use for parking purposes are owned by the City of South San
Francisco. The residential property at 323 Miller Avenue is owned by the City of South San
Francisco Redevelopment Agency.
PROJECT CONTEXT AND DESCRIPTION
A preliminary Project site plan is shown in Figure 2. The Project would involve removal of the
existing residential duplex at the east end of the project site and construction of a 4Y2 story public
parking structure with ground floor commercial space.
REQUIRED DISCRETIONARY ApPROVALS
The Miller A venue Parking Structure is a public project and thus is an entirely discretionary
action undertaken by the City of South San Francisco.
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE . PAGE 11
0) 0
(i)
o
CD
o
0)
o
o
@
(02) @
..- .., ~ . .
. r Nt
0'"
~!'
MIUER AVE.
~i)
."'''''11I
o
o
_.~
~_.......
"'''''1Fl
o
" {. ',' I
'. ;,' "!;;
0:"
)..~'!JL
." 0
o
o
~ ,',.
.
'~ '. tll:'
. ii-
. ~ '
o
;;...
"""""''''fA
<D .:
FOURTH L>><E
LEVEL 1 PARKING PLAN
SCALE: 118- . r..t1'
15 STAllS
".000 SQ. FT.
't'nuucDt"f.ol' '1'1 '7'tV'l Qn C"T \
~
Figure 2: Preliminary Site Plan
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 12
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
The Checklist portion of the Initial Study begins below, with explanations of each answer. A "no
impact" response indicates, for example, that no conflict with agricultural zoning would occur
due to the Project, because no agricultural zoning exists near the Project site. 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." 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. "
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions Potentially Less Than Less Than
for Significant Significant Significant No
Determination of Environmental Impact Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
1. AESTHETICS - Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a [ ] [ [ X] ]
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, [ ] [ ] [ X]
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ] ] [ X]
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantiallight or ] ] [ X]
glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
S . 1
ettmg
South San Francisco's aesthetic character is framed by San Bruno Mountain to the north, the
ridge along Skyline Boulevard to the west, and the San Francisco Bay to the east. The City is
Dyett & Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, 1997.
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 13
contained by hills on three sides. Hills are visible from all parts of the City, and Sign Hill and
San Bruno Mountain (which is outside City limits) in the distance are visual landmarks.
The Project site is located in the Downtown planning sub-area of South San Francisco, on the
south side of Miller A venue between Maple and Linden A venues. The property offers views of
suburban single family residential development to the north with Sign Hill and San Bruno
Mountain partially visible in the background. Distant views are limited to the east, west and
south due to the topography and the project site's location in a developed area. The lane directly
south of the project site functions as a service and loading area for the commercial uses along
Grand A venue. It is not widely accessed by through-traffic, and views from the lane are blocked
in many places by the structures facing both Grand Avenue and Miller A venue. Therefore, the
lane serves minimal, if any aesthetic purposes.
a) Scenic Vistas
The Project site is not located within any formally designated scenic vista, nor would the Project
obstruct views of a designated public vista including San Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill.
Furthermore, to the extent that any private views are impacted by the project, CEQA does not
protect such views, particularly when situated in an urban setting. (See, e.g., Banker's Hill,
Hillcrest, Park West Community Preservation Group v. City of San Diego (2006) 139
Ca1.App.4th 249; Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 588-590.)
The case law is clear that "obstruction of a few private views in a project's immediate vicinity is
not generally regarded as a significant environmental impact." (Bowman v. City of Berkeley
(2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 586.) "Under CEQA, the question is whether a project will affect
the environment of persons in general, not whether a project will affect particular persons."
(Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 477, 492-493.)
Therefore, in evaluating the adequacy of an agency's aesthetics analysis, courts have
distinguished impacts to public views from those to private views. (Compare Bowman, supra,
122 Cal.App.4th 572, with Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994)
29 Cal.App.4th 1597 (concerning views from a public park).) While courts have suggested that
obstruction of private views could constitute a significant environmental impact, the decisions
have generally not found impacts to be significant where the obstruction is limited to such
private views. Rather, taking into consideration the number of views affected and the
surrounding landscape, courts have frequently found that the effects on a few private views are
less than significant.
For example, in Bowman v. City of Berkeley, the court upheld the city's "no impact" finding with
respect to scenic vistas, despite the fact that the project would affect views from an adjacent
apartment complex and nearby single-family residences. (Bowman, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at
576, 584, 587.) Critical to the court's decision was that the impact would only affect a handful of
nearby residential properties-not the public at large. (Id.; see also Banker's Hill v. City of San
Diego (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 249, 279-280.) Like in Bowman, this project is sited adjacent to
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 14
apartment complexes. On both sides of the project, no more than half of the units face the project
site. Therefore, like in Bowman, only a few private views will be impacted by the parking
structure. Indeed, "that a project affects only a few private views suggests that its impact is
insignificant." (Bowman, supra, 122 Cal.AppAth at 586-587 (citing and explaining the Mira Mar
decision) (emphasis added).)
Even where public views are affected, a project must still impact a "scenic vista" to constitute a
significant impact. Accordingly, the case law has further distinguished between such scenic
vistas, and, for example, views of "an unremarkable urban street." (See Banker's Hill, supra, 139
Cal.AppAth at 280; see also Bowman, supra, 122 Cal.AppAth at 589, 592.) Courts have declined
to extend CEQA protections to the latter. (Id.) In the Banker's Hill case, the court upheld the
city's finding of no significant impact, even though public views from a city park would be
affected. The court reasoned that because the views were of "an unremarkable urban street," they
were not the type of "scenic vista" that CEQA served to protect. (Id.) Likewise, the court in
Bowman noted that the project site was an underutilized vacant lot in a flat urban
neighborhood-not the type of "scenic vista" that CEQA protects. (Bowman, supra, 122
Cal.AppAth at 584.)
Here, like in the Banker's Hill and Bowman cases, views towards the project site from the
adjacent properties are not of any of the City's scenic vistas, but rather of an underutilized
surface parking lot in a relatively flat urban neighborhood. In some cases, apartment windows
are only a few feet from the exterior wall of the existing duplex on the project site, therefore,
views from these windows are already quite limited. An existing solid wood fence along the
property line between the project site and the easterly apartment building further obstructs views
from all but the very top ofthe first-floor windows of those apartments. Furthermore, the project
does not obstruct views of Sign Hill or San Bruno Mountain, or any other scenic vistas visible
from certain areas within the City. There may possibly be limited views of San Bruno Mountain
from the upper floor of the north sides of the apartment buildings, though these views would
already be largely obstructed by existing structures and trees across Miller Avenue. In any case,
any views of the mountains from the north sides of these buildings would not be affected by the
project, which will be situated alongside the apartment buildings. Therefore, construction of the
project will have a less than significant impact on CEQA-protected views from the adjacent
properties.
b) Scenic Resources
The Project would have no impact on scenic resources within a state scenic highway since it is
not located on a state scenic highway.
c) Visual Character
The proposed Project would be located on a site currently used primarily for surface parking
with one small residential structure on the easterly portion of the site. The existing parking lot
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE . PAGE 15
exposes the aesthetically challenged lane to the adjacent residential neighborhood. A dilapidated
accessory building is located behind the existing duplex and is exposed to views from Miller
A venue. The project would remove the dilapidated accessory building and place a parking
structure on the site, blocking views of the service lane from Miller Avenue, thereby improving
the visual character of the area.
The proposed structure's size is consistent with the type of development contemplated by the
General Plan for the Downtown area. The Zoning Ordinance provides for lot line-to-lot line
development, with no height limits. All properties adjacent to the project site are likewise
planned for more intensive, mixed use with traditional design features. Additionally, the
inclusion of street-level commercial space would increase activity and human presence at the
site, further improving aesthetics and pedestrian scale. Courts have found that the increased
activity that accompanies development of underutilized lots can enhance a project site's
surroundings and preserve, if not improve, an area's visual character. (See Bowman, supra, 122
Cal.App.4th at 584.) Here, like in Bowman, the project will enhance an underutilized lot in the
City's downtown district.
Furthermore, courts have reasoned that private aesthetic concerns "are ordinarily the province of
local design review, not CEQA." (Id. at 593.) Here, the Project has benefited from the input of
the City's Design Review Board to ensure that the structure will not degrade the visual character
of the area. (See id. at 593 (finding that compliance with city's design review procedures served
to ensure project would not degrade visual character of the area).) The Bowman court found that
such a review and determination are "sufficient to address the [CEQA] Guidelines." (Id.) The
mere fact that a project underwent local design review can itself "be found to mitigate purely
aesthetic impacts to insignificance, even if some people are dissatisfied with the outcome." (Id.)
Given that the project is also consistent with the type of development contemplated for the
downtown area in the City's General Plan, and complies with the applicable zoning ordinances,
including an allowance for lot line-to-lot line development, there is no reason to believe that the
project will substantially degrade the character of the site or its surroundings. Rather, by
establishing an appropriate and active use of an underutilized lot in the City's urban center, the
project can be expected to enhance the site and its surroundings.
Therefore, the Project would have no negative impact on visual character.
Shadows and Shading
Unlike direct aesthetic impacts such as scenic vistas and visual quality, the CEQA Guidelines do
not provide criteria or a threshold for evaluation of shade and shadow impacts. Nonetheless, in
an effort to fully disclose all impacts of the project, including insignificant impacts, staff has
prepared, in consultation with the project designer, a shadow study detailing the shadow impacts
of the structure (see Appendix B). The parking structure is likely to increase afternoon shadows
on the second floor of the apartment building located east of the project site (321 Miller), and
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 16
morning shadows for the apartment building located west of the project site (337 Miller). At 321
Miller, the second-floor windows are already partially shaded by the existing duplex, however
the amount of shading will increase with the construction of the taller parking structure. The
analysis of project shadows indicates that the second-story units' current 2 hours and 50 minutes
of afternoon sun in the winter and 6 hours and 10 minutes of afternoon sun in the summer would
be reduced to 30 minutes of direct sun daily throughout the year.
"[M]any if not most urban developments will have some shading effects on nearby properties."
(Bowman, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at 586.) However, the simple presence of a shadow or shading
effect does not necessarily constitute a significant impact under CEQA. (See id., Banker's Hill,
supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at 279-280.) Courts that have evaluated an agency's shadow conclusions
have implicitly applied the same principles that they apply to evaluations of view impacts. (See,
e.g., Bowman, supra, 122 Ca1.App.4th at 586.) In Bowman, for example, petitioners challenged
the City of Berkeley's finding in a mitigated negative declaration that afternoon shading on a
house and an apartment building's private courtyard did not constitute a significant
environmental impact. (Id.) The appellate court agreed with the city. The court found that
afternoon shadows cast on private property as the result of urban development, was not
"substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project as mitigated will have any
significant shadowing effect." (Id.) Even in Banker's Hill, where the proposed project shaded a
public park, the court found the impact to be less than significant. (Banker's Hill, supra, 139
Cal.App.4th at 279.)
Shadow impacts of the Miller A venue Parking Structure are very similar to those found to be less
than significant in Bowman. Like in Bowman, the impacts of the project's shadow will only
affect the adjacent private properties. Also, like in Bowman, the project has benefited from the
review of the City's Design Review Board, who are tasked with reviewing the "shadow patterns"
of proposed projects. (See South San Francisco Municipal Code, ~ 20.85.030, subd. (b)(6).)
Bowman confirms that where an urban development project's shadow impacts are limited to
shading of only a few adjacent private properties during only part of the day, such impacts do not
constitute a significant environmental impact under CEQA, and may be sufficiently addressed in
a mitigated negative declaration. As this particular project involves urban development for which
shadows are limited to either morning or afternoon shading of two adjacent private properties,
the impacts of the project's shadows are less than significant.
Furthermore, unlike the nearby apartment buildings, which are nonconforming uses, the
proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance policies and
regulations. As the apartment buildings are sited in an area zoned for lot line-to-lot line
development, with no height restrictions, some shadow impacts of adjacent development are to
be expected. For the reasons stated, the project's shadow impacts are less than significant.
d) Light or Glare
Five "cobra" style light fixtures exist on the site and serve to illuminate the parking lot. In order
to ensure night safety, the South San Francisco Police Department will require that the parking
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE . PAGE 17
garage be well illuminated. Additionally, a slight increase in light emanating from the project
site can be expected to result from the proposed commercial space and associated storefront
glazing at the base of the parking garage.
Lighting designs shall employ exterior fixtures that cast light in a downward direction, and
exterior building materials shall not be sources of substantial glare. Accordingly, the amount of
light and glare emanating from the Project site would be considered less than significant. It is
not expected that additional daytime glare would be associated with the Project.
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions Potentially Less Than Less Than
for Significant Significant Significant No
Determination of Environmental Impact Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
II. AGRlCUL TURE 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.
Would the Project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique ] [ [ X]
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 ] [ [ X]
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing ] [ [ X]
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
a) Converting Prime Farmland
The Project site is located in an urban area that has already been developed in a mix of
residential and commercial uses. No Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmlands or Farmlands of
Statewide Importance have been identified at the Project site. The project would not result in the
conversion of any Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmlands or Farmlands of Statewide Importance to
non-agricultural uses and no impact would result.
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 18
b) Conflict with Agricultural Zoning
There are no areas in the vicinity of the Project site that have been zoned for agricultural uses
and no parcels near the Project site are currently under Williamson Act contracts. The project
would not result in the conversion of any land currently zoned for agricultural use or in
Williamson Act contracts to non-agricultural uses. No impact is anticipated.
c) Non-Agricultural Use Farmland Conversion
The Project involves no activities that would result in conversion of farmland or other land in
agricultural to non-agricultural uses, thus no impacts are expected.
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions Potentially Less Than Less Than
for Significant Significant Significant No
Determination of Environmental Impact Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
III. 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 detenninations. Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation [ [ ] [ ] [ X]
of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or [ [ X] [ [
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net [ [ [ X]
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (inc1uding releasing
emissions, which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ] ] [ X] ]
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ] ] [ X]
substantial number of people?
Setting
Northwest winds are most common in South San Francisco, reflecting the orientation of wind
gaps within the mountains of the San Francisco Peninsula. Winds are persistent and strong,
providing excellent ventilation and carrying pollutants downwind. Winds are lightest on the
average in fall and winter.
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 19
The persistent winds in South San Francisco result in a relatively low potential for air pollution.
Even so, in fall and winter there are periods of several days when winds are very light and local
pollutants can build up.
The local air quality agency is the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The
BAAQMD enforces rules and regulations regarding air pollution sources and is the primary
agency preparing the regional air quality plans mandated under state and federal law. The
BAAQMD has prepared air quality impact guidelines for use in preparing environmental
documents under the California Environmental Quality Act.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) monitors air quality at several
locations within the San Francisco Bay Air Basin, although none are located in South San
Francisco. The monitoring sites closest to the Project site are located in San Francisco to the
north and Redwood City to the south. Table 1 summarizes exceedances of the state and federal
standards at these two sites. The table shows that most of the ambient air quality standards are
met in the Project area with the exception the state standard for PMIO and ozone.
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF CRITERIA AIR POLLl TION MONITORING DATA
Pollutant Standard Monitoring Days Standard Exceeded
Site
2003 2004 2005
Ozone Federal I-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0
Redwood City 0 0 0
Ozone State I-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0
Redwood City 1 I 0
Ozone Federal 8-Hour1 San Francisco 0 0 0
Redwood City 0 0 0
PM 10 Federal24-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0
Redwood City 0 0 0
PM 10 State 24-Hour San Francisco I I 0
Redwood City 0 I 2
Carbon State/Federal San Francisco 0 0 0
Monoxide 8-Hour Redwood City 0 0 0
Nitrogen State I-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0
Dioxide Redwood City 0 0 0
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2005. Note: S02 data is not available for Redwood City monitoring site
Significance Thresholds. The CEQA environmental checklist provides five questions regarding
air quality impact significance. Where available, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE . PAGE 20
the determinations of significance. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelinei provide the following
definitions of a significant air quality impact:
A project contributing to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air
Quality Standard of 9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over 8 hours or 20 ppm for 1 hour would
be considered to have a significant impact.
A project that generates criteria air pollutant emissions in excess of the BAAQMD annual or
daily thresholds would be considered to have a significant air quality impact. The current
thresholds are 15 tons/year or 80 pounds/day for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx) or PMIO. Any proposed project that would individually have a significant air
quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact.
Any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors
would be deemed to have a significant impact.
Any project with the potential to expose sensitive receptors or the general public to substantial
levels of toxic air contaminants would be deemed to have a significant impact. The term
"substantial levels" is further defined as an exposure associated with an excess cancer risk of 1 0
in one million.
The BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction dust impacts are based on the
appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control
measures for construction emission of PMIO. If the appropriate construction controls are to be
implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less
than significant.
Greenhouse Gases. Currently, there is no standard methodology for evaluating how a project
may impact greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or whether any such impact is significant. AB32,
the California Global Warming Solutions Act, resulted in legislative findings that speak to the
risks of global warming on California's environment. The Legislature has subsequently directed
the Resource Agency to adopt guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions. Until such
guidelines are developed and adopted, a quantitative determination of significance for purposes
of CEQA is speculative.
Nonetheless, it is apparent that one of the primary contributors to GHG impacts is vehicle
emissions. For a parking structure, such as this one, vehicle emissions will certainly be the
primary GHG contributor. However, here, several elements of the proposed project will serve to
minimize the impacts on GHG emissions. The project is infill oriented in an established
2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1999.
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 21
commercial district and is intended to enhance an existing urban area's viability. The structure is
proposed to be above-ground and designed to minimize the use of mechanical ventilation
equipment. Additionally, the Project is expected to reduce traffic through some of the
surrounding intersections, since some drivers will be diverted directly to the parking structure
rather than circling the local roadways in search of on-street parking. These design features, as
well as the use of recycled materials typical for concrete construction and provision of bicycle
racks to encourage low-emission transportation serve to reduce the project's impact on climate
change.
Furthermore, many of the project revisions and mitigation measures already required will also
operate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, Mitigation Measure IB requires that a
percentage of off-road construction equipment use CARB-certified engines or alternative fuels
that will result in lower total emissions. The measure further restricts diesel engine idling and
requires properly tuned and maintained equipment to minimize emissions.
In short, the Project would not generate substantial GHG emissions, or substantially contribute to
regional emissions. Additionally, Project requirements and mitigation measures would operate to
further minimize any emissions that were to be produced by the Project.
a) Conflict with Air Quality Plan
Setting
Bay Area Air Quality Plans are prepared by the BAAQMD in cooperation with the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
Currently, the applicable plans include the state-mandated Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan and the
Bay Area Ozone Strategy (Clean Air Plan update).3 These plans contain mobile source controls,
stationary source controls and transportation control measures to be implemented in the region to
attain the state and federal ozone standards within the Bay Area Air Basin.
Impact
A project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality plan if it
would be inconsistent with the growth assumptions, in terms of population, employment or
regional growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The regional air quality plan utilizes the
City's General Plan policies to determine these growth assumptions.
The project site is designated by the 2000 General Plan for Downtown Commercial uses in an
urban configuration, allowing a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) up to 3.0 and no maximum residential
density. The proposed project would develop a 4~ story, 256 space public parking facility and
up to 13,700 square feet of ground floor commercial space on a 24,500 square foot site. The
population, employment and VMT impacts of the proposed project are therefore substantially
3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan and Triennial Assessment, December
20, 2000.
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE . PAGE 22
less than those considered in the preparation of the regional air quality plans and the project
would have no impact on the implementation of any of the proposed control measures contained
in these plans.
b) Violation of Air Quality Standards
Setting
Project-related air quality impacts fall into two main categories: short-term impacts due to
construction, and long-term impacts due to project operation. During project construction, the
primary air quality effects would be in the form of increased local particulate concentrations due
to fugitive dust sources. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines4 provide thresholds of significance for air
quality impacts. The BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction dust impacts are based
on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. Over the long-term, project operation
would result in an increase in emissions primarily due to an increase in motor vehicle trips to and
from the project.
Impact
IMP ACT lA: Construction Dust. The proposed Project would require removal of a
residential duplex as well as site grading to prepare the property for the parking
structure's foundation. Both of these tasks represent construction activities with a high
potential for creating air pollutants in the form of dust.
IMPACT IB: Exhaust Emissions. Additionally, construction activities would generate
exhaust emissions from vehicles/equipment that could affect local air quality. The
project could cause potentially significant impacts to air quality in the short term due to
construction activities.
Construction activities would temporarily affect local air quality, causing a temporary
increase in particulate dust and other pollutants. Dust emission during periods of
construction would increase particulate concentrations at neighboring properties. This
impact is potentially significant, but normally mitigatible.
The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emission of
PMJO. With implementation of the construction controls identified in Mitigation Measure
1 A, below, air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less-
than-significant.
[] MITIGATION MEASURE lA: Dust Suppression Procedures. The following
measures are recommended for inclusion in construction contracts to control fugitive dust
emISSIOns.
4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1999.
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE . PAGE 23
During Demolition
o Watering shall be used to control dust generation during demolition of structures and
break-up of pavement.
o Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site.
o Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible.
During Construction
o Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
o Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the
wind.
o Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to
maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
o Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and
staging areas at construction sites.
o Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried
onto adjacent public streets.
o Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25
mph.
[: MITIGA TION MEASURE IB: Exhaust Emissions Reduction Procedures. The
following measures are recommended to reduce diesel particulate matter and NOx
emissions from on-site construction equipment.
o At least 50 percent of the heavy-duty, off-road equipment used for construction shall be
powered by CARB-certified off-road engines or equivalent, or use alternative fuels (such
as biodiesel or water emulsion fuel) that result in lower emissions.
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 24
o Use add-on control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters
o Ensure that emissions from all diesel powered construction equipment used on the project
site do not exceed 40% opacity for more than three minutes in anyone hour. (Opacity is
an indicator of exhaust particulate emissions from diesel powered equipment.) Any
equipment found to exceed 40% opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be prohibited from use
on the site until repaired.
o The contractor(s) shall install temporary electrical services whenever possible to avoid
the necessity of independently powered equipment (e.g., generators).
o Diesel equipment standing idle for more than two minutes shall be turned off. This
includes trucks waiting to deliver or receive soils or other bulk materials. Rotating drum
concrete trucks may keep their engines running continuously as long as they are on site.
o Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions.
With the implementation of these construction control measures, impacts related to construction
dust and exhaust would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Operation. Development projects in the Bay Area are most likely to violate an air quality
standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation through
vehicle trip generation. New vehicle trips add to carbon monoxide concentrations near streets
that provide access to the site.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommends
estimation of carbon monoxide concentrations for projects where Project traffic would impact
intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service D, E, or F or would cause Level of
Service to decline to D, E, or F; or where Project traffic would increase traffic volumes on
nearby roadways by 10% or more (if the increase is at least 100 vehicles per hour).
Nearly all of the intersections near the project site are currently all operating at acceptable Levels
of Service (B or C), and the project is not expected to cause Level of Service at these
intersections to decline5. The project is expected to result in a decrease of traffic volumes
through some intersections since it is expected that some drivers will be diverted directly to the
new garage rather than circling the nearby streets in search of on-street parking. The signalized
intersection at Grand A venue and Airport Boulevard is currently operating at an acceptable
Level of Service of D, with a 35.3 second delay. The project, however, will not have any impact
of this intersection; it will continue to operate at a Level of Service D with a 35.3 second delay
after construction of the parking structure.
5 Crane Transportation Group, Traffic Impact Study: Proposed South San Francisco Downtown Parking Garage,
January 30, 2008
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE . PAGE 25
Considering that the proposed Project is in an attainment area for carbon monoxide (i.e. the state
and federal ambient standards are met) and that South San Francisco has relatively low
background levels of carbon monoxide compared to other parts of the Bay Area, the proposed
Project is not expected to have a significant impact on local carbon monoxide concentrations.
Given that the Project's intended use is as a parking structure with other commercial uses, the
Project is not expected to have any impact on other air pollutants. Therefore, Project operation
impacts on air quality would be less than significant.
c) Cumulative Air Quality Effects
The Project would generate new emissions through new regional vehicle trips. The BAAQMD
has developed criteria to determine if a development Project could result in potentially
significant regional emissions. The District has recommended that 2,000 daily vehicle trips be
used as a threshold for quantifying Project regional impacts. The Project's new trip generation is
conservatively estimated at 344 new trips to and from the project site during the midday peak
hour (172 inbound/l72 outbound) and 244 trips during the evening commute peak hour (122
inbound/122 outbound). Net new daily trip generation is therefore well below this threshold for
quantification. It follows that Project emissions would likewise be below the BAAQMD
thresholds of significance for regional pollutants. Therefore, Project impacts on regional air
quality would be less than significant.
d) Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollution Concentrations
Setting
The BAAQMD defines exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants and risk of
accidental releases of acutely hazardous materials (AHMs) as potential adverse environmental
impacts. Examples of sensitive receptors include schools, hospitals, residential areas with
children, and convalescent facilities.
The closest sensitive receptors are the surrounding single-family and multi-family residential
uses to the north, east and west of the Project site. A small City-owned playground is located
750' west of the Project, and a private school with associated playground is approximately 800'
west of the Project site.
Impact
The proposed Project could expose surrounding facilities to on-site emISSIOns during
construction; however, the Project's location greatly reduces the potential for exposure to
pollutants released from the site since easterly winds that could carry emissions from the site to
the existing playgrounds occur only 3% of the time on an annual basis. Additionally, the
mitigation measures described above in section B (Violation of air quality standards) will ensure
that construction-related impacts to air quality are minimized.
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 26
After construction, Project occupants (i.e., potential tenants for the commercial space) who
would potentially release toxic air contaminant emissions would be subject to rules, regulations
and procedures of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. As part of its program to
control toxic air contaminant emissions, the District has established procedures for estimating the
risk associated with exposure. The methods used are conservative, meaning that the real risks
from the source may be lower than the calculations, but it is unlikely they will be higher.
In the first step of a two-step process, the District estimates how much of a contaminant would
be found in the air at a specific location. The estimate depends upon the type of source, its rate of
production and its location. The second step involves determining if the estimated amount of
contaminant is hazardous to those exposed to it. This determination includes an evaluation of
both carcinogenicity (tendency to cause cancer) and non-cancer health effects. Chemical toxicity
is based on animal study results and in some instances, on the results of human exposure.
After a new Project's risk level is determined, a decision must be made as to the significance of
this risk level. If a new source has a cancer risk of one in a million or less over a 70-year-lifetime
exposure period, and will not result in non-cancer health effects, it is considered to be a less than
significant risk and no further review of all health impacts is required. If a project has a risk
greater than one in a million, it must be further evaluated in order to determine acceptability.
Factors that affect acceptability include the presence of controls on the rate of emissions, the
location of the site in relation to residential areas and schools, and contaminant reductions in
other media such as water.
In general, projects with risks greater than one in a million, but less than lOin a million, are
approved if other determining factors are acceptable. In general, projects with risks greater than
lOin a million are not approved. Non-approved projects may be re-evaluated if emissions are
reduced, thereby reducing their risks.
District Regulation 2-1-412 provides for special noticing requirements prior to approval of toxic
air contaminant sources within one-quarter mile of a sensitive receptor.
The above regulations and procedures, already established and enforced as part of the air quality
permit review process for any future occupant of the Project, would ensure that any potential
impacts due to hazardous or toxic air contaminant emission would be reduced to a level of less
than significant at the closest sensitive receptor and other receptors closer to the Project site.
e) Odors
The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance do not allow any of the types of operations identified by
the BAAQMD as potential odor sources in the Downtown area. The Project would not generate
any such odors and therefore would have no impact.
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE . PAGE 27
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions Potentially Less Than Less Than
for Significant Significant Significant No
Determination of Environmental Impact Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the
Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either ] [ [ X]
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 ofFish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ] ] [ [ X]
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on [ [ ] ] [ X]
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 ] [ X]
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 ] ] [ [ X]
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted ] [ [ X]
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
a-d) Effect on special status species/sensitive natural community/wetlands/natural
corridors
The Project site is located in an urbanized area, on a site that has repeatedly been developed and
utilized for automobile parking since 19506. No candidate, sensitive, or special status species are
6 CSS Environmental Services, Inc., Environmental Site Assessment, 323 Miller Avenue, January 12,2007
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE . PAGE 28
known to exist at the site. The Project would have no impact on any endangered, threatened or
rare species or their habitats, or to any federally protected wetlands or wildlife corridors.
e-t) Conflict with local, regional or state conservation plans
The City of South San Francisco's Tree Preservation Ordinance only applies to trees with
circumferences of 48" or larger or trees specifically designated as "protected" by the Director of
the Parks and Recreation Department7. The Project site is surrounded by various types of
landscaping, including low ground covers, assorted shrub types and small to medium sized trees.
The largest tree on the project site measures 40" in circumference. As proposed, the Project
would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
including the tree preservation ordinance. The project site is not subject to a Habitat
Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. Therefore, no impact would
occur.
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions Potentially Less Than Less Than
for Significant Significant Significant No
Determination of Environmental Impact Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
V. CUL TURAL RESOURCES - Would the
Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [ X] ]
significance of a historical resource as
defined in S 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ] [ X] [
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to S 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ] [ [ X]
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including ] ] [ [ X]
those interred outside of fonnal
cemeteries?
a) Historical Resources
Setting
The Project site is comprised of four City-owned parcels on the south side of Miller Avenue.
Three of the parcels are existing surface parking lots with modern light standards and chain link
fencing and no other structures. The fourth, easternmost parcel is developed with a small single
story wood frame residence which contains two dwelling units. A rustic corrugated steel
accessory building is also sited on southern portion of the lot.
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE . PAGE 29
The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ~ 15064.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines.
The Guidelines state that "historical resources" include 1) listed and eligible resources as
determined by the State Historical Resources Commission, 2) resources included in a local
register or identified as significant in a historical resource survey that meets the requirements of
Sec. 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resources Code, or 3) any resources determined by the lead agency
to be historically significant in light of substantial supporting evidence.
Impact
IMPACT 2: Removal of a "Potentially Historic Resource".
Development of the parking garage as proposed will necessitate the removal of the
existing residential structure at 323 Miller Avenue. This structure was built in 1890
(estimated) and was identified as locally "potentially significant" in a survey of historic
properties in April 19868. The structure is not a State listed resource and is not locally
listed as a "designated historic resource", however, the 1986 survey is included in the
State Historic Resources Inventory9.
According to the survey, the structure is locally significant but not eligible for National
Register listing. Locally significant elements cited in the survey include architectural
style and well-preserved historic building materials. Section 21084.1 of the Public
Resources Code establishes a presumption of historical significance for locally significant
resources unless proven otherwise by a preponderance of evidence.
In light of these facts, the structure at 323 Miller Avenue is a "historical resource" as
defined by the CEQA Guidelines. Since the Project could cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of the resource through demolition of architectural features and
historical building materials, the Project would have a potentially significant impact.
MITIGATION MEASURE 2: Preservation Plan for 323 Miller.
Impacts to the structure at 323 Miller A venue can be mitigated to a less than significant
level, however, the best option for mitigating the impacts cannot be identified until
further analysis can be completed. Specifically, economic concerns, as well as concerns
regarding land use compatibility, preservation of dwelling units in the Downtown area,
and availability of sites for relocation must be evaluated before adequate mitigation can
7 South San Francisco Municipal Code Sec. 13.30.020
8 Bamburg, Bonnie L., South San Francisco Historic Preservation Survey, 1985- I 986
9 Jordan, Leigh, Coordinator Northwest Information Center, personal communication, August 14,2007
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 30
be implemented. Where it is known that mitigation is feasible but where practical
considerations prohibit devising such measures early in the planning process, it is
permissible to commit to devising measures that will satisfy specific performance criteria
articulated at the time of project approval. (Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council
(1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1028-29; Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine (2004) 119
Cal.App.4th 1261, 1275-1276.)
Therefore, significant adverse impacts to historical resources shall be avoided through
development and implementation of a Preservation Plan by the project sponsor, which
shall incorporate one of the following alternatives to demolition of the structure:
(a) Relocation: Under this option, impacts to the structure would be mitigated to a
less than significant level by relocating the structure intact to another site in the
Downtown area that is owned by the City or Redevelopment Agency, or is
privately owned. The City's Historical Preservation Commission has expressed
support for further evaluation of this option.
(b) Salvage & Reuse of Historical Materials: Under this option, impacts to the
structure would be mitigated to a less than significant level by preserving the
well-maintained historical material for use in future construction. The City's
Historical Preservation Commission has expressed support for further evaluation
of this option.
Implementation of the Preservation Plan, including one of the alternatives identified
above, will preserve the historical character of the structure at 323 Miller A venue and
reduce the project's impacts to historical structures to a less than significant level.
b) Archaeological Resources
Setting
The Project site is a previously disturbed, developed site where no known archaeological sites
are located.
Impact
While it may be possible that buried prehistoric resources could be located at the site, currently
there is insufficient data to predict that they could be found at the project site, particularly
because the site has been previously disturbed. If archaeological resources are discovered on site,
these resources shall be handled according to CEQA Section 15064.5( c), which calls on lead
agencies to refer to the Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code, or Section 21084.1 if the
archaeological site is determined to be a historical resource. This is a standard practice for any
City project therefore the impact is considered less than significant.
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 31
c) Paleontological ResourceslUnique Geologic Features
No unique paleontological or geologic features have been nor are expected to be identified at the
Project site. Therefore, the Project would be expected to have no impact on paleontological
resources and unique geologic features.
d) Disturbance of Human Remains
No human remains have been identified at the Project site. However, if such remains are
encountered during site preparation associated with the construction at the Project site, all work
shall be halted in the vicinity, and the San Mateo County Coroner shall be informed to determine
if an investigation of the cause of death is required, and to determine if the remains are of Native
American origin. If such remains are of Native American origin, the nearest tribal relatives as
determined by the state Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted to obtain
recommendations for treating or removal of such remains, including grave goods, with
appropriate dignity, as required under Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. This would
reduce the potential impact associated with the discovery of human remains at the Project site to
a level of less than significant. It is expected that there would be no impact from the Project
related to the disturbance of human remains.
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions Potentially Less Than Less Than
for Significant Significant Significant No
Determ ination of Environmental Impact Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the Project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, [ [ ] ] [ X]
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? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X]
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? [ ] ] [ X] [ ]
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss [ ] ] [ ] [ X]
of topsoil?
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE . PAGE 32
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions Potentially Less Than Less Than
for Significant Significant Significant No
Determination of Environmental Impact Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ] ] [ X]
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 ] ] [ [ X]
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately [ [ ] ] [ X]
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
Setting
The relative stability and composition of different types of soils can contribute to hazard risks by
amplifying earthquake waves, increasing susceptibility to liquefaction and landslides, and
affecting flood levels. South San Francisco occupies three general topographic zones: the
lowland zone, the upland zone and the hillside zone. JO The Project site is located within the
Upland Zone, approximately 50 feet above sea level.
The Upland Zone is comprised of gently to moderately sloping areas located throughout the
central, south central and eastern portions of the City, generally between 30 and 200 feet above
mean sea level, and between Sign Hill and the southern flank of San Bruno Mountain. Slopes are
commonly between 3 and 15 percent gradient. This zone includes the alluvial plain of Colma
Creek, which bisects the area from northwest to southeast.
The City's Upland Zone consists primarily of the Colma and Merced soil formations. The
project site is located on the Colma Formation (designated Qc on geologic maps), which extends
on either side of the Colma Creek alluvial fan. It is comprised of loose, friable, well-sorted sand
with subordinate gravel, silt and clay deposited during the Pleistocene Era. It generally provides
good foundation conditions and earthquake stability when not disturbed by artificial cuts, which
tend to erode and cause gullying.
The project site is occupied by an existing single-story residential duplex and public asphalt
paved parking lots. The project site is characterized by a gentle downward slope of roughly 9 'is
feet from west to east.
10 Dyett & Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, 1997.
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 33
The Project would include site grading to accommodate a multi-story parking structure with
ground floor commercial space. A soils report was prepared for the project (see Appendix C)
and is relied upon for much of the following analysis I I. Note that the report describes the project
as "3-and-half story parking structure" which is to say 3~ stories over, or in addition to, grade.
In this analysis, the project is referred to as a 4 ~ story structure, since grade-level is counted as
the first story. This is purely a difference in nomenclature, and has no impact on the report
findings or the analysis and conclusions in this document.
a)(i) Exposure of People or Structures to Known Earthquake Fault
Setting
The Project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area, which is considered one of the most
seismically active regions in the United States. Significant earthquakes have occurred in the San
Francisco Bay Area and are believed to be associated with crustal movements along a system of
subparallel fault zones that generally trend in a northwesterly direction. The site is located
approximately 2.5 miles northeast, 7.9 miles northeast, and 12.7 miles southwest of the active
San Andreas, San Gregorio and Hayward faults, respectively.
In 1868 an earthquake with an estimated Moment magnitude of 7.0 on the Richter scale occurred
on the southern segment of the Hayward Fault between San Leandro and Fremont. Since 1800,
four major earthquakes have been recorded on the San Andreas Fault with Moment magnitudes
ranging from 6.25 to 7.9. In 2003, a study concluded that the probability of a magnitude 6.7 or
greater earthquake occurring in the San Francisco Bay Area by 2031 is 62 percentI2.
Impact
The Project site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and no known active or potentially active faults exist on the site.
The closest Special Study Zone is the San Andreas Rift Zone located 2.5 miles southwest of the
Project site. Therefore, no impact would result from surface faulting.
a)(ii) Exposure of People or Structures to Strong Seismic Shaking
In the event of a significant earthquake, the proposed parking structure could be exposed to
adverse effects related to seismic ground shaking. Conformance to the Uniform Building Code
would result in minimizing damage to the building and occupants. Because the applicable
building codes contain measures that take into account the potential for ground acceleration
during a seismic event, adherence to these codes would reduce the impact of seismic ground
shaking to a less than significant level.
II Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc., Geotechnical Investigation: Miller Avenue Parking Structure, March, 2007
12 USGS Working Group on California earthquake Probabilities, Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay
Region: 2002-2031, Open file report 03-214, 2003
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 34
a)(iii) Seismic-Related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction is typically caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research and
historical data indicate that soil liquefaction occurs in saturated, loose granular soil (primarily
fine to medium grained clean sand deposits) during or after strong seismic ground shaking.
Liquefaction is typified by a near total loss of shear strength in the affected soil layer, thereby
causing the soil to flow as a liquid. The potential hazards associated with soil liquefaction below
or near a structure are loss of foundation support, lateral spreading, sand boils, landsliding and
differential settlements.
According to the soils report prepared for the project, the potential for seismically-induced
ground failure is low and no specific mitigation is required. Thus, there would be no impact
related to liquefaction at the Project site.
a)(iv) Exposure of People or Structures to Landslides
The Project site is located on land that is relatively flat, but that is sloped slightly from west to
east. The risk of landsliding on the Project site is considered less than significant.
b) Substantial Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil
The project is located in an urbanized area where most soils are covered with either asphalt
paving or concrete. The project will likewise result in a site that has minimal exposed topsoil,
though temporary erosion may occur during construction. However, standard erosion control
measures shall be employed to reduce this erosion to negligible levels during construction. Local
jurisdictional rules require compliance with NPDES general construction activity requirements.
Erosion control plans will be reviewed by the City and required measures will be followed
during construction and no impact will result.
c-e) Unstable Geological Conditions, Expansive Soils, Soil Suitability for Septics
The project will be serviced by municipal sanitary sewer and does not include a septic system.
According to the geotechnical investigation prepared for the project, the Project site soils have
low expansion potential and moderate to high shear strength, and therefore no impact due to
unstable or expansive soils or septic systems is expected.
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE . PAGE 35
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions Potentially Less Than Less Than
for Significant Significant Significant No
Determination of Environmental Impact Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MA TERlALS - Would the Project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or ] ] [ X ] [
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or ] [ [ X]
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle ] ] [ X] ]
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 ] [ ] [ X]
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 ] [ X]
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?
t) For a Project within the vicinity of a [ [ ] ] [ X]
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 [ ] ] [ ] [ X]
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant ] ] [ X]
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Setting
The property is presently used as a public parking lot. A single-story wood frame duplex is
located on the easternmost portion of the site. As this structure was built in 1908, it is possible
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 36
that some quantity of asbestos and lead building materials may be encountered at the site during
construction.
a) Hazardous Materials
Operations
It is not expected that the project would utilize any significant quantity of hazardous materials.
While businesses that utilize hazardous materials could potentially be established in the ground
floor commercial space, however, such businesses would be subject to the Zoning Ordinance's
requirement for a use permit and the Uniform Building Code's regulations applicable to the use,
transport and disposal of hazardous materials. Location of such businesses is highly unlikely and
separate environmental review would be required in order to adequately evaluate any such use, thus,
normal operations of the project will not constitute a hazardous materials risk.
Construction
Because of the age of the building, asbestos and/or lead may be found in the building materials.
The California Health and Safety Code requires local agencies not to issue demolition permits
until an applicant has demonstrated compliance with notification requirements under applicable
federal regulations regarding asbestos, lead-based paint and other potentially hazardous building
materials. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is vested by the California Legislature
with authority to regulate airborne pollutants through both inspection and law enforcement, and
is to be notified ten days in advance of any proposed demolition and must provide information
on the amount and nature of any hazardous pollutants, nature of planned work and methods to be
employed, and the name and location of the waste disposal site to be used. The purpose of
BAAQMD regulations is the minimization of potential hazards to the public and surrounding
land uses.
The Project must also comply with California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(Cal/OSHA) regulations, standards and procedures and California Department of Health Services
(DHS) Lead Work Practice Standards. These regulations are designed to minimize worker and
general public exposure to hazardous building materials.
The above regulations and procedures, already established and enforced as part of the permit
review process, would ensure that any potential impacts due to asbestos, lead or other hazardous
materials would be reduced to a less than significant level.
b) Upset and Accident Conditions
Normal operations at the Project site are not expected to include hazardous materials. As
discussed above, any operations that utilize such materials and wish to locate in the ground floor
commercial space would be required to undergo separate environmental review as part of the
Zoning Ordinance requirement for a use permit. Additionally, adherence to Uniform Building
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 37
Code regulations pertaining to hazardous materials would help prevent such an occurrence, and
no impact would be anticipated.
c) Hazardous Materials and Schools
The Project site is located approximately 800' east of a private school. See section d) of this
document's Air Quality chapter for a discussion of the Project's less than significant impacts to
sensitive receptors.
d) Cortese List of Hazardous Materials Sites
The project site is not on any state-compiled list of hazardous material sites. A Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the property and found that no
recognized environmental condition exists at the project siteI3. No impacts are anticipated.
e-f) Safety Hazards Due to Nearby Airport or Airstrip
The Project site is located approximately 1.5 miles from San Francisco International Airport.
Development of the Project site as proposed would not create any inordinate aviation-related
safety hazard above and beyond that which currently exists in the City of South San Francisco in
the area around San Francisco International Airport. The proposal conforms to the South San
Francisco General Plan airport-related height limits applicable to the area. Therefore the Project
would represent no impact.
g) Conflict with Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan
Development of the proposed Project would not interfere with and therefore have no impact on
the implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan
provided it conforms to the specifications found in applicable emergency response or evacuation
plans.
h) Exposure of People or Structures to Wildland Fires
The Project would have no impact related to wildland fires SInce the site IS located In an
urbanized area and not close to wildlands.
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions
for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-
Would the Project:
13 CSS Enviornmental Services, Inc., Environmental Site Assessment, 323 Miller Ave., January 12,2007
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 38
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions Potentially Less Than Less Than
for Significant Significant Significant No
Determination of Environmental Impact Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
a) Violate any water quality standards or ] [ [ ] [ X]
waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies ] [ ] [ ] [ X]
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage ] [ ] ] [ X]
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage [ [ ] [ X] ]
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner, which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which ] ] [ [ X]
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ] [ [ X]
quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood ] [ X]
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 ] ] [ [ X]
structures, which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant [ [ ] ] [ X]
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 [ ] [ ] [ X]
mud flow?
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 39
Setting
Colma Creek, the City's main natural drainage system, is a perennial stream with a watershed of
about 16.3 square miles that trends in a roughly southeasterly direction through the center of the
City. The Colma Creek watershed is one of the three largest in the County. The basin is bounded
on the northeast by San Bruno Mountain and on the west by a ridge traced by Skyline Boulevard.
Dominant topographic features of the drainage basin include two relatively straight mountain
ridges that diverge toward the southeast that are connected by a low ridge at the northern
boundary of the area. The valley enclosed by the ridges widens toward the southeast where it
drains into San Francisco Bay.
a) Violation of Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements
Provided that any future uses occupying the commercial space at the site adhere to existing waste
discharge regulations, the Project would present no impact.
b) Deplete or Interfere Substantially with Groundwater
The proposed Project would be located in an urban area and would receive its water supply from
existing local infrastructure, thereby not depleting the local groundwater supply. The proposed
parking structure would be an impervious surface over land that has primarily been used as an
impervious parking lot and therefore does not pose an impact to groundwater recharge. Since
groundwater resources are not used in the Project area, no impact will result.
c) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Erosion and Siltation Effects
The proposed Project would be built in an urban area already served by municipal storm sewers.
The majority of the site is currently paved for use of a parking lot; therefore there is little
opportunity for erosion or siltation effects on the site. Accordingly, there would be no impact
related to altered drainage patterns with respect to erosion or siltation at the Project site.
d) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Flooding Effects
It is not expected that the proposed Project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site,
nor would it substantially increase the amount of surface runoff, since the majority of the site is
currently developed with impervious surfaces including parking lots, a residence, and associated
walkways and driveways. Given the amount of impervious surfaces currently on the site, the
Project would not result in a substantial physical change with respect to drainage patterns or
flooding effects. Surface runoff impacts are therefore expected to be less than significant.
e-t) Runoff Exceeding Drainage System Capacity/Increase Polluted Runoff/Other
degradation of Water Quality
Because the project does not result in significant changes to storm water runoff, the existing
storm water drainage system will function adequately. The project is required to comply with all
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE . PAGE 40
regulations of the Water Quality Department including storm water treatment prior to discharge
to the municipal system. The project therefore represents an improvement in storm water quality
generated at the site and no impact is associated with the proposed Project.
g-h) Place Housing Within A tOO-Year Flood Hazard Area/Impede or Redirect Flood
Flow/Expose People or Structures to Flooding Hazards
The project would not pose an impact to flood flows because the site is not located in a
designated 100-year flood hazard areaI4. No impact would occur from the project since no
housing is proposed.
j) Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami or Mudflow
The proposed parking structure would be constructed on an inland site not subject to seiche,
tsunami or mudflows and therefore would have no impact.
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions
for
Determination of Environmental Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the
Project:
a) PhysicalIy 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?
PotentialIy
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
[
[
]
[ X]
[ ]
]
[X]
]
]
[
[ X]
Settini5
South San Francisco has a distinctive land use pattern that reflects the decision to initially locate
industrial areas east of supporting homes and businesses in order to take advantage of
topography and winds on Point San Bruno. Another development trend that shaped the
arrangement of uses was the extensive residential development that occurred during the 1940s
and 1950s, creating large areas almost entirely developed with single-family housing. As a result,
South San Francisco is largely comprised of single-use areas, with industry in the eastern and
14 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map: South San Francisco, San Mateo County,
CA Panel 2 of I 2, September 2, 1981
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE . PAGE 41
southeastern portions of the City, single family homes to the north and west, commercial uses
along a few transportation corridors, and multiple family housing clustered in those same
corridors and on hillsides.
The General Plan, adopted in 1999, is intended to maximize the potential of undeveloped or
underused properties in the City's traditional commercial areas. Upgrading of existing uses and
provisions for quality design are important components of the Plan.
a) Dividing an Established Community
The proposed Project site is only 175' by 140', currently used primarily as a surface parking lot
and would therefore have no impact related to the physical division of an established
community.
b) Conflict with Land Use Plan
The Project site is currently zoned Downtown Commercial (D-C) and is part of the Downtown
Planning Sub-Area as defined by the City of South San Francisco General Plan. The site's
General Plan designation is Downtown Commercial. This designation accommodates a wide
range of commercial and residential uses while requiring active, visitor-oriented commercial uses
on the ground flOOr.16 The proposed Project is consistent with the following General Plan
policies:
3.1-G-l: "Promote Downtown's vitality and economic well-being, and its presence as the city's
center. "
The proposed parking structure will promote Downtown's economic well-being by ensuring
adequate parking supply for current and future commercial establishments Downtown. The
project's scale also affirms the Downtown's status as the city's center. I
3.1-G-2: "Encourage development of Downtown as a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use activity
center with retail and visitor-oriented uses... "
The proposed parking structure is a mixed use project combining public parking and commercial
space. The inclusion of commercial space on the ground floor will enhance the pedestrian
expenence.
3.1-G-3: "Promote infill development, intensification and reuse of currently underutilized
sites. "
15 City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999.
16 Ibid., p. 73.
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE . PAGE 42
The project represents intensification of an infill site via conversion of surface parking lots into a
multi-story, mixed use parking facility.
Additionally, the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance both contain policies that seek to reinforce
the traditional development pattern of Downtown. The project complies in all respects with the
development standards applicable to the property, including setbacks and height limitations of
the Zoning Ordinance.
Therefore, the proposed Project does not conflict with the above City of South San Francisco
General Plan land use policies, thereby constituting no impact.
c) Conflict with Conservation Plan
The project site is not subject to any habitat conservation plan or natural community plan. The
site is located in an urbanized area and no impact would result from development of the project.
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions Potentially Less Than Less Than
for Significant Significant Significant No
Determination of Environmental Impact Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the
Project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known [ [ ] ] [ X]
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 [ ] [ X]
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Setting
No mineral resources of value to the region, residents of the state or of local significance have
been identified in the City.I7
a-b) Loss of known mineral resource of value to region and state/loss of locally-important
mineral resources.
The Project site has not been delineated as a locally important mineral recovery site on the City
of South San Francisco General Plan, on any specific plan, or on any other land use plan. The
proposed parking structure at the site would not affect the availability of and would have no
impact on any known mineral resource, or result in the loss of availability of any locally
important resource recovery site.
17 Dyett & Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report, June, 1999
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE . PAGE 43
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions Potentially Less Than Less Than
for Significant Significant Significant No
Determination of Environmental Impact Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
XI. NOISE - Would the Project:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of [ ] [ X] ]
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 [ ] ] [ X]
excessive groundbome vibration or
groundbome noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ] [ X] [
ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity
above levels existing without the Project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic [ [ X] ]
increase in ambient noise levels in the
Project vicinity above levels existing
without the Project?
e) For a Project located within an airport land ] [ [ X]
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
Project expose people residing or working
in the Project area to excessive noise
levels?
t) For a Project within the vicinity of a ] [ ] ] [ X]
private airstrip, would the Project expose
people residing or working in the Project
area to excessive noise levels?
Setting
In South San Francisco, the Noise Element of the City's General Plan (1999) contains land use
criteria for noise-impacted areas. These criteria define the desirable maximum noise exposure of
various land uses in addition to certain conditionally acceptable levels contingent upon the
implementation of noise reduction measures. These criteria indicate that noise levels of less than
70 dBA (CNEL)18 are acceptable noise levels for commercial uses.
18 The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit used to quantifY sound intensity. Since the human ear is not equally
sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions
in a process called "A-weighting" written as "dBA".
CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted
noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that for planning purposes, an artificial dB
increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL).
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 44
The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Noise Regulations, Section 8.32.030)
specifies the maximum permissible sound levels for residential, commercial and industrial land
uses. The Project site is zoned "Downtown Commercial D-C," and the noise level standard for
this zone is 55 to 60 dBA. 19 Shorter periods of noise levels higher than these limits are allowed,
but only for specified periods of time. Specifically, the standard + 5 dB for more than 15
minutes, the standard + 10 dB for more than 5 minutes, and the standard + 15 dB for more than
one minute in any hour are used. The standard + 20 dB cannot be exceeded for any period of
time. However, where the existing ambient noise level already exceeds the above noise limits,
the ambient noise level becomes the standard.
The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, 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.
a) Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards
Development of the parking structure at the Project site could marginally increase traffic noise
levels along the local streets due to an increase in vehicles parking at the site. Ambient noise levels
could see an incremental increase due to increased activity in the proposed ground floor commercial
space. Since the project site is located in an mixed-use commercial district with urban features, and
is located within the 60 dba CNEL noise contour20, these contributors to ambient noise would
represent a less than significant impact and would not violate any standard in the General Plan or
Noise Ordinance.
b) Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Excessive Groundborne Vibrations or
Groundborne Noise Levels
Groundborne noise is typically associated with railroad systems. It is not expected that a parking
structure or associated commercial space would generate excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise. Therefore, it is expected that the Project would have no impact related to
excessive groundborne vibration or excessive groundborne noise levels.
c) Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels
As discussed above in subsection a, the project may result in an incremental increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the project, but these increases are expected to be less than
significant.
19 The noise limit that cannot be exceeded for more than 30 minutes in any hour (50 percent of any given hour).
20 Dyett & Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning Issues. p. 13-19, September
1997
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE . PAGE 45
d) Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels
During site preparation and construction at the Project site, operation of construction equipment
could result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
Project site.
IMP ACT 3: Construction Related Noise. Project construction would result in
temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy equipment. While the
Project will utilize a spread footing system such that no pile driving will be necessary,
temporary construction noise would still be a potentially significant impact associated
with Project development. Construction noise sources range from about 82 to 90 dBA at
25 feet for most types of construction equipment, and slightly higher levels of about 94 to
97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment.
MITIGA TION MEASURE 3: Compliance with Noise Ordinance. As discussed
above, the South San Francisco Noise Ordinance 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, and prohibits a
noise level in excess of 90 dBA at the property line. City's Noise Ordinance standards
shall be incorporated into the City's bid documents for the Project.
Requiring compliance with environmental regulations and ordinances, including noise
ordinances, is a common and sufficient form of mitigation where the lead agency has
meaningful information reasonably justifying an expectation that the environmental
impacts will be mitigated by such compliance. (See Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of
Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1355; see also 1 Kostka & Zischke, Practice
Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act (Cont.Ed.Bar 2007) section 6.66, page 371.)
Here, the City has been informed that the Project will use a spread footing system that
will not require the use of pile-drivers or other impact equipment that may exceed the
City's noise ordinance standards. Requiring compliance with the ordinance' standards as
part of the City's bid documents will ensure that the standards are not exceeded, and
therefore, maintain construction-related noise impacts at a less than significant level with
mitigation.
e-f) Location in Vicinity of a Public Airport or Private Airstrip
The South San Francisco General Plan Noise Element contains existing and projected airport noise
contours associated with San Francisco International Airport, located south of the City. These
contours indicate the Project site is located well outside the 65-dBA CNEL existing and future
airport noise contours. Based on the City's land use criteria, the proposed Project is not a noise-
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 46
sensitive use and would therefore be compatible with future noise level projections in the Project
vicinity, representing no impact.
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions Potentially Less Than Less Than
for Significant Significant Significant No
Determination of Environmental Impact Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
XII. POPULA nON AND HOUSING - Would the
Project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an ] [ ] [ X]
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 ] [ X]
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ] [ [ X]
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
a-c) Induce population growth, displacement of housing, displacement of people
The proposed parking structure would not directly induce population growth because no housing
is proposed as part of the project. The project could indirectly induce population growth through
the provision of additional parking spaces that could theoretically be used to fulfill the parking
requirements of new housing projects, however, the areas potentially impacted are planned for
additional housing under the General Plan and therefore impacts resulting from population
growth have already been addressed at a programmatic level. Additionally, any future housing
projects would be subject to project-specific environmental review. The project will not displace
any housing units since the Redevelopment Agency is required by law to relocate the tenants of
the existing duplex proposed for removal. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on
population and housing in the area.
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions
for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES -
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 47
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions Potentially Less Than Less Than
for Significant Significant Significant No
Determination of Environmental Impact Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
a) Would the Project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection? [ ] [ ] [ X] [ ]
ii) Police protection? [ ] [ ] [ X] [ ]
iii) Schools? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X]
iv) Parks? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X]
v) Other public facilities? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X]
The Project is principally a public parking structure which will enhance the provision of parking
facilities to Downtown businesses and residences. Schools and parks will not be impacted by the
project, because the project does not include new residential dwellings. The project complies
with local requirements for enhanced fire protection through the provision of a class III sprinkler
and standpipe system (SSFMC 15.24.12). The project exceeds the requirements of the Minimum
Security Standards (SSFMC 15.48.07) and includes video monitoring of all floors. In light of
these project features, the proposed parking structure would place a less than significant
increase in demand for other City of South San Francisco public services.
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions Potentially Less Than Less Than
for Significant Significant Significant No
Determination of Environmental Impact Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
XIV. RECREA nON -
a) Would the Project increase the use of ] [ [ X]
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the Project include recreational ] ] ] [ X]
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 48
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions
for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The Project is not expected to increase the use of existing parks or other recreational facilities,
and the project does not include recreational facilities nor require the construction or expansion
of new facilities. Therefore, no impact is expected.
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions Potentially Less Than Less Than
for Significan Significant Significant No
Determination of Environmental Impact t with Impact Impact
Impact Mitigation
XV. TRANSPORT A nON/TRAFFIC - Would the
Project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is [ ] [ X ]
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, [ [ ] ] [ X]
a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, [ ] [ X]
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 ] [ [ X]
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ] ] [ [ X]
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ] ] [ [ X]
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ] ] [ [ X]
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
Setting
South San Francisco's Downtown is accessible to the region via U.S. 101, a multi-lane freeway
that provides an exit to Grand Avenue, which discharges to Miller A venue for southbound
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 49
travelers, Executive Drive for northbound traffic. This major freeway extends from downtown
San Francisco and northern California to Los Angeles and southern California.
Downtown is characterized by gridiron streets with typical blocks measuring 1,300 x 300 feet
with 20 foot wide mid block alleys. In the Downtown area, Grand A venue serves as the
principal thoroughfare, paralleled by Miller A venue to the north and Baden A venue to the south.
Major north-south streets include Airport Boulevard, Linden A venue and Spruce A venue. The
posted speed limit throughout the Downtown street system is 25 miles per hour.
The Project site is bounded on the north and south respectively by Miller A venue, an asphalt two
lane bi-directional street with parallel parking and sidewalks along both sides, and Fourth Lane, a
20' wide asphalt service alley. Nearest cross streets are Maple Avenue and Linden Avenue, both
asphalt two lane bi-directional streets with parallel parking and sidewalks on both sides.
A Traffic Impact Study was prepared for the Project by Crane Transportation Group, dated
February 7, 2007. The 2007 study examined circulation impacts in Downtown South San
Francisco resulting from operation of a 287 space parking garage with 9,200 square feet of
commercial space. The project proposal has since been revised to contain 256 spaces and up to
13,700 square feet of commercial space. Crane Transportation Group updated its study to
evaluate the impacts of this revision. The revised study, January 30, 2008 is attached as
Appendix D.
a) Cause an Increase in Traffic, Which is Substantial in Relation to Existing Traffic Load
and Capacity of the Street System
The Project entails the construction of a parking structure with ground level commercial space.
While the availability of parking and additional commercial space Downtown could induce more
trips to the area, a decrease in existing traffic volumes through the intersections is expected since
some drivers would be diverted directly to the new garage rather than circling the Downtown
attempting to find on-street parking spaces2I. Changes due to the Project are expected to be
minimal for most intersections as demonstrated by the traffic study. New commercial space is
expected to generate approximately 50 trips during each peak hour which would represent a less
than significant impact to existing traffic volumes Downtown.
b) Direct or Cumulative Increase in Traffic Which Causes a Congestion Management
Agency Standard to be Exceeded
No congestion management agency standards are applicable to the area and no impact is
anticipated.
21 Crane Transportation Group, Traffic Impact Study: Proposed South San Francisco Downtown Parking Garage,
January 30, 2008.
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE . PAGE 50
c) Change in Air Traffic Patterns
The Project complies with all applicable height limits and would have no impact on air traffic
patterns.
d) Hazards Due to Design Features/Incompatible Uses
According to the Traffic Impact Study, vehicular access from the proposed parking structure to
the lane would present sight line problems for traffic from the lane to Maple Avenue. Therefore,
the proposed project has been designed to eliminate parking patron access to the lane.
The existing condition at Fourth Lane includes four separate access driveways to the Lane. Due
to the configuration of the existing surface parking lots, each parking event accommodated by
the 60 spaces in these three lots requires a trip to a segment of Fourth Lane. This is because the
parking lots afford one-way travel only, with two parking lots exiting to the Lane and one
entering from the Lane. Additionally, the existing duplex at 323 Miller includes parking spaces
accessible only from Fourth Lane.
The proposed parking structure would eliminate all of the existing access points, replacing them
with a loading area with potential to allow small commercial trucks to service the proposed
ground floor commercial space without blocking the lane while providing an area for trash
enclosures and other utility functions. The project therefore improves lane circulation in terms
of the number of vehicles entering and exiting the lane.
In addition to providing its own loading space, the parking structure is proposed to be set back
four feet from the rear property line, providing space for the lane to continue its intended
function as loading access for Grand and Miller A venue properties. As shown below, the project
has been designed to accommodate truck loading and unloading in Fourth Lane.
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 51
--
..........-
-_#_-.--=::::..:::::::.,..- -------
~CD__:~<f~L@> .
t ----
l"v"=1...=~_.- -.i.' -r---
V......M_-' :."~ I
' . j
'...1.. '.
". 1
, ,.
'_ 1 '
@ -~. .. ~- -'-. --n--- - - --*-'.. .1--
I' "
t' l r.........
; 'i! I,
I '
~A .j,,+~ .~__
@ - - -- .' ---i:l-- +---w-- --- - -
] !
~ . i i
,: i ~--- ------- ,- -.. -
ill - - ... -II---fj--
I of
I,
i l $>' II
@.- ~=' ....J=' r=- -:;;::;:-
1 Ij
!
(t)~
'~~
I
"'---------~--~
('oRO>Jltn LtVEL PAl1l'IItC tOOAINMlE PL"" A-.
If".'''' ~
J....J~
Figure 3: Loading Analysis
Overhead utilities are proposed to be relocated underground. The project presents no adverse
impact and may actually improve circulation conditions for Fourth Lane by eliminating access
points and increasing the usable area of the lane. No design features were found to constitute a
hazard to drivers or pedestrians and, therefore, no impact would occur.
e) Emergency Access
The proposed Project would involve construction in a manner consistent with City of South San
Francisco building codes. There would be no impact related to inadequate emergency access to
the site.
f) Parking Capacity
The project increases the parking capacity of the Downtown and therefore no adverse impact
will result.
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE . PAGE 52
g) Alternative Transportation
The Downtown area is served by four bus routes operated by SamTrans and Caltrain commuter
train service is located within 1/3 mile of the project site. The proposed parking structure will
provide opportunities for future infiU development in the Downtown, consistent with General
Plan Policies supporting intensification of uses in the Downtown. Intensive development in the
Downtown area is supportive of transit since Downtown is currently well-served by bus and
fixed guideway services. No adverse impact is anticipated.
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions Potentially Less Than Less Than
for Significant Significant Significant No
Determination of Environmental Impact Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS-
Would the Project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements [ ] [ X] ]
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new ] [ ] [ X] ]
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 [ [ ] [ ] [ X]
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 [ ] [ [ ] [ X]
serve the Project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the ] [ ] [ ] [ X]
wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the Project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the Project's
projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ] ] ] [ X]
permitted capacity to accommodate the
Project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local ] ] [ X]
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE . PAGE 53
a) Regional Wastewater Treatment Standards
Wastewater generated by the Project is expected to be minimal. The parking structure does not
include public restrooms, and wastewater generated by potential users of the ground floor
commercial space would be subject to the requirements of the City's Water Quality Control
ordinance (SSFMC 14.08). Where as here, compliance with adopted ordinances and regulations
can be reasonably expected to mitigate impacts, requiring compliance with such ordinances or
regulations constitute sufficient mitigation. The Project would therefore have a less than
significant impact related to an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
b) Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Setting
Water. Potable water is provided for the City of South San Francisco and much of San Mateo
County by the California Water Service Company (CWSC), which purchases most of its supply
from the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD). CWSC's current contract entitles the City
of South San Francisco to 42.3 million gallons per day (MGD) per year, and an additional 1.4
MGD is available as groundwater. CWSC bases future water use projections on the 5-year
average growth in the number of user accounts, and water use projections for 2020 range from
5.9 to 9.1 MGD22. Under the current contract allocation, the CWSC has adequate supply to meet
even the highest projected demand. As a result, there are currently no restrictions on service
connections for new development.
Wastewater. All wastewater produced within the City of South San Francisco is treated at the
City's Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP), which is located at the end of Belle Air Road, near
the edge of San Francisco Bay. The WQCP is jointly owned by the Cities of South San Francisco
and San Bruno, and it treats all wastewater generated within the two cities. The WQCP also has
contracts to treat most of the wastewater produced by the City of Colma and a portion of the
wastewater produced by the City of Daly City.
To accommodate continued development within the WQCP's service area, the plant was
upgraded in 2001 to a dry weather capacity of 13 mgd. In 2006, the Plant handled approximately
9.93 MGD dry weather flow, representing 76 percent of its maximum capacity.23
Impact
The Project will not require the construction of new or expansion of existing wastewater
treatment facilities since very little increase in wastewater will result from the development of
the parking structure and current facilities have capacity to accommodate the increased flows.
An upgrade of 450 feet of an existing water main from 4" to 8" diameter may be required to
22 Impact Sciences, Focused Draft Environmental Impact Report: 494 Forbes Blvd., February 2007
23 Ibid., p. 4.9-2
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 54
service the automatic fire sprinkler system proposed for the structure, however, this relatively
minor upgrade to the existing water system would represent a less than significant impact.
c) Storm Water Drainage Facilities
As discussed above in Section VIII e-f, the proposed project generates little additional
stormwater because a large percentage of the site is presently developed with impervious
surfaces. Since stormwater attributable to the project is minimal, the project will not require the
construction of new facilities and no impact related to the construction or expansion of storm
water drainage facilities is expected.
d-e) Water Supply/Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity
The Project would utilize existing water entitlements and resources and will not place undue
demand on existing wastewater treatment facility capacity, having no impact on these systems.
f-g) Solid Waste Disposal Capacity
Construction and operation of the proposed Project would generate solid waste that would be
disposed of by South San Francisco Scavenger Company. 1:1aterials that cannot be recycled or
composted at Scavenger's facility are transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, near Half
Moon Bay. This landfill has capacity through June of 2027 under the terms of its current
permit24. Operation of the Project would be expected to be in full compliance with all federal,
state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, thereby having no impact.
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions
for
Determination of Environmental Impact
XVII. MANDA TORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE -
a) Does the Project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
[
[ X]
]
[
24 Ibid., p. 4.9-3
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 55
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions
for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
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?
[
Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant No
with Impact Impact
Mitigation
[ ] ] [ X]
[
[ X]
a) Quality of the Environment
Implementation of the Project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. There are no
Project-related environmental impacts that would not be reduced to a level of less than
significant through the implementation of the mitigation measures identified above.
b) Cumulative Impacts
The Project does not involve environmental impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. There are no Project-
related cumulative impacts.
c) Adverse Environmental Effects on Human Beings
The Project would not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly, because the Project is consistent and compatible
with existing civic and commercial land uses in the surrounding area. The implementation of the
mitigation measures identified above would reduce potentially significant Project-related
environmental impacts to a level of less than significant.
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 56
REFERENCES
Barn burg, Bonnie L., South San Francisco Historic Preservation Survey, 1985-1986
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air
Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, 1999.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan and Triennial
Assessment, December 20, 2000
CSS Environmental Services, Inc., Environmental Site Assessment, 323 Miller Avenue, January
12,2007
Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc., Geotechnical Investigation: Miller Avenue Parking
Structure, March, 2007
Crane Transportation Group, Traffic Impact Study: Proposed South San Francisco Downtown
Parking Garage, February 7, 2007
Crane Transportation Group, Traffic Impact Study: Proposed South San Francisco Downtown
Parking Garage, January 30, 2008
Dyett & Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October 1999.
Dyett & Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues,
September 1997.
Dyett & Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact
Report, June, 1999
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map: South San Francisco,
San Mateo County, CA Panel 2 of 12, September 2, 1981
Impact Sciences, Focused Draft Environmental Impact Report: 494 Forbes Blvd., February
2007
Jordan, Leigh, Coordinator Northwest Information Center, personal communication, August 14,
2007
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE . PAGE 57
USGS Working Group on California earthquake Probabilities, Earthquake Probabilities in
the San Francisco Bay Region: 2002-2031, Open file report 03-214, 2003
REpORT AUTHOR
Chadrick Smalley, Associate Planner
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 58
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
1053262,1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Shadow Analysis
Geotechnical Investigation
Circulation and Parking Analysis
REVISED INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ApPENDICES
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE' PAGE 59
.----
t'--
o
o
M
o
M
""
~
.c
a
~
CJ
~
Q
I
c
~
-
=--
OJ)
c
.-
-
""
o
c..
~
~
"0
C
~
OJ)
c
.-
""
o
-
.-
c
o
~
c
o
.-
-
~
OJ)
.-
-
~
I
~
""
=
-
CJ
=
""
-
rJl
OJ)
C
:;
""
~
=--
~
=
c
~
~
""
~
-
-
~
'1:l ~
~-
I:: ~
'i: Q
~~
'1:l OIl
~ s::
5 fd 8';:: s::
-~......VJVl~O
'c - 0 ..r:: '(3 5'r;;
o >.-s::.OIl'-
:;: .~. g ~ s:: .2:
UVJ~U.lO
'1:l ....
~ <2 s::
= ~ ~ tf .2
~8 S::Q)s::ti
~ ~ '1:l E'8' 0 5
~:ESo..E~
..:: s:: 0] 0 0
......'1:l_s::u
'1:l
~
-
c
~ >,
8ee
~
C.
8
-
....
.... 0
u Vl
Q) s::
'0' 0
.... 0..
o...VJ
c
o
~
~
.!:,fl
-
~
~
.... .5
-€l s:: en
~ 0 s::
o 'r;; 0
...._;:3.r;;
Q" u Vl
~ .5 .~
.~ c.S ~
~...... ;:3
.... (j:) "0
~ "0 Q)
;:$ s::.2:
CI:l Q).-:::
_SOIl
~ S <2
Q8"'O
",<:~t::
-. ~ S
~ o:l U
Cl:; Vl 0
O""';Q)....
......,....~
CI:l ;:3 u
~ ~ o:l
~stl
~0Il8
a.5 s::
E::: ~.9
o ....
6;Bg
E:: Q) ~
5@~8
-
(,j
~
0..
8
-
00
~ ;
~ ,~
C)l~
....:'9
~ ~
s:::
'o-d
s:::-'
.8 .~
- -
~ ~
o
s::~
;:$
ICI:l
....
00
~~
~ ....
C)l{5
s:::
.:; ~ s:
"'<: CI:l ~
,-"
-
..E OIl "0 g
Vl .5 5 '.;:1
0Il:9'~ ~
.5 '5 .-:::" OIl 5
~ ..0 E.5 Vl
o:l Q) Q) 3 S
-6;S 0.. "0 (,.)
s::
0......
'';: 0
o:l 0..
t ;:3
s:: I
Q)~
0IlQ)
- ....
Vl..o
;:3"0
"0 s::
"'0 o:l
.... Vl
i: ~
8B
Bg
"0 Vl
Q)......
~ 0
Q) s::
..0 .9
- .-=:
t;-
..r:: 0
s::: Vl S .....
.~ gf ~ 5
:::: 'C (")J) E
~ ~ '2 ~
~ ~ ;:3 o:l
Q ;;> "0 0..
~o
.;;:
;:$
Q
s.::
.~
...
~
o
s::
~
~
-
'->
~
'0'
....
Q"
....
o
.~
-
.">
~
0Il.u]~
;g a 0Il:a
o:l u
l::'n ;::l s:: o:l
",,::::;2..r::
(1) t/) s... ~
.~ ['~
] OIl C-
.~ 5 .5 '>
:::s "'0 t) .;::
0"'- .- U
Q) ~ ~ o:l
.... I:: Q) s::
"0 OIl] .9
~ .5 ~ t)
o .... ...... ;::l
~ .~ 0 :::
~ Vl
~Q)t;s
,~ s:: ~ u
2 o:l S o:l
0... '0 ~ .~
"0
~ ~
o 0
8"s
a~
Q)"O
~ fd
~ ~
U ....
or;; B
;;...U
-a5
Vl
Q)"O
~ fd
Q)
;S
S
o
<t:
~
u
5
o
....
.5
Vl
.;::
..0
Q)
"0
"0
o:l
.3
o
....
Vl
Q)
....
;:3 .
..r:: Q)
~P-
g ~
....~
~[)
~ Ii)
"0 s::
~]
::> ~
Q)
U
.~
....
....
Vl
o:l
~
rtj
Vl
o:l
Q)
~
s::
.9
-
u
5
Vl
s::
o
u
Q)
.2:
....
s::: u
.~ o:l
t~
5 t
~ ~~
o ~ o:l
\.);;>"0
~o
.;;:
;:$
Q
....
<2
OIl
s::
:.a
o:l
....
OIl
OIl
s::
';::
;:3
"0
"0
Q)
rtj
Q)
....
(,.)
Q)
..0
"0
'3
o
u
.....
U
Q)
'0'
....
0..
....
o
"0-0
s:: s::
o:l ,-
Vl ~
-" Q)
.~ ;S
" ;;...
Vl..o
~ ~
"0 0
'0::0
~]
:= s::
o..o:l
...::.: u
u ....
o o:l
~;s
[)~
~ ,~
U Q)
....
.... o:l
~ S
Q) ....
rtj Q)
~~
o
o
Q) Z
Vl....
o Vl
.3]
....
]rtj
0.5
"O~
fd .5
o:l
..os
s:: 0
~ ....
" Vl
~~
~5
s::=
:.= ~
~ ~
:; '5 -0
...::.: 0" ~
U ~ 0
5......0
~ ~
t;t;<t:
s... OJ:: C+-i
Q) Q) 0
~rt1t>
us~
o
~
Vl
o:l
t; ~
,_"o:l
~ gf
0.. .-
~.&
~ Vl
Vl"O
.... fd
E
o:l Vl
~ i'3
..r:: ....
.... o:l
.~ gf
;0:';;:
~ ~
.... 0..
~..oen
Q) o:l Q)
8 e.~
;;... ~ s::
:-;::: (1).9
o:l u ....
"O~U
fr] 5
~ ~ ~
VJ 0.. 8
o
~~
Q)..o
0..;:3
Q) 0..
~i:
Vl Q)
t ~
~tr
~ o:l
..r::B
.-:= t::::
~ 0
..0]
..0 .-
~ ~
~ U
~.~
8t;
.0'5
.- ....
o:l o:l
"0 S
Vl
t).o
Q) Vl
t; Q)
fr~ ti
~.> ~
VJ~t;
o
Vl
"0
s::
.~
s::
Q)
..r::
~
C-
'> .
'<3.g
o:l s
gfon
.- N
"0"0
~ ~
OIlu
"0 ~
fd Q)
,-"
s:: ~
o Vl
.- ;:3
~ 01;
> Vl
o:l ;:3
U 0
~ Q)
Q) fd
"0....
s:: s::
Q) o:l
0......
Vl Vl
;:3 s::
r:FJ~
o
Vl
';::
..0
Q)
"0
s::
.9
.-:::
"'0
S
Q)
"0
OIl
.5
"5
o:l
..r::
Vl
...::.:
u
5
t;
....
Q)
> .
o E
u'r;;
o
o
en
....
s::
~
.a
"'0
0..
....
'<<l
OIl
s::
'p
o:l
Q)
....
(,.)
....
<2
]
....
s::
Q)
....
o
0..
~ti~
> ~ ....
O..r::
S ~
~ Q)
s::
.9
....
(,.)
5
Vl
s::
o
U
"0
fd
.... ....
Vl Vl
;:3 ;:3
"0"0
Q)]
..r:: ....
.... fd
o ~
......0
s:: ~
.g vi' ~
:.a .3 ,~
"g :~ Vl
.... Os
..s ~ Q)
OIl
,5
....
;:3
"0
"0
Q)
rtj
Q)
....
(,.)
l:: 6
.9 0 0
ti .... 8
;:s"o 0
1l~<.t::
Cl::: C Vl
., Q) C
l:: 8 0
.~ 8'~
." 8's
~ ~ Q)
L.t:l Q) ~
't::;~o
;:s Vl Z
11~]
.~ Bl '"
L.t.l '" ....
c:i:i Q) Q)
_8~.....
~gf85
:::i '~ ~ 8-
~ ~ :; '5
~ <8.::! g'
~Q)~c
<: ~ ~.g
C).;Q)u
E::'ll~E
"'1:;:::.aVl
t:l1lQ)5
E::: " g U
::;;;:~"O2
-< Q., ~'(ii
>..
.D
"0 ....
Q) 0
"0 t :::" t
'" ~ Q) 't<l <Ii
OOC;~C
~o..> 0
4-< ~'5 8'(ii
0.-.- 0"- Vl
>:. = Q) 1A'S
..... '" .... Q) Q)
.g~o:.a....
I C ~ 0 Q)
9.g .5 :.0 ~
~"Ugf~
..s:: E Q)..s::'s
,.g~~g3
'::;OOVlVl
oo~';'~
~5-0(.j....j_"""
5<8o.z.2
u"O"O ....
~~t3~::::'
0.. ;::l .- .- ~
o.....t:~~
<n58Ec
ti 8 I 2.g
~ .& ~ c; .;
::g.<Q)8
<Q)U~Q)
o
C
o
.~
"0
.:;<
o
'Q)
Vl
Q)
:.a
Vl
'"
..s::
U
;::l
Vl Vl
....
Vl Q)
Q)....
uS
.;;
Q) Q)
"0]
- ;::l
g .::!
C t::
o '"
U 0..
C ....
o 0
~~
~~
Q)c;
Vl....
::J ~
o
~ .... 8
0'5~ ~<.t::
"0 C '" 0
"0 2 '-8 ~ "'" "2
Q) 'C;; Q) ""0.....
t....Q)......_~:'O
~~~o~u:.a
o 'O'.s 8 t ~ e
~a1a't<l~oO"
1A Q)..s::.::! 0 .... Q)
Q)..s::...."O o..]~
:.a -;:; ~.s 'Q) ;::l '"
= 0 ~ 1a.~ <8 ~
"'"0 .... Vl"O 'E: o,-,-d
8 1A 0'- Q) Q)
o ;::l <..:< 0 8 8 N .!:l
<.t:: >..- 0 0.. C '"
C ..... u <.t::.- C 0..
~ S'(3 ~ Vl g. '" ~
00..~05Q)..E:p
.~ ,- 0 '-"(ii >.. Q) C
'8- g.:::R ...: Vl C OJ);::l
Q) 0 ;::l'S <.5 Q)
Q) C "'" .8 Q) ,_, c::: .t::
.... 0 . .... Vl
'" ._"0 Q) Q) 'E: 0 Q)
.s"U~c't<lQ)'-'..s::
Q);::luo:;80....
3 ~ ~ 6'.::!.&'(3 5
~c:o<<Jt:='~<1)
w..l 8 C.S ~ g' go ~
o
...... ,....:.,
o ~
~ 0.9
'5'(ii ~
U fG ~
~ U Q)
Q) ~ OJ)
CQ)ob
~.sa)
o "0 '-'
0..'- .....
8 0 C
2~Q)8
o 0..
] ~'5
Vl - 0"
c.D Q)
:: .~ "0
c; 0 ~
..s:: 0.. Q)
Vl .... ~
';;;' ~ 0
'1:::"Q)o..
o C >..
o~+=
'" -;: C
l::"'~
5 ~ 5
U.::! 0..
Q)1:~
~ 1A.5
o
0..
ZOVl ~~
~ ~~
u~>..'+'l
1a;::l:;",Vl
..s::.t:l.D8'"
.....(/)~r.ngf
Q)~..s::~ 0
s::t.....u-
8u~E~
8 .5Vl _~ 2 b
<..:< Q) Vl
Q) ;a '0 b ;::l
-r-VlCO
:9 Q)02
OJ) It:i > u._
~ ~ '8 8 ~u
C Q) ~ 2
2'! E "0 OJ)
~ ~ 8 OJ).5
- ~ .....5 C
cQ)~~S
S .D .- .... i::
0..= 'Q) ~
._ '" "0
g.~ .9 <Ii
Q) Vl OJ) c;
Q) B c 'C
en ::s ',= Q)
.~.5.t<j 't<l
Cl8~8
o
Vl
Q)
C '
'Oh.~
C Vl
Q) C
.... 0
'Q) Q)
.s ~
~
..9
....
<8
....
C
Q)
8
0..
'5
0"
Q)
.5
'"
oS
'"
8
"0
1a
Q)
C
.a <Ii
b5
.... .-
Q) Vl
0.. .~
e 8
0.. Q)
o
....
Vl
;::l
'"
o..s::
l:: ~
5]'Q)
U '" >
C .... _Q)
,g ~
tl "'0 i
E 5 ~
~'B S
8 ;::l t:
.t:l.!!;<
1A ~ ..,
Q) 0 t:
.s U l::I
......o~
o .... ..,
_"0 ..,
.9 ~ ~
!SOj~
C .... ....
Q)Vl"O
8 ~ 8
~ 0.. ;::l
0..8"0
8,- ~
.- en Q)
,.g~.D
....;::l"O
..s::Vl-
.... '" ;::l
~ S ~
~80J)c
.....V)enCo
o ..c '(3 .c 'r;;
o '5 ~ C .;;
ur55~o:o
2 C a ....
'r;;.g en ~
S ~.~:.;; g €
.... <<l'- ~ C (l)
o fr'5 M (l) 0..
.;:: .... uN> e
Q., 0.. <<l M <: 0..
~ 0
.....V)~
o ..c '(3
o'=i~
.- 0 ....
UV)~
OJ)
C
.;::
(l) C
(l).S:
.~.~
~o
....
.... 0
U en
(l) C
'0' 0
.... 0..
Q.,V)
(l)
.... ]~
~ <<i 1<1 0
&i '.g 5 ~ :;
a (l) e-..o .~_
"0 0 1:S
~ 'Vi u ~
~ .S e "0 oS :g, E
~~.s~]~~
a .2''0 .S ~ ~ OJ)
~ Q., (l) g. -5i ~ .~
~~gd)~~O
~:~~-S~=
..s U t;::: "0 C '0' <8
;:: ;::l'c >-. <<l .... (l)
U ~ OJ)..o 0: o....c
S::::'- r> Q) +-
~; 0 en (l) C ..c .....
., u <<i a .S: :: ~ ;u
~ <<i .~ (l) 1<1 <8 C a
::::i-5iS~~~~u
tI) en....enC....g
~5:.a(l)(l)(l)<<l
:;;;en(l)aO:~5~
-< a -B ~ <<l U e--B
~ o..enM OJ) 0 0.....
'-Jen(l) C"OUo
~ tl i:: ~ ';j "0 .S C
f.,.; .~ ~ 1<1 ~:.c ~ oS:
~e(l)xa(l)..c::=
'-J 0..E..(l) (l)-B en 0
~(l)<<lo..o..o~a
~ ~ -B .g .5 .5 o..~
'Il '-'
~ .~
'Il a
~~
~ ~
'~ 'cs>
~ 'Il
'" '-'
o.Cl s::
J5 ~
I~
~ ,;
~tI)
5~
~ ...
Cl::: .5
"0 OJ)
(l) C
en .-
o ti
0.. .-
e ~
0..
en C
<<l <<l
(l).....
a 0
u
g~
en 0
OJ) a
C (l)
:.;;;: .... <<i
1a (l) ..::;
o..-B C
(l) .lS
15 Q) ~
..... $ "(l)::l
o 'r;; e ~f,f)
en ::l
(l) 0 <<l
U en
~ 3 ~ (l)
c u .11_
Q) 'C
"0 0 ti
'{ii ti c::
~ :.a 8
-- ~
~ ~ S
..::: ~ c
;:: -s:: ~
UUCl:::
....
C
(l)
a
0..
.3"0
(l)-
> ::l
(l) 0
Cl ~
,-..
N
(l)>-'C5co'O
5..o~
tl 0 >.'~ C
g~~~i::.g
:.28~~~
-S~]Q~~
S..g....E<<lu~
en .c oS ..c
'g .!:!l.~ ~.~ 1::
o..cnr.ncut)tS
ac~~:i""
.- <<l ..c "0 <8
d-B o~ en 1::
.g en ~ .... ~ 0
g.]S~u~
+-._ tI.l
:.a<<l~U(l)"O
.... c (l) ~ ~
.... s .- ..c en
~ ~ ~ . ~
C "0 a ..0 "0 0..
::J~u]~~
..000gc~en
~:'2 en ~ 0 ]
.~ a ~ 0 _>-. C
~ .... en o.
'-' (l) OJ)'- (l)._ C
.Sl ~ c:: +- ~ ~.9
l::lJ '- ~ > .- +-
Cl::: "0 1<1 -B';:: a 0..
"'3g<<lo..a~
..-.. 0 - Q) 0 .-
~ ~ ~ 1a.~ U -B
"(l)
OJ)
C
<<l
..c
u
<<i
>-. >
_ 0
<<i a
u (l)
.3~
Q)
u
....
::l
o
en
(l)
....
(l)
..c
....
.....
o
(l)
u
C
<<l
U
t;:::
'c
.!:!l
en
....
<8
C
en +-"' OJ) .9
~ ~ ,S t)
E .0' 5 .... ;::l
"O::l E.."O ~~
:.c U (l) "0 .0' a
.s.g-B~E..u
....
.... 0
U en
(l) C
.0' 0
.... 0..
Q., en
.... (l) (l) (l)
en <8 -B ..0 ~
_~ >-. en 'g .6' ~ ~
en "'0 "' 0.. "'0 ..c:
~ S .5 ~ 8' ~ ~ :
~ "0 .lS 0 (l) "0 OJ) U
c2cti..c(l) "'3~
::J <<l'~:.a E-< ~ a C
.!:!l a.~ d ~ e =-E
.i:i .....a- d: (l).S: 8:- 0.. 0 (l)
~ (l)........Q3 en-B
.~ ~ ~ a ~ en .2:!
......~Q)u.J;:j~ +-
~ "0 ..c g en..c :~
::"'3'b'oen66 'Iltl
~ ~ C (l) U'r;; .~ <<l
.!::! (l) 'E -B ~.~ dOC
~ ; ~ -5 a a.s: ~ .S:
'" ~ (l) .- r.E a 0.":"'; tl
~ U .... ..c .S 8 .~ ~ ~
'cs>~;~~ co-B::::i 6
"' (l) <+=< ~ r~
;;:; ..c Q) I en._..... -./ U
;::....> ::l1<1O~c
'IlO.2<<i(l)i::c~o
Cl::::; .;::..0 (l) .S: -< en
~tl~2S~1<1~6
'Il <<l U <<l I 1-0 ::l a.-
0() o..t;::: a .... i:J... <<i ~ tl
~ a .- - C - > f.,.; .-
~ ._" 51 1:S 1:S .~ (l) ~ ~
~ c.-.- t;::: .... ~ Cj (l)
tI) 0 en 5,- O..c t"'< ....
.- C .... C ti .... "'" (l)
,-.. i5.. <<l en OJ). - .... :;;; ..c
e 0 -B :.a 'r;; :I:: r.E -< E-<
~ ....
'0 <8
Z
en
'0
U
en
'(3
C
<<l
....
~"O
o :.E ~
<<l ::l
V)s,,2
oS
-B C
g "0 0
rJj ~ C9
..... .... 0
o e..~
o 0 .-
u.5 ]
..... I
o C
C .g Q)
o U >
.~ g .2
.... en
~ 6 ~
(l) U U
OJ) t;:::
(l) ~ 'c
en ::l OJ)
'9 ~ 'r;;
.... (l) C
"0 <<l
~--B
en C .~ ]
cog C <<l
(l) <<l (l) ....
a .... a <<l
::l (l) 0..
U 00...- .S
o ::l <<l
"0..... O'a
o (l) (l)
..... ....
o
...;
U
(l)
'0'
....
0..
~
U
en <<l
(l) 0..
~ .5
'0. (l)
en
<<i '0
::l C
"0"0
'S: ~
:a ,~
.s]
... 'Il 'Il
a .'" ;:.
~.2
C> ~ '<<:
~ ...
~ ~
9.. .-
l:: o.Cl
~~
....
o~
:~ '0-
<3 ~
s;: 'Il
...";'S
~ .5 ~ ;::
'':;: .~]
s:: 'Il ... .....
~ ~Q.,~
-C5 'Il
J5 b ~ .SO
.:; ...
s:: .~
'-' '- ~
~
'Il a
.~ 'i:
~~
,-..
M
~~
'Il 'Il
~ ~
-..:l-..:l
oS '0
.... C
"'3 0
tf) .~
(l) ....
.... (l)
0..
"0 0
"'3
o 0
~ ....
(l)
.... ::l
u"O
(l)
'(5'l f,f)
.... (l)
0.. ~
(l)
(l) b
-B oS
~ Q) .....;
o en C
'0 (l)
C C a
.g c'5
U <<l 0'
;::l .... (l)
~ 8. ~
C a <<l
82~
x
(l)
0..
::l
"0
Miller Avenue Parking Structure
Shadow Analysis
1/31/2008
Introduction/Summary
The attached graphics were prepared by Watry Design, Inc. to analyze the affects of the
proposed Miller Avenue Parking Structure on shadows for the adjacent properties.
The Miller Avenue Parking Structure is a 4~ story garage approximately 60' in overall
height, to be located on the south side of the 300 Block of Miller Avenue. Adjacent to
the project site on the east side is a 10-unit apartment building (321 Miller), and the
adjacent property west of the site is occupied by a 4-unit apartment building (337 Miller).
The proposed structure will therefore increase shading of the east facing windows of 337
Miller in the morning, and the west facing windows of 321 Miller in the afternoon.
The attached graphics depict the points in time where the affected windows begin to
receive direct sunlight, and when shading begins, for both the sunniest and darkest days
(the summer and winter solstices, respectively). These times are depicted for both with
and without project conditions.
Currently, the east facing windows of 337 Miller obtain direct sunlight for approximately
7 hours 20 minutes during the summer solstice and 5 hours 20 minutes during the winter
solstice. The west facing windows of 321 Miller obtain direct sunlight for approximately
6 hours 10 minutes during the summer solstice and 2 hours 50 minutes during the winter
solstice.
With the project modeled at its proposed location, the east facing windows of 337 Miller
obtain direct sunlight for approximately 20 minutes during the summer solstice and 10
minutes during the winter solstice. The west facing windows of 321 Miller obtain
approximately 35 minutes during the summer solstice and 30 minutes during the winter
solstice.
~~
~,-
~,
"
-""
""-------
..........
"-...
~
"
~-...
~""
.....
"'~
........
'""
~
~~
"----
m
OJ
(J')
------------ .....nr
"""'t'-.
"<
-0
-- ------ .,"""t
"-
'\,
"'0
ro
------- ~
.........
(J)
o
OJ
------- - """t
j>
n-
n
ro
----- --- ,(J')
tn
OJ
ro
to
-'
.....:J
en
"- - - --
I \,
(f)
c
3
3
ro
"""t
(f)
o
~
fi'
ro
.-- - --. ...............--
-----------...-
-\-~
I ~
I
I
I
l
+ -------------------
=*I:
~
""U
~"
I-
I
I
.
I
~
~
-~
'---
'----- "
~ ....... B
~ ,
"'-.
-
,
"
"'-.
~
"
'-
......
~
"
"
"
~
\.'
'-
~
'--,
"
'-
,
,
I
I ~
I ~
i ~
- .
i =
- .
I ~
)~--
. /
,/
.- _IJ
- J
~
-_.__.._--~
--
-
J~' -I--
I' --
, II
\II~
~
"-
m--
OJ
(f)
r1"
-.......CD
"'"t
.:z--
-0
"'--..""""'1
o
""0'-
CD
~~
(lk
o
OJ-
"'--..""""'1
)::0.
n-
n
CD
"'--..(f)
(J)
---
OJ'
CD.
lO
--.....::J
(J)
. .b..
~-
;::;:-
:::::r
',,-0
., -
0'
~.
CD
~-
(f)
c
3',
3
CD
""""'I
'-', (f)
'0
(j1:-
C!:
n
CD
\
"
\\
"
"
=#:
01
\
o
en,
--
I\)
I\)
~
I\)
. .
,I\)
o -
'"'U'
s:
~
~~
- ~
--
j ~-
-
/'
/
~
~
,
- )
- .
- )
~
",
"
~~
-...,
""~,
-"",-
"
,
/'
/
,
I
,-
--
-------------
-,--
1----
.~
-------
~
, n1,
OJ
Vl
r-t'
"--~
-<"
"'U
,
,0
"'0
(0'
~
"-.(;/)
0"
OJ-
,
~
n-
(0
Vl
~
m::
:J
0.-
Vl
",~
rt_
::r
"'U
,
'\B._
(0-
~
I -
Vl
~c
3
3'
(0
,
Vl
o
'-.-
,Vl
C!:_
n,
(0
\
\
'~
=I:t:
0')
0,
0') "-
--
(\)
(\)
....L
(\)
c.;,
01-
\
-U
s:
I
I
I
~
I ;
I
~ --- --
"-
'-.
'-....
'-....
=**=
-...-J
...
1\)""
--
I\)
I\)
:-:-1
~,
" -
"lhl
S:I
I
J
i
//
~
"-
........
i "-
"'"
"
I\)
"""-
I\)
I\)
.~ ~
~~
~lt~
~
~'......
~
--
----------
------ -------
~
~"
--............,
~
~
rt
::T'
o
C
r-t'
"-
."
"
o
'-'.
ro
~
~
-\
'~~-
'-,
"----
(f)
c
3
3
ro
-- ~--------"',
---------.....- (1').
d
(fl,
d:.
n'
ro
1-,
I "~
:t.1:
I\)
I
I
I
I
[
1-- ---
-
- --
---------------- --
I
,
j
I
~
I
I
~~
~-.~-
~
""
--.--',
- ~
1
- I
~"-
- I
'-..
B
-
--
'.......
~"
"
---
-"
'~-",-
""
.........
/'
/'
[
l
I.
I
--I
-1
t--
~
--------
~._------------
~
~
(0
'Vl
(t"---.
::!..
"<
....~
.,............
o
""0
(0
~"---.
(J')_
o
....0)
.,.........
)>-
n
n
'(0
Vl~
Vl
OJ-
(0
lO.
:::J'......
Vl
~
~
'rt
:J: -
",
-0
.,
0-
~.
(0
s+
I,
(J')
c
3
3
\'(0
~
(J')\,
o
Vl
f"'1"
-.
n
(0
'\
,
\
\"
=I:t:
01
'"
0,
m "
'-.
rv
rv
.....L
rv
, .....L _
Q-
\"
-u
~
I
.~
:~~-
I
""-........
~
--~
~
'-
~
.......
"
~.,"
~,
--"
.~
- .
- I
.............
"
'-
/
\
8
T
,
----
,
-1--
.~
------
------
, ~
~
ro
Ul
,t'""l"
ro-...........
:!..
'<
-0
'~
0..............
-a
ro
~
(f)...............
o _
Q)
'-,
)>"'-...
n
n
ro
'Ul
Ul"'-...~
~ g:
.Ul
.'.~
~-
rt_
:::r
,-0
..,
0'-, -
~.
ro
~-
,(f)
c
3-
3
ro
..,
,(f)
o
Ul',..... -
cr.-
n
ro
'\
"
\
......
:t:I:
0)
"
0",
0)
--
(\)
(\)
~
(\)
w_
0", -
-U
s:
r
1-- -
I
l.-
.
,
.w::: __-
~
""
~
I\)
----
\J
\J.
~"
OJ
o~
-c '"
s:1
I
I
.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE
South San Francisco, California
for
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, California 94083
by
Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc.
330 Village Lane
Los Gatos, California 95030
March 2007
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE
South San Francisco, California
Table of Contents
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Conclusions...... ....................... .............................. ........ ............. .............. .............. 1
Recommendations........ ........................................... .................................. ........... 2
TECHNICAL REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION...... .......... ....................... ..... ......................... ........ ................... 3
1.1 Purpose and Scope of Work ................................................................... 3
2.0 PHYSICAL AND GEOLOGIC SETTING ...................................................... 4
2.1 Terrain .. ......... .......... ........... ........ ....... ........ .................... ....... ............... ...... 4
2.2 Geologic Setting ................................................................................. ...... 4
2.3 Seismic Setting ......................................................................................... 4
2.3.1 Deterministic Analysis .................................................... ........... 5
2.3.2 Probabilistic Analysis ................................................................. 5
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS......... ........ ...... ............... ................................ ...................... 6
3.1 Surface Conditions.................... ..... .......................................................... 6
3.2 Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................ 7
3.3 Groundwater Conditions.................................. ............. ......................... 7
4.0 POTENTIAL GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS ................................................. 8
4.1 Seismic Hazards ...................................................... ....... .......................... 8
4.2 Settlement Behavior ................................................................................. 8
4.3 Cut and Fill Slope Static Stability .......................................................... 9
4.4 Sulfate Attack on Concrete ..................................................................... 9
4.5 Surficial Erosion ..... ............... ........... ........... ....... ............ ............... ........... 10
Table of Contents (cont.)
Pa&e
5.0 RECOMMENDA TIONS..................................................................................... 10
5.1 Foundation Design Consideration ........................................................ 10
5.2 Foundation Design Criteria .................................................................... 10
5.2.1 Cast-in-Place Piers ...................................................................... 10
5.2.2 Shallow Foundations.................................................................. 11
5.3 Site Grading........ ............. ..... ................. ........ ...... ................... .......... ........ 12
5.3.1 Site Preparation ........................................................................... 12
5.3.2 Compacted Fill............................................................................ 12
5.3.3 Cut Slope Design......................................................................... 13
5.3.4 Utility Trench Backfill................................................................ 13
5.3.5 Pavement/Garage Slab Sub grade Preparation........................ 13
5.4 Slab-on-grade and Concrete Flatwork .................................................. 13
5.5 Retaining Wall Design............................................................................. 14
5.5.1 Pier Supported Retaining Walls................................................ 14
5.5.2 Footing Supported Retaining Walls ......................................... 15
5.5.3 Backdrain ... ..... ................. ................ ..... ................. .......... ............ 15
5.6 Drainage ................... .................... ...... ....... ...... ................ .......................... 16
5.7 Seismic Design....... ................... ......... ..... ..... ......................... ..... ........ ....... 16
5.8 Pavement Design ..................................................................................... 16
5.9 Erosion Control........................................................................................ 17
5.10 Technical Review ................................. .................................................... 18
5.11 Earthwork Construction Inspection and Testing ................................ 18
6.0 INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS.................................................................. 18
7.0 REFERENCES. ..... ........... .................. ...... ........ ...... ..... ..................... ...................... 20
7.1 Documents/Maps ........................................................ ............................. 20
APPENDICES
A Field Investigation.............. ............... ............. ..... ......... ........... ..................... .. A-I
B Laboratory Testing ......................................................................................... B-1
ii
Table of Contents (cont.)
FIGURES Follows Page
1 Site Location Map ........................................................................................... 3
2 Engineering Geologic And Boring Location Map ..................................... 6
3 Engineering Geologic Cross Section A-A'................................................... 6
APPENDIX FIGURES
A-1 Logs of Exploratory Borings .................................................................... A-lto A-8
B-1 Summary of Triaxial Shear Testing.............................................................. B-1
APPENDIX TABLE
B-1 Summary of Laboratory Test Results...................................................... .... B-2
Hi
Mr. Sam Bautista
Senior Civil Engineer, Engineering Division
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, California 94083
March 28, 2007
E0017
SUBJECT:
RE:
Geotechnical Investigation
Miller A venue Parking Structure
South San Francisco, California
Dear Mr. Bautista:
We are pleased to submit the following report describing the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed
new three-and-half story parking structure on Miller Avenue in South San Francisco,
California. Our investigation was performed in accordance with our proposal for
Geotechnical Services dated January 4, 2006.
In this report, we characterize the geotechnical conditions underlying the
proposed new parking structure, and provide conclusions and recommendations
regarding geotechnical hazards, foundation types and design criteria, site grading,
support of slab-on-grade floors, retaining wall design criteria, trench backfill, pavement
design and erosion control. For clarity, we have provided an Executive Summary at the
front of the report which presents an overview of our pertinent conclusions and
recommendations. This summary is followed by our Technical Report.
We appreciate the opportunity to have been of service to you on this project. If
you have any questions regarding this report, please feel free to call us.
Very truly yours,
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Ted Sayre
Supervising Engineering Geologist
CEG 1795
David T. Schrier
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
GE 2334
DTS:TS:POS::st
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In this Executive Summary, we provide a summary of the pertinent conclusions and
recommendations resulting from our Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed new
three-and-half story parking structure on the Miller Avenue in South San Francisco,
California. A more detailed discussion of our findings, conclusions and
recommendations is presented in the main body of this technical report.
Conclusions
· The site is feasible for construction of the proposed new three-and-half story
parking structure, from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the
recommendations of this report are incorporated into the design and
construction of the project.
· The primary potential geotechnical hazards identified at the site include
seismically induced ground shaking, differential settlement of the building
foundation, and surficial erosion of graded areas. These potential hazards were
determined to present varying degrees of potential risk to the proposed building,
and should be considered in the deSign.
· The site should be subjected to very strong seismic shaking within the life of the
project. A peak ground acceleration of O.6g should be anticipated.
· The proposed parking structure building site is generally underlain by alluvial
fan deposits, and at depth, by Franciscan Complex greenstone bedrock.
· We estimate that there is a low potential for liquefaction at the site.
· We anticipate that the very stiff, dense near-surface materials could settle up to 1
inch total under assumed shallow foundation loading, and an isolated 4-foot
medium dense sand layer encountered in Boring No.5 could settle up to 1 inch
under dynamic (seismic) densification/shaking.
1
Recommendations
· The proposed parking structure building can either be supported on a
continuous shallow footing foundation system bearing on in-place near-surface
material, or on a cast-in-place drilled pier foundation extending at least 20 feet
into the underlying alluvium.
· Site grading for the structure should be within the capabilities of moderate
conventional construction equipment (i.e., excavators, dozers and drill rigs). The
sandy material encountered in the borings could require casing to prevent caving
and sloughing during pier drilling.
. All permanent cut and fill slopes should have a maximum inclination of 2-1/2
horizontal to 1 vertical (2.5:1). All fill prisms should be keyed and benched into
firm, in-place material.
. Civil drawings and specifications should be reviewed by our office to confirm
that the recommendations of this report are incorporated into the design of the
project.
· Earthwork construction activities should be inspected and tested by a
representative of our office to confirm that the recommendations of this report
are incorporated into the construction of the project.
2
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE
South San Francisco, California
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation for the proposed new
three-and-half story parking structure on Miller Avenue in South San Francisco,
California. The proposed parking structure site is located on the southern side of Miller
Avenue, between Maple Avenue and Linden Avenue (Figure 1). We performed our
investigation between January 25, 2007, and March 28, 2007, for the City of South San
Francisco in accordance with our proposal dated January 4,2007.
We understand that at this point planned improvements consist of constructing a new,
3-1/2-story structure. It is likely that during the design process, the project team will
have modifications that may include additional structures.
While we have not been provided with maximum dead-pIus-live wall loads for the
proposed new buildings, we anticipate that they will be relatively heavy, as is typical for
concrete framed structures. We understand that site grading may include excavating up
to 5 to 8 feet of soil to set the lower floor of the parking structure below grade.
1.1 Purpose and Scope of Work
The purpose of our investigation was to develop geotechnical recommendations for
project design. Our objectives were to: (1) evaluate surface and subsurface conditions;
and (2) develop conclusions and recommendations regarding geotechnical hazards, site
grading, foundation and retaining wall type and design criteria, and recommendations
for pavement sections.
The specific scope of work performed for our investigation included the following tasks:
1) Review in-house geologic data and the topographic survey provided to us:
2) Subsurface exploration;
3) Laboratory testing of representative earth materials;
4) Geologic and geotechnical engineering analyses; and
3
5) Preparation of this report.
2.0 PHYSICAL AND GEOLOGIC SETTING
2.1 Terrain
The proposed Miller Avenue site parking structure is situated on the southern flanking
slope of Sign Hill, adjacent to the valley floor formed by Colma Creek. Current site
topography is characterized by gently inclined east sloping terrain. Topographic relief
across the site is roughly 9-1/2 feet with elevations varying from 52.8 feet at the
northwestern comer of the site to 42.2 feet at the southeastern comer. A small concrete
wall retains roughly l/2-foot of material and separates the western two-thirds of the site
from the eastern third.
2.2 Geologic Setting
The Miller Avenue property is located on an alluvial fan situated between the Bay
margin and the flanks of Sign Hill. The site is situated approximately 2.5 miles northeast
of the San Andres fault which forms a boundary between the Pacific and North
American tectonic plates. According to geologic maps of the area, the site is underlain
by slope debris and ravine fills (Bonilla, 1971 and 1965). However, we encountered
roughly 35 to 45 feet of alluvial materials overlying Franciscan Complex Greenstone
bedrock. Alluvial materials have likely been transported downslope by the local creeks
and streams and deposited on the fans during periods of high flows.
2.3 Seismic Setting
The site is situated in a very seismically active area. Historically, this area has been
subjected to very strong shaking from major earthquakes and the site will continue to
experience very strong ground shaking in the future. The significant active faults
located closest to the site are the San Andreas fault (2.5 miles/4 km toward the
southwest), the San Gregorio fault (7.9 miles/12.6 km toward the southwest), and the
Hayward fault (12.7 miles/20.3 km toward the northeast) (Figure 2).
4
2.2.1 Deterministic Analysis - The site could be affected by seismic shaking
stemming from earthquakes on anyone of several major active earthquake faults in the
region. The following table provides the results of our deterministic analysis and lists
the major earthquake sources, the distances from the sources to the site, the maximum
Moment Magnitudes and the peak horizontal ground accelerations that are anticipated
at the site.
Fault
Source
Distance (mi/km)
Moment
Magnitude1
Peak Horizontal
Acceleration (g)2
San Andreas
(1906 Segment)
2.5/4.0
7.9
0.50
San Gregorio
7.9/12.6
7.3
0.34
Hayward
(Total Length)
12.7/20.3
7.1
0.18
1Based on "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment For The State of California" by
CDMG, DMG Open-File Report 96-08.
2Based on attenuation relationships developed by Bozorgnia, Campbell & Niazi 1999,
(horizontal component - Pleistocene soil, corrected); as determined using the
computer program EQFAULTby Blake, 1989, and updated 2004.
2.2.2 Probabilistic Analysis - We also performed a probabilistic analysis
employing the computer program FRISKSP (By T.F. Blake, 1988 and updated 2004) and
incorporated moment magnitudes from the California Division of Mines and Geology
(CDMG) publication "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment For The State of
California" (DMG Open-File Report 96-08), and attenuation relationships by Bozorgnia,
Campbell & Niazi 2000 (horizontal component - Pleistocene soil, corrected). The results
of our probabilistic analysis indicate that an acceleration for a Design Basis Earthquake
(10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years, or a 475-year return period, which is
generally used for residential and commercial buildings) is O.60g.
5
Taking into account the above Moment Magnitude earthquakes, the 1997 Uniform
Building Code (UBC) coefficients presented in Section 5.7, and the results of the
deterministic and probabilistic approaches, it is our opinion that the site could
experience a peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGA) between O.sOg (equal to the
deterministic acceleration calculated for an earthquake on the San Andreas fault for the
site) and 0.60g (equal to the probabilistic analysis for a Design Basis Earthquake). It
should also be noted that findings of strong motion research from the Lorna Prieta
earthquake indicate that: 1) recorded ground motions generally exceeded predicted
ground motions based on many of the available attenuation curves; and 2) topographic
site effects resulted in local amplification of bedrock motion.
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS
The following statements summarize the site-specific conditions which, to varying
degrees, influence the geotechnical suitability for the proposed parking structure on
Miller Avenue.
3.1 Surface Conditions
The site has dimensions of approximately 140 feet by 150 feet, and is presently being
used for at grade public parking. The site is bordered to the north by Miller Avenue, to
the east by a 25-foot wide by 140-foot long single family residence lot (which we
understand may be demolished and the site included in the project), to the south by
Fourth Lane, and by a multi-family residential building to the west (Figure 3). The site
is covered with asphaltic concrete pavement with concrete curbs, and a landscaped
parking island. Vegetation in the parking island consists of several mature trees and
bushes.
3.2 Subsurface Conditions
We explored the subsurface conditions at the site by means of 5 exploratory borings. We
logged the cuttings and samples from the borings to assist us in determining the site
stratigraphy. Representative soil materials obtained from the borings were selected for
laboratory testing.
6
Exploratory borings were located in the vicinity of the proposed new structure. In the
borings, we generally encountered alluvial soil materials consisting of sandy silt, silty
sand, sandy clay, sand, clayey sand, and silty clay, overlying Franciscan Complex
Greenstone bedrock which extended to the depths explored. Generally, we classified
the material as either very stiff (cohesive materials) or dense (cohesionless materials)
with a few layers of medium dense (cohesionless materials); Boring CSA/SD-5 we
encountered medium dense material between a depth of roughly 14 and 18.5 feet.
Detailed logs of our exploratory borings, and the results of the laboratory tests
performed on representative samples are presented in Appendies A and B, respectively.
The results of our laboratory testing (Appendix B) indicate that the near-surface clayey
soil material at the site has a low expansion potential and has relatively moderate to
high shear strength.
The subsurface distribution of earth materials beneath the existing site and proposed
building is depicted on the Engineering Geologic Cross Section 1-1' (Figure 3).
3.3 Groundwater Conditions
During drilling, we encountered groundwater in Borings CSA/SD-l at depths of 36.0
feet. It should be understood that groundwater levels fluctuate seasonally, and that
higher levels may occur at other times and/or locations.
4.0 POTENTIAL GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS
In the following section, we list identified potential geotechnical hazards at the proposed
site, along with the corresponding degrees of determined potential risk, and
recommendations for possible mitigation measures.
4.1 Seismic Hazards
Seismic ground shaking associated with a large earthquake on either the San Andreas,
San Gregorio or Hayward fault is considered to be a moderate to high potential hazard
7
in the project area. Peak ground accelerations up to 0.60g should be anticipated at the
site (see report Section 2.2).
No active faults have been recognized on, or mapped through, the subject property.
Thus, the potential for surface faulting and ground rupture on the property is
considered to be low.
Seismically-induced ground failure mechanisms include: lateral spreading, landsliding,
liquefaction, lurching, and differential compaction. Due to the relatively very stiff and
dense subsurface materials combined with the significant depth to groundwater, the
potentials for lateral spreading, land sliding, liquefaction, and lurching is considered to
be low. However, the potential for differential densification of one or two medium
dense sandy layers underlying the site is considered to be moderate due to the medium
dense sands encountered in Boring CSA/SD-5.
We calculated that the conservative total or differential settlement of the ground surface
due to dynamic densification of the sandy material could be up to 1 inch (using a
conservative, simplified version of the procedure outlined by Tokimatsu and Seed,
1987). Due to the low potential for dynamic densification to occur combined with the
apparent isolated layer of medium dense sands, we conclude that specific mitigation for
dynamic densification is not required.
4.2 Settlement Behavior
Based on our analysis, there is a moderate potential that the alluvial soil materials
encountered in the borings will compress under the allowable bearing capacity static
building loads. Compression of the alluvium could result in relatively minor amounts
of differential foundation movement.
Although a shallow footing could provide satisfactory support; in the event that the
estimated settlements are too large, we have provided alternative recommendations for
supporting the new parking structure on cast-in-place drilled piers (deep foundations).
For our static settlement calculations, we assumed that a shallow foundation supported
structure would have a dead-plus-Iong-term-live-Ioad of approximately 2,750 pounds
per square foot (psf) (equal to the allowable bearing capacity). Based on this
8
assumption, we estimate that total static settlement for a shallow foundation supported
structure should be roughly 1 inch, and differential settlements should be less than 1/2
inch across the bottom of the building.
A cast-in-place deep pier foundation system should experience total and differential
settlements between piers of less than 1/2 inch due to static loading. Assuming that the
piers will extend at least to a depth of 26 feet (7-1/2 feet below the identified zone of
sandy soil susceptible to dynamic densification), a cast-in-place deep pier foundation
system should eliminate the potential for significant settlement due to dynamic
densification.
4.3 Cut and Fill Slope Stability
Likely site grading includes an excavation for the planned subsurface parking. Based on
the results of our field reconnaissance of the area, and the apparent shear strength of the
material encountered in the borings, there is moderate potential that temporarily un-
braced cut slopes could creep, slough and/or erode. We are not aware of any planned
fill slopes for the project. We assume that a retaining wall will support the outer edge of
the planned subsurface section of the parking structure. Suitable shoring should be
constructed to brace temporary cuts and reduce the potential for off-site distress to
adjacent structures and utilities. As an alternative, temporary cuts should be setback a
suitable distance from the property line.
4.4 Sulfate Attack on Concrete
The soils encountered in the borings appear to be have moderate to low cohesion, low
gypsum content, and consequently should have a low to moderate potential for concrete
sulfate attack. However, we recommend that corrosivity testing be completed on the
near surface site soils prior to completing the concrete mix design in order to confirm the
estimated low potential for corrosivity to metallic and concrete structures.
9
4.5 Surficial Erosion
Based on our experience, the alluvial material has a moderate to high susceptibility to
surficial erosion. To mitigate this potential, we have provided recommendations for
erosion control and surface drainage collection.
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Foundation Design Considerations
The principal factors affecting foundation type selection include the following:
acceptable magnitudes of differential settlement from static loading; and the isolated
zone of medium dense sand encountered in Boring CSA/SD-S, associated potential for
dynamic densification and minor differential settlement. The advantages of deep
foundations include: 1) deep foundations extending below the zone of dynamic
densification will not be susceptible to minor differential settlement; and 2) under static
loading, deep foundations will tend to settle less than shallow foundations. If these
advantages of a deep foundation are not deemed significant enough to the City to justify
potential cost increases associated with the deep foundations, then the proposed parking
structure could be supported on shallow foundations. However, if these advantages are
deemed important by the City, then we recommend that the parking structure be
supported on a deep (pier and grade beam) foundation.
Recommendations for deep foundations, and shallow foundations are presented in the
following section of this report.
5.2 Foundation Type and Design Criteria
5.2.1 Cast-in-Place Piers - The planned parking structure can be supported by
a reinforced concrete pier and grade beam foundation systems. The drilled, cast-in-
place piers should derive vertical support from skin friction in firm natural alluvial
material as determined in the field by the project geotechnical engineer at the time of
construction. Piers should be sized according to the following criteria:
10
Vertical Capacity - minimum three (3) pier diameter spacing
Minimum pier diameter......................................................... 18 inches
Minimum pier penetration.................................................... Elevation 32
(At least 7-1/2 feet below medium dense sand layer)
Allowable adhesion (skin friction), for reinforced concrete dead plus live loads:
o to 2 feet into soil materia!....................................................O psf
Below 2 feet in soil material................................................... 600 psf
Lateral Passive Resistance - piers [equivalent fluid pressure applied over an
effective width of two (2) pier diameters]
o to 2 feet in soil material....................................................... 0 pcf
Below 2 feet in soil material................................................... 450 pcf
The above adhesion value (skin friction) can be increased by 1/3 for seismic loading and
should be decreased by 1/2 for uplift. The upper portion of the piers should be formed
to create vertical surfaces, and "mushrooming" of pier tops and overpours around grade
beams should be prevented. Drilled pier holes should be machine cleaned of all loose
material prior to the placement of steel and concrete. Piers should be steel reinforced
with a cage including a minimum of 4, No.5 bars vertical (with greater reinforcement as
required by the project Structural Engineer). Casing could be necessary to prevent the
cohesionless materials encountered in our borings from caving.
If water is present in the pier holes, prior to placing concrete, the water should be
pumped out until the pier holes are dry, or the concrete should be poured by tremie
methods to displace the water.
All piers should be connected at their tops by continuous grade beams. The grade
beams should be embedded at least 9 inches below pad grade.
5.2.2 Shallow Foundation - If a shallow foundation system is selected, the
footings should be at least 24 inches wide, and founded at least 24 inches below the
lowest adjacent final grade. The footings should be designed for an allowable bearing
capacity of 2,750 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead-pIus-live loads, and 4,125 psf
11
under total loads, including wind or seismic forces. Resistance to lateral loads should be
computed using a concrete/soil base friction coefficient of 0.35 and 400 pcf equivalent
fluid passive resistance beginning below an embedment depth of 1 foot.
5.2 Site Grading
Based on our field investigation, grading excavations should be within the capabilities of
moderate conventional excavation equipment (Le., excavators, dozers and drill rigs) and
should not require significant dewatering to the anticipated depths of excavation,
provided that construction takes place during the dry season. The sandy material
encountered in the borings could require casing to prevent caving and sloughing during
pier drilling.
It should be noted that we encountered refusal in one of the small-diameter borings
(CSA/SD-4) at depth in greenstone bedrock, consequently heavy drilling equipment will
be necessary for piers extending into the bedrock.
5.3.1 Site Preparation - All loose material, vegetation, asphaltic concrete,
abandoned foundations, debris, and other deleterious material should be stripped and
removed from the areas to be developed. This material should be disposed of in a
suitable location off site or stored on site for later use in landscaping.
Excavation should proceed as necessary for planned grades. Soft and/or yielding
materials in the location of the planned structures should be over-excavated and
replaced with compacted fill. Areas to be filled should be scarified to at least an 8-inch
depth, moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to at
least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D-1557-00.
Following site preparation, it maybe necessary to place fill in order to achieve the
necessary subgrade elevation. The total amount of material removed during site
preparation could range between 4 and 12 inches or more, but the actual amount can
only be determined during construction.
5.3.2 Compacted Fill - The excavated on-site materials can be re-used as
compacted fill provided they are free of organic matter and material larger than 4 inches
in diameter. Imported fill should be free of organic material; it should contain no
12
material larger than 4 inches and should have a plasticity index of less than 16. The fill
should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness, moisture
conditioned to at least optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95 percent
relative compaction beneath structures and 18 inches below the aggregate base rock for
pavements, and 90 percent relative compaction elsewhere.
5.3.3 Cut Slope Design - Any new permanent cut slopes should not exceed an
inclination of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2:1) in alluvium, without detailed geotechnical
studies to evaluate their stability.
During the dry season, temporary cut slopes of 1.75 horizontal to 1 vertical (1:1) in
alluvium, should be satisfactory for construction purposes, provided that they are
inspected and approved by our field representative at the time of construction.
5.3.4 Utility Trench Backfill - Utility trenches should be backfilled with soil
that meets the requirements for compacted fill, provided that bedding materials for
pipes are in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. The backfill should
be compacted to a minimum of 90% of maximum dry density in non-structural areas
and a minimum of 95% of maximum dry density beneath structures and in the upper 18
inches of pavement subgrades. Equipment and methods should be used that are suitable
for work in confined areas without damaging the conduits or the walls.
Special care should be taken to ensure that utility trenches which extend under the
perimeter footing are backfilled with clayey (low permeability) soils for a distance of 3
feet in both directions.
5.3.5 Pavement/Garage Slab Sub grade Preparation - After general compaction
and compaction of the utility trench backfills, the pavement subgrade surface should be
checked for yielding areas by proof-rolling with a loaded water truck or equivalent.
Any yielding areas should be excavated and replaced with compacted fill. Then the
upper 18 inches should be moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content,
and the soil should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
13
5.4 Slabs-on-Grade and Concrete Flatwork
Slabs-on-grade and concrete flatwork subgrades should be prepared as recommended in
Site Grading, above. The concrete flatwork (sidewalks and patios) should be supported
on at least 6 inches of non-expansive, moist, compacted fill. Slabs and flatwork should
be steel reinforced with at least No.4 bars at 24-inch centers each way, and provided
with crack control joints at maximum 10 feet on centers. Slab-on-grade driveways
should be at least 6 inches thick.
5.5 Retaining Wall Design
The following section provides our recommendations for both the structure retaining
walls and the site retaining walls.
Retaining walls should be designed to resist an equivalent active fluid pressure of 40 pcf
for horizontal backfill (only type of backfill assumed). The active lateral fluid pressure
should be increased by 50% for walls that are restrained from rotation (building walls).
For seismic loading apply a dynamic resultant force acting at 0.6H from the bottom of
the wall and equal to an equivalent fluid pressure of 15H2 pd. The lateral loads on the
retaining wall can be resisted by passive pressures of 400 pcf equivalent fluid pressure
for wall foundations bearing at least 1 foot below adjacent ground surface (neglect the
upper foot for passive resistance) and a coefficient of friction equal to 0.35.
5.5.1 Pier Supported Retaining Walls - Pier foundations should be designed
according to the Foundation Design Criteria provided above. The retaining walls that
are free to rotate should be designed to resist an active lateral fluid pressure of 40
pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for horizontal backfill. The above active lateral fluid
pressures should be increased by 50% for walls that are restrained from rotation
(building walls). The lateral loads on the retaining wall can be resisted by passive
pressure against the side of the piers using the lateral passive resistance provided in
Cast-in-Place Piers foundation design criteria, above. For seismic loading apply a
dynamic resultant force acting at 0.6H from the bottom of the wall and equal to an
equivalent fluid pressure of 15H2 pcf (where H is the height of the wall).
14
If walls are planned adjacent to ground level parking or used to support the driveway
entrance, a traffic surcharge of 100 psf should be included and applied against the top 10
feet of the retaining wall.
5.5.2 Footing Supported Retaining Walls - Footings should be designed
according to the Foundation Design Criteria provided above. Site retaining walls free to
rotate should be designed to resist an active lateral fluid pressure of 40 pounds per cubic
foot (pcf). The above active lateral fluid pressures should be increased by 50% for walls
that are restrained from rotation (building walls). The resistance to lateral loads should
be computed using the lateral passive resistance provided in Shallow Foundation design
criteria, above. If additional lateral resistance is required, and as an alternative to
excavating a deep, continuous foundation key, shallow piers can be used to support the
wall, using the same passive resistance criteria acting over two pier diameters.
For seismic loading apply a dynamic resultant force acting at 0.6H from the bottom of
the wall and equal to an equivalent fluid pressure of 15H2 pcf (where H is the height of
the wall).
If walls are planned adjacent to ground level parking or used to support the driveway
entrance, a traffic surcharge of 100 psf should be included and applied against the top 10
feet of the retaining wall.
Lower terraced walls should to be designed to resist the combined heights of all walls
that are bearing within an imaginary I(H):I(V) line extended up from their base.
5.5.3 Backdrain - Backdrains should be constructed behind all retaining walls.
The back drain should be a minimum 12-inch wide continuous blanket of either Caltrans
Class 2 Permeable Material or 3/4-inch x 1/2-inch clean crush drainrock enclosed in
Mirafi 140N (or approved equivalent) filter fabric, and extended to within 1 to 1-1/2 feet
of the ground surface where an impervious fill and/or asphaltic concrete cap should be
placed. A minimum 4-inch diameter PVC Schedule 40 perforated drain pipe should be
placed near the bottom of the drainrock (perforations down), surrounded by a minimum
of 4 inches of drainrock with at least 2 inches of drainrock underlying the pipe. All
backdrain pipes should be sloped to drain at a minimum of 1/2 percent and collected in
4-inch diameter non-perforated Schedule 40 PVC pipes which are sloped a minimum of
15
2 percent and discharged into the site or City storm drainage system. The exterior
retaining wall back drains should also discharge to a suitable location away from
structures, or onto an impermeable surface.
5.6 Drainage
Because of the detrimental influence of water as it interacts with soil, foundations,
pavements, and cut and fill slopes, it is important that surface water be controlled in the
project area. Grades should be sloped to drain at a minimum of 2% for a distance of at
least 10 feet out from structures with runoff directed into an appropriate catch
basin/storm drain system. Unless draining onto well-drained (away from the structure)
impervious surfaces, all roof runoff should be collected in gutters with downspouts tied
into buried tightline pipes (PVC Schedule 40) that also discharge into a catch
basin/storm drain. The catch basin/storm drain should discharge into the City storm
drainage system or the paved access road, well downslope of the structures.
Where concrete curbs are used to isolate landscaping in or adjacent to the pavement
areas, we recommend that the curb extend a minimum of 8 inches into the low
permeable material below the base rock to provide a barrier against the migration of
landscape water into the pavement section.
5.7 Seismic Design
A peak ground acceleration of 0.50g to 0.60g should be anticipated for design purposes.
With respect to the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) seismic design criteria, the San
Andreas fault should be assumed as the controlling fault, and the following values
should be used for design: Seismic Coefficients Ca and Cv of 0.54 (based on a Na of 1.2)
and 1.04 (based on a Nv of 1.6), respectively.
5.8 Pavement Design
While no R-value tests were performed, based on a conservatively assumed (for the site
soil conditions) R-value of 10, and an assumed Traffic Index (TI) of 5 (corresponding to
relatively light loading and service vehicle use), we recommend that the pavement
section should consist of a minimum of 3 inches thickness of asphaltic concrete
16
underlain by a minimum of 6 inches thickness of virgin (non-recycled) aggregate base
rock compacted to a minimum of 95% of maximum dry density (ASTM DI557-00). The
pavement sub grade should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned to
greater than optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative
compaction (ASTM DI557-00) to form an unyielding surface. At the City's request an R-
value could be performed to confirm the assumption.
Asphaltic concrete should be placed and compacted in accordance with the
requirements of Section 39 of the Caltrans Standard Specifications; aggregate base rock
should conform to the provisions of Section 26 (Caltrans) for 3/4-inch maximum Class 2
Aggregate Base.
5.9 Erosion Control
All graded slopes higher than eight (8) feet, and steeper than 20 percent (5:1) should be
covered with a securely staked erosion control blanket consisting of straw and coconut
fiber and treated with hydroseed prior to exposure to rain. All other grounds disturbed
by construction activities should be treated with hydroseed prior to exposure to rain.
An approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) should be implemented
in accordance with Caltrans Standard Specifications. If freshly graded slopes are
exposed to rain, this plan should include properly keyed and staked straw bale barriers
at the base of the slopes higher than eight feet and steeper than 20 percent.
5.10 Technical Review
Supplemental geotechnical design recommendations should be provided by our firm
based on specific design needs developed by the other project design professionals. This
report, and any supplemental recommendations, should be reviewed by the contractor
as part of the bid process. It is strongly recommended that no construction be started
nor grading undertaken until the final drawings, specifications, and calculations have
been reviewed and approved in writing by a representative of our firm.
17
5.11 Earthwork Construction Inspection and Testing
All excavations including foundations and pier drilling should be inspected by a
representative of our firm prior to placing rebar, backfilling, and/or pouring concrete
foundations. Any grading should also be inspected and tested as appropriate to confirm
adequate stripping, subgrade preparation, and compaction. Our office should be
contacted with a minimum of 48 hours advance notice of construction activities
requiring inspection and/or testing services.
6.0 INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS
Our services consist of professional opinions and recommendations made in accordance
with generally accepted engineering geology and geotechnical engineering principles
and practices. No warranty, expressed or implied, or merchantability of fitness, is made
or intended in connection with our work, by the proposal for consulting or other
services, or by the furnishing of oral or written reports or findings. The investigation
was performed and this report prepared for the exclusive use of the client, and for
specific application to proposed site development as outlined in the body of the report.
Any recommendations and/or design criteria presented in this report are contingent
upon our firm being retained to review the final drawings and specifications, to be
consulted when any questions arise with regard to the recommendations contained
herein, and to provide testing and inspection services for earthwork and construction
operations. Unanticipated soil and geologic conditions are commonly encountered
during construction which cannot be fully determined from existing exposures or by
limited subsurface investigation. Such conditions may require additional expenditures
during construction to obtain a properly constructed project. Some contingency fund is
recommended to accommodate these possible extra costs.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or
of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained
herein are called the attention of the project engineer and incorporated into the plans. Furthermore, it is also the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure
that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field.
18
7.0 REFERENCES
7.1 Documents/Maps
Blake, T. F., 1989, EQFAULT, FRISK, UBCSEIS, LIQUEFY2: A Computer Program for
the Deterministic Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized
California Faults; A Computer Program for the Probabilistic Prediction of Peak
Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults; Computation of 1997
UBC Seismic Design Parameters; A computer program for the determination of
liquefiable soils. Windows Versions, Users Manual, July, 1989, updated 2004.
Bonilla, M.G., 1971, Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco south quadrangle
and part of the Hunter's Point quadrangle, California: United States Geological
Survey (USGS) Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-311, 2 sheets, scale 1:24000.
Bonilla, M.G., 1965, Geologic Map of the San Francisco South Quadrangle, California:
United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1 sheet, scale 1:20000.
Bowles, J.E., Foundation Analysis and Design, Third Edition, 1982, McGraw-Hill
Book Company.
Bozorgnia, Y., Campbell, K. W. and Niazi, M. 1999, Vertical Ground Motion:
Characteristics, Relationships with Horizontal Component, and Building Code
Implications, Proceedings of the SMIP99 Seminar of Strong Motion Data, Oakland,
California.
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and
Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California: Special Publication 117.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Assessment For The State Of California: CDMG Open-File Report 96-08.
Lawson, A.c. (chairman), 1908, The California earthquake of April 1906-report of the
state earthquake investigation commission: Carnegie Institution of Washington
publication no. 87, vol. I, part 1.
Schmertmann, J.H., Static Cone To Compute Static Settlement over Sand Bases, Journal
of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, No. 5M3, 1976.
19
Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M., 1982, Ground motions and soil liquefaction during
earthquakes: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Monograph No.5, 134
p.
Southern California Earthquake Center University of Southern California,
Recommended Procedures For Implementation of DMG Special Publication
117 Guidelines For Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California.
Tomlinson, M.J., Pile Design and Construction Practice, Third Edition, A Viewpoint
Publication, 1987.
Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H. B., 1987, Evaluation of settlements in sands due to
earthquake shaking: Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, v. 113, p. 861-878.
U. S. Department of the Navy, 1982, Design Manual Soil Mechanics, Foundations, and
Earth Structures, NA VFAC DM-7.2.
20
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
We explored subsurface conditions at the site of the planned parking structure in South
San Francisco, California on January 25 and 26, by means of five borings drilled to
depths of 26-1/2 to 51-1/2 feet using truck-mounted, hollow stem auger equipment. The
location of the borings is shown on Figure 3. The engineering geologist who logged the
borings visually classified the soils in accordance with ASTM D-2487. We obtained
relatively undisturbed samples of the materials encountered at selected depths. These
samples were obtained in brass liners that were 2.5 inches in outside diameter and 6
inches long; the liners were inside a 3-inch diameter modified split-barrel California
Sampler. The sampler was driven with a 140-pound hammer that was raised by an
automatic hammer and allowed to freely fall about 30 inches. We also performed
Standard Penetration Tests at selected depths. The depths of the sampling (and
penetration testing) are shown on the boring logs. The bold number at the conclusion of
the sampling interval represents the corrected blow count from a modified California
sampler to Standard Penetration Test value accomplished by multiplying the blow count
by 0.68.
Descriptive logs of the borings are presented in this appendix. These logs depict our
interpretation of the subsurface conditions at the dates and locations indicated, based on
representative samples collected at roughly a five-foot sampling intervals. It is. not
warranted that they are representative of subsurface conditions at other times and
locations. The contacts on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between earth
materials, and the transitions between these materials may be gradual.
A-1
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
The laboratory analysis performed for the site consisted of limited testing of the
principal soil types sampled during the field investigation to evaluate index properties
and strength parameters of subsurface materials. The soil descriptions and the field and
laboratory test results were used to assign parameters to the various materials at the site.
The results of the laboratory testing program are presented on the boring logs and in
this appendix (Table B-1, and Figure B-1).
The following laboratory tests were performed as part of this investigation:
1. Detailed soil description ASTM D 2487;
2. Natural moisture content of the soil ASTM D 2216;
3. In-situ density of the soil (wet and dry);
4. Triaxial shear strength testing ASTM D 2850;
5. Atterberg limits determination, ASTM D 4318; and
6. Percent minus the No. 200 sieve, ASTM D 1140.
B-1
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
PROPOSED
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
DOWNTOWN PARKING GARAGE
January 30, 2008
Prepared for: City of South San Francisco
Prepared by: Mark D. Crane, P.E.
California Registered Traffic Engineer (#1381)
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
2621 E. Windrim Court
Elk Grove, CA 95758
(916) 647-3406
I. INTRODUCTION
This study has been prepared at the request of the City of South San Francisco to determine
circulation impacts in downtown South San Francisco resulting from operation of a proposed
256-space multi-story parking garage along Miller Avenue (between Linden Avenue and Maple
Avenue). Midday (lunchtime) and evening commute period traffic counts have been conducted
at three major intersections along Miller A venue and at three major intersections along Grand
A venue in the vicinity of the proposed garage. Existing operating conditions have then been
determined at each location. The change in downtown circulation patterns have been projected
with the opening of the garage and resultant operating conditions determined at the six analysis
intersections for midday and evening commute conditions. Finally, assessment has been made of
any improvement needs along Miller Avenue at the garage access location.
II. PROPOSED PROJECT
The City of South San Francisco is proposing to build a multi-story parking garage in the
downtown section of the City that would contain up to 256 parking stalls. The garage would be
built on the site of an existing 60-space surface parking lot owned by the City, providing a net
increase of 196 parking spaces downtown. The garage would be located on the south side of
Miller A venue about midway between Linden A venue and Maple A venue and would extend to
the 4th Lane Alley (see Figure 1). Inbound and outbound access to the garage would only be
provided from Miller Avenue: no access would be provided to the 4th Lane Alley. In addition
to the new parking spaces, the garage would also have up to 13,700 square feet of net new retail
commercial use along the project's first floor Miller Avenue frontage.
III. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
I. The proposed garage, if successful, would be expected to generate about 145 new
inbound and 145 new outbound vehicles to/from the project site during the lunchtime
peak traffic hour, with about 105 new inbound and 105 new outbound vehicles to/from
the project site during the evening commute peak traffic hour. These vehicles are in
addition to the existing 30 inbound/outbound midday peak hour and 20
inbound/outbound PM peak hour vehicles now accessing the surface lot on the project
site, that would transfer to the new garage.
2. All six analyzed intersections along either Grand Avenue or Miller Avenue in downtown
South San Francisco are now operating at acceptable levels of service during both the
lunchtime and PM commute peak traffic hours. The new as well as redistributed existing
traffic in the downtown area accessing the proposed garage would not be expected to
produce any significant operational changes to any intersection.
3. Large, easy-to-read signs should be employed on the streets in downtown South San
Francisco providing directions to the new garage.
1/30/08 South San Francisco Downtown Parking Garage Page 1
MARK D. CRANE. P.E. . CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
4. Incentives should be provided to encourage shoppers/restaurant patrons/business people
to park in the new garage.
5. Bright lighting and security should be top priority items to maintain continued use of the
new garage.
6. A short (50- to 75-foot-long) left turn lane should be provided on the westbound Miller
A venue approach to the garage entrance. This will result in the loss of some on-street
parking spaces in the immediate vicinity of the turn lane.
7. On-street parking should be prohibited on either side of the project's Miller Avenue
driveway in order to provide acceptable sight lines assuming prevailing vehicle speeds on
Miller Avenue remain at least 35 miles per hour.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
City Planning and Engineering staff selected six major intersections in the downtown area to
determine impacts from the revised circulation patterns due to the new garage. Locations were:
Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard (signal)
Grand Avenue/Linden Avenue (signal)
Grand Avenue/Maple Avenue (signal)
Miller Avenue/Airport Boulevard-V.S.l 0 1 Southbound Off-Ramp (signal)
Miller Avenue/Linden Avenue (signal
Miller Avenue/Maple Avenue (all-way-stop)
A. VOLUMES
Weekday midday (noon to 2:00 PM) and evening commute (4:00 to 6:00 PM) traffic counts were
conducted by Crane Transportation Group at each of the six analysis intersections in January
2007 (with two exceptions). Evening commute counts at the Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard
and Miller Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersections were conducted in December 2005 for initial
use in the Genentech Master EIR. The overall peak traffic hours for the system of six
intersections were determined to be 12:15 to 1:15 PM and 5:00 to 6:00 PM. Volumes for these
time periods are presented in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. In addition to vehicular traffic,
pedestrian crossings were also tabulated at most intersections and are presented in Figures 4 and
5 for the 12:15 to 1:15 PM and 5:00 to 6:00 PM periods. Currently, Miller Avenue in the
vicinity of the proposed garage entrance has a two-way volume of about 480 vehicles per hour
(vph) between 12: 15 and 1: 15 PM and a two-way volume of 595 vehicles per hour between 5:00
and 6:00 PM.
1/30/08 South San Francisco Downtown Parking Garage Page 2
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. . CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
B. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
1. Methodology
Signalized Intersections. Intersections, rather than roadway segments between intersections, are
almost always the capacity controlling locations for any circulation system. Signalized
intersection operation is graded based upon two different scales. The fIrst scale employs a
grading system called Level of Service (LOS) which ranges from Level A, indicating
uncongested flow and minimum delay to drivers, down to Level F, indicating significant
congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches. The Level of Service scale is also
associated with a control delay tabulation (year 2000 Transportation Research Board [TRB]
Highway Capacity Manual [HCM] operations method) at each intersection. The control delay
designation allows a more detailed examination of the impacts of a particular project. Greater
detail regarding the LOS/control delay relationship is provided in the Appendix.
Unsignalized Intersections. Unsignalized intersection operation is also typically graded using
the Level of Service A through F scale. LOS ratings for all-way stop intersections are
determined using a methodology outlined in the year 2000 TRB Highway Capacity Manual.
Under this methodology, all-way stop intersections receive one LOS designation reflecting
operation of the entire intersection. Average control delay values are also calculated.
Intersections with side streets only stop sign controlled (two-way stop control) are also evaluated
using the LOS and average control delay scales using a methodology outlined in the year 2000
TRB Highway Capacity Manual. However, unlike signalized or all-way stop analysis where the
LOS and control delay designations only pertain to the entire intersection, in side street stop sign
control analysis LOS and delay designations are computed for only the stop sign controlled
approaches or individual turn and through movements. The Appendix provides greater detail
about unsignalized analysis methodologies.
2. Minimum Acceptable Standards
The City of South San Francisco considers Level of Service D (LOS D) to be the poorest
acceptable operation for signalized and all-way-stop intersections, with LOS E the poorest
acceptable operation for unsignalized city street intersection turn movements. The City has no
standards for turn movements from private driveways.
3. Existing Operation
Table 1 shows that all analyzed intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels of
service (LOS B or C) during both the midday and evening commute peak traffic hours. Figure 6
provides a schematic presentation of approach lanes and control at each of the six analysis
intersections.
1/30/08 South San Francisco Downtown Parking Garage Page 3
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. . CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
V. CHANGE IN DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC VOLUMES DUE TO
PROPOSED GARAGE
The proposed downtown garage will slightly increase volumes as well as change traffic flow
patterns on downtown streets. Projections regarding expected changes in traffic flow have been
worked out in consultation with City Planning and Engineering staff and are presented below in
summary format.
A. ANAL YSIS INPUT TO DETERMINE TRAFFIC FLOW IMP ACTS DUE
TO THE NEW DOWNTOWN GARAGE
· Traffic due to the 13,700 square feet of retail commercial activity on the ground floor of the
garage will all be newly added to downtown streets.
· Percent parking occupancy of the new garage (excluding traffic from the new
retail/commercial uses) will be the same as that in the existing surface lot on the project site.
Based upon surveys by City staff of parking activity in the existing 60-space lot (see
Table 2), up to 85 percent of the spaces are occupied during lunchtime and up to 60 percent
are occupied at 5:00 PM.
· There will not be a 100 percent turnover of occupied spaces at the garage during any given
hour. A 65 to 70 percent turnover rate of occupied spaces has been utilized for analysis
purposes.
· Traffic activity associated with the existing 60-space lot on the project site is already
occurring and part of the traffic count program recently conducted. Thus, the proposed
garage will produce a net new circulation impact from an increase of 196 spaces on the
project site (256 spaces in the proposed garage minus 60 existing spaces).
· There will be a charge for parking in the garage, as there is today for parking in the surface
lot on the project site. The exact charge is being developed by City staff.
· Ten percent of the new parking demand at the garage (in addition to the new demand from
the 13,700 square feet ofretail/commercial activity) will be due to drivers newly attracted to
the downtown area due to greater ease of finding parking. The remaining 90 percent of the
new parking demand at the garage will come from drivers already on the downtown roadway
system that are now parking on-street or in other City parking lots. The new lot, when used,
will eliminate some congestion by reducing the amount of driving around the block looking
for parking along or as close as possible to Grand A venue.
· The vast majority of demand to park in the new garage will come from existing drivers
parking along Grand A venue and Miller Avenue as well as Maple and Linden avenues north
of Grand A venue.
· Signing will be provided in the downtown area directing drivers to the new garage.
1/30/08 South San Francisco Downtown Parking Garagc Page 4
MARK D. CRANE, P .E. . CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
B. TRAFFIC GENERATION DUE TO 13,700 SQUARE FEET OF
RETAIL/COMMERCIAL USES IN THE NEW GARAGE
Table 3 shows that the proposed 13,700 square feet of retail/commercial activity on the first
floor of the garage would be likely to generate about 25 inbound and 25 outbound trips during
the lunchtime peak traffic hour with a similar number of in and outbound trips expected during
the PM commute peak hour. Trip rates have been taken from the traffic engineering profession's
standard source of trip rate data, Trip Generation, 7th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers, 2003.
C. SUMMARY OF PARKING GARAGE TRIP GENERATION
Proposed Garage Total Spaces
Existing Surface Lot Spaces on Garage Site
Net New Spaces Due to Parking Garage
256
~
196
SUMMARY OF GARAGE TRIP GENERATION
DUE ONLY TO USE OF NET NEW PARKING SPACES WITHIN GARAGE
Maximum Net New Spaces
Occupied (excluding new
retail)
Net New Occupied Spaces
Turning Over Each Hour
(Excluding New Retail)
MIDDA Y
PEAK HOUR
85% x 196 = 167
EVENING COMMUTE
PEAK HOUR
60% x 196 = 118
70% x 117 = 117
65% x 118 = 77
Source: Crane Transportation Group
SUMMARY OF GARAGE TOTAL TRIP GENERATION
MIDDAY EVENING COMMUTE
PEAK HOUR TRIPS PEAK HOUR TRIPS
IN OUT IN OUT
117 117 77 77
25 25 25 25
142 142 102 102
30 30 20 20
172 172 122 122
ACTIVITY
Net New Spaces Turning
Over Each Hour
New Retail/Commercial
Uses
Total New Trips To/From
~ect Site
Existing Surface Lot Trips
Transferring to New Garage
Total Trips Entering &
Leaving New Garage
Source: Crane Transportation Group
1/30108 South San Francisco Downtown Parking Garage Page 5
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. . CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
D. RESUL T ANT TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH NEW DOWNTOWN
GARAGE
Figures 7 and 8 present the projected incremental change in traffic at the six analysis
intersections due to the proposed downtown garage during the midday and PM commute peak
traffic hours. Negative numbers for some movements reflect some drivers being diverted
directly to the new garage and away from the pattern of circling the garage block attempting to
find a parking stall along Grand Avenue and then, secondarily, along Maple Avenue, Linden
A venue and Miller A venue. Projections also reflect vehicles leaving the garage by the one exit
(to Miller A venue) and getting back on the local circulation system at one concentrated location
rather than from a wide variety of on-street parking spaces and other City owned public parking
lots. It should be noted that the incremental change in traffic shown does not include the
vehicles currently entering and leaving the surface lot on the site of the garage. Traffic flow
patterns for these vehicles would be expected to change slightly due to the removal of access
to/from the existing parking lot to the 4th Lane Alley. Provision of the new garage would lower
volumes now using 4th Lane Alley.
E. CHANGES TO INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH THE
PROPOSED GARAGE IN OPERATION
Table 1 shows that with the proposed garage in operation there should be only one change in
level of service and only insignificant changes in vehicle delay (of three seconds or less)
compared to existing conditions at all analyzed intersections. Operation would remain an
acceptable LOS B, C or D at all intersections. Delay would tend to decrease slightly at the
Grand A venue intersections and increase slightly at the Miller A venue intersections.
F. NEED FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT THE PROJECT ACCESS
INTERSECTION WITH MILLER AVENUE
1. Need for Left Turn Lane on Westbound Miller Avenue Approach to
the Garage Entrance
During the midday peak hour there would be about 90 vehicles making a left turn from Miller
Avenue into the new garage (or about 30 percent of the westbound traffic flow), while during the
PM commute peak hour there would be about 65 vehicles making a left turn into the new garage
(or about 15 percent of the westbound traffic flow).
Left turn lane warrant criteria! for two-lane streets and roads have been developed for situations
where vehicle speeds are greater than those along Miller Avenue (for speeds of 40 miles per hour
or greater, not the 25 to 30 mile per hour speeds along Miller Avenue). If these higher speed
criteria are used, the combination of through and turn volumes at the garage entrance would just
meet the left turn lane warrant criteria during both the midday and PM commute peak traffic
hours. Based upon the likelihood that if the garage is successful, there could be, on average,
more than one vehicle per minute making a left turn into the garage during the midday peak hour
and about one vehicle every minute making a left turn into the garage during the PM peak hour,
I Intersection Channelization Design Guide, TRB Report 279, November 1985.
1/30108 South San Francisco Downtown Parking Garage Page 6
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. . CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
a short left turn deceleration lane would be highly desirable in order to reduce the potential for
rear-end accidents (see Recommendations in Section VI).
The exact location of the garage driveway connection to Miller Avenue has not yet been
selected. However, if on-street parking along the south side of Miller Avenue is allowed too
close to the driveway, on-street vehicles could limit sight lines for drivers leaving the garage to
less than acceptable lengths.
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Large, easy-to-read signs should be employed on the streets in downtown South San
Francisco providing directions to the new garage.
2. Incentives should be provided to encourage shoppers/restaurant patrons/business people
to park in the new garage.
3. Bright lighting and security should be top priority items to maintain continued use of the
new garage.
4. A short (50- to 75-foot-long) left turn lane should be provided on the westbound Miller
A venue approach to the garage entrance. This will result in the loss of some on-street
parking spaces in the immediate vicinity of the turn lane.
5. On-street parking should be prohibited on either side of the project's Miller Avenue
driveway in order to provide acceptable sight lines assuming prevailing vehicle speeds on
Miller Avenue remain at least 35 miles per hour.
This Report is intended for presentation and usc in its entirety, together with all of its supporting exhibits. schedules, and
appendices. Crane Transportation Group will have no liability for any use of the Report other than in its entirety, such as
providing an excerpt to a third party or quoting a portion of the Report. If you provide a portion of the Report to a third party,
you agrce to hold CTG harmless against any liability to such third parties based upon their use of or reliance upon a less than
completc version of the Report.
1/30108 South San Francisco Downtown Parking Garage Pagc 7
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. . CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figures
I
r
s
~ A ~
~o,,~
y
"0
't-
I-
Uw
WI-
..,-
00
II:
D.
'-
"'17' Inu/eM
.::..
~
~
~
~
l:::
-...J
'OS
'i-
,r
"'
~
..
.,.. en
!
:I
m
i:i:
..
u
~
.-
~
A.
>-
"C
::J
U5
U
I;:
~
I-
CD
Ol
~
IV
t9
Ol
c:
:i!
n;
0..
~
o
~
o
o
8
(/)
'0
c:
~
u..
c:
IV
rn
.c
;;
o
rn
a.
:J
o
0::
C)
Z
o
i=
<(
I-
0::
o
a.
UJ
Z
<(
0::
I-
W
Z
<(
0::
U
&J
J'-
J
,
Q) L 'So
"% ~
<.Jl....O
~ ,,,"
'0
"1-
'\...
M
co..-
o ..- ('I)
~~L.
-
~-..
('I)
~-,.
-
c --
'<t
~ I"-
..-
r[;;
~
('I)
CO
..-
~J
N
CO -..
('I) CO
~-,.
-L~
N..-
CO CD ..- ('I)
('I) ..-..- ~ LO
..-
~~~ r~
~J
LO
(J') -.
..-
~.
I"-
LOLOLO
('I)..-CD
~~~
~J
ffi-.
~.
~t~
"-NCO
LOCO~
::.
<(
~
Q)
~
-L8
..-
~~
r~
~t~
CD ('I) CD
N(J')N
c
11 It ssaJdA'O
.
I"-
~~
N
~O
..-
r rn
~t~
(J')..-N
'<t('l)~
..-
----
-L~
I"-
~~~ ~~
~~~ 'f~
~J
~-.
~.
..
c:
-J
:S
"t
co
'<tLO
ONCO
..- N
~'f~
..-J
'<t
~-.
~.
~t~
"-(J')N
CONO
N ..-
::.
<(
1:)
c:
~
(!)
-L~
~rn
'f~
~t~
o N
('1)"-0
CO..-
N
Pilla J./odJIV
1\\1 uapun
1\\1 a/dew
'r
"'
en
G)
E
:::::I
-
o
>
..
.!
:::::I
.~ .-.-.
.ell)
N m G) ....
G).. .5 > .;.:
., .. .
=. .!!! :::::I ~
WI' >C 0 ..
u: W:l:N
~~
nl
G)
A.
~
nl
"
"
.-
:E
>
'"0
::l
U5
o
=
~
CD
"
!'!
m
G
"
c:
32
0;
ll.
c:
~
o
E
~
o
Cl
8
III
"0
c:
m
U:
c:
m
Ul
.c:
:;
o
Ul
a.
:J
o
a:
C)
z
o
l-
e:(
I-
a:
o
a.
U)
z
e:(
a:
I-
w
Z
e:(
a:
()
~
J'\...
j
r
"r
"
Q) J S
'% ~
lfl,O
~ ,,,"
"'6
-z.
~ ro
o f ~\ ~ ~
_ ~ ~ L. r ~N
~ -. ~
~~
-q-
~ 00
M
!:::f
o
o
~
~J
o
~-.
~
~f
~t~
NI.O<O
~-q-~
PII/8/.1odJitt
en
Q)
E
::I
-
o
>
..
RS
--
M IS) Bg
... C._ ..
'II .- J: U)
~'Z)Q)-:'
IS)'- >-
._ >C Q
LL. W .. ..
::I In
0-
:E:
JIl:
RS
Q)
A.
:E
A.
r ~
..--
.
~-
II It ssaJd,{Q
.
~~ -L~
-q- ~
-q- 0 -q- M ~ 1.0 0) -q-
1.0 M 0) ~N <oN-q- ~~
N N
.J~L. r~ .J~L. r~
<oj ~t~ ~j ~t~ "V uapun
I"- -q-
0 ----... I"--q-O) 00 ----... <0 0 -q-
N <01.01"- ~ 00 0) 00
~,. ~,. ~
~ D.
:J
0
0:::
:> :> C)
'<( c: '<( Z
..... -J 'tl 0
Q) c:
-S ~ >- i=
:::: "0
~ "I" (!) :J <(
Vi
u I-
~ 0:::
t- O
-L~ " D.
-LI"- e>
l'! (J)
0) to Z
I"- 1.0 00 C)
000<0 0) O)NOO ~~ e> <(
<:
NM<O ~o <0 N ~ 0:::
.J~L. ~ .J~L. to I-
r~ r~ [l. W
<:
~ Z
0
"va/dew E <(
~t~ Mj ~t~ ~ 0:::
~j 0
0 0
-q- 8
0 0 I"- Ul
0) ----... No 1.0 0 ----... -q- I"- <0 '0 ~
?"- M <:
N~ ~ 1.0 l'!
~ ~,. N u.
~,. <:
to
<J)
~
s
0
<J)
.J'\,. J
'-
r
So
~J~
tno' \
':,
~
'-
'\
-
O'l~...
- .--
..-
.;:.~
-4- -{~
...~
o
N
::>
<(
~
(])
~
to
..-
... ....
~r--;~
... ....
..-
N
(])
c:O
Ill.!!!
'C om
- >
:G III
"C VI
(])-
o.c
::l
o 0
Z u
Pilla /lOcUitt
.
--
1111 ssaJdl5"
/It>' uapu!l
lit>' a/dew
.
("I)
"
... ....
--4- -t ~
.. ....
"
"
'If
t::
-J
:5
"'t
::>
<(
"0
t::
~
(!)
N
~~
o .
;! r- ~.,
~-,
'"
to
..~
("I)
"
J\...
'r
"'
'It
a.
..
:s
=
ii:
In
a.
E
:s
'0
>
c
~
.--
::;."
-In...
WI a. ..
.5 'a ":'
"a.."
.!! a. ...
)( ..
W"N
:S...
0_
::a:
~
~
a.
a.
>a
~
'a
'a
i
>
"D
::l
iii
o
IE
~
f0-
CI)
c
~
m
C)
c
<::
~
m
a..
<::
~
C
~
o
o
8
II)
'u
<::
m
.t
<::
m
en
.r::;
S
o
VI
a.
:J
o
0::
C)
Z
o
i=
ct
I-
0::
o
a.
U)
z
ct
0::
I-
W
Z
ct
0::
o
~
.J
r
"'r
"'
'So
~ J 't-.
t k. ~
1Il~ " <i.
"0
"t-
0)
c:O
11l~
Eon;
UI >
0) III
"CUI
0)-
Q.c
o :J
Z 8
Pilla /..10 '.J!tI
en
G)
E
:I
-
o
>
c
~
Ie .........
It) =c -;; g
G) G) ..
.. "-aC9
=. .!! G) Q
..., >C D. Q
u: w..1i;
:1-
o
:c
~
~
G)
D.
:IE
D.
~~.
-
.--
.
II tI sse.Jd,fQ"
..
v
en 0
N ..-
.... ....
--1- 4~ -4- --{ U; 11\1 uepufl
..- ..-
+.. +..
0 ~
N V
" 0..
:::l
0
0::
::- ::- C)
<:( >
<:( t: 'tl
::l Z
..... -J "0 Ui
Q) t: 0
- .s ~ "
:-::: IE
~ "'t C!) .. I--
.:: <(
., I--
0
~ 0::
.. 0
C>
0 0..
v c en
C") :l2
C") 0 to Z
..- 0- <(
~ .. .... c
~ 0::
0
N E I--
~t--t~ ~r-4~ ~ w
0
Cl Z
1\\1 e/dew 8 <(
III
'0 0::
..- c 0
..
+.. ~ .... ii:
c
00 ..- .. ~
~ UI
..- .s:::
:;
0
(f)
'- .J,- .J
r
<ll AS
'%Ll~
lJ)o'~
'<'"
'0
"t-
'--
---.
t
~
~
~
r
P/l./8 tJo 'J!'rI
. --
1111 Ssa.Jd,{o
1I'rI uapuq
c
....
::l
I-
a.
o 1:
en C)
>- 0::
~ ~ (l)
....!.. .2l ~
<( (f) u..
" " "
CDS ~
IIva/dew
)~~~
.J
-4
---.
t
~t
-v
-
.--
"
~+
g
-t~
y
c::
....J
.s
""
:>
<(
"0
c::
~
(!)
)}. +
g
-t ~\t
:>
<(
'-
,lg
~
~CD+
-t~
~+
e
-t~
'r
"'
'0
..
..
c
o
to)
"
c
~
en
CJ
'C
..
(Q mcu
cu .5 E
.. .. 0
::s .!! cu
.~ )( C)
u.wcu
c
~
...
c
o
..
CJ
cu
en
..
cu
..
c
-6'
:J
iii-
"
IE
III
t=
",.
c-
~-
~-
c
c:
:;;
i;;
D-
c:
~
o
E
~
"
c.
E~
.~i
. :
!(~
u.
Q.
:J
o
0:::
C)
Z
o
l-
e(
I-
0:::
o
Q.
en
z
e(
0:::
I-
W
Z
e(
0:::
U
~
"'-
cr..
.c:
'5
o
CfJ-
.J"\....
.J
.r
,r
"'
(])O
u<O
roo>
a.c:
(/):.;:;
o .!a
<oX
O>(])
.~ ~
c;;-
'x .;;
(]) .-
(]) ==
.c -c
- (])
.c-
_ ro
.~ 'g
-c Vl
(]) Vl
ro ro (])
.- Vl 0>
g ~ ~
Vl.~ ro
Vl .c 0>
ro (]) ==
U> (])
~a.ic:
.... :t:: (])
-Vl.c
Gl__
-CUO
:J(])-
13'[ Q3
.~ a. 'ti
o~~
c: _ ....
oc:~
-COVl
~==rn
Eg:=
:J_==
'0.2(5
> 0>-
(]) c: (])
~ ~ ~
.croa.
I- a. Vl
*
\...
'So
~ A~
\J)~,~
"6
-z.
~~
c; ~
.... c::
C/,lO
:::>
o~_~
.; ~ L. .- ~@
I'
~ -. ~
E)ffit
-
. --
(")
00
.....
@
sf)
1'00
.....NOO
..... (")
';~L.
@~J
G~ -.
V(")OO
~t
~~(!)
~~@
y~@
~t~
.....N~
LOOO.....
@@@
~@
@ *rcm
* L. ~ y *\@)
~~
~@
*
@~@ ~~s
LO LO LO """"--- 0) (.;\
(") ..... <0 .....---- LO \JJ
~~L. y~@
~t~
.....
/lit sSa.ldA'Q'
I'
~~
~~e
(")
.- e;
~t~
00..... N
I'(")LO
..... ..... .....
6B
.
*
@@ ~~@
.....1' ~~8
<O<ON
I'NLO
~~L. y~
@~J ~t~
@~~ .....O)N
I ..... OONO
@)~~ N.....
" @@)@
PI1/8 /.10 '.JIlt
:>
c:: <:(
-J "tJ
c::
S ~
"'I" (!J
@~@ ~~@
VLO ~ e;@
ONOO
..... N
~~L. y <O@
N,
@~J ~t~
8~ ~ o N
(").....0
00.....
e;;~ @N
.....@
1\17' uepun
1\17' a/dew
(])
0>
~
ro
(9
0>
c:
~
....
ro
a..
-C
(])
Vl
o
a.
e
a..
(])
0>
ro
....
ro
CD
0>
c:
~
....
ro
a..
o
-
(])
:J
-C
(])
0>
Vl c:
(]) ro
E .c
:J U
~~
0> (])
c: E
t5 ~
'x g
UJ_
en
G)
E
.. ::::I
u-
G) 0
,->-
o..an
-----.. ...
.- A. ::::I ..
G)..Jt0",
""V%ab
::::I In JiI: ...
,~ era"
u.;G)N
enA.~
';C >.
W ra
"
"
i
Q.
:J
0
a::
C)
z
0
>- I-
-g
1ii <(
0 I-
~ a::
t- O
., Q.
Ol
~ en
1\I z
Cl
Ol <(
c: a::
:i2
.. I-
0. W
c:
~ Z
.9 <(
c:
~ a::
0 t.)
8
on ~
'0
c:
~
u..
c:
1\I
fJ)
.c
S
0
fJ)
J'\... J
@~~
00<0.....
(") ..... .....
~~L.
OOJ
.....
~~ ~
'G}.....
@~~
@~J
fB\ 0) ~
'G}<O
~~
<0(")<0
NO)N
@@f@J
I
~<o0
r
,r
"'
0)0
u<D
COo>
c.c
00:;:::
o .~
<D ><
0>0)
c 0)
~;
.- .s:;
~:!:::
0) ::
.s:; "C
- 0)
;ro
.~ "g
"Cen
0) en
roCOO)
.- en 0>
g ~ ~
en .~ CO
en.s:; 0>
CO 0) ::
u::> 0)
~a)C
L-:!::: 0)
-en.s:;
0)--
"Cuo
::JO)_
u 'e' Q;
.~ c. 'ti
15~~
C_L-
oc~
"Co en
~::ro
Eg;:
::J_::
'0.215
> 0>-
0) C 0)
~ ~ 16
.s:;coc.
I- c. en
*
'\...
1:-
\ A~
(/)~" <i.
'0
't-
~Q.
-.- E
o~
-.- c::
(/)0
::::>
~
;1;'<t co
ON~ ~......
~ ~ L. -f ~@J
~ --. ,.
@r::"f
-
@~@
'<to'<t
LOC"><J)
~~L.
<Dj
o
o
......
(9
. --
-L~@
~ ~tN\
N'0:J
f""~@
~t~
1'--'<t<J)
<DLOI'--
@@@
tCO\~ ~
Q.IN
@~,.
<J) -L $}
*t i ~*'f.
~@
*
-Lro8
~~@
f""~@
@@@)
I'--
COO<D
NC"><D
~~L.
@~j
1(0\ <J) ~
\311'-
~,.
8~ ~~ en
~
I'--'<t'<t ~~8 .. E
LONC"> U ::s
...... <D ~-
~~L. ..... 0 -
-f I'-- = e > g
LO ~D.....
@~J "oO::sCD
~t,. Pll18 /.10 '.JIV ::s O.
m 0
e~ ._ m:l: 0
--. N <D II. .5 ~ an
I'--LOO
...... ......'<t...... "ftI-
~"f @ e .!!! ~
>CD.
-- .. w:t
----
IIV ssa.Jd,{Q" D.
.
'ff
8~
......LO<J)
<DN'<t
~~L.
@)~j
@~~
@~,.
-L~
~~8
f""~
IIV uapun
~t~
<D0'<t
CO<J)CO
@@@
::.
c:: <(
-J "0
.s c::
~
"'t (!)
@@@ -L~@)
...... <J) ,
co ~ ~@)
<J)NCO
<D N
~1fL. -f~@)
@C">j ~t~
''<t
@~ ~ 01'--1'--
'<tLO<D
e~,. @N
......@
0)
0>
CO
L-
CO
(9
0>
C
:i2
L-
CO
a..
"C
0)
en
o
c.
o
L-
a..
0)
0>
CO
L-
CO
(9
0>
C
:i2
L-
CO
a..
o
-
0)
::J
"C
0)
0>
en C
0) CO
E .s:;
::J u
~~
0> 0)
C E
~ ~
'x g
w_
,
~<D@
0..
::l
0
[t:
C)
z
0
>0 I-
"C
::J c(
ii5
u l-
ii: a:::
l!! 0
I-
4l 0..
Ol
CD en
~ z
C)
Ol c(
c: [t:
:>2
~ l-
e.. W
c:
~ Z
0
'E c(
~ [t:
0
0 ()
8
lJl ~
'13
c:
CD
u:
c:
CD
en
;:
::J
0
en
.J'\... j
~t~
NOLO
N......C">
@)@@
II va/dew
I
Tables
1/30108 SSF Downtown Parking Garage
Table 1
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
INTERSECTION
Grand Ave.lAirport Blvd.
(Signal)
MIDDAY
PEAK HOUR (12:15-1:15 PM)
EXISTING +
CBD GARAGE
D-35.3
EVENING COMMUTE
PEAK HOUR (5:00-6:00 PM)
EXISTING +
CBD GARAGE
C-34.5
EXIS TIN G
D-35.3(1)
EXISTING
C-34.6
B-15.9(1) B-15.4 B-15.1 B-14.9
B-IO.8(1) B-10.6 B-1 1.8 B-1 1.8
C-28.0(1) C-28.5 C-24.5 C-24.8
C-31.3(1) C-32.6 C-32.3 C-33.5
B_IO.2(2) B-IO.6 B-13.8 C-15.6
Grand Ave.lLinden Ave.
(Signal)
Grand Ave.lMaple Ave.
(Signal)
Miller Ave.lAirport
Blvd./U.S.IOI SB Off-Ramp
(Signal)
Miller Ave.lLinden Ave.
(Signal)
Miller Ave.lMaple Ave.
(All Way Stop)
(I) Signalized level of service-vehicle control delay in seconds.
(2) All way stop level of service-vehicle control delay in seconds.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
1/30108 SSF Downtown Parking Garage
Table 2
EXISTING PARKING DEMAND
60-SPACE SURFACE LOT TO BE
REPLACED BY PARKING GARAGE
(WEDNESDA Y, DECEMBER 20, 2006)
SPACES PERCENT
TIME UTILIZED UTILIZED
11:00 AM 35 58%
11:30AM 35 58%
12:00 Noon 48 80%
12:30 PM 51 85%
1:00PM 47 78%
1:30PM 38 63%
2:00 PM 41 68%
2:30 PM 38 63%
3:00 PM 34 57%
3:30 PM 32 53%
4:00 PM 31 52%
4:30 PM 34 57%
5:00 PM 33 55%
5:30 PM 32 53%
6:00 PM 31 52%
6:30 PM 30 50%
7:00 PM 31 52%
Source: City of South San Francisco Public Works Department
1/30108 SSF Downtown Parking Garage
Table 3
TRIP GENERATION
USES ON GROUND FLOOR OF PROPOSED
DOWNTOWN PARKING GARAGE
MInDA Y PEAK HOUR TRIPS
IN OUT
RA TE VOL RA TE VOL
1.8 25 1.8 25
PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
IN OUT
RATE VOL RATE VOL
1.8 25 1.8 25
USE
Specialty Retail
SIZE
13,700
SQ.FT.
Trip rate source: Trip Generation. San Diego Association of Governments. 2002.
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
1/30108 SSF Downtown Parking Garagc
Appendix
1/30108 SSF Downtown Parking Garage
Appendix
LEVEL OF SERVICE
CONTROL DELAY RELATIONSHIP FOR
ALL-WAY STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service
Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (in seconds)
A
0- 10
B
> 10 - 15
C
> 15 - 25
D
> 25 - 35
E
> 35 - 50
F
> 50
Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move up time to first in line at the intersection,
stopped delay as first car in queue, and final acceleration delay.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board
1/30108 SSF Downtown Parking Garagc
Appendix
LEVEL OF SERVICE
CONTROL DELAY RELATIONSHIP FOR
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service
Control Delay Per Vehicle (in seconds)
A
10
B
> 10 - 20
C
> 20 - 35
D
> 35 - 55
E
> 55 - 80
F
> 80
Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move up time to first in line at the intersection,
stopped delay as first car in queue, and final acceleration delay.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board
1/30108 SSF Downtown Parking Garage