Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Project 101 Initial Study & Proposed MND 04-01-2002
--K..,,,. _ _.. .... .. INITIAL STUD~T A_ND PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATI~rE DECLAR~gTION Application Numbers: UP 00-024, VAR 00-024 & PTDM 00-024 ~xc~~~c~ ~o~ PREPARED s~' CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 315 NLgI'LE AVENUE SSF, CA 94401 MARCx 4, 2002 ~s+tr~n~taf 9~apmtcr~ Cedim~ CASE NQ• ~Oc~ r ~~~ OATr CIRCULATEC: ~~ ~ ~ ~ E ~~:=- QATE RECOMBgEWpEQ: ~ ~ ~ a C:~ ~~t OATc APPROVEL: ~~-~'~ 1 °> ~' ~ 21 ~~ _~~~ ~.,- 7 i ~ .~ rx.- _ _ -~ ~ .. "` P~ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION .............. 6 APPLICA770N ...................................................................................................................................................................................... ~ APPLICANT ................................................................................................... ....................................................................................... 6 PROTECT OB)ECTIVE ................................................................................... ....................................................................................... ~ LOCATION .................................................................................................... ....................................................................................... 6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................. ....................................................................................... ~ POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS REQUIRING MITIGATION ...... ....................................................................................... ~ MITIGATION MEASURES FOR POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ....................................................................................... 7 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ...................... ....................... ............................................................ .... ~ CHIEF PLANNER'S DETERMINATION ...................................................... ..........................................................:............: ...10 PUBLIC REVIEVC~ ........................................................................................... .....................................................................................1~ LEAD AGENCY ............................................................................................. ..................................................................................... 11 DETERMINATION ........................................................................................ ..................................................................................... I2 INITIAL STUDY ................................................................................................................................................13 GENERAL INFORMATION ...............................................................................................................................................................13 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................................................ .. 13 Location and SPrr' ~ ..................................................... ........................................................................................................... ..13 Circulation Characteristics ....................................................................................................................................................... ..13 Zoning ........................................................................................................................................................................................ ..13 Site Ownership .......................................................................................................................................................................... ..13 PROJECT CONTEXTA>`ID DESCRIPT]ON ..................................................................................................................................... .. I4 Required Discretionary Approvals ....................................................................................................................................:... ..14 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ........................:................................................................................................I7 AE STHET] CS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1TI _._ _. _. _ AGR]CULTURE RESOURCES - - .: ::: --.. ... _ _ .:..... _ _ ............................ ................................................ ..................................... ................. 190 -_ AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................................................................................ 201 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................................. 256 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................................................................................... 26? GEOLOGl'AND SO]LS ..........................................................................................................................................:............. ..28 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...................................................................................................................:... 323 HYDROLOGYAND WATER QUALI7'1' .............................................................................................................................. 356 LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................................................................................... 401 MINERA:. RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................................................ 444 N o1sE ............................................................................................................................................:....................................... 4~5 POPULATION AND HOU5ING ................................................................................................:........................................... .. 4J INRIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 101 ~ PAGE 3 d PUBLIC SERV]CES ....................................................................................... ..........................................................................500 RE CREAT] ON .............................................................................................. ..........................................................................511 TRANSPORTATION~TRAFFIC ................................................................... .......................................................................... SI2 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ......................................................... .......................................................................... 5~ MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ......................................... .......................................................................... 590 Ell REFERENCES ..................................................................................... ............................................................ BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................... ..........................................................................61i PERSONAL COMMLINICATIONS .......................................................................... ..........................................................................622 ' 662 I-IORS ...............................................................................:................ REPORT AUT .......................................................................... APPENDIX .........................................................................................................................................................63 INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 101 ~ PAGE 4 _. _ _.. ,: _, y ,: TABLE OF CONTENTS ([z~v~~z7?/,~ Pcge Z.IST OF ~"IGURES 1. PROTECTLOCA770N ................................................................................................................................................................... iJ 2. PROIECTSITEPLAN .....................................................................................................................................................................16 INITIA_ STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 10 i PAGE 5 .. :.... . .. ._ ~PPI,ICATION This Mit ~Qated Neb~ative Declaration (Application Number UP 00-024) is for the proposed Project 101 development. ~I'I~'I.IOt~,N T The Project Applicant is Bressie and Company ~'RO~ CT QBJE C1'I~ The Rroj ect objective is to convert the mixed use industrial faalit~T to a mixed use commeraal, office and research and development faality. LOGFi7'ION The Project site is looted in an eastern portion of South San Francisco, east of U.S. Highway 101, at 600-7000 Dubuque Avenue, between E ast Grand Avenue and Oyster P Dint Boulevard ~ROJE e'>'' ~?E SCRII~'ION The Project would involve construction of new exterior facades, nea%landscaped parldng areas, up grades to the existing landscaping, neRT sign pro~-am, and installation of new on site utilities and drainage faaIities. ~O~"Er~ a YA%I.~ ~IOFdI~IC,~iLv ~' ~~g~.C~'S ~~I.TI~IIy O I~I~'IOAT`IOl~d The following is a s~.unmary of potential Project impacts. Refer to the Initial StudS~ Ched~3ist and/or Appendix A of this document for a more detailed aiscussion of these impacts. I. Construction of the proposed Project 101 development would have short-teen air quality effects, primarily due to the generation of particulate matter (PM-10). PM-10 is normally generated by diesel consu-uction vehicles and equipment, the disturbance of soils through excavation and grading; construction vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces and the traddng of soils onto paved roads. INITIAL STUDY i MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONN PROJECT 10 i ~ PAGE 2 The Project site is a previously disturbed, developed site where no known archaeological sites are located. However; given that archaeologcal r~a~n.s have been found in the Project's vicinit~T, the presence of archaeological remains underneath the Project site cannot be discounted. 3. The proposed Proj ect 101 development would be occupied by future tenants, who could be exposed to adverse effects related to seismic ground shaping. 4. Normal operations of the research and development uses at the Project site upon occupancy of the proposed buildings would involve use, transport and disposal of materials that would be considered hazardous, if not handled appropriately. 3. Project construction would result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the op°ration of heavy equipment. 6. The easterly portion of the development site, is subject to flooding in the event of the 100 storm of up to 1 foot to 3 feet in depth (Flood Zones Aand B -FIRM Map Communit~T Panel Number 065062/ 0002B, dated September 2, 1981). The flooding would be primarily restricted to the parking lot and would adversely affect on-site. parking, circulation and potentially emergency access to the buildings. Floodwater could enter the easterly site buildings causing r~amave to property. 1~I'I'I~A~'I©N 1V~~A~>`T1~S FDR PCI7'E1~T i ZAI.I.~' SI~1~TICFIC'~t.RT~` ~IYiPACTS The following is a stuzunary of mitigation measures for potentially significant Project impacts. Refer to the Initial Study Checklist and/or Appendix A of this document f or a more detailed discussion of these mitigation measures. Z The BayAreaAir QualityManagement District's (BAAQMD) CEQA Gza~ir~ (1999) acknowledges that construction activity emissions vary markedly from project to project, from .day to day, and from one contractor to another. Rather than f ocus on a quantification of project related emissions; the BAAQMD has developed a menu of mitigation options to control construction activit~T dust emissions. The BAAQMD considers implementation of all applicable dust control measures (which vary according to project magnitude) as reduang project related particulate (PM,~ emissions to less than significant levels. These measures are grouped into three categories as follows: E "Basic Control Measures" applyto all construction sites. "Enhanced Control Measures" apply to sites greater than four acres. "Optional Control Measure;" applyto larger sites near sensitive receptors. Based on the Project site size of 10.86 acres, implementation of the Basic and Enhanced Control Measure; would maintain Project construction related impacts at a less than si~vficant level. IN~IAL.STUDI' r MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 10 ~ PAGE 7 __._ 2. The proposed Project would adhere to the Uniform Building Code's regulations applicable to office-type land uses. The use of potentially hazardous materials would follow established safety protocols, and materials to be disposed of would be collected in appropriate containers. These materials would then be transported away from the Project site by licensed waste collection agencies. This would reduce the impact of use, transport and disposal of hazardous materials to a level of less than significant with mitigation. 3. The applicant shall submit a Storm ~Jater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an Erosion Control Plan to the CitST E ngineer prior to the commencement of any grading or construction of the proposed Project. The SWPPP shall include storm water pollution control devices and filters to be installed to prevent pollutants from entering the Cites storm drain system and San Francisco Bay. The Plan shall be subject to reviewand approval of the CitST Engineer and the CitS~s Storm Water Coordinator. The Project applicant shall be responsible for ~1g that all contractors. are aware of all storm water qualitS~ measures, and for the implementation of such measures. Failure to compl~Twith the approved construction Best Management Practices (BMPS) will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations or a project stop order. Plans for the Project shaIl include erosion control measures to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system, in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Association of Bay Area Governments Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce the Project's impact to a level of less than significant with mitigation. 4. Prior to the issuance of the: grading p°rmit to fill-in the rail spur or the building permit the applicant shall dexennine the cause of flooding and include in the construction plans a drainage collection system to eliminate the flooding and provide flood resistance to the existing structures. The plans shall be subject to the reviev~~ and approval of the CitS~'s CitS~ Engineer and Chief Building Offiaal. ~: Prig to the issuance of the grading perrn~t to fill-in the rail snl.u or the building permit the applicant shall :determine the cause of flrJOding and include in the construction olans a rlrainaae collection system to ~eIiininat~*he flooci~n~ and prov~~!e flo~-. resistance to die existing) structures. '-~he plans shall be subject to~the revieR~ and approval of tY:~c CitSrs Cit<T Engineer and Chief Building Official': 6. There are no existing noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinit~T that would be affected by vroject-~~enerated construction noise. However, neighboring businesses would be subjected to high noise levels during site preparation and construction If noise controls are i-~stalle:i on consr~uctior_ equipment, the noise levels could be re3uced to 8Q to 85 c18A at ?~ INITIAL STUD" / MrrIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 1D1 • PAGE 1 ~..Q. ~,,„ s`.,~ ._ _, rn_ .. feet, depending on the type of equipment. Assuming construction noise levels conmpl5r with the 90-dBA noise Limit and hourly restrictions specified in the City N oise Ordinance, construction-related noise impacts could be reduced to a level of less than significant with nmitigation. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall have a qualified acoustic engineer reviewthe plans and make recommendations to provide an interior decibel level of 45 dBA. The plans shall be subject to the review and approval b}r the City's Chief Planner. 8. Prior to issuance of a building permit for anST building of Project 101 associated with the conve<-sion to a more intense use the applicant shall pay the Traffic Impact fees. 9. Prior to receipt of a Building Permit, the applicant shall have a Final Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM) prepared by a qualified and licensed traffic engineer that .incorporates the provisions of he City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.120, which is subject to review and approval as provided in SSFMC Chapter 20.120.070. The Final TDM Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Planner to ensure all conditions impaled by the Panning Comnmission related to the TDM Plan have been addressed. 10. Prior to the issuance of the Building Permit; the applicant shall pay its fair share contribution at a rate not exceed $l .23 per gross square foot of the building floor area, of the City Sewer System Study including a waste flow collection model and any needed improvements, in accordance with a schedule established by the City Council. Such fees shall be due and payable. for each portion of the improvements no later than the time that a building permit is issued in connection with the construction of such portion of the improvements. 1GNVIRONIVIEI`TTA)<. 1"14iC'P'ORS P©TENTI~.~.~T~)PECTEII Environmental factors, whffich maybe affe~~ted by a project, as defined bythe California F nvironmental duality A t-.L (CE~A) are lister aZphab~ o?11y bdtoR7 Factors marker u:th a filled ir~ block (®) were determined to be potentially affa.ted by the project, involving at least one impact that has been identified as a "P~e~i~dlySigrzi Sc~Im~' , as indicated in the Initial Study Checklist and related discussion that follows. Factors which are unmarked were determined to not be significantly affected by the project, based on discussion also provided in the Checklist. ^ Aesthetics ^ Agriculture Resources ~ Air Quality e Biological Resources ~ Guttural Resource: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality ~ Land Use and Planning o Mineral Resources ~ Noise ^ Population and Housing ^ Public Services ^ Recreation e Transportation and Circu{ation o Utilities and Service Systems ~ ~ Geology and Soils INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 10' • PAGt 9 ... ...._ F~'T.-. ~I~IEF ~I.AN1'~TI;R'S ~E~'ERMINA~ION 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 Neb~ative Declaration (listed separately in App~nd~A of this document), the proposed Project will not have a si~zificant effect on the environment. Therefore, the Proj ect will. not require the preparation of an E nvironmelztal Impact Report, and the requirements of the Califomia Environmental Qualit~TAct (CE QA) will be met by the preparation of this Mitigated N.~°~ative D eclaration. This decision is supported by the following findings: a. The Project does not have the potential to degrade the qualitST of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop beloaTwlf-sustaining levels, or tlzreaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. It does not reduce the number or xestrict 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- historSTbecause: there is no identified area at the Project site which is habitat for rare or endangered species, or which represents unique examples of Califomia histrny or prehistory. In addition, the Project is within the scope of use contemplated in the General Plan; and the Project does not have any significant, unavoidable adverse impacts. Implementation of speafied mitigation measures will avoid or reduce the effects of the Project on the environment and thereby avoid any si~zificant impacts. b. The Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvanta~~e of long-term environmental goals. c. The Project does not involve impacts, which are individuallylimited 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 Cit~T of South San Francisco. d The Project does not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either ciuectly or indirectljT, because the proposed development will enhance the existing agricultural uses within the immediate area, provide the count5rwith additional habitat .area, .and all adverse effects of the Project will be mitigated to a les than significant level. P"FJBI.IC ~~ The Initial StudiT and Proposed Mitigated N ea five Declaration will be circulated. fora 30-day public review nedod. Written comments nzay be submitted to the following address: Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Ci?~- of South San Francisco Deoanmen. of Economic INITIAL STUDY !MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 10 i t PAGE 10 - -- - _ __. ,.. _, _ . - .. _. -. _ . and CommunityDevelopment 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Telephone: 650.877.835 Fax: 650.829.6639 Adoption of the Mitigated Ne~''ative Declaration does not constitute approval of the project itself, ~~uch is a separate action to be taken bS%the Planning Conunission and the South San Francisco City Council. Approval or denial of the project can take place on'ty after the Mitigated N ea'ative Declaration has been adopted ~,1vAD AGENCY The Lead Agency%for this Mitigated Negative Declaration is the CitS% of South San Francisco Department of Econornic and CommunityDevelopment. INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION' PROJECT 10 FAGS 7 I _ k. ~E~'I;RII~INA'EIQN _. -. _.r...~ t q,; .sou.-. t On the basis of the evaluation in this Mitigated N egative Declaration and Initial Stud~T: _ I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effeci on the environment, and aNEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ~/ I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a sigrvficant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. _ I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. _ I find that the proposed Project MAY have a "potentially sigrficant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) .has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached, sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyse only the effects that remain to be addressed _ I find that although the proposed Project could have a si~uficant effect on the envirorunent, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analysed 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. aS ~~h dooz Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Date X50/ 8~-853 Phone INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIOt\ PROJECT 1 O1 • PAGE i 2 ~I~'Y OF SOUTFI SAN ~RA1V CISCO Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 ~ENERA~. ~NFOIIlVIATION A. Application N umber: UP 00-024, VAR 04-024 and PTDM 00-024 B. Applicant: David Bressie ~OJE C'I' SI~'E ~?E SCRIPI'ION LOCATION AND SETTING As stovvn in Figure I, the Project site is located in an eastern portion of South San Francisco, east of Highway 101 at 600-700 Dubuque A~Tenue between E ast Grand Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard The Project site is located in a mixed.-use area comprised of commercial; office; research and development and warehouse uses. The multi-tenant building is partially occupied by retail, recreational, office, research and development and warehouse uses. CIRCULATION CHARACTERISTICS The Project site is accessible from the Dubuque Avenue via Highway 101, E ast Grand Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard, The Caitrain station at~uts the site to the sout'ri. ZONING The Project site is currently zoned Planned Commercial (P-C) and is part of the "East of 101" Planning Sub-Area as defined by the Cit~T of South San Francisco General Plan. The site's General Plan desi~ation is Business Commercial. SITE OWNERSHIP D avic Bressie is the prop°rt jT ownei , INITIAL STUDY 1 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PRDJECT 101 • PAGE 13 ~: r r ~„ _ - - ti-" ~ .. ' ~. _. .. ~R©fE~?' ~~N'~E~' ~T~ ~ESCRIPTI~RT The Project Site Plan is shown in Figure 2. REQUIRED DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS The Project would require a Use Pernut for the 100 ADT and off-site parking and uses math a 24/7 operation and a Variance for parking in association with a Transportation Demand Management Plan, and a Parcel Map to merb the three parcels. into one parcel. INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 101 P ?AGE i 4 _ .K-xr . ^,'" ~'.~_=~ 'tiff. "° ~ _ x." -'.~ ~.""~ ("~~ ~~ f ~ s m 4 : .:~:.~ ~a~! 8 .~:d ~ 4 ~ iiil~ ~ a oli~~ :~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ a 8 ~~ /,/'~~ i ~ .. :,m ~ ~~~ -.~~~~ 2 ~ ~~~~ ~: ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ?~F.l +3jjttS-- {F i i i ~R~~i~; ~ ~~g ~~ii~ ~~~~#~ ~~ ~~e ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ti~~f~~~~~~~~ B 0 p ~ t ~ ~~ - > ~ ~ ` ~.. ` t~ G J ~ ~~ 1~ ~ J E~ i sE I '^ F\ti- iif tI ~ ~ . I -a W w m a 0 v P ~~ ,. .~, w ~. ~ - _~ - -- - - - ~ - ;- II71 s~.lit~T ~~C~~1S~ The Checklist portion of the Initial Study begins beloR; with explanations of each answer A " no zm' response indicates, for example, that no displacement of existing housing would occur due to the Project, because no housing units noar exist within the Project site which might need to be removed to enable the Proj act to proceed A " lesstfa~nz .sidc~u" response indicates that while thel-e inay 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 "Iesst~rszglzili~rl" Responses that indicate that the impact of the project would be " less t/arni sigsr~;'~rc~rt ultl~ ~nltig~ior~' indicate that mitigation measures, identified in the subsequent discussion, will be required as a condition of Proje~~t .approval in order to effectively reduce potential Project-related envu-onmental effects to a level of "Iesstlar~z signi~~" Environmental Factors end Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Sign'rficant Signfficant with Significant No impact Mitigation impact impact I. AESTHETICS -Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial fight or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [ ] [ /] [ J [ ~] [ ] [ ~1 [ ~] [ 1 Swig' South San Francisco's urban character is one of contrasts within a visuallywell defined setting. San Bruno Mountain to the north, the ridge along Skyline Boulevard to the west, and the San Francisco Bay to the east provide the City with distinctive edges. The CitSr is contained in almost a bowl like fashion by hills on three sides. The Cites terrain ranges from the flatlands along the water to hills east and north. 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. Much of the City's topography is rolling, resulting in aistant views from many neighborhoods. Geographically, the City is relatively small, extending appro~mately two miles in a north-south direction and about five miles from east to west. Soutri San Francisco's industrial roots are reflected in its urban character, especially in its = Dvet~ S_ Bhari~, Sadi SmzFtznzism Gametal Pl~r E.xistirgCazic'taao ~zl plcn~drglssr~, 1997, p.4-?, x±-10, 4-15. IN-TIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 101 PAGE 17 <. .: ;._ .. .. eastern parts. Almost two fifths of South San Francisco's land is occupied by industrial and warehousing uses. The Project site is located in the E ast of 101 planning sub-area of South San Francisco. The E ast of 101 area was part of the first industrial development in South San Francisco about 100 years ago. Since then, the area has undergone many transformations. Pioneering industrial uses, such as steel manufacturing, and meat pad~aging gave way to industrial park and warehousing and distribution uses that came to dominate the area in the SOs and 60s. The recent emergence of modern office buildings marks the third major wave of land use change in the area. The newly emerging office areas are ur>ique in their uses of consistent and conscious su eet tree planting, while the rest of the Cite, including dov~~town, is almost bereft of street trees. Older manufactwing uses, industrial park structw•es and tilt-up warehousing buildings can all be found in the area. Blocks are generallyvery large in size and the area has a very stark industrial look. Numerous abandoned railroad spurs are present. The Project site is located at 600-700 Dubuque Avenue Boulevard The buildings currently exist on the site. Site Description. To the east the site abuts the main railroad right-of-way serving the peninsula. To the west is U.S. Highway 101, to the north the site abuts amulti-tenant office facilitST, to the south the site abuts the Caltrain station. a) Scenic Vistas Isn~t Thr~rhrz'd ~'Sigrd. fzauz~ For the purpose of assessing impacts of a proposed. project on scenic vistas, the threshold of significance is exceeded when a project would result in the obstruction of a designated public vista, or in the placement of an arguably offensive or negative-appearing object within. such a vista Any clear conflict with a General Plan policy or other adopted planning policy rewarding scenic vistas would also be considered a potentially significant adverse environmental impact. The Project site is not located within any formally designated scenic vista Therefore, the proposed Project would have no ~~C:ton a scenic vista b) Scenic Resouses fmp~t Thr~Ixi'd c~'Sigr~fi¢na~ Any Project-related action that would substantially damage scenic resource/ (i.e., trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway), would be regarded as a significant ~vironmental impact. INITIAL STUDY / NIRIGATED NECaATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 101 PAGE 18 Y'~r 1 ...r ^- '...-r .~ .. _ _ ..... T ... The Project would have vao Amon scenic resources within a state scenic highwaS~ since it is not located on a state scenic highv~.~ay. c) Vi.~ Character Im~t Trm~Ix>'d ~Sigra, faaa~xi? The Project would have a si~ificant envu•onmental impact if it were to substantially degrade the existing visual. character or quality of the site and its sturoundings. The proposed Project would be located in an area whose visual characteristics rn~imaril~T consist of large commercial and business uses. The Project; as a large retail, office and research and development complex would zm~avethe visual character of the site or its surroundings. It would provide a more contemporary and updated building appearance and provide additional landscaping. Therefore the Project would have sso szeg rtn1da ton visual character. ~ li.iaht orGYase fns Thn~hr~d c, f Sigr~, fi¢~z~ .The Project related creation of any new source of substantial light or dare that would adversely affect day or nip ttime view in the area would be re~~arded as a significant °nvironmental impact. The Project 101 development and its surrounding grounds would involve installation of light standards at various locations on the site. Lighting designs should employfi~ures that would cast light in a downward direction, and building materials should not be sources of substantial glare. If this is done, the amount of light and glare emanating from the Project site would be considered Tess tlauvi srgni,,Fic~nrt. N o sources of daytime glare would be associated with the Proj act. Environmental Factors and Focused Duestions for Potentially Less Then Less Than Determination of Environmental impact Significant Signfficamt with 5sgnificsrt Nc Impact Mitigation impact impact Il. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: to determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the Califomia Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, to non- aaricultural use? INITIAL STUD:' / Mn"IGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 7Dl • PAGE '19 .. _ ..: :. ~_.r ~.~ - -~r~~=.~ .a s ... .......:. w._ ._. _... Environmental Factors end Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Signfficant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, ( j ( j ( j (~/j or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing ( 1 ( 1 ( j (~,e'1 environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? a) Coaiveliting Pais Famm~at~. The Project area is in the midst of an urban area that has already been d.,welop°cl in a min of residential and commercial uses. No Prime Farnilands, Unique Farmlands or Farmlands of Statewide Importance have been identified at the Project site. Project development would not result in the conversion of any Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmlands or Farmlands of Statewide Importance to non-a~ icultural uses. Tn) Cor~3ict wiithAgricuh~t'~ ~orring There are no areas in the vicinity of the Project site that have been zoned for a~icultural uses and no parcels near the.Projeet site are currentlyunder Williamson Act contracts. Project development would not result in the conversion of an~T land currently zoned f or a~•icultural use or in Williamson Act contracts to non-a~-icultural uses. c) Nom-Agrieullturat~3se Fas~mla~. Cozmeision The Project involves no activities that would result. in conversion of farn>land or other land in a~-icultural to non-a~icultural uses. Environmental Factors end Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant .Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Il!. A!R QUP,LITY -Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project; a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the [ 1 ( ~ ( ~ (~~ applicable air quality plan? b) Violate ahy air quality standard or contribute ( I (~'~ ( j ( substantially to are existing or projected air quality violation? INITIAL STUDY / MrrIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 101 PAGE 2O M ... . .~r,._ ._ Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determinefion of Environmental Impact Significant Signfficant wfth Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Cj Result In a CUmuiatlVBly Con5lderable net ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/~ increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ~ ~ ~ ~~ pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~~ substantial number of people? a) Co~ictwi~AirQualityPhan Sett~sia~ The analysis of the air qualitjT characteristics of South San Francisco, including its donate and meteorological patterns are derived from the Cite of South San Francisco General Plan prepared in 1997, supplemented by the Bay Area Ait' Qualit~T Management District (BAAQMD) CE QA Guidelines 3 Additional information, such as air quality data for the year's 1993 through 1996, and the current status of Bay Area air quaIit~Twith regard to federal standards, was obtained from the BAAQMD Office of Public Information, and its E duration Division.y I~rr~~ The project is not in conflict with nor obstructs implementation of any applicable air qualit~T plan. Therefore, there would be'so rnzfrom the project on those plans. b) t~ir Quality star~€ia~s sag The San Francisco Bay Air Basin is currently designated as an "attainment" area for federal standards for carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur' dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and is designated as "non-attainment-unclassified" for federal ozone and particulate matter (PM-10) standards. Under' state standards, the region also has "attainment" status for CO, SO2, and NO2, but is "non-attainment" for the state PM-10 standard For fine-particulate matter (PM-2,5) national standards, the BayArea is also "non-attainment-unclassified"' The BAAQMD operates several air - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make det~;nar;ons regarduzg specific air quality impacts. 3 Bay Area Air QualitS~Manaa~nent District; April 1996, &AAQMD CEQr Gtatl~i~. Ass~risgtZ~Air•Ou~ii.7~Ins q~Prg''e1s ~nzZPkn~. 4 Bay Area Air QualitSrManagement District: Szmaazm~q`AirPdlzdirnzintk~BavA~~ individual sheers for 199>-1999; and various Press Releases, Ofiice of Public Information, E duration Division; August 1997 through JanuanJ 2UU1. - Bay Area Air Quality Management District, "Bay AreaAttairunent Status" April 1999 (obtained at B~=.AQMD website vawv,Tbaacgndgov). INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 10'1 PAGE Z1 ., _.:a .._ ..: ~ ~~ ... .. vF ~y+.4 affix _xF+S ~ .ems?,~ 'a""-' r ~;, ~. fit:. -~ .. :'.~ .. ~ -fir- •~ *?*':-: qualit~T monitoring stations throughout the Bay Area to measure air qualitST and to assess progress on meeting the state and federal standards. Inapr~^t Thr~lxz'a'c~Sig~~f~nx~ The BAAQMD considers projects which generate over 550 pounds per' da~T of CO, or 80 pounds per day of reactive organic gases (ROG, which contributes to the formation of ozone), nitrogen oxides (NO,;, such as NOS), or PM-10 as having significant dish and cw~ri~air quality impacts <i.e., contributing substantiallyto the current exceedances of air ~n'standards for ozone and PM-10). Consistent with CE QA, BAAQMD requires all phases of a project to be evaluated for potential impacts, including impacts associated with construction activity (grading, exhaust from construction equipment, and any rewired demolition) and with the operation of the completed project (related to vehicle exhaust or stationary sources such as from industrial sources). BAAQMD regards emissions of PM-10 and other pollutants from construction activit~T to be less than significant if dust and particulate control meastu es are implemented, instead of requiring quantitative analysis of construction actitnt~~ to deternvne significance ~ IMpgCT 1: ~ecgsation of particulate 1Vdalzter. Conversion of the Project 101 development would have short-term air quality effects, primarily due to the generation of particulate matter (PM-10). PM-10 is normalljT generated by diesel construction vehicles and equipment, the disturbance of soils through excavation and grading, construction vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces and the tracking of soils onto paved roads. Failure to i-nplement ..appropriate dust control measures would be a~tent~.,,~~c~rter~~z-~sme~ur~Z unfit, and would be inconsistent with the current Clean Air Plan. r MITIGA'~ION MEASg3RE ~: Dust Cor~utMeasulti°s. The BAAQMD's CEQA Gur~ir~ (1999) acknowledges that construction activity emissions vary markedly from project to project, from dayto day, and from one contractor to another. Rather than focus on a quantification of project-related emissions, the BAAQMD has developed a menu of mitigation options to control construction activity dust emissions, The BAAQMD (1999) considers implementation of all applicable dust control measures (which vary according to project magnitude) as recluang project-r~.ated particulate (Plvlly emissions to less-.,han- significant levels. These measures are grouped into three categories as follows: "Basic Control Measures" applyto all construction sites. • "Enhanced Control Measures" apply to sites greater than four acres. d "Optional Control Measures" apply to larger sites near sensitive receptors. Based on the project's 10.86 acre size, implementation of the Basic and E nhanced Control Measure; listed b-~lowwould maintain proje`.t construction-relate3 impacts at a lesstf.~ sra~zif7cr.~rtlevel. INITIA: STUDY / MRIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 101 PAGc 22 ::. ,y ~'~.' Construction equipment emits carbon monoxide and ozone precursors during combustion of diesel fuel. The BAAQMD's detemvnation, however, is that these emissions have been included in the emissions inventory; which was the basis for the 1997 Clean Air Plan and subsequent air quality plans. Since the BAAQMD does not consider construction-related exhaust emissions to be "new" emissions, they would not impede attainment or n-iaintenance of ozone or CO standards in the air basin (BAAQMD, 1999). Therefore, temporary increases in exhaust emissions would be considered lesst~i szgriifzcm~t. The following measure will be required during project construction to reduce construction emissions to a lesst~i si~,mfu'GVrtlevel: Construction activities must complywith the "Basic Control Measures" and "Enhanced Control Measures" for dust emissions as outlined in the BAAQMD CE QA Guidelines. These requirements are listed as follows: ~' Basrc Ca~tya'111es • Water all active construction areas at least .twice daily. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose debris or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard • Pave, applywater three times daily, or apply (non-to~c) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, pazl~ing areas, and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep daily (with water sweep°<-s) all paved access roads, pazking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily (with water. sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. 2 ~~~~cedClYfe~sraes • Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil .stabilizers to inactive construction azeas ~~reviously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). • Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil .binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. E Replan- vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. The imp°rrientation o` lv~i~garfti~i li~eastu~ ~ would reduce the impa~ of dust from construction of the Project tc aievei of te.~ t.~sgrai!~stucrtl.~rrsi~ig~ior~ INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 10" • PAGE Z3 ~~~~~ ~ _ ,. - -_ :- _ _, _ a c) ~turnilative Air Quality E ffects Isn Tl~sht~'d c,~'Sig~, fiaarr~ The Project's impact would be significant if it ~~uld result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable f ederal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors), The conversion of the 236,110 square-foot retail, office and research and development the Project would result in a net newtraffic increase of 50 daily trips, 124 A.M. peak hour trips and 82 P.M. peak hour trips. Air emissions ina•eases associated with the proposed project would be considered Less tla~~ sigsai,,~ie~rtsince the size of the proposed project would not exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) threshold levels for potential significance. The BAAQMD threshold Ievel for potential significance for office park use is 210,000 square feet or 2;000 vehicle trips per day for any use. Under this project size or traffic volume, a derailed air qualit~T analysis i`5 not required unless warranted by the speafic nature of the project or project setting. Based on the project sizeandproject-related traffic increases, an air qualit~~ impact assessment would not need to be prepared and submitted to the BAAQMD for review tl? Exix~suie of Sensitive Rece~IGots to Sul~starrti~ Polbrtio~ Co~ert~atior~ Set~ig The BAAQMD defines exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contam;nants and risk of acsdental releases of acutely hazardous materials (AHMs) as potential adverse environmental impacts. Examples of sensitive receptors include schools, hospitals, residential areas with children, and convalescent faalities. Im~a:t Tl~~lxa'd tf Sigr{ifraatx~ The threshold of si~~ificance for toxic air contaminants is reached if the probabilitST of contracting cancer for the MaxirnallyExnosed Individual (MEI) exceeds 10 in one million. The presence of AHMs near sensitive receptors maybe considered a significant impact if the potential exposure exceeds state guidelines as determined by the L ead Agency in consultation with the County of San Mateo Health Services Agensy. The impact may also be cumulative if it contribute; to a potential exposure to sensitive receptors. Disturbance of soil contam;nated with AHMs as a result of .construction may also be significant. Construction-related air quality impacts are highly localized in nature. Thus, a one block radius is an adequate distance within which to consider potential impacts to sensitive receptors due to construction. The implementation of 1V.iitigatioa~lviea.~we ~ (Dust Control Measures} to m;n;m;~e disturbance of the on-site soils and generation a dust frorr_: t_he site during construction, combined with any otl?e- requLreme:~ts of a Site Management Plan for controlling airborne dust, would reduce the potential INITIAL STUDY/ MrrIGATED NEGATIVE DCvLARATION - PROJECT 10'! PAGE 24 _ ~ ,_ wn r for exposure of sensitive receptors to au-borne particles or pollutants during construction activity to a level of less tla~i szeiccazt u,~`!a mitig~m. e) Odcns Settx~ig There are currently no odor-generating activities at the Project site. fines Tkir~l~a'd c, f Sig~afi¢nxi? The BAAQMD defines public exposure to offensive odors as a potentially significant impact. Potential odor impacts are based on a List of speclfic typ°s of faalities, such as wastewater" treatment plants, landfills, refineries, etc. There are no existing sources of offensive odors located in the vicinity of the Project site and none would be exp°cted to exrfst as part of the Project. Therefore, the Project would have sso rmpr~t related to the creation of odors. Environmental Factors end Focused Duestions for Potentially Less Than Less Then Determination of Environmental impact Significant Significant with Significant No Imnact Mitioation imoact Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the Froject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly ( ] ( ] ( ] (~] or through habitat modffications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Calrfornia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ( ] ( ] ( ] [ ~'] riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identffied in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U5 Fish and Wildl'rfe Service? c) Have a substantia- adverse effect on federally ( ] ( ] ( ] (e ] protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) interfere substantially with the movement of any ( ] [ ] [ ] (~] native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ( ] [ ~] [ ] [ ] protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? INITIA: STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIOt`~ PROJECT 10". PAGE Z5 ....-:.. ..} ~T.+t3i...1s^~}~~Fjx.~Vr4T~ "G'i ~~ ~~y +yW,.t .. _ .. ... _ ,... w .~ 9`~'"` r r Icy Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Then Less Then Determination of Environmental Impact Signfficant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted [ ] [ ~] [ ] [ ] Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Iteu;~ a) tlmough d) Impr.~t Project 101 faalitS~would be located in a commercial area, on a site that has already been largely developed The Project would have noun~ton any endangered, threatened or rare speaes or thee- habitats, or to any federall~T protected wetlands or wildlife corridors. Ite>a>~ e) as>~. fj Sez~ig The Project site is surrounded byvarious types of landscaping, including lo~Tground covers, assorted shrub types and small to large trees. 1m~rt 17n~rlxlyd ~ Sigviif~r~: The Project would not have any impact bemuse it does not conflict with arty local policies or ordinances prote~~ting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Environmental Factors end Focused Gtuestions for Potentially Less Than -Less Than Determination of Environmental impact Significant Signfficant with .Significant No impact Mtigation Impact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ~ ] [ ] (~] ( ] significance of a historical resource as defined in §15004.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [ ] [ E/] [ ] [ ] significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ~] paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ~] interred outside of formal cemeteries? INITIAL STUDY / Mn"IGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 10 i ~ PAGE 26 .,.. ~r._-a.- _ ._ ~ '~' ~r~ t ,-. , _ _ 4,. a) gIistorieaLResources Im~t Thr~Ixi'd c~Sig~tif~nze 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. The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resow•ce as defined in § 15064.5, since the existing building shell on site has no historical value. The proje,.~t would have saoxsn b) Aichaeologicat Resou~es fm~xt Tl~lxi'd c~'Si~fi~u~ The Project would have a significant environmental.impact if it were to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in § 15064.5. The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in § 15064.5, since no grading is to occur on site. The project would have no rrn c) Paleoirtoloaicat Resources/ gJrrigrue ~ eolc~ie F eatures fm~t Thj~rlxr'd g~'Sig~~na~ The Project wouldhave a significant environmental impact if it were to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or .site or unique geologic feature. No unique paleontological or geologic features have bin nor are expecrted to be identified az the Project site. Therefore, the Project would be exp~ted to have s~oisnpr~on pal~ntological resources and unique geologic features. d) Distu~iuan.^e o~I~t~az~Reu>~.in`; fm~t 1 IJ1~f:KrdCf Sigl~D~ The Project would nave a significant envirorunental impact if it were to result in the disturbance of any human remains, No human rema;n.c have been identified at the Project site. However, if such remains are encountered during site preparation associated with the construction of the Project 101 development, all work shall be halted in the vicinitS~, and the San Mateo County Coroner shall be informed to determine if an investigation of the cause of death is required, and to determine ilr the rema;n.s are of N ative American origin. If such retnait~.s are of IV ative American origin, the nearer tribal relatives as determined by the state Native Amel7can Heritage Commission shall be contacte~' to obtain recommendations for treating or remova' of such remain, including grave goods, with appropriate dignity, as required under Public Resotu-ces Cod° Section 5097.98. This would reduce the potential impact associated with the ciiscoverST of human re_ma;nc a~ the Project site to a Ieve; of INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 101 ~ PAGE Z7 Environmental Factors and Focused questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental impact Significant Significant wfth Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 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, as ( ] ( ] (~~ delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ( ] ( ] (~]] ( ] iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ( ] ( ] ( ] (.s'] liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ( ~ ~ ] ( ] (~] b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ( ] ( ] ~ ] ~ ~] tOp5011? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ( ] ( ] ~ ~!] ( ] unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- oroff-site.landsfide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in ( ] ( ] (i/] ( ] 'Cable 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting ( ] ( ] ( ] (~] the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Set.~iig The relative stability and composition of different types of soils can contributeto 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. The Project site is located within the Upland Zone, at an altitude of a few feet above mean sea level. Dyet ~ Bnatia, Sad); ScmFtzazisra G~i Plan: F'xistsrg Cazli'tic~s ~Plc~~t'glsz~, 1997. INrrIAL STUD" !MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIOIc PROJECT 10 i • PAGE Z8 ".e2 ...,3 ~ _ y„ _ _ _...._ The Upland Zone is comprised of gently to moderately sloping areas located throughout the central south central, and eastern portions of the City, generall3T between 30 .and 200 feet above mean sea level, and between Sign Hill and the southern. flank of .San Bruno Mountain. Slopes are commonly betweec~ 3 and 15 percent gradient. This zone includes the alluvial plain of Colma Creek, which bisects the area from northwest to southeast. City r~ords suggest the site soils consists primarily of the Colma soil formation and alluvium for a former cxeek channel: The Colma Formation (designated Qc on geologic maps) 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 E ra. It generally pro~ndes good foundation conditions and earthquake stability when not disturbed b~~ artifiaaI cuts, which tend to erode and cause gullying. ~~•ery minor portions of the building exterior and interiors-would be demolished and removed. as part of the Project. The total building footprint would be approidmately 200,000 square feet and would accommodate retail, offices and research faalities. The existing parking areas and access roads would be reconf aQLU•ed and upgraded. A geotechnical investigation was not prepared for the project. City records indicate that the site is subject to moderately high shaking amplification during a seismic event with variable to moderate liquefaction potential. A report may be required by the Building Official if the project involves seismic strena herring as part of the individual tenant remodeling and utility trenching. a~;`) ~ xposlue of People otr Stsuctutes to K~Iw~ E artl~gruake >< aault Swig The major active faults in the area are the San Andreas and Hayward Faults, at distances of about five and 28 kilometers from tlhe site re~~--ti-ve1y. Ire 1868 an earihquai~e wiil-i an estimated Pvlorrient 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 1999, the tiVorking Group on California Earthquake Probabilities at the United States Geologic Surveypredicted a 70 percent probabilit~~ of a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake occurring in the San Francisco BaS~ Area by 2030. fm~a~-l Thrarl~a'd g`Sigrdfi The Project would have a si~~ificant environmental impact if it were to exp~~se people or swetures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with the rupture of known earthquake fault. INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 10'i P AGE 29 r The Project site is not within an E arthquake Fault Zone, as defined bythe Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and no known active or potentially active faults exist on the site. Therefore, the risk of surface faulting is considered to be Iesst~ szgrzl,,fic~ a~ii) ~xlOC~sLUe of"People orStntctutes to Strom Seismic S1t~at~ir~ Is~a Thr~sTx~'d ~Sigv~, fi~a~ The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground shaking, The proposed Project 101 development would be occupied by tenants, who would be exposed to adverse effects related to seismic ground shaking. City records indicate that the site is subject to moderately high shaking amplification during a seismic event with variable to moderate liquefaction potential. Conformance to the Uniform Building Code and CAL-OSHA requirements will maintain the impacts at a level less than significant. a~iir7 Seismic-Reiateci. ~rotmcl Fa'h"~~ Ir~$idi~~g F,iquefactiara fm ?7~Ix~'cl c~Sigr~ifiatn~ The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose F~ple or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Soil liquefaction is typically caused by strong vibratorST motion due to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that soil liquefaction occurs in saturated, loose granular soil (rn-imariiyfine to medium grained clean sand deposits) durir~ 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 suppart, lateral spreading, sand boils and areal and differential settlements. Saturated, cohesionless soil can liquefy as it exp-,..riences a temporary loss of shear strength due to a transient i~se in excess pore pressure generated by strong ground motion. Cit~T records indicate that the site is subject to moderately high shaking amplification during a seismic event with variable to moderate liquefaction potential. ~lvle liquefaction is a concern at the project site the buildings have existed for a number of years with no apparent damage to seismically induced liquefaction. Nv srQ~i,,~~r~txmprr~t related to liquefaction induced settlement and lateral spreading at the Project site is anticipated. INITIAL STUDY / MrrIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 1 O i • PAGE 3D r _ . _...: .. ~... .. .. - :. i~t - _.. .. . ., .. .. ... ~ c: .. '... ..... ". a~iv) E ~oslue Qf People oa- Stcucttues to ~, aa~ds)iicies Im~t Tl.~ha.d' gF'Sig~~furaix~ -The Project would have a signific~xit environmental unpact if it were located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide; lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. The Project site is located on land that is relatively flat, but that is sloped slightly near its western boundary. The risk of landsliding on the Project site is considered no isn~~ b) Substarrtiai Srn1 ~ nosion o~ Loss o~€T opsoii Im~t Thi~slx>'d c~'Sigrrifiauxi? The Project would result in a significant environmental impact if it were to result in substantial. soil erosion or in the loss of topsoil. Site soils are covered with either asphalt paving or concrete and have no exposure to water or wind erosion forces, though temporary erosion may occur during construction. However, standard erosion control measures can be employed to reduce this erosion to negligible levels during construction. Local jurisdictional rules governing erosion protection should be followed during construction in order to ensure no~~tfrom the Project. c) Urntable Geological Cciriditio~ Im,~t Thrz_slxi'd g~'Sig~~ The Project would have a significant .environmental impact if looted on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence; liquefaction or collapse cri-ong ground shakinb ~n cai;se unsai~•ated sand above the gro',z~~dwater table to densu~y and settle. Seismically induced settlements have not occurred in the past. This would be a desstlarai sra~~ impact of the Proje.~-t. The potential for subsidence to occur. at the site is considered to be low; as the site has not been subject to fluid withdrawal. cl} Eive Scrijs fmtx~` ;''I~~s'Ixz'dgF'Sigr~, fiana~ The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property. The Project site due to its :.lose proximity to San Francisco Bay is likely subject to expansive surface soil due to volume changes m gyring s~~ fluctuations in moisture content. -These volume chances INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 10 i • PAGE 31 ~.. 2 iV~/ •~~,. .. . a I!-r!.. can cause foundation and floor slab crad~ing. Parking lots should be desired to accommodate moderately expansive residual soil. Adherence to standard design standards and construction techniques would reduce the impact of expansive soils to a level of less tlx~i sigrir, fug e) Soijs LTrisuitable forS~ic ~'at;iirs fm~t Thrz:slx~d g~'Sig~fzanz~ The Proj ect would have a sigrvficant environmental impact if it involved construction of septic systems in soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanl~ or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The Project 101 development involves no septic sS~tems are proposed at the Project site, representing Sao Environmental Factors and Focused questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental impact Significant Signfficant wfth Significant No impact Mitigation impact impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - , Would the Project: a) Create a signfficant hazard to the public or the ( j (~j ( j ( environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ( j ( ~ (~/~ ( environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous ( j ( ~ ( ~ (~] 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 fist ( j ( ~ ( j (~j of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a .result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a Project located within an airport land use ( ~ ( ~ ( ~ (~j plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? f': nor a Project within the vicinity of a private ( j ( 1 ( ~ (~~ airstrip, would the Proje~i result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIDr:' PROJECT 1 O i ~ PAGE 32 , i t 7.W .S. .. "~ L ~y~ .; Environmental Factors and Focusad Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Then Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant wRh Significant No Im act Miti ation Im act ) I Im act g mpair implementation of or physically interfere ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ with an adopted emergency response plan or ~ ~~ emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j of foss, injury or death involving wildland fires, ~ ~~ .including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a) Trlazaittous Mate,>r~als fm~c:t 7'hr~slx>Td gF'Sig>~_ franxi? The Project would have a si~vficant envirorunental impact. if it were to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. ~ IIVFPACT 2 :Use, ~'~ u~ Dss~al ~~~~ ~ate~ials. Research and development facilitST operations at the Project site upon occupancy of the proposed buildings would likelS~ involve the use, transport and disposal of materials-that would be considered hazardous if not handled appropriately. This would be ae~r~'si,~C~rt~of the Project. ~ MITIGATI©I~ 11~FEASURE 2 Adze to Establis;l>~ Flancllir.>~ I'mto`o~. The proposed Project would adhere to the Uniform Building Code's reb~ulations applicable to office-type land uses, The use of potentially hazardous materials would follow established safety protocols, and materials to be disposed of would be collated in appropriate containers. These materials would then be transported away from the Project site by licensed waste coIlection a~.enaes. This would reduce the impact of use, transport and disposal of hazardous materials to a level of lesstlx~i ,r~8 r~c~x~h m~~ b) Upset arr~ Acci~ CorYiiii~iox~ fmp,~t 77~Ixird cf Sigrufr.~nzi? The Project would have a significant environmental irripact if it w~'e to aeate a significant hazard to the public or the envirorunent through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Research and development operations a~ the Project site would IikelS%involve the use, transport and disposal of materials that would be considered hazardous if not handled appropriately. In sucl-. an environm~t. there is some potential for accidents to occur. implementatior_ of Mitigation Measure INrrIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 101 P AGE 3. .: ~._ ..: ~ ~ T+ 5 above would help prevent such an occurrence, limiting the unpact of the Project site to a level of Iesst/.~i sigr~ c) ~azanious Marte>lials amt. Sel~ols fin-t Thrrslx~d cf Sig~ificrara~ The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to emit 1-iazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a quarter nvle of an existing or proposed school. The project would have 9so ~ rr~en~dr tsn~:t on a school, since the Project site is not located witrin one-quarter mile of any existing or proposed school. ci} Cortese List ofI~azatdous Matetiais Sites fm~t Thrz~lxzd cf Si~tifi~aer The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located on a site wluch is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.7 ("Cortese List"). The Project site is not listed on a Cortese List of hazardous materials sites.' Therefore, no mz1tx.~tsare anticipated e/ f) Safety J~ azaids Due to N ea~~ Aiipoit or Aits-bip fmpix~ 7~rJxi'd cf Sigvafi+~ The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were located within an airport .land use plan (or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport) if it would result in a safetST hazard for people residing or working in the Project area, or if it were located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, if it would result in a saf ety hazard f or .people residing or working in the Proj ect .area. The Project site is located within about 1.5 miles from San Francisco International Airport. The site is currently developed and has been used before byuses proposed as part of the Project. Development of the Project site as proposed would not create any inordinate aviation-related safet~~ hazard above and beyond that which exists currently in the CitST of South San Francisco in the area around San Francisco Intemational Airport. Therefore the Project would represent no pm~-tfor people working at the site. INITI:;= STUDY ,' MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 101 ~ PAGE 34 ".... ~ Cor~ict with ~ mezges~y Respoizse Phn or E >~ges~y ~ vaeuation P}at~ finest Ti'.n~slxi'd g`Sigru The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to impair- implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The development at the Project site would not interfere with and therefore have rso meson the implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or emergencS~ evac~ ~ar;on plan. h) E~sute ol~People o>" Stauctutes to Wilctiarxi. Fires pmt T7~ha?d ~'Sigrtifiaaxi? The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it was to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The Project would have noun~trelated to wildland fires since the site is located in a built out industrial area and not dose to wildland areas. Environmental Factors and Focused Duestions for potentially Less Than Less Then Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Im act Miti ation Im act im act VI1l. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits nave been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in .substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount at surface runoff in a manna;,which would result in flooding on- or off-sits? [ l [ ~] [ ~] [ l [ ] [ /] [ ] [ ~] INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 101 • PAGE 35 ,... _ ,,. - ~~.r,.M,.. ,_ Environmental Factors and Focused questions for Determination of Environmental Impact e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mkipation Impact Impact g) Place housing within a 10D-year flood hazard ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/] area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Niap or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year fiood hazard area ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ structures, which would impede or redirect flood fIDWS? i) Expose people or structures~to a significant risk ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Set~mg Colma Creek, the City's main natural drainage system, is a p°reru-ual stream with a water shed of about 16.3 square miles that trends in a roughl~T 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 b~T San Bnino 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 loan rid2Qe at the northern boundarST of the area The valley enclosed by the ridges widens toward the southeast where it drains into San Francisco Bay. a} Vio}ation of Water Qua~Ii~T Starx3a~s or V~aste ~isc~uge ~~~;nw~rv~~ Im~t~ ThrarTxz'dc~Sigr~f~nxi? The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in any violation of existing water qualitST standards or waste discharge requirements. The Project would not violate anvwater qualit~T standards or waste discharge requirements, thereb~% presenting no xm INrrIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 101 PAGE 36 _.. .. r,..._., _... -:. s.,1~:- M .. ._,. ~ L. _. _. ,, _l.-a .. - w .. ..._ -, b) Deplete orlntesfere Substai>~allywittpGrouxxiwate~r Im~t Th~~rlxi'dgF'Sig~fiana~ The Proje~~-t would have a significant environmental impact if it substantially depletes gioundvvater supplies or interfere substantiallywith groundv~ater recharge such that there would be a net defiat in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The proposed Project would be located in an urban area and would receive its water supply- from existing local infrastruetw-e, the<-eb3~ not depleting the local groundwater supply. The project site is alread~T developed except for the rail spur at the rear of the site. The conversion of the rail spur to a drive aisle is such a small area that it would not impede recharging of local groundwater. However, since groundwater resources are not used in this area, this impact would be lesstla~ sz~~~~.e~o~ c) After E Foisting Dra'~ge Patterns/ E msian anri. Station ~ fleets drn~t Thrz~lx~d c,)FSig~~ The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation. The development would be built largely on an already developed site in an urban area There would be no r~n~trelated to altered drainage patterns or siltation at the Project site. d) Alter E ~ Drainage Patten~s/ ~Ioodaa~g E ffects fns Tl~lx.~d~'Sigr~ifi~ The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. The Project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, but would not substantially increase the a*nount of Surface runoff. The conversion of the rail Spur at there ur of td2e Site, adjac~t to uhe main peninsula rail line would be filled and elevated to provide a vehicle dove aisle. This .action would fill an area that is subject to the 104-year flood However, the development would be required to collect all on-site ivnoff and any off-site run off causing the flooding of the rail spur into a drainage system and transport the runoff to the CitSrs storm drainage faalities. This action will Piiminate a portion of the 100 year flood plain. Therefore, sto ~.~se rm~t urr7l~:cu~- related to increased surface runoff. INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 10 i PAC= 37 _ ._ - e) Ru~~Eacceediir~ Dom' ~e Systeaz Capaei~ty/Ise Pollnrted Rurl ~ift,~t TI~Jx~dg~'Sigrafzanx~ The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ~paatST of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. ® IMPACT ~ Irx~esed ElvsiarLD~,rir~g Construetiots. The soils at the Project site may be susceptible to erosion during construction activities when soils are disturbed This represents aprr~e~rtr~j~sxd~i, ficrar~rrn~t~artassociated with the proposed Project. ~ MITIGATION MEASURE ~ E nosiot~ Cormvl M ea,~ues. The applicant shall submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an Erosion Control-Plan to the City Engineer prior to the commencement of any grading or construction of the proposed Project. The SWPPP shall include storm water pollution control devices and filters to be installed to prevent pollutants from entering the CitSrs storm drain system and San Francesco Bay. The Plan shall be subject to revieR~ and approval of the City Engineer and the Cites Storm Water Coordinator. The Project applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that all .contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures, and for the implementation of such measures. ;Failure to complywith the approved construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations or a project stop order. Plans for the Project shall include erosion control measures to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system, in accordance with the reb~ulations outlined in the .Association of BayArea Governments Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce the Project's impact to a level of less tlaGVS sidm~c~rt u,~lamu'ig~i%orr ~ Oti~vise Degrade Wa~te>i Quality Imp~-t 77~Ix~'d gFSigru, f~ The Project would have a significant envirorunental impact if it were to degrade water quality. The development would slightly increase the amount of imp°rvious surface area on the Project site through the replacement of the rail spur at the rear of the site with a drive aisle.l~%a r~c~:t to water quality from point source vaater pollution since the applicant would be required to collect all on-site runoff il~ a drainage system that conforms to the Clean Water Act Best Management Practice;.. INfTIAL STUDY / NlrriGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIOt PROJECT 10 ~ • FAGE 38 _, .. r._ ...~y..~..- - _~ „ _ .~ _ , .; _ _ •-- :.._ .. ,... .. ..z. - - - - g) PIlace I~ousiing iithiir~A 100-Year-P1ood.I-Iazatt~Area. Imt Th»s1aa'd g`'Sigrd, fiaarx.~ The Project would have a significant envu-onmental impact if it were to place any housing units within a designated 10U-year flood hazard area. 1'+'o pmm'would occur from placing housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, since the Project does not entail the construction of any housing units, h) Place Structures ~~l~icl~~ould Impede orReciitect Flood Flows Imt Tl~lxi'd g~Sigrdfianze The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it placed any structures in.a manner, which would impede or redirect flood flows. IMPACT 4: 100 YearFloodug. ApproximateljT 50% of the site is situated in flood hazard Z one B of the 100-year flood plain (FE MA Flood Insurance Rate Map of South San Francisco Corninunit~TPanel Number 065062 0002 B Effective Date 02 Sep 81). Zone B represents areas that are subject to flooding to a depth of 1 foot. In addition, a very small portion of the Project site, the rail spur at the rear of the building adjacent to the main penir~.sula rail line, is located in a 100-year flood hazard Zone Afi. Zone A is subject to flooding in depths greater than 1 foot. Tl-ie Project includes filling in the rail spur, raising the elevation of the road bed and constructing a vehicle drive aisle, thereby Piiminating the area subject flooding. The proposed action would potentially redirect flood flow onto adjoining prop°i-ties causing a .riec~rtrm~t.. IvfITIOATION iVIIASLTRE ~. 'Prior to the issuance of the grading permit to fill-in the rail spur or the building p°rmit the applicant shall determine the cause of flooding and include in the construction plans a drainage collection system to eliminate the flooding and provide flood resistance to the existing structuures. The plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the Cin~s CitS-Engineer and Chief Building Official. With implementation of the mitigation measure, the impacts would be reduced to alesstlaraz .sr~prri,~u.~rt Ier,~l i[~ Expose People orStruch~ to Floxiinlg >~azan~,~ Imltar~ Thr~rixi'd gF'Si~, f The Project would have a significant environmental. impact if it were to result in the exposure of people or structures to flooding hazards. s Brad,.- and Asso~ates, Ecsr g`I01 A razPk~y adopted. july 199 ~, p.lOC. INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE Dc-CLARATION PROJECT 1 O'! ~ FAGE 39 - .F 't '-ti 4 ..E., I. at .... _ .s ~u.JB`A~~ j. .. IMPACT' S: EIS Approximately 50°ro of the site is situated in flood hazard Zone B of the 104-year flood plain (FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map of South San Francisco Community Panel Number 065062 0002 B Effective Date 02 Sep 81). Zone B represents areas that are subject to flooding to a depth of 1 foot. In addition, a very small portion of the Project site, the rail spur at the rear of the building adjacent to the main peninsula rail line, is located in a 104- year flood hazard Z one A~. Z one A is subject to flooding in depths greater than 1 foot. The Project includes filling in the rail spur, raising the elevation of the road bed and constructing a vehicle drive aisle, thereb~T eliminating the area subject flooding. However, the flooding impacts would remain .sza~,~zc,~,tunless corrected MITIGATION MEASURE ~. Prior to the issuance of the grading p°rmit to fill-in the rail spur or the building permit the applicant shall determine the cause of flooding and include in the construction plans a drainage collection system to Plirninate the flooding and provide flood resistance to the existing structures. The plans shall be subjel~t to the review and approval of the City'S Cit~TEngineer and ClueF Building Official with implementation of the mitia°ation measwes the Project site would not expose any people or structures to flooding hazards and therefore the ~n~" uarddbe ~dr.~cedto alec~lless tlxaz sib, j} Irniionb~T Seiicl~, T suss orMudflo~ Isn Tl~,z~.~'d c~Sigr~~x~ The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in the exposure of pimple or structures to hazards from seiche, .tsunami or mudflov~T The Project would not expose any people or structures to hazards from seiche, tsunami or mudflow and theref ore would have szo rm Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Determination of Environmental impact Significant Impact Less Than Less Then Significant with , Significant No Mffigation impact Impact IX. LAND U5E AND PLANNING -Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established community? ( ] [ ] [ ] [ ~] b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ~] policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, spec'rfic plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating are environmental effect? c} Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ( 1 _ ] [ 1 [ ~ `] plan or natural communit~l conservation plan? ~ ~ra~=anti assa:iate., E~ g.1~J1 ~i raaPt~~, adopted3~~' 1994: p.106. Ih:(TIP._ ~TUny /MITIGATED N GATIVE ~~: ;ARATION F'ROJEC- 70 ° i'AGC 4~ mFY awFr .. . _ .. Environmental Factors and Focused puestions for Potentially Less Than Less Then Determination of Environmental Impact Significant .Significant wkh Significant No Im act Mftioation im act Impact S'~ South San Francisco has a distinctive land use pattern that reflects the derision to initiallylocate industrial areas east of supporting homes and businesses in ordet• to take advantage of topographST and winds on Point San Bruno. Another development trend that shaped the arrangement of uses was the extensive residential development that occurred. ri"ring 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 arenas, with industry in the eastern and southeastern portions of the City, single family homes to the north and west, commerceal .uses along a feRT transportation corridors, and multiple family housing clustered in those same corridors and on lvllsides. During the 1950s, the City of South San Francisco converted previously unused marshlands into areas usable for industrial development, drasticallyreshapingtha shoreline and attracting Light industry to the City for the first time. Plans were announced in 1963 fora 600-acre industrial park adjacent to the newly developed py~te~-Point Marina. This industrial park was South San Francisco's first industrial development to incorporate comprehensive planning, integrated design and performance provisions, and featured a 0.~ Floor Area Ratio. It supplied ample parking and consistent landscaping and building design. In some ways a microcosm of American industry, South San Francisco has been ma]~ing a slov,- industrial transformation for the past 30 years. Steel production and other heavyindustries have largely been replaced bywarehousing, rc-sear-ch, development .and biotechnology. Beo~use the Cites industrial base has continued to evolve as the context for industry has changed., industry will continue to play and important role in South San Francsco's future, The City's continued status a5 a goods transportation hub, stemming mainly from pro~mity to San Francesco International Airport, is reflected in the presence of large tracts of land, fornlerly used for h~~y indus~uy, east of US 101. As hid technolob %businessp have moved into marl}' of tl-iese older industrial areas, conflicts, such as bete automobile and truck traffic, and land use and visual character have become increasingly pronounced. The needs of business centers include, smaller blocks, more through street. connections, ancillarST facilities such as restaurants, easier connections to transit, sidev,~all~s and bikeways and higher landscape standards. These needs are much different than those of warehousing and industrial areas, The City attempts to balance regional growth objectives with conservation of residential and industrial neighborhoods. The E ast of 101 Area Plan, adopted in 1994, was prepared to max,'mi,e the ~tential of undeveloped or underused properties in the City's traditional industrial east of U.S. 101. Upgrading of existing uses and provisions for qualit~T design are important components of the Plan. In addition t0 Cin= ~ South San Francisco, SadL- S~nzFrra~zisza Gaya;' Ply 1999. INITIAL STUD`' / MITIGATEDNEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 10' E PAGE 47 __. .. -- r,..,~ ~^ _. y -= ~w~~s .mss a,~x , L ~~ ~, _ „ .y ~;_ -- 1 i ...r+s to policies relating to land use dispersion, intensities, and transportation, the Plan includes a Design Element to help achieve high standard development. a) Div~idliing anEstabIisbed Co~u>nty The proposed Project would have ~ r~azrelated to the division of an established communit~~. b) Car.~ict wiitbLat~.~Tse Phi The Proj~,t site is currently zoned Planned Commercial (P-C) and is part of the "East of 101" Planning Sub-Area as defined by the City of South San Francisco General Plan. The site's General Plan designation is Business Commercal. This designation accommodates commercial environments for retail, offices and research and development facilities. All development is subject to high design and landscape standards." The proposed Project is consistent with the following General Plan polices: Policy 3.5-G-3 Promote campus style biotechnology, high technology and research and development. uses. Poficy 3.5-I-3 Do not permit any residential uses in-the East of 101 area. Policy 3.5-I-11 Do not permit any new warehousing and distribution north of East Grand Avenue or in areas designated Business Commercial. The proposed Project is consistent with the following E ast of 101 Area Plan polices: Poficy DE-13 New construction projects shall be required to supply and install street trees and landscaping to meet the City's spec'rfications for their frontages. Streetscape planting, irrigation and handscape should be designed for minimum maintenance by City staff. Selection and spacing of street trees shall be approved by the City Landscape Architect and the Director of .Parks, Recreation and Community Services. Medians should be cobbled and grouted or landscaped with low maintenance .plants with automatic irrigation. Policy DE-15 Site design should de-emphasize the visual prominence of parking areas by .separating parking areas into relatively small components and locating parking behind buildings whenever possible. The standard practice of piecing the majority of the parking between the building and the main street r'rontage should be avoided when possible. Policy DE-22 Developments in the Planned Industrial categories should include on-site open space as a unifying element and as areas for employee use. Policy DE-25 The design of front yard landscaped buffers should be integrated with that of adjacent sites. 1. If?~;_ p INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 101 • PAGE 4L - ~.4 Z ]y++ 44 - , r_°: r _ Policy DE-27 Parking lots should be shaded with trees and should also include shrubs in most cases. Trees should be planted along parking lot edges and in planters among stalls. Design policies for the number of trees and amount in shrubbery in parking lots are contained in Section D of the Design Element for the individual sand use categories. Policy DE-28 .Plant species chosen for the area should include low maintenance plants and plants adaptive to the extremes of climate in the area. In addition, plant species and planting design should complement the development's design. Policy DE-29 Lighting on the exteriors of buildings should be incorporated into the overall building and landscape design. Security and entry fights should align with, be centered on, or otherwise coordinate with the building elements. Policy DE-34 All activities and stored materials in loading, service, storage and trash disposal .areas should be screened from views from public streets, trails, adjacent properties, and overhead views from adjacent properties, by planting, berms and/or decorative walls. The screening should be integrated into the design of structures or the site landscaping, so it does not appear as an appendage added to the outside of the structure. This policy applies to all types of outdoor storage areas containing materials, supplies, or equipment, including autos, trucks and trailers. Folicy DE-37 The installation or replacement of exposed chain link fences, barbed wire, razor wire or similar material shall not be allowed in those parts of the East of 701 Area that are visible from public rights-of-way, including roads and trails. Policy DE-38 The form and location of structures, the use of building colors and materials and the selection of landscape materials and street furniture shall consider the overall context of-the Project and .promote the .development of a sense of identity for the East of 101 area. Policy DE-43 Retail, flex and industrial buildings should -not exceed 35 feet in.height. Landmark design elements should not exceed 50 feet in height. Office buildings are not subject to a height limit other than that of the. ALUC, as-outlined in Policy LU-23. Additional restrictions on building height in the Coastal Commercial category are included in Section D of the Design.Element. Exceptions to this policy may be made if warranted bya specific proposed use, orif taller building heights are included in an approved Master Plan. Policy DE-52 Rooftop mechanical equipment should be screened from view by integral architectural elements such as pitched roofs, ornamental parapets, mansards or low towers. Policy DE-56 The following additional design policies apply in Planned Industrial areas: Street Trees: Street trees should be planted within at least 30 feet of each other and should be selected to match or complement the existing pines on Allerton Avenue and portions of East Grand Avenue. Landscaoe Buffer: Landscape buffers along major arterial streets shoulc' be at least 20 fee*. wide and along other streets at least 10 feet wide. On side and rear property lines, they should be six feet wide. All iandscaping shall provide a clear connection between the street and buildings for pedestrians. INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATNE DECLARATION PROJECT 101 PAGE 43 Blank Walls: Blank building walls should be no more than 30 feet long. Longer lengths of wall should conform with Policy DE-39. Pedestrian scale is of particular importance for campus-like developments and settings. Buildina Orientation: Buildings should be oriented with a clear relationship to the street to create a sense of continuity along it. Inviting pedestrian linkages from individual buildings shall be provided. Design Guidelines: New development plans for larger campus-(ike projects should include specific design guidelines, developed as an integral. part of master planning efforts. Parking Lot Shrubs: Medians and bulbs inside the perimeters of a parking lot shall be planted. A minimum of five percent of the total parking lot area required to be landscaped shall be planted with shrubs. The proposed development would be consistent with and would not conflict with the above applicable Cit<T of South San Francisco General Plan land use policies, thereby constituting ssa aa~lerse 1ann~t e) for;<flictwithGor>~servaton~}a~a Construction of the Project would not involve the removal of anytrees or shrubs. Environmental Factors end Focused questions for Potentially Less Then Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No impact Mitigation .impact Impact Y,. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the Project a) Result in the foss of availability of a known [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ~/] mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ~/] important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Setttrrmg N o mineral resources of value to the region and the residents of the state have been identified at the Project site The Project site has not been delineated as a locally important .mineral recovery site on the CitST of South San Francisco General Plan, on any specific plan, or on any othe<- land use plan. Imp Threslx~'d y~'Sigr~fr The Project would have a si~-uficant ern~ironmental impact if it were to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, or if it were to result in the loss of availability of a Io~lly-important minera'_ resource recov~~ site delineated on a local general plan, sp.-cific plan or other land use plan. INITIAL STUDY i MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 101 ~ PAGE ...c - In The development of the Project site would not affect die availabilitS of and would have rzo rrnltr~-t on any known mineral resource, or result in the loss of availability of any locally important resource recovery site. '~orrir~g. The proposed project requires a Use Permit to allow a use generating in excess of 100 average daily trips, and to allowa 24 hour/7 day op~•ation and. off-site parking (SFMC Sections 20.024.060, 20.24.070 (a) and 20.74.120). The projet~t also requires a Transportation Demand Management Plan to reduce traffic unpacts because the project generates in excess of 100 ADT (SSFMC Chapter 20.120). The Project also requires a Variance to allowa minor reduction of approximately 12 parking spaces in conjunction with the TDM Plan to reduce traffic impacts (SSFMC Chapter 20.82). The project confornls with the above referenced SSFMC provisions. Therefore, rao impact ~ ~cut~ Environmental Factors and Focused Duestions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Signfficant Significant with Significant No Im act Mitigation im act Im ct XI. NOISE -Would the Project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) .Exposure of persons to or generation of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l /] excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ~ ~ ~ I-/] ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? e) For a Project located within an airport land use ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public USc airp0ii, VdDUId `C'IE PfoJeCt expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? Setlrrt~ Noise is generaIl3T defined as unwanted sound. Whether a sound is unwanted. depends on when and where it occurs, what the Iistene;• is doing when it occurs, characteristics of the sound (loudness, pitch and duration, speech or music content, in'eaularitST) and how intn~sive it is above background sound levels. In deternliniLng the daily level of environmental noise, it ~~ important to account for INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT '101 . PAGE 45 ~` - _ _,_ . -- ,~,.r -. -,.... _., the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than daytime levels. However, most household noise also deg eases at night and exterior noise becomes more noticeable. Further, most people sleep at night and ale very sensitive to noise intrusion. Residential and open space rea-eational uses are generally considered to benoise-sensitive uses or sensitive receptors. There are no residential uses in the project vicinity. In South San Francisco, the Noise Element of the CinYs General Plan (1999) contains land use criteria for noise-impacted areas. These criteria define the desirable ma3rimum 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 65 dBA (CNEL)'z are acceptable noise levels for commercial uses. The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapte<• 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 Planned Commercial "P-C," and the noise level standard for this zone is 65 dBA (L$~.'' Shorter periods of noise levels higher than dlese limits are allowed, but onlyfor sp°c7fied periods of time. Specifically, the standard + 5 dB for more than 15 minutes, the standard + 10 dB for snore 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, 4:00 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 Imits noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the property line. a} E ~osuxe of Pe,>:sons '~" o or ~er~ation o€ N oise J<, eveis in ~ xeess of Srar>r~att~G ~m Thres7.xZCl c, f Sig~tif~xe The Proj ect would ha~~e a si~ificant envirorunental impact if it were to result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards .established in the CitS- of South San Francisco General Plan or the City's Noise Ordinance. ~- The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit used to quantify sound intensity. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequena~ within the entire sp~tnun, human response is factr_- ed into sound descriptions in a process called "A-weightinb' written as "dBA" . CNEL: Community Noise E quivalent Level. Because communit~T receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intn~sion during the evening and at night, state iawrequires that for planning purposes, an artifiaal dB increment be added to gases time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called file Goirununit~~ N wise E quivalent Level (CNEL). 73 The noise limi*. that cannot be exceeded for more than 30 minutes in any hour (50 percent o` any given hour). INITIAL BTUt)l' 'MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 101 • PAGE 40 ... ..._ , ~- _ ~-- ,.,: ;._ ?"sz~~ Implementation of the proposed projat would increase traffic noise levels along lo~l streets due toproject-generated traffic. It is anticipated that traffic-related noise increases associated with the project would be less•tl~i signz,~due to the lowlevel of project-related traffic increases on local roadways. In general, a doubling of traffic volumes would be required to result in a 3-dBA noise increase in atraffic-dominated. noise environment, and a 3-dBA noise increase is barely p°rceptible to most .people. Project-related traffic increases on local roadways (well belo~~ a 100 percent increase) would result in traffic noise increases well below 3 dBA. ~~~~~'~y~mer~ Implementation of the proposed project mould possibly increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinitST due to op°zation of rooftop mechanical equipment by a small. amount. The noise level from a single, roof-mounted "packa~Qe° H~jAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) unit is n~ically rated. at a sound power level of 8.41~1s. The proposed complex could require a distributed system of several such units, plus smaller heat pumps, fans and other mechanical aquipment. City N oise Ordinance Iinuts maximum acoustic level to 70-dBA noise limit (no noise attenuation assumai from proposal equipment scrc-ins and roof edbae or parap/t). It is antiapatal that roof parapets and screening could reduce noise levels b5~ at least 5 dBA. Exp°rience with similar d~~~elopments suggests that ~JAC systems can be designed to cornplywith SSFMC Ordinances. The impact of the HVAC system would be considered le~s'tfa~isigrli,,t. bl E tue of Pesons T o or Germsration. of E ~sive Groundbont~ V~ratiorrs oi' Gm~i~ N oise ~ eveis Imp Thr~Ix~'dg`'Sig~~if The Project would have a significant environmental effect if it were to expose people to, or generate, excessrve groundborne vibrations or groundbome noise levels. IMPACT Cx Nose. The South San Francisco Noise Element .(1999) contains existing and future noise contours for road and railroad noise are also included in the Noise Element. These contours indicate that the project site is located in an area where noise levels. generated bymajor road and railroad noise sources will continue to be 7> dBA (CNE L). The conversion a_nd operation of the Project would not involve the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise. However, it would have a.sze~i,~it~ntrelatedto the exposure of futw-e occupants to excessive groundbome vibration or excessive groundbome noise levels. Based on the Cites land use criteria, the proposed Project's retail, office and research and development type land use would be compatible with futtire noise level projections 75 dBA (CNEL). However, acoustic level of this magnitude can produce an significant adverse acoustic levels makU.Zg work difficult inside of building unless reduced to an acceptable level of 4> dBA.. ~ 1ViI~'IGATION Il~EAS~TI~.F. Cx Ir~en •io~ N osse, Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall have a qualified acoustic engineer review the plans and make recommendations to provide an int~or d`-~b~.l level of 4~ dBA. The plans shall be subjer~ to the review and approva'. by the City's Chief Plarmer. INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION! PRDdECT 1 D'i b PA.aE 47 ~ --' _ - ~ x - . _ .ter -cis-scs+~ase-• e„,- .,. ~, -_ -_ c) Substarrtiat Pe~ar.~rrt Ia~ease i~ AmTbier~ N oise I, eveis fsla~t Thr~lxi'd ~Sigrdfr.~rP The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project zcinity above levels existing without the Project. Although site preparation and the construction of the proposed Project would be expected to result in a temporar<T increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity, the on-going-operation of the Project site would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels, thereby representing szo un:t. cI) Substairtia4 Temporary orPeriodic Ix~se inAmbie~ N Oise Levels Im~t Thr~rlxi'dcf'Sigrdfraarze The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. During site preparation and construction of the Project, the operation of hear equipment could result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site. ~ IMPACT 7: ~or~stnietionl~elatecl N Oise. Project construction would result in temporaryshort-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy equipment. This would represent a p~e~zti~'lj'sigrtif amtassociated with Proj e~~t development. Construction noise sources range from about 82 to 90 dBA at 2~ feet for most type`s of construction equipment, and slightlyhigher levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at ?5 feet for certain ~~ of earthmoving and impact equipment. ~ MITIGATION M~ASIJRiv 7: I,i~mitat~iem®fCo~nstYUC~icm~Iouts/NoiseA~atet~n:. There are no existing noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinit~T that wouid be affected by project-generated construction noise. However, neighboring businesses would be subjected to high noise levels during site preparation and construction. If noise controls are installed on construction equipment, the noise levels could be reduced to 80 to 8~ dBA at ~~ feet, depending on the typ° of equipment. Assuming construction noise levels comply-with the 90-dBA noise limit and hourly restrictions specified in the CitST N oise Ordinance, construction-related noise impacts could be reduced to a level of Iesstf.~n szb~ifc~t with mrtig~zon. INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 7 0": 4 PAGE 4E e/ ~ L ocatiora in Victinity of a Public art or Private A.i~trip Im~t Tl~lxi'd c~Sig~~if~ra~ The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were located anthin an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not bc~n adopted, within two. miles of a public airport or public use airport) if it would expose pimple residir~ or worl~irig in the Project area to excessive noise levels, or if it were located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, if it wou'td expose people residing or worldng in the Project area to excessive noise levels. The South San Francisco N oise E lament (1999) contains existing and future (2006) airport noise contours associated with San. Francesco International Airport, located south of the site. These contours indicate the proje`.t site is located outside the 65-dBA (CNE L) existing and future airport noise contours. Environmental Factors and Focused questions for potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental impact Significant 5igntficant with Significant No im act Mitigation Im act Im act XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the Project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, ~ j ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~~ 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 ~ j ~ j i j ~ ~~ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ~ j ~ j I j ~ Imo] necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? fm~-t Thrtrlxi'd c~'Si~ The Proj act would have a si~ificant environmental impact if it were to induce substantial population growth, or if it were to result in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing units, or in the displacement of substantial numbers of people living at the Project site. Development of the Project site would not entail the extension of infrastructure that could support additional residential or commercial development. It would not involve the construction of any new housing; and would not require the displacement of any existing residential units or persons living on-site. Therefore, the Project would have szoun~ton population and housing in the area. INlTIF.~ .~.TUDY ~ MITIGATED NEGATIVE U=C~RATION PROJECT 1 D7 ~ PAGE 49 .. ... ~: r IY' :; :.:. Environmental Factors and Focused questions for Potentially Less Than Less Then Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Im act Miti ation Im act Im act XII1. PUBLIC SERVICES - i 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? ii) Police protection? iiij Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? [ ] [ ] [~] [ [ ] [ l [~] [ [ ) [ ] [~] [ f~ Thr~slr~d c;f'Sig~~f~x~ The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physicalljT altered governmental faalities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental-impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance obj~tives for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks and recreational facilities, or other government facilities. The proposed Project would place a Iesstfacdr..si,,Fc~rtincreased, demand on CitST of South San Francisco public services. . INITIAL STUD`' / MrrIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJEC` 101 PAGE ~~ - _ Environmental Factors and Focused questions for Potentially Less Than Less Then Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant wtth Significant No Im ac4 Mitioation Im act Impact XIV. RECREATION - a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ~~ b) Qoes the Project include recreational facilities ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~ or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? I~n~t Tln~lxa'd c,~'Sigr~, f~ The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in an increase in the use of existing parks or re~eational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of these facilities could be anticipated, or if it were to include recreational facilities, the constz-uction of which might have adverse physical effects on the environment, The Project would have ssa rm~ton parks or recreational facxiities since it does .not involve any development that would result in an increase in the use of existing parks or rc-creational facilities, and does not incorporate their construction. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Then Determination of Environmental Impact Signfficant Significant with Significant No im act Miti etion Im act Impact XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC -Would the Project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which insubstantial ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ , 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, 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, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results insubstantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [ ~, feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections} or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? INrrIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIOPi PROJECT 10'i PAGc rj~i ~<wr~ aa~ 'W _ - a7. r i yam„ r y:. Environmenrtal Factors end Focused questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental impact Significant Signrficent with 5ignfficant No impact Mitigation Impact Impact e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i/] Result in inadequate parking capacity? ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~~ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Settrng ROADWAYS The project site is served directly by Dubuque Avenue via Oyster Point Boulevard and E ast Grand Avenue. VOI,IJ VELF S Weekday AM and PM peak period x:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM) vehicle counts were conducted byFehr & Peers Associates, Inc. at the four study intersections (Airport Blvd/ Oyster Point Blvd, Dubuque Avenue/ Oyster Point Blvd, Airport Blvd./ E . Grand Ave., Dubuque Ave./East Grand Ave) and the four project drn~eways. The study also P_zamined the U.S, highway 101 freeway segment from S.R. 380 to Oyster Point Boulevard. ~NT'ERS)8C'I'ION AND FREBWAIT OPERATION Z -Ards Me~:txxloloa3' Sigrr~xea'fsTter~ed~s: Intersections, rather than roadway segments between intersections, are almost always the capacity controlling locations for any arculation system. Signalized intersection operation is grades based. upon two different scales. The first scale employs a grading system called Level of Service.(LOS) which ranges from L evel A, indicating uncongested flout and m;nimum delay to drivers, down to Level F, indicating significant congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches. The L evel of Service scale is also associated with an average vehicle delay tabulation (1994 HiyCctyM~~l (HCM] operations method) at each intersection. The vehicle delay designation allows a more detailed e~aminar;on of the impacts of a particular project. Greater detail re~•arding the L OS/delay relationship is provided in the Appendix of Crane Transportation Group's traffic analysis. Fs~eux~~ 4,~~o~zs ~ ~~c The freeway opetations were evaluated by comparing the volume of vehicles on each segment to the segment's capacitt7. INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGHTIVE DECLARATIOI\~ PROJEC' 10': ~ PAGE ~~. ~~- ~. ' 1 - r ,:. _, - -, , . - =.Yl J~l The City of South San Francisco considers Level of Service D (LOS D) to be the poorest acceptable operation for signalized and ~ ~},_stop intersections and LOS E to be the poorest acceptable operation for unsi~ a1iz~I a~, ~-~ ~tersection tum movements. The City has no standards for tum movements from private driveways. An impact is identified if the proposed project causes the freeway segment to exceed its Congestion Management Progj-am's (CMP) LOS standard or if the project adds greater than one percent of the capaaty of a defiaent freeway segment. 3. E~istii~g O~ Con~,itior~ The study intersections currently operate at or above an LOS of D during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours. The Oyster point Boulevard flyover and related hook ramps started October 2001 and are expected to be completed 2003. The traffic analysis determined that the Project's would generate ~0 net new vehicle dailytrips, 124 net newA.M. p~k hour trips and 82 net neRTP.M. peak hour trips. The driveway entrances curl-ently operate at an L OS of A. The freeway segments operate at different LOS . The northbound U. S . 101 segment between Airport -Blvd to Grand Avenue operates at a CMP LOS of E ~i"ring the A:M. The two southbound segments from Bayshore Blvd to Oyster Point Blvd and Produce Avenue to SR 380 are operating at an LOS E during the P.M. peak. a) Cause an Increase in T"r~ic, Erich is St>~stantsal in Reiatiori to E x~isting Tsa~ic L oad a>rI Capacity of tI~ Street S3~stem ~mltx~t 7'~0`5~, .City of South San Francisco policy defines a significant.impact as one where signalized grid all-way-stop intersections operate belouTLevel of Service D (LOS D) or belowLOS E for unsignalizel City street intersection tum movements. The City has no standards for turn movements from private driveways. AM and PM peak hour trip generation and distribution proja~tions wa-e developed for currently approved or under construction developments in South San Francisco to the east of the U.S.101 freeway. Both trip rates and regional distribution patterns applied to each approved development are contained in the Supplemental E IR for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation D errand Manageanent Ordinance The study intersections currently operate at or above an L OS of D during both the AM and PM lei traffic hours. The studyintersections will continue to operate at these same levels with the e~cted baci~ground growth. However, with the project the LOS of Dubuque Avenue/Ovste Point Boulward during the P.M. peak hour- will degrade from an LOS of D to an LOS of E INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 101 ~ PAGE rJH _. .: __ ~_ ,,. .: Cumulative impacts both with and without the project will degrade the LOS of all intersections during both A.M. and P.M. p~k hours. The Cit}T has adopted a General Plan Amendment requiring new developments to implement a Transportation Deariand Management Plan to reduce traffic impacts and to pas? a Traffic Impact fee to improve local street capacitST and improve L OS at keST intersection in the area E ast of US Highway 101. The City also certifies a Supplemental EIR recognizing that significant impacts will. occur to the re~orial circulation systems and adopted a statement of overriding cor~siderations. Intersection Impacts. Three of the study intersections (Airport Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. -LOS E in the P.M., Dubuque Avenue/Oyster Point Blvd. - L05 F in the P.M., Airport Blvd./E. Grand Ave. - LOS F in both A.M. and P.M.) are projected to operate at LOS E or F under the Cumulative No Project Conditions. The addition of project traffic exacerbates poor intersection operations but does not drop the LOS any further. To alleviate traffic the following improvements were identified in the Supplemental General Plan EIR: 1. Airport Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd.- Add a second eastbound left-turn lane. 2. Dubuque Avenue/Oyster Point Blvd. - Add a second westbound right-turn. 3. Airport Blvd./Grand Avenue - Restripe the south bound right-turn lane to a shared through/right-turn lane and widen the eastbound approach to add an eastbound left-turn lane. These improvements are pro~-ammed into the CitS~'s CIP and are scheduled to be implemented. by 2020, the projected buildout of .the General Plan. The applicant is requiredto pay Traffic Impact Fees and to adopt a TDM Plan to mitigate the traffic impacts associated with the Proje~~t 101 development. Because the improvements were identified in the Supplemental E IR the applicant is not required to make the improvements; however, the applicant is required to pay the Traffic Impact Fees combined with a TDM Plan; both measures will reduce the Ito afer~'lesstfx~t sz~szr,~ 1'~;LT 7ii~,~a' i ~Q>~T li~EnSU",~ €. Prior to is~~ance of a builduZg p~nit foi° anybuilding of Project 101 assoaated with the conversion to a more intense use. the applicant shall pay the Traffic Impact fees. N1~TI~r~:TI4N MEAS>iTRE 9. Prior to receipt of a Building Permit, the applicant shall -have a Final Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM) prepared by a qualified and licensed traffic engineer that incorporates the provisions of the Ciry of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter.20.120, which is subject to review and approval as provided in SSFMC Chapter 20.120.070. The Final TDIVE Plan -shall be reviewed and approved b3' the Chief P}anner to ensure all conditions imposed by the Planning Commissior. related to the TDM Plan have been addressed. INITIAL STUDY ,'' MrrIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 10`. PAGE 5 ,,.. .- The applicant's Traffic Engineer Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. has prepared a Preiuninary TDM Plan. The TDM plan is a set of strategies, measures and incentives to encourage employees to use conunute alternatives to the single occupant vehicle. TDM Plans produce more mobilit3~ on the existing transportation systems, boost economic efficienc~~ of the current transportation infrastructZU•e, improve air qualitS~, save energy, and reduce traffic congestion. The PTDM Plan is oblia tea to mc~°.t standards set forth in the CMP and in SSFMC Chapter- 20.120.030. The PTDM Plan incorporates only a base program as outlined in SSFMC Section 20.120 bemuse the existing site Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.499) is less than the base allowed maximum FAR of 0.50. The base program consists of 15 elements including the following: joining the Transportation Management Assoaation, providing showers/clothes lockers, pedestrian connections, infornzation boards/kiosks, passenger loading zones, direct route to transit, designated employer contact, storage for bicycles both short-term and long term, funding seats on BART Shuttle bus, providing preferential parking for carpools acid vanpools, participation in the guaranteed ride home program; providing promotional programs and subsidizing transit passes. Site Access. Access to the site is provided via four existing full-access (left-toms and right-toms in and out) driveways on Dubuque Avenue. No changes to the design or number of driveways are proposed. The operations of the four driveways were evaluated with L OS calculations. All four driveways are projected to operate at an L OS A with the addition of project traffic. The number and design of the driveways are adequate to serve the estimated project traffic, Therefore, r~ i~mlpac~t w~7I occur b) Direct orCu>~ative Ir~ease inTraffic Which Causes a Ccmgestio~lVia~e~ Agetry Stai>Idan~ to be E xcee~d. Isn~t Tht~Ixi'd g`Sigrrfiana~ The Proj ect would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result i7 a direct increase in traffic that would cause a Congestiori Management Agency standard to be excc~ded, or contribute substantiallyto acumulative increase in traffic that would cause a Conges*~ion Mai^.agerzent Age ~> standard to be e~c~°edcy'~. The proposed project is not projected to add traffic greater than one percent to any of the freeway segments in the vicinity of the project site nor cause the-level of service ratings to exceed their CMP LOS E standard. Therefore, the proposed project is not estimated to have a significant adverse impact on freeway segments. The Project would have no impact related to an exceedance of a Congestion Management Agency level of service standard. e~ Chat>se iinAirTia.>~ie Pattecz.~s ftn 1 ~~G`Sigj~ The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were t~ result in a change in air traffic patterns that results in substantial safet}T risks, INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJEC ~ 10' PAGE J cB.) ~Iazautls Due to DesignFeatiues Im~-t Th»Ia~'dc~SigrAA~nx~ The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. The project driveways do not have any restricted sight lines. Therefore saoisrtwould occur. e) En~cgeiicyAecess Isr~Z' Thr~rlxi'd c,~'Sig>~,f~nx~ The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to provide inadequate emeibQenncy access to the Project site. The Project would be constructed in a manner consistent with City of South San Francisco building codes. There would be no zrn~trelated to inadequate emergency access to the site. ~ Pa,d~inlg CapaeitgT Immpr~-t Th~~'xi'd c~'Stigla~ the Project's impact on parking shall be considered significant if the Project does not meet the Cit~T of. South San Francisco's parking space requirements and/or the_proposed parking plan is not aaequate in number or design to serve the proposed Project. The Project would provide 604 open. at-grade parking spaces. The majority of spaces would be provided on-site and the remainder off-site at an abutting P.G. E .parcel. The parking does not meet the r,,;r,;,,,um City requirements of ..616 parking spaces. However, the parking deficiency c an be mitigated with the implementation of a TDM .Plan and the approval of Variance allowing the parking reduction. Parking will be supplied at a gross rate of l parking space p°r 390 square feet of building space, based on the Project's ?36,110 square feet of building space. However, even a marginal compliance with the City's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance would offset the very small shortfall in required parking spaces by reducing the demand for parking, thereby representing a Tess tlarai sre~i, rmt. g) l~Ite~ive'£»portatic~a fm;° 7'hrt~Jxi~l c• f Sigrrif~ze The Project would have a significant envirorunental.impact it it were to conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 101 PAGE 5E . t.~. The Project would have rao mzpr~ton alternative transportation. Environmental Factors end Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Then Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant wfth Significant No XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -Would the im act Mitigation Im act Impact Project; a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of ~ the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause signrficant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause signrficant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources,. or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Projects Projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? [ ] [ /] [ /~ [ /] [ /] ~ ~~ f) Be served by alandfill with sufficient permitted ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~~ ~ capacity to accommodate the Project's soiid waste disposaF needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and focal statutes ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ and regulations related to soiid waste? a} Regior~~aste~.terT`~ Starx~v~s Imlta~t Thr~1~'d cf'Sr~rri, f The Project would have a si~uficant environmental impact if it were to exceed ~t~t~' treatment requirements of the applicable Regional mater Quality Control Board The project would have noim,trelated to an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirement of the Regional mater QualitST Control Board INITIAL STUDY / MrrIGATED NEGATIVE i~ECLARATION PROJECT 107 PAGE 57 b) VPater aI~ Wastewater T ~ J~ amities fm~t __ . _. ~_ _= 4li Thr~lx~d gF'Sigrrdfz~a~ The Projet~t would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require the construction of neRrwater or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of wl-ich could cause significant environmental effects. The Project would have nossn`related to the construction or expansion of water or wastewate<~ treatment facilities. e) Sto2m Waterl?~i ~e facilities fin~-t Thr~Txi'd gf'Sigrd,~lan~ The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage faalities or in the expansion of existing faalities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. The Project would have no ~mpr~trelated to the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or their expansion. ~ Wa...~- SZtpply fns Thrt~Ixi'd c~'Sigin~ The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require additional water supply beyond that available from existing entitlements and resources. The Proj ect would utilize e~dsting water entitlements and resources, having sso u~zton other water resources. e) ~'aIS*~ T ~ ~a-~aiy fm Thrr~~'d. aFSigvririfiauxe The Project would have a significant environmental. impact if it were to result in a deternunation by the wastewater treatment provider which may serve the Project .that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. The Project would place a Zesstfar~i sigrs,itdemand on the area's wastewater treatment provider and would not prevent it from fulfilling its existing commitments. Howevei, the Cit~Thas determined that the wastewater transport system will not be adequate to accommodate full buffdout projectec bTTthe General Plan and has embarked ors a 6-month comprehensive sewer' line study to be con loleted b~~ ~.prsl 240. The study=will determine the ne~cessan- impro-v~11~1is to the lines and INITIAL STUD'' MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 10y ~ PAGE ~8 pumps and a method to finance the improvements. During the interim development are required to a~-ee to contribute a fee to pay the deaelopment's -pro rata share of the estimated improvements and the study itself. MITI~ATI©1!T MEASl':JRE 10. Prior to the. issuance of the Building Permit, the applicant shall pay its fair share contribution at a rate not exceed $1..23 per .gross square foot of the building floor area, of the Cite Sewer System Study including a waste flow collection model and any needed improvements, in accordance with a schedule established by the City Council. Such fees shall be due and payable for each portion of the improvements no }ater than the time that a building permit is issued in connection with the construction of such portion of the improvements. ~ Solid Waste Disposal Capacity Imp Thrz<r1x~'a'gFSigrdf~na~ The Project would have a significant environmental imTr~arr if it ~,e1-e to be served. bST a landfill with inadequate permitted capacit~T to accommodate the Proje~-t's solid waste disposal needs. The construction and operation of theProject would generate a It s~~amount of solid waste. ~ CompUance With Solid Waste ~egu)'atior~ fmp~ T1~slxddc~'Sigvri, f The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to fail.to fully comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The op°r-ation of the proposed Project site would be federal, state and local statutes and r ~ to be in full compliance with all egulations related to solid waste, thereby Navin; rap Environmental Factors and Focused questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant 'Significant with Significant No XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - Im act Mitigation Im act Im act 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 wildlrfe 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? iNITIA_ STUDY / MrrIGAT~D NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 101 ~ PAGErJQ _.~. _ -- ., - _~ -,~ ~ ,:M, tom-- . _ .._. .. _. ._ ~ _ - ,.--- Environmental Factors end Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Im ct Miti ation fm act Im act b) Does the Project have impacts that are ~ j ~ 1 ~ j ~ ~,~ 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, ~ j ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ j which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Quaiit3' of the B n~ Implementation of the Project does not have the potential to decade the 4~n' of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop belouTsalf--sustaining levels, threaten to elvninate a plant or animal communitST, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or elinvnate important examples of major periods of California historST or prehistory. There are no Project- related environmental impacts that would not be reducedto a level of lesst~z.si~ry~'c~vrtthi"ough the implementation of the mitigation measures identified above. >b) Cave Impacts The Project does not involve environmental impacts that are individuallylinuted but cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effc~.ts of probable future projects. There are vsoPyoject-~Iasfed cr~z.~ c) Aciveise E rrviior E acts oaz 1<i uman B eings The Project would not have environmental effects, which will. cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either: dira~tly or indirectly, because the Project is consistent and compatible with agricultural 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 szo~rzft. INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 1 O'. ~ PAGc 6l] BYB~,IO~RAPFI~' B ay Aga. Air Quality M arng Dist~iet, BAA Q1VID CE QA Gurc~'i~:~ A ss~sirg tI~A ir~ Q~lity Inds c,~`Pr~g'ats ca~lPlcna, Apri11996. BayArea AirQualitylVFafr~em~~ Dsstrict, BAAQMD CEQA Gzac;~'i~;, p.23,24. B~'~Q~f3'I'-'~~ge~~tDistriot, Ba ~AreaAttainment Status' A 1 ~~ ~ P~ 999 (obtained at BAAQMD website: wo~~vcTbaaomdQo~T). Ba~TAreaAirQuaiit3'M~~°Dismiet, S~g`AirPdZa~ionintl~B A ay ~ individual shuts for 1995-1999; and various Press Releases, Office of Public Information, E duc~.tion Division, A~•ust 1997 throu~i January 2001. B~' and. Associates, .Eat g`ZOT A r~Plar~ adopted July 1994• City of Sout1~ Saar Fra~isco, Sa,~h ScnaFrrnxsscaMw~ci~ Cad Cite of South San £ranciseo, South San Francisco Supplemental EIR and General Plan Amendments adopted 2001. ~~~ Pew, T'InS~'J' Pyg'a~T01 inSadhSanFn~sca, October 2001. Fehr & Peers, Transportation Demand Management Plan for Project 101 in South San. Francisco, Apri12001 Dot & Bhatia, Citycf'Scr;~h Scu2Frcnz7smGa~l Plcu~ adopted October 1999, Dyett & Bbad~a, Sash SanF~zn~ascD Ga~ral Plan Ea~rstirg Covzlitiors c;r~lPlarn~irglssc~, prepares f or the City of South San Francisco, September 1997. ~~~' ~ ~~~' ems, Air and N oise Analyses for Celi Gea Develo ~ pment, Au~•ust 2001. INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 10'. • PAGE Bj •~• L _ ~ . L °~ _ 4 .. i .. ... PAPS©NAI. ~41VdNYIJIiTIC;~"k"I®IVS Dennis Chuck, Senior Civil Engineer, Cit3T of South San Francisco Richard Harmon, Development Review Coordinator, Cit~T of South San Francisco Norman Wong, Fehr 8 Peers Associates, Inc. REP®R~' ~iUTHOR Steve Carlson, Senior Planner INITIAL STUDY / MrriGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT 1 O1 ~ .PAGE sc _ ,: Y~-- ~ __~ .. . _. ~~ ~ ~~~ Appendix A: Traffic Analysis and TDM Plan .............................. ...................................................... A-1 fNITIA_ STUDY/ R/IITIGATED NEGATIV DECLARATION °ROJECT 1 O ~ • °AG~ 6~