Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-12-10 e-packetAGENDA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 10, 2008 6:30 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Agency business, we proceed as follows: The regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency is held on the second Wednesday of each month at 6:30 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the Board on any Agenda or non - Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Community Room and submit it to the Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and /or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. The Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Board action. KARYL MATSUMOTO Chair MARK N. ADDIEGO Vice Chair RICHARD A. GARBARINO Boardmember RICHARD BATTAGLIA Investment Officer BARRY M. NAGEL Executive Director PEDRO GONZALEZ Boardmember KEVIN MULLIN Boardmember KRISTA MARTINELLI - LARSON Clerk STEVEN T. MATTAS Counsel PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT IS AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING- IMPAIRED AT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETINGS In accordance with California Government Code Section 5495 7.5, any writing or document that is a public record, relates to an open session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular meeting will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office located at City Hall. If, however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it relates, then the document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this agenda. The address of City Hall is 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR Motion to approve the minutes of November 3, 2008 and November 12, 2008. 2. Motion to approve the expense claims of December 10, 2008. 3. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to approve a consultant agreement with Alta Planning + Design for the Bicycle Plan and appropriating $55,000 from Redevelopment Agency funds and amending the 2008 -2009 Capital Improvement Program. PUBLIC HEARING 4. Hyatt Place Hotel Vijay Patel /applicant SRI Krishna Enterprises /owner 550 Gateway Blvd P07 -0073: PP07 -0001, SIGN07 -0047, VAR07 -0004, TDM08 -0003, DR07 -0046 & MND07 -0003 Precise Plan, Type "C" Sign Permit, Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan & Variance applications for a 166 room, eight -story Hyatt Place Hotel, at 550 Gateway Boulevard, in the Gateway Specific Plan District in accordance with SSFMC chapters 20.57, 20.85, 20.86 & 20.120. Continued from regular meeting of November 12, 2008. CLOSED SESSION 5. Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8 real property negotiations related to 306 Miller Avenue. Company negotiator: Citi Residential Lending, Inc. Agency negotiator: Marty Van Duyn. 6. Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8 real property negotiations related to 938 Linden Avenue. Company negotiator: CA Mortgage and Realty, Inc. Richard Johnson V.P. Real Estate. Agency negotiator: Marty Van Duyn. 7. Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8 real property negotiations related to 323 Miler Avenue. Company negotiator: Rotary. Agency negotiator: Marty Van Duyn. REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2008 AGENDA PAGE 2 Conference with Legal Counsel: Existing litigation (Pursuant to Government Code Section 549506.9(a)). South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency v. Clear Channel Outdoor. ADJOURNMENT REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2008 AGENDA PAGE 3 o� �. DO c9LIFOR��� RDA AGENDA ITEM # 1 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM 400 GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO NOVEMBER 3, 2008 City Council Meeting Called to Order: Redevelopment Agency Meeting Called to Order: City Council and Redevelopment Agency Roll Call: 1. Public Comments: None. 6:31 p.m. 6:31 p.m. 4 Present: Councilmen /Boardmembers Addiego and Mullin *, Mayor Pro Tern/Vice Chairwoman Matsumoto and Mayor /Chairman Gonzalez. Absent: Councilman /Boardmember Gar ban no. * Councilman /Boardmember Mullin arrived at 6:33 p.m. * *For reporting purposes, participants are referred to by their titles affiliated with the City Council. 2. Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiator (Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8) Property: Oyster Point Marina Area Properties known as Parcels A, B, C, D -1, D -2, E 1 -4 and I -4 Negotiating Parties: City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Oyster Point Ventures, LLC. Agency Negotiator: Marty Van Duyn Under Negotiations: Terms and Conditions for sale of property interests. Time entered closed session: 6:33 p.m. Time open session resumed: 7:01 p.m. Report Out of Closed Session by Mayor Gonzalez: None. 3. Presentation by Oyster Point Ventures, LLC regarding its Preliminary Concept Plan for property including 375 -389 Oyster Point Boulevard ( "Oyster Point Business Park ") and property within the Oyster Point Marina Area. Representatives of the Shorenstein Company appeared to present a Concept Plan for the Oyster Point Marina. Todd Sklar of Shorenstein advised that Mayor Gonzalez and Councilman Addiego had accepted Shorenstein's invitation and visited a site at Mission Bay at which a building had been leased to Fibrogen. The buildings at the Mission Bay site were similar to what was being proposed at the Oyster Point Business Park. Paul Stein of Shorenstein provided a power point presentation on the Concept Plan. He began by noting that Shorenstein was committed to sustainable properties, including certified LEED Gold and better. Mr. Stein stated that in July 2008 Shorenstein acquired the 25 acre Oyster Point Business Park with the intent to redevelop the property as a Class A Life Sciences /Office Project. The plan would include new construction and removal of older buildings as leases expired. After Shorenstein acquired the Oyster Point Business Park, King Ventures approached it and offered to sell leaseholds in the Harbor District Area. Shorenstein then met with City staff to determine if it would be worthwhile to pursue acquisition of the leaseholds and assemblage of the two (2) properties. Mr. Stein next presented Shorenstein's vision for the Oyster Point property. He opined the Ferry Terminal would be a significant addition that would contribute to the overall appeal of the area. Preliminary plans for the assembled properties included offices, retail and restaurant space, hotels, conference facilities and recreational spaces. It was estimated these new facilities would generate roughly 4.3 million/year for the general fund and redevelopment. Shorenstein planned to develop the Oyster Point Business Park using sustainable, Class A Architecture. The property near the proposed Ferry Terminal would be developed in a manner similar to Main Street in Tiburon. Fifteen (15) acres of space was available for the installation of recreational fields, SPECIAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY & CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 3, 2008 MINUTES PAGE 2 possibly to include soccer, walking and baseball fields. The landscape architect on the project was suggesting an attractive "row- style" planting that would serve as a wind barrier. The interior quads of the development would be landscaped, include furniture and be open to the public. Mr. Stein next discussed plans for phasing of the project, including road work and relocation of boat storage. Phasing would permit maintenance of access to the Marina during road construction. Mr. Stein then advised next steps included approval of a framework agreement and MOU, final approvals /entitlements and construction. Mayor Gonzalez thanked Shorenstein for the tour of the Mission Bay Fibrogen Site and stated he was impressed with the building. Councilman Addiego commented he was pleased he toured the building, because it permitted him to fully appreciate the artist's rendering of the plan for the Oyster Point Business Park. He questioned the estimated square footage of the Oyster Point Business Park plan. Dan Kingsley of Shorenstein advised the proposal was for 2 million square feet through transfer of development density. Mr. Stein advised Shorenstein would follow Planning's recommendations as to parking and was keenly interested in connecting to Caltrain shuttle services and allowing for bicycle access. Mayor Gonzalez commented on the artist's rendering of the Oyster Point Business Park and observed the tall building at the end of the Park. He expressed concern over protection of the foundation on this building. He also noted the City would need to review plans it had for the area and decide whether they meshed with Shorenstein's proposal. Mr. Kingsley responded the building would be deeply piled and this cost had already been taken into account. While these foundation issues were challenging, they were not insurmountable. Regarding the concept for the land, Mr. Kingsley advised Shorenstein was not attempting to unilaterally plan the peninsula, but rather to show the City it could provide uses that were in line with the City's hopes for the area. Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto noted much of Shorenstein's presentation was based on the planned Ferry Terminal. She questioned the developer's plans in the event Ferry Service did not eventually come to South San Francisco. Mr. Kingsley stated he did not have an answer to the question. Assistant City Manager and Director of Economic and Community Development Van Duyn advised the City was the owner of all the land and harbor births. The property and births were under a master lease to the Harbor District for operation and management. As part of improvements necessary for Ferry Service, the births would be remade. These infrastructure related expenditures were best viewed as investments that would optimize value in the long run. SPECIAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY & CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 3, 2008 MINUTES PAGE 3 Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto requested Shorenstein representatives to provide more detail on proposed phasing of the project. She further questioned the estimated 4.3 million in revenue to the City. Mr. Kingsley advised the primary utilities come in off of Oyster Point Blvd. Roadway construction would be part of the initial phase so as to avoid exposing utilities. Regarding revenue, 4.3 million to the City's funds was projected at ultimate build out. He noted that if Ferry Service was not secured, reconsideration of this estimate would be necessary. Mr. Sklar added the plan offered the benefit of flexibility depending upon the market and the City's ultimate land use plan. Councilman Addiego returned to the issue of phasing and requested greater clarification. Mr. Stein stated the plans for phasing would require demolishing the Inn at Oyster Point. If necessary, Shorenstein would purchase the hotel and operate it. Timing of the various project phases would depend on market forces within a time frame of roughly five (5) years. Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto questioned whether the buildings were planned to be designed so as to accommodate stem cell companies. She stated she was not opposed to such companies, but had concerns over security related resources that might be required to control protests. Accordingly, if such companies were to be the focus of the development, Council may have to require more of the developer. Mr. Stein stated the plans were not quite that specific, but it was possible that a stem cell related company may occupy space in the Business Park. Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto questioned plans for recruiting businesses to occupy the space. Mr. Stein responded Shorenstein was confident the Bay area would remain as a center of Biotech Technology and that South San Francisco was the number one (1) location in this geographic sector, particularly given its centralized location in relation to Stanford, UCSF and UC Berkley. Councilman Addiego questioned whether Fibrogen would have been interested in this proposed office space if it had been ready to go. Mr. Stein responded the Fibrogen situation was somewhat unique in that a major part of its decision regarding location was tied to the visibility of the building. Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto questioned how many employees were expected through implementation of Phase 1. She further questioned the timing of Phase 1. Mr. Stein estimated Phase 1 of the project would accommodate space for 900 employees. The project could be up and running in as soon as two (2) years, but more likely three (3) to five (5) years. SPECIAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY & CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 3, 2008 MINUTES PAGE 4 Councilman Mullin opined the developer presented an exciting opportunity. He further questioned whether buildings planned to house Biotech Companies had specific design requirements. Mr. Stein responded Biotech buildings are generally comprised of taller floor to ceiling heights and robust infrastructure. The buildings incorporate very flexible spaces and accommodate most uses that could be conceived of within the confines of the General Plan. Councilman Mullin questioned whether the proposed buildings could conceivably accommodate Green Technology Companies. Mr. Kingsley responded the development was planned to include a flexible approach similar to the approach incorporated at Mission Bay. Councilman Addiego stated it was interesting that the tallest structure was on the water. He observed other developments in the area had been designed to create a terraced back look and refrained from putting height directly on the water. Given these considerations, he questioned how the developer would sell its proposal to the Planning Commission. Mr. Kingsley advised a scaled back look could be accommodated, but stated Shorenstein's proposal could be described as representative of the future in South San Francisco. Assistant City Manager and Director of Economic and Community Development Van Duyn pointed out the project would present opportunities for additional incremental funds. Mayor Gonzalez opined the Ferry Service would eventually come to South San Francisco. He stated it would take a lot of work to get it here and the service would have to be well marketed but it would ultimately be a success, similar to what the City experienced with BART. He further stated the proposed development was the start of something big for the community. Mr. Kingsley stated Shorenstein's desire to work cooperatively with the City so that the final project would be a reflection of both the City's and Shorenstein's visions. 4. Closed Session: Conference with Legal Counsel — Anticipated Litigation (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c)) Initiation of Litigation: Two Cases. Recess: 8:55 p.m. Closed Session began: 9:00 p.m. Open Session resumed: 9:24 p.m. Report out of Closed Session by Mayor Gonzalez: Direction was given. SPECIAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY & CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 3, 2008 MINUTES PAGE 5 5. Adjournment of City Council Meeting and Redevelopment Meeting. Being no further business, Mayor /Chairman Gonzalez adjourned the meeting at 9:24 p.m. Submitted by: Approved: f' ,,,vista �irtine arson, City Clerk Karyl Matsumoto, Mayor City of South S n Trancisco City of South S�u1 Francisco Clerk, Redevel pment Agency Chairwoman, Redevelopment Agency SPECIAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY & CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 3, 2008 MINUTES PAGE 6 vTH SqN U O �411FO'R A CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR MINUiE S DRAFT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 12, 2008 6:30 p.m. Present: Boardmembers Addiego, Garbarino and Mullin, Vice Chairwoman Matsumoto, Chairman Gonzalez. Absent: None. No Changes. None. 1. Motion to approve the minutes of September 10, 2008, September 24, 2008 and October 8, 2008. 2. Motion to approve the expense claims of November 12, 2008 in the amount of $551,751.17. Motion— Boardmember Garbarino /Second— Boardmember Addiego: to approve Consent Calendar Items Nos. 1 and 2. Unanimously approved by voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING 3. Hyatt Place Hotel Vijay Patel /applicant SRI Krishna Enterprises /owner 550 Gateway Blvd P07 -0073: PP07 -0001, SIGN07 -0047, MND07 -0003 VAR07 -0004, TDM08 -0003, DR07 -0046 & Precise Plan, Type "C" Sign Permit, Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan & Variance applications for a 166 room, eight -story Hyatt Place Hotel, at 550 Gateway Boulevard, in the Gateway Specific Plan District in accordance with SSFMC chapters 20.57, 20.85, 20.86 & 20.120. Recommendation to Continue to Regular Meeting of December 10, 2008. City Manager Nagel advised of staff's recommendation that the Agency open the Public Hearing and continue it to a date certain. Public Hearing opened: 6:33 p.m. Public Hearing closed: 6:33 p.m. Boardmember Addiego advised he met with Mr. Patel. Mr. Patel brought his laptop to their meeting and showed him different views of the proposed hotel. He complemented Mr. Patel for being bold in the current business climate. Boardmember Mullin stated he also met with Mr. Patel and looked forward to the item coming back before the Agency. Boardmember Garbarino commented he met with Mr. Patel and was impressed with his proposal. Motion— Vice Chairwoman Matsumoto /Second— Boardmember Garbarino: to continue the public hearing to the Regular Meeting of December 10, 2008. Unanimously approved by voice vote. CLOSED SESSION Closed Session opened: 6:38 p.m. Open Session resumed: 7:03 p.m. 4. Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8 real property negotiations related to 415 -417 Grand Avenue. Company negotiator: Metwally. Agency negotiator: Marty Van Duyn. Report out of Closed Session by Chairman Gonzalez: Direction given no action taken. 5. Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8 real property negotiations related to 306 Miller Avenue. Company negotiator: Deutsche Bank. Agency negotiator: Marty Van Duyn. Report out of Closed Session by Chairman Gonzalez: Direction given no action taken. REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 2008 MINUTES PAGE 2 ADJOURNMENT Being no further business, Chairman Gonzalez adjourned the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Submitte by: Approved: Kris artine - Larson, Clerk Karyl Matsumoto, Chairwoman City of South an Francisco City of South San Francisco REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 2008 MINUTES PAGE 3 �o�zx SAN 0 J O LIFOR��� I certify that the demands set forth on this payment register are accurate and funds are available for payment.* t DA T ED : C, € -� 4 FINANCE DIRECTOR 1 *Note: Items below do not include payroll .related payments Checks: Date Amount 11/12/08 $ 3,330.91 11/19/08 162,977.26 11/25/08 36,032.14 12/03/08 270,206.12 RDA AGENDA ITEM # 2 Electronic Payments: Date Amount To Description 11/18/08 $ 4,480,000.00 First American Tltle 626 El Camino Mid Peninsula Loan 11/24/08 4,740.34 Deutsche Bank RDA Debt Service Total Payments $ 4,957;286.77 This is to certify that the above bills were confirmed at the regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of South San Francisco held December 10, 2008. DATED: CHAIR CITY OF SO SAN FRANCISCO 11 -12 -08 WARRANT DISBURSEMENT REPORT PROGRAM NAME ACCOUNT NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT INVOICE /DESCRIPTION ---- -- - - - - -- -------- - - - - -- -- --- - - - - -- - - - - -- ----------- -- - - - - -- LOW /MODERATE HOUSING 56- 10880 -4301 FEDEX REDEVELOP OPERATING 57- 10860 -4201 MCLARAND VASQUEZ EMSIE REDEVELOP OPERATING 57- 10860 -4201 MCLARAND VASQUEZ EMSIE REDEVELOP OPERATING 57- 10860 -4301 FEDEX REDEVELOP OPERATING 57- 1.0860 -4360 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR REDEVELOP OPERATING 57- 10860 -4360 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR REDEVELOP OPERATING 5'1- 10860 - 4360 -1086 SOUTH CITY REFRIGERATI FACILITIES CAPITAL P 58- 13232- 4210 -0451 CITY MECHANICAL INC 8 RECORDS 44.55 DELIVERY SERVICE 262.17 CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR BCD /CHESTNUT AVENUE 361.47 CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR ECD /CHESTNUT AVENUE 27.29 DELIVERY SERVICE 279.00 YEARLY MAINT.SERVICE 279.00 YEARLY MAINT.SERVICE 730.81 REPAIR /LABOR A/C -306 SPRUCE 1,346.62 LABOR /SVC -80 CHESTNUT VENDOR TOTAL $3,330.91 GRAND TOTAL $3,330.91 PAGE 1 CK # CK DATE 125084 11/12/08 125120 11/12/08 125120 11/12/08 125084 11/12/08 125185 11 /12 /OB 125185 11/12/08 125176 11/12/08 125070 11/12/08 CITY OF SO SAN FRANCISCO 11 -19 -08 WARRANT DISBURSEMENT REPORT PAGE 1 PROGRAM NAME ACCOUNT NUMBER LOW /MODERATE HOUSING LOW /MODERATE HOUSING LOW /MODERATE HOUSING LOW /MODERATE HOUSING LOW /MODERATE HOUSING LOW /MODERATE HOUSING LOW /MODERATE HOUSING LOW /MODERATE HOUSING REDEVELOP OPERATING REDEVELOP OPERATING REDEVELOP OPERATING REDEVELOP OPERATING REDEVELOP OPERATING GENERAL INFRASTRUCTU GENERAL INFRASTRUCTU GENERAL INFRASTRUCTU GENERAL INFRASTRUCTU GENERAL INFRASTRUCTU FACILITIES CAPITAL P 19 RECORDS 56- 10880 -4201 56- 10880 -4301 56- 10880- 4390 -1096 56- 10880- 4390 -1097 56- 10880- 4420 -1098 56- 10880 - 4420 -1568 56- 10880- 4420 -1568 56- 10880 -4433 57- 10860 -4201 57- 10860 -4310 57- 10860 - 4360 -1086 57- 10860- 4360 -1086 57- 10860 -4433 58- 13231 - 4201 -0752 58- 13231 - 4201 -0752 58- 13231 - 4210 -0752 58- 13231- 4210 -0752 58- 13231- 4210 -0752 58- 13232 - 4201 -032C VENDOR NAME SANCHEZ, ARMANDO OFFICE DEPOT INC SSF SCAVENGER CO INC SSF SCAVENGER CO INC SSF SCAVENGER CO INC SSF SCAVENGER CO INC SSF SCAVENGER CO INC LEE BUFFINGTON SANCHEZ, ARMANDO ROSENLIEB, KATE WESTERN EXTERMINATOR C SSF SCAVENGER CO INC LEE BUFFINGTON RICHARD J MENDOZA, INC TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERIN UNION BANK OF CALIFORN PRECISION ENGINEERING UNION BANK OF CALIFORN WILSEY & HAM AMOUNT INVOICE /DESCRIPTION - - - - -- ------- ------ - - - - -- 2,409.00 CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR RDA HOUSING 138.33 OFFICE SUPPLIES 87.19 OCT08 COM CAN SVC -312 MILLER 134.79 OCT08 COM CAN SVC - 714/716/718 LINDEN 65.39 OCT08 COM CAN SVC -310 MILLER 43.59 OCT08 COM CAN SVC -339 COMMERCIAL SVC 43.59 OCT08 COM CAN SVC -341 COMMERCIAL 64.26 MOSQUITO ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS 2,409.00 CONSULTANT SERVICES 126.43 SEMINAR MILEAGE /TOLL REIMB 91.50 OCT08 FEE -306 SPRUCE 303.17 OCT08 COM CAN SVC -306 SPRUCE 447.24 MOSQUITO ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS 721.00 PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE START -UP CM SERVICES FOR LINDE 7,292.00 FILTER /DISCHARGE 18,230 GAL WATER 22,188.30 10% RETENTION - PRECISION ENG INC 103,842.00 LINDENVILLE STORM DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMEN 11,538.00 10% RETENTION- PRECISION ENG INC 11,032.48 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATED TO THE CALTRAIN STAT VENDOR TOTAL $162,977.26 GRAND TOTAL $162,977.26 CK # CK DATE 125343 11/19/08 125312 11/19/08 125358 11/19/08 125358 11/19/08 125358 11/19/08 125358 11/19/08 125358 11/19/08 125291 11/19/08 125343 11/19/08 125333 11/19/08 125384 11/19/08 125358 11/19/08 125291 11/19/08 125331 11/19/08 125367 11/19/08 125374 11/19/08 125323 11/19/08 125374 11/19/08 125386 11/19/08 CITY OF SO SAN FRANCISCO ii-25-08 WARRANT DISBURSEMENT REPORT PROGRAM NAME ACCOUNT NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT INVOICE /DESCRIPTION ------------ -------- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- - - - - -- ------------------- LOW /MODERATE HOUSING REDEVELOP OPERATING REDEVELOP OPERATING REDEVELOP OPERATING REDEVELOP OPERATING REDEVELOP OPERATING REDEVELOP OPERATING FACILITIES CAPITAL P FACILITIES CAPITAL P FACILITIES CAPITAL P FACILITIES CAPITAL P 11 RECORDS 56- 10880 -4240 57- 10860 -4201 57- 10860 -4210 57- 10860 - 4240 -1008 57- 10860 -4360 57- 10860 -4360 57- 10860 -4360 -1086 58- 13232- 4201 -0930 58- 13232- 4201 -0930 58- 13232- 4310 -0320 58- 13232- 4310 -0525 SSF SCAVENGER CO INC MCLARAND VASQUEZ EMSIE VAN METER WILLIAMS POL BRADY, JANE THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND NPNSC INC PINNACLE DB PINNACLE DB STEELE, JIM DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SU PAGE 1 CK # CK DATE 70.00 COMML CONTAINER PICKUP -442 FERNDALE 125579 11/25/08 4,464.75 CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR ECD /CHESTNUT AVENUE 125511 11/25/08 10,470.00 MAPPING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROPERTY 125600 11%25%08 2,925.00 GREEN HOUSE MARKETING /WEBSITE 125425 11/25/08 117.16 YEARLY MAINT.SERVICE 125589 11/25/08 20.18 REPAIR SUPPLIES -306 SRPUCE 125575 11/25/08 147.55 306 SPRUCE MAINT REPAIRS 125524 11/25/08 2,000.00 ARCHITECTURAL /ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR EMERGENCY 0 125542 11/25/08 15,000.00 ARCHITECTURAL /ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR EMERGENCY O 125542 11/25/08 45.00 PETTY CASH REIMB 125583 11/25/08 772.50 07 SCHEDULE A MANIFEST FEE 125454 11/25/08 VENDOR TOTAL $36,032.14 GRAND TOTAL $36,032.14 CITY OF SO SAN FRANCISCO 12 -03 -08 WARRANT DISBURSEMENT REPORT PAGE 1 PROGRAM NAME ------ - - - - -- ACCOUNT NUMBER -------- - - - - -- VENDOR NAME ----- - - - - -- REDEVELOP OPERATING 56- 10860- 4240 -1011 CUSTOM COLORS LOW /MODERATE HOUSING 56- 10880 -4320 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LOW /MODERATE HOUSING 56- 10880 -4433 LEE BUFFINGTON REDEVELOP OPERATING 57- 10860 -4201 DYETT & BHATIA REDEVELOP OPERATING 57- 10860 -4310 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF REDEVELOP OPERATING 57- 10860 -4433 LEE BUFFINGTON GENERAL INFRASTRUCTU 58- 13231 - 4201 -0751 SIGNET TESTING LABS IN GENERAL INFRASTRUCTU 58- 13231- 4201 -0751 CAROLLO ENGINEERS GENERAL INFRASTRUCTU 58- 13231 - 4201 -0751 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES IN GENERAL INFRASTRUCTU 58- 13231 - 4201 -0751 SIGNET TESTING LABS IN GENERAL INFRASTRUCTU 58- 13231- 4210 -0751 JMB CONSTRUCTION INC FACILITIES CAPITAL P 58- 13232 - 4201 -0320 HNTB CORPORATION FACILITIES CAPITAL P 58- 13232 - 4201 -0320 HNTB CORPORATION 13 RECORDS AMOUNT INVOICE /DESCRIPTION CK # CK DATE - - - - -- ------------- - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - -- 2,500.00 EXTERIOR PAINTING -109 LONGFORD GREEN HOUSE 125649 12/03/08 123.44 CRA CONFER LODGING 125661 12/03/08 64.26 MOSQUITO ABATEMENT ASSESSTMENTS 125692 12/03/08 7,661.25 CONSULTANT SERVICES 125656 12/03/08 195.00 CRA CONFER REGIST 125661 12/03/08 350.48 MOSQUITO ABATEMENT ASSESSTMENTS 125692 12/03/08 20,535.71 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TESTING - LINDENVILLE PS - 125734 12/03/08 144.92 ENGINEERING SVCS DURING CONSTRUCTION - LINDENVILLE 125640 12/03/08 6,470.00 CONSTRUCTION MGMT AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE 125673 12/03/08 1,045.32 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TESTING - LINDENVILLE PS - 125734 12/03/08 151,199.00 CONSTRUCTION OF LINDENVILLE STORM DRAIN PUMP STATI 125679 12/03/08 52,615.23 URBAN AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN ASSOCIATED WITH NEW CAL 125675 12/03/08 27,301.51 URBAN AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN ASSOCIATED WITH NEW CAL 125675 12/03/08 VENDOR TOTAL $270,206.12 GRAND TOTAL $270,206.12 RDA A GENDA ITEM # 3 zx S Redevelopment Agency o 2 ort Sta ff p Re . LIFOR�1� DATE: December 10, 2008 TO: Redevelopment Agency Board FROM: Terry White, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN FOR THE BICYCLE PLAN AND APPROPRIATING $55,000 FROM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUNDS AND AMENDING THE 2008 -2009 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency Board adopt a resolution authorizing the Executive Director to approve an agreement with Alta Planning + Design, of Berkeley, California, for the Bicycle Plan in an amount not to exceed $40,000, appropriating $55,000 from Redevelopment Agency funds and amending the 2008 -2009 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). BACKGROUND /DISCUS SION In September 2008, staff issued a Request For Proposals (RFP) for the South San Francisco Bicycle Plan. The request was posted on the City's website, sent to all registered vendors, as well as provided to five (5) engineering /planning firms: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates, Eisen/Letunic, Kimley -Horn & Associates, Inc. and Bicycle Solutions. Proposals were received from four (4) firms: Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc., Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants (Subconsultant — Eisen/Letunic), Alta Planning + Design (Subconsultant — DKS), and LSA Associates, Inc. Staff reviewed their proposals and found that all four firms had the staff and resources to meet the needs to prepare a Bicycle Plan. A panel consisting of Engineering and Planning staff interviewed all four (4) respondents and evaluated each firm's capabilities. The panel selected Alta Planning + Design for their understanding of the project and ability to convey complicated material in a very concise manner. Alta has also prepared San Mateo County's Bicycle Plan. Alta Planning + Design will prepare a Bicycle Plan that evaluates existing bicycle conditions, leading to the development of a prioritized list of improvements for bicycle facilities. The plan will incorporate eleven (11) required elements for bicycle plans set forth by Caltrans to compete for several funding sources. Currently, the City cannot apply for State BTA funds due to the lack of a Bicycle Plan. Staff Report Subject: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN FOR THE BICYCLE PLAN AND APPROPRIATING $55,000 FROM RDA FUNDS TO THE PROJECT BUDGET Page 2 FUNDING The project will be funded by Redevelopment Agency funds. Shown below is the cost breakdown for the project budget: Consultant Agreement — Develop Bicycle Plan $ 40,000 Project Management and Other Expenses $ 10,000 Contingency (10 %) $ 5,000 Total Project Budget $ 55,000 CONCLUSION Award of the consultant services contract to Alta Planning + Design, of Berkeley, California, will allow the City to develop its first Bicycle Plan, which will open up additional grant funding opportunities. By. Terry Whit k-.1 Director of Public Works Attachments: Resolution Consultant Agreement tas /hl 1175213.1 Approved• ` a M. Nag Executive Director RESOLUTION NCI. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN FOR THE BICYCLE PLAN AND APPROPRIATING $55,000 FROM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUNDS AND AMENDING THE 2008 -2009 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, staff recommends the authorization of an agreement with Alta Planning + Design, of Berkeley, California for the Bicycle Plan in an amount not to exceed $40,000; and WHEREAS, funding for the agreement will be provided by appropriating $55,000 from the Redevelopment Agency funds, to cover the contract cost, project management and other expenses, and to provide a contingency amount; and WHEREAS, development of the City's Bicycle Plan will afford the City additional grant funding opportunities as well as contribute to the improvement of the City's green transit infrastructure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco hereby: 1. Authorizes an agreement with Alta Planning + Design, of Berkeley, California, to provide the bicycle plan in an amount not to exceed $40,000. 2. Authorizes the Executive Director to execute the documents necessary to effectuate an agreement on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. 3. Appropriates $55,000 from Redevelopment Agency funds and amends the 2008- 2009 Capital Improvement Program. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the day of , 2008 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: 117521.5.1 City Clerk CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND ALTA PLANNING + DE$IGN THIS AGREEMENT Francisco ( "City") and Alta "Parties ") as of for consulting services is made, by and between the City of South San Planning + Design ("Consultant") (together sometimes referred to as the (the "Effective Date"). Section 1. SERVICES. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Consultant shall provide to City the services described in the Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, at the time and place and in the manner specified therein. In the event of a conflict in or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and Exhibit A, the Agreement shall prevail. 1.1 Term of Services. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall end on December 31, 2009, the date of completion specified in Exhibit A, and Consultant shall complete the work described in Exhibit prior to that date, unless the term of the Agreement is otherwise terminated or extended, as provided for in Section 8. The time provided to Consultant to complete the services required by this Agreement shall not affect the City's right to terminate the Agreement, as provided for in Section 8. 1.2 Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all services required pursuant to this Agreement in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which Consultant is engaged in the geographical area in which Consultant practices its profession. Consultant shall prepare all work products required by this Agreement in a substantial, first -class manner and shall conform to the standards of quality normally observed by a person practicing in Consultant's profession. 1.3 Assignment of Personnel. Consultant shall assign only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that City, in its sole discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement, desires the reassignment of any such persons, Consultant shall, immediately upon receiving notice from City of such desire of City, reassign such person or persons. 1.4 Time. Consultant shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary to meet the standard of performance provided in Section 1.1 above and to satisfy Consultant's obligations hereunder. Section 2. COMPENSATION. City hereby agrees to pay Consultant a sum not to exceed forty thousand dollars ($40,000), notwithstanding any contrary indications that may be contained in Consultant's proposal, for services to be performed and reimbursable costs incurred under this Agreement. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and Consultant's proposal;, attached as Exhibit A, regarding the amount of compensation, the Agreement shall prevail. City 'shall pay Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth herein. The payments specified below shall be the only payments from City to Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Consulting Services Agreement between DATE City of South San Francisco and Alta Planning + Design Page 1 of 13 Consultant shall submit all invoices to City in the manner specified herein. Except as specifically authorized by City, Consultant shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by more than one person. Consultant and City acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by City to Consultant under this Agreement is based upon Consultant's estimated costs of providing the services required hereunder, including salaries and benefits of employees and subcontractors of Consultant. Consequently, the parties further agree that compensation hereunder is intended to include the costs of contributions to any pensions and /or annuities to which Consultant and its employees, agents, and subcontractors may be eligible. City therefore has no responsibility for such contributions beyond compensation required under this Agreement. 2.1 Invoices. Consultant shall submit invoices, not more often than once a month during the term of this Agreement, based on the cost for services performed and reimbursable costs incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall contain the following information: • Serial identifications of progress bills; il.e., Progress Bill No. 1 for the first invoice, etc.; • The beginning and ending dates of the'billing period; • A Task Summary containing the origjinal contract amount, the amount of prior billings, the total due this period, the balance available under the Agreement, and the percentage of completion; • At City's option, for each work item in each task, a copy of the applicable time entries or time sheets shall be submitted showing the name of the person doing the work, the hours spent by each person, a brief description of the work, and each reimbursable expense; • The total number of hours of work performed under the Agreement by Consultant and each employee, agent, and subcontractor of Consultant performing services hereunder, as well as a separate notice when the total number of hours of work by Consultant and any individual employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant reaches or exceeds 800 hours, which shall include an estimate of the time necessary to complete the work described in Exhibit A; • The Consultant's signature. 2.2 Monthly Payment. City shall make monthly 'payments, based on invoices received, for services satisfactorily performed, and for authorized reimbursable costs incurred. City shall have 30 days from the receipt of an invoice that complies with all of the requirements above to pay Consultant. 2.3 Final Payment. City shall pay the last 10% of the total sum due pursuant to this Agreement within sixty (60) days after completion of the services and submittal to City of a final invoice, if all services required have been satisfactorily performed. 2.4 Total Payment. City shall pay for the services to be rendered by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. City shall not pay any additional sum for any expense or cost whatsoever incurred by Consultant in rendering services pursuant to this Agreement. City shall make no payment for any extra, further, or additional lservice pursuant to this Agreement. Consulting Services Agreement between DATE City of South San Francisco and Alta Planning + Design Page 2 of 13 In no event shall Consultant submit any invoice for an amount in excess of the maximum amount of compensation provided above either for a task or for the entire Agreement, unless the Agreement is modified prior to the submission of such an invoice by a properly executed change order or amendment. 2.5 Hourly Fees. Fees for work performed by Consultant on an hourly basis shall not exceed the amounts shown in Exhibit A. 2.6 Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable expenses are specified below, and shall not exceed (No reimbursable expenses). Expenses not listed below are not chargeable to City. Reimbursable expenses are included in the total amount of compensation provided under this Agreement that shall not be exceeded. 2.7 Payment of Taxes. Consultant is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes. 2.8 Payment upon Termination. In the event that the City or Consultant terminates this Agreement pursuant to Section 8, the City shall compensate the Consultant for all outstanding costs and reimbursable expenses incurred for work satisfactorily completed as of the date of written notice of termination. Consultant shall maintain adequate logs and timesheets in order to verify costs incurred to that date. 2.9 Authorization to Perform Services. The Consultant is not authorized to perform any services or incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement until receipt of authorization from the Contract Administrator. Section 3. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. Except as set forth herein, Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide all facilities and equipment that may be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement. City shall make available to Consultant only the facilities and equipment listed in this section, and only under the terms and conditions set forth herein. City shall furnish physical facilities such as desks, filing cabinets, and conference space, as may be reasonably necessary for Consultant's use while consulting with City employees and reviewing records and the information in possession of the City. The location, quantity, and time of furnishing those facilities shall be in the sole discretion of City. In no event shall City be obligated to furnish any facility that may involve incurring any direct expense, including but not limited to computer, long- distance telephone or other communication charges, vehicles, and reproduction facilities. Section 4. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Before beginning any work under this Agreement, Consultant, at its own cost and expense, unless otherwise specified below, shall procure the types and amounts of insurance listed below against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant and its agents, representatives, employees, and subcontractors. Consistent wlith the following provisions, Consultant shall provide Certificates of Insurance, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B, indicating that Consultant has obtained or currently maintains insurance that meets the requirements of this section and Consulting Services Agreement between DATE City of South San Francisco and Alta Planning + Design Page 3 of 13 under forms of insurance satisfactory, in all respects, to the City. Consultant shall maintain the insurance policies required by this section throughout the term of this Agreement. The cost of such insurance shall be included in the Consultant's bid. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until Consultant has obtained all insurance required herein for the subcontractor(s) and provided evidence thereof to City. Verification of the required insurance shall be submitted and made part of this Agreement prior to execution. 4.1 Workers' Compensation. Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain Statutory Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance for any and all persons employed directly or indirectly by Consultant. The Statutory Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance shall be provided with limits of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per accident. In the alternative, Consultant may rely on a self- insurance program to meet those requirements, but only if the program of self- insurance complies fully with the provisions of the California Labor Code. Determination of whether a self - insurance program meets the standards of the Labor Code shall be solely in the discretion of the Contract Administrator. The insurer, if insurance is provided, or the Consultant, if a program of self- insurance is provided, shall waive all rights of subrogation against the City and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers for loss arising from work performed under this Agreement. 4.2 Commercial General and Automobile Liability Insurance. 4.2.1 General requirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain commercial general and automobile liability insurance for the term of this Agreement in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence, combined single limit coverage for risks associated with the work contemplated by this Agreement. If a Commercial General Liability Insurance or an Automobile Liability form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit. Such coverage shall include but shall not be limited to, protection against claims arising from bodily and personal injury, including death resulting there from, and damage to property resulting from activities contemplated under this Agreement, including the use of owned and non - owned automobiles. 4.2.2 Minimum scope of coverage. Commercial general coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability occurrence form CG 0001 or GL 0002 (most recent editions) covering comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office form number GL 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability. Automobile coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability form CA 0001 (ed. 12/90) Code 8 and 9. No endorsement shall be attached limiting the coverage. Consulting Services Agreement between DATE City of South San Francisco and Alta Planning + Design Page 4 of 13 4.2.3 Additional requirements. Each of the following shall be included in the insurance coverage or added as a certified endorsement to the policy: a. The insurance shall cover on an occurrence or an accident basis, and not on a claims -made basis. b. Any failure of Consultant to comply with reporting provisions of the policy shall not affect coverage provided to City and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. 4.3 Professional Liability Insurance. 4.3.1 General requirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain for the period covered by this Agreement professional liability insurance for licensed professionals performing work pursuant to this Agreement in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) covering the licensed professionals' errors and omissions. Any deductible or self- insured retention shall not exceed $150,000 per claim. 4.3.2 Claims -made limitations. The following provisions shall apply if the professional liability coverage is written on a claims�made form: a. The retroactive date of the pollicy must be shown and must be before the date of the Agreement. b. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five years after completion of the Agreement or the work, so long as commercially available at reasonable rates. C. If coverage is canceled or not renewed and it is not replaced with another claims -made policy form with a retroactive date that precedes the date of this Agreement, Consultant must provide extended reporting coverage for a minimum of five years after completion of the Agreement or the work. The City shall have the right to exercise, at the Consultant's sole cost and expense, any extended reporting provisions of the policy, if the Consultant cancels or does not renew the coverage. d. A copy of the claim reporting requirements must be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of any work under this Agreement. 4.4 All Policies Requirements. 4.4.1 Acceptability of insurers. All insurance required by this section is to be placed with insurers with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII. Consulting Services Agreement between DATE City of South San Francisco and Alta Planning + Design Page 5 of 13 4.4.2 Verification of coverage. Prior to beginning any work under this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish City with complete certified copies of all policies, including complete certified copies of all endorsements. All copies of policies and certified endorsements shall show the signature of a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. 4.4.3 Notice of Reduction in or Cancellation of Coverage. A certified endorsement shall be attached to all insurance obtained pursuant to this Agreement stating that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, or reduced in coverage or in limits, except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. In the event that any coverage required by this section is reduced, limited, cancelled, or materially affected in any other manner, Consultant shall provide written notice to City at Consultant's earliest possible opportunity and in no case later than ten (10) working days after Consultant is notified of the change in coverage. 4.4.4 Additional insured; primary insurange. City and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to each of the following: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Consultant, including the insured's general supervision of Consultant; products and completed operations of Consultant, as applicable; premises owned, occupied, or used by Consultant; and automobiles owned, leased, or used by the Consultant in the course of providing services pursuant to this Agreement. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. A certified endorsement must be attached to all policies stating that coverage is primary insurance with respect to the City and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers, and that no insurance or self- insurance maintained by the City shall be called upon to contribute to a loss under the coverage. 4.4.5 Deductibles and Self- Insured Retentions. Consultant shall disclose to and obtain the approval of City for the self- insured retentions and deductibles before beginning any of the services or work called for by any term of this Agreement. During the period covered by this Agreement, only upon the prior express written authorization of Contract Administrator, Consultant may increase such deductibles or self- insured retentions with respect to City, its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. The Contract Administrator may condition approval of an increase in deductible or self- insured retention levels with a requirement that Consultant procure a bond, guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses that is satisfactory in all respects to each of them. Consulting Services Agreement between DATE City of South San Francisco and Alta Planning + Design Page 6 of 13 4.4.6 Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein. 4.4.7 Variation. The City may approve, a variation in the foregoing insurance requirements, upon a determination that the coverage, scope, limits, and forms of such insurance are either not commercially available, or that the City's interests are otherwise fully protected. 4.5 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies City may have if Consultant fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, City may, at its sole option exercise any of the following remedies, which are alternatives to other remedies City may have and are not the exclusive remedy for Consultant's breach: ■ Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under the Agreement; ■ Order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement or withhold any payment that becomes due to Consultant hereunder, or both stop work and withhold any payment, until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof; and /or ■ Terminate this Agreement. Section 5. INDEMNIFICATION AND CONSULTANT'S RESPONSIBILITIES. Consultant shall indemnify, defend with counsel selected by the City, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against any and all losses, liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of any personal injury, bodily injury, loss of life, or damage to property, or any violation of any federal, state, or municipal law or ordinance, to the extent caused, in whole or in part, by the willful misconduct or negligent acts or omissions of Consultant or its employees, subcontractors, or agents, by acts for which they could be held strictly liable, or by the quality or character of their work. The foregoing obligation of Consultant shall not apply when (1) the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation of law arises wholly from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers and (2) the actions of Consultant or its employees, subcontractor, or agents have contributed in no part to the 'injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation of law. It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Acceptance by City of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Consultant from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply to any damages or claims for damages whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to apply. By execution of this Agreement, Consultant acknowledges and agrees to the provisions of this Section and that it is a material element of consideration. Consulting Services Agreement between DATE City of South San Francisco and Alta Planning + Design Page 7 of 13 In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of City, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and /or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City. Section 6. STATUS OF CONSULTANT. 6.1 Independent Contractor. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of City. City shall have the right to control Consultant only insofar as the results of Consultant's services rendered pursuant to this Agreement and assignment of personnel pursuant to Subparagraph 1.3; however, otherwise City shall not have the right to control the means by which Consultant accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other City, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing services under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any and all claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributions and /or employee contributions for PERS benefits. 6.2 Consultant No Agent. Except as City may specify in writing, Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever. Section 7. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. 7.1 Governing Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement. 7.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws. Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply with all laws applicable to the performance of the work hereunder. 7.3 Other Governmental Regulations. To the extent that this Agreement may be funded by fiscal assistance from another governmental entity, Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations to which City is bound by the terms of such fiscal assistance program. 7.4 Licenses and Permits. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and its employees, agents, and any subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals of what -so -ever nature that are legally required to practice their respective professions. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and its Consulting Services Agreement between DATE City of South San Francisco and Alta Planning + Design Page 8 of 13 employees, agents, any subcontractors shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals that are legally required to practice their respective professions. In addition to the foregoing, Consultant and any subcontractors shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement valid Business Licenses from City. 7.5 Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity. Consultant shall not discriminate, on the basis of a person's race, religion, color, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap or disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, or sexual orientation, against any employee, applicant for employment, subcontractor, bidder for a subcontract, or participant in, recipient of, or applicant for any services or programs provided by Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, policies, rules, and requirements related to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in employment, contracting, and the provision of any services that are the subject of this Agreement, including but not limited to the satisfaction of any positive obligations required of Consultant thereby. Consultant shall include the provisions of this Subsection in any subcontract approved by the Contract Administrator or this Agreement. Section 8. TERMINATION AND MODIFICATION. 8.1 Termination. City may cancel this Agreement at any time and without cause upon written notification to Consultant. Consultant may cancel this Agreement upon 30 days' written notice to City and shall include in such notice the reasons for cancellation. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for services performed to the effective date of termination; City, however, may condition payment of such compensation upon Consultant delivering to City any or all documents, photographs, computer software, video and audio tapes, and other materials provided to Consultant or prepared by or for Consultant or the City in connection with this Agreement. 8.2 Extension. City may, in its sole and exclusive discretion, extend the end date of this Agreement beyond that provided for in Subsection 1.1. Any such extension shall require a written amendment to this Agreement, as provided for herein. Consultant understands and agrees that, if City grants such an extension, City shall have no obligation to provide Consultant with compensation beyond the maximum amount provided for in this Agreement. Similarly, unless authorized by the Contract Administrator, City shall have no obligation to reimburse Consultant for any otherwise reimbursable expenses incurred during the extension period. 8.3 Amendments. The parties may amend this Agreement only by a writing signed by all the parties. Consulting Services Agreement between DATE City of South San Francisco and Alta Planning + Design Page 9 of 13 8.4 Assignment and Subcontracting. City and' Consultant recognize and agree that this Agreement contemplates personal performance by Consultant and is based upon a determination of Consultant's unique personal competence, experience, and specialized personal knowledge. Moreover, a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement was and is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Consultant may not assign this Agreement or any interest therein without the prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the performance contemplated and provided for herein, other than to the subcontractors noted in the proposal, without prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. 8.5 Survival. All obligations arising prior to the termination of this Agreement and all provisions of this Agreement allocating liability between City and Consultant shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 8.6 Options upon Breach by Consultant. If Consultant materially breaches any of the terms of this Agreement, City's remedies shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 8.6.1 Immediately terminate the Agreement; 8.6.2 Retain the plans, specifications, drawings, reports, design documents, and any other work product prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement; 8.6.3 Retain a different consultant to complete the work described in Exhibit A not finished by Consultant; or 8.6.4 Charge Consultant the difference between the cost to complete the work described in Exhibit A that is unfinished at the time of breach and the amount that City would have paid Consultant pursuant to Section 2 if Consultant had completed the work. Section 9. KEEPING AND STATUS OF RECORDS. 9.1 Records Created as Part of Consultant's Performance. All reports, data, maps, models, charts, studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda, plans, studies, specifications, records, files, or any other documents or materials, in electronic or any other form, that Consultant prepares or obtains pursuant to this Agreement and that relate to the matters covered hereunder shall be the property of the City. Consultant hereby agrees to deliver those documents to the City upon termination of the Agreement. It is understood and agreed that the documents and other materials, including but not limited to those described above, prepared pursuant to this Agreement are prepared specifically for the City and are not necessarily suitable for any future or other use. City and Consultant agree that, until final approval by City, all data, plans, specifications, reports and other documents are confidential and will not be released to third parties without prior written consent of both parties unless required by law. Consulting Services Agreement between DATE City of South San Francisco and Alta Planning + Design Page 10 of 13 9.2 Consultant's Books and Records. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services or expenditures and disbursements charged to the City under this Agreement for a minimum of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to the Consultant to this Agreement. 9.3 Inspection and Audit of Records. Any records or documents that Section 9.2 of this Agreement requires Consultant to maintain shall be made available for inspection, audit, and /or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of the City. Under California Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds expended under this Agreement exceeds TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00), the Agreement shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of City or as part of any audit of the City, for a period of three (3) years after final payment under the Agreement. Section 10 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 10.1 Attorneys' Fees. If a party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled. The court may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose. 10.2 Venue. In the event that either party brings any action against the other under this Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County San Mateo or in the United States District Court for the First District of California. 10.3 Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement is invalid, void, or unenforceable, the provisions of this Agreement not so adjudged shall remain in full force and effect. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. 10.4 No Implied Waiver of Breach. The waiver of any breach of a specific provision of this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of any other breach of that term or any other term of this Agreement. 10.5 Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the parties. 10.6 Use of Recycled Products. Consultant shall prepare and submit all reports, written studies and other printed material on recycled paper to the extent it is available at equal or less cost than virgin paper. Consulting Services Agreement between DATE City of South San Francisco and Alta Planning + Design Page 11 of 13 10.7 Conflict of Interest. Consultant may serve other clients, but none whose activities within the corporate limits of City or whose business, regardless of location, would place Consultant in a "conflict of interest," as that term is defined in the Political Reform Act, codified at California Government Code Section 81000 et seq. Consultant shall not employ any City official in the work performed pursuant to this Agreement. No officer or employee of City shall have any financial interest in this Agreement that would violate California Government Code Sections 1090 et seq. Consultant hereby warrants that it is not now, nor has it been in the previous twelve (12) months, an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City. If Consultant was an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City in the previous twelve months, Consultant warrants that it did not participate in any manner in the forming of this Agreement. Consultant understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code §1090 et.seq., the entire Agreement is void and Consultant will not be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this Agreement, including reimbursement of expenses, and Consultant will be required to reimburse the City for any sums paid to the Consultant. Consultant understands that, in addition to the foregoing, it may be subject to criminal prosecution for a violation of Government Code § 1090 and, if applicable, will be disqualified from holding public office in the State of California. 10.8 Solicitation. Consultant agrees not to solicit business at any meeting, focus group, or interview related to this Agreement, either orally or through any written materials. 10.9 Contract Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by City Engineer ( "Contract Administrator "). All correspondence shall be directed to or through the Contract Administrator or his or her designee. 10.10 Notices. Any written notice to Consultant shall be sent to: Brett Hondorp, Principal 2560 9th Street, Suite 212 Berkeley, CA 94710 Any written notice to City shall be sent to: City Clerk City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 10.11 Professional Seal. Where applicable in the determination of the contract administrator, the first page of a technical report, first page of design specifications, and each page of construction drawings shall be stamped/sealedl and signed by the licensed professional responsible for the report/design preparation. The stamp /seal shall be in a block entitled Consulting Services Agreement between DATE City of South San Francisco and Alta Planning + Design Page 12 of 13 "Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with report/design responsibility," as in the following example. Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with report/design responsibility. 10.12 Integration. This Agreement, including the scope of work attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, represents the entire and integrated agreement between City and Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. 10.13 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shell constitute one agreement. The Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Consultants Barry M. Nagel, City Manager NAME: TITLE: Attest: City Clerk Approved as to Form: City Attorney 207532_1 Consulting Services Agreement between DATE City of South San Francisco and Alta Planning + Design Page 13 of 13 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES 207532_1 Consulting Services Agreement between DATE City of South San Francisco and Alta Planning + Design - Exhibit A Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT B INSURANCE CERTIFICATES 207532_1 Consulting Services Agreement between DATE City of South San Francisco and Alta Planning + Design - Exhibit B Page 1 of 1 RDA AGENDA ITEM # 4 x s�"� Redevelopment Agency G ��° O Staff Report ALIFR� DATE: December 10, 2008 TO: Redevelopment Agency Board FROM: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant Executive Director SUBJECT: PRECISE PLAN, TYPC "C" SIGN PERMIT, TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, & VARIANCE APPLICATIONS FOR A 166 ROOM HOTEL AT 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, IN THE GATEWAY SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SSFMC CHAPTERS 20.57, 20.85, 20.86, & 20.120 Applicant: Vijay Patel, SRI Krishna Enterprise Case Nos.: P07 -0073: PP07 -0001, 'ND07 -0003, VAR07 -0004, SIGNS07- 0047, TDM08 -0003 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency, by motion, approve application P07- 0073 including a precise plan, mitigated negative declaration, setback variance, sign application, and transportation demand management plan for a 166 room hotel at 550 Gateway Boulevard based on the attached Findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Project Location & Site Description The project is proposed at 550 Gateway Boulevard, north of Corporate Drive, within the Gateway Specific Plan Area. The 87,118 square foot site is currently undeveloped but includes an overhead power line easement across the western boundary of the property. The site is primarily flat, but the grade falls approximately five feet from east to west across the site and there is a five foot high berm on the northeast corner. The existing vegetation would be removed and replaced with new landscaping, and the entire site would be graded and compacted in preparation for the proposed project. Project Description The applicant proposes to develop a nine - story, 109,490 square foot Hyatt Place Hotel with 166 rooms. The proposed amenities include an indoor pool, exercise room, meeting facilities, and a large lobby area with a cafe style eatery. Redevelopment Agency Hyatt Place Hotel at 550 Gateway Boulevard December 10, 2008 Page 2 of 7 The Building The building is proposed to be a podium design with contemporary architecture that includes modern and clean materials including stone cladding, spandrel glass, vision glass, cement plaster, and various metal elements (mullions, cornice, and horizontal breaks). Building elements such as a Porte Coche, a glass curtain wall, different types of glass, deeper window mullions, and a stone clad base and tower element all add to the quality of the project. Overall, the building architecture and design complements other office and hotel buildings in the immediate vicinity of the project and throughout the Gateway area by including both rectilinear and curvilinear shapes (see attached rendering) "Hyatt Place" Hotel Hyatt Place is a relatively new hotel type being introduced by Hyatt. The Hyatt Place concept is to provide guests with a mid -size, full - service hotel. Services such as complimentary high -speed Wi -Fi internet access, 42" flat -panel HDTVs, and Hyatt's signature Grand Bed are typical in Hyatt Place hotels. In addition to the room amenities, the hotel features a 24 hour airport shuttle service, a cafe that will serve breakfast, lunch and dinner, as well as a Starbucks coffee store. General Plan and Zoning With the exception of the parking setback issue (discussed below), the project is consistent with the Business Commercial General Plan land use designation and with the provisions outlined in the Gateway Specific Plan District. Further, the proposed project is consistent with the Gateway Redevelopment Plan because the proposed hotel use activates what is currently a vacant property in the heart of the Redevelopment Plan Area. Zoning Summary Table Gateway Requirements Proposed Project FAR 1.25 1.25 Lot Coverage 50% 18% Height 250 ft. (max.) 92 feet Parking One space per room; lower ratio may be approved through Precise Plan .92 per room Setbacks Building — Min. 40 ft. from any street Building — 93 ft. from Gateway Blvd. Parking — 20 ft. from any building Parking — see discussion under Variance section of Staff Report Landscaping No minimum standard 20% including paths Redevelopment Agency Hyatt Place Hotel at 550 Gateway Boulevard December 10, 2008 Page 3 of 7 Variance — Building, to Surface Parking Setback The ordinance states that "...parking shall not be permitted within twenty feet of any building" (SSFMC 20.57.220(c)). Variances can be permitted by the Redevelopment Agency "where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships and results inconsistent with the purpose of the Gateway Specific Plan may result from the strict application of certain provisions..." (SSFMC 20.57.610). Due to the depth of the site and the parking requirement for the number of rooms proposed, the applicant has requested a variance to allow parking a minimum setback of 14 feet to the rear fagade of the building. The intent of the zoning standard is to ensure that there is sufficient space for landscaping around the perimeter of the building, adjacent to parking areas. After various site plan modification attempts, the required building to parking area setback has presented a practical difficulty for the applicant. As shown on plan sheet L -1 (attached), the applicant is proposing a row of trees as well as ground cover in the 14 to 22 foot wide landscape area between the parking area and the building. Staff believes that the proposed planting is comparable to the amount of planting that would have been installed within the full 20 -foot setback, and is therefore recommending support of the variance application. In addition to the proposed landscape, the applicant is has also proposed a location for public art to the right of the hotel entrance. A condition of approval has been drafted to ensure the public art is reviewed and approved by the Economic and Community Development Director. Parking and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) The proposed project includes surface and below grade parking — 154 stalls total. The resultant parking ratio is 0.93 spaces per room. This is consistent with the parking requirements for an airport- oriented hotel. The parking ratio is further justified by the preliminary Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan the applicant has put forward which meets the minimum ordinance requirements including bicycle parking, carpool and vanpool ridematching services, a shuttle program, motorcycle parking, and preferred carpool and vanpool parking. Signs The applicant is proposing five new signs on the site, including four building mounted signs, and one monument style sign. The building mounted sign design consists of internally illuminated channel logo and letters and the monument sign design consists of halo lit channel letters. The proposed sign program is well- designed in terms of materials, colors, and lettering types. The building mounted signs are appropriate in terms of overall size and complement the overall design of the building. Design Review Board The Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the subject application at their meetings of August 21, 2007, October 16, 2007, and February 19, 2008 (meeting minutes attached). At the February Redevelopment Agency Hyatt Place Hotel at 550 Gateway Boulevard December 10, 2008 Page 4 of 7 meeting, the DRB supported the application based on the architectural and landscape improvements that were incorporated into the design. During the following months, the applicant requested an additional story for office space be added to the project. The DRB reviewed the project with the additional office story at their meeting of October 21, 2008 (meeting minutes attached). The DRB's recommendations for the ninth story included adding trim details to help integrate it with the total building and to make the modest ninth story rectangular, rather than triangular in shape. These changes have been incorporated into the current design. Sustainability The applicant has provided written materials (letter attached from Tucker Engineering, dated Nov. 24, 2008) identifying a number of measures included in the proposal to promote environmental sustainability during the construction portion of the project. In addition sustainable construction methods, the applicant has committed to a number of operational sustainability measures, including a Transportation Demand Management Program and a low water use landscape plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) An Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the City and circulated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality .Act (CEQA). The environmental analysis was completed using the previous eight -story iteration. The final nine story project does not change the result for the MND or the project's consistency with the City's General Plan and Zoning. The findings of the Initial Study indicate that the project will have no impact or a less than significant impact with respect to: aesthetics, agricultural resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, land use, minerals, population and housing, public services, parks and recreation, transportation and circulation, and utility and service systems. The Initial Study indicates that air quality, biology, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise will require mitigation measures to ensure that their impacts are less than significant with mitigation. A summary of the findings is contained on pages 3 -90 through 3 -96 of the MND. Comments on MND Two comment letters were received on the draft MND, one from CalTrans and another from PG &E; both letters are summarized below. The comment letters and City's responses are attached to the staff report. Redevelopment Agency Hyatt Place Hotel at 550 Gateway Boulevard December 10, 2008 Page 5 of 7 CalTrans Letter Caltrans requested that the City complete a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) as opposed to relying on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates. Planning and Engineering staff and the environmental consultant believe that a TIS is unnecessary for the following reasons: • The proposed project is an airport- related hotel. It includes a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM Program), is served by shuttle buses and the "Downtown Dasher" taxi service and is located in an area that contains goods and services, and will include goods and services within the project itself. All of these measures reduce single - occupant vehicle trips. The City has adopted an aggressive traffic improvement program, funded by development fees for projects in the East of 101 Area. The planned, underway and completed traffic improvement measures are identified on pages 1 -16 through 1 -20 of the IS /MND. By Ordinance the project applicant is required to contribute a fair share contribution in the amount of $461,405 to the East of 101 Area improvement program. • The ITE trip generation factors used to calculate the vehicle trip generation for the project in the MND results in a conservative estimate of traffic that could be generated by the project. Based on ITE, the project could generate 109 average daily trips (ADT). The 109 ADT does not factor in trip reductions as a result of the TDM Program, and the shuttle service to and from the airport. Peak period trip generation is assumed to be 10% of the ADT. Applying this industry standard to the project, Hyatt Place Hotel could contribute 11 peak period trips. For these reasons a TIS is not recommended as project traffic would have a less than significant impact. Project traffic generation would be negligible. PG &E Letter PG &E requests include: that they are consulted early in the planning process for the project, that the City note the presence of the transmission tower on the project site, that access is provided to the tower, and that we acknowledge that they may have to expand their facilities to provide service to development projects. The letter from PG &E appears to be a standard reply. The City has involved PG &E in the planning process by circulating the project for review and comment. The site plan clearly identifies the presence of the transmission tower and its 32 foot easement. Building setbacks are a minimum of 29 feet from the outside of PG &E easement. Site circulation area abuts the tower thus providing additional access to the tower. The site has been included in planning documents for development since the 1980's; at the onset Redevelopment Agency Hyatt Place Hotel at 550 Gateway Boulevard December 10, 2008 Page 6 of 7 of the Gateway Specific Plan planning process. The environmental process marks the formal start of project planning. All environmental documents have been and continue to be routed to PG &E for comment. The letter notes the presence of electric and magnetic fields (EMF). The letter goes on to state that "There is no scientific consensus on the health effects of EMF exposure, but it is an issue of public concern. PG &E relies on organizations and health agencies such as the California Department of Health Services, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Electric Power and Research Institute to review research on EMF and provide a foundation for developing policies." This comment is noted. California Department of Health Services, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination websites were reviewed (www.lessemf.com /pamphlet.html) and confirm the comment by PG &E; to date there is no scientific consensus as to the effect of EMF. Further, the project does not propose a sensitive land use such as a school or residential use. Staff and the City's environmental consultant met with the applicant and his contractor to confirm his understanding of the mitigation measures prior to circulating the MND for review. The applicant has agreed to the mitigation measures outlined in the MND. CONCLUSION: Based on the attached Findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, staff is recommending the Redevelopment Agency, by motion, approve the applications associated with the proposed hotel at 550 Gateway Boulevard, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and will be an asset to the Gateway Redevelopment area. By: Approve Marty Van Duyn B If ry M. a 1 Assistant Executive irector Executive Dire r Redevelopment Agency Hyatt Place Hotel at 550 Gateway Boulevard December 10, 2008 Page 7 of 7 Attachments: 1. Draft Findings of Approval 2. Draft Conditions of Approval 3. Project Rendering 4. Design Review Board Minutes • August 21, 2007 • October 16, 2007 • February 19, 2008 • October 21, 2008 5. Construction Sustainability Letter, Tucker Engineering, dated November 24, 2008 6. State Clearinghouse letter, dated November 7, 2008 7. Comment Letters — Mitigated Negative Declaration (CalTrans & PG &E) 8. Sign Package Summary 9. Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Program 10. Plans Previously Circulated to Redevelopment Agency Members for Review: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration — delivered November 26, 2008 . FINDINGS OF APPROVAL HYATT PLACE HOTEL — 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD P07 -0073: PP07 -0001, ND07 -0003, VAR07 -0004, SIGNS07 -0047, TDM08 -0003 (As recommended by the Planning Division, December 10, 2008) As required by the "South San Francisco Municipal Code" (SSFMC Section 20.57.590), the following findings based on the standards outlined in Section 20.57 of the SSFMC are made in support of a Precise Plan Application, including a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Variance for a Hyatt Place Hotel at 550 Gateway Boulevard, in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.57, based on the attached Conditions of Approval, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the attached Transportation Demand Management Plan, the material samples including project renderings attached to the staff report (completed by DES Architects), the project plans (completed by Lee Gage Associates, Inc. and Sierra Designs, Inc.), and information provided at the at the public hearing on December 10, 2008. A. The Hyatt Place Hotel project proposed in the precise plan is compatible with the intent and purpose of the Gateway Specific Plan because the project consists of constructing a new hotel on a vacant parcel with the Specific Plan area. "Hotels, motels and related facilities and services" are specifically listed in the "Uses Permitted" section of the ordinance. B. The development and/or construction standards proposed for Hyatt Place Hotel project are designed to achieve compliance with the development and /or construction standards of the Gateway Specific Plan. The proposed project is designed to achieve compliance with the development and construction standards in the Specific Plan because: a. the entire site will be redeveloped with a new building and new landscaping; b. the buildings will be,clad in high quality exterior building materials such as stone, spandrel and vision glass and cement plaster; c. the exterior design has been vetted by the Design Review Board where a number of design and material changes were suggested and eventually incorporated into the plans; d. the exterior design is attractive on all four sides; e. the building is designed to reduce interior noise levels within the building caused by nearby roadways and highways, and overhead airplane flight paths; f. noise generated on site during construction has been mitigated to the extent possible through mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration; g. the buildings will be built to meet or exceed current Building Code requirements for energy conservation; and h. erosion control during the construction portion of the project will be monitored by the City's Water Quality Control Division using their standard condition of approval. - 1 - C. The proposed project is consistent with the redevelopment plan because it activates a property that is currently vacant. The proposed project is a hotel, and as a commercial use, a hotel will take advantage of the superior environment including the areas bustling biotechnology and life sciences industry, as well as the nearby San Francisco International Airport. D. The propose project (precise plan) is consistent with the General Plan because the General Plan land use designation for the site is "Business Commercial ". The Business Commercial designation specifically identifies `hotel' as a category of use that should be encouraged in this area of the City. E. A variance for the proposed project should be granted because the required 20 -foot setback between the building and the parking area results in practical difficulties and is an unnecessary hardship. The proposed substandard setback is proposed on the rear of the building and a substantial amount of landscaping to compensate for the reduced setback. Further, the applicant is proposing public art as an. additional aesthetic remedy to the reduced landscape provided around the perimeter of the building. F. An Initial Study (October 2008) was prepared for the Project and based upon the findings contained therein and incorporated herein by reference, a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, along with the Initial Study (October 2008) was circulated for public and agency review. The public review period commenced on October 8, 2008 and concluded on November 7, 2008 (State Clearinghouse #2008102029). The documents were prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15070, identifying mitigations that would avoid or mitigate the potential environmental effects of the Project to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. The location and custodian of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including comments and responses and other documents that constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the Chief Planner, Planning Division of the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA The City received two comment letters on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The comments and responses are attached to the staff report dated December 10, 2008 and incorporated herein by reference. The responses provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the concerns raised by the comments. The Redevelopment Agency reviewed the staff report, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and related comments and responses at a noticed public meeting on December 10, 2008 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, including comments and responses, reflects the Redevelopment Agency's independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts from the Project; and Consistent with CEQA section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15074, the City prepared a Mitigation Monitoring Program, included in Chapter 3.17A of the Initial Study, incorporated herein by reference, designed to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures during implementation of the Project. -2- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL HYATT PLACE HOTEL — 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD P07 -0073: PP07 -0001, ND07 -0003, VAR07 -0004, SIGNS07 -0047, TDM08 -0003 (As recommended by the Planning Division, December 10, 2008) A. Planning Division requirements shall be as follows: 1. The project shall be applied and erected substantially as indicated on the plans dated 11/21/2008, prepared by Lee Gage & Associates, Inc.; the landscape plan dated 8/10/08, prepared by Sierra Designs, Inc.; and the project renderings prepared by DES Architects and included as an attachment to the Staff Report dated 12/10/08. 2. The applicant shall follow the City of South San Francisco, Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division, Standard Conditions and Limitations for Commercial, Industrial and Multi - Family Residential Projects. 3. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated October 2008. 4. There shall be no outside storage of materials and equipment. All outside storage shall be .within building structures or other enclosed areas approved by the Chief Planner. 5. Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant shall provide plans to the Chief Planner for review. and approval that show the location of all utilities, utility boxes, and standpipes. All utilities and standpipes shall be screened and/or located out of view of the -public right of way. 6. The applicant shall implement the measures outlined in the Tucker Engineering letter, dated November 24th, 2008 outlining "Green" initiatives for the duration of the construction process. 7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the proposed public art shall be submitted by the applicant for reviewed and approval by the City's Economic and Community Development Director. 8. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a roof plan for the ninth floor of the structure for review and if acceptable, approval by the Chief Planner. 9. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened and/or enclosed. The design of the screen and /or enclosure shall be reviewed and if acceptable, approved by the Chief Planner. -3- 10. The applicant shall finalize the Preliminary Transportation Demand Management program (attached to Staff Report), and submit it for review, and if acceptable, approval by the Chief Planner. 11. The applicant shall implement, manage, and update as necessary the final Transportation Demand Management program for the life of the project. 12. The applicant shall pay for a third party plan check review to ensure that the project plans are consistent with the plans and renderings presented during the project approval hearing. 13. In accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.115.030, prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall pay the requisite childcare fee. Currently the fee for "hotel /visitor services" use is $0.18 per gross square feet of building, but is subject to annual increases. The current fee for the subject project is (109,490 sq. ft. x .18) $19,708.20. (Planning Division contact person: Gerry Beaudin, Senior Planner (650) 877 -8535) B. Engineering Division requirements shall be as follows: 1. STANDARD CONDITIONS The developer shall comply with, the applicable conditions of approval for commercial projects, as detailed in the Engineering Division's "Standard Conditions for Commercial and Industrial Developments ", contained in our "Standard Development Conditions" booklet, dated January 1998. This booklet is available at no cost to the applicant from the Engineering Division. 2. SPECIAL CONDITIONS A. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Division. The developer will be responsible for paying for all fees, bonds, plan checking and all associated fees for the grading permit. The developer will also place a cash deposit of $30,000 to pay for all onsite, SVWPPP compliance, grading compliance and dust control inspections. B. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an updated geotechnical report shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division. The developer shall place a $5,000 cash deposit with the City for the peer review of the Geotechnical Report. -4- C. The developer shall remove and replace any broken sidewalk fronting the project. The new sidewalk shall comply with the City standard detail and shall provide Caltrans standard handicap ramps. All work shall be done at no cost to the City. D. The developer shall remove the loop detector and install a video detection system for the traffic signal system which shall be approved by the City. The developer shall be responsible to pay for all improvements to the intersection. E. The drive aisles onsite shall be a minimum of 25' wide. There are areas on the plan where the drive aisles are less than 25' wide. F. The ramp to the lower parking garage shall have a grade no greater than 12 %. G. The developer shall incorporate bio- grassy swales and other Best Management Practices as stormwater measures within the project and shall be approved by the Engineering Division and the Environmental Compliance Manager. H. The existing sanitary sewer cleanout shall be replaced with a sanitary sewer manhole and shall be installed onsite, near the -property line. I. The developer shall coordinate work with California Water Service for all water utility work. J. The developer shall obtain an encroachment permit for any work performed in the City's right -of -way and pay all associated fees, deposit and /or bonds. The developer shall submit an Engineer's estimate for all work performed in the City's right -of -way and place a bond or cash deposit for said work. K. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the .various fees as detailed below. 3. OYSTER POINT OVERPASS CONTRIBUTION FEE Prior to receiving a Building Permit for the proposed new office/R &D development, the applicant shall pay the Oyster Point Overpass fee, as determined by the City Engineer, in accordance with City Council Resolutions 102 -96 and 152 -96. The fee will be calculated upon reviewing the information shown on the applicant's construction plans and the latest Engineering News Record San Francisco Construction Cost Index at the time of payment. The estimated fee for the entire subject 105,536 GSF office and R &D development is calculated below. (The number in the calculation, "9071.91 ", is the October 2005 Engineering News Record San Francisco construction cost index, which is revised each month to reflect local inflation changes in the construction industry.) Trip Calculation -5- 166 rooms @ 12.3 trips per 1000 gsf = 1,298 new vehicle trips Contribution Calculation 1,298 trips X $154 X (9071.91/6552.16) _ $ 276,764.03 4, EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for any building within the proposed project, the applicant shall pay the East of 101 Traffic Impact fee, In accordance with the resolution adopted by the City Council at their meeting of May 23, 2007, or as the fee may be amended in the future. Fee Calculation (effective September 24, 2007) 166 Hotel Rooms 2 $1,065.49 per each square foot = $ 176,871.34 Traffic Impact Fee = $ 1769871.34 V. SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY STUDY AND IMPACT FEE The City of South San Francisco has identified the need to investigate the condition and capacity of the sewer system within the East of 101 area, downstream of the proposed office /R &D development. The existing sewer collection system was originally designed many years ago to accommodate warehouse and industrial use and is now proposed to accommodate uses, such as offices and biotech facilities, with a much greater sewage flow. These additional flows, plus groundwater infiltration into the existing sewers, due to ground settlement and the age of the system, have resulted in pumping and collection capacity constraints. A study and flow model is proposed to analyze the problem and recommend solutions and improvements. The applicant shall pay the East of 101 Sewer Facility Development Impact Fee, as adopted by the City Council at their meeting of October 2' ), 2002. The adopted fee is $3.19 per gallon of discharge per day. It is determined that any use in the East of 101 generate 400 gallons per day per 1000 square feet of development. Based upon this calculation, the potential fee would be, if paid this year: 0.4 g /sf (400 gpd /1000 sq. ft.) x $3.19 per gallon x 108,900 sq. ft. _ $138,956.40 The sewer contribution shall be due and payable prior to receiving a building permit for each phase of the development. Total estimated fees: Oyster Point Overpass Fee $ 276,764.03 East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee S 1765871.34 East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee $ 138,956.40 Total S 5929591.77 (Engineering Division contact, Sam Bautista, Senior Civil Engineer, (650) 829 -6652) C. Water Quality requirements shall be as follows: The following items must be included in the plans or are requirements of the Stormwater and/or Pretreatment programs and must be completed prior to the issuance of a permit: 1. A plan showing the location of all storm drains and sanitary sewers must be submitted. 2. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Logo. 3. Storm water pollution preventions devices are to be installed. A combination of landscape based controls (e.g., vegetated swales, bioretention areas, planter /tree boxes, and ponds) and manufactured controls (vault based separators, vault based media filters, and other removal devices) are required.. Existing catch basins are to be retrofitted with catch basin inserts or equivalent. These devices must be shown on the plans prior to the issuance of a permit: — - If possible, incorporate the following: • vegetated/grass swale along perimeter • catch basin runoff directed to infiltration area • notched curb to direct runoff from parking area into swale • roof drainage directed to landscape • use of planter boxes instead of tree grates for stormwater treatment Manufactured drain inserts alone are not acceptable they must be part of a treatment train. One of the following must be used in series with each manufactured unit: swales, detention basins, media (sand) filters, bioretention areas, or vegetated buffer strips. Treatment devices must be sized according to the WEF Method or the Start at the Source Design. Please state what method is used to calculate sizing. 4. Encourage the use of pervious pavement where possible. -7- 5. The applicant must submit a signed maintenance agreement for the stormwater pollution prevention devices installed. Each maintenance agreement will require the inclusion of the following exhibits: a. A letter -sized reduced -scale site plan that shows the locations of the treatment measures that will be subject to the agreement. b. A legal description of the property. c. A maintenance plan, including specific long -term maintenance tasks and a schedule. It is recommended that each property owner be required to develop its own maintenance plan, subject to the municipality's approval. Resources that may assist property owners in developing their maintenance plans include: i. The operation manual for any proprietary system purchased by the property owner. 6. Applicant must complete the Project Applicant Checklist for NPDES Permit Requirements prior to issuance of a permit and return to the Technical Services Supervisor at the WQCP. 7. Landscaping shall meet the following conditions related to reduction of pesticide use on the project site: a. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat stormwater runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain, and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolonged exposure to water shall be specified. b. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. c. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent practicable. d. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. e. Integrated pest management (IPM) principles and techniques shall be encouraged as part of the landscaping design to the maximum extent practicable. Examples of IPM principles and techniques include: i. Select plants that are well adapted to soil conditions at the site. ii. Select plants that are well adapted to sun and shade conditions at the site. In making these selections, consider future conditions when plants reach maturity, as well as seasonal changes. I:Z iii. Provide irrigation appropriate to the water requirements of the selected plants. iv. Select pest- resistant and disease - resistant plants. v. Plant a diversity of species to prevent a potential pest infestation from affecting the entire landscaping plan. vi. Use "insectary" plants in the landscaping to attract and keep beneficial insects. 8. Roof condensate must be routed to sanitary sewer. This must be shown on plans prior to issuance of a permit. 9. Trash handling area must be covered, enclosed and must drain to sanitary sewer. This must be shown on the plans prior to issuance of a permit. 10. Loading dock area must be covered and any drain must be connected to the sanitary sewer system. This must be shown on plans prior to issuance of a permit. 11. Install separate water meters for the building, landscape, and any food service facility. 12. The applicant must install a grease interceptor. The interceptor must be connected to all wash sinks, mop sinks, and floor sinks and must be upstream of the domestic waste stream. Sizing of the interceptor must be in accordance with the uniform plumbing code. This must be shown on the plans prior to the issuance of a permit. 13. A signed maintenance agreement for the grease interceptor must be submitted prior to occupancy. 14. Applicant will be required to obtain a food facility permit. Contact Craig Lustenberger at Water Quality Control (650).829 -3882 prior to the beginning of operation. 15. Fire sprinkler system test/drainage valve should be plumbed into the sanitary sewer system. This must be shown on the plans prior, to issuance of a permit. 16. A construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a permit. 17. Plans must include location of concrete wash out area and location of entrance /outlet of tire wash. 18. A grading and drainage plan must be submitted. 19. An erosion and sediment control plan must be submitted. MOM 20. Applicant must pay sewer connection fee at a later time based on anticipated flow, BOD and TSS calculations. 21. Must file a Notice of Termination with the WQCP when the project is completed. 22. Owner must complete the City of South San Francisco Stormwater Treatment Measures Maintenance Agreement and file with the County Recorders Office. 23. Please have applicant contact Cassie Prudhel at Water Quality Control with any questions. (650) 829 -3840. (Water Quality Control Plant contact, Cassie Prudhel, Technical Services Supervisor, (650) 829 -3840) D. Police Department requirements shall be as follows: A. Municipal Code Compliance The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed /revised building plans. B. Building Security Doors a. The jamb on all aluminum frame - swinging doors shall be so constructed or protected to withstand 1600 lbs. of pressure in both a vertical distance of three (3) inches and a horizontal distance of one (1) inch each side of the strike. b . Glass doors shall be secured with a deadbolt lock' with minimum throw of one (1) inch. The outside ring should be free moving and case hardened. C. Employee /pedestrian doors shall be of solid core wood or hollow sheet 1 The locks shall be so constructed that both the deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside door knob /lever /turnpiece. A double - cylinder deadbolt lock or a single- cylinder deadbolt lock without a turnpiece may be used in "Group B occupancies as defined by the Uniform Building Code. When used, there must be a readily visible durable sign on or adjacent to the door stating "This door to remain unlocked during business hours ", employing letters not less than one inch high on a contrasting background. The locking device must be of type that will be readily distinguishable as locked, and its use may be revoked by the Building Official for due cause. -10- metal with a minimum thickness of 1 -3/4 inches and shall be secured by a deadbolt lock' with minimum throw of one (1) inch. Locking hardware shall be installed so that both deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside knob, handle, or turn piece. d. Outside hinges on all exterior doors shall be provided with non - removable pins when pin -type hinges are used or shall be provided with hinge studs, to prevent removal of the door. e. Doors with glass panels and doors with glass panels adjacent to the doorframe shall be secured with burglary- resistant glazing or the equivalent, if double - cylinder deadbolt locks are not installed. f. Doors with panic bars will have vertical rod panic hardware with top and bottom latch bolts. No secondary locks should be installed on panic - equipped doors, and no exterior surface- mounted hardware should be used. A 2" wide and 6" long steel astragal shall be installed on the door exterior to protect the latch. No surface - mounted exterior hardware need -be used on panic- equipped doors. g. On pairs of doors, the active leaf shall be secured with the type of lock required for single doors in this section. The inactive leaf shall be equipped with automatic flush extension bolts protected by hardened material with a minimum throw of three- fourths inch at head and foot and shall have no doorknob or surface- mounted hardware. Multiple point locks, cylinder activated from the active leaf and satisfying the requirements, may be used instead of flush bolts. h. Any single or pair of doors requiring locking at the bottom or top rail shall have locks with a minimum of one throw bolt at both the top and bottom rails. 2. Windows a . Louvered windows shall not be used as_ they pose a significant security problem. b . Accessible rear and side windows not viewable from the street shall consist of rated burglary resistant glazing or its equivalent. Such windows that are capable of being opened shall be secured on the inside with a locking device capable of withstanding a force of two hundred- (200) lbs. applied in any direction. 25/16" security laminate, 1/4" polycarbonate, or approved security film treatment, minimum. - 11 - C . Secondary locking devices are recommended on all accessible windows that open. 3. Roof Openings a. All glass skylights on the roof of any building shall be provided with: or: or: 1) Rated burglary- resistant glass or glass -like acrylic material.2 2) Iron bars of at least 1/2" round or one by one -fourth inch flat steel material spaced no more than five inches apart under the skylight and securely fastened. 3) A steel grill of at least 1/8" material or two inch mesh under skylight and securely fastened. b. All hatchway openings on the roof of any building shall be secured as follows: 1) If the hatchway is of wooden material, it shall be covered on the outside with at least 16 gauge sheet steel or its equivalent attached with screws. 2) The hatchway shall be secured from the inside with a slide bar or slide bolts. The use of crossbar or padlock must be approved by the Fire Marshal. 3) Outside hinges on all hatchway openings shall be provided with non- removable pins when using pin -type hinges. C. All air duct or air vent openings exceeding 8" x 12" on the roof or exterior walls of any building shall be secured by covering the same with either of the following: or: 1) Iron bars of at least 1/2" round or one by one -fourth inch flat steel material, spaced no more than five inches apart and securely fastened. 2) A steel grill of at least 1/8" material or two inch mesh and securely fastened and 3) If the barrier is on the outside, it shall be secured with galvanized rounded head flush bolts of at least 3/8" diameter on the outside. -12- 4. Lighting a. All exterior doors shall be provided with their own light source and shall be adequately illuminated at all hours to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises and provide adequate illumination for. persons exiting the building. b. The premises, while closed for business after dark, must be sufficiently lighted by use of interior night- lights. Parking areas shall have a minimum of three foot candles. . C . Exterior door, perimeter, parking area, and canopy lights shall be controlled by photocell and shall be left on during hours of darkness or diminished lighting. 5. Numbering of Buildings a. The address number of every commercial building shall be illuminated during the hours of darkness so that it shall be easily visible from the street. The numerals in these numbers shall be no less than four to six inches in height and of a color. contrasting with the background. b . In addition, any business, which affords vehicular access to the rear through any driveway, alleyway, or parking lot, shall also display the same numbers on the rear of the building. - 6. Alarms a . The business shall be equipped with at least ,a central station silent robbery alarm system. NOTE: To avoid delays in occupancy, alarm installation, steps 'should be taken well in advance of the final inspection. 7. Traffic, Parking, and Site Plan a. Handicapped parking spaces shall be clearly marked and properly sign posted. NOTE: For additional details, contact the Traffic Bureau Sergeant at (650) 829 - 3934. b. Traffic Flow, Parking and Site Plan required -13- c. Photometric Plan. 8. Security Camera System a. Property or building entrance and lobby garage areas must be monitored by a closed circuit television camera system. Recordings must be maintained for a period of no less than 30 days. b. These cameras will be part of a digital surveillance system, which will be monitored on-site and accessible on the World Wide Web. c. This system must be of adequate resolution and color rendition to readily identify any person or vehicle in the event a crime is committed, anywhere on the premises. 9. Misc. Security Measures a. Commercial establishments having one hundred dollars or more in cash on the premises after closing hours shall lock such money in an approved type money safe with a minimum rating of TL-15 . (Police Department contact, Sgt. Jon Kailas, (650) 877-8927) E. Fire Department requirements shall be as follows: All buildings require fire sprinklers. Please submit separate plans. 2. Plans shall conform to NFPA 13 and City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, Section 15.24.110. 3. Exterior canopies and overhangs require fire sprinklers. 4. All fire sprinklers piping in the parking garage shall be corrosion resistant, either painted or galvanized. 5. All buildings require fire alarms. Please submit separate plans. 6. Provide ahorn/strobe at the front of the building, which will activate upon fire sprinkler or alarm notification. Plans shall conform to NFPA 72 and City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, Section 15.24.150. 7. All buildings require fire extinguishers. -14- 8. Provide adequate premise identification (address) on the building per the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, Section 15.24.100. 9.. Provide smoke control management system for the high rise building in accordance with California Fire Code (CFC). 10: The building garage shall be equipped with a :fire communication system. Due to the radio transmission interference problems caused by below-grade parking structures, the Fire Department requires additional communication infrastructure to be located within the garage to maintain communication between fire crews, incident commanders, and county communication. 11. Building shall be equipped with a fire pump and water storage as required by the California Fire Code (CFC). (Fire Department. contact, Luis DaSilva, Fire Marshal, (650) 829-6645) -15- • ~, O N Z C ~ 3 ~ `~ ~ D -~ T ~ ~ ~ ~'• a ~. 0 r o D n d rn f. ~. ~. ( ` ~t; J.n._ ri ~~ , ,. sir- -- I1 ~'~ .~ > ~ t 1 -r ~ ~ ll'~ ~'r' ~ ~~,,,~ - 1 ~ x,7`4 = ,'~_., ' ^_- aLl1 ~.. _ ___ _.. ~ ~;.~ w ,~4~ r~~*t` ~~ ~ rt ;;~ `~ .~ T1 .~ ~~ ~ i J _ ~ ~r F~~ ~ *z /r ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, v 't ~ ' I 7 ~ i11 ~i ~ l ., r ~ i r; r i h m ~ ~ r ~ ~;~ ~. ~ s ~~~a ,, .:, 5 ~~: ~ ~ ~~, _ ~,, r? ~` 1 D 7 ? .' ~~ ~! r}~1 ~ ~ ~~ rt t ~`` r~ ~ {; ~ }_ .~. g e ~r-, ~ ;; The Board had the following comments: 1. Plant one Platanus acerifolia `Columbia', Columbia London Plane tree in the front yard - 15 gallon minimum size. 2. Open up the front entry to the office on the ground floor to prevent the room _ `~! ~ from becoming a bedroom. ~ ( 3. Provide a detail drawing for the cobblestone wall. Use itface block (natural stone colored, not gray) or similar architectural mate,~a ~,.~I~UU ~~ Recommend approval with conditions 6. OWNER Alejandro Ceja APPLICANT Alejandro Ceja ADDRESS 472 Railroad , e PROJECT NUMBER P07-0078 & ' R07-0049 PROJECT NAME Ceja Resi ence - 2nd Story Addition (CaserPlanner: Gerry Beaudin) DESCRIPTION D sign Review of a proposed 2nd story addition to an ,existing Single Family Dwelling in the High Density ~! Residential (R-3-L) Zone District in accordance with ,~ SSFMC Chapters 20.20 & 20.85 The Board had he following comments: 1. Re ove the security gate/fence system from the entry to the new unit. 2. C ange the size of the proposed two Walnut trees; and one Magnolia ~ee from 5 gallon size to minimum 15 gallon size as street trees. Recomr~iend approval with conditions 7. OWN~R SRI Krishna Enterpri APPLICANT .Vijay Patel ADDRESS 550 Gateway Blvd PROJECT NUMBER P07-0073, PP07-0001, VAR07-0004 & DR07-0046 PROJECT NAME Hyatt Place Hotel (Case Planner: Gerry Beaudin) DESCRIPTION Precise Plan, Signs, and Design Review applications for a 166 room, eight-story Hyatt Place Hotel, including associated sub-surface parking, surface parking, public art, landscape improvements and a Variance reque sting a reduced building to parking setback at 550 Gateway Boulevard within the Gateway Specific Plan District in accordance with SSFMC chapters 20.57, 20.85, 20.86. -17- The Board had the following comments: 1. Overhaul the design of the building to make it more contemporary. Address issues such as verticality and exterior material quality. 2. Revise the landscape plan to incorporate "bold patches" of vegetation. 3. Revise the plant list to include plants that are in scale with the large buildings, for example, Arbutus marina is too small relative to the buildings and should be replaced with Poplar stands or similar larger plantings. 4. Remove Eucalyptus from the plant list as it is not a recommended tree. 5. Consider relocating the accessible par king stalls to reduce the chances of conflict with the driveways. 6. Relocate and/or rotate the trash enclosure to make it less visible from the vehicular entry to the site. 7. Plant trees in the parking lot islands 8. On the plant list, reconsider the use of Little John bottlebrush (dated look), Coprosma & Myoporum groundcovers (hardiness issues), Ivy Geranium (short life span) and Hardenbergia (attracts bees) 9. Add bioswales for parking lot runoff in addressing stormwater regulations. Revise and resubmit plans. 8. OWNE'l LBA Realty, LLC APPLIC T Ken Jones ADDRES 800-890 Dubuque Ave PROJECT UMBER P07-0075 & Signs07-0029 PROJECT NAME SSF Business Center Type "C" Sign (Case Planner: Chad Smalley) DESCRIPTION ~ Type "C" Sign Permit to allow a Master Sign Program at 800-890 Dubuque Avenue in Planned Commercial (P-C-L) ,Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.24, tl20.85 & 20.86. ~A The Board had the following comments: 1. Reduce the monument sign height to 10 feet. 2. Confirm the sign reg~ations forthe mandatory towing and accessibility signage to for proper text Recommend approval with conditions 9. OWNER Peninsula, `Pines L P APPLICANT Dr. William $~, Duncan Lewis ADDRESS 842 Antoinette,. Ln PROJECT NUMBER P07-0071 & DR07-0045 PROJECT NAME Peninsula Pines`- Exterior Remodel (Case Planner: Chad Smalley) DESCRIPTION Design Review of exterior building and accessory structure improvements at the Peninsula Pines Apartment complex located on Antoinette Lane in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.85. -18- DRB Mi:~utes October 16, 2007 Page 5 of 4 7. OWNER SRI Krishna Enterpri APPLICANT Vijay Patel ADDRESS 550 Gateway Blvd PROJECT NUMBER P07-0073, PP07-0001; VAR07-0004. Signs07-0047 & DR07-0046 PROJECT NAME Hyatt Place Hotel (Case Planner Gerry Beaudin) DESCRIPTION "Re-submittal" -Precise Plan, Signs, Design Review & Variance applications fora 166 room, eight-story Hyatt Place Hotel, including associated sub-surface parking, surface parking, public art; landscape improvements and a variance request for a reduced building to parking area setback at 550 Gateway Boulevard within the Gateway Specific Plan Area in accordance with SSFMC chapters 20.57, 20.85, 20.86. The Board had the following. comments: 1. Review your landscaping design. Plant species called out on the plans will not survive in SSF. (Rockrose, Guinea Gold, Hebe and Leylandi Cypress will be short lived). 2. Prior landscape-issues #4, #7 & #8 from comments dated June 30, 2007 have been addressed in the submitted plans, but #3, #5, & #9 have not been adequately addressed. 3. Relocate the trash enclosure. 4. Biowales are still missing from the plans for runoff in the parking lot area. If bioswales are found to be unworkable from an engineering perspective, incorporate more permeable hardscape. 5. Relocate the accessible parking stalls to reduce the chances of conflict with the driveways. 6. Articulate the building with~a combination of vertical and horizontal elements in an effort to accentuate the building. 7. Redesign the porte cochere to improve its scale relative to the building and create a lighter more modern aesthetic. . 8. Redesign the roof to include more interesting roof elements. 9. Provide a better coordinated and more modern material and color pallet for the proposed building. Re-submittal required. 8. ER Cityview Marbella, 280 LP APPL T Watt Communities ADDRESS - 2220 Gellert Boulevard Bldg D PROJECT NLnvIBE P07-0096 & Signs07-0039 PROJECT NAME "C" Sign Permit - So. City Lights (Case Planne~erry Beaudin) DESCRIPTION Type "C" Sign Permit fo Master Sign Program which includes both temporary and permanen ins for the South City Lights development in the Multi-Family idential (R-3-L) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Ch ers 20.20, 20.85 & 20.86 -19- 8, OWNER SRI Krishna APPLICANT Vijay Patel ADDRESS 550 Gateway Blvd ~ PROJECT NUMBER PR JECT P07-0073, UP07-0009, DR07-0046 & Signs07-0047 ~~ . ~ ~ ,\~s t/~ NAME O Hyatt Hote] ~ (Case Planner: Gerry Beaudin} -` ~ ' t f ~ ~~~J ~~~.~ DESCRIPTION "Re-Submittal" -Precise Plan, Signs, Design Review & Variance applications foi• a 166 room, nine-story Hyatt Place Hotel, including associated sub-surface parking, surface parking, public art, landscape improvements and a variance request for a reduced building to parking area setback at 550 Gateway Boulevard within the Gateway Specific Plan Area in accordance with SSFMC chapters 20.57, 20.85, 20.86 The Board had the following comments: 1. Blend the HVAC units with the building by ensuring that the ]ouyers are painted to match other elements on the lower portion of the building and to match the spandrel at the top of the building. 2. Revise your landscaping plans to incorporate larger tree species, consider a '`Evergreen" coniferous trees. Plant min. 10 ft truck height "Palm Tree's". Recommend approval with conditions. -20- MINUTES SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DESIGN REViEVi~' BOARD Meeting of October 21, 2008 TIME: 4:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Harris, Nilmeyer, Nelson, Ruiz and Williams MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Gerry Beaudin, Senior Planner Linda Ajello, Associate Planner Billy Gross, Associate Planner Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician Luis Da Silva, Fire Marshall 1. Administrative Business: • 550 Gateway -Consideration and comment of 9th story element - Increase detail (i.e.~ trim cap) to match the 8th story - .Show the proposed additional floor on all elevations • Y~arkLanding Hotel Colors Colors submitted were approved. 2. OWNER ~Iaskins, Richard E TR APPLICANT A exandria Real Equities ADDRESS 400 450 E. Jamie Ct PROJECT NUMBER P08- 058, Signs08-0047 & DR08-0036 PROJECT NAME Type ' "Sign -Alexandria (Case Planner: Gerry Beaudin) DESCRIPTION Type "C" M er-Sign Program for Alexandria Real Estate at 400-450 E. Jam' e Court in the Planned Industrial Zone (P-]) District in accor~nce with SSFMC Chapters 20.32, 20.76, 20.85 & 20.86 The Board had the following comments: 1. Install a 3" to 4" base foundation for the~monument signs. 2. Remove the Signage facing the BayTrail~ Recommend Approval with Conditions. '~ -21- November 24, 2008 jt. }i ~ \ ~ l•. ,.C \ .~.~., l 1 •~ ~~~ y ~~ ~~~~~~ eng~neering Vijay H. Patel SOUTHERN HOSPITALITY SERVICES 2834 E1 Camino Real Redwood City, CA 94061 Re: Planned "Green" Initiatives for -- Hyatt Place -- South San Francisco, CA Dear Mr. Patel We are pleased to provide the following list of items we currently plan to employ that would be considered "Green" during the construction process. The following list is for items that we will require as part of our bidding documents and a condition of subcontractor bids and contracts: 1) All aggregate is to be purchased locally, reducing carbon emissions caused by hauling material longer distances 2) The project grading will be designed with the intent of "balancing" the site, thus reducing the need to import or export fill 3) Any fill exported will be recycled and not disposed of at a landfill, thus taking dedicated trash disposal air space 4) Demo material; asphalt, green waste, wood, metal and concrete will be recycled 5) All concrete will be bought locally thus reducing carbon emissions 6) We will look to purchase fly ash, slag or recycled aggregate ready-mix concrete 7) All rebar will be manufactured with recycled steel 8) All other metal framing will be constructed with recycled steel 9) All stucco will be purchased from local supplier reducing carbon emissions 10) Stucco will be supplied from recycled gunnite 11) All new asphalt will be purchased from local suppliers 12) All new asphalt will be constructed over recycled Class II rock supplied from local suppliers 13) All construction waste created during the construction process; wood, drywall, metal, copper wire and concrete will disposed of by separating materials and recycled. In addition to the above items it is our intent to research and present options with respect to Geothermal solar to heat water for hotel uses. Sincerely, TUCKER ENGINEERING, INC. ~av~d rz.oss% David Rossi L~Nc~2271A 7b1 University;~venue Suite ~ :::: ~~os Gatos C~ 9532 telephone 408 395 08 2 ......fax 4Q8 395 D8t~8 pL OF 6f ....,.. fk . eP~ .,, u....'.,P~' ~~, ~ ~ o STATE Or CALIFORNIA . ~ r _ ~ :, ~ ~ ~ ~ r GOVERl~TOR' S OFFICE o PLANNINTG AND RESEARCH ~~ciFaaH'- STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT ARNO~ SCHWAItZENEGvER . GOVERNOR ~'~} t 4'~/=~ November 7, 2008 ~'~~-:d.~~ r~.~~~~t~`~~ Gerry Beaudin ~+`'~~ .A T~ Y.~~ Ci of South San Francisco ~.t.~?;)w~r~~,~ ~i~~ : . 315 Maple Avenue 1~~ South San Francisco, CA 94080 Subject: 550 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco,. CA-Hyatt Place Hotel SCH#: 2008102029 Dear Gerry Beaudin: ~EOF rtq/,ry~ 5 \ ~ z ~lATEOF CALIFOQ~\p CYNTHIls BRYANT DIRECTOR The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to .selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on November 6, 2008, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to 'the project's ten-digit State . Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A iespoxLSible or other public agency shall only make substantive comuments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are ' z~quired to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your fiual environmental document.' Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. :This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions.regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, / ~~~~~_ , Terry Robel Director, State Cleariughouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency ' 140010th Street P.O. Box 3044 - 2 3 -nento, California 95812-3044 (916)445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov LlVl.U111Gl11 LlCLQIt~ RC~VI L State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2008102029 Project Title 550 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA-Hyatt Place Hotel Lead Agency South San Francisco, City of Type MND Mitigated Negative Declaration Description The Project would construct an approximate 107,600 sf eight story hotel consisting of 166 rooms and 154 parking spaces. The maximum height would be 92 feet above finished grade. The floor area ratio (FAR) is proposed to be 1.24. Lead Agency Contact Name Gerry Beaudin Agency City of South San Francisco Phone (650) 877-8535 email Address 315 Maple Avenue City South San Francisco US 101 San Francisco International CalTrain San Francisco Bay Project Location County San Mateo City South San Francisco Region Lat/Long Cross Streets East Grand Avenue to the south/Oyster Point to the north Parcel No. 015 023 270 Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways Airports Railways Waterways Schools Land Use Projecf Issues Aesthetic/Visual; Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeologic-Historic; Biological Resources; Drainage/Absorption; Flood Plain/Flooding; Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Geologic/Seismic; Minerals; Noise; Population/Housing Balance; Public Services; Recreation/Parks; Septic System; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Wetland/Riparian; Wildlife; Landuse Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3; Cal Fire; Office of Historic Preservation; Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 4; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Native American Heritage Commission Date Received 10/08/2008 Sfarf of Review 10/08/2008 -24- Fax Sfate CA Zip 94080 End of Review 11 /06/2008 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. .. D~PAItTM~N'i' E~lrr TR:~;:N'S-:P'`E~~'T,A.~~.©N I 1 l GRAND A~IN[FE P. O_ pox 2366Ci ~AKI.AN~, GA 9+~b73-066 e~xoNE (slo> z~s~-ssos PAX {~tt3~ 286-5559 rT~ ~~ ~ November b, 2008 Mr. C7erry Beau.diny S~enior~Pl.anner . . Department ol',Ec©namic..ari~~Ca.~nm~:hlt~ Development planning Division ' City of youth Spin Francisco 3 i 5 Maple ~ventize South San Francisco, C~ ~9~€~~n Dear Mr. ~e~.ud#t~: Flex your pr~wer.~ Be energy e,~rfenrl S1Wi.-1©i-22.14 SCE#2008iQ2Q39 55a GAT~V4~AY ~~J~,T~•~~'~'~~ - ~~~"I`T.P~.ACE ~~.QT~~, P~+~~CT -1V,[~T~GATED N~GA'1' D-~C~~i~'~'I~-N~ Thank you for continuing.:ifl:incli~~e~~th~e ~aiif~irni~a Depaent of Transportation (Deparcment~ in the envlronrnental .review' praee~ss' .foi~.'the 55(J Crate~ay Boz~Ie~rard',~~ Myatt Place ~o~tel pra,~ec~ ----- The fc~l Io~ing ~cominer~:ts.:~are based ~ the Mitigttted I~T:egative I3e~;lat'~'Ei~ +(MND}. As the lead agency, the City of Soh~i~~~~n~~~an~isco~is Yesp©nsible fox ~I~'prc~~eit'.r~r~tiga~,on, includi~.g any needed i~nrprovements ko.~stat~.hi'~gli'v~a~s: The pro~rect's fair share .cflritn~bution, financing, . scbedulirzg, irnplementat}on~~~responsibili~ies an+~ lead agency monitoring should be ~~y discussed far all proposed ~i#~~gati~on measures..This infarniatian ~shc~uld' also be presented in the iviiti gatian Monitorit'i'g atid~:Repflt'ting. Plan. of the ~envirottrnenta~ dva:umem. Required roadw~iy . improvements should be.cc~mp]eted~gribt'to issuance of the~Ce2#If~cate ~ occupancy, ~'raffre ZtrzpQC't Fee MND~,~ page 3-81, states.the'pr~jeet ~u~:.pay a `I'rnff~~c Ia~t Fee ~.~ in the approximate. amount of $'i7?;598'~pl~u~s.~a~~Oyst~e~r~~"oiit'~Flyovcr•xeimbur~emrer~t fee ~in~ti~.e amourlt o~ $2$3,5Q7_ These fees are to ~reiirihu~e.the~~ity for traffic improvements. alx~~.y~ ~n~ puce or planned~~d approved in ttte"Cit~'.:s'~Ca~pital.Im~rovemi~it Projects Pian.. Thes~:.~o.fees totai apgraximately $461,405. This ar~r-.aunt~is.ri~aC.c~ansistcnt~.witH. Cl~e'oontxibutit~n atx~-o~.int~c~f ~~53,635 for r©advray. improvements to ~~fic suxrouriding area rioted on page 3-82 of the D, ~~'~,ease verify. . Try{ ffic ~~al~s~s please pmvide a d~t:~ul~~:Tzfi~c ~fxnpact~ S~dy (TTS) for this project. Include the information dettiiled.belo~v to. ensure that~projec~t-rel~ated~imp~ci~s to state..rt~adway facilities .ate thax'ougt~y assessed. ~Ie encourage ~e City to ~coarrTi~xate .g~reparation 'bf ti'ie study with our offzce, ztnd 1~re uF©u~ld appnvciate the opportunity to ~revie~v the scope of wC'}r1~. The Department's "Guid~3fnr the Preparation of T'rr~j~e Irnpctcr Studies>' 'sh.©uId be reviev+tc~.prior to itt~itiating any traffic analysis ''CaiCrans {mpraves rno6~~i~ty arrays G¢tTjtimra" -25- Mr. Gerry Beaud2n .....: ... November b, 20EJ$ , Page 2 for the project; it is ~a~rai~:~ib~:~ :ac ~h~ ~'o~:o~ing ~ebsite: http:l/www.dot.ca.gt~y~at~~traffon5Jdeyeiopset`uft~perati~onal~ysternslz~pArts~tis. u~ ide.pdf The TI.S slzou3d~~i~nelude:: 1. ~'ro~eet M:a~s: Vic.i~~ maps regio~ial location map, .and ~. site plan elcarly shovrir~g prcijeLt access in relation. t~ ne~.rhy stat~,xaadvva~s.,Ingress and~~egzess for all prajeci coxr~ponents should be clearly identified: S~ta~e righ~k a:f vcra~r ~) should be clearly identified. Tlie maps should also include .project driveways, los:~ai aaads mnd. intersectitans, parl~ing, and transit facilities. 2. T'um Tmffi~ per::S~tr~dy:~ne~tion: Please in~lutle turning mov~cments per study intersection in the diagram, :Si~nc~.:thy pro,~ect is ~close~to ~5-141, study intersections should include on- rax~p and off-ramp int~rsection.s off' US-I.4~1,~East C.rrand Avenue and US-101/Gateway ~oulevar. d. 3. ~bout~dl0utbotind T~3.~ thr+an;~Yicoiect~~~.~ev--~ys::~e wc~uild file to see an addi~tio~ta~ . diagram. and table f~~,. tyhe follQ~titltg: nll p~'oject dr.'~eways sho~vi~g ~,M and pM Peal: ~onr inboundloutboun,d ~tr~fic, 4. T'rit~Generation 'C$~i~:.Please irtc~~~i~ :pr~oje~ct-related ~p g~~-.~i~.tion, distribution, and assignment. The .a$s~:~~ptirrns ~ancl rnethodol~o~gies used to level©p this information should be detailed in the study, .and should be. supported with appropz~.iate~d.ocurnentation. Please forward one hard'cop~ and~otte'CD of~tl~~'ITS .and its~tr~nsi~tion related technical appendices in.cludit}g .the Synchro~ output sheets and a complete copy ©f the Transportation Demand Management (T~I+-~) plan. to~th~ address below as soon as they are available. Sandra Finegan, 'Tran~portatiori Planner. Ccsmmunity Flanni:ng (~fftce,llrTail Station 1~D Cali~t~t7nis~ D4'1`, District ~# P:O..Box 23~.G0 Oal~lancl, CA 94~~23-a66~D . Please feel .free to~ cal:l. or-:eTri:~,il S.an.drs~ ~in~ega~i of my staff at ~SIU}~ b22-1f44 oz' sar~dra t.ne,g_an ~d~t,ca.: with any. questi~on:s regitrdiaig. this ieteer. Sincerely, Mew ~°`I'°V" LISA CARBOIVI District Branch Chi.~f Local Development ~- Inte~governmerital ~kterrievv c: Ms. Terry ~2.oberts, State Clea~'inghouse "Ca[trune imprDV~6 ~rrvhtl7ry Rt^n~ss• C~:t(~nni~n" _26_ Land Services, 111 Almaden Blvd., Rm. 814, San Jose, CA 95115 October 30, 2008 Senior Planner Planning Division Dept. of Planning & Development Ciy of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Attn: Gerry Beaudin Re: Response to MND Hyatt Place Hotel Project . 550 Gateway Blvd., South San Francisco A ~; i ~ _ r,~`, ; :' ~ fi A ~-..u 'c- ~ ~, . f*~~-.r"ia,. ~V~~ ^_ 7: ~~ City's Ref: P07-0073, PP07-0001, SIGN07-0047, VAR07-0004 & DR07-0046 PG&E File: SJ 176 (Land) Dear Sir/ Madam, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Availability of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the above Hyatt.Place Hotel Project.., Information provided in the MND did not specifically indicate the direct impacts on our gas and electric facilities. However, since PG&E has an obligation to provide the public with.. a reliable and safe energy .supply as mandated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and to comply with the guidelines outlined in General Orders 95 and 112. PG&E should be consulted during the development of the plan to ensure that the capacity, operational and maintenance requirements for its gas and electric facilities are taken into consideration prior to approval of the final plan. Early involvement will allow us to assess cumulative impacts to our systems and to identify facilities that may need to be installed, relocated and or realigned as a result of the proposed general plan revision. Because engineering and construction of our facilities may require long lead times, we encourage you to consult with us during the initial stages of your planning process. We would like to note that expansion of utility facilities is a necessary consequence of growth and development. As development occurs, the cumulative impacts- of new energy load growth use up available capacity in the utility system. In addition to adding new distribution feeders, the range of electric system improvements needed to accommodate growth may include upgrading existing substations and building new substations and interconnecting transmission line. Comparable upgrades or additions would be required for our gas system as well. Environmental impacts associated with new and or relocated gas or electric facilities as a result of the proposed project should be fully addressed in the Final EIR and, if appropriate, mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate such impacts should be incorporated into the document as well. _2~_ PG&E owns and operates three 115 KV Tower lines which are located on the westerly side of the job site ,with one crossing the subject project which runs through Forbes Blvd., going northerly towards and entering the subject parcel, and then going northwesterly ,crossing Gateway Blvd., continue going northwesterly. To promote the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of these utility facilities, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has mandated specific clearance requirements between utility facilities and surrounding objects or construction activities. To ensure compliance with these standards, project proponents should coordinate with PG&E early in the development of their project plans. Any proposed development plans should provide for unrestricted utility access and prevent easement encroachments that might impair the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of PG&E's facilities. Developers will be responsible for the costs associated with the relocation of existing PG&E facilities to accommodate their proposed development. Because these facilities relocations require long lead times and are not always feasible, developers should be encouraged to consult with PG&E as early in their planning stages as possible. Relocations of PG&E's electric transmission and substation facilities (50,000 volts and above) could also require formal approval from the California Public Utilities Commission. If required, this approval process could take up to two years to complete. Proponents with development plans which could affect such electric transmission facilities should be referred to PG&E for additional information and assistance in the development of their project schedules. We would also like to note that continued development consistent with your General Plans will have a cumulative impact on PG&E's gas and electric systems and may require on-site and off-site additions and improvements to the facilities which supply these services. Because utility facilities are operated as an integrated system, the presence of an existing gas or electric transmission or distribution facility does not necessarily mean the facility has capacity to connect new loads. Expansion of distribution and transmission lines and related facilities is a necessary consequence of growth and development. In addition to adding new distribution feeders, the range of electric system improvements needed to accommodate growth may include upgrading existing substation and transmission line equipment, expanding existing substations to their ultimate buildout capacity, and building new substations and interconnecting transmission lines. Comparable upgrades or additions needed to accommodate additional load on the gas system could include facilities such as regulator stations, odorizer stations; valve lots, distribution and transmission lines." We would like to recommend that environmental documents for proposed development projects include adequate evaluation of cumulative impacts to utility systems, the utility facilities needed to serve those developments and any potential environmental issues associated with extending utility service to the proposed project. This will assure the project's compliance with CEQA and reduce potential delays to the project schedule. We encourage the City to include information about the issue of electric and magnetic fields (EMF) in the EIR. It is PG&E's policy to share information and educate people about the issue of EMF. _28_ EMFs are invisible fields of force created by electric voltage (electric fields) and by electric current (magnetic fields}. Wherever there is a flow of electricity, both electric and magnetic fields are created; in appliances, homes, schools and offices, and in power lines. There is no scientific consensus on the actual health effects of EMF exposure, but it is an issue of public concern. PG&E relies on organizations and health agencies such as the California Department of Health Services, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Electric Power Research Institute to review research on EMF and provide a foundation for developing policies. Because there is concern about the possible health effects of exposure to EMF, we support and fund medical, scientific, and industry research on EMF. It is PG&E policy to consider EMF in the design, planning and construction of new and upgraded facilities. PG&E remains committed to working with the City to provide timely, reliable and cost effective gas and electric service to Brentwood area. We would also request that we be copied on future correspondence regarding this subject. as this project develops and that we be placed on the list to review the DEIR and FEIR. Should you require any additional information or have any questions, please call me at (408)'282-7544; or by email at akp3(a~PGE.com. Thank you. Sincerely, Alfred Poon Land Rights Protection Southern Area -29- ~..-, =~ HYATT PLACE EXTERIOR SIGNAGE BRANDING Site ID /Center No.: Location Name: so. Gateway Blvd. Street: 550 Gateway Blvd. City, State: San Francisco, CA 94080 Zip: - -- ~ ~ - __ - 1500 Wesf Embassy ST. Anaheim, CA 92802 PRJ-Hl~i4-22~15r ~~~~~~~~&~E~ - 3 Q - (714) 520-9144 FAX: (714) 520-5847 Jr. ~t HYATT PLAGE EXTERIOR ~IGNAGE ~RANQsING Site ID /Center No.: ~~ Location Name: so. Gateway Biva. Street: 550 Gateway Blvd. City, .State: San Francisco, CA 94080 Zip: Aerial View 31- ~1~~ ~~~~ J ~ HYATT PLACE E~CTERIOR SIGNALE G RA1~1®11\1 G Site ID /Center No.: Location Name: so. Gateway Blvd. Street: 550 Gateway Blvd. Clty, State: San Francisco, CA 94080 Zip: ~. Rroposed Building -32- site plan J; `~: HYATT RLAGE E~C~I'L~R10~ ~IGNAGE ~R~NDIIV~ Site ID ;Center No.: ~~ Location Name: so. Gateway a~vd. Street: 550 Gateway Blvd. city, State: San Francisco, CA 94080 Zip: A None M/I Channel Logo & Ltrs. Illuminated, Remote Transformers B None M/I Channel Logo & Ltrs. Illuminated, Remote Transformers C None M/I Channel Logo & Ltrs. Illuminated, Remote Transformers D None M/I Monument Sign Routed Alum. Face E None M/I Channel Logo & Ltrs. Illuminated, Remote Transformers Inventory ~ Recommendation -33- summary J ~, ~:; HYATT PLACE EXTERIOR SIGNAGE BRANDING r Site ID /Center No.: Location Name: so. Gateway Biva. Street: 550 Gateway Biva. Clty, State: San Francisco; CA 94080 Zip: PROPOSED SIGI~f~-GE Sign Type: Channel Logo & Letter ~` Action: Manufacture And Install Description: Remote Transformers Ground Ht.: Height: 53-3/8" Logo / 32" Letters Width: 14'-6-7/8" Square Ft.: 64.31 Illumination: Yes Wall Repair: N/A ~ -`~ ~ m s ~ . i E;' a.. `~; HYATT PLACE E~CTERIOR SIGI®1~-GE GRAI~IDING Site ID /Center No.: ~5~ Location Name: so. Gateway Siva. Street: 5so Gateway Biva. City, State: San Francisco, CA 94080 Zip: PROPOSED SIGNAGE Sign Type: Channel Logo & Letter Action: Manufacture And Install Description: Remote Transformers Ground Ht.: Height: 53-3/8" Logo / 32" Letters Width: 14'-6-7/8" Square Ft.: 64.31 Illumination: Yes Wall Repair: N/A J HYATT PLACE E~T~~'®~ ~~~N~G~ ~~~~D~~~ L Site ID /Center No.: Location Name: so. Gateway Blvd. Street: s5o Gateway Blvd. City, State: San Francisco, CA 94080 Zip: PROPOSED SIGNAGE Sign Type: Channel Logo & Letter Action: Manufacture And Install Description: Remote Transformers Ground Ht.: Height: 53-3/8" Logo / 32" Letters Width: 14'-6-7/8" Square Ft.: 64.31 Illumination: Yes Wall Repair: N/A . .. _. - a- ~. .. J,- -~ HYATT PLACE EX~'ERI®R SIGI~LAGE ~~~~~'~~ Site ID ; Center No.: ~~~ Location Name: so. Gateway Bivd, Stfeet: 550 Gateway Blvd. Clty, State: San Francisco, CA 94080 Zip: PROP®SED SIGNAGE Sign Type: C Channel Logo & Letter =~ Action: Manufacture And Install Description: Remote Transformers Ground Ht.: Height: 53-3/8" Logo / 32" Letters Width: 14'-6-7/8" Square Ft.: 64.31 Illumination: Yes Wall Repair: ~- N/A -37 SOUTH ELEVATION _ J ~ HYATT PLACE Site ID /Center No.: Location Name: so. Gateway aivd. Street: 550 Gateway Blvd. EXT E R I ®R S I G N AG E City, State: San Francisco, CP, 94080 BRANDING zip: r EQ.1 F EQ.1 A -' EQ.2` -'~`' ~ ~ ~ "7/3 A~ =' ~` ,. ,, A ~~ ~ ~~ p ,~~ E 1/2 C ~ ~ ~ -_ _ . B 1/2C ~ -- --- - - -- -. _ - - - .~__ ~_ ~ _____ ~P- ~L ~A -~ E EQ.2,~------~--------------------------------~ D ~; . ~~'- ~, E `;- ~9X's~ FRONT VIEW @ ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LOGO 8~ LETTERS EL 4 PISTACHIO :SERIES 2500-2157 ~ BLACK : SERIES 2500-22 _' ORANGE : SERIES 2500-84 ^ YELLOW : SERIES 2500-2244A ^ LIME GREEN :SERIES 2100-948 ~ LAVENDER :SERIES 2500-3148 SPRING GREEN : ^ BLUE : SERIES 2500-2529 SERIES 2500-2498 Light Blue & SERIES 2500-2202 Light Green THESE COLORS ARE APPLIED BLUE FIRST THEN GREEN (1 LAYER OF EACH) "ARLON" MDDEL #4 30" 10" 12 3/4" 2 1 /2" 6`-1 5/8" 8'-2 1 /2" 24.89 40" 13 3/8" 17" 3 3/8" 8'-2 1/4" 10'-11 3/8" 44.27 53 3/8" 17 3/4" ~ 22 5/8" ~ 4 1 /2" ~ 10'-10 518" 14'-6 7/8"~ 64.31 60" 20" 25 1/2" 4" 12'-8 1/4" 16'-9 3/4" 83.24 80 26 3/4 34118 6 5/8 16 -4 1 /2 21-10 518 132.80 ~~ 38 _ SMALL LOGO (30" - 40") HYATT PLACE E~CTEF~IORGIGNAGE GRANDING Site ID /Center No.: Location Name: so. Gateway Bwd. Street: 550 Gateway Blvd. Clty, State: San Francisco. CA 940$0 Zip: 96" 79 112" I N N y': SCALE: 3/8"=1'-0" FACES IN 1/8"thk. PAINTED ALUMINUM FACES GRAPHIC ROUTED OUT ALUMINUM FACE WITH ACRYLIC INFILLED. LOGO: AS SHOWN LETTERS: WHITE ACRYLIC BROWN : SERIES 4500-008 ~ BLACK : SERIES 2500-22 ^ YELLOW : SERIES 2500-2244A ~g ~~2. LAVENDER :SERIES 2500-3148 ~ 9 ,~4, ^ BLUE : SERIES 2500-2529 ^ PISTACHIO :SERIES 2500-2157 ORANGE : SERIES 2500-84 ^ LIME GREEN :SERIES 2100-948 ~ SPRING GREEN ~ SERIES 2500-2498 Light Blue & SERIES 2500-2202 Light Green THESE COLORS ARE APPLIED BLUE FIRST THEN GREEN (1 LAYER OF EACH) ^~ BROWN : AKZO-412-H2 (PAINT) BRONZE : AKZO-316-G2 (PAINT) 10" ~, ,, ~, ,,, ~1\ 11{ ~~ 1 11\ '` 1`` '~ 111 ~' ,~~> SIDE VIEW ALUM. BASE I ~_ J '~~ FRONT ELEV. @ D/F ILLUM. MONUMENT SIGN T1y i Prepared for City of South San Francis and Sri Krishna Enterprise October 12, 2007 Prepared by 916.448.2440 ~~ a ,,.~' HYATT PLACE TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ i 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE .............................................................................. 1 2.0 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT GOALS .................................... 1 3.0 EMPLOYEE MODE SPLIT EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 ............................................... 2 Table 1 -Comparable Transportation Mode-Use Rates ............................................. 3 Table 2 -Estimated Alternative Transportation Modes ............................................. 3 4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 4 Location Map .................................................................................................................... 5 TDM Site Plan - 550 Gateway Boulevard ..................................................................... 6 5.0 PARKING MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................... 7 5.1 Free Parking for Carpool and Vanpools and Clean Fuel Vehicles ............... 7 5.2 Preferential Carpool and Vanpool Parking ...................................................... 7 5.3 Passenger Loading Zone ..................................................................................... 7 5.4 Motorcycle Parking .............................................................................................. 7 6.0 CARPOOL AND VANPOOL RIDEMATCHING SERVICE ..................................... 7 7.0 TRANSIT ........................................................,................................................................... 8 7.1 Direct Route to Transit ........................................................................................ 8 7.2 Shuttle Services to 550 Gateway Boulevard ..................................................... 8 7.3 Shared Airport Shuttle Services ......................................................................... 9 Table 3 -Shuttle Service to 550 Gateway Boulevard ...................................... 9 Gateway Area Shuttle Services (Caltrain and BART) ...................................10 7.4 Shuttle/Bus Stops ............................................................................................... 11 7.5 Caltrain ................................................................................................................ 11 7.6 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) .......................................................................11 7.7 SamTrans ............................................................................................................. 11 7.8 Downtown Dasher Taxi Service ...................................................................... 12 7.9 Ferry Service ....................................................................................................... 12 8.0 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES ............................................................. 12 8.1 Pedestrian Connections ..................................................................................... 12 8.2 Bicycle Parking -Long-Term and Short-Term ...............................................12 8.3 Bicycle Connections ........................................................................................... 13 8.4 Bicycle Resources ............................................................................................... 13 Bay Trails Bicycle Map ...................................................................................... 14 City/County Bike Street Map ........................................................................... 15 8.5 Shower and Clothes Lockers ............................................................................16 9. 0 EMPLOYEE TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR .............................................. 16 9.1 Employee Transportation Flyer ....................................................................... 17 9.2 Promotional Programs ......................................................................................17 9.3 Transportation Information for Visitors and Guests .................................... 18 10.0 ALTERNATIVE COMMUTE EMPLOYEE INCENTIVES .......................................18 11.0 GUARANTEED EMERGENCY RIDE HOME PROGRAM ..................................... 18 12.0 FLEXTIME .......................................................................................................................19 13.0 INFORMATION BOARD/KIOSK ............................................................................... 19 14.0 ON-SITE AND NEARBY PROJECT AMENITIES .................................................... 20 14.1 Cafe ...................................................................................................................... 20 14.2 Recreational Facilities ........................................................................................ 21 15.0 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION ........................................ 21 16.0 MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT .................................................................... 22 16.1 Annual Employee Commute Survey and Report ......................................... 22 17.0 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 22 ATTACHMENTS: Downtown Dasher -Mid-day Taxi Service Sample Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program Employee Transportation Flyer Guaranteed Ride Home Program 550 Gateway Boulevard Prelirr-inary TDM Plan October 12, 200.7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Traffic congestion and air pollution are critical concerns in maintaining a healthy economy and lifestyle within the City of South San Francisco. Traffic congestion results in time lost to residents and commuters, and increased demand on City fiscal resources for roadway construction and maintenance. Mobile sources, such as automobiles, account for 50% of all air pollution in South San Francisco. The developer of the 550 Gateway Boulevard project is required to prepare a Preliminary Transportation Demand Management (TDM). This comprehensive plan was designed to achieve a 28% alternative mode-use that addresses both traffic and air quality concerns in South San Francisco based on a proposal Hyatt Place hotel. The plan includes ordinance-required and extra measures, annual survey monitoring and reporting. The plan has a variety of infrastructure and incentive-based measures which encourage all forms of alternative mode-use such as car and vanpool, transit and shuttles, bicycling, and walking. Important measures include a comprehensive shared hotel shuttle program, Caltrain and BART shuttles, carpool spaces, showers and bicycle facilities, and employer features, including the Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) program, to support employees who choose alternatives to driving alone. This plan is performance based. The project is required to achieve a 28% alternative mode-use by employees. The mode-use will be monitored annually with the first employee commute survey to be conducted one year after occupancy. An alternative mode-use summary report will be submitted to the City's Economic Community Development Director after the annual employee commute survey has been conducted. The elements contained in this plan are in line with other South San Francisco employee commute programs. This plan will meet or exceed the 28 % alternative mode-use goal. -- ©THE HOYT COMPANY Page i 550 Gateway Boulevard Preliminary TDM Plan October 12, 2007 SUMMARY OF TDM MEASURES AND ACCOUNTING OF C/CAG OFF-PEAK TRIP CREDITS ~ tt~'a~ ~M to M1~'P.~ .. ~~` ~:~ t1!!~~ ~~~?~#N8 C~~ Bicycle Parking -long-Term (Class ~ - 2 Bicycle Parking -Short-Term (Class II) - 2 Total Bicycle Storage 4 0.33 1.32 Carpool and Vanpool Ridematching Service 0 0 0.00 Designated Employer Contact -ETC 1 5 5.00 Direct Route to Transit 0 0 0.00 Free Parking for Carpool and Vanpools 100% 0 0.00 Guaranteed Ride Home 4 1 4.00 Information Boards/Kiosks 1 5 5.00 Passenger Loading Zone 1 5 5.00 Pedestrian Connections 1 5 5.00 Preferential Carpool Parking 2 2 4.00 Preferential Vanpool Parking 0 7 0.00 Promotional Programs 0 0 0.00 Showers/Clothes Lockers 0.5 10 5.00 Additional Credit for combination with bicycle lockers 0.5 5 2.50 Shuttle Program (assumes 13% ridership - 2.5 employees) 2.5 1 2.50 Additional Credit for Guaranteed Ride Home program 2.5 1 2.50 Transportation Management Association Participation 1 5 5.00 Annual Employee Commute Survey 1 1.5 1.50 Suh~t t~~+C/CAG F~~~T~ Cr+~dd ~ 48 Additional TDM Measures Bicycle Connections 0 5 0 Flextime 0 1 0 On-site amenities 0 1 0 - On-site food and drink and vending - Nearby ATM, other cafe, and childcare - Nearby recreational (Bay Trails) (3lh+e~"' ~ ~ +~d ~~- f~~e~r~ ~ ~ ~k~ New Employee Orientation 0 0 0 TDM Plan/Transportation Action Plan 1 10 10 Motorcycle parking 0 0 0 Downtown Dasher -free midday service 1 1 1 Provide visitors/ guest with transportation options, schedules and maps 1 0 0 Participate in Spare the Air Program 1 0 0 ... i " ~ ~ ,a l _. . ' , A}F ~ll~ Vf VALZ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ,'y .+, .. '~' ... ~~~~. ~~ ©THE I"IOYT COMPANY Page ii 550 Gateway Boulevard Preliminary TDM Plan October 12, 2007 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The 550 Gateway Boulevard Hyatt Place hotel project supports the City of South San Francisco's policy of focusing clustered development along major transportation corridors. This project is located near to and is served by U.S. Highway 101 and Interstate 280, a Caltrain station, and a BART station. The comprehensive plan of trip reduction measures identified in this report is essential to realizing the trip reduction potential of the project. The combination of these critical factors will provide the momentum to maintain (or exceed) a 28% alternative mode-use rate for this project. Through monitoring efforts, such as the annual survey of employees to determine transportation mode split, the project will be able to better focus transportation coordination efforts and encourage employees to use alternative transportation. The first mode-use survey report will be submitted to the City of South San Francisco after one year of occupancy. 2.0 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT GOALS The basic premise of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is the maximum __ utilization of existing transportation resources. The City. of South San Francisco, as is typical of other urban areas in the United States, has billions of dollars invested in roadway infrastructure, and hundreds of millions of dollars invested in public transit infrastructure. The goal of TDM is to more efficiently and economically take advantage of these major capital investments. The following are three basic goals that can be achieved through effective utilization of TDM measures: 1) Convert trips to an alternative mode of transportation (e.g., transit, carpools or vanpools, bicycling) 2) Provide technological solutions (e.g., compressed natural gas, electric/hybrid vehicles, or other zero emission vehicles) 3) Eliminate trips (e.g., compressed work weeks, telecommute) Until recently in the United States, the answer to relieving congestion on roads, and in parking structures, was to build more roads and parking structures (similar in concept to building another manufacturing plant to expand productivity on levels). Current economics and limited resources affect the ability to build and maintain more roads or parking structures. This reality necessitates better utilization of the existing transportation infrastructure (similar to adding a second shift at an existing plant). To this end, TDM measures support the transition to a greater use of existing alternative transportation options. ©~rH£ HOYT COMPANY Page 1 550 Gateway Boulevard Preliminary TDM Plan October 12, 2007 The measures and programs outlined in this plan support and meet the 28% trip reduction goal as identified in by the City of South San Francisco's TDM Ordinance 1300-2001. This proposed hotel projects estimates a total of 40 employees to provide staffing and services throughout its 24 hour, seven days per week purpose. However, during the peak, weekday hours, the estimated number of employees working at the site is 20. Using the City of South San Francisco's TDM Ordinance guidelines, the estimated number of trips needed to meet a 28% reduction for the number of peak, day-time employees site is six. Estimated Total Em to ees 20 Tri Reduction Re uirement 28 Total Nuoetber of Peak Tn Caredits R aired. b This TDM Plan also meets many requirements of the Revised C/CAG Guidelines for the Implementation of the Land Use Program approved by the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County in September 2004. Trip credits identified in this Preliminary TDM Plan for the 550 Gateway Boulevard project total 59. The C/CAG accounting of all trip credits applicable in this Preliminary TDM Plan is provided in the Executive Summary. 3.0 EMPLOYEE MODE SPLIT EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 According to the Commute Profile 2005 Regional Report, prepared by RIDES for Bay Area Commuters, Inc., the San Mateo County alternative mode-use rate is approximately 29 % with the Bay Area regional rate comprising approximately 34 alternative modes. The larger Bay Area alternative mode use rate is indicative of paid parking in the more urban core areas, whereas parking is free or much less expensive in many areas of San Mateo County (e.g. the City of South San Francisco). The 2005 Employee Transportation Survey conducted by the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (Alliance) identified the San Mateo County alternative mode-use rate at 29.9%. The overall alternative mode-use rate for the City of South San Francisco was identified at 30.2%. Table 1 below shows the comparison of alternative mode-use rates for the Bay Area Region, County of San Mateo and the City of South San Francisco. There is currently no data available to document South San Francisco hotel employee commute activities and uses. !~'f ^` ©THE HOYT COMPANY Page 2 550 Gateway Boulevard Preliminary TDM Plan October 12, 2007 Table 1 Comparable Transportation Mode-Use Rates Based on current and historical alternative mode use data for the South San Francisco and East of Highway 101 business areas, an example of estimated employee alternative mode-use distribution was calculated. This estimate reflects the TDM measures described in this plan but does not assume that commute subsidies are provided. Table 2 shows the various alternative transportation modes estimated for a hotel staff and personnel at the 550 Gateway Boulevard project. Table 2 The implementation of TDM measures identified in this plan will result in an estimated 28 % alternative mode use rate representing approximately six employees from a total of 20 daytime, weekday staff. This sample scenario provides a distribution example of employee alternative transportation choices, depicting a typical workweek day, for the 550 Gateway Boulevard project. The actual distribution of transportation modes could vary and will be identified in survey results. ©THE HOYT COMPANY Page 3 1 Estimated Alternative Transportation Modes 550 Gateway Boulevard Preliminary TDM Plan October 12, 2007 4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is a 2.0-acre project owned by SRI Krishna Enterprise in the City of South San Francisco located east of the U.S. Highway 101 in South San Francisco. The project is located within the Gateway Specific Plan District. The project is a hotel project containing 108,900 square-feet. The proposed construction consists of an eight-story building and is intended to accommodate hotel guest and travelers. The project is designed to maximize opportunities for pedestrian, bicycle, carpool, transit and shuttle connectivity. Two carpool and vanpool parking spaces will be provided. One Class I bicycle locker (with capacity for two bicycles) or other secured, covered parking and two bicycle racks will be provided at the garage for bicycle commuters at no charge to employees. Showers and lockers will also be provided for bicycle, pedestrian and other alternative commuters. Shuttle services to BART and Caltrain are located directly in front of the project. On-site and nearby food service, access to banking (ATM), and the Bay Trails bicycle trails facility help create a more self sufficient development in order to reduce the number of trips made daily to and from the campus. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is 1.25. Parking will be provided at a ratio consistent with a hotel project of 154 parking spaces for 166 guest rooms. Approximately 117 surface vehicle parking spaces and 37 garage spaces are planned for the site. A location map site plan is provided on page 5. A TDM site plan is provided on page 6. This site plan shows the location of preferential parking, bicycle facilities, pedestrian connections and direct routes to transit. It also depicts the location of showers and lockers, and the transportation information kiosk. ~` ©THE I"IOYT COMPANY Page 4 550 Gateway Boulevard Preliminary TDM Plan October 12, 2007 ~( ©THE I"IOYT COMPANY Page e .~ x b x 0 K ti n 0 '> z K \ .~ ~ ,.~ r a ~'' ', X ~ ~ i' S r t r ~ \ ``, rr r .~ \ `~, ~ 'I ,~ ~~ - ~ _ ~~~ ,~ `. ~= ~ ,~ ~. ~ i ~ , Y~ ~ ~~ 2 ~ r } t'., ~ ~ T ~.S ..t. ~~ r ~ ~ r ~ S Xo Fr .~ ~ r, nM~ ~S' ^. a r t t a ~,: ,'fir ir"~+r r ~i, ~ raS rTM 6:?n a s~ `e? r ; 3 X ~sr ~. r!'{ r1 rtti r` ~ ~ r ~ fir, • ~ ' ~ ~ Y r 1 ,~~•,. , ~ n'., r 'A ~; ~ t ~~ ~ fr a5r t;'•~ 1 re ~ it r~ rya?'\~ r 5Y rf~.. r_ r1 ~5 a a , S~~ r.i a 4 'r. 11 rtr ' t ` ~ r~ ; t rt r 5t t S''rt ~ .'., p r t ,n' r r s,~ ~ ' ~ apw~; a t: >bia;~ ~ 14 nt wexj t r, r ' ~~ V ~'~ .r~. ~~ r?rt t ` .~f ~~ ~~ „t r "4Y ~t~y,r art .~ ~, 1~ t ~: r ~4 '.rr ckt,~S~ at r i ~ +~4r7 rrl '.t rrti ~" ~ ~~« t ~ rC. >7 r' t fir. Y u, rn ~X~.~r ~,T'Sr: fir,-~. 'r.',!4a :.r rci eSt'' ,t J "~i 1 ~ +Yrr1 ~ r iR@r. x ~ ~~3~It ..z .: ~~r i ~.,~. t ~•'~ S}~ x a.. w}V rr,rrr~g 1 ~ ~'' .,fir).. !,; t .`~'.f~".~t Y .~'..~ .~g+' !{ ~~ ra r,,, .r.r to; 8 ~, ;s r 4g t Yyt~ t. k7'1'• r 1],f * I rr r tta . I} } S f r j r~ t ~~ y I11 r 5:.. L rl, ~~ i *~ i~ iq S t i',ri ~ 6 .~~ t•.~~~t~rY 5 •~ r[ r'r n1 a, i~ ;, Y r ~ f ~ r1.Cr1 ar. 1 ^ \~.. S a ` r S ~~ f(. r~, ~.~ Y1~ L .., r ]` ttFF p{p -0`_ ~ j~~` try, {` r ~~ ia~nt .f, 1~ ~4. r~. ~ri~4i&,~5'i ~t+'«re~`w.~rS~ryt ~n,l,.a~ aee.~' N zase'.~' w ~# ~r ~Z 4rn D Z P ~ ~- ~va A r A, a J G Q ~ ~ ~ ~nYYY~ n C 6 ~^ ~ ~ + y~ O fir} + E y~ 'O (•~~^[~ v ~- ~ ~ ~ b~~X~Ra~ ~ g + D rtl ~ i~ ~~ ~. ~ ... ~ . ~ . C g ~9 i gg $8 ~~~~~ • g °r "- ~ re 1 ~ R ~ 3 V ~~ + W ~• M ~\ y • yS ~ YO ~O~O ^ ~ M I j\\\ ~ r ~~ ~ ~~ ,~ g f ,~ a~~~~ ~~ e ~FR~ ~~ ~ ~~:~a ^~IMM ~~~~~ ~ 5R € 6550 ~~44 ~ ~ s ~t9~B~ tvnoax~~wW*~r-wr-+tf Ota Obi ~~~ ~, s ~ ~ r.eroio: 7 p ~ 4 HYATT PLACE > D ~ •~~ 'p~ ~~ouwwYa m~ p~ 4r~r ~r~ ~P ~~ ~~.~~.~ ~ ~4 ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~w rr s ~__ ~u LII 'NI I I HI GI ~»~ ~ 11 ~1 11 (~ l~ ~ 11 YI ~ ~~ ~ I1 ll ~ ,,~ I+ ~y ~ t 1 ~I ~ ~1 ,~ 1 `' ,~ I tG ~~ yr, +' ~i ` tl '~1 1 II II II y I ~rl M/ f. I` t I1 ~, r i r ra it r ~ I '~ I Ia II II I r1i I fi I{ Ir ~ ~ II {I II Ir, 11 X I Q ~t ,I X~ ~ I t m II y rl it IG Ir / I 1 ( I I fG IG ~G I ! G Ik I I t ~ I G t I G • I H I I a , I I I 1! I I I /1( ~ I ( I I I -_ _-- -~ ; ~ G i • ~ "~ '. r ~ ITS., ~, ? M ~, ~ ,^ .~ ,, ~`ir "~ `-~ DO * '~ • F ' ~' 't .~. i Q n 1v OQ 0 d n N N O O 550 Gateway Boulevard Preliminary TDM Plan October 12, 2007 5.0 PARKING MANAGEMENT 5.1 Free Parking for Carpool and Vanpools and Clean Fuel Vehicles Parking will be free for all carpool, vanpool and clean-fuel vehicle participants. 5.2 Preferential Carpool and Vanpool Parking One effective means of encouraging employees to rideshare and/ or use aclean-fuel vehicle is to reserve the most preferred parking spaces for the exclusive use of carpools and vanpools. These preferred parking spaces will be designated with signage and pavement striping. Upon completion of this project, a minimum of 10% of designated employee (daytime peak staffing) parking will be designated for carpool, vanpool, and clean-fuel vehicles. The project will provide two carpool parking spaces in premium, convenient locations (i.e., close to building, in the shade, etc.) within 100 feet of the building entrance. These preferential parking spaces will be specially signed and/or striped and may require employee registration and permitting. 5.3 Passenger Loading Zone In order to facilitate disembarking and embarking of rideshare passengers, a passenger loading/unloading area will be provided. Passenger loading zone for carpool and vanpool drop off will be located on the west side of the building and along adjacent to the 550 Gateway Boulevard site as a shared amenity with hotel guests. 5.4 Motorcycle Parking A secure, designated area will be provided for motorcycle parking. 6.0 CARPOOL AND VANPOOL RIDEMATCHING SERVICE Regional Rddeshare Program's Ridematch Service, via 511.org and the Alliance provide free car and vanpool matching services. On-site employer contacts will promote the on- line 511 service directly to employees on a regular basis and allow the Alliance to solicit carpool sign-up at on-site employer events such as annual Transportation Fairs, Wellness or Benefits events, etc. Employer contacts can also research employee ZIP code data from Human Resource records and offer to match up employees who live near each other. ©THE HOYT COMPANY Page 7 550 Gateway Boulevard Preliminary TDM Plan October 12, 2007 Car and vanpooling will be strongly encouraged at the 550 Gateway Boulevard project. The Employee Transportation Flyer promotes the free personalized matching assistance through the 511 Rideshare and Alliance programs. This car and vanpool ridematching service provides individuals with a computerized list of other commuters near their employment or residential ZIP code, along with the closest cross street, phone number, and hours they are available to commute to and. from work. Individuals are then able to select and contact others with whom they wish to car or vanpool. They will also be given a list of existing car and vanpools in their residential area that they may be able to join if vacancies exist. The 511 system gives commuters the information they need to make more informed choices when planning trips. By calling in or logging on, commuters can get up-to-the- minute information about traffic conditions, public transportation options, ridesharing, and bicycling anytime, anywhere throughout the greater Bay Area Region and northern California. The 511 system offers one-stop shopping for traffic, transit, rideshare and bicycle information in the region. The nine-county system is the first 511 service to go online in California. It provides links to 511 systems in Sacramento, Oregon and Nevada and is available from any phone, provided the carrier supports 511. Most counties in the region have wireless and landline access to the service through major carriers. 7.0 TRANSIT Caltrain, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and SamTrans provide transit service to South San Francisco in close proximity to the project site. A Commuter Shuttle service from San Francisco and shuttle services from the South San Francisco BART, Glen Park BART and Caltrain Stations provide direct links for transit riders to the 550 Gateway project site. 7.1 Direct Route to Transit A well-lit pedestrian path will be provided from the building, utilizing the most direct route, to the nearest shuttle stop at the Gateway project site. 7.2 Shuttle Services to 550 Gateway Boulevard Extensive shuttle services are provided at the 550 Gateway Boulevard site. Two Gateway Area Caltrain and two BART shuttles offer 51 peak a.m. trips and 54 peak p.m. trips for employees. A shared hotel shuttle provides an additiona142 trip. Daily shuttle service for the project totals 147 trips. All Gateway area shuttles are equipped with ©THE I"IOYT COMPANY Page 8 550 Gateway Boulevard Preliminary TDM Plan October 12, 2007 bicycle racks. Working with the Alliance, the project utilizes a free lunch-time shuttle service to downtown South San Francisco via the Downtown Dasher. The Millbrae BART shuttle circulates between the BART station and the project, on average, at 30-minute frequencies. There are currently a total of 32 Millbrae BART shuttle trips to and from the project site. A San Francisco Glen Park BART shuttle provides 15 minute frequencies and offers 32 weekday trips. The Gateway Area Caltrain shuttle service circulates between the South San Francisco Caltrain Station and the project during the morning and evening peaks at 15, 20 and 45- minute frequencies. Twelve (12) Caltrain shuttle trips provide connecting service to and from the project site. Another 29 shuttle trips are provided from the Millbrae Caltrain shuttle. Some South San Francisco employer shuttles operate on an employee pass program. Participating projects or employers who contribute funding for the shuttles are provided free passes for their employees. The Gateway Area shuttles may implement a shuttle pass program. Shuttle route map for Caltrain is provided on page 10. 7.3 Shared Airport Shuttle Services The proposed Hyatt Place project will also participate in a shared hotel shuttle that will ~-- _ provide project guests and employees with shuttle service each 30 minutes with connections to the Airport and additional access to BART at the Airport. Service will be provided from 4:07 a.m. through 12:37 a.m. offering 42 trips per day. Table 3 shows the expanded number of shuttle trips provided to the project site for connectivity to BART and Caltrain stations. Table 3 Shuttle Service to 550 Gateway Boulevard ~~ I ©THE HOYT COMPANY Page 9 550 Gateway Boulevard Preliminary TDM Plan October 12, 2007 N r r r O ~ ~ Z Z ~ ~ J J ~ m m N ~ ~ Z D J_ m • ti N Z J ~ m ~ ~ • Z o a~b 4 °° °~a~~ b ~ ~ ..~ ~ ~ m ~ > N m ~ • ~ p ,Qi ~ LL- Q- ~ ~ a ,~ ~~ ~ c~ ,, o ~ ~, ~; ~~~ ~o ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~. ' r ,. ~~ x • V ~ a w o C'f ~ to ° E- ~ ~ 0 3 a a~ a ~ $ w ~ ~ ~ ~ °° a ,~ a W u. a z n ~? ~O ~ c Q Z M (n Q Z _ ~ 0 -~~ { O ~ ~ Q ~ f /~~ : _ N U to F'~ 1C ©THE HOYT COMPANY Page 10 550 Gateway Boulevard Preliminary TDM Plan October 12, 2007 7.4 Shuttle/Bus Stops Shuttle drop-off and pick-up locations for commuter service, BART and Caltrain are located on-site at the 550 Gateway site. Employees can access the shuttle directly from their building. 7.5 Caltrain Caltrain operates a frequent fixed-route commuter rail service seven days a week between San Francisco and San Jose, as well as limited service to and from Gilroy on weekdays. Caltrain operates on 15 to 30 minute frequencies during the peak periods in the morning and evening. Midday service operates approximately every hour. Service is less frequent during weekends, and holidays. Caltrain service is available approximately .66 of a mile from the project at the South San Francisco station located at 590 Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue. The Gateway Area Caltrain Shuttle provides connecting service to the project site. Caltrain services were enhanced in 2004 to add express trains during peak hours. However, this new service does not provide an express stop to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station and hence will not benefit employees at the 550 Gateway Boulevard project. 7.6 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) BART is a 92.7-mile, 43-station automated rapid transit system located along five lines of double track. Trains traveling up to 80 mph connect San Francisco to Colma and other East Bay communities -north to Richmond, east to Pittsburg/Bay Point, west to Dublin/Pleasanton, and south to Fremont. Service is scheduled every 15 minutes during peak periods. Service during Holidays, and weekends are modified. BART-to-the-Airport expanded the system by 8.7 miles along the peninsula from Colma to a new intermodal station in Millbrae. Four new stations were created including the South San Francisco Station located between El Camino Real and Mission Road to the south of Hickey Boulevard. The South San Francisco BART Station is 2.84 miles from the project site. The San Francisco Glen Park Station is 8.14 miles from the project site. 7.7 SamTrans SamTrans provides bus service throughout San Mateo County, with connections to the Colma, Daly City, and South San Francisco BART stations, San Francisco International Airport, peninsula Caltrain stations and downtown San Francisco. ©THE HOYT COMPANY Page I I 550 Gateway Boulevard Preliminary TDM Plan October 12, 2007 The system connects with San Francisco Muni, AC Transit and Golden Gate Transit at San Francisco's Transbay Terminal, with the Dumbarton Express and with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority in Menlo Park and Palo Alto. There is no direct SamTrans service east of Highway 101 area. SamTrans service does connect at the South San Francisco BART Station and subsequently the Gateway Area Shuttle Service that drops off and picks up at the 550 Gateway Boulevard site. SamTrans does not provide a direct connection to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station, however; Routes 130, 292, 133, and 132 are within approximately 1/4 mile walking distance from this station and the connecting shuttle services to the project site. 7.8 Downtown Dasher Taxi Service This free taxi service provides an 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. pick-up service throughout the East Highway 101 business parks in South San Francisco. Using existing shuttle stops, taxis drop off riders at locations in the downtown retail area. The Downtown Dasher, operated by the Peninsula Yellow Cab of South San Francisco and managed by the Alliance, requires an employer provided voucher and a trip reservation before 10:00 a.m. This midday service is currently free to participating employers. A detailed Downtown Dasher flyer is provided as an attachment. 7.9 Ferry Service Currently, no scheduled water transit service exists in the South San Francisco area. Water transit service to South San Francisco is anticipated by December 2008. Prior to this service becoming operational, employees will be given a link to this resource. 8.0 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES 8.1 Pedestrian Connections A safe, convenient and well-lit pedestrian path is provided, utilizing the most direct route, to the nearest shuttle stop at the project. Lighting, landscaping and building orientation is designed to enhance pedestrian safety. 8.2 Bicycle Parking -Long-Term and Short-Term Free Class I and Class II bicycle parking facilities will be provided on-site for employees. ~~ ©THE HOYT COMPANY Page 12 550 Gateway Boulevard Preliminary TDIvI Plan October 12, 2007 One Class I (long-term) bicycle locker (capacity for two bicycles) or a covered, enclosed, secure area will be provided to enhance the viability for bicycle commuters. Class I bicycle lockers and two Class II bicycle racks will be placed at the building site. Gateway Boulevard is a designated bike route with lower traffic volumes. All bicycle parking and facilities will be located in convenient, safe and well-lit areas with maximum space for the ingress and egress of bicycles. Note: The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance provides a 50 % match for the costs of purchasing and installing any bike parking, from basic racks to high security lockers, up to a maximum of $500 per unit. 8.3 Bicycle Connections The project has good connections to regional bicycle facilities, including the San Francisco Bay Trail. The Bay Trail is a network of multi-use pathways circling San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. The ultimate route is planned to be a 400-mile route through nine Bay Area counties and 42 shoreline cities. The trail provides commuters an exceptional pathway to bicycle or walk to work in the South San Francisco Area. A map of the Bay Trails is provided on page 14. Gateway Boulevard is considered a bicycle route with lower traffic volumes. A map of surrounding city bikeways is provided on page 15. 8.4 Bicycle Resources Free Bike Buddy matching, bicycle maps and resources are provided via the 511 system. Bicycle commuters looking to find a riding partner can log-on to bicycling.511.org for more information. The Alliance provides a free one-hour, on-site Bike and Pedestrian Safety Program for employees. This workshop teaches commuters about bicycling and walking as a safe, stress-relieving commute mode; traffic laws for bicyclists and pedestrians; bicycle maintenance tips; and offers a drawing for free bicycle-related prizes. A program flyer is provided as an attachment. ~ I ©TxE HOYT COMPANY Page 13 1 550 Gateway Boulevard Preliminary TDM Plan October 12, 2007 .~ ~~~ c~ a o~. g~ ~. ~~ ~ a ~. ~ ~. a ~'~' ~. ~- J v-o w ti G ~ an oa a m ~~ .r ~„ ~~ ~ c~ ~ ~ o. ~ G ~ ~' / ~ ~ , ~ ''iC#~ ~wg 's ~~ ~ O JOi9 ~N Cd ~c~ c: r ~ m ~ fl ~ t a a g ~ ~ Q .-. ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ F~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~# g~ ~ m ~ m g ~~ a ~~ ~r > y~C'~7 ~ • o ~ ~ ~ ~~ ©THE HOYT COMPANY Page 14 550 Gateway Boulevard Preliminary TDM Plan _ October 12, 2007 C.C ~ ,^. Y r ~_ ~ ~ ° n E m r W' ~ y`~w s'' ~ ~ CC _ ~ £ d ~' ' Q : ,`c x a. 0. U ~. ~+ U c u G ~ 1(~] 1~ .tF] ~ * Cpl ~ 3 ~ ~ V ~ ~ y rr 3 ~ ~ S ~ ~ m ~ c_ d a r ~ - ~ ~ U y P ~ ~ ~ ~' h ~! [ " v ~0 C _ 3 $ z ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ u O ~ ~ .~ ' E+ `e, 3 ~ w ~ a a x ~ z d ' ~ °~ ~ ~ 'J ~ r~ ~j L N V ~ c ~ ~~ / 9 _ ~ 7 J L. °` ~ t V y c y _ 'rJ i' t ,~ ~ ' ~ m ; ~ ~ ,A 4~ ~ x ~ •~ GQ Z ~ k ~ ~; ~ < ,~ 00 a cg ~ ~ ~ _ I ) c ~ a w ~ ~ ~~, ~ ~ :, ±~'~ ~ LU J d N d ~ x 4 w O ~. TJ 'n ~~( I ©THE HOYT COMPANY Page 15 550 Gateway Boulevard Preliminary TDM Plan October 12, 2007 8.5 Shower and Clothes Lockers Showers and clothing lockers will be available for the use of employees walking and/ or biking to work and others who wish to change after commuting via alternative transportation. Shower and locker facilities will be provided free of charge for all employees. 9.0 EMPLOYEE TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR The 550 Gateway Boulevard project will provide an Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) who will have the primary responsibility for implementing this Plan. The ETC may be a part time or outsourced coordinator who manages the TDM Program. The ETC will be responsible for providing employee commute program assistance to employees, producing on-site transportation fairs and promotional events, collaborating with the Alliance to maximize employer resources, conducting the annual survey and producing the triennial report. TDM industry data supports that having an ETC has a very positive impact on increasing alternative mode-use. This position will be filled by: Name: Mr. Vijay Patel Employee Transportation Coordinator South San Francisco Hyatt Place Address: 550 Gateway Boulevard South San Francisco, CA 94080 Phone: (650) TBD The ETC will provide the following services: • Promote trip reduction and air quality strategies to employees at the project site. • Be the main point of contact for employer contacts and employees wanting to commute using an alternative. • Conduct annual employee surveys and provide reports to the City of South San Francisco, which will include commute patterns, mode splits, and TDM program success (process includes: annual surveying of employees, tabulation of data, and provision of results in report format). ~` ©THE HOYT COMPANY Page 16 550 Gateway Boulevard Preliriinary TDM Plan October 12, 20C7 Evaluate survey results for alternative transportation potential and/ or changes to current program. Catalog all existing incentives that encourage employees to utilize alternative transportation programs. Work with local agencies such as Caltrain, SamTrans, BART, the Alliance, 511 and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and post informational materials on the transportation kiosks in employee common areas, as well as disperse alternative program information to employees via designated employer contacts, posters, flyers, banners, campus newsletter, new employee orientation, etc. • Participate in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Spare the Air program. Spare the Air day notices will be forwarded to employees to encourage not driving to work alone. Coordinate and manage various aspects of the plan that require periodic updating or monitoring, such as the GRH program, carpool and vanpool registration, parking enforcement, locker assignment and enforcement. 9.1 Employee Transportation Flyer At the time of occupancy and new hire, the employer will distribute an Employee Transportation Flyer to all employees commuting to the project site. All subsequent new employees will also receive the flyer and commuter benefits and program training. This flyer will include (but not be limited to) information about carpool parking, transit opportunities, shuttle services, bicycle routes and GRH information. A sample flyer is provided as an attachment. 9.2 Promotional Programs Throughout the year, maintain employee awareness by hosting other transportation fairs or coordinating with other employee events such as Wellness Fair, Benefits Fair or other annual company events or promotions. As lunch-time events, these fairs will highlight transit and trip-planning services and rideshare matching and other commute opportunities at the .new site. The Transportation Fairs will bring together transit and transportation providers (Caltrain, BART, SamTrans, and the Alliance), bicycle advocates, ridematching organizations (511), and the Employee Commute Program for a comprehensive presentation. Other events and promotions on-site at the project may include Bike to Work Week, Caltrain Day, Rideshare Thursday's or a comprehensive transportation/commute fair. ~'( ©TAE HOYT COMPANY Page 17 550 Gateway Boulevard Preliminary TDM Plan October 12, 2007 Various transit and rideshare organizations will be invited to set up a marketing booth during lunch-time at a central location at the building during the year to promote the alternative commute options available to employees. Free trial transit passes will be available for first time riders. Periodic on-site tabling would also be recommended throughout the year. 9.3 Transportation Information for Visitors and Guests The project will provide visitors and guests with transportation alternatives and information via on-site services and materials. Transportation information will include the 30-minute shared airport shuttles, Gateway shuttles, Bay Area bicycle trails, transit options (BART, Caltrain and SamTrans) and taxi services. 10.0 ALTERNATIVE COMMUTE EMPLOYEE INCENTIVES The 550 Gateway Boulevard employer will be encouraged to offer their employees some form of alternative commute incentive. Incentives may include apre-tax, payroll deduction (Commuter Choice) for transit and vanpool users, transit subsidies and/or commute subsidies. The Commuter Choice option is a tax-free salary payroll deduction of up to $110 per month per employee, for vanpool and rail transit pass fares through a voucher program (Commuter Check). An employee can deduct up to $1,320 a year from their salary as a pretax payroll deduction. This program encourages non-drive alone commute trips. Transit or commute subsidies can be a set dollar amount or a percentage of the monthly costs of transportation. Employment sites that offer transit or commute subsidies generally tend to have higher levels of alternative mode-use. Subsidies can be provided in tandem with the pre-tax option. 11.0 GUARANTEED EMERGENCY RIDE HOME PROGRAM The property owner will be required to participate in the GRH program managed by the Alliance. The Alliance covers 75% of the cost for GRH services. The employer pays the remaining 25 % cost in the event an employee uses the service. A sample Alliance GRH program flyer is provided as an attachment. All employees who commute to work using transit, bicycle, or by carpool or vanpool, will be guaranteed a free ride home in the case of a personal emergency, or when they unexpectedly have to work late thereby missing the last bus, or their normal carpool home. The GRH program has proven very successful as it removes one of the major ~C ©THE HOYT COMPANY Page 10 55C Gateway boulevard Preliminary TDM Piar_ Octo'~er 12, 2007 objections employees have to giving up their private automobile, especially those with young families. The GRH program provides employees with a security blanket, a feeling of reassurance that if a child becomes ill or injured during the day the employee carp get to them quickly. If employees need to work late and miss their bus or carpool, or if their vanpool breaks down, they are guaranteed a ride home. 12.0 FLEXTIME In order to use alternative modes of transportation, employees may need special consideration for their start and end times of ~rvork. For example, if an employee's workplace opens at 9:00 a.m. The carpool drops the employee off at 8:45 a.m., and he/she must wait until the building is opened. Many employees would drive alone given those conditions. Flextime allows the employer to adjust business open and close times to facilitate the use of alternative commute modes. The. 550 Gateway Boulevard project will provide flextime to employees who desire to commute via alternative transportation rather than the Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV). Project buildings will be open and accessible in the early morning and early evening hours to support an active flextime program. 13.0 INFORMATION BOARD/KIOSK One information board or kiosk will be located in the hotel in a common gathering area (e.g. employee entrance, break or lunch room). The kiosks will contain transportation information, including GRH information, transit and shuttle schedules, SamTrans, Caltrain, BART, Downtown Dasher, 511 ridematching and other related information. Information will be updated periodically by the ETC or designated employer contact. A sample wall-mounted unit is shown below. ~ I ©THE HOYT COMPANY Page 19 iil i11JJJ~ 550 Gateway Boulevard Preliminary TDM Plan October 12, 2007 14.0 ON-SITE AND NEARBY PROJECT AMENITIES On-site amenities provide employees with afull-service work environment. Eliminating the need for an automobile to make midday trips increases non-drive alone rates. Many times, employees perceive that they are dependent upon the drive-alone mode because of the number of errands and activities that must be carried out in different locations. By reducing this dependence through the provision of services and facilities at the work site, an increase in alternative mode usage for commute-based trips should be realized. 14.1 Cafe An onsite cafe and vending machines are provided on-site. Another cafe and bakery is located within walking distance of the project site at 701 Gateway Boulevard, which serves breakfast, lunch and offers catering services. This cafe is operated by a private vendor and is available to employees and the general public. T ©THE HOYT COMPANY Page 2O 550 Gateway Boulevard Preliminary TDM Plan October 12, 2007 14.2 Recreational Facilities A greenbelt area will be incorporated at the 550 Gateway Boulevard site as part of the project construction. This greenbelt area will offer project employees a recreational area for ~,1valking, meditation or picnicking. _ The nearby Bay Trails project provides bicycle connectivity for commuters and recreational users. The Bay Trail is a planned recreational corridor that, when complete, will encircle San Francisco and San Pablo Bays with a continuous 400-mile network of bicycling and hiking trails. It will connect the shoreline of all nine Bay Area counties, link 47 cities, and cross the major toll bridges in the region. To date, approximately 240 miles of the alignment -over half the Bay Trail's ultimate length -have been completed.l 15.0 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) are typically private, nonprofit organizations run by a voluntary Board of Directors with typically a small staff. They help businesses, developers, building owners, local government representatives, and others, work together to collectively establish policies, programs and services to address local transportation problems. The key to a successful TMA lies in the synergism of multiple groups banding together to address and accomplish more than any single employer, building operator, developer, or resident could do alone. In South San Francisco, the Alliance operates as a TMA organization. The Alliance provides: • Shuttle programs • Carpool and vanpool matching • Parking management programs • Trial transit passes • Emergency ride home programs • Enhanced bicycle facilities • Car and vanpool incentives • Transit advocacy • Information on local issues • Teleworking • Training • Marketing programs • Promotional assistance • Newsletter The employer will register in the Alliance GRH program for their employees and to use the resources and services available. Participating with the Alliance is a valuable asset for the project. The Alliance is a clearinghouse for information about alternative commute programs, incentives, and transportation projects affecting San Mateo County businesses. 1 http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/baytrail/overview.html F-~ ^'~ I ©THE HOYT COMPANY Page 21 1 Lam` 550 Gateway Boulevard Preliminary TDM Plan October 12, 2007 16.0 MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT 16.1 Annual Employee Commute Survey and Report An employee commute survey will be a critically important part of the monitoring process to determine the success or failure of TDM measures. An employee survey will be distributed and collected by the project-ETC and/or designated employer representative. The survey will be designed to collect quantitative data (e.g., mode split) and qualitative data (e.g., employee perception of the alternative transportation programs). The survey may be conducted via cordon counts/a statistical sampling or all employees may be surveyed. If all employees are surveyed, the target response rate will be 50% plus one to create a statistically valid survey. Survey data may then be used to focus TDM marketing and the efforts of the ETC. The TDM program could be re-tooled, if necessary, to maintain the project's 28 % alterative commute use rate and commitment at the site. For example, employees may express a desire for transit subsidies that the employer may wish to provide as an added employee commute benefit. A summary report based on results from the employee commute survey will be submitted to the City of South San Francisco. 17.0 CONCLUSION The developer is committed to achieve and maintain a 28 % employee alternative mode- use at the proposed project. This TDM Plan provides the details of their commitment to the City of South San Francisco. By balancing air quality with economic growth, the 550 Gateway Boulevard project will help South San Francisco thrive as a community. It is projects like these that will contribute to South San Francisco's future livelihood. The 550 Gateway Boulevard project supports the policies of focusing clustered development along transportation corridors (Highway 101 and I-280), and transit corridors (Caltrain and BART). In order to be part of the transportation solution, this project contains the density and critical mass necessary to encourage the use of all alternative modes of transportation including bicycling, carpooling, vanpooling, and public transit. ~~ ©THE I"IOYT C°MPANY Page 22 1 I I I l~i~l -~ I I g ~/CtUf to µ~~l« ~. ~;3\ a ~ ~;~, Ift ~ ~I~RY ~'~C© 9th " lt~## OflS ~ I ~ . Aspe /u^~ faflt.`#Si:o I C1C~1 ~~ u ~~ II S J y 2 ~ ~ 4 t; ~ k~ h k .. h ~ pe A e. ..~ Mwap ~v ~ FVJ-# -MV S 7& ! ~~F t !1 t t ~ ~ ,j ~;,4" ~ ` ~-` ~ .. i ` ~ ~I iii.<F'~'i-~~ ?r~~+ ~~ L ~~~ ~ ~ ~ k4 7' • t~'h i .' / n41~ ~ ~ ~~~/GR~ pihe'4ve th . . I~ _~~ t'##. ~ }~ 'Yw~@r O~ O# ~~ ~,.. L .California Ave nth ~n. L~ M~ 1 i~J4V~ ~(i; ~ .~ VSi~ .. ' L~xgve 6thLn ~~~~E~~~ ~ ~# ~ - r ~ x,N. . e.~;.« " Mi Tama , UarAve. rack Ln. Cot~tcid I~tttet~ ~~rr-, ~ri~s#y ~~ ~ :y. ~ ,. , ~ry_~~pppp ~Dy --~~yy~~ ~.lV V">r~ ~ f V or lt~u~4~ca»u#e.o ~ <~ ~...~,: ~ ~ ~~ ~ Grano 4th Ln. ~ q ~. ~ ~~ ~~~ r1tV~~~.7/ I {J •,. I i yy 1 ~ ~ ~ ve.~ . .. i#1~ TG#7~113~ ~ ~1@ ~; I~ ,, ~ ~ i ~ ! ~ eaae ~d L ,,nAv n. ~. ` e Y~l~t~ t3 C## ~ ~ '~ orh ~ _ mefcialgve ?naLn ~~ie 1st Lh 3 . ~w ' '. MERCHANT ADDRESS DISCOUNT ~`, . Bacchanal Restaurant 265 Grand Ave. Hors d'euvres and beverages at Happy Hour Prices ' Cecelia's Restaurant 8~ Pizzeria 113 Grand Ave. 10% off one purchased meal Galli's Sanitary Bakery 324 Grand Ave. 10% off any purchase Hot Shots Gourmet Coffee and Tea 219 Grand Ave. 50% off all drinks (up to a $5 value) Makin' Waves Salon 341 Baden Ave. 10% off retail purchase Morning Brew Coffee Co. 713 Linden Ave., Ste. A Buy one specialty coffee at regular price, and get one of a ual/lesser value FREE Western States Bank 225 Grand Ave. Free Checking - No Monthly Service Charge v~vww.commute.org LEGEND ;' ! BACCHANAL RESTAURANT ~,t '~`° ' CECELIA'S RESTAURANT & PIZZERIA ~; ~`` ' GALLI'S SANITARY BAKERY `3 ~7 ~ HOT SHOTS GOURMET COFFEE AND TEA MAKIN' WAVES SALON MORNING BREW COFFEE CO. WESTERN STATES BANK ;;:_! TAXI DROP-OFFS GRAND AVE. & LINDEN AVE. 733 AIRPORT AVE. Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program Attention Bicycle Commuters Get A Free One Hour Bike And Pedestrian Safety Workshop At Your Jobsite This Fun, Energizing Workshop Includes: • Tips on including Bicycling as a safe, stress relieving commute mode • Coverage of Traffic Laws for Bicyclists, Pedestrians, and Motorists around Bicyclists and Pedestrians • Basic Bicycle Maintenance Tips • Free bicycle related Door Prizes Ask Your Employer To Give Us A Call, And The ALLIANCE Will Do The Rest!!! If you would like more information on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program, please call The ALLIANCE at 650-588-8170, visit our website at www.commute.orq , or a-mail us at ALLIANCEI,a'~i_commute.org Rev 2 1 1 I'I~NINSULA 'rl~r~lc CONGESTION REI.II:F ALLIANCE 1150 Bayhill Drive San Bruno, CA 94066 P: 650-588-8170 Belmont • Brisbane • Burlingame • Colma • Daly City • E. Palo Alto • Foster City • Half Moon Bay F: 650-58$-8171 Millbrae • Pacifica • Redwood City • San Bruno • San Carlos • San Mateo • S. San Francisco d Transit services to South San Francisco areas are provided by Caltrain, BART, and SamTrans. Visit www.caltrain.com, www.bart.gov, and www.samtrans.com for updated schedule and service information. The Glen Park and Millbrae BART shuttles offers 18 daily trips each from their respective BART Stations to 550 _Gateway Boulevard. The Gateway Area Caltrain shuttle offers 12 trips per day from the South San Francisco (_ _ altrain Station and the Millbrae Shuttle offers 29 daily trips from the Millbrae Caltrain Station. SamTrans routes `' 130, 132, 133, 35 and 36 connect with the Utah-Grand Area BART shuttles at the South San Francisco Station. 511 is the regional ridesharing service that will help you to find a vanpool or carpool partner. Please call 511 or log on to www.511.org for ridematching services and other alternative transportation options. Ch~. iY1fS~'~ •R @ ~ ~ ~® ~ k A n' t, ~ ~_ ~ @S ~ i T C ~~a t~q .. ,+~;5 ~ ~ t.. _ 11n~~~ _ 1al _.. b , .... ~ `P"`.~~..N Y - _ _ '"5l S . _. ~ .a. :S The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance provides commute incentives such as FREE gas for carpoolers, FREE trial transit tickets (Caltrain, BART, SamTrans, and others), vanpool rebates, and bike locker subsidies. For more information, log on to www.commute.org or call (650) 588-8170. Regional bicycle route maps are available to bicycle commuters and recreational bicycle users. To view a map, log on to www.511.org. Bicycles are allowed on SamTrans buses and Caltrain. Secure bicycle parking is available at stations and at the 550 Gateway Boulevard site. ~ ~. e~~ 'm~i .,a ., a`.~ rte.., ...y .._. employees who work at 550 Gateway Boulevard and primarily use alternative transportation (transit, vanpool, .,arpool, bicycle, or walk) for their monthly commute can obtain a FREE Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH). In the event of an emergency or illness, the GRH program provides a free taxi or rental car for your return trip home (*requires employer registration). See your company representative for more information. 10/16!07 $50 Gateway Boulevard N r T r ~ O r Z z 0 J ~ J ~ m m N ~ ~ Z D J_ m ti N Z J ~ m ~ ~ ~ Z a,~ b ~ m °~a ~/ -~ b .~ > m ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~a~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ . N o ~ ~~~ .~ ~ ~ ~~ , ~~ ~~ i ~ • • ~~ ~ W ~ ' a~ 1- a W Q a 3 ~ ~ ~ M o V c ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ to U ~ $ 0 3 3 3• a ~ h J ~ m W Q W Q W Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ (/~ Q Z _ ~ ~ ~' T~ co ` `` ` ` r r f ~ ~~a ~ ~T~ oar u~UV~ EMERGENCY RIDE HOME PROGRAM Are you ready to improve recruitment and retention rates, reduce parking congestion, and attract employees from a wider area, while providing a subsidized, low cost benefit to your employees? Do it all with the Alliance's Emergency Ride Home Program Most employees choose to drive their own personal vehicle to work because they don't want to be stranded at work should an emergency arise. With the Emergency Ride Home program, employees are given the assurance that, in the case of an emergency, they will be provided with a free taxi ride or a 24-hour car rental. We pay 75% of the ride! The participating employer pays the remaining 25%. Historically, program costs remain very low because emergencies are infrequent. The Alliance can help you design easy administration policies that prevent program abuse. Employer cost of one Emergency Ride Home: average $12 Trusting your employer will be there for you in an emergency: Priceless PENINSULA CONGESTION The Alliance does all the work. RELIEF If you have any questions or are unsure if your company A-i.LIANCE could benefit from this or other no to low cost commute programs, contact us at 650-588-8170 or via email at 1150 Bayhill Drive alliance@commute.org. Suite 107, San Bnmo, CA 94066 P:650-588-8170 F: 650-588-8171 ,~. .-- -~ °~ ~ ~ !,. -e ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~c n r: m cF Ir r ~~~I i 1 ~f/l \ ~// \~~s/ Dz C~ /I o~~ m n ~ D m m 3 E ~ " T N ~ t N O °o~ O ar o N A O 0 ~ ~ - , ~ ~ ~ ~f ~ ~~ ~ ~ , -- ~~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ , ~'~ ,~ , ,~ , . ,. ~!~~~ ~ ~ ~ X11, N ~~4 ,~, ~ 1 ~„ y ~~~~ ~_r ~.~~ ~ , ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ 11 i ~~~ ~ ~ ~ a i ~ _ s FA + "~ "`--~ a ~_ ~ AD \ \ r _ z ~; --- ~ n t ) ~ ~ ~~ ~y. t \ z i~0 Jy ~ ~~ 10 I ` ~' O ~ r_`l OD 1 t Z p obi ( f •~j ~ '° ~ -.-- _ _ ~~i ~. I i°~.i. ~, --- j„ I_ i 6 i~ ~ 7.5 I B I I ~ d ~ ~~ j._~~' J N~ \ ~ ~. r I ~i ~~ I - n ~ y m _~ ---~,~ ~h'~ _~~ ,~~ ",~,1 ~- ''~ ~I' ~ _ , ~j jj l~~ Y ~ ~' , , 999 ~ ~~ ~------- i #~ ~~,_~_ ~ ~ - . ~ I ~ . ~ ~, i ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ hT~r r~ ~" ~ ~ --- ~~ '~ < ~ A _~~ ~ t` ~ c i ~ ~~ I - o ~' ~ ___- ~r~, ~ ~ mom 1 25' 16' I40' ly ~ 1 r ~ ~ G- 71'PiCAL 7'fPtCAL i P - ~. ~_ ! ( ~ A ~~ I -- ~~ v -- 1._ ~~li _ ~ F 'II 1 C ~ ~ ~ ~~~ -- ~ r ~~~ ~~ ~ ~s ~ __ z 61 16' ?5 16' f 14 it I ~ _.-_._ _~. ~~ l ~. - ~- MIN i.__ ~,;~ 1 __ I ,~ III ~ ~ ~ !L~ - I ~ _~ ~ ~ a I .. --- ~ ~ ,,/ N ~ ~. , a_6. - ~; ~--~F--- -I ~ T1P i i - "L A - ( ~ ~ I ' ~~ l ~ I l ~ ,~, 0 ~ 286_ J t i3",S.d'.59" W' I 1 ~, ~~ t 1t t 1 ~1 I 1 1~ I ICI ,~ ~~ II' i o ~'\ ~' m N ~ ~, m D z \\. , \. ~~: p I. Z 1 ~~ %, ~; ~ .', ~;.; Z Y,.;µ1 A~ , 1 Dm Z~ m ji I O ~ ~~~,~ F U p AZ O m m \ A ~:.: 18 S~ ~ ~ - '- D D ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~, i t~ ~, , ~~ ~~ ~1 ~~ ~~ ti~ ~~ ~i ~~ i~ i~ ~i ,~ 1 ~~ I ~~ 11 I~ I ~I ~ 'I i II j I. o ut -1J -' l A.:<~ za -`~i"o A>cn c rcozin oLDi ZrA O AOL., C m m O - "~ p °o l~~vZ ~y ~ y`o r- C2 \ FOr~ V i Oo CO- ~1 zpm y A mZ~n~ Y 61noy0 m` O OU O Y D~ ~ooncnv r ~A r` NZ AmT ~ J o nm [~~ r~ ~~ ~~ t m 00 A D i m ~ o n prA~ ~ D ~% p m D m m D f I my n=coop N m D_~m m Z~r 1~ m`. ~ N D -~ 1 Y D ~ mmOlbY m AD~A ~ N Or ~> ~~,ygD ~ 0 A m ~ A ~'~ ~ ~ mD~ A AD ~z~Gym D ~z oyo°~ D O'' ~ r~ y ~ o O D 5D ~ AO Y~m?I Oi/i ;~I~ ~p"°"~ ~~J -I D O O a *~ ~ Z I m vOOy 00 ~n=ray Ta Ov Omipm Gyp (~ -A II 11U II 0 li II 0 11 II II No mo~mDz Q0 ZZ O O O'HLO Am N~ \y ae a, °' a° jJAy~ ! ~ mQOmzv w m 'r" Z I I o _ O GO BUJ: ~j DY ~'~ AfODZ i ~ AO N _ aSm m rI1O 000G UD D=mZ~ ~^! i IA 41 toNy ply ~~LOA \O NY ~A ~NNNII GL DDOZ~ ~mm~; u,- ~tirooo (y7~ OOO ~E eV~eV •AL ~Dy D~ ,UIZUZ rrrr m~ Y 0000 Iny 0 e~ip am~rm m~1 onoo < A t+I m O AA ° pj Zzp~ro m z ~ DU 1A l y DDDD OIym smnjm nm pX ~ IJI ~~ mAZ n~ DN Cy CO A O< p ,~m~~~~001D ~ ~Oi -i0A ~D~1~~I Nm r A F DDCDD V1C1 O Z E'ralrr yC A O G~ rDrrDmm~ NU~i..{NNfr'y3~ tn0 NO\ Z~A ovlmGmop~g m ITTIp~'n p m OL OA£ A~ Om~pmOm pO o p ~~~ ~L r A~ WmN lnO ty ~~ ti ~;~°z a , ,H m0 p A C)A m O m0 DAr~R D by ~ D O A ~ J A Of 01 z °oo Goy- ~ O I~ \00~ A Inn p~~ m ~~ i~° a PNw m t mrn ~m AU o m ~~N~ ~~ o ~~q r r r ~~ ~~~~ ' ; I~~~I~, >~ (na (nO1;C ~ 00 OG~m 00 OOrN ~ 'N+1~ N~O{y f'~ '1'Imm V (JO pO mp m mmm 00 r3AZ ~c Om O 2U1 mm~ my @iZ ~~ O O oA ~~ ~O OD A? mm DZ AO m DD FI D o, ~~~ I ~~ n i ~ ~~ I .. ~^~PV x'1(0 r 4"~ 3 ~k'~1 ~ ~N s ~, ~ S ~~ ~ A ~~, z w11WMM ~ ~ ~ .' 'F yam! ui1 ,~ °i 4i~-A ~ ~ ~~p ~ . 7 AP ~~ )• +R „ ~+pn6M't ~ \ z~ '~ ['1'A ~a 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,tva t,lll,rHyl jr Y, y ~ ';,. ~P~y~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~. 7~'a t~ N ~ P1~ m ~~ V ~~~, x ~ ~ ~ ~~i 1 T 1 F Ro W ~ . ••s , ,j~ , i .4 A51~"J~ yd4~',' m ~imm Y/ } J~ RIESE ORAMAHCS, DE"7GNS 6NF'bHES, m b 2~ ENCLVSIYF PRCPER7Y OF LEE GAbF 8 ASSOCIATES, ~ ` , m O ~~\ ~ or INC., , ~ y p~ ~ •, m THE ~ a O O ~d ,~ ` PROPOSED'. ~, '•~" AORCHIi~ECiSRE%0.US1YE U3 VONOANL IN CONJUNC?I _. • ~e m y -< ~ ~pl HYATT PLACE j~,~_~• W17N 7NE ARON4ECi'S WORN. NOTHING CONiAINEU N I I _ c _ _,...~.....,-..,.... ,... ,~..«,..,~.,, ~r.,.~o.,.,~ ii~rn .. _...__ _______.__ _I....~~., n i ,I l( I I II f I ~ ~ i u a `~~ .„ L__ _ ~_ --~ G~ s° g~ - ~E~a ~ q d l ~ ~ 1 i ~ r ~ ~p s8 ~-~ - ~_ _ _ Q ~, i, x I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- I ~ ~~ I ~ _ € {~ a _ 1~ - =~_ ~ ~~~ I I~ ~~E~r, e: ~ I ~n~, - I o ~ mF i I ~~ ~~ a~ ~~ ~ ~ n ' I 9& I ~ 98 i a .8 i8 ~ ~ 'I ~; i j v 7~~.1 I I ~ I '_ I ~L ~ I --s, ~' I~~ ~ ~'_ I. o ~ w ~ F _- r - ,, r P _ L ~ II it ~ I ~~~~ y It ~ . I - ~~r I. ~ ~ ~ i °B II~ ES J _~ 68 EB - I ~ t~ 1 ~ _ _ ~ ~& I ~', ~ 4R 't ~ ____ l - _ I € - i ERA \ I _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ II it I ~ Ir, ~7 ~ g~ __. ~ _ - ~ ~7 ~a I .' I (~ I ~ ~~ -T '~ ~ ~~ ~ - ~ ~ ILL ~~ E#~ LE~ I~ fi It ,~ i~ ~' ~I ~ i ~ ~I ~ ~~_~ !_ ;I -.~ I, r rt i 0 C ; Ir ~-- ,T m ~~`1 I~- ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ ~' ~ ' ~ ~ ~~~~j ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ' `~ vl~.~ I - m ~~ it (~ i -~ ~ ~; I ~=~ s --' ~_,I , - as ' z~ i~ - ~ _~ 0 r p~~~~ ~ ~ I ~ ~f/~, Imo- ~ ,~ ; , l` ~I 4 ~ ~ 14q ~~ r~~.~ V I i l I -n ,( '~ _~ ~ ~r~ E~E~ ~~~1~! _ i Jil ~ ~~ - b ~- -~ ~ EE~ ~a ~a I ss J I 'V (/-~~ \ -d, I y~' Ji - ~ - 1 / 1~-- ~ i~ I~ 1 ~., 1•,, (I~ ~~ EIS-~/V ~ ~ 0 ~, ~ ~ - pp~ ~ f' -~ ~I-_ ~°' f 1~ ~ m ~, _ ~ I y.,J1 , _ If _~ I~. ~ S ~dl 1 $~ j'~ ~[ ~~~ I ~g~ ~ ~.~ E~ 1 ~~" -k9 I ~~I f s~'~.~1 O ; ~\ ~' ..._ ~ 1~ ~~ gE / gEy~~ . I~ -~~ ~.[I~ 0 ~~ _~ ¶ Ir ~ ~ III 9 1 _. I~ ~- - ~ 0 ¶1I ~ a q If ,~1 ~ I ~ _ 4 L ) tl i~f i `- I - _, _ - - I ~_ ~ ~' _ ~ ~' " - ~~ FD ~I -~~ YYYY Y R \\\ ^Y\^Y\^\^\\ ~ . ~ __ - ^ - 999FpFpFpFp ~~ - E~ &9~ '.. ~.~ ^ Q€ ^ Ko§ m~ ~. ~ ~' GD \ 0 ~~ \ \ ~F ~ z~ \ Ceti ~ ~ ~ ,~~, _ ~~n ^ / ^ ~ / ~., ~~ \ / f \ \>~ ~ ` \ ~~ i ~\~8 \\\j- o''~a ti - Z Sx-~ / >z ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ --~ m z r-- o ~ ,E~: , ~ ~ '_ ~ ~ • ~~ _~_._~.___~ . ~.- ,y ~ 71 r 61~ ~ ~ 9~. ~ ~ ~~~-I°~ ~ I A @Ep CJ(i~ (I I ~ 1' ~ ~ _ '~ ~. ~,~ - i - ~ 111 ~ ~i','~I f7i' ,E ;~ I i I a ~ =- I ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ -I~, ~ ~ ~' _ ~ Wad -~~-i ~ u ~P=h _~ ~ ~ n~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n T x 'i _ m r ~ c~ t- - o m r ~ ~ c I `~ a e~ V I ~ \ \~ ~; I ~ uZi 1 "~ ~ ~Y~ I Nv - " \ N' O /~~ I ~ ~ I ~' ~ I r ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ m ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ 'I e~~ ` ~ Z I I o ~ '~~~~ II tE_ _~I~' a I r -~ - ~ ~ ~~aE~ eI ~~ e~ a~ ~, _ ,IB .~ ~ ~ ~- ra ~ ( ~ ~ ~~'I Eil i i ~I r~ i a' _ ~ ~I Z 1mT7 = _ 1I___ N ~ ~__1 W~}'~ ~~~ ~_`~ _~ ~& ~ , ~ '~~' ~R, i ~ 3~~ TUP,N AROUND SPACE ~ "~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ I ~ R~~ 5§~ I i Z 2~ I N ¢ 4 _ rl r g m ~z s~r , o a ~, ~ ~ I~~ ~ ~z ~uv --- ~ ~ r ~~ I-~ ~.~~ • m 0 O ~ yy5 * `~C ~/ ~ p ~~ ~ fir' n it o1 :`Ym~ m ~~ i i I( ~ J ~C~ TNESE DRAVANCS OISIGhS SNETGiES ItIEAS 8 ARRANGEMENTS ARF THE SOLE & ~'RpPOSE~: , ExG:DSIVE PROPERTY OF LEE GAGE & ASSOCI 17E5, INC., HYATT PLACE AND WERE CREATED AND DEvEEOPED BY ANTI FOR THE ARCH iEC"S EkC U514E USL 0.4 ANO N CON.,UNGTGN 1 WIM 1NE ARCHNEC"IS WJRK. NOTHING CON7IINED 'i50 GATEWA'( BLVD_ ~ ~~ . • OR RFPRESENiEO ON THESE OOCUMEN TS SHAIE BE DSF,C ko p (n Ydl' S- L/~ ~ Tr14SE DItA`MNCS, UE51GN5, SKETCHES, m~ I `~.~ t" 11)EAS k hRRANGEMEN75 A4E IHE SOLE 8 ~ y Y T ~~N PROPOSED: 1 a • E%CLU514E PROPERTY OF LEE GAGE ffi ASSg7ATES, LNG., ~ C1J w~ o~ ~A l l T7 ~~T J ANU WERE CREATED ANO OEVELQPE- BY AND FOA THE I ' ~ , ~ h1 li 1 rL ~-f l AHCIIITP,;TS E(CLUAK USE OM AND IN COIJJUNCTION ~ f~ •~ ~• WIiH THE ARGHITEC7'S WORK. NO7NINC CONTAINED B~ '$ ~ , ~~ 550 GATEWAY BLVD. n ~ OR REPRESENIEO ON THESE OOCUMETJTS SHALL BE USED N ------v 1 i 1 ~$ ~ J '..:~~ ~ ;::. ... ;; ,. :: ,, :: ~:. , , , -~: ~ _ . ~ ,. '; .; __ ' ,. ' ;: ,. _ ~:: , ;: ,. ; :.. ,. _.. . ~:: ..., „~ :~:: :: ::: ..._ _ ~~ ;;s ,,.,, •:' :; r , _ ... •, D • ' ' ;:; A ~: ~; O ::;: tt" ~ ............. .. ~s _ ,.: ~~ ,~ :.. ..,. ~' .,,x _ Y I ~ ,. ., __ ,,,~ I . ~' ,' ~' ~ :' • ~ .. . ~r . .I ~~~ . ~ , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ a f~l :: .................. u ~;,, _ ._ _.... ,.. :~ :::-: ~~ ~ ~~~ ;:;- _ ~ N _.._._-, • Age ~~ ~ .... ::~ gXi .. - - ~ ,S :;' - I x w SS~ .. .. ... ~~ .. _,." .. ......._..._.._. ' l ..~ : ~.'~. ~~ r. I .. Sf~ A~ .................'-' ~ .._... .: L ;: _. .. :; ... ___ oo :::- ... ~~ _ ~__. .. .. __ ~~ L ~~-- ..,.,.. ' ~;,,.. ,. _. .. ;:: .~. .. _ _. ,• , .. :. ~~_ .. ... ~~:; ,., :; _ T ... ...., , ,,... ; . • ..,., . ..... ,. . .__ -- p ~D .... _......_ ... Y ~ ~ Am _..._ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ I ~ ~' . ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~_ ~ ~~ ~ m a 1~ P cn A tU Al ~ - ~ ~... 9 ~~ D > ~ ~~ ~ ~ D F n ,, . o a S~ `~ u ~ Z m '~ ~ :. ~ ;,, « .. u a ~ ~u ~ 9~ S g 9 ~ oS ~ m ~ 9 ~ a ? ,~ Ns u~ % x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 ~}~r 3 ` ~ P ` _ I}n oS 4~ 1m1~Dp u ~ p-' iu SQ s...o i&is<F :a '~ ~ K(Ek ~ [a'u [ }~ 3 ~b ~ E ~:~ A' °D~Q ~ III ~~U~ym~ ~~ I ° 0 V ~ 1 lr ~ ~ tl ~ 3 ho }0 3 ,4 3 3 6 k ~ W R ~ ~ 3 ~ 3 ,3 F~ {$ :D .: ~ 0 ~ ~ Z Z 2 r -P a_ xi y~y~S? _34 ~ ~~- ~ E ? ~ ~ 1 in Ran, ~' "~ 3 ~ 4,l ~ ` 3 ~ ~'.~ ~ `n~ ~~ ~ ~~ 3 ~ ~ 3 ~~. a aZ~ (1 a ~ ~~~~~~ ~ N ~`. 0 ufi 0 ' o ~,_ ~~ ^~' s ! ~' S R f y a a ,g~Si S~'4 < a ~ ~ ~ N 3 fi ~° ~ ~ ~~.~Z~ xx~~~ ° ~ B ° 8 <~° `~ s ~_a 1~ `~, c x f ~ e E ~~ ,NSF ~~s~~~~ n~W° ° ~ I( $+~~ Z ~ ~ F ~ ~ " a~ ~ ~~ I°~ lC a ~ ~ ; s~ 3€§' Q ° ~ 31d~g~j~{E #k1~ ~`~;~ 3' ~~~~~~s ~0 666°~6 a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ k ~ ~ is ~d~~i ~ # ~~ ~ s ~ ' fi Y *- ~o ~ ~~ u+ T _ A a „ n =n773a u° ~ S~~S; 3 ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ S5 x0? ~a d~~~ D _ s~~,~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ a, ~, °s°s$ ~ ~_~ ~F ooa~m~ n ~ o ~ S3 u~p N - 0 ~ ~ - NA AANNNAN ~ ~~~~g~~~g~ ~ s u7~ N _ x ~ Tg aa~~ ate ~ (~N ? ~ ~ ~ ~S as m ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ». c~~° ~ Wks M ~ ~ .. ~, ~a -~ ,,,~ ~~ o A~ rye RI ~ ~ aEAC ! Nau%aalalrs AEE 1NE'I I... Ezaus~E en°rEExtt a lfE CACE i A550aA1ES, wc. =~ s ~ ; ~ HYATT PLACE r ~ ~°'~ ~"E° ~° °~ ~' ""° fa11XE ~ ~ ~ ARQIIECY9 E%ClU51E USF aN NA W aax~}cnax ~~ ~ }nTM txE Axai>ECrs wax M°mixG ca~u-rm S' ' 6a0 OA7E'NAY 0.VD. ~ aA AEPAF9FNIFD ql TMEEE DacAxNts 91NL BE usED : o sauna SAII fRANaSCO, CA -i eras GfaasEa ro ANr GFRSa1, ~ aR CGRPCRAIwII ~~'~ l~~y O ~ ~ CMSFNT aF IFE CAGE t tiS50aA~RlC ~ ~0 INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Application Number ND07-0003 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD HYATT PLACE HOTEL PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DIVISION PRI~PARED BY I~Nr~PP PLI~NNING AND ENVIRONMENT"AL CONSULTING 315 MAPLE AVENUE• SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 OCTOBER 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PAGE 1.1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1-1 1.2 Mitigation Measures the City Requires as Standard Conditions of 1-10 Approval 1.3 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 1-21 1.4 Lead Agency's Determination 1-23 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Location and Setting 2-1 2.3 Proposed Project 2-6 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.1 Aesthetics 3-2 3.2 Agricultural Resources 3-6 3.3 Air Quality 3-7 3.4 Biological Resources 3-23 3.5 Cultural Resources 3-29 3.6 Geology and Soils 3-31 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3-40 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 3-51 3.9 Land Use and Planning 3-56 3.10 Mineral Resources 3-71 3.11 Noise 3-72 3.12 Population and Housing 3-76 3.13 Public Services 3-78 3.14 Recreation 3-79 3.15 Transportation and Traffic 3-80 3.16 Utilities and Service Systems 3-85 3.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance 3-89 3.17 A Findings and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3-90 LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 Project Location 1-3 1.2 Proposed Site Plan 1-6 2.1 Project Site 2-2 2.2 View South West from Centex of the Site 2-3 2.3 View to the South West from Center of Site 2-3 2.4 Child Care Center Across Gateway Boulevard-North West of the Site 2.4 2.5 View West Portion of Bank of America Building 2-4 2.6 Facing East-Biotechnology 2-5 Air 1 Location of Sensitive Receptors-Day Care Centers 3-19 LIST OF TABLES 1.1 Project Characteristics 1-5 1.2 East of 101 Roadway Improvements 1-16 2.1 Tree Planting Plan 2-6 2.2 Tree Removal Plan 2-7 Air 1 Stunmary of Criteria Air Pollution Monitoring Data 3-9 Air 2 Global Warming Potentials 3-11 Air 3 Recommended AB32 Greenhouse Gas Measures to be Initiated by 3-14 CARB Between 2007 and 2012 Air 4 BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance Project Operational Emissions 3-16 Bio 1 Tree Removal Plan 3-28 Haz 1 Groundwater Sampling Results of Detected Substances Comparison 3-44 to Waste Limits Haz 2 Comparison of Maximum Detected Hazardous Materials in Soil 3-46 Concentrations to Screening Levels APPENDIX A Phase II Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Holiday Inn Express Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA, Krazan & Associates, Inc. Project No. 044-00112. May 14, 1999. Phase II Subsurface Investigation Proposed Holiday Inn Express Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA, Project No. 044-991112. July 13, 1999. Document Review and Comment -Proposed Holiday Inn Express (letter), Krazan & Associates, Inc. September 10, 2007. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Hotel, 550 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA, Project No. 042-07020, Krazan & Associates, Inc. November 12, 2007. Geotechnical Peer Review RE: 550 Gateway Boulevard Pr ject/Hyatt Place, South San Francisco, Cotton Shires, Associates. February 15, 2008. Updated Pie~ometer Installation, Proposed Holiday Inn Express Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA, Krazan & Associates, Inc. Project No. 044-08005. March 24, 2008, revised March 26, 2008. Updated Pie~ometer IdVater Levels and Groundwater Sample Results, -Proposed Hyatt Place (letter), Krazan & Associates, Inc. Apri130, 2008. Review of Comments-Proposed Hotel 550 Gateway Boulevard (letter), Krazan & Associates, Inc. August 14, 2008. Geotechnical Peer Review RE: 550 Gateway Boulevard Project/Hyatt Place, South San Francisco, Cotton Shires, Associates. August 22, 2008. Appendix A, Continued Tubex Grout Injection Pile for Hyatt Hotel, South San Francisco, Corrosion bate for Low Carbon Steel Pipe Pile, (letter), Ben C. Gerwick, Inc., September 9, 2008. Geotechnical Peer review rE: 550 Gateway Boulevard Project/Hyatt Place, South San Francisco, Cotton Shires, Associates. September 22, 2008. Hazardous Materials Environmental Peer review, 550 Gateway Blvd Pr ject, Proposed Holiday Inn Express, South San Francisco, CA, CSS Project No: 6533. February 26, 2008. Air Quality Assessment, 550 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA., Miller Consulting. February 25, 2008. Conditional iYlaiver of 1-Vaste Discbarge[r]equirements and I-Vater Quality Certification for Homestead Village Hotel, Gateway Technology Center, Parcel 2A, South San Francisco, CA, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. April 1, 1998. File Number 23280S, Department of the Army, San Francisco District, CORPS of Engineers. June 24, 1999. 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION This Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which can be found in the California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines found in California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq., as amended. The Initial Study identifies the potential environmental impacts associated with grading, construction and operation (i.e., occupancy) of the Project. The mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study are designed to reduce potential Project impacts to a less than significant level. Pursuant to state law this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration will available to the State Clearinghouse and the public fora 30 day review period prior to the Lead Agency considering adoption of this document. Pursuant to Section 15074 (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3) when considering adoption of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration the Lead Agency is bound by the following: A. Any advisory body of a public agency making a recommendation to the decision-making body shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration before making its recommendation. B. Prior to approving a Project the Lead Agency shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process. The decision-making body shall adopt the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the whole of the record before it that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment and that a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration reflects the Lead Agency's independent judgment and analysis. C. When adopting a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, the Lead Agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 1-1 CHAPTER l: INTRODUCTION D. When adopting a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, the Lead Agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the Project or made a condition of approval to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts E. A Lead Agency shall not adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a Project within the boundaries of a comprehensive airport land use plan or, if a comprehensive airport land use plan has not been adopted, for a Project within two nautical miles of a public use airport, without first considering whether the Project will result in a safety hazard or noise problem for persons using the airport or for persons residing or working in the Project area. The proposed Project is within the Gateway Specific and Redevelopment Plan Project area. The Project is reviewed by the Redevelopment Agency and does not require review by an advisory agency (Chapter 20.57.580 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, Zoning). The decision making body is the City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. The City Council serves as the Redevelopment Agency. Project Application This Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (City Project Numbers: P07-0073, Precise Plan PP07-0001, Variance VAR07-0004, Signs SIG07-0047 and DR07-0046) is for the proposed Hyatt Place Hotel. The Project site is at 550 Gateway Boulevard in South San Francisco, California. The site is vacant and would involve grading and construction to emplace an eight story, 166- room hotel, subterranean and surface parking and landscaping. Project Applicant/Team/Contact The Project applicant and property owner is Vijay Patel. The architects are DES Architects and Engineers and Lee Gage and Associates, Inc. Sierra Design, Inc., is the landscape architect. Vijay Patel is the contact person for the Project. Vijay Patel 2834 El Camino Real Redwood City, CA 94061 (650) 3GG-2000 PAGE 1-2 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER l: INTRODUCTION Lead Agency/Contact T'he Lead ~~gency for this Initial Study/ Negative Declaration is the City of South San Francisco. "I'he administrative record for the proposed Project is on file at the City's Planning Division. The following person has been assigned as the custodian and Project manager for the Lead Agency: Gerry Beaudin, Senior Planner Department of Economic and Community Development-Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 (650) 877-8535 Project Location The proposed Project is located at 550 Gateway Boulevard in the East of 101 Area and is within the Gateway Redevelopment Plan Area of South San Francisco. ~:~ccess to the site can be obtained from Oyster Point Boulevard to the north of the site or from East Grand Avenue south of the site. See Figure 1.1 Project Location. FIGURE 1.1 Project Location Vacant Site Surrounded by Development 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 1-3 CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION East of 101 Area Background: The East of 101 Area was historically the City's traditional core of industry. The area was originally developed with meat packing and heavy manufacturing activities. Bethlehem Steel, U.S. Steel and the Edwards Wire and Rope Factory were some of the City's major businesses whose products helped build California's modern transportation and communications infrastructure. The Project site is located on a portion of the old Bethlehem Steel plant which was in operation until the late 1970's (discussed in more detail in the Project Description, Chapter 2, and Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Chapter 3, of this document). The East of 101 Area has been in transition for the past 30 plus years. In 1981 the City adopted the Gateway Redevelopment Plan (Plan), an approximate 177-acre Project Area within the western portion of the East of 101 Area. The Plan's purpose was to bolster economic development and clean up sites contaminated by previous industrial uses by replacing outdated industrial uses with a mix of business, research and development and commercial activities. The Project site is one of the last remaining vacant parcels in the Gateway Redevelopment Plan Area. The Gateway Redevelopment Plan Area is now developed with hotels, research and development, offices and commercial land uses. Project Description The Project would construct an approximate 107,600 square foot eight story hotel consisting of 166 rooms and 154 parking spaces. The maximum height would be 92 feet above finished grade. The floor area ratio (FAR) is proposed to be 1.24 which complies with the Gateway Specific Plan District (Section 20.57.210). The site is relatively flat and consists of 87,118 square feet. The site would be graded and re-compacted. The existing vegetation would be removed and replaced with new landscaping. Paving and utilities would be emplaced on the site. The following table, Introduction Table 1 identifies the Project characteristics. The Project is described in more detail in Chapter 2, Project Description, of this document. See Figure 1.2 Proposed Site Plan. PAGE 1-4 55O GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION TABLE 1.1 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Lot Area 87,110 square feet B'ulding 107,600 square feet Floor Area Ratio 1.24 Paving 51,950 (60%) square feet Landscape and Walkway 17,968 (20%) sq. ft. Porte-Cochere 1,490 (2%) square feet Rooms 166 Parking 154 (0.92/room) Maximum Height 92 feet above finished grade 161 feet above mean sea level 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 1-5 CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION vU o~~,o FIGURE 1.2 Proposed Site Plan PAGE 1-6 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER l: INTRODUCTION Required Project Entitlements The Project requires the following entitlements and actions by the City of South San Francisco: - Precise Plan: to construct a hotel and site improvements that must be found in conformance with the Gateway Specific Plan (which in this case is the Gateway Redevelopment Plan) as required by the Gateway Specific Plan Zoning District contained in Section 20.57 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (Zoning); - Variance: to allow parking within 20 feet of buildings on the site; - Design Review: to approve and/or modify accordingly the proposed design of the Project. The City's Design Review Board is vested with the authority of identifying design modifications; and, - Sign Permit: to approve the proposed signage for the Project. Therefore, the "Project" as defined in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, is the site plan for the landscape removal and replacement, grading, construction of the hotel and associated support structures, the associated on- and off-site development including paving, building, and all other actions necessary to develop the proposed building at the Project site, as further identified and evaluated in Chapter 3 of this document. General Plan and Zoning Designations General Plan Designation As noted above, the Project site is within the area subject to the provisions of the "East of 101" Planning Sub-Area of the City of South San Francisco's General Plan. The General Plan designates the Project site for "Business Commercial" uses. Business Commercial uses are defined by the General Plan (page 42) as: This category is intended for business and professional offices, visitor and service establishments, and retail. Permitted uses include administrative, financial, business, professional, medical and public offices, and visitor-oriented and regional commercial activities. Regional commercial centers, restaurants and related services are permitted subject to appropriate standards. This category is intended for the emerging commercial and hotel district along South Airport, Gateway and Oyster Point Boulevards, and South Spruce corridor. The Project site is within the southern portion of the 177-acre Gateway Specific Plan/Redevelopment Plan Area. The Gateway Redevelopment Plan serves as the Gateway Specific Plan and the Redevelopment Plan along with the Gateway Specific Plan Zoning District further refine the permitted uses within this sub-area of the East of 101. Hotel and restaurant 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 1-7 CHAPTER l: INTRODUCTION development is encouraged on the Project site (see Zoning, below). Also worthy of note, page 4 of the East of 101 Area Plan states that "...the land use entitlement and limitations of the Gateway Specific Plan are not affected by the [East of 101] Area Plan and will continue to be in force in the Gateway Area." This notation is included in the East of 101 Area Plan as it was adopted in July 1994 subsequent to the Gateway Specific Plan which was adopted in 1981. The East of 101 Area Plan, as noted, does not modify the land uses prescribed in the Gateway Specific Plan. Zontn~ The Project site is zoned "Gateway Specific Plan District". The Gateway Specific Plan District is divided into five blocks and the Project site is located in Block 1. Permitted uses are identified in Section 20.57.200 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Block 1 permitted uses include hotels, motels and related facilities; retail shops, convenience stores and personal services, professional office buildings, restaurants, signs, amusement arcades within hotels and athletic clubs. The proposed hotel use is a permitted use on the Project site. Surrounding Land Uses in the Gateway Specific Plan Area The surrounding land uses include research and development, hotels and professional office which are permitted uses on Blocks II, III, IV and V within the Gateway Specific Plan District. A complete list of permitted uses and parcels comprising the Gateway Specific Plan District is identified in Chapter 20.32 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (HTTP://Qcode.us). Documents Incorporated Herein By Reference Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, for the Homestead South San Francisco, CA, ATC Associates. November 25, 1997. Phase II Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Holiday Inn Express Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA, Krazan & Associates, Inc. Project No. 044-00112. May 14, 1999. Phase II Subsurface Investigation Proposed Holiday Inn Express Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA, Project No. 044-991112. July 13, 1999. Document Keview and Comment -Proposed Holiday Inn Express (letter), Krazan & Associates, Inc. September 10, 2007. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Hotel, 550 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA, Project No. 042-07020, Krazan & Associates, Inc. November 12, 2007. Geotechnical Peer Review ICE: S50 Gateway Boulevard Project/Hyatt Place, South San Francisco, Cotton Shires, Associates. February 15, 2008. Updated Pie~ometer Installation, Proposed Holiday Inn Express Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA, Krazan & Associates, Inc. Project No. 044-08005. March 24, 2008, revised March 26, 2008. PAGE 1-8 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER l: INTRODUCTION Review of Comments-Proposed Hotel 550 Gateway Boulevard (letter), Krazan & Associates, Inc. August 14, 2008. Geotechnical Peer Review RE: 550 Gateway Boulevard Pr ject/Hyatt Place, South San Francisco, Cotton Shires, Associates. August 22, 2008. Tubex Grout Injection Pile for Hyatt Hotel, South San Francisco, Corrosion Fite for Low Carbon Steel Pipe Pile, (letter), Ben C. Gerwick, Inc., September 9, 2008. Geotechnical Peer Review RE: 550 Gateway Boulevard ProjectlHyatt Place, South San Francisco, Cotton Shires, Associates. September 22, 2008. Hazardous Materials Environmental Peer Review, 550 Gateway Blvd Project, Proposed Holiday Inn Express, South San Francisco, CA, CSS Pr ject No: 6533. February 26, 2008. AirQuality Assessment, 550 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA., Miller Consulting. February 25, 2008. Conditional 111aiver of 1-TVaste Discharge~rJequirements and mater Quality Certification for Homestead Village Hotel, Gateway Technology Center, Parcel 2A, South San Francisco, CA, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Apri11, 1998. File Number 23280S, Department of the Army, San Francisco District, CORPS of Engineers. June 24, 1999. e-mail from Patricia Gomes to Homestead Village, Inc., March 23, 2001 regarding wetland mitigation. Cultural Resources Study of the 550 Gateway Project Area, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California, Holman & Associates. October 22, 2007. Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, Homart Development Company. August 14, 1984. Document # 84089729 San Mateo County Recorders Office City of South San Francisco Project Review Process As a matter of law, the Project is required to comply with federal, state and local laws and regulations. These regulations are verified as satisfied and incorporated into the Project as a matter of building permit issuance or a building or grading permit will not be issued by the City of South San Francisco. City of South San Francisco project processing requires that applications for projects are first reviewed by the City's Technical Advisory Group (TAG). TAG is comprised of representatives from planning, building, police, fire, engineering, parks and recreation, and water quality control. TAG review identifies changes and additions that are required in a project to comply with local, state and federal laws that are implemented through the City's Municipal Code. The Planning 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 1-9 CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION TAG review identifies changes and additions that are required in a project to comply with local, state and federal laws that are implemented through the City's Municipal Code. The Planning Division, subsequent to TAG review, issues a letter to the applicant identifying the changes required in project plans and supporting materials necessary to comply with prevailing laws pursuant to site development, construction and land use. The applicant is required to revise the plans and supporting documentation or the application is not certified as complete and not processed. Revised plans and documentation are submitted to the Planning Division to be routed again to all affected City departments and divisions; again to evaluate the application in light of their earlier comments and requirements. The process results in an application that can be certified `complete' as well as identifying the Conditions of Approval (COA's) that axe required should the Project be approved. Many of these COA's implement environmental mitigations that were historically identified through the environmental review process (California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA) and now have become a part of the City's legislative requirements, through its general plan, special, area, or redevelopment plans, municipal code, special districts, or memoranda of understanding (i.e., its police power). After a project application is complete it is subject to environmental, public and discretionary review through and by the Planning Commission, Redevelopment Agency and/or City Council, depending upon the type of project, as defined by the Municipal Code of South San Francisco and state law. The COA's identified through staff review of the project, and any additional ones identified through the public review process become required of the Project as a matter of law. Prior to the City issuing a building, grading and/or demolition permit all City departments and divisions (identified above) review the project plans for compliance with their identified COA's and any ones added through the public review process. Permits are not issued by the Building Division in absence of authorization of from City staff or in absence of the requirements being incorporated into the Project plans. 1.2 MITIGATION MEASURES THE CITY REQUIRES AS STANDARD CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL The following COA's implement environmental mitigations and are required through City of South San Francisco standard project review and approval procedures. Each of the following requirements identified in this Sectionl.2 will be imposed upon and incorporated into the Project, as conditions of approval and or conditions of issuance of a building permit, as noted above, this is required as a matter of law through the City review and approval process. Implementation of these COA's along with mitigation measures identified in this document will insure that impacts associated with the project remain less than significant. Aesthetics 1. Light and Glare. Signage is required to be reviewed by staff, the Design Review Board, and in some instances the Planning Commission. Lighting, size, color, placement, design and compatibility with surrounding land uses is addressed and assured through this process. Potential environmental impacts and the need or lack thereof for environmental clearance is also addressed and undertaken as a part of the Type A, B or C Sign Permit procedure (Chapter 20.76 and 20.86 PAGE 1-1 O 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER l: INTRODUCTION South San Francisco Municipal Code-Zoning). The Planning Division implements and monitors this requirement. Air Quality 1. Dust Control. All construction projects are required to comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) dust control measures. These measures are levied by the Engineering Division as a condition of building permit issuance and are monitored for compliance by staff and/or special City engineering and/or planning inspectors. The measures include: a. Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. b. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. c. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. d. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. e. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. f. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). g. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiled materials. h. Install sandbags or other erosion-control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. i. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. j. Watering should be used to control dust generation during the break-up of pavement. k. Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site. 1. Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible. m. Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 1-1 1 CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION n. Diesel powered equipment shall be maintained in good working condition, with manufacturer-recommended mufflers, filters, and other equipment. o. Diesel powered equipment shall not be left inactive and idling for more than ten minutes, and shall comply with applicable BAAQMD rules. p. Use alternative fueled construction equipment, if possible. 2. Toxic Air Contaminants. The potential for toxic air contaminants (asbestos and lead based paint) to be released into the environment is regulated and monitored through the Building Division. Any applicant requesting a building or demolition permit involving a structure suspected of containing asbestos (defined as a building constructed prior to 1978) and/or lead based paint (defined as a building constructed prior to 1960) is required to obtain a J-Permit from the BAAQMD. The J Permit is required to be posted on the job site and if it is not there the job will be fined by the BAAQMD and may be shut down by the City's Building Division. Through this process, the BAAQMD and the City Building Division ensure that asbestos and lead based paints axe handled, removed, encapsulated and disposed of in accordance with prevailing law requisite to protect the environment, the people conducting the work and nearby sensitive receptors. The process typically requires surveys and removal of lead based paints and asbestos by licensed contractors certified in the handling methods requisite to protect the environment and public health and safety. The process also provides for BAAQMD and City supervision to insure compliance. 3. Vehicle Emissions. The potential for air quality degradation from vehicle emissions is regulated to some extent by Section 20.120.030 of the South San Francisco Code. Table 20.120.030-A in the Zoning Ordinance establishes specific program requirements for a project generating one hundred or more vehicle trips per day or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus. The required alternative mode use for all projects is twenty-eight percent and applicants who propose projects with increased FAR are required to increase their alternative mode use accordingly. The Planning Division implements and monitors this requirement. Geology and Soils 1. Table 18-1-B Uniform Building Code. All construction projects are required to comply with the Uniform Building Code. Projects located on soils identified in Volume 2 Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code are required to comply with the construction specifications to mitigate potential impacts due to liquefaction. This requirement is enforced and monitored by the Engineering Division. Compliance with the Uniform Building Code is also implemented and monitored by the Building Division. 2. Geotechnical Reports. The City Engineering Division also requires geotechnical reports as a part of the permit package for projects to be constructed on vacant land, demolition and rebuilding and additions to buildings that require grading and additional loading. The geotechnical reports are required to be prepared by a licensed geologist, geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. The reports address design and construction specifications for the Project including grading, site drainage, utility and infrastructure design specifications and placement and building design. The reports are peer reviewed by the City's geotechnical consultant and are modified as recommended by the City's consultant. Geotechnical approval is required prior to issuance of a PAGE 1-12 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER l: INTRODUCTION building permit. The geotechnical professional of record is required to sign all project drawings and the City's geotechnical consultant provides construction inspections, oversight and monitoring for the City. The Engineering Division implements and monitors this requirement. Hydrology and Water Quality 1. Stormwater Runoff Prevention (Operational). All Projects are required to comply with the San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), an organization of the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County holding a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Discharge permit. The City requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP's) for new development and construction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City COA's. The requirements are implemented and monitored by the Engineering and Water Quality Control Divisions. The measures address pollution control and management mechanisms for contractor activities, e.g. structure construction, material delivery and storage, solid waste management, employee and subcontractor training. Stormwater pollution prevention measures also affect site development and operations in order to prevent pollution due to Project occupancy. Typical storm water quality protection measures include: a. Walking and light traffic areas shall use permeable pavements where feasible. Typical pervious pavements include pervious concrete, porous asphalt, turf block, brick pavers, natural stone pavers, concrete unit pavers, crushed aggregate (gravel), cobbles and wood mulch. b. Parking lots shall include hybrid surfaces (pervious material for stalls only), concave medians with biofilters (grassy swales), and landscaped infiltration/detention basins as feasible. c. Landscape design shall incorporate biofilters, infiltration and retention/detention basins into the site plan as feasible. d. Outdoor work areas including garbage, recycling, maintenance, storage, and loading, applicable storm water controls include siting or set back from drainage paths and water ways, provision of roofing and curbs or berms to prevent run on and run off. If the area has the potential to generate contaminated run off, structural treatment controls for contaminant removal (such as debris screens or filters) shall be incorporated into the design. e. Roof leaders and site drainage shall be filtered and directed to the City storm drain system. £ Drainage from paved surfaces shall be filtered through vegetated swales, buffer or sand strips before discharge to the City's storm drain system. 2. Stormwater Runoff Prevention (Construction). The City of South San Francisco requires through COA's, Project compliance with the State Water Quality Control Board's general permitting requirements which requires the applicant to secure a Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit, complete a Notice of Intent (NOI) and prepare and obtain approval of a 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 1-13 CHAPTER l: INTRODUCTION Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP}. The state issues a Waste Discharge Identification number within 10 days of receipt of a complete NOI and SWPPP. The applicant is then required to submit copies of the NOI and SWPPP to the City of South San Francisco's Technical Services Supervisor within the Water Quality Control Plant the Public Works Department prior to issuance of building and/or grading permits. The requirements are implemented and monitored by Water Quality Control personnel. Typical construction stormwater protection measures include: a. Identify all storm drains, drainage swales and creeks located near construction sites and prevent pollutants from entering them by the use of filter fabric cloth, rock bags, straw wattles, slope hydroseeding, cleaning up leaks, drips or spills immediately, use dry cleanup methods to clean up spills, use of berms, temporary ditches and check dams to reduce the velocity of surface flow. b. Place rock bags at all drain inlets to filter silt and along curb and gutter to filter water before the drain inlets. c. Place straw wattles and hydroseed the sloped areas. d. Place straw matting at the temporary sloped areas for erosion control. e. Place drain systems to filter and then drain into drain inlets. £ Use silt fencing with straw mats and hand broadcast seed for erosion control. g. Construct temporary drainage systems to filter and divert water accordingly. h. Construct temporary rock and asphalt driveways and wheel washers to buffer public streets from dirt and mud. i. Use part and full time street sweepers that operate along public streets and roads. j. Cover all stockpiled soils to protect from erosion. Use berms around stockpiled soils. k. Cover and protect from erosion plaster, concrete and other powders which create large amounts of suspended solids. 1. Store all hazardous materials (paints, solvents, chemicals) in accordance with secondary containment regulations and cover during wet weather. m. Use terracing to prevent erosion. n. Through grading plan review and approval, phase grading operations to reduce disturbed areas during wet weather, limit vegetation removal, delineate clearing limits, setbacks, easements, sensitive or critical areas, trees, drainage courses and buffer zones to prevent unnecessary disturbance and exposure. Limit or prohibit grading during the wet weather season, October 15 to April 15~'. PAGE 1-14 S50 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER l: INTRODUCTION o. Prevent spills and leaks by maintaining equipment, designating specific areas of a site for such activities that are controlled and away from water courses and perform major maintenance off-site or in designated areas only. p. Cover and maintain all dumpsters, collect and properly dispose of all paint removal wastes, clean up paints, solvents, adhesives and all cleaning solvents properly. Recycle and salvage appropriate wastes and maintain an adequate debris disposal schedule. q. Avoid roadwork and pavement stormwater pollution by following manufacturers' instructions. Noise 1. Interior Ambient Noise. The City of South San Francisco regulates noise exposure through its General Plan, East of 101 Area Plan and state law. a. The California Building Code (CBC) Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 2.35 of the California Code of Regulation, collectively known as Title 24, contains acoustical requirements for interior sound levels in habitable rooms for multi-family residential land uses. Title 24 contains requirements for construction of new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings intended to limit the extent of noise transmitted into habitable spaces. The standard specifies the extent to which walls, doors, and floor-ceiling assemblies must block or absorb sound in between units and the amount of attenuation needed to limit noise from exterior sources. The standard sets forth an interior noise level of 45 dBA (CNEL or L~ in any habitable room with all doors and windows closed and requires an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 dBA (CNEL or Ld,,). Title 24 requirements are enforced as a condition of building permit issuance by the Building Division. b. The City, through its General Plan, adopted the Noise Guidelines of the State Department of Health Services in their Noise Element (1999). Table 9.2-1, Land Use Criteria for Noise Impacted Areas, contained in the Noise Element of the General Plan (page 280) guides land use decisions based upon noise thresholds and acoustical analysis and mitigation. Additionally, the General Plan (page 279) also guides and mitigates development in light of aircraft noise. The City implements the Federal Aviation Administration adopted noise contours and participates in an aircraft noise insulation program. Figure 9-1 of the General Plan Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program (page 279) identifies the noise contours and program area. The East of 101 Area Plan requirement for interior ambient noise for commercial, office and retail is 45 dBA, Leg, echoing state law. Residential land uses are prohibited. The Noise Guidelines are implemented by the Planning Division through new project review. 2. Exterior Ambient Noise. The City of South San Francisco regulates exterior noise through the South San Francisco Municipal Code (Section 8.32.030). The Municipal Code regulates noise pursuant to land use and time of day. Lower density residential maximum noise exposure (excluding vehicle horns and emergency vehicles) is restricted to 50 dB 10 P.M. to 7 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 1-15 CHAPTER l: INTRODUCTION A.M. and 60 db from 7 A.M. and 10 P.M. Higher density residential and commercial is restricted to 55 dB from 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. and 65 db from 7 A.M. and 10 P.M. Industrial land uses are restricted to 70 dB anytime of the day. These noise standards are implemented largely through enforcement actions (i.e., citizen complaint and governmental response). The Fire Department through its Code Enforcement Officer implements these regulations. Construction noise is also regulated through the Municipal Code (8.32.050(d)). Hours of construction are exempt from the standards identified in the preceding paragraph and are limited to 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. Monday through Friday, 9 A.M. to 8 P.M. on Saturdays and 10 A.M. to 6 P.M. on Sundays and holidays. The Building Division enforces and monitors these regulations. Exceptions to the hours of construction may be granted by the Chief Building Official. Transportation and Traffic East of 101 Roadway Improvements: In addition to the TDM Program requirements identified in Air Quality above, projects in the East of 101 Area are required, by City Council Resolution 101-2005 (as amended from time-to -time), to fund a prorated share of the road improvements in the East of 101 Area, identified below in Table 1.1. The Engineering Division implements and monitors this requirement as well as the construction of the improvements. TABLE 1.2 EAST OF 101 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS Location Improvement Items Bayshore Blvd & Build bottom hook ramps to provide 1 right and 1 left turn lanes for off-ramp; 1 Route 101 SB Hook through and 1 shared through-right lanes for NB, and 2 through and 1 left turn lanes for SB of Bayshore Blvd. Ramp (s) Re-stri e the off-ram ri ht turn lane to be an o tional left/ ri ht turn lane. Bayshore /Airport Change existing WB 2nd left turn lane on Oyster Point Blvd to a through lane. Blvd & Sister Restripe WB through/right lane to right turn lane. Cities/Oyster Point Blvd Widen EB Sister Cities Blvd to add 1 additional left turn lane. Existin si al modification. Dubuque Ave & Re-stripe and shift median of WB Oyster Point Blvd to add 1 right turn lane making ' Oyster Point Blvd it a total of two 650 right-turn lanes lane to NB 101 on-ramp. Existin si al modification. Gateway Blvd & Anew five-legged intersection as part of the SB 101 to EB Oyster Point Blvd. Oyster Point Blvd Flyover project. Veterans Rd & Oyster Widen the SB Veterans Road to add 1 right turn lane. Point Blvd Re-stripe existing SB Veterans Road optional through/ left turn lane into a optional ri ht/ throu h/ left lane. PAGE 1-16 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION Location Improvement Items Eccles Ave & Oyster Remove median and widen east side of Eccles Avenue to add an additional left turn Point Blvd lane making it a total of two left-turn lanes for the NB approach. Existing signal modification Gull Dr & Oyster Widen NB Gull Drive to provide two left-turn lanes and one right lane. Point Blvd Existing signal modification. Airport Blvd & Miller Widen SB 101 off-ramp and remove existing /construct new retaining wall to Ave/ Route 101 SB provide a 2nd left turn lane. off-ramp Re-stripe to change the existing 101 SB off-ramp optional through/ left lane into a through only lane. Remove 5 parking spaces (metered) to provide approx. 100' right turn lane on southbound Airport Blvd.; re-striping and signing as necessary. Existin si al modification. Airport Blvd & Grand Re-stripe existing SB Airport Blvd. right turn lane to a shared through-right lane and SB shared through/left lane to a left turn lane. Ave Existin si al modification. Dubuque Ave & East Widen Grand Ave structure to improve the turning radius from WB Grand Avenue to NB Dubuque Avenue to accommodate trucks. Grand Ave Reconstruct /correct avement cross slo e and remove ork cho island. Gateway Blvd & East Re-stripe existing NB through/right shared lane to a right turn lane. Grand Ave Re-stripe existing EB approach to provide a separate right turn lane. Re-stripe existing WB Grand Ave to add an additional left turn lane making it a total of two left-turn lanes. Existing signal modification. Si al interconnection installation to Harbor wa Forbes Blvd/East Widen WB Grand Ave to add 1 additional through lane and 1 additional left turn lane. Grand Ave & Harbor Blvd. Widen SB Forbes Blvd to add 1 through lane and change the existing shared through-right lane to a right turn only lane. Widen NB Harbor Way to add 1 through lane, 1 right turn lane and change the existing shared through-right turn lane to a through lane. New signal installation. Si al interconnection installation. 55O GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 1-17 CHAPTER l: INTRODUCTION Location Improvement Items Grandview Dr & New signal installation. Grand Ave Add 1 SB Grandview Ave. right turn lane; add 1 NB Grandview Ave. thru lane (merging back to one lane after 110'); re-stripe EB East Grand Ave. to provide 1 left turn lane and 1 shared left/through lane. Si al interconnection installation. Airport Blvd & San Widen WB Airport Blvd to add one additional left-turn lane and restripe the existing through/left shared lane to a left-turn lane to make it a total of three left-turn lanes. Mateo Ave Modify NB Produce Ave to bring the SB 101 to EB Airport Blvd traffic to stop at the intersection to eliminate the merging and weaving conflicts on EB Airport Blvd. New si al installation. South Airport Widen EB Airport Blvd to add one additional right-turn lane; restripe the existing through/left shared lane to a through lane. Blvd/Mitchell Avenue & Gateway Blvd Widen Mitchell Ave to add two additional through lanes and aright-turn lane. Widen SB Gateway to add one right turn lane and change the existing shared through-right lane to another right-turn lane. New si al installation. South Airport Blvd & Widen Airport Blvd to add one SB left turn lane; restripe one of the existing NB Airport Blvd through lanes to a shared through/right lane. Utah Ave Existin si al modification. Forbes Blvd & Eccles Widen Forbes Blvd to extend EB left turn lane and add WB left turn lane. Ave Widen Forbes Blvd and Eccles Ave to add one SB free right turn lane. New si al installation. Forbes Blvd & Gull Widen Gull Road to extend the left turn lane. Road Route 101 NB Hook Widen Route 101 SB off-ramp to add one lane at the exit and one right turn lane at the intersection. Ramps & South Airport Blvd. Relocate Route 101 NB Hook on-ramp toward north. Widen SB South Airport Blvd between Hook Ramps and Utah Ave to add left turn lane. Re-configure NB South Airport Blvd between Hook Ramps and Utah Ave to one thru lanes and one left turn lanes. Existin si al modification. PAGE 1-18 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER l: INTRODUCTION Location Improvement Items Route 101 NB Off- Re-build channelizing island and re-configure NB E. Grand Ave to two right turn lanes and one left turn lane. ramp and E. Grand Ave/ E. Grand Ave Re-stripe southeast corner to avoid trapping E. Grand Ave NB right turn traffic into Overcrossing EB right turn lane at intersection with Gateway Blvd. Existin si al modification. East Grand Ave & Widen and prohibit roadside parking on E. Grand Ave to add one EB thru lane and one EB left turn lane; re-stripe WB E. Grand Ave to line-up the widened lanes. Littlefield Ave Widen Littlefield Ave to add one NB right turn lane. Existing signal modification. Si al interconnection installation. East Grand Ave & Re-stripe EB E. Grand Ave to add one thru lane. Allerton Ave New signal installation. Install dedicated left turn lane from EB Grand Ave to Allerton Ave. Si al interconnection installation. Utah Ave & Harbor Widen and prohibit roadside parking on Harbor Way to add a SB right turn lane and a NB thru lane. Way Re-stripe and prohibit roadside parking on Utah Ave to add one EB left turn, change EB inside thru lane as shared thru-left turn lane, and add one WB left turn lane. New si al installation. Harbor Way Widen Harbor Way to a 4-lane roadway with parking prohibition between Grand Ave and Mitchell Ave. New si al installation. Mitchell Avenue Widen Mitchell Avenue to a 4 -lane roadway with parking prohibition between Gateway Blvd and Harbor Way. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 1-19 CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION Location Improvement Items Oyster Point Add an additional lane on NB Dubuque Ave between the Route 101 ramps Boulevard /Route 101 intersection and Oyster Point Blvd. NB On-ramp Reconfigure the NB approach to Oyster Point Blvd to provide two exclusive left turn lanes, an exclusive through lane and two exclusive right turn lanes. As part of this widening, elinunate the left turn lane on the SB Dubuque approach to the Route 101 ramps intersection (which serves the mini warehouse facilities) and allow SB left turns from the SB through lane. This will allow provision of five full NB travel lanes on Dubuque Ave between the NB off-ramp intersection and Oyster Point Blvd. Adjust signal timing. Create an additional through lane on WB Oyster Pont Blvd approach from Veterans to NB Route 101 on ram . East Grand Ave / Widen EB approach to this intersection to allow the existing shared through/right Harbor Master Road / turn lane to be reconfigured into separate through and right turn lanes and SB right turn overlap. Forbes Blvd Oyster Point Blvd / Re-stripe the Route 101 off-ramp approach to Dubuque Ave from an existing exclusive left, shared through/left turn and exclusive right turn lane to provide Dubuque Ave exclusive left turn lanes and a shared throu h ri ht turn lane. g/g Route 101 NB Off- Widen off-ramp to provide additional lane. ramp to East Grand Re-stripe Route 101 through lane to allow optional exit to East Grand Ave / Ave/Executive Dr Executive Dr. Re lace overhead si on Route 101 to rovide for 21ane exit from freewa . PAGE 1-2~ 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION 1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED This Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluates the Project which is defined as that proposed by the Applicant and as modified by the City of South San Francisco standard COA's, identified above. Therefore any impacts and mitigation measures identified by the following Initial Study are those impacts that could occur above and beyond those that would be mitigated by the City's standard permitting process. Environmental factors that may be affected by the Project, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and as described herein, are listed alphabetically below. Factors marked with a filled in block (/) have been determined to be potentially affected by the Project and are evaluated in the following Initial Study, which involve at least one impact that has initially been identified as potentially significant, as indicated in the Environmental Checklist (Chapter 3) and the related discussion that follows. However, there would not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the Project have been made by, or agreed to by, the Project applicant and these revisions are described within the appropriate chapter. The potentially significant impacts and their associated mitigation measures are summarized below. There are no impacts that would remain significant after mitigation. Factors which are unmarked (^) have been determined to not be significantly affected by the Project, based on discussion also provided in Chapter 3. ^ Aesthetics / Hazards and Hazardous Materials ^ Public Services ^ Agriculture Resources ^ Hydrology and Water Quality ^ Recreation / Air Quality ^ Land Use and Planning ^ Transportation / Biological Resources ^ Mineral Resources ^ Utilities and Service Systems ^ Cultural Resources / Noise ^ Cumulative Impacts / Geology and Soils ^ Population and Housing POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES Summary of Findings of the Initial Study No Project Impact and Proiect Impact Less Than Significant with Implementation of Measures Required by Law: Project impacts are considered less than significant with respect to aesthetics, agriculture, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, utilities and service systems and cumulative impacts as identified in Chapter 3 of this Initial Study. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 1-21 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Potential Project Impact Less Than Significant with Implementation of Mitigation Measures in Addition to those Reduired by Law: Air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials and noise, as identified below and in Chapter 3 of this Initial Study. Additional discussion relating to these findings is provided in Chapter 3. These impacts and mitigation measures address Project-specific conditions at 550 Gateway Boulevard, the Project site. Public Review This Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be provided for public review through local distribution and noticing of its availability. Upon completion of the 30-day public review period pursuant to Section 15072 of Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations, the Redevelopment Agency, during aduly-noticed public hearing, will consider any and all comments pertaining to this document prior to making a determination as to adopt or reject this document. PAGE 1-22 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER l: INTRODUCTION 1.4 LEAD AGENCY'S DETERMINATION On the basis of the evaluation in this Initial Study: I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ,/ I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed Project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATNE 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. ~v~~/ ° s Date Chief Planner 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 1-23 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING Context The Project site is located in the eastern portion of the City of South San Francisco, east of US 101, at 550 Gateway Boulevard. Regionally the Project site is accessible from the north west via the L'S 101 off- and on-ramps to Oyster Point Boulevard and from the south west by East Grand Avenue exit off of Highway 101 to Gateway Boulevard. Locally, the site is accessible from Grand Avenue to East Grand Avenue with a left turn on Gateway Boulevard and from Sister Cities Boulevard to Oyster Point Boulevard with a right on Gateway Boulevard. The site is approximately 200 feet east of Corporate Drive. See Figure 2.1 Project Site. Surrounding Development Surrounding and nearby land uses are a mix of hotel, biotechnology, parking, office and two day care centers. The adjacent land uses include: • North East: Amgen Biotechnology. See Figure 2.1. • South West: Corporate Drive, Embassy Suites Hotel, Hampton Inn, parking lot and a Pacific Gas & Electric power transformer. See Figures 2.2 and 2.3. • West/North Gateway Boulevard, YMCA day care center and Bank of America. See West: Figures 2.4 and 2.5. • South and F_.ast: Celera Genomics Biotechnology. See Figure 2.6. 2.2 PROJECT SITE Site Description The Project site is 87,118 square feet (2.0 acre) and is undeveloped parcel. "The site is approximately 25 feet above mean sea level. Approximately three to five feet of fill materials are located across the site (Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, KA Project No. 042-99112, Krazan & Associates, May 14, 1999, Updated September 10, 2007 and November 12, 2007; peer reviewed by Cotton Shires, 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 2-1 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Associates February 15, 2008). The Project site was once a part of the Bethlehem Steel plant. Although the site is currently vacant, the property was developed with one structure in association with Bethlehem Steel from 1938 to 1977. The property has been vacant since from 1989 (Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Project No. 13823.0001, ATC Associates, November 25, 2007). The project site was known to contain soils contaminated with PCB's. The PCB impacted soil was removed and soils known to contain elevated levels of heave metals have been encapsulated on the site. (Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Project No. 13823.0001, ATC Associates, November 25, 1997, and updated September 10, 2007; peer reviewed by CSS Environmental, February- 26, 2008). The site conditions are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3 of this document. In addition to the City's General Plan, Specific and Redevelopment Plan, City Municipal Code and state and federal laws, the property is also governed by a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC8cR's) dated July 12, 1984. The CC&R's limit the use of the property and requires notification of the purchasers and lessees of the status of the subsurface of the property, as well as the Department of Health Services-Hazardous Materials Management Branch. The CC&R's state that the property may be used for commercial, hotel, office and research and development purposes as set forth in the Gateway Specific Plan Ordinance No. 868-81 as adopted by the Ciry of South San Francisco on July 17, 1981. Additionally, the CC&R's state that the property shall not be used for residential purposes, hospitals, schools for persons under 21 years of age, day care centers or for any permanently occupied human habitation (including hotels or motels that are used as a permanent residence by employees) without approval of the Department of Health Services. The site contains some landscape cover. The trees consist of Monterey Cypress, pear and Acacia. Grasses and exotic invasive plants, such as Pampas Grass and mustard, are also on the site. See Figure 2.1 FIGURE 2.1 Project Site - 550 Gateway Boulevard PAGE 2-2 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION FIGURE 2.2 View to the South West from Center of the Site FIGURE 2.3 View to the South West from Center of the Site 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 2-3 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION FIGURE 2.4 Child Care Center Across Gateway Boulevard-North West of the Site Rr ~ +` , - n ~ ti • ~ .~ - .. . ~ a c .Gs m ~, ~ _.q; L n t..f ,~ a ~ •:~ ~ ar +{~ . ~,'~''' 11 ~1 ~ ~` ~~ i ~,, t .,: ~ ~ ~. ~ 4. ' ~~ ~ ~. 1 ~~ ~ ~' ~' ire ~-a ~ ya ~ L q , _ t _ T ~~ Nif -~'•~~!; _ ~. R~ ~ ,dS .'. .,, fy~ .~__ ~~~°~ f ~~ anti ~..~ _ s~i~ ~R=r•~a~' a. FIGURE 2.5 View West Portion of Bank of America Building PAGE 2-4 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION FIGURE 2.6 Facing East -Biotechnology 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 2-5 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.3 PROPOSED PROJECT The Project proposes to construct an eight story building consisting of 166 rooms and subterranean and surface parking. Introduction Table 1 contains a breakdown of the Project characteristics. Figure 1.2 Proposed Site Plan shows the proposed layout of the Project. The Project proposes an indoor pool, fitness room, lounge and meeting rooms. The Project includes a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM Program) targeted at a 28 percent mode shift for employees. Vanpool, shuttle service, transit, the Downtown Dasher (taxi service), bicycling and walking are all addressed in the TDM Program and encouraged through the site plan and the programs proposed as a part of the Project. The facade of the building would be a combination of stone, cement plaster, metal and glass. The glazing, vision and spandrel are proposed to be a blue-gray color. The metal mullions, arcustone produce and cement plaster are shades and textures of tan-brown. Proposed Landscaping The Project proposes a landscape plan that includes perimeter and interior trees, shrubs and flowering plants. The tree planting plan is identified in Project Description Table 1, below. Approximately 25 varieties of ornamental shrubs and six varieties of vegetative Swale plantings are proposed. The shrubs include varieties of Jasmine, Hawthorn, Heather, Asparagus, Bearberry, Escallonia, Strawberrry, varieties of Lavendar, Philodendron, Flax, Orange Cape Plumbago, Bird of Paradise, Perriwinkle, Lady Palm, Yucca, Fern Pine, Big Blue Lily Turf and Rosemary. Shrubs and groundcovers would be low in the parking area and higher at the perimeter. The vegetated Swale, in the 40 foot front landscape area would also include Yarrow, Manzanita, Carex spp (NCN) Coyote Brush, California Fuschia, Fescue and Deer Grass. PROJECT DESCRIPTION TABLE 2.1 TREE PLANTING PLAN S ecies Quanti Box Size White Alder 34 15- al. Marina Madrone 20 24"-box Euro can White Birch 6 15- 1. New Zealand Christmas Tree 6 15- al. Lombard Po lar 17 15- al. Sene 1 Date Palm 8 24"-box Seni al Date Palm-Multi 1 24" and 36"-box Coast Live Oak 12 15- 1. Fasti ate En lish Oak 12 15- al. Tree Removal The South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 defines a "Protected Tree" as one with a trunk circumference of 48" or more measured 54" above natural grade; a tree or stand of trees PAGE 2-6 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION designated by the Director of Parks and Recreation as one of uniqueness, importance to the public due to its location or unusual appearance, historical significance or other factor; or a stand of trees that the Director of Parks and Recreation has determined each tree is dependant on the others for survival. Forty-two trees would be removed from the site. The trees as noted in Project Description Table 2, below are predominately in bad condition and none of the trees proposed to be removed are defined as a "Protected Tree" by the City's definition. PROJECT DESCRIPTION TABLE 2.2 TREE REMOVAL PLAN Species Quantity Size (54" above rade) Condition Good Fair Dead Pear 24 4"-10" 5 19 0 Black Acacia 23 1.5"-12" 0 23 0 Montere C ress 24 10"-14" 3 21 0 In summary, none of the trees measure 48" in trunk circumference. The trees were planted in the late 1960's when the building was constructed and are not historical in nature due to location, stand, shape or uniqueness. Paul Reed, Reed Associates Landscape Architects, the Project landscape architect states that the trees are in poor condition largely due to lack of maintenance and inappropriate root barriers being installed. Proposed Circulation and Access Direct access and circulation to the Project site would remain relatively unchanged. Vehicular access to the Project would be obtained from the existing curb cut and signalized intersection off of Gateway Boulevard. The driveway improvements would lead to parking and the porte-cochere. Two pedestrian paths would lead from the sidewalk along Gateway Boulevard to the entrance of the hotel. The two pathways would traverse through a 40 foot landscape buffer between Gateway Boulevard and the surface parking on the northern portion of the site. The two pathways would join into one path and lead to the entrance of the building. Surface parking is proposed along the edges of all four property lines. The eastern portion of the site (rear) would include a double row of parking and one of the rows of parking would be within 14 to 18 feet from the rear of the building. The proposed location of this parking triggers the variance request as the Gateway Specific Plan District requires that parking be constructed a minimum of 20 feet from the face of the building. Proposed Utility Connections The Project would connect to the existing utility lines present in Gateway Boulevard and in the Project area. Gas, electric, sanitary sewer, storm drain and water currently serve the project site and these utilities are present along and within Gateway Boulevard. Proposed Grading Plan Approximately 3,000 cubic yards of cut and 5,000 cubic yards of fill is anticipated to be required for site develoment. Approximately 2,000 cubic yards of fill would be imported to the site. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD-INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 2-7 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed Construction Schedule Overall Project demolition, grading and construction would take approximately 18 months. Included in that time schedule is two months for grading activities. PAGE 2-8 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST This Environmental Checklist provides the technical analysis and discussion of environmental impacts and mitigation measures in support of the City of South San Francisco's determination regarding the appropriateness of a Mitigated Negative Declaration as the environmental review process for the Project. The measures identified in this chapter would be included in the Project as a matter of law and would be implemented by being included as a part of Project design, construction and Project operations. The monitoring of the mitigation measures would be assured through the monitoring and reporting requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in tandem with the terms of the City's Land Use permit through the building and grading permit processes, City inspections and as a prerequisite to a certificate of occupancy being issued for the Project. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following checklist is consistent with CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. A "no impact?' response indicates that the Project would not result in an environmental impact in a particular area of interest, either because the resource is not present, or the Project does not have the potential to cause an effect on the resource. A "less than significant?' response indicates that, while there may be potential for an environmental impact, the significance of the impact would not exceed established thresholds and/or that there are standard procedures or regulations in place that would apply to the Project and hence no mitigation is required, or that, although there is the potential for a significant impact, feasible mitigation measures are available and have been agreed to by the Project Applicant to reduce the impact to a level of "less than significant with the agreed to mitigation." No "potentially significant impact" responses are identified, indicating that the Project would not exceed established thresholds and that therefore there would be no impact that could not be avoided by utilizing standard operating procedures and regulations, program requirements, or design features as identified in this checklist as being incorporated into the Project. Citations for this chapter are contained within the relevant discussion. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-1 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.1 Aesthetics Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant 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 light or / glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? BACKGROUND Project Site The Project site is located on Gateway Boulevard off of East Grand Avenue within the East of 101 Area in South San Francisco. The Project is within the Gateway Specific Plan District. The Project site is relatively flat and enjoys views of San Bruno Mountain. The site is vacant with PG&E transformers crossing the south western portion of the site. The site is one of the few vacant parcels within the Gateway Specific Plan District and is surrounded by office, hotel, research and development and day care land uses. South San Francisco South San Francisco's urban character is one of contrasts within a visually well 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 City is contained in almost a bowl like fashion by hills on three sides. The City's 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 in the distance are visual landmarks. Much of the City's topography is rolling, resulting in distant views PAGE 3-2 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST from many neighborhoods. Geographically, the City is relatively small, extending approximately two miles in a north-south direction and about five miles from east to west. South San Francisco's industrial roots are reflected in its urban character, especially in its eastern parts. East of 101 Area The Project site is located in the East of 101 planning sub-area of South San Francisco. The East 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 packaging gave way to industrial parks and warehousing and distribution uses that came to dominate the area in the 1950s and 1960s. The Project site is a portion of the old Bethlehem Steel Plant. The recent emergence of modern office buildings, hotels and life science campuses mark the third major wave of land use change in the area. The newly emerging office and hotel areas and life science campuses are unique in their uses of consistent and conscious street tree planting, while the rest of the City, including downtown, is almost bereft of street trees. Older manufacturing uses, industrial park structures and tilt-up warehousing buildings can all be found in the East of 101. The Project site is within the southern portion of the 177-acre Gateway Specific Plan/Redevelopment Plan Area. The City of South San Francisco adopted the Gateway Specific Plan in 1981 anticipating the need to redevelop the area. The Project site is surrounded by the successful results of the City's vision with hotel, restaurant, child care, office and research and development land uses surrounding the Project site. Proposed Project The Project would construct an approximate 107,600 square foot eight story hotel consisting of 166 rooms, a subterranean parking garage accommodating 37 parking spaces and 117 surface parking spaces for a total of 154 parking spaces. The maximum height (above mean sea level) would be 161 feet for a building that is 92 feet above finished grade. The floor area ratio (FAR) is proposed to be 1.24 which complies with the Gateway Specific Plan District (Section 20.57.210). Regulatory Framework East of 101 Area Plan Design Element In 1995, the East of 101 Area Plan established goals and policies for the City and East of 101 Area. The stated goals of the East of 101 Area Plan's design concept are to promote quality design, to promote a functional, safe and attractive environment, preserve the character of South San Francisco's heritage, protect public investment and land values, protect the natural environment, and facilitate evaluation of individual development proposals through the use of the Plan's design guidelines. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-3 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Design Review Board The City has a Design Review Board (DRB) vested with the authority through the City's Municipal Code to review development proposals. The DRB consists of five members comprised of licensed and practicing architects and landscape architects. The DRB is advisory to Planning Division staff. Projects are reviewed by the DRB and their recommendations are required to be incorporated into project design. DISCUSSION a) Scenic Vistas Significance Criteria: 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 project within such a vista. Any clear conflict with a General Plan policy or other adopted planning policy regarding scenic vistas would also be considered a potentially significant adverse environmental impact. The Project is not located within a formally designated public vista, nor would it result in the obstruction of a formally designated public vista. Additionally, the Project would not clearly conflict with an adopted planning policy regarding scenic vistas. The South San Francisco General Plan does not contain policies pertaining to scenic vistas (General Plan, 1999). Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact. b) Scenic Resources and Scenic Routes Significance Criteria: For the purposes of assessing impacts of the Project on scenic resources, the threshold of significance is exceeded by any Project-related action that would substantially damage scenic resources (i.e., trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state [or local] scenic highway). The Project would not be visible from a state scenic highway. The Project site is approximately 0.5 miles to the east of U.S. Highway 101 which is not a scenic highway nor is the Project site visible from U.S. 101. Highway 280 is a state designated scenic highway located approximately 3.5 miles west of the Project site and is not visible from the Project site. The Project site does not contain historic buildings or trees or significant rock outcroppings. This determination is based upon visual inspection, previous grading and tree removal, the definition of "Protected Tree" contained in the Municipal Code and the cultural research conducted and described under the Section 3.5 Cultural Resources section of this document. The South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 defines a "Protected Tree" as one with a trunk circumference of 48" or more measured 54" above natural grade; a tree or stand of trees designated by the Director of Parks and Recreation as one of uniqueness, importance to the public PAGE 3-4 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST due to its location or unusual appearance, historical significance or other factor; or a stand of trees that the Director of Parks and Recreation has determined each tree is dependant on the others for survival. There are no significant stands of trees located on the site. All the trees on the site are less than 25 inches in diameter. No trees on the site have been designated as dependant on others for survival. Therefore the project would have no impact on scenic resources. c) Visual Character Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Typically, the City would look to the provisions of the East of 101 Area Plan Design Element for guidance on this issue, as well as direction from the DRB. Section D of the East of 101 Area Plan Design Element 1.a (paragraph 2 page 139) states that the Gateway site is "already the subject of a specific plan which is not affected by the land use designations of this Area Plan. The Gateway site is being developed as high-quality office and commercial area with high end buildings." The Project underwent review by the City's DRB on three occasions resulting in further refinements of the architecture. The applicant incorporated the comments of the DRB into the site plan. The Project results in the addition of Oak and Lombardy Poplar trees and building detail that keeps with the City's objective of higher-end landscaped and designed buildings in the Gateway Project Area. Therefore the Project would have no impact on visual character but would be in-keeping with the City's goals of higher-end development in the Gateway area. d) Light or Glare Significance Criteria: Project related creation of any new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area would be regarded as a significant environmental impact. Project implementation would involve installation new light standards at various locations at the Project site. Lighting designs would employ fixtures that would cast light in a downward or task oriented direction; not designed to spill off-site. Lighting and building materials would be similar to those in the area. Additionally, the City regulates light and glare (as well as aesthetics) through its sign permit review requirements contained in Chapter 20.76 and 20.86 South San Francisco Municipal Code-Zoning, as identified in the Introduction Section, Chapter 1, Aesthetics # 1 Light and Glare, of this document. The Project is required by law to undergo this process and through this process light is reviewed and modified (if necessary) to be task oriented and adequate but not excessive for the purpose intended. No significant increase of light and glare emanating from the Project site would be expected and as such this is considered a less than significant impact. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-5 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Finding: The Project would not have an impact on the aesthetics or scenic quality at the Project site or in the Project area. There would be no individual or cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetic or visual quality associated with the Project. The Project is not within a scenic corridor. 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997} prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or / Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a / Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment / which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? BACKGROUND The Project site is vacant although it is surrounded by development. Historically the site was a part of the Bethlehem Steel plant. DISCUSSION a - c) Farmland Impacts Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use, conflict with current zoning for agricultural use or the provisions of a current Williamson Act contract, or involve any environmental changes that could result in the conversion of farmland currently in agricultural uses to non-agricultural uses. The Project site has never been used for cropland; its historical use is steel manufacturing. No Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmlands or Farmlands of Statewide Importance have been identified at, or around, the Project site. No part of the Project site is under a Williamson Act contract and no part of the Project site or surrounding area is zoned for agricultural uses (South San Francisco General Plan and Zoning Ordinance). Therefore, the Project would have no impact on agricultural resources. PAGE 3-6 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- {NITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Finding: The Project would not adversely affect any existing agricultural operations since the site is vacant, its historical use was steel manufacturing and the site contains low levels of toxic contamination. The Project would not impact agricultural resources individually or cumulatively. 3.3 .AIR QUALITY Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation III. AIR QUALITY -Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the / applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute / substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ~ / increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial / pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a / substantial number of people? BACKGROUND Proposed Project The Project proposes a 166-room hotel. The Project also includes a shuttle service between San Francisco International Airport and the hotel and a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM Program) targeted at a 28 percent employee mode shift. Projects in the East of 101 Area, particularly in the Gateway Specific Plan Area have been planned by the City of South San Francisco to include a mix of office, hotel, and business serving retail, such as but not exclusively restaurants and banks. The City's Downtown Dasher taxi program also serves the Project area. These programs and the land use planning that originated for the area in the 1980's are designed to reduce vehicle-miles traveled. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-7 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Local Air Conditions The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the rate of release and the atmosphere's ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and, for photochemical pollutants, sunshine. Northwest winds are most common in South San Francisco, reflecting the orientation of wind gaps within the mountains of the San Francisco Peninsula. Winds are persistent and strong, providing excellent ventilation and carrying pollutants downwind. Winds are lightest on average in the fall and winter. The persistent winds in South San Francisco result in a relatively low potential for air pollution. Even so, in fall and winter there are periods of several days when winds are very light and local pollutants can build up. Regulatory Framework The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) monitors and regulates air quality pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, as amended, and the 1988 California Clean Air Act. The BAAQMD has published Guidelines for assessing air quality impacts, CEQA Guidelines for Assessing AirQuality Impacts, December 1999. Criteria Pollutants The BAAQMD operates a regional monitoring network for ambient concentrations of six criteria pollutants. The major pollutants of concern in the San Francisco Bay Area are ozone, carbon monoxide and particulate matter. The monitoring stations closest to the Project site are in Redwood City (monitoring ozone, carbon monoxide and particulate matter PM-10 and PM-2.5), Mountain View (monitoring ozone) and on Arkansas Street in San Francisco. The Bay Area is currently designated as a nonattainment area for the State and national ozone standards and as a nonattainment area for the state respirable particulate matter (PM-10) and fine particulate matter (PM-2.5) standards (see Air Table 1). California's strict motor vehicle emission laws have resulted in a decline in precursors to ozone (ROG and NOx). Carbon monoxide has continued to drop over the past 25 years. Stationary sources of ROG have continued to drop as a result of stricter controls on fugitive emissions from oil refining and new BAAQMD rules on industrial coatings and solvents. PM-10 emissions from motor vehicles exhaust (diesel driven) have also continued to drop. The major source of particulate matter is from fugitive dust sources (i.e., emissions released through means other than through a stack or tailpipe), such as vehicle travel over roadways and construction activities. The following table summarizes the air quality in the Project area as monitored by the BAAQMD. PAGE 3-8 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AIR TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF CRITERIA AIR POLLUTION MONITORING DATA Pollutant Standard Monitoring Site Days Standard Exceeded 2004 2005 2006 Federal 1-Hour Highest San Francisco 0 0 0 Ozone 0.12 ppm Redwood City 0 0 0 State 1-Hour Highest San Francisco 0 0 0 Ozone 0.09 ppm Redwood City 1 0 0 Federal 8-Hour Average San Francisco 0 0 0 Ozone 0.075 ppm Redwood City 0 0 0 Federal 24-Hoar- San Francisco 0 0 0 PM10 150 mg/m3 Redwood City 0 0 0 State 24-Hour San Francisco 1 0 3 PM10 50 mg/m3 Redwood City 1 2 2 Carbon State/Federal 8-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Monoxide 9.0 ppm Redwood City 0 0 0 Nitrogen State 1-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Dioxide 0.18 ppm Redwood City 0 0 0 Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (http: //www.baagmd.gov/pio/aq_summaries /index.htm) ppm: parts per million mg/m3:ppm=micrograms per cubic meter Toxic Air Contaminants In addition to the criteria pollutants, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern in the Bay Area. TACs are injurious in small quantities and are regulated despite the absence of criteria documents. The identification, regulation and monitoring of TACs is relatively recent compared to that for criteria pollutants. TACs are regulated at the source by the BAAQMD. According to the BAAQMD Emissions Study (2002, BAAQMD) major stationary emissions in the vicinity of the Project include San Francisco International Airport, South San Francisco-San Bruno Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Shell Oil Company Distribution Plant, the Superior Aluminum Body Corporation as well as 12 dry cleaners within South San Francisco. All these facilities are outside aone-mile radius of the Project site. TACs are typically not generated by or associated with a hotel use. The Project site was formerly used as a part of the Bethlehem Steel Plant. The soils on the site are known to contain antimony, arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, zinc and the PCB Arochlor-1254 were detected in the soil. Cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel and zinc are in the groundwater (Phase II Subsurface Investigation Proposed Holiday Inn Express Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA, Project No. 044-991112. July 13, 1999 and Hazardous Materials Environmental Peer Review, S50 Gateway Blvd Pr ject, Proposed Holiday Inn E.xj~ress, South San Francisco, CA, CSS Pr ject No: 6533. February 26, 2008). These materials are considered toxic. With respect to the construction phase of the Project, applicable BAAQMD regulations would relate to portable equipment (e.g., gasoline- or diesel-powered engines used for power generation, pumps, 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-9 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST compressors, pile drivers, and cranes), architectural coatings, and paving materials. Project construction would be subject to the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 2 (Permits), Rule 1(General Requirements) with respect to portable equipment unless exempt under Rule 2-1-105 (Exemption, Registered Statewide Portable Equipment); BAAQMD Regulation 8 (Organic Compounds), Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings); and BAAQMD Regulation 8 (Organic Compounds), Rule 15 (Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts). Compliance with BAAQMD Boles and Begulatzons would ensure that the Project would not conflict with the applicable air quality plans for the region during the construction phase of the Project. With respect to the operational-phase of the Project, emissions would be generated primarily from shuttle van and motor vehicle trips to the Project site and emissions from any stationary equipment, to a lesser extent. As noted above, hotel uses typically do not generate toxic air contaminants. Typical generators are industrial and trucking land uses that have significant off gassing of diesel and chemical processing materials. Global Climate Change Global Climate Change is a long-term substantial change in the average weather on earth, as often measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation and temperature. The science of global climate change is evolving and remains subject to extensive debate and uncertainties, however, recent reports from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have concluded that global climate change is likely due, at least partially, to emissions of "greenhouse gasses" (GHGs) from human activity. (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group I: The Physical Basis of Climate Change, http://ipcc-w~l.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html. Greenhouse gasses are most frequently produced by the burning of fossil fuels for transportation and electricity generation, and include carbon dioxide (CO,~, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), perfluorocarbons (I'FCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and water vapor (H20). They allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere, but trap a portion of the outward-bound infrared radiation, thereby warming the air. The process is similar to the effect greenhouses have in raising the internal temperature, hence the name greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases have varying global warming potential (GWP). The GWP is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere; it is the cumulative radiative forcing effects of a gas over a specified time horizon resulting from the emission of a unit mass of gas relative to a reference gas. Because it contributes to over 80% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, carbon dioxide is the reference gas for climate change. To account for the warming potential of greenhouse gases, greenhouse gas emissions are often quantified and reported as COZ equivalent emissions (COZe). The carbon dioxide equivalent is a good way to assess emissions because it gives weight to the GWP of the gas. A summary of the atmospheric lifetime and GWP of selected gases is summarized in Air Table 2, following. As shown in the table, GWP ranges from 1 to 23,900. PAGE 3-1 O 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AIR TABLE 2 GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIALS (100-Year Time Horizonl Gas Atmospheric Lifetime (years) Global Warming Potential (100 year time horizon) Carbon Dioxide 50-200 1 Methane 12 ± 3 21 Nitrous Oxide 120 310 HFC-23 264 11700 HFC-134a 14.6 1300 HFC-152a 1.5 140 PFC: Tetrafluoromethane (CFa) 50000 6500 PFC: Hexafluoromethane (C,F~) 10000 9200 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF~) 3200 23900 Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (2007) According to the 2006 California Climate Action Team Report, (California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, March 2006) the following climate change effects, which are based on the IPCC trends, can be expected in California over the course of the next century: • A diminishing Sierra snow pack declining by 70 percent to 90 percent, threatening the state's water supply; • Increasing temperatures from 8 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit under the higher emission scenarios, leading to a 25 percent to 35 percent increase in the number of days ozone pollution levels are exceeded in most urban areas; • Increased vulnerability of forests due to pest infestation and increased temperatures; and • Increased electricity demand, particularly in the hot summer months. Additionally, health effects from global climate change may arise from temperature increases, climate-sensitive diseases, extreme events, and air quality. There may be direct temperature effects through increases in average temperature leading to more extreme heat waves and less extreme cold spells. Those living in warmer climates are likely to experience more stress and heat-related problems. Heat related problems include heat rash and heat stroke. In addition, climate sensitive 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-1 1 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST diseases may increase, such as those spread by mosquitoes and other disease carrying insects. Those diseases include malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis. Extreme events such as flooding and hurricanes can displace people and agriculture, which would have negative consequences. Global warming may also contribute to air quality problems from increased frequency of smog and particulate air pollution. Like the science of global climate change, the law surrounding its impacts is still evolving. Currently, neither CEQA nor the implementing Guidelines require analysis of a project's GHG emissions or impacts on global climate change. Though not required under CEQA, the following analysis evaluates the proposed Project's GHG impacts. State Standards Currently the Federal Government does not regulate emissions of greenhouse gases, however, the State of California has been proactive in studying the impacts of climate change. In 2005, in recognition of California's vulnerability to the effects of climate change, Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-3-05, which sets forth a series of target dates by which statewide emission of greenhouse gas would be progressively reduced, as follows: By 2010, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 20001evels; By 2020, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 19901evels; and By 2050, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. In 2006, the State Legislature passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill No. 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq., or AB 32), which requires the California Air Resources Board (GARB) to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and other measures, such that feasible and cost-effective statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to 1990 levels by 2020 (representing an approximate 25 percent reduction in emissions). In June 2007 GARB directed staff to pursue 37 early actions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). The broad spectrum of strategies to be developed - including a Low Carbon Fuel Standard, regulations for refrigerants with high global warming potentials, guidance and protocols for local governments to facilitate greenhouse gas reductions, and green ports -reflects that the serious threat of climate change requires action as soon as possible (California Air Resources Board, September 2007a. Draft List of Early Action Measures to Keduce Greenhouse). In addition to approving the 37 greenhouse gas reduction strategies, GARB directed staff to further evaluate early action recommendations made at the June 2007 meeting, and to report back to GARB within six months. Since the June 2007 GARB hearing, GARB staff has evaluated all 48 recommendations submitted by several stakeholder and several internally-generated staff ideas and published the Expanded List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In PAGE 3-12 5S0 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST California Recommended For Board Consideration in October 2007 (California Air Resources Board, September 2007a. Draft List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California Recommended for Board Consideration in October 2007b). Based on its additional analysis, CARB staff is recommending the expansion of the early action list to a total of 44 measures. Nine of the strategies meet the AB 32 definition of discrete early action measures. Discrete early action measures are measures that will be in place and enforceable by January 1, 2010. The discrete early action items include: (1) a Low Carbon Fuel standards for ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen, electricity, compressed natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas and biogas; (2) restrictions on High Global Warming Potential Refrigerants; (3) Landfill Methane Capture, (4) Smartway Truck Efficiency; (5) Port Electrification; (6) Reduction of perfluorocarbons from the semiconductor industry; (7) Reduction of propellants in consumer products; (8) Tire inflation; and (9) Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) reductions from non-electricity sector. The entire list of early action strategies is shown in Air Table 3. In total, the 44 recommended early actions have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 42 million metric tons per year of COZe emissions by 2020, representing about 25% of the estimated reductions needed by 2020 (California Air Resources Board Res. No.07-55 (Dec. 6, 2007)). The 44 measures are in the sectors of fuels, transportation, forestry, agriculture, education, energy efficiency, commercial, solid waste, cement, oil and gas, electricity, and fire suppression. CARB has approved a 1990 emissions inventory and 2020 limit of 427 million metric tons per year of COZe emissions (California Air Resources Board Res. No.07-55 (Dec. 6, 2007). The 2020 target reductions are currently estimated to be 169 million metric tons per year of COZe. (California Air Resources Board, June 2008, Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan). In addition to identifying early actions to reduce greenhouse gases, CARB has also developed mandatory greenhouse gas reporting regulations pursuant to requirements of AB 32. The regulations will require emissions reporting for classes of facilities that collectively account for 94% of the stationary source emissions in California, including cement plants, oil refineries, electric generating facilities/providers, co-generation facilities, hydrogen plants and other stationary combustion sources that emit more than 25,000 metric tons per year of COZ (the most recent revised regulation are available at: htm: / /www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007 /ghg2007 /gh~attachmentl.pdf ). Presumably, while individual facilities within these classes may not create significant greenhouse gas impacts, emissions from these types of facilities are likely to be cumulatively considerable. Likewise, facilities or projects not included among the classes required to report under CARB's mandatory reporting regulations are not expected to have cumulatively considerable greenhouse gas impacts. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-13 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AIR TABLE 3 RECOMMENDED AB32 GREENHOUSE GAS MEASURES TO BE INITIATED BY CARB BETWEEN 2007 AND 2012 ID ID # Sector Strategy Name # Sector Strategy Name 1 Fuels Above Ground Storage 23 Commercial SF~ reductions from the Tanks non-electric sector 2 Transportation Diesel - Offroad 24 Transportation Tire inflation program equipment (non- a ricultural 3 Forestry Forestry protocol 25 Transportation Cool automobile paints endorsement 4 Transportation Diesel -Port trucks 26 Cement Cement (A): Blended cements 5 Transportation Diesel -Vessel main 27 Cement Cement (B): Energy engine fuel specifications efficiency of California cement facilities 6 Transportation Diesel -Commercial 28 Transportation Ban on HFC release from harbor craft Motor Vehicle AC service / dismantlin 7 Transportation Green ports 29 Transportation Diesel - offroad e ui ment ( ricultural) 8 Agriculture Manure management 30 Transportation Add AC leak tightness test methane di ester rotocol and re air to Smo Check 9 Education Local gov. Greenhouse 31 Agriculture Research on GHG Gas (GHG) reduction reductions from nitrogen uidance / rotocols land a lications 10 Education Business GHG reduction 32 Commercial Specifications for idance / rotocols commercial ref ~ eration 11 Energy Efficiency Cool communities program 33 Oil and Gas Reduction in venting / leaks from oil and gas systems 12 Commercial Reduce high Global 34 Transportation Requirement of low-GWP Wazming Potential (GWP) GHGs for new Motor GHGs in roducts Vehicle ACs 13 Commercial Reduction of PFCs from 35 Transportation Hybridization of medium semiconductor industry and heavy-duty diesel vehicles 14 Transportation SmaztWay truck efficiency 36 Electricity Reduction of SF~ in electrici eneration 15 Transportation Low Carbon Fuel Standard 37 Commercial High GWP refrigerant (LCFS) tracking, reporting and recove ro ram 16 Transportation Reduction of HFC-134a 38 Commercial Foam recovery / from DIY Motor Vehicle destruction program AC servicin 17 Waste Improved landfill gas 39 Fire Suppression Alternative suppressants in ca ture fire rotection systems 18 Fuels Gasoline dispenser hose 40 Transportation Strengthen light-duty re lacement vehicle standazds 19 Flues Portable outboard marine 41 Transportation Truck stop electrification tanks with incentives for truckers PAGE 3-14 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ID ID # Sector Strategy Name # Sector Strategy Name 20 Transportation Standards for off-cycle 42 Transportation Diesel -Vessel speed drivin conditions reductions 21 Transportation Diesel -Privately owned 43 Transportation Transportation on-road trucks refrigeration -electric standb 22 Transportation Anti-idling enforcement 44 Agriculture Electrification of stationary agricultural en ' es Source: CARB, 2007 Sensitive Receptors Sensitive receptors are defined as those individuals that may be more sensitive to poor air quality such as children, the elderly and those convalescing. Sensitive receptors therefore include schools, hospitals, and residential areas with children and convalescent facilities. Residential areas are also considered to be sensitive to air pollution because residents tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. The closest sensitive receptors to the Project are two child care centers; one directly across Gateway Boulevard at 601 Gateway, which is within 100 feet northwest of the site and one at 444 Allerton Boulevard, which is 1800 feet north east of the Project site. DISCUSSION a) Conflict with Air Quality Plan Significance Criteria: The Project would be considered to have a significant impact if it were to be in conflict with the current air quality plan. The Bay Area is currently designated as a nonattainment area for State and national ozone standards and as a nonattainment area for the state respirable particulate matter (PM10) standard. Both ozone and PM10 are considered "criteria" pollutants because they are one of several prevalent air pollutants know to be hazardous to human health. As required by federal and state air quality laws, the 2001 Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan and the 2000 Bay Area Clean Air Plan have been prepared to address ozone nonattainment issues. In addition, the BAAQMD, in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (NITC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), has prepared the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. This section describes the Bay Area's strategy for compliance with State one-hour ozone standard planning requirements and to improve air quality in the region and reduce transport to neighboring air basins. The strategy includes stationary source control measures to be implemented through BAAQMD regulations; mobile source control measures to be implemented through incentive programs and other activities; and transportation control measures to be implemented through transportation programs in cooperation with MTC, local governments, transit agencies and others (BAAQMD, 2006b). No PM10 plan has been prepared nor is one currently required under State air quality planning law. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-15 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A project would be judged to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality plan if it would be inconsistent with the growth assumptions, in terms of population, employment or regional growth in vehicle miles traveled. The growth assumptions used for the regional air quality plans are based upon the growth assumptions provided in local general plans. The South San Francisco General Plan (1999) analyzed a 142-room hotel for the Project site because, as discussed in Section 3.9 Land Use, that was the Project that was approved for the site at the time. The project was never built, and the entitlement approvals lapsed after two years. That, coupled with recent legislation surrounding global warming prompted a URBEMIS 2007 Version 9.2.4 model to be run to quantify Project (i.e., the current proposed Project which is a 166-room hotel) emissions (February 24, 2008, Miller Consulting, attached in Appendix A). The model was run to provide a very conservative estimate of Project impacts as the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines identify a 460 room hotel as a project with potential significant emissions worthy of air quality modeling (Table 6, December 1999, page 25). The following emissions results, in AIR Table 4 do not factor in the trip reductions (and thus emission reduction) associated with the TDM Program the Project proposes with a targeted 28 percent mode shift for employees or the shuttle service the hotel proposes to and from the airport. AIR TABLE 4 BAAQMD THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE PROTECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Pollutant BAAQMD Threshold Project Emissions Reactive Or anic Gases OG 801bs./da 15.35 Nitro en Oxides Ox 801bs./da 17.30 Respirable Particulates (PM10) 801bs./day 24.14 Source: Miller Consulting, February 24, 2008. The BAAQMD has also determined if Carbon Monoxide (CO) emissions from project-related motor vehicles exceed 550 lbs./day, local carbon monoxide concentration need to be analyzed to determine whether project emissions would result in violation of the 1-hour or 8-hour standard for carbon monoxide. The daily CO emissions attributable to the Project would be 174.77 well below the BAAQMD threshold (Miller Consulting, February 24, 2008). The Project would have a less than significant impact on any of the growth assumptions made in the preparation of these plans, and would not obstruct implementation of any of the proposed control measures contained in these plans. b) and c) Air Quality Standards Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would exceed BAAQMD's mass emission rate threshold or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or PAGE 3-1 6 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Air quality impacts are associated with both construction and operation of a project. BAAQMD rules and regulations govern certain aspects of the construction phase of the Project. BAAQMD regulations applicable to the construction of the Project relate to portable equipment (e.g., Portland concrete batch plants and gasoline- or diesel-powered engines used for power generation, pumps, compressors and cranes), architectural coatings and paving materials (fugitive dust is discussed below). Construction Related Impacts Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions: Project-related construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, earthmoving, and general construction. Site preparation includes such activities such as general land clearing and grubbing. Earthmoving activities include cut and fill operations, trenching, soil compaction, and grading. General construction includes adding improvements such as roadway surfaces, structures, and facilities. The emissions generated from these construction activities include dust (including PMlo and PMZ 5) primarily from "fugitive" sources. Fugitive dust could cause or contribute to the exceedances of the state PM-10 standard during Project construction. Project construction is anticipated to span five months and would generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including suspended and respirable particulate matter and equipment exhaust emissions. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines do not call for quantification of construction emissions, but considers any project's construction-related impacts to be less-than-significant with appropriate implementation of BAAQMD-recommended dust-control measures. The City of South San Francisco requires as conditions of project approval (levied by the Engineering Division) the implementation of the all of the BAAQMD dust control measures that are identified in the Introduction Section, Chapter 1, Air Quality # 1 Dust Control of this document. The City's dust control measures are consistent with BAAQMD recommendations. Therefore, no additional measures are required beyond those the City requires as a matter of law. However, due to the location of sensitive receptors and the fact that the soil on the Project site is contaminated, mitigation measures above those required by law are identified in section (d), Sensitive Receptors below. Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: The California Health and Safety Code requires local agencies not to issue demolition permits until an applicant has demonstrated compliance with notification requirements under applicable federal regulations regarding asbestos, lead-based paint and other potentially hazardous materials. BAAQMD is vested by the California Legislature with authority to regulate airborne pollutants through both inspection and law enforcement, and is to be notified ten days in advance of any proposed demolition and must provide information on the amount and nature of any hazardous pollutants, nature of planned work and methods to be employed, and the 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-1 7 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST name and location of the waste disposal site to be used. The purpose of BAAQMD regulations is the minimization of potential hazards to the public and surrounding land uses. Antimony, arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, zinc and the PCB Arochlor-1254 were detected in the soil. Cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel and zinc were detected in the groundwater (Phase II Subsurface Investigation Proposed Holiday Inn Express Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA, Project No. 044-991112. July 13, 1999 and Hazardous Materials Environmental Peer Review, 550 Gateway Blvd Pr ject, Proposed Holiday Inn Express, South San Francisco, CA, CSS Pr ject No: 6533. February 26, 2008). These materials are considered toxic. The Project would involve grading in these materials. Results of the soil testing on the Project site are discussed in Section 3.7, Hazards, which also identifies mitigation measures for the handling of the soil. Soil testing indicates that although the soil is contaminated the concentration levels are below those defined as a hazardous waste. However, due to the proximity of sensitive receptors in the Project area and the potential impact to the day care centers if soils become windborne, a mitigation measure is identified in (d), below. Long-Term Operational Impacts: Long-term impacts would be associated with vehicle use. The proposed Project is estimated to generate 109 average daily trips based upon a business hotel use. Trip generation rates are based upon the industry standard identified in the Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Factors, 7th Edition. Additionally, the Project includes a TDM Program designed to effect a 28 percent alternative mode-use (mode shift) for employees. With 109 average daily trips, trip generation for the Project is barely five percent of the 2,000 trips per day threshold necessitating preparation of a detailed air quality analysis, as required by BAAQMD (page 24, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1999). However, an air quality analysis was conducted as noted in section (a), above, which demonstrates that Project operational emissions would be well below the BAAQMD thresholds. The Project would generate 15.25 lbs./day of ROG, 17.30 lbs./day of NOx and 80 lbs./day of PM10 and the threshold is 80 lbs./day for each contaminant. The Project would generate 174.77 lbs./day of CO emissions, which is well under the 550 lbs./day threshold. The above regulations and procedures, already established and enforced as part of the permit review process, would ensure that the impact of criteria and hazardous air pollutant emissions during operation of the Project would be less than significant. The noticing requirements levied by the City as a matter of grading permit issuance, identified in the Introduction Section Air # 1.2 along will the mitigation measures identified in the Section 3.7 Hazards and Section 3.1d Air Quality below insure that construction impacts would be considered less than significant. d) Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollution Concentrations Significance Criteria: For the purpose of assessing impacts of a proposed Project on exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations, the threshold of significance is exceeded when the airborne contaminated soils reach the outdoor recreational areas or interior spaces used by sensitive receptors. The closest sensitive receptors to the site are two child care centers; one across Gateway Boulevard which is within 100 feet northwest of the site and one at 444 Allerton Boulevard which is 1800 feet north east of the Project site. See AIR Figure 1, below. PAGE 3-18 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Antimony, arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, zinc and the PCB Arochlor-1254 were detected in the soil. Cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel and zinc were detected in the groundwater (Phase II Subsurface Investigation Proposed Holiday Inn Express Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA, Project No. 044-991112. July 13, 1999 and Hazardous Materials Environmental Peer Review, 550 Gateway Blvd Pr ject, Proposed Holiday Inn Express, South San Francisco, CA, CSS Project No: 6533. February 26, 2008). These materials are considered toxic. As discussed above and in Section 3.7 Hazards the materials are below the limits of hazardous waste. However, their presence poses a potential significant impact to children (considered to be a sensitive receptor), if dust containing theses materials were to reach nearby classrooms or outdoor play areas, which could occur during grading operations and emplacement of Project infrastructure such as pile drilling and site work. Air Impact 1: Antimony, arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, zinc and the PCB Arochlor-1254 are in Project soil and could become airborne during Project grading and site work. Dust containing toxic materials could reach sensitive 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-19 AIR FIGURE 1 LOCATION OF SENSITIVE RECEPTORS-DAY CARE CENTERS CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST receptors and would be considered a significant Project impact associated with Project construction activities. Air Mitigation 1: There shall be a "zero tolerance" for Project originated dust to cross the property lines of the Project site. A special construction inspector retained and supervised by the City and paid for by the developer, shall be on the Project site during all grading and site work to monitor dust conditions. In addition to the standard dust mitigation measures enforced by the City through grading permit approvals, the inspector shall have the authority to and shall require all work on the site to cease should Project dust be generated such that it crosses the property lines of the Project. The inspector shall inspect the outdoor play areas, and indoor areas, at the two day care centers daily and, as necessary, supervise their clean-up (wiping down of outdoor equipment, sweeping and collection and disposal of dust) in order to enforce this mitigation measure. The inspector shall be authorized and required to work with and notify the day care management in the event of any need to require doors and windows to be shut in an unforeseen event of a dust release. With implementation of Air Mitigation 1, dust related impacts to sensitive receptors would be considered less than significant. e) Odors Significance Criteria: The BAAQMD defines public exposure to offensive odors as a potentially significant impact. Potential odor impacts are based on a list of specific types of facilities, such as wastewater treatment plants, landfills, refineries, etc. During construction, various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would create odors. These odors are temporary and not likely to be noticeable beyond the Project boundaries. The operation of a hotel is not anticipated to result in odor emissions. Offensive odors are typically associated with industrial land uses; not transient residential. The impact of the Project with regard to odors is considered to be less than significant. Greenhouse Gas Significance Criteria At this time there are no statewide guidelines for greenhouse gas emission impacts, but this will be addressed through the provisions of Senate Bill 97 ("SB 97"), which was enacted in 2007. SB 97 requires the State Office of Planning and Research "OPR" to develop CEQA guidelines for the effects and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, the guidelines will not be available for some time as OPR has until July 1, 2009 to draft the new greenhouse gas guidelines, and the State Resources Agency will thereafter have until January 1, 2010 to certify and adopt the regulations. Although, there is currently no adopted threshold for all City projects, for this analysis, a project would be considered to have a significant impact if the project would conflict with or PAGE 3-20 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST obstruct implementation of greenhouse gas reduction measures under AB 32 and other state regulations. Three types of analyses are used to determine whether the Project could be in conflict with the State measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The analyses are as follows: A. Whether the Project conflicts with or obstructs implementation of CARB's 44 early action strategies. B. Whether the Project will be subject to CARB's mandatory reporting. Qualifying projects include cement plants, oil refineries, electric generating facilities/providers, co-generation facilities, hydrogen plants and other stationary combustion sources that emit more than 25,000 metric tons per year of COZ. Projects that are included not among these classes of facilities and will not emit 25,000 metric tons per year of COZ or more, are not required to report emissions to CARB and are not considered to be cumulatively considerable. C. Whether elements of the Project, mitigation measures, and City policies and requirements contribute to the efficiency of the Project and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Most projects include project components and/or mitigation measures that may not be intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but will nonetheless have this effect. Similarly, many City policies and requirements, such as traffic demand management programs, may also operate to improve the efficiency and reduce emissions associated with the Project. Item A. Greenhouse Gar. The Project does not pose any apparent conflict with the most recent list of the CARB early action strategies (see AIR Table 2). As mentioned above the 44 measures are in the sectors of fuels, transportation, forestry, agriculture, education, energy efficiency, commercial, solid waste, cement, oil and gas, electricity, and fire suppression. None of the early action strategies are applicable to hotels or office space. While the Project's emission impacts would be transportation-related, in the sense that they will be primarily produced by vehicle trips to and from the site, the Project is not a "transportation" project as described in the early action measures. Item B. Greenhouse Gar• The site is vacant and would involve grading and construction to emplace an eight story, 166-room hotel, subterranean and surface parking and landscaping. The Project is not the type of project that would be required to report emissions to CARB (i.e., the project is not a cement plant, oil refinery, electric generating facility/provider, co-generation facility, or hydrogen plant or other stationary combustion source that emits more than 25,000 metric tons per year of CO,~. Therefore, the specific emissions from this Project would not be expected to have a significant impact on Global Climate Change. Project construction greenhouse gas emissions would be approximately 211 metric tons per year of COZe emissions and Project operations would be approximately 3,958 metric tons per year of COZe emissions (including emissions from vehicle trips, space heating and indirect emissions from the use of electricity) (See Appendix A). Operational emissions would therefore be significantly lower than 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-21 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST the reporting limit, which is 25,000 metric tons per year of COZ. (Miller Consulting, February 24, 2008.) Accordingly, the Project would not be subject to CARB's mandatory reporting requirements. Item C. Greenhouse Gas: The location of the Project has the potential to minimize greenhouse gas emissions related to transportation for both the employees and the users of the hotel. First, the location is near San Francisco International Airport and also in close proximity to businesses in South San Francisco that are located in the East of 101 Area which will reduce vehicle-miles- traveled. Second, the Project includes a shuttle bus system to the airport thus moving more people in single events and as a result reducing overall vehicle-miles-traveled. Third, the Project proposes a Transportation Demand Management Program designed to affect a 28 percent mode shift for employees, which will reduce vehicle-miles-traveled. As a result of the Project future reductions in energy demand for transportation could reduce emission of greenhouse gases when compared to a status quo situation that would have visitors staying in hotels further from San Francisco International Airport and further from businesses in South San Francisco. The review of Items A, B, and C indicate that the Project would not conflict with the State goals in AB 32 and therefore this impact would be less than significant. Finding: The Project would not result in a significant impact to air quality and would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria non-attainment pollutants (ozone precursors and PM-10). The City's building permit procedure captures the BAAQMD permitting regulations, and Air Mitigation 1, would mitigate potentially significant dust related impacts to sensitive receptors in the area. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to air quality. The Project would result in a less than significantimpact to air quality as mitigated. PAGE 3-22 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and .Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any / native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? BACKGROUND The Project site is vacant and surrounded by development consisting of hotel, office, research and development and biotechnology. San Francisco Bay and San Bruno Mountain both are located approximately 0.75 miles east of the site. San Francisco Bay is also located east and south of the site. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-23 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Regulatory Framework South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 93.30.020 Protected Tree Ordinance: South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 defines a "Protected Tree" as one with a circumference of 48" or more measures 54" above natural grade; a tree or stand of trees designated by the Director of Parks and Recreation as one of uniqueness, importance to the public due to its location or unusual appearance, historical significance or other factor; or a stand of trees that the Director of Parks and Recreation has determined each tree is dependant on the others for survival. South San Francisco General Plan and East of 909 Area Plan: Both of these documents identify areas of biological concern as well as standards for conservation of the areas. The East of 101 Area Plan identifies the site as one with the potential for North Coast Salt Marsh Habitat. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG): Nesting birds are protected by the California Department of Fish and Game Code Section 3503, which reads, "It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto." CDFG also has jurisdiction over wetlands pursuant to Sections 1601-1606 of the California Fish and Game Code which pertains to activities which would disrupt the natural flow or alter a channel, bed, or bank of any lake, river or stream. The California Fish and Game Code stipulates that it is "unlawful to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, bank of any river, stream or lake" without notifying CDFG, incorporating the necessary mitigation, and obtaining a streambed alteration permit. The Wetlands Resources policy of CDFG states that the Fish and Game Commission will "strongly discourage development in or conversion of wetlands...unless at a minimum, project mitigation assures there will be no net loss of either wetland habitat values or acreage". CDFG is also responsible for commenting on projects requiring USACE permits under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1956. Kegional i~aterQuality Control Board (K1-TVQCB): As required by Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, the RWQCB is required to certify that projects do not violate state water quality standards. The application review process requires that the RWQCB review and evaluate all water quality aspects of a project including how a project may impact jurisdictional wetlands and other attributes of water quality in the State of California. Additionally, the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Basin (Basin Plan) specifies the RWQCB's policy for the protection of wetlands. The policy, including the Governor's Executive Order, W-59-93 (California Wetland Conservation Policy) that stipulates the goal of "no net loss" of wetlands. The Basin Plan also directs that the use of the U.S. EPA's Section 404(b) guidelines to be considered in the evaluation of project impacts. If a project cannot avoid all impacts then alternatives and mitigation measures shall be developed that reduce the impacts to the maximum extent feasible. PAGE 3-24 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA: 76 U.S.C., Section 703-772: There are over 900 species of birds protected by the MBTA. The MBTA prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This Act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Construction activities during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or nest abandonment. The MBTA is enforced by the California Department Fish and Game. A standard mitigation requirement is to either conduct tree and building removal during the non-nesting season which in San Mateo County is September 1- January 31 or conduct a nesting survey within five days prior to tree removal. If the biological survey discovers nests the nests are required to be protected in place until the birds have fledged. Protection of the nests would require leaving the tree in place and based upon the type of bird species identified by the biological study, various setbacks during project construction (including grading and tree removal) would be required until the birds have fledged. United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE): The USACE has jurisdiction through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act which prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into "waters" of the United States without a permit, including wetlands and unvegetated "other waters of the U.S.". The USACE uses three mandatory technical criteria, hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology to determine weather an area is a jurisdictional wetland. USACE identifies and monitors mitigation for the take and replacement of wetlands and waters of the U.S. Previous Review The East of 101 Area Plan identifies the Project site as one with the potential for North Coast Salt Marsh Habitat. In 1998, the previous property owner underwent USACE and RWQCB review with respect to wetlands and water quality certification from RWQCB. The findings are as follows: • San Francisco Regional Water Ouality Control Board (SFRW ~CB): The then-property owner (Mr. Steve Tangney, Homestead Village, Inc.) applied for a Water Quality Certification from SFRWQCB (File No. 2178.07; Site No. 02-41-C0100; Letter to Mr. Steve Tangney Homestead Village, Inc., from Loretta Barsamian, Executive Officer SFRWCCB. April 1, 1998, attached in Appendix A). The application included a request to fill 601 square feet of seasonal wetlands on the site. The SFRWQCB determined that off-site mitigation would be necessary for the take of wetlands. The 1998 Project was required to provide $1,800 to the Bair Island wetlands program which would represent a 3:1 replacement of wetlands that would be lost on the 550 Gateway (Project) site. The cost of wetlands mitigation was estimated by Mr. John Wade then director of Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST); the organization restoring and managing the wetlands program on Bair Island. As a result, the Waste Discharge Requirements for the Homestead Village hotel project were waived pursuant to the required mitigation (Regional Board Resolution 87-053-The California Wetland Conservation Policy). This letter also documents the lack of endangered plant and animal species on the site. Additionally. Pursuant to Tide 23, California Code of Regulations Section 3857 the Board Resolution is equivalent to a waiver of water quality certification. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-25 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST United States Army Corp of Engineers SACE~ The then-property owner (Mr. Steve Tangney, Homestead Village, Inc.) applied for authorization to fill 601 square feet of wetlands on the Project site. The USACE granted a Nationwide Permit 26 Headwaters and Isolated Waters Discharges Permit, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act on June 24, 1999 (File Number 23280S, Letter to Mr. Steve Tangney Homestead Village, Inc., from Department of the Army San Francisco District Corps of Engineers, Calvin C. Fong, Chief Regulatory Branch, attached in Appendix A). • Subsequently through an electronic mail correspondence between Homestead Village and USACE, the USACE, Ms. Phelicia M. Gomes, Regulatory Project Manager, verified (March 23, 2001 attached in Appendix A) that the Project "did not have any mitigation requirements associated with it....The decision not to require mitigation for filling of the wetlands on the site was based upon the extremely small size of the wetland (0.03 acre) and its limited ecological value due to high contamination levels." Knapp Consulting contacted POST to ascertain if the mitigation of Bair Island was complete. On February 15 and 19, 2008 Mr. Paul Ringold verified that the Bair Island xestoration was paid in full ($307,405 to the California Wildlife Foundation) and as such the funding is complete. Knapp Consulting contacted Mx. Hable Kifle, Section 401 Water Certification coordinator for the SFRWQCB whose jurisdiction is San Mateo County. Mr. Kifle stated that it appears that the mitigation has occurred for 550 Gateway Boulevard and that the documents have been archived (March 20, 2008, telephone voice mail). DISCUSSION a and b) Habitat and State and Federal Regulations Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant impact if it were to substantially impact habitat, migratory paths and regulations protecting listed species as identified in 3.4 a and b, above. Suitable habitat requires the presence of vegetation for cover and food and a source of water. Suitable wildlife habitat is located approximately 0.75 miles from the Project site along the San Francisco Bay and in San Bruno Mountain County and State Park. As noted above, the USACE has determined that the habitat value of the site due to its extremely small size and contamination levels. The SFRWQCB issued a permit to fill the wetlands on the site including noting that no endangered or threatened species are contained on the site. The Project site is not identified in the City's General Plan as one that contains sensitive riparian habitat (see Section 3.9 Land Use discussion). Therefore, the Project would not have an effect either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Project would not have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Project would have no impact on habitat nor would it conflict with state or federal regulations pertaining to species protection. The PAGE 3-26 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST impact of the Project with regard to habitat and state and federal regulations is considered to have no impact. c and d) Waters and Wildlife Corridors The Project site is located in a highly developed area. Trees on the site are not substantial and range from 4"-14" >n diameter. There is little to no habitat value to the site given the size of the trees, intensity of surrounding development and the proximity of suitable habitat within 0.75 miles of the site (San Bruno Mountain and San Francisco Bay). However, raptors have been known to nest in highly urbanized areas. For that reason, there is a potential for migratory birds to be on site at the time of tree removal activities if tree removal were to occur during nesting season (February 1 - August 31). Tree removal during nesting season would be in violation of the Migratory Bird Act and could result in a take of Migratory Birds. Biology Impact 1: Although presence of migratory birds on the site is a remote possibility tree removal during nesting season which is February 1 through August 31 would be in violation of the Migratory Bird Act if it were to result in a take of Migratory Birds. Biology Mitigation 1: Outside of Nesting Season: Vegetation and tree removal shall be scheduled to take place outside of the nesting season (which occurs from February 1 to August 31) to avoid impacts to nesting birds; or, During Nesting Season: A qualified biologist (Biologist) shall conduct a survey for nesting raptors and other birds within five days prior to the start of tree removal activities if tree removal is unavoidable during the nesting season. Tree removal and construction activities may take place as scheduled if active nests are not present. Another nest survey shall be conducted if more than five days elapse between the initial nest search and the beginning of tree removal and construction activities. The Biologist shall determine the appropriate buffer to be established around the nest if any active nests are detected. CDFG generally accepts a 50-foot radius buffer around passerine and non-passerine land bird nests, and up to a 250-foot radius for raptors, however the Biologist shall have flexibility to reduce or expand the buffer depending on the specific circumstances. The 1998 Project removed 601 square feet of wetlands of marginal value (Ms. Gomes, USACE, March 23, 2001). The SFRWQCB required wetlands to be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio at Bair Island. The restoration of Bair Island is complete (Mr. Ringold, POST, February 15 and 19, 2008). The SFRWQCB was also contacted by Knapp Consulting to ascertain the status of the wetlands mitigation. Mr. Hable Kifle, Section 401 Water Certification coordinator for the SFRWQCB whose jurisdiction is San Mateo County stated that it appears that the mitigation has occurred for 550 Gateway Boulevard and that the documents have been archived (March 20, 2008, telephone voice mail). 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-27 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The impact of the Project with regard to Biology and migratory birds is considered to be less than significant with implementation of the identified mitigation measure. e) and ~ Local Policies and Ordinances and Habitat Conservation Plans Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 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. The Project site is located in a developed area and on a site that was previously developed as a steel manufacturing plant. The USACE opines that the site that the site has limited wetland value given its high contamination levels and the extremely small size of the wetlands (0.03 acre) (e-mail from Patricia Gomes to Homestead Village, Inc., March 23, 2001). There are no Protected Trees on the site as identified in Biology Table 1, below. There is no Habitat or Conservation Plan that governs the site and as the site does not contain suitable habitat. The Project is not located on ecologically sensitive lands and would have no impact on General Plan policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. BIOLOGY TABLE 1 TREE REMOVAL PLAN Species Quantity Size 54" above rade Condition Good Fair Dead Pear 24 4"-10" 5 19 0 Black Acacia 23 1.5"-12" 0 23 0 Montere C ress 24 10"-14" 3 21 0 Source: Sierra Designs, Inc and Knapp Consulting The impact of the Project with regard to local policies and ordinances and Habitat Conservation Plans is considered to have no impact. Finding: The Project would result in a less than significant impact impact to biological resources individually and cumulatively with implementation of the Biology Mitigation 1 pertaining to migratory birds. The Project is not located on ecologically sensitive lands and would have no impact on General Plan policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. PAGE 3-28 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the / significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the / 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? BACKGROUND The Project site is undeveloped. The Project site is located in the Gateway Specific Plan Area and is one of the very few undeveloped sites within the Plan Area. San Francisco Bay and Bruno Mountain are located approximately 0.75 miles from the Project site. Archaeological and Historic Review Holman & Associates, Mr. Miley Holman conducted an archival search and site inspection at the request of Knapp Consulting. Mr. Holman presented his findings in a report dated October 22, 2007 (Cultural Kesources Stucly of the 550 Gateavay Property, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. Holman & Associates. October 22, 2007). The findings of the report are summarized in the following and incorporated by reference in this document. An archaeological literature review was conducted by Miley Holman at the Northwest Information Center in person on September 12, 2007 (file no. 07-0413). There are no recorded historic and/or prehistoric sites inside or within a half mile of the Project area, and there have been no previous formal archaeological field studies of the Project area. In addition to the archaeological literature review, a geotechnical study completed by Krazan Engineers in 1999 was reviewed. This study presented the findings of a total of eight holes which were drilled into the property to depths of approximately 15 feet. All the holes yielded the same material from the surface to a depth of six feet: clayey silty sand comprised of fine to coarse grained sands with coarse grained gravels were replaced at approximately four feet by a silty clayey sand 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-29 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST material which extended to depths of around 15 feet. There was no evidence of a topsoil layer, which may have been scraped away when the lot was graded in the past 20 years. The entire surface of the Project area was inspected by Miley Holman on October 15, 2007. Given the dry weather, approximately 60% of the ground surface was visible, exhibiting the sandy clay soils described above; the geotechnical bore holes, either from 1999 or more recently, were clearly visible on the surface. No evidence of historic and/or prehistoric cultural resources was found during either the literature review and/or field inspection. Both prehistoric and historic deposits would have been located on the surface of the parcel, which appears to have been graded flat; the adjoining buildings and the parking lot and power tower easement to the south west are elevated several feet above the Project area, and probably represent the original grade. If the area had contained prehistoric or historic materials in the past, they have been completely removed, leaving behind culturally sterile subsoil. Future development of this parcel will have no effect on cultural resources. Mr. Holman does not recommend mechanical subsurface presence/absence testing and does not recommend archaeological monitoring during future construction related earthmoving activities. DISCUSSION a) Historic Resources Significance Criteria: 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 X15064.5. As evidenced in the Holman & Associates, reconnaissance and report there are no historic resources located on the Project site. The Project would have no impact on historic resources. b - d) Archaeological Resources Significance Criteria: 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 X15064.5, directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature, or disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries. As evidenced in the Holman & Associates site reconnaissance and data search there are no archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains located on the Project site. The Project would have no impact on archaeological or paleontological resources. Finding: The Project is located on a previously developed and graded site and in a developed area. Based upon the Holman & Associates reconnaissance, literature search and report there are no PAGE 3-30 55O GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST historic, archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains located on the Project site. The Project would have no impact on cultural resources. 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with 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. Strong seismic ground shaking? / iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including / liquefaction? iv) Landslides? / b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of / topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is / unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in / Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting / the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? BACKGROUND Construction of a 166-room hotel is proposed on the subject approximately two acre property located on the southeast site of Gateway Boulevard near Corporate Drive. Large electrical power towers are located near the south western boundary of the site. The Project proposes an eight-story structure with a subterranean garage. The project plans depict the proposed building in the center of the property surrounded by parking and landscaping. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-31 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The project geotechnical report indicates that the building would be supported on piles extending to at least 60 feet below the ground surface. Discussions amongst staff, consultants and the applicant have resulted in a written understanding that Grout Injected Tubex Piles are being considered for the Project (page 2 revised Project description, August 27, 2008) in lieu of driven piles that was originally propose by the Project geotechnical engineer. The City Building Official has also indicated that caisson piles could also be used for the Project as they have been successfully used in the Project area on other construction projects. Furthermore the Project applicant has indicated that "it is understood that driven piles will not be used at the site" (Krazan, letter dated August 14, 2008). Therefore the potential impacts associated with driven piles, which include vibration and noise during construction plus potential inducted settlements or other damages to nearby buildings, is not analyzed in this document. The Applicant submitted the following geotechnical reports for the Project. The reports are: • Updated Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Hotel, 550 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA, Project No. 042-07020, Krazan & Associates, Inc. November 12, 2007. • Document Keview and Comment-Proposed Holiday Inn Express (Ietter), Krazan & Associates, Inc. September 10, 2007. • Phase II Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Holiday Inn Express Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA, Krazan & Associates, Inc. Project No. 044-00112. May 14, 1999. • March 24, 2008, revised March 26, 2008 Updated Pie~ometer Installation, Proposed Hyatt Pace, South San Francisco, CA, Krazan & Associates, Inc. Project No. 044-08005. • Updated Pie~ometer 1-Vater Levels and Groundavater Sample results, -Proposed Hyatt Place (letter), Krazan & Associates, Inc. Apri130, 2008. • Keview of Comments-Proposed Hotel 550 Gateway Boulevard (letter), Krazan & Associates, Inc. August 14, 2008. • Tubex Grout Injection Pile for Hyatt Hotel, South San Francisco, Corrosion Bate for Low Carbon Steel Pipe Pile, (letter), Ben C. Gerwick, Inc., September 9, 2008. The geotechnical reports provided by the Applicant were peer reviewed as apart of this environmental document. The peer review, conducted by Cotton Shires Associates, includes: • Geotechnical Peer Review BE: 550 Gateway Boulevard Project/Hyatt Place, South San Francisco, Cotton Shires, Associates. February 15, 2008. • Geotechnical Peer Keview BE: 550 Gateway Boulevard Project/Hyatt Place, South San Francisco, Cotton Shires, Associates. August 22, 2008. PAGE 3-32 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST • Geotechnical Peer Keview 1~E: 550 Gateway Boulevard Project/Hyatt Place, South San Francisco, Cotton Shires, Associates. September 22, 2008. Site Conditions The site is located in a general area of mapped slope wash, ravine fill, and artificial fill deposits and at approximately 25 feet above mean sea level (Google Maps and Geotechnical Peer Keview KE: 550 Gateway Boulevard Project/Hyatt Place, South San Francisco, Cotton Shires, Associates. February 15, 2008). Logs from submitted exploratory boring indicate the presence of approximately two to four feet of existing fill materials across the relatively level portions of property (Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Hotel, 550 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA, Project No. 042-07020, Krazan & Associates, Inc. November 12, 2007 and Document Review and Comment -Proposed Holiday Inn Express (letter), Krazan & Associates, Inc. September 10, 2007). Greater depths of fill materials are present where berms have been constructed adjacent to Gateway Boulevard. The site was part of a previous steel plant and environmental testing has detected low levels of a heavy metals, arsenic, and PCBs at the site (see Section 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Native clayey sand, silty sand, and silty clay soils (probably colluvium and alluvium) extend to depths greater than 70 feet. Borings encountered highly weathered volcanic rock (Franciscan greenstone) at depths of 78 to 100 feet. Cotton Shires inspected the site on February 1, 2008, and observed standing water and saturated soil conditions across the relatively level center portion of the property, and flowing water in ditches located along the western boundary of the site. Substantial rainfall had occurred locally in January 2008 but significant rainfall had not occurred within approximately three days of the site inspection. The Applicant's geotechnical report indicates that groundwater was previously measured at a depth of 15 feet in June 1999 and 10.75 feet in September 2007. Groundwater was measured again at two locations on the site on March 20 and 25, 2008 at the request of Cotton Shires. Two locations were monitored (March 24, 2008, revised March 26, 2008 Updated Pie~ometer Installation, Proposed Holiday Inn Express Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA, Krazan & Associates, Inc. Project No. 044-08005, see Appendix A). Groundwater levels measured on March 20 were at 12.45 below ground surface (bgs) (location 1) and 10.65 bgs (location 2) and on March 25 were measured at 10.50 bgs (location 1) and 9.47 bgs (location 2). The measurements show a seasonal variation in groundwater levels. Seismic Faults No active earthquake faults have been recognized within the immediate site area. Although the site and vicinity is believed to be free of active faults, the San Francisco Bay Area is known to be within a seismically active region. The dominant fault in this area is the San Andreas fault, located about 6 kilometers (krn) southwest of the site. Other active faults in the area include the San Gregorio fault located roughly 14 km to the west-southwest, and the Hayward fault located on the order of 24 km to the northeast. Additional faults in the area that are not considered active include the San Bruno and Sierra faults located roughly 3.6 and 5.3 km southwest of the site, respectively. The mapped 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-33 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST inactive Hillside fault is located a few hundred feet north of the property. The site is located in Seismic Zone 4. The Hillside fault anorthwesterly-trending escarpment aligned with a zone of sheared rocks on the knoll of Point San Bruno just south of Oyster Point Until the late 1990's this fault was considered active for planning purposes. Subsequent geophysical studies conducted in the late 1990's using a more accurate high-powered deep-penetrating sonar system found no evidence suggesting that the Hillside fault is potentially active. Moreover, geologic observations of the Hillside fault exposed during recently graded cuts on San Bruno Mountain did not detect any recognizable offsets of units that would indicate a current fault rupture hazard. Therefore, there is no evidence that this fault has been active within geologically recent time; however, it may be possible fox sympathetic movements to be imposed on this fault as a result of stress from major earthquakes on nearby faults, such as the San Andreas and Hayward faults. Geotechnical Report Peer Review-Cotton Shires, Associates Cotton Shires, Associates peer reviewed the geotechnical reports and supplemental information provided by the applicant for this document. The issues constraining the Project site include the seasonally shallow groundwater conditions, a relatively thin mantle of un-documented fill, the method of emplacement of piles necessary for the building with respect to both potential on-and off-site impacts, a thick sequence of colluvial and alluvial soil deposits and potentially liquefiable soils, and the presence of groundwater with trace amounts of toxic substances. Please see the following for discussion of these issues. Seasonally Shallow Groundwater Conditions and the Presence o~ Groundwater with Trace Amounts of Toxic Substances and the Presence of a Kelatively Thin Mantle of Un-documented Fill Seasonally shallow groundwater conditions constrain the site with respect to the construction of the subterranean parking. As identified by Cotton Shires (Geotechnical Peer I~euiew KE: 550 Gateway Boulevard Project/Hyatt Place, South San Francisco, Cotton Shires, Associates, February 15, 2008) groundwater data would be and was required to be collected and considered in order to design and evaluate the garage back drain systems and backup power for the drains. Barring this approach the garage would be required to be designed to withstand full hydrostatic pressure. Krazan (Keview of Comments-Proposed Hotel550 Gateway Boulevard, Krazan & Associates. Inc. August 14, 2008) responded to this concern by stating that the proposed drainage system behind the basement walls would be evaluated. If an adequate drainage system is not identified the garage would be designed to full hydrostatic pressure. This response is noted by Cotton Shires (Geotechnical Peer Review KE: 550 Gateway Boulevard Project/Hyatt Place, South San Francisco, Cotton Shires, Associates, August 22, 2008) as acceptable provided that the designs and solutions are reviewed by their office prior to preparation of detailed construction plans. The standard practice of the City Building Department is to forward geotechnical engineering plans to Cotton Shires (as the City's consultant) for review and comment. Building permits are not issued for the affected work in absence of PAGE 3-34 55O GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Cotton Shires approval. Therefore, it is understood that either full hydrostatic pressure design of the garage or de-watering and drainage plans will be reviewed and found adequate by Cotton Shires or a building permit will not be issued for the Project, as a matter of law. The presence of toxics in the groundwater and the un-documented fill are discussed in detail in Section 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. However, with respect to geotechnical issues the presence of toxics in the groundwater was addressed in the event that the site required intermittent or continual de-watering. More specifically, it was required through this environmental review to determine the constituents of the groundwater and their levels in order to determine proper disposal of the water. Based upon the testing performed and described more fully in Section 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the groundwater could be discharged into the City's wastewater should this method of site construction and operation be necessary as discussed. The thin layer of undocumented fill was emplaced in the 1980's as a site clean-up measure under the direction of the state Department of Toxic Substances Control. This is also more fully described in Section 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. There are two mitigation measures identified in Section 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials with respect to documenting the standards of the fill emplacement as well as the continued maintenance of its integrity. Therefore as a matter of law and as identified in this document these two issues are addressed. The Method of Emt~lacement of Piles Necessaru for the Building ~arith Kesbect to Both Potential On-and 0~=site Imt~acts, and the Thick Sequence of Clluvial and Alluvial Soil Deposits and Potentially Liau~able Soils The Project proposes piles to 60 feet in depth. Driven piles can, depending on the location of nearby structures and people, result in vibration and noise impacts during construction and potential inducted settlements or other damages to nearby buildings. Settlement or damage to nearby buildings could result in a significant, if not unavoidable, impact. The Project site is in a built-out area with sensitive receptors, two day care centers, located nearby. Standard pile driving would not be permitted on the site given the potential noise and vibration impacts associated with the activity. The applicant has proposed cast-in-place steel piles or Tubex piles. Liquefiable soils may be pressure-grouted and the structure supported on a conventional foundation system or mat foundation (Krazan, August 14, 2008). The City Building Official has also indicated that caisson piles could also be used for the Project as they have been successfully used in the Project area on other construction projects. Cotton Shires notes that the structural steel must be protected from corrosion. The soil cement used to encapsulate the piles must fully encapsulate the pile and resist corrosion. The Project sponsor has proposed three inches of grout cover over the piles (Gerwick, September 9, 2008). Gerwick also notes other projects in the South San Francisco area using Tubex piles. The first project was installed by Condon Johnson for the San Francisco International Airport access ramp. The piles were installed with three inches of cover, a mixture of corrosive soils cement 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-35 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST and water was assumed to sufficiently reduce oxygen availability so that normal corrosion of 1/16t'' in 75 years was acceptable for the design. This area is east of U.S. Highway 101. The Britannia East Grand project in South San Francisco (also in the East of 101 Area) was constructed using the auger cast pile method. The drilled holes are 16 inches in diameter with a cover of 1.625 inches. The design was assumed sufficient to allow using the normal corrosion rate for the Britannia project. Cotton Shires reviewed the data presented by Gerwick and believes that the presented reasoning is sound and notes that these corrosion issues are outside the area of expertise of geotechnical engineering and squarely in the field of structural engineering. Cotton Shires recommends that a Structural Engineer (independent one respected and retained by the City and paid for through a developer pass-through) should reach an opinion of whether corrosion issues are adequately addressed by the design. There are options of using additives in the grout mix around Tubex Piles to address corrosion concerns, or possibly placing Tubex piles in larger diameter holes that provide thicker grout coverage of the steel. If evaluations by Ben C. Gerwick, Inc. are correct, then these supplemental measures may not be needed. Therefore some design configuration Tubex Piles may be used for the Project to avoid driving of piles. Cotton Shires supports requiring Tubex Piles for Project construction with the caveat that registered structural engineer review corrosion issues for the City as part of the building permit plan check process. DISCUSSION Seismic Hazards Seismic hazards are generally classified as two types, primary and secondary. Primary geologic hazards include surface fault rupture. Secondary geologic hazards include ground shaking, liquefaction, dynamic densification and seismically induced ground failure. a) Surface Fault Rupture Sign~cance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with the surface rupture of a known earthquake fault. According to the Geotechnical Report, the hazard from fault rupturing on the site is considered to be very low. The Hillside fault is located nearby, but there is no evidence that this fault has been active within geologically recent time. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on exposing people or structures to danger from surface rupture of a known earthquake fault. PAGE 3-36 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ii) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking Significance Criteria: 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. Given that there are no active faults within the Project site, damage from a seismic event is most likely to occur from the secondary impact of strong seismic ground shaking originating on a nearby fault. Estimates of actual ground shaking intensity at a particular location are made according to the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, which accounts for variables such as the size and distance from the earthquake. For the Project site, Mercalli Intensity estimates indicate that earthquake-shaking intensity would vary depending upon where the seismic event originates. For the Maximum Credible Earthquakes (MCE) along the nearby San Andreas and San Gregorio faults (Richter Magnitude 7.9 and 7.2, respectively) the shaking intensities would be IX, "violent" and VIII, "very strong", respectively, at the Project site. Development of the Project would increase the number of structures and people potentially exposed to hazards associated with a major earthquake in the region. The Project and all buildings in the San Francisco Bay Area are built with the knowledge that an earthquake could occur, and are required to meet Uniform Building Code (UBC) standards for seismic safety. Conformance with the latest UBC would ensure that the impact of seismic ground-shaking is reduced to a level of less than sigrlifrcant. iii) Liquefaction and c) Geologic Instability Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. The Project would have a significant environmental impact if 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. Liquefaction is a secondary seismic hazard involving saturated cohesion-less sand and silty sand sediments located close to the ground surface. Liquefaction occurs when the strength of a soil decreases and pore pressure increases as a response to strong seismic shaking and cyclic loading. During the loss of strength, the soil becomes mobile, and can move both horizontally and vertically, if not confined. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, clean, saturated, uniformly-graded, fine-grained sands. The site is underlain by alternating layers of medium dense to very dense clayey sand, clayey silty sand, silty sand with clay and silty sand/sandy silt. Field and laboratory tests indicate that these soils are relatively strong and compressible (Updated Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Hotel, 550 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-37 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Gateway Boulevard, CA, Project No. 042-07020, Krazan & Associates, Inc. November 12, 2007). Groundwater experiences seasonal fluxuations and as measured in March, 2008 was encountered 9.47 feet below ground surface. The grading plan indicates raising grade in the central portion of the site by approximately six feet and sloping downward at the edges to match adjacent grade. The garage would be 10 feet below ground surface. The potential for soil liquefaction was modeled by Krazan (November 12, 2007). The LIQUEFYI'RO program (version 5) was used and groundwater eight feet below ground surface was used in the model. A peak horizontal ground surface acceleration of 0.69g was used and is considered conservative based upon review of the California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Report 043. The analysis indicated that soils above eight feet are non-liquefiable and soils below eight feet have a slight to moderate potential for liquefaction under seismic shaking, due to the presence of groundwater. Geology and Soils Impact 1: The Project proposes deep Tubex piles (to 60 feet) to mitigate potential liquefaction and differential settlement. Cotton Shires raised the issue of potential corrosion of the steel piles if not properly emplaced which could ultimately result in steel failure. Steel failure would be a significant impact. Geology and Soils Mitigation 1; Tubex piles, or a reasonable facsimile shall be used for the Project as pile driving is not proposed or permitted due to vibration impacts and potential differential settlement of adjacent properties and structures. An independent Structural Engineer (one of the City's choosing financed at the Developer's sole) shall review the Tubex design and reach an opinion of whether corrosion issues are adequately addressed by the current design. There are options for using additives in the grout mix around Tubex Piles to address corrosion concerns, or possibly placing Tubex piles in larger diameter holes that provide thicker grout coverage of the steel should the current design not be adequate. The review and certification shall be conducted prior to issuance of grading permits for the Project. Therefore some design configuration of Tubex piles may be used for the Project to avoid driving of piles. Cotton Shires supports requiring Tubex piles for Project construction with the caveat that registered structural engineer review corrosion issues for the City as part of the building permit plan check process. Therefore, with Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 1 there would be less than significantimpactwith respect to a geologic unit becoming unstable as a result of the Project and the Project would not result in the potential for on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. iv) Landslides Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to substantial hazards from landslides. A landslide is a mass of rock, soil and debris displaced down slope by sliding, flowing or falling. The Association of Bay Area Governments indicates that Project Site is "flatland." (Association of Bay Area Governments, http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Landslides/viewer.htm). The site is relatively is PAGE 3-3$ 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST flat. There is no threat of landslides on the Project site; therefore the Project would have no impact with respect to landslides. b) Erosion or Loss of Topsoil Significance Criteria: The Project would result in a significant environmental impact if it were to result in substantial soil erosion or in the loss of topsoil. In absence of the NPDES C-3 requirements implemented by the City as a condition of building and grading permit issuance the Project would have a potential to increase erosion during construction. These methods are described in detail in Section 3.8: Hydrology and Water Quality, Section 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and the Introduction Section Hydrology and Water Quality (Operational and Construction). However, the erosion control measures are required as a matter of law and as a result this impact is considered to be less than significant. d) Expansive Soils Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property. The Project site soil plasticity (PI) rating is 8-11 and would is under the plasticity rating of 15 or more (Krazan, November 12, 2007). Expansive soils are not permitted for fill material; their PI rating is specified at 10 or under. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact. e) Capability of Soils to Support Septic Tanks Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it involved construction of septic systems in soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The Project does not propose to build any new septic tank or alternate waste disposal systems. The Project site is connected to the city's sanitary sewer system. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on soils due to septic systems. Finding: Project impacts would be less than significant with respect to Geology and Soils individually and cumulatively with the measures required by law as a matter of securing grading and building permits and implementation of Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 1. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-39 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact VII, HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the / environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the / environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous / or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list / of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a Project located within an airport land use / plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private / airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? BACKGROUND As noted throughout this document, the Project site consists of approxunately two acres of land that was formerly the location of a Bethlehem Steel mill and fabrication plant from about 1938 to 1977. Polychlorinated bi-phenyls (PCBs) and metals have been identified as hazardous material constituents of concern for the site. CSS Environmental Services, Inc., conducted peer review of PAGE 3-40 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST the following documents for Knapp Consulting to evaluate site conditions and the adequacy of documentation provided as a part of the application process. • Declaration of Covenants Conditions and Restrictions for the Site (CC&R), executed July 12, 1984 by Howarth Development Co. • Phase II Subsurface Investigation (Phase II), Proposed Holiday Inn Express, report prepared by Krazan & Associates dated July 13, 1999. • Document Review and Comment (Phase II Review) -Proposed Holiday Inn Express, letter prepared by Krazan & Associates prepared September 10, 2007. • Geotechnical Peer Review, letter prepared by Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc. dated February 15, 2008. A summary of CSS Environmental Services, Inc., findings is contained in the following text (550 Gateway Blvcl Pr ject, Proposed Holiday Inn E.~ress, South San Francisco, CA, CSS Pr ject No: 6533. February 26, 2008. See Appendix A). The CC&R's (See Appendix A) represent a land use covenant to protect the public from unsafe exposures to residual contamination left in place upon closure of a hazardous waste facility. The CC&R's indicate that the site was the subject of a completed investigation for certain hazardous wastes in response to requests of the California Department of Health Services (the Department, now the Department of Toxic Substances Control [DTSC]) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB) and that Homart Development Company undertook certain corrective measures such that the Department determined that the Project site "does not present any significant existing or potential hazard to present or future public health or safety provided that certain precautions are taken in connection with any excavation or earth moving activity and further providing that certain land use restrictions are observed." The provisions of the CC&R's flow down to any purchaser or ground lessee of the Project site and require the following: 1. Thirty days prior to any proposed excavation or earth movement on the site, the DTSC shall be given written notice of the proposed activity including a map and description of the work. 2. Any contractor or subcontractor engaged in earth movement shall: a. Be directed to comply with any applicable requirements of Cal/OSHA, DTSC and RWQCB; b. Utilize appropriate procedures to control dust during the period of earth movement; c. Protect any stockpiled hazardous material from wind, rain and any other condition which may cause its dispersal; d. Determine by appropriate testing whether any excess material is hazardous material and lawfully dispose of any such hazardous material off of the Site, with prior notification to the DTSC of any disposal of more than 10 cubic yards of such material; and, e. Ensure that any soils that contain hazardous material must be covered by (at least) one foot of clean fill or otherwise covered to prevent human exposure to dust containing hazardous material. 55O GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-41 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Use of the Project site for the development of a hotel/motel is within the approved uses listed in the CC&R's provided the use does not include a day care center or occupation as a permanent residence by employees (see Appendix A). A Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (1999 Phase II) (see Appendix A) provides some description of the earlier investigation and corrective action related to the closure of the former steel plant. Reportedly Project site soil contained polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and heavy metals. The corrective actions included the removal and disposal as hazardous waste of soils containing PCBs. Soil containing heavy metals was graded on site and covered with one foot of clean fill. The purport of the 1999 Phase II was to assess the presence and concentrations of heavy metals and PCBs in the shallow soil and groundwater of the site. This was accomplished through the collection of samples of soil and groundwater from several site geotechnical borings in June of 1999 (see Appendix A for the locations which are shown on the geotechnical report). Dark silty and clayey fill materials were encountered in the borings to a depth of about five feet below ground surface, underlain by tan native sands and silty sand. At the time, groundwater was encountered at a depth of about 15 feet below ground surface. Soil samples from six locations and groundwater samples from three locations were collected and analyzed for the metals antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium and zinc and PCBs in 1999. The 2007 Phase II update (Document Review and Comment-Proposed Holiday Inn Express, letter prepared by Krazan & Associates prepared September 10, 2007, (2007 Phase II), (see Appendix A) document provides the most relevant discussion of the 1999 Phase II findings with respect to hazardous materials. Of the metals tested antimony, arsenic, chromium, copper lead, nickel, selenium, zinc and the PCB Arochlor-1254 were detected in soil; and cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, zinc were detected in groundwater. Krazan presents comparisons of the detected metals to regulatory screening levels intended to be protective of human health or the environmental, including US EPA Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) and SFRWQCB Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs). As well, the 2007 Phase II presents the corresponding Total Threshold Limit Concentrations (TTLCs) and Soluble Threshold Lunn Concentrations (STLCs) that represent characteristics of California Hazardous Waste. The 2007 Phase II also provides some discussion of another appropriate source of Cal/EPA California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs, 2005) but does not present the corresponding CHHSL values in the table of results. The 2007 Phase II highlights detected concentrations of arsenic, chromium and PCBs as exceeding screening levels. With regard to arsenic, Krazan appropriately notes that there is a high naturally occurring background level of arsenic in California. The 2007 Phase II provides the opinion that the chromium in soil and groundwater, and PCBs found in soil are low concentrations and do not warrant further investigation or remediation. Assessment of site conditions is made difficult by the lack of documentation and detail regard prior investigations and remediation of the site leading to the 1984 CC&R's. For example, there is no discussion of how Kazan arrived at the list of constituents tested during the 1999 Phase II. PAGE 3-42 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Petroleum hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) axe commonly of concern at industrial pollution sites, however there is no mention of hydrocarbons or VOCs and they were not tested. Additionally, the geotechnical peer review (discussed in Section 3.6 Geology and Soils) raises a valid concern regarding potentially shallower groundwater conditions from those observed during the Phase II. At the time of the 1999 Phase II the depth to water was about 15 feet and well below the four to five foot fill depth observed in site borings. Should the rainy season result in a shallower water table, then there is a greater potential for hazardous materials contained in shallow fill materials to leach into groundwater. A high water table condition may therefore result in higher concentrations of hazardous materials than those observed in groundwater samples collected during the 1999 Phase II. As a result of the peer review conducted by CSS Environmental Services, Inc., and Cotton Shires, the City's Senior Civil Engineer required the Project sponsor to test groundwater for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and total xylenes; metals, flash point, pH, and total suspended solids. Further testing was done under the supervision of the City in April 2008 to determine if the site water, during construction and for the life of the Project if necessary, could be disposed of in the City's wastewater system. The April 2008 study sampled groundwater in two locations on the site for ammonia as nitrogen, cyanide, phenolics, sulfide, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, zinc, organochlorine pesticides, polycholoinated biphenyls, polyaxomatic compounds, silver, arsenic, cadmium, mercury and selenium. Groundwater was encountered 9.47 to 11.15 feet below ground surface. The results of the chemical testing were compared to the limits set by the City of South San Francisco for disposal into the sanitary sewer system. (Krazan Associates, April 30, 2008, see Appendix A). The study noted that volatile organic compounds capable of ignition at a minimum of 140 degrees Fahrenheit were absent in the samples taken from the site. Silver, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, selenium, cyanide, phenolics, sulfide, organochlorine pesticides, polycholoinated biphenyls, volatile organic compounds, polyaromatic compounds,and glycols were not detected in the two groundwater samples. The following Hazards Table 1 identifies the substances detected, their level in parts per million and the maximum limit permitted in the City's wastewater system. Based upon the testing, site water could be disposed of in the City's wastewater system. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-43 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST HAZARDS TABLE 1 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS OF DETECTED SUBSTANCES COMPARISON TO WASTEWATER LIMITS NH3 as Cr Cu Ni Pb Zn Location H P N P-1 1.30 0.021 ND 0.017 ND ND 7.44 P-2 2.80 0.32 0.52 0.30 0.029 0.15 7.58 SSF 90.14 2.43 1.12 0.90 0.79 2.00 >5 Limit <12 Source: Krazan & Associates, Inc. Apri12008 NH3 AS N= Ammonia as nitrogen Ni =Nickel Cr =Chromium Pb =Lead Cu=Copper Zn =Zinc The Water Quality Control Plant (Plant) is currently operating at three million gallons per day below the dry weather design capacity. The Plant Manager, Ms. Prudhel believes that the Plant could handle the discharge from the Project depending on the volume. A groundwater permit would be required to be issued by the Plant prior to dewatering. Other waste water dischargers in the area discharge on a daily basis of 500 to 12,000 gallons per day. The approximate daily discharge quantities as well as the level of contamination (noted above) would need to be known. Monitoring of the contaminant levels in the waste water would be required on an annual basis, if dewatering was conducted for the life of the Project. (Cassie Prudhel, Technical Services Supervisor within the Water Quality Control Plant the Public Works Department, electronic mail February 22, 2008 to Knapp Consulting and telephone conversation September 11, 2008). Additional requirements included as a part of the groundwater permit issued by Public Works Department: • Dewater would be accumulated in a settlement tank and characterized as a batch for discharge approval. Subsequent discharges from the same area may be allowed without further testing depending upon characterization results. Subsequent discharges from another area of the site will require accumulation and separate characterization. • Discharges would likely be limited to 5-10 gpm, therefore additional storage tank capacity may be required depending upon the volume of dewater generated. As noted in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils, the Applicant is considering a grout injected pile system and construction of the subterranean garage to full hydrostatic pressure; these measures would eliminate the need for dewatering the site for the life of the Project. Therefore dewatering would occur only during construction. Other options for dewatering the site include: OPTION 2: Apply for an individual NPDES permit to discharge to the storm sewer. This may or may not be possible to obtain, and pre-treatment requirements such as settling tanks, sediment filtration and/or carbon filtration are likely. PAGE 3-44 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST OPTION 3 Dispose of water off-site. This would probably be the most expensive option as all water would have to be hauled away to a facility permitted to treat, recycle or otherwise legally dispose of the water. Since the Project involves the development of more than one acre, it will require compliance with the Statewide NPDES General Permit for Construction Activity. The Project sponsor will file a notice of intent (NOI) to obtain coverage under the General Permit, and the Project shall prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP should adequately address how the Project will manage site specific hazardous materials issues of dust control, soil stockpiles, contaminated soil stockpiles and dewater as well as general stormwater protection issues. Compliance with NPDES is required as a matter of law by the City (see Introduction Section, Chapter 1, Hydrology and Water Quality#1 and 2, Stormwater Runoff Prevention Operational (#1) and Construction (#2) and the Hydrology and Water Quality Discussion in Section 3.8). DISCUSSION a) and b) Hazardous Materials Sign~cance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental 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 or if it were to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Project Construction-Dust Given the historic use of the site as noted above, Project development could pose impacts to workers during construction. The peer review conducted by CSS for this document contends that the results of subsurface soil sampling and analysis performed in the 1999 Phase II do not conflict with the remediation as described by the CC&R's: PCB soil removal and disposal, grading soil with heavy metals on site, and capping with one foot of clean soil. The only surprise may be that metal concentrations were not found at greater concentrations, as all soil samples were collected from below the reported one-foot clean cap depth. Of the concentrations of heavy metals found in soil samples, none exhibit the characteristic of hazardous waste, and most are below limits considered protective of human health and the environment, even fox unrestricted uses. CSS compared the detected concentrations to residential CHHSLs and updated 2007 residential ESLs, not presented by Krazan, and found that only antimony, arsenic, chromium and PCBs are present a levels in soil that might restrict even residential land use (see Hazards Table 2, below). 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-45 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST HAZARDS TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM DETECTED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN SOIL CONCENTRATIONS TO SCREENING LEVELS Constituent Maximum Detected Concentration (mg/kg} Soil Screening Level* (mg/kg) Basis* Antimony 7.5 6.1 SFRWQCB Residential ESL Arsenic 33 0.038 SFRWQCB Residential ESL Beryllium < 5.0 150 CaIEPA Residential CHHSL Cadmium < 5.0 1.7 Ca1EPA Residential CHHSL Chromium (total) 98+ 210 US EPA Residential PRG Chromium VI Only total Cr was tested 8 SFRWQCB Residential ESL Copper 170 230 SFRWQCB Residential ESL Lead 53 150 Ca1EPA Residential CHHSL Mercury < 0.1 1 SFRWQCB Residential ESL Nickel 140 150 SFRWQCB Residential ESL Selenium 7.9 10 SFRWQCB Residential ESL Silver < 5.0 20 SFRWQCB Residential ESL Thallium < 5.0 1.2 SFRWQCB Residential ESL Zinc 590 600 SFRWQCB Residential ESL PCBs (Only Arochlor-1254 detected) 0.111 0.089 SFRWQCB Residential ESL *Selected from most conservative of US EPA Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (I'RGs, 2004), SFRWQCB Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs, 2007), or California EPA California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs, 2005) for residential land use. +Total chromium exceeds the screening Ievel for Chromium VI. Actual ratios of Chrome III and Chrome VI were not determined; Chrome III is most common form. Numbers in bold exceed their corresponding screening level. SOURCE: CSS Environmental PAGE 3-46 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INiTIALSTUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Hazards Impact 1: Construction activities could penetrate the required one foot clean fill cap on the site. Although unlikely, site soils could also be considered hazardous waste under state and federal regulations. Hazards Mitigation 1: Development plans shall address protection of the one-foot thick clean soil cover and underlying soil containing hazardous materials as required by the CC&R's. A Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared by the developer detailing the measures to be adopted to maintain the integrity of the clean soil cap during and after construction (e.g., pile emplacement, grading, utility trenching, etc.) activities, to protect workers health and safety, and to minimize exposure of contaminated soils to the environment (e.g, transported via wind or surface runoff). The SMP shall be peer reviewed for adequacy by the City or its designated consultant. The costs of staff or peer review shall be borne by the Project sponsor. The SMP plan shall include, at a minimum, appropriate soil handling, soil replacement, soil disposal, soil relocation, and clean soil replacement methodologies. Of primary importance is the need to prevent and minimize human exposure, minimize infiltration of water, and prevent soils erosion (both clean soil cover and underlying hazardous material impacted soils). Further hazardous materials testing will be necessary should development plans result in a need to dispose of excess site soils or require the import of additional clean soil cover material, as described in the CC&R's. Excess material shall be tested for hazardous waste criteria as potential RCRA, non-RCRA (Cal-Haz), and TSCA (PCBs) wastes and appropriately disposed. Disposal of hazardous or non-hazardous waste soil may require additional testing based on the requirements of the specific disposal facility. Project Construction and Operation-Preservation of One Foot Clean Fill Cap The Code of Federal Regulations in CFR761 (TSCA) provides specific self implementing requirements for the cleanup of PCBs, the primary site contaminant. The regulations include for high occupancy areas (as hotel would be) a remediation goal of <= 1 ppm for PCBs. They further allow that > 1 parts per million (ppm) and <= 10 ppm PCBs may be remain but must be capped. Cap requirements are a minimum of 10 inches of compacted soil (meeting specific geotechnical requirements, see below) or concrete or asphalt with a minimum thickness of 6 inches. Among the samples collected by Krazan, the maximum detected concentration of PCBs was only 0.111 ppm. That 0.111 max is only slightly greater than the 0.089 ppm Environmental Screening Level from the RWQCB that would be considered protective of human/ecological health for unrestricted use, and is well below the 1 ppm goal stated in TSCA. The metals concentrations Krazan reported do not raise any unusual concerns. It is CCS Environmental Service's opinion that the original cleanup was performed to these TSCA goals and led to the one-foot cap, although there is no evidence that PCBs > 1 ppm were left behind based on the data provided to date. Additionally, no geotechnical requirements are specified in the CC&R's. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-47 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The Project application materials do not indicate that the cap was constructed to or would continue to meet the following TSCA parameters: 1. Permeability (cm/sec), equal to or less than 1 x 10-'; 2. Percent soil passing No. 200 Sieve, >30; 3. Liquid Limit, >30; and 4. Plasticity Index > 15. Hazards Impact 2: Project documents do not indicate compliance with geotechnical requirements of one foot of clean fill cap with respect to its permeability, sieve, liquid limit and plasticity index contained in X761.75. Lack of compliance could result in the cap not functioning to its required limits. Hazards Mitigation 2: Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the soil cap shall be peer reviewed by the City or its designated consultant for compliance with at a minimum Code of Federal Regulations in 40CFR~761. The Chief Building Official and the City Engineer may exercise their authority to require an on-site inspector retained by the City and paid for by the Project sponsor to oversee and inspect the reconstruction of the cap. The cap shall be designed to meet the performance parameters of TSCA: Permeability (cm/sec), equal to or less than 1 x 10-'; Percent soil passing No. 200 Sieve, >30; and Liquid Limit, >30; and Plasticity Index >15. These criteria may be met by utilization of various methods including additional fill, reuse of existing cap material that meeting proper specification, normal construction products such as visqueen, concrete and specialized vapor barriers. With implementation of the above mitigation measures, impacts associated with the release of hazardous materials would be less than significant. c) Hazardous Materials Presence Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. As noted in Section 3.2 Air Quality, sensitive receptors are located within the area of the Project. A day care center is located directly across the street within 100 feet of the Project site. Without the mitigation required in the Air Quality section there could be a potential environmental impact during construction that could result from off-site migration of dust. The Air Quality mitigation measure which states "zero tolerance" for off-site migration of dust during construction from the Project site, in addition to the required one foot of clean fill as a cap over Project soils required by the CC&R's and proposed by the Project reduces this impact to less than significant. PAGE 3-48 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST d) Hazardous Materials Presence Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it was located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 ("Cortese List"). The Project site is not listed on the Department of Toxic Substances Control's Cortese List (California Department of Toxic Substance Control, htt~://www.dtsc.ca.gov/database/Calsites/Cortese List.cfm). The site underwent remediation in the 1980's as noted in the CC&R's for the property and as discussed in the setting section above. Compliance with the CC&R's, required as a matter of law, and the mitigation measures identified in this document would result no impact from the emission or handling of hazardous materials from any environmental contamination posed by the sites listed on the Cortese List. e) and f) Safety Hazards Due to Nearby Airport or Airstrip Significance Criteria: 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 uz a safety 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 safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. The Project site is located just north of San Francisco International Airport, and within the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission's jurisdiction. The ALUC allows development within ALUC boundaries, provided that development is below a prescribed height limit. In 1981, the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan, in coordination with Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, established a 211-foot height limit for some buildings within ALUC jurisdiction, which applies to the Project site. The Project, which would be constructed 68 feet above mean sea level (MSL); therefore its maximum height would be 149.6 feet above MSL, would abide by General Pian policies as well as the ALUC height limit and would not result in a safety hazard fox people working at the Project site. This impact is considered to be less than significant. g) Conflict with Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan Significance Criteria: 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. There are no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Project vicinity. The Project would not result in blocking access to roadways and would provide adequate on-site emergency vehicle access as a matter of law. Therefore the proposed Project would have no impact on the implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-49 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST h) Exposure of People or Structures to Wildland Fires Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. There is no wildland in the vicinity o£ the Project site. The Project would have no impact on wildland fires. Finding: The Project site is appropriate for a hotel use as noted in the CC&R's and as remediated in the 1980's. The one-foot soil cap and Hazards Mitigations 1 and 2 and Air Quality Mitigation 1 reduce Project impacts to less than signrfrcant. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact hazardous materials exposure or impede emergency response or pose a hazard to an airport or expose people or structures to wildland fires or to impacts associated with hazards or hazardous materials. The Project would not result in cumulative impacts or Project impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials provided the mitigation measures are implemented. PAGE 3-50 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Fotentialty Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significantv~ith Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact VIII. 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 have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-51 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST BACKGROUND Colma Creek, the City's main natural drainage system, is a perennial stream with a watershed of about 16.3 square miles that trends in a roughly southeasterly direction through the center of the City. The Cohna Creek watershed is one of the three largest in the County. The basin is bounded on the northeast by San Bruno Mountain and on the west by a ridge traced by Skyline Boulevard. Dominant topographic features of the drainage basin include two relatively straight mountain ridges that diverge toward the southeast that are connected by a low ridge at the northern boundary of the area. The valley enclosed by the ridges widens toward the southeast where it drains into San Francisco Bay. The Project site is unimproved and therefore water currently percolates through the site or ponds on surface during high groundwater conditions. The Project proposes storm water drainage to be routed through vegetated swales before entering the storm water drainage system as shown on the site and landscaping plans. Regulatory Framework National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm illater Discharge Permit The City of South San Francisco is a member of the San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), an organization of the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County holding a National Pollutant Discharge Elimuiation System (NPDES) Storm Water Discharge permit. STOPPP's goal is to prevent polluted storm water from entering creeks, wetlands, and the San Francisco Bay. The City requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP's) for new development and construction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City conditions of project approval. The City requires the implementation BMP's to ensure the protection of water quality in storm runoff from the Project site. In brief, the measures presented in the BMP handbook address pollution control and management mechanisms for contractor activities, e.g. structure construction, material delivery and storage, solid waste management, employee and subcontractor training, etc. The handbook also provides direction for the control of erosion and sedimentation as well as the establishment of monitoring programs to ensure the effectiveness of the BMP's. The City also requires an agreement with the applicant that ensures the permanent and on-going maintenance of water quality control improvements by the applicant and/or project site owner(s). Refer to the Bay Area Storm Water Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) Start at the Source Design Guidance Manual for Storm Water Quality Protection (available from BASMAA @ 510-622-2465 for a comprehensive listing of required measures. The storm water quality protection measures that are required by the City as a matter of law are identified in the Introduction Section, Chapter 1 Hydrology and Water Quality # 1 and 2 (Construction and Operational). State 1~ater Quality Control Board's General Permitting Requirements: The City of South San Francisco requires through conditions of project approval, project compliance with the State Water Quality PAGE 3-52 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Control Board's general permitting requirements which requires the applicant to secure a Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit, complete a Notice of Intent (NOI) and prepare and obtain approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The state issues a Waste Discharge Identification number within 10 days of receipt of a complete NOI and SWPPP. The applicant is then required to submit copies of the NOI and SWPPP to the City of South San Francisco, Public Works Department Division of Water Quality, prior to issuance of building and/or grading permits. DISCUSSION a) Violation of Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in any violation of existing water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The Project as a matter of law is required to comply with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The City requires the implementation of BMP's for new development and construction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City conditions of project approval by the Water Quality Control Division of the Public Works Department. De-watering the site during construction, and if necessary during the life of the Project was discussed in Section 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. As discussed therein, it was shown that site de-watering would not pose an impact to the City's wastewater treatment facilities. Silver, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, selenium, cyanide, phenolics, sulfide, organochlorine pesticides, polycholoinated biphenyls, volatile organic compounds, polyaromatic compounds,and glycols were not detected in the two groundwater samples. Ammonia as nitrate, chromium, copper, nickel, lead and zinc were detected in site groundwater and were present in concentrations below the City's thresholds for discharge into the waste water system. Hazards Table 1 in Section 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials identifies the substances detected, their level in parts per million and the maximum limit permitted in the City's wastewater system. Based upon the testing, site water could be disposed of in the City's wastewater system. Project impacts would be less than significant. b) Deplete or Interfere Substantially with Groundwater Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it substantially depletes groundwater supplies or interferes substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The Project could alter groundwater on the site and in the area due to dewatering activities. The groundwater is not used as a drinking source as it is known to contain contaminants of concern (see discussion in Section 3.7 Hazards) The Project would and surrounding areas receives their water supply from existing local infrastructure, not groundwater. Therefore, groundwater supplies would not be substantially depleted. Project impacts would be less than significant. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-53 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST c) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Erosion and Siltation Effects Sign~cance Criteria: 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 Project would be built in a built-out suburban area. The site has been identified for the proposed land use since the early 1980's and to some extent the overall land use plan for the City considers the reduction of porosity in areas planned for built-out. The City's land use plan also calls for preservation of open spaces in other areas, such as Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain, as well on lands containing slopes in excess of 30 percent which allows for water recharge. Currently water percolates through the soil on site or ponds on the surface during times of high groundwater levels. Although the addition of non-porous surfaces would reduce water percolation, water would be directed into bioswales. Some on site percolation would continue to occur. The Project would improve some site conditions by constructing bioswales, filtering sediments out of the water and directing site drainage through storm drain systems which released into the bay; thereby reducing overall sedimentation. There are no rivers or streams on or near the Project site and as such the Project would not impact or cause siltation of watercourses. There would be a less than significar~timpactrelated to altered drainage patterns or siltation at the Project site. d) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Flooding Effects Significance Criteria: 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 proposed Project would be built in a built-out suburban area. Currently water percolates through the soil on site or ponds on the surface during times of high groundwater levels. The Project would improve these conditions by constructing bioswales and directing site drainage through storm drain systems which flow to the bay. There are no rivers or streams on or near the Project site and as such the Project would not impact or cause siltation or flooding of watercourses due to surface water runoff. There would be a less than sigtuficantimpactrelated to altered drainage patterns or siltation at the Project site. PAGE 3-54 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST e) Runoff Exceeding Drainage System Capacity/Increase Polluted Runoff Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The Project, as a matter of law, is required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an Erosion Control Plan to the City Engineer and the Water Quality Control Division prior to the commencement of any grading or construction of the proposed Project. The SWPPP as noted in the Background Section, above, is required to include storm water pollution control devices and filters to be installed to prevent pollutants from entering the City's storm drain system and San Francisco Bay. The Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and the City's Storm Water Coordinator. Water quality measures are required to be included in the building permit packet; therefore all contractors are as a matter of law made aware of the requirements. Additionally, the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department as well as the Water Quality Control Division conducts routine inspections of this and all project sites to insure compliance. Failure to comply with the approved construction BMPs would result in the issuance of correction notices, citations or a Stop Work Order. The trace amounts of toxics on the site as discussed in Section 3.7 Hazards and shown in Hazards Table 2 would not result in increased pollution runoff. The site is required by law to be capped with one foot of clean fill. Plans for the Project would as a matter of law include erosion control measures to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system. Implementation of the measures required as a matter of law would reduce the Project's impact to a level of less than significant. f) Otherwise Degrade Water Quality Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to degrade water quality. The proposed Project would increase the amount of impervious surface area on the Project site and leave approximately 20 percent of the site in landscaping and pervious walkways. The Project does not propose industrial activities. The Project would be a less than significant impact on water quality from point source water pollution at the Project site. Moreover, with the clean cap of soil and the bioswales and other methods to filter and direct on-site waters, the Project could be seen as an improvement over existing conditions. See discussion e, immediately above for other factors with respect to water quality. g - i) Flood Hazards Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to place any housing units within a designated 100-year flood hazard area; if it placed any structures in a manner 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-55 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST which would impede or redirect flood flows; or if it were to result in the exposure of people or structures to flooding hazards. The Project site is not located in a 100-year flood hazard zone and therefore would have no impact related to the placement of people or structures in a flood hazard area, the exposure of people or structures to a flood hazard, or a structure iri such a way that it would impede or redirect flood flows (ABAG,htt~: / /www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea /egmaps /egfloods /floods.html). j) Tsunami Hazards Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in the exposure of people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. The Project site is located in a low-lying area near to San Francisco Bay. An earthquake could cause tsunamis (tidal waves) and seiches (oscillating waves in enclosed water bodies) in the Bay. The City's General Plan estimates that potential wave run-up of a 100-year tsunami would be approximately 4.3 feet above mean sea level (msl) and approximately 6.0 feet above msl fora 500-year tsunami (Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October 1999, page 250). The Project site, with an elevation of 26 feet above msl would be too high for inundation by a 500-year tsunami and would outside the any potential tsunami hazard zone. Additionally, the Project would conform to the latest building code requirements. For these reasons, the impact of potential inundation by tsunami or seiche is considered to be less than significant. Finding: The City's standard conditions of approval which implement state, federal and local regulations are required by law and are adequate to address any potential water quality impacts as a result of Project construction or occupation. No mitigation measures, above those required by the City as a matter of law, are identified in this Initial Study. The Project would result in a less than significant impact and would not contribute to a cumulative impact to hydrology or water quality resources. 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact IX. LAND USE 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, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation / plan or natural community conservation plan? PAGE 3-56 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST BACKGROUND Regulatory Framework South San Francisco General Plan (amended October 1999) The Project site is within the area subject to the provisions of the "East of 101" Planning Sub-Area of the City of South San Francisco's General Plan. The General Plan designates the Project area as well as the Project site for "Business Commercial" uses. Business Commercial uses are defined by the General Plan (page 42) as: This category is intended for business and professional offices, visitor and service establishments, and retail. Permitted uses include administrative, financial, business, professional, medical and public offices, and visitor-oriented and regional commercial activities. Regional commercial centers, restaurants and related services are permitted subject to appropriate standards. This category is intended for the emerging commercial and hotel district along South Airport, Gateway and Oyster Point Boulevards, and South Spruce corridor. Maximum FAR for hotel development shall be 1.2, with increases to a maximum total FAR of 2.0 for development meeting specific criteria. City of South San Francisco East of 101 Area Plan In 1994, the East of 101 Area Plan, covering approximately 1,700 acres of land, established goals and policies for the City and East of 101 Area. Although the South San Francisco General Plan (adopted in 1999) supercedes the East of 101 Area Plan, most of the Plan's original design, noise, opens space and development standards still apply to campus development. Specifically, it: • Recognizes the uniqueness of the East of 101 Area • Encourages economic development, • Establishes policies to regulate development in a manner to protect the environment and enhance the area's physical and natural resources; and, • Establishes design and development standards for all development. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-57 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Gateway Specific Plan District The Project site is within the southern portion of the 177-acre Gateway Specific Plan/Redevelopment Plan Area. The Gateway Redevelopment Plan serves as the Gateway Specific Plan and the Redevelopment Plan along with the Gateway Specific Plan Zoning District further refine the permitted uses within this sub-area of the East of 101. The Gateway Specific Plan was adopted by the City with the stated purpose: "...to take advantage of the superior environment which can result in large scale comprehensive planning. The concepts, regulations and conditions established by the Gateway specific plan are intended to provide for various commercial and research and development land uses integrated by consistent development standards." Hotel and restaurant development is encouraged on the Project site (see Zoning, below). Also worthy of note, page 4 of the East of 101 Area Plan states that "...the land use entitlement and limitations of the Gateway Specific Plan are not affected by the [East of 101] Area Plan and will continue to be in force in the Gateway Area." This notation is included in the East of 101 Area Plan as it was adopted in July 1994 subsequent to the Gateway Specific Plan which was adopted in 1981. The East of 101 Area Plan, as noted, does not modify the land uses prescribed in the Gateway Specific Plan. ZOTllilg The Project site is zoned "Gateway Specific Plan District". The Gateway Specific Plan District is divided into five blocks and the Project site is located in Block 1. Permitted uses are identified in Section 20.57.200 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Block 1 permitted uses include hotels, motels and related facilities; retail shops, convenience stores and personal services, professional office buildings, restaurants, signs, amusement arcades within hotels and athletic clubs. The proposed hotel use is a permitted use on the Project site. County of San Mateo Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) State law establishes an ALUC, in each county where one or more airports exist, to coordinate the compatibility of new development near airports. An ALUC does not have any authority over airport operations, but it does have the authority to conduct land use planning fox areas around airport in the county. The ALUC makes a determination that general plans, zoning standards, and any proposed new development in its planning area are in conformance with the Airport Land Use Plan. The 1981 San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan, in coordination with Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, established a 161-foot above mean seal level height limit around San Francisco International Airport. The Project site is within the 211 foot height limit established by the ALUC and the City of South San Francisco (Figure 2-3, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999). The Project would be 161 feet above mean sea level. PAGE 3-58 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DISCUSSION a) Division of an Established Community Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to physically divide an established community. The Project site is within the Gateway Specific Plan Area (Plan Area). The Gateway Specific Plan was adopted in 1981 with the express purpose to provide for various commercial and research and development land uses integrated by consistent development standards. The Plan Area is divided into five blocks comprising a total land area of 177 acres. The Project site is located on Block 1 of the Plan Area and is one of the few remaining vacant lots in the area. Block 1 permitted uses include hotels, motels and related facilities; retail shops, convenience stores and personal services, professional office buildings, restaurants, signs, amusement arcades within hotels and athletic clubs. The proposed hotel use is a permitted use on the Project site (Section 20.57.200 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code). Thus, the Project would have no impact on dividing an established community but would implement the long-range planning begun by the City in 1981. The Gateway Specific/Redevelopment Plan Area anticipated the development of up to 1,300 hotel rooms in the Plan Area (Redevelopment Agency Resolution 237-85, November 13, 1985). There are four existing hotels in the plan area which include the Embassy Suites, Homestead (now called Hampton Suites), Larkspur Landing and Hilton Garden Inn for a total of 692 rooms (interviews and Google search Apri12008). The Project would add 166 rooms for a total of 858 hotel rooms in the Project Area, under the 1,300 envisioned by the adoption of Resolution 237-85. The General Plan (October 1999) envisions 1,125,000 square feet of hotel use in the East of 101 Plan Area. This total represents a 38% increase over what was already approved by the City in the East of 101 Area as of 1999. The increase recognizes the City's objective to foster economic development and as stated in the East of 101 Area Plan "...to take advantage of the superior environment which can result in large scale comprehensive planning. The concepts, regulations and conditions established by the Gateway specific plan are intended to provide for various commercial and research and development land uses integrated by consistent development standards." In 1999, the Project site had approvals based upon a development application for 142 room hotel. These approvals expired in 2001 pursuant to the sunset clause on the entitlements. The proposed Project includes 166 rooms; an increase of 17 percent as envisioned by both the Gateway Specific/Redevelopment Plan and the General Plan. The Project proposes a 1.24 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) which is consistent with the maximum permitted FAR of 2.0 for hotel uses that include a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM Program) and off site improvements. The TDM Program is targeted fora 28% mode shift, and the off-site improvements include a contribution of approximately $461,404 to the City's East of 101 traffic and Oyster Point flyover improvements as required by City Ordinance. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-59 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST b) Conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The following is an analysis of the Project in light of the applicable General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan environmental policies. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Open Space and Conservation Element Habitat and Biological Resources Conservation Policy 7.1-G-1 Protect special status species and supporting habitats within South San Francisco, including species that are State and federally listed as Endangered, Threatened or Rare. Analysis: As discussed in Section 3.4 Biology, the Project site does not contain State or federally listed Endangered, Threatened or Rare species (Loretta Barsamian, Executive Officer SFRWCCB. April 1, 1998, attached in Appendix A). The Project conforms to this policy. Policy 7.1-G-2 Protect and, where reasonable and feasible, restore saltmarshes and wetlands. Analysis: As discussed in Section 3.4 Biology, in 1998 the then-property owner Mr. Steve Tangney of Homestead Village, Inc., applied for and received conditional authorization from the SFRWQCB to fill 601 square feet of marginal seasonal wetlands. (File No. 2178.07; Site No. 02-41- 00100; Letter to Mr. Steve Tangney Homestead Village, Inc., from Loretta Barsamian, Executive Officer SFRWCCB, April 1, 1998, attached in Appendix A). The SFRWQCB determined that off- site mitigation would be necessary for the take of wetlands. The 1998 project was required to provide $1,800 to the Bair Island wetlands program which would represent a 3:1 replacement of wetlands that would be lost on the 550 Gateway (Project) site. The cost of wetlands mitigation was estimated by Mr. John Wade then director of Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST); the organization restoring and managing the wetlands program on Bair Island. As a result, the Waste Discharge Requirements for the Homestead Village hotel project were waived pursuant to the required mitigation (Regional Board Resolution 87-053-The California Wetland Conservation Policy). This letter also documents the lack of endangered plant and animal species on the site. Additionally. Pursuant to Title 23, California Code of Regulations Section 3857 the Board Resolution is equivalent to a waiver of water quality certification. Additionally, the then-property owner (NIr. Steve Tangney, Homestead Village, Inc.) applied for authorization from the USACE to fill 601 square feet of wetlands on the Project site. The USACE PAGE 3-60 55O GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST granted a Nationwide Permit 26 Headwaters and Isolated Waters Discharges Permit, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act on June 24, 1999 (File Number 23280S, Letter to Mr. Steve Tangney Homestead Village, Inc., from Department of the Army San Francisco District Corps of Engineers, Calvin C. Fong, Chief Regulatory Branch, attached in Appendix A). Subsequently through an electronic mail correspondence between Homestead Village and USACE, the USACE, Ms. Phelicia M. Gomes, Regulatory Project Manager, verified (March 23, 2001 attached in Appendix A) that the Project "did not have any mitigation requirements associated with it....The decision not to require mitigation for filling of the wetlands on the site was based upon the extremely small size of the wetland (0.03 acre) and its limited ecological value due to high contamination levels." The Project conforms to this policy. Special Habitat Areas Policy 7.1-1-1 Cooperate with State and federal agencies to ensure that development does not substantially affect special status species appearing on any State or federal list for any rare, endangered, or threatened species. Require assessments of biological resources prior to approval of any development on sites with ecologically sensitive habitat, as depicted in Figure 7-1. Analysis: The Project site is not identified on Figure 7.1 of the General Plan and does not contain special status species appearing on any State or federal list for any rare, endangered, or threatened species. The Project conforms to this policy. Policy 7.1-1-3 As a part of development approvals on sites that include ecologically sensitive habitat designated in Figure 7.2, require institution of an on-going program to remove and prevent the re- establishment of the invasive species and restore the native species. Analysis: The Project site is not identified on Figure 7.2 of the General Plan and as noted above and in Section 3.4 Biology of this document does not contain ecologically sensitive habitat that would require an invasive exotic eradication program. Biology Mitigation Measure 1 would protect any migratory bird habitat in the remote possibility that migratory birds are found in trees on the Project site as required by the Migratory Bird Act. The Project conforms to this policy. Wetland Conservation Policies 7.1-1-4 and 7.1-1-5 Require development on the wetlands delineated in Figure 7.1 to complete assessments of biological resources; and, Work with private, non-profit conservation, and public groups to secure funding for wetland and marsh protection and restoration projects. Analysis: As noted in analysis of Policy 7.1-G-2, above, the Project site contained marginal seasonal wetlands that were compromised by contamination. The Project mitigated removal of 601 square feet of seasonal saltmarsh habitat by replacing lost habitat at a 3:1 ratio to the Bair Island wetlands restoration project. The Project results in augmenting and restoring wetlands of a higher 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-61 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST quality in exchange for loss of marginally significant wetlands on the site. The Project conforms to this policy. Water uality Policies 7.2-G-1, 7.2-G-2, and 7.2-1-1 Comply with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulations and standards to maintain and improve the quality of both surface water and groundwater resources; Enhance the quality of surface water resources and prevent their contamination; and, Continue working with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB in the implementation of the NPDES, and continue participation in STOPP for the protection of surface water and ground water quality. Analysis: The Project as a matter of law as required by the City and as discussed in Chapter 1, Introduction Hydrology and Water Quality #1 and #2 must comply with the San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), an organization of the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County holding a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Discharge permit. The City requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP's) fox new development and construction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City conditions of approval levied at the building permit stage. The City continues to actively engage in County-wide BMP review and update. Additionally, the City requires project's to comply with the State Water Quality Control Board's general permitting requirements which requires the applicant to secure a Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit, complete a Notice of Intent (NOI) and prepare and obtain approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The state issues a Waste Discharge Identification number within 10 days of receipt of a complete NOI and SWPPP. The applicant is then required to submit copies of the NOI and SWPPP to the City of South San Francisco's Technical Services Supervisor within the Water Quality Control Plant the Public Works Department prior to issuance of building and/or grading permits. The requirements are implemented and monitored by Water Quality Control personnel of the City of South San Francisco as a condition of building permit issuance. A list of the measures that are required is identified in Chapter 1, Introduction Hydrology and Water Quality #1 and 2. The Project conforms to and implements these policies. Policy 7.2-G-3 Discourage the use of insecticides, herbicides, or toxic chemical substances within the city. Analysis: The hotel use, by its nature would use limited amounts of toxic materials, as compared to research and development and industrial land uses. The City's Project Manager (Gerry Beaudin, Senior Planner, Apri12008) will be crafting a condition of approval for the Project entitlements that will limit the use of toxic cleaning and building materials and limit the use of herbicides and pesticides in landscaping. PAGE 3-62 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Air Quality Policies 7.3-G-1, 7.3-G-2, 7.3-1-1, 7.3-1-2 and 7.3-1-3 Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all national and State ambient air quality standards and by reducing the generation of air pollutants both from stationary and mobile sources, where feasible; Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of alternatives to the automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit, and carpooling; Cooperate with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to achieve emissions reductions for nonattainment pollutants and their precursors, including carbon monoxide, ozone, and PM-10, by implementation of pollution control measures as required by State and federal statutes; Use the City's development review process and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations to evaluate and mitigate the local and cumulative effects of new development on air quality; and, Adopt the standard dust abatement measures included in the BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines. Analysis: The City does work toward improving air quality and meeting all national and State ambient air quality standards and by reducing the generation of air pollutants both from stationary and mobile sources, where feasible; and, encourages land use and transportation strategies that promote use of alternatives to the automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit, and carpooling. The City requires compliance with BAAQMD mobile and stationary source measures to reduce pollutants through project review, construction and operation. The City also requires TDM Programs as part of project review and entitlement. Through this environmental review a URBEMIS 2007 Version 9.2.4 air quality model was performed on the proposed 166-room hotel (see Section 3.2 Air Quality). The results of the modeling are that the Project would result in a less than significant impact to criteria air pollutants. The model did not factor a reduction in Project trips due to the TDM Program proposed as part of the project. Therefore, the Project conforms to and implements these policies. The model analyzes the BAAQMD nonattainment pollutants and their precursors, including carbon monoxide, ozone, and PM-10 and this analyses was conducted through the City's development review process and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations. The City as a matter of law requires the standard and enhanced dust abatement measures included in the BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines to be incorporated as part of the Project as a condition of building permit issuance (see Introduction Air Quality #'s 1, 2 and 3). As noted below in Policy 7.3-G-3 a mitigation measure is required to reduce the potential for contaminated dust to reach sensitive receptors. Therefore, the Project conforms to and implements these policies. Policy 7.3-G-3 Minimize conflicts between sensitive receptors and emissions generators by distancing them from one and other. Analysis: The proposed hotel land use is not inconsistent with the nearby day care centers which are considered sensitive receptors. The daily traffic generated from the hotel is estimated to be 109 average daily trips and these trips would be further reduced by the TDM Program, targeted at a 28% 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-63 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST mode shift. The hotel use is part of a master plan (the Gateway Specific/Redevelopment Plan) designed to serve business and reduce traffic in the area. Grading the site in preparation for construction as discussed in Section 3.2 Air Quality would be a temporary construction-related impact to sensitive receptors. Section 3.2 Air Quality identifies a mitigation measure to reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, as mitigated, the Project conforms to and implements this policy. Historic and Cultural Resources Policy 7.5-G-1 Conserve historic, cultural, and archaeological resources for the aesthetic, educational, economic, and scientific contribution they make to South San Francisco's identity and quality of life. Analysis: An archaeological and cultural survey was conducted as part of this environmental document (see Section 3.5 Cultural Resources). There are no cultural resources located on the Project site. The Project conforms to and implements this policy. Health and Safety Element Geologic and Seismic Hazards Policy 8.1-G-1 Minimize the risk to life and property from seismic activity and geologic hazards in South San Francisco. Analysis: The City requires as a matter of law the preparation of a site specific geotechnical report, and requires the peer review of this report (see Section 3. 6 Geology and Soils). The recommendations of the report, as modified by the peer review are required as part of the Project to be incorporated into Project development. As a matter of law the Project is also required to comply with the Uniform Building Code. The Project conforms to and implements this policy. Policy 8.1-1-1 Do not permit special occupancy buildings, such as hospitals, schools, and other structures that are important to protecting the health and safety of the community, in areas identified in Figure 8-2. Analysis: The Project is not a special occupancy building and as noted above in Policy 8.1-G-1 and Section 3. 6 Geology and Soils, would not pose an undue exposure to occupants. The Project conforms to and implements this policy. Policy 8.1-1-2 and East of 101Area Plan Policy GEO-9 Steep hillside areas in excess of 30 percent grade should be retained in their natural state. Development of hillside sites should follow existing contours to the greatest extent possible. Grading should be kept to a minimum; and, Steep hillside areas in excess of 30 percent grade shall be retained in their natural state. Development on hillside PAGE 3-64 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST sites should follow existing contours to the greatest extent possible and the grading should be kept to a minimum. Analysis: The Project site is relatively flat (less than a 10% slope). This policy does not apply to the Project. Flooding Policy 8.2-G-1 Minimise the risk to life and property from flooding in South San Francisco. Analysis: The Project is located in Flood Zone C (Community Panel #0650620007B, September 2, 1981) and is subject to minimal flooding. As noted in Policy 8.1-G-1 and Section 3. 6 Geology and Soils as a result of the site specific geotechnical report and City peer review, the project would conform to and implement this policy. Policies 8.2-1-1 and 8.2-1-2 Continue working with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in the implementation of the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPP); and Use the City's development review process to ensure that proposed development subject to the 100-year flood provides adequate from flood hazards, in areas identified in Figure 8-3. Analysis: The City continues to work with the RWQCB in the implementation of the Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program and as identified in the Chapter 1, Introduction Hydrology and Water Quality #1 and #2. Projects as a matter of law must comply with the San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program measures which are listed in the Introduction Section. The Project site is not identified on Figure 8.3. However, as noted in Section 3.6 Geology and Soils, the Project shall comply as a matter of law with the Project geotechnical report and peer review recommendations as a matter of building permit issuance. The Project conforms to and implements these policies. Waste Management and Recycling Policy 8.3.G-1 Reduce the generation of solid waste, including hazardous waste, and recycling those materials that are used, to slow the filling of local and regional landfills, in accordance with the California Integrated Waste management Act of 1989. Analysis: The City requires recycling (50% diversion) of building materials through implementation of the Uniform Building Code, as amended. The Project is required through conditions of approval to provide fox recycling of materials used and discarded through operational (occupation) activities. The Project as a matter of law conforms to and implements this policy. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-65 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Policy 8.3.G-2 Minimise the risk to life and property from the generation, storage and transportation of hazardous materials and waste in South San Francisco. Comply with all applicable regulations and provisions for the storage, use and handling of hazardous substances as established by the federal (EPA), State (DTSC,RWQCB, Cal OSHA, Cal EPA) and local (County of San Mateo, City of South San Francisco) regulations. Analysis: The Project would not be a generator of hazardous materials. Soils and water on the site have been tested, and although elevated levels of some metals were detected, they fall below the thresholds defined as hazardous materials see Section 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The dust control mitigation measure identified in Section 3.3 Air Quality would protect sensitive receptors in the Project area from impacts associated with fugitive dust. The Project conforms to and implements this policy. Fire Hazards Policies 8.4-G-1 and 8.4-1-4 Minimize the risk to life and property from fire hazards in South San Francisco; and, Require site design features, fire retardant building materials, and adequate access as conditions for approval of development or improvements to reduce the risk of fire within the City. Analysis: These policies are implemented by the City through Project review. The Project as a matter of law, is required to meet the requirements of the building code as levied by the Fire and Building Divisions through building permit review. Standard measures require sprinklering of the building, use of fire resistive materials, alternate power back up in case of an emergency, well marked exits, maximum occupancy standards for various rooms serving as restaurants, meeting rooms and conference hall. The Project as a matter of law complies with these policies. Aircraft Safetv Policies 8.7-G-1 and 8.7-1-1-1 Minimize the risk of life and property from aircraft accidents in South San Francisco; and, Do not permit any land uses that pose potential hazards to air navigation in the vicinity of SFO. These land uses include any use that would: direct a steady or flashing light of red, white, green or amber color towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward a landing, other than FAA-approved navigational lights; use sunlight to be reflected toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or in a straight final approach toward landing; generate smoke or rising columns of air; would attract large concentrations of birds within the approach and climb-out areas; or engage electrical interference that may interfere with aircraft communications or aircraft instrumentation. Analysis: The City prohibits residential land uses in the East of 101 Area. This prohibition is predicated on the assumption that residential uses which are considered sensitive receptors would be exposed to aircraft related noise 24 hours a day seven days a week year round. This is a measure implemented to protect the public health. Hotel uses are permitted as they are transient in nature resulting in reduced exposure to aircraft impacts. PAGE 3-66 55O GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The 1981 San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan, in coordination with Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, established a 161-foot above mean seal level height limit around San Francisco International Airport. Maximum heights increase the further away the property is from the airport. The Project site is within the 211 foot height limit established by the ALUC and the City of South San Francisco (Figure 2-3, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999). The Project would be 161 feet above mean sea level. The height limit is designed to protect life and property around an operating airport. The Project conforms to and implements these policies. Noise Element General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan Policies 9-G-1, 9-1-5, 9-1-6 and 9-1-7 and East of 101 Area Plan Noise Policy NO-1 and NO- 4 Protect public health and welfare by eliminating or minimizing the effects of existing noise problems, and by preventing increased noise levels in the future; Require that applicants for new- noise sensitive development in areas subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, obtain the services of a professional acoustical engineer to provide a technical analysis and design mitigation measures; Where site conditions permit, require noise buffering for all noise- sensitive development subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL. This noise attenuation method should avoid the use of visible sound walls, where practical; Require the control of noise at source through site design, building design, landscaping, hours of operation, and other techniques, for new developments deemed to be noise generators; Hotels in the East of 101 Area shall be designed so that the calculated single-event noise level due to an aircraft flyover does not exceed 55dBA in hotel rooms, and the CNEL does not exceed 45dBA; and, New development shall be designed so that the average noise resulting from the new development does not exceed an Leq of 60dBA at the nearest open space or recreational area. Analysis: The Project site is within the 60-65dBA, CNEL Projected Noire Environment including traffic and train noise sources (Figure 9-2, General Plan, page 283), and is under the 65dBA, CNEL Aircraft Noire Area (Figure 9-1, General Plan, page 279). Standard new construction would attenuate interior noise levels approximately 20dBA, which would result in interior ambient noise levels of approximately 45dBA. The City, through the building permit process requires a Title 24 Noise and Energy analysis to be conducted, and for the recommendations of the analysis to be included as part of the project. Title 24 requires habitable rooms to be 45dBA for hotel uses. Typical methods to attenuate noise include increased window glazing and wall assemblies that attenuate noise. These measures, if needed, would be required to be included on the building permit drawings and to be incorporated into Project construction as a matter of law. Project traffic is estimated at approximately 109 average daily trips (see Section 3.15 Transportation and Circulation). Traffic volumes along Gateway Boulevard are 4,000 per day (Sam Bautista, Senior Civil Engineer, City of South San Francisco, April 2008). The Project would contribute approximately 2.7% additional traffic to the traffic volumes in the area. Typically, a doubling of traffic volumes (or in this case the addition of 4,000 ADT) would result in a 3-5dBA 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-67 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST increase in noise. The Project would not result in additional noise in the area, and as such is not considered a noise generator. The nearest open space is the play area across Gateway Boulevard which is associated with the day care use. The Project as noted above would not result in an increase in noise in the Project area. Therefore soundwalls and additional external noise attenuation features would not be needed. The Project complies with and implements these noise policies. EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN Geotechnical Safety Element Fill Soils and Slopes Policies GEO-1 and GEO-3 The City shall assess the need fox geotechnical investigations on a project-by-project basis on sites in areas of fill as shown on Figure 17, and shall require such investigations where needed; and, Given the extensive use of the area for industrial and waste disposal purposes, investigations by both drilling and examination of historic aerial photographs shall be conducted by project developers in all fill areas to determine if landfills exist under the site pnor to construction. Analysis: The Project site is not mapped on Figure 17. However, the Project, as a matter of law, is required and did submit a geotechnical report and undergo City peer review. The recommendations of the report and peer review are required to be incorporated into the Project through the building permit process. The Project site is not located on a former landfill. Approximately two to four feet of fill is on the site as a condition of previous site clean-up discussed in Section 3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The Project conforms to and implements these policies. Policies GEO-7 and GEO-8 New slopes greater that five feet in height, either cut in native soils or rock, or created by placing fill material, shall be designed by a geotechnical engineer and should have an appropriate factor of safety under seismic loading. If additional load is to be placed at the top of the slope, or if extending a level area at the toe of the slope requires removal of part of the slope, the proposed configuration shall be checked for an adequate factor of safety by a geotechnical engineer; and, The surface of fill slopes shall be compacted during construction to reduce the likelihood of surficial sloughing. The surface of cut or fill slopes shall also be protected from erosion due to precipitation or runoff by introducing a vegetative cover on the slope or by other means. Runoff from paved and other level areas at the top of the slope shall be directed away from the slope. Analysis: The Project, as a matter of law, is required to submit a geotechnical report and undergo City peer review. The recommendations of the report and peer review are required to be incorporated into the Project through the building permit process. The Project conforms to and implements these policies. PAGE 3-68 S50 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Liquefaction Policies GEO-10 and GEO-11 Infill areas mapped on Figure 17, a geotechnical investigation to determine the true nature of the subsurface materials and possible effects of liquefaction shall be conducted by the project developer before development; and, Development shall be required to mitigate the risk of liquefaction. Analysis: The Project site is not mapped on Figure 17. The Project, as a matter of law, is required to submit a geotechnical report and undergo City peer review. The recommendations of the report and peer review are required to be incorporated into the Project through the building permit process. Liquefaction and all other issues pertaining to soils and stability are addressed in Section 3.6 Geology and Soils. The Project conforms to and implements these policies. Groundshakin~ Policies GEO-12 and GEO-13 Structural design of buildings and infrastructure shall be conducted according to the Uniform Building Code and appropriate local codes of practice which specify procedures to reduce the effects of ground shaking on structures; and, Development within the boundary of the Coyote Point hazard area, as depicted on Figure 15, shall be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer. Fault trenching may be required on individual development sites where feasible and determined necessary by the engineer. No structure for human occupancy shall occur within 50 feet of identified active faults, unless a geotechnical investigation and report determine that no active branches of that fault underlie the surface. Analysis: The Project as a matter of law is required to conform to the Uniform Building Code. The Project, as a matter of law, is required to submit a geotechnical report and undergo City peer review. The recommendations of the report and peer review are required to be incorporated into the Project through the building permit process. Groundshaking and all other issues pertaining to soils and stability are addressed in Section 3.6 Geology and Soils. The Project is not within 50 feet of an active fault. The Project conforms to and implements these policies. Conservation Element Policies CON-1 and CON-2 Prior to construction of development projects on sensitive resource lands, the City shall require an applicant to conduct formal wetlands delineation at the project site. The results of the wetlands delineation shall be made available to evaluate project specific impacts associated with sensitive habitats; The City shall require that developments comply with all State and federal laws and regulations regarding protection and replacement of wetlands. Analysis: As discussed in Section 3.3.4, Biology the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB) approved the take of 601 square feet of wetlands on the Project site and required mitigation of the take at a 3:1 replacement at Bair Island. The mitigation is complete according to Mr. Hable Kifle, Section 401 Water Certification coordinator for the SFRWQCB. 55O GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-69 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Subsequently through an electronic mail correspondence between Homestead Village (the previous property owner) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), the USAGE, Ms. Phelicia M. Gomes, Regulatory Project Manager, verified that the Project "did not have any mitigation requirements associated with it....The decision not to require mitigation for filling of the wetlands on the site was based upon the extremely small size of the wetland (0.03 acre) and its limited ecological value due to high contamination levels." The Project is in compliance with and implements these policies. Policies CON-3, CON-4, CON-5, CON-6 and CON-7 Slopes with native vegetation in the East of 101 Area shall be preserved and enhanced; The City shall take all feasible measures to preserve any sensitive plant and animal species that occur in the East of 101 Area; Prior to receiving approval for construction activities or other disturbances on undeveloped land in the East of 101 Area, project sponsors shall conduct environmental analyses to evaluate the site specific status of plant and animal species; If sensitive plant or animal species would be unavoidably affected by a proposed project, the City shall require the project developer to implement appropriate mitigation measures; and, New development adjacent to sensitive resource areas shall be required to incorporate the following measures into project design: Shield light to reduce off-site glare; Provide buffer areas of at least 100 feet between known sensitive resources and development area; Landscape all on-site buffer areas with native vegetation to screen habitat areas from adjacent land uses; Restrict entry to habitat areas through devises such as fencing, landscaping or signage; and Ensure that run-off from development does not adversely affect the biotic values of adjacent wetlands or other habitat areas. Analysis: As discussed in Section 3.3.4, Biology and above in Policies CON-1 and CON-2, the then-property owner (Mr. Steve Tangney, Homestead Village, Inc.) applied for a Water Quality Certification from SFRWQCB (File No. 2178.07; Site No. 02-41-C0100; Letter to Mr. Steve Tangney Homestead Village, Inc., from Loretta Baxsamian, Executive Officer SFRWCCB. April 1, 1998, attached in Appendix A). The application included a request to fill 601 square feet of seasonal wetlands on the site. This letter also documents the lack of endangered plant and animal species on the site. Environmental analysis was conducted in 1998 and again in 2008. The site does not contain habitat. The vegetation is weedy grasses and pampas grass and limited tree coverage along the edges of the site. The site is surrounded by development; not habitat. The site was previously graded under the auspices of the state Department of Health Services site clean-up, as discussed in Section 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The Project conforms to and implements these policies. The Project would conform to all applicable land use plans and zoning regulations and, therefore, would have no impact. PAGE 3-70 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST c) Conflict with Conservation Plan Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The Project site does not contain biologically sensitive resources, as discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, above. The Project site is not located in a conservation plan, habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan area. Marginal wetlands were located on the site as noted in the Biology section. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on conservation plans. Finding: The Project would not physically divide an established community. The Project would not impede or violate any habitat conservation plan or interfere with the implementation of environmental policies. The Project would not result in any individually or cumulatively considerable impacts with respect to land use. Therefore the Project would have no impactwith respect to Land Use. 3.10 Mineral Resources Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known / mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 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? BACKGROUND The Project site is in a built-out area. The site was previously used as a part of Bethlehem Steel plant and was subject to site clean up by the State Department of Health Services. DISCUSSION a) and b) Loss of Mineral Resources Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental 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 alocally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-71 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST No mineral resources of value to the region and the residents of the state have been identified at the Project site (project background reports and General Plan). The Project site has not been delineated as a locally important mineral recovery site on the City of South San Francisco General Plan, on any specific plan, or on any other land use plan. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on any known mineral resource, or result in the loss of availability of any locally important resource recovery site. Finding: The Project site does not contain any local or regionally significant mineral resources. The Project would result in no impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to mineral resources. 3.11 Noise Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 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 / excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient / noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in / ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project 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? BACKGROUND Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Whether a sound is unwanted depends on when and where it occurs, what the listener is doing when it occurs, characteristics of the sound (loudness, pitch and duration, speech or music content, irregularity) and how intrusive it is above background sound levels. In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for 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 PAGE 3-72 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST decreases at night and exterior noise becomes more noticeable. Further, most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to noise intrusion. Residential, schools and open space recreational uses are generally considered to be noise-sensitive uses or sensitive receptors. To quantify the noise over a 24-hour period, the Day/Night Average Sound level (DNL or Ldn) or Community Noise equivalent Level (CNEL) is used. These noise descriptors include a 10 decibel (dB) penalty (addition to the actual measures levels) during nighttime hours (10 PM to 7AM) and a five dB penalty during evening hours (7 PM to 10 PM) for the CNEL to account for people's sensitivity during these hours. Noise is measured and quantified with an A-weighted filter which closely approximates the way the human ear hears sound; a de-emphasis low-frequency and high- frequency sound. The resulting measurement is quantified as a dBA. A change in a three dBA is considered just noticeable to the human ear. A five dBA change is clearly noticeable and a ten dBA change is perceived as doubling in loudness. Regulatory Framework The City adopted the state Noise Compatibility Guidelines promulgated by the Department of Health Services. These criteria define the desirable maximum noise exposure of various land uses in addition to certain conditionally acceptable levels contingent upon the implementation of noise reduction measures. These guidelines identified in Table 9.2-1 of the General Plan (page 280) state that a noise environment of 70 dBA, CNEL' or less is acceptable for commercial lands use. The Project site is between the 60-65 dBA, CNEL noise contour interval (Figures 9-1 and 9-2, General Plan. 1999). The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Section 8.32.050) restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also limits noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at the property line (Section 8.32.050 (d) (2)). Noise Sources The most dominant influence on sound levels in the project area are derived from a combination of roadway and aircraft noise. Temporary spikes in noise levels in the Project area result from construction activities. For example, earthmoving equipment and activities such as compactors, backhoes, tractors, graders, and scrapers result in noise levels 70 to 95dBA at 50 feet from the 1 The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit used to quantify sound intensity. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions in a process called "A-weighting" written as "dBA". CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that for plamiing purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Communits~ Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). 55O GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-73 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST source. Pile driving is typically ranges from 95 to 105 dBA at 50 feet from the source. Pneumatic wrenches produce noise levels less than 90 dBA at 50 feet from the source. The Project applicant has indicated that "it is understood that driven piles will not be used at the site" (Krazan, letter dated August 14, 2008). Therefore the potential impacts associated with driven piles which include vibration and noise during construction, plus potential inducted settlements or other damages to nearby buildings is not analyzed in this document. DISCUSSION a - c) Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards, Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Excessive Groundborne Noise Levels, a Substantial Temporary or Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity above Levels Existing Without the Project Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the South San Francisco General Plan or the City's Noise Ordinance. Operational Noise: The operation of a Project could increase ambient noise levels through the doubling of traffic on local roadways, or by the nature of the activities conducted on the site. The Project is considered a commercial activity. For planning purposes commercial activities are not considered to substantially increase noise in the area, in a way that industrial activities are expected affect noise levels. Traffic volumes need to double in order to result in a barely perceptible increase in noise levels (i.e., 3-5 dB). The Project would not result in a doubling of traffic volumes as noted in Section 3.13 Transportation and Circulation of this document. The 166-room hotel would generate 109 ATD (Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Rates, 7`" Edition). Traffic volumes along Gateway Boulevard are 4,000 per day (Sam Bautista, Senior Civil Engineer, City of South San Francisco, (April 2008). The Project would contribute approximately 2.7% additional traffic to the traffic volumes in the area. The 1999 General Plan Noise Element contains existing and future airport and road and rail noise contours. The Project site is within the 60 to 65 dBA, CNEL projected noise contour interval. Commercial activities are conditionally permitted in a noise environment up to 80 dBA. The Project would not result in an impact on noise levels in the area or be impacted by the existing noise levels in the area. The Project impact is considered to be less than significant. d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. PAGE 3-74 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant impact if temporary noise would exceed levels that are considered appropriate for sensitive receptors. Project Construction: Project construction would result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy grading and demolition equipment. Noise levels from grading operations typically range from about 94 to 97dBA at 25 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment. Construction noise would be lower ranging from 75 to 85dBA at 25 feet for most types of construction equipment. Grading -would result in 5,000 cubic yards of cut and 3,000 cubic yards of fill and the import of 2,000 cubic yards of material. Approximately 100 truck trips would be required to import clean fill to the site. Grading would take approximately two months to complete. Construction and finishing work would 16 months to complete. Therefore, during site preparation the use of heavy equipment, such as a backhoe would result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site. The site is in a commercial area and noise levels up to 80dBA are conditionally acceptable (South San Francisco General Plan, Noise Element. 1999). The office, commercial and hotel land uses in the area are conducted indoors which allows for noise attenuation of up to 20 dB. Outdoor land uses in the area such outdoor play time at the day care center across Gateway Boulevard is conducted outside. Children could therefore be exposed to a temporary exterior noise environment of approximately 80-85dBA, accounting for noise attenuation resulting from distance from the source, during grading on the site. This would be considered a temporary significant impact if left un-mitigated. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to less than significant. Noise Impact 1: Noise exposure to the outdoor play activities at the day care center, considered a sensitive receptor, could reach 80-85dBA during grading operations. Noise Mitigation 1: As a part of the grading permit application the outdoor play schedule of the day care center shall be noted on the grading plans and rough and/or unshielded grading operations shall cease during this time. The grading plans shall note the times of outdoor activities and shall also note that rough and/or unshielded grading will not occur during those times. The air quality monitor (inspector) required by Air Mitigation 1 shall supervise this activity for compliance. Additionally, the operator of the day care center shall be notified by the Project sponsor or his designee of the days and hours of rough and/or unshielded grading activity. The day care operator may opt to conduct more indoor activities during this period. Construction activity noise exposure to outside day care center use would be lower, ranging from 68-73dBA, and would not be considered a temporary significant impact. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-75 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST e) and f) Aircraft Noise Significance Criteria: 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) or in the vicinity of a private airstrip and were to expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. The 1999 General Plan Noise Element contains existing and future airport noise contours. The contours indicate the Project site is located outside the 65-dBA, CNEL existing and future airport noise contours. Based on the City's land use criteria., the proposed Project's commercial land use would be compatible with future noise level projections in the Project vicinity of less than 65 to 65 dBA (CNEL), thereby representing no impact.. Finding: Noise from grading operations associated with Project construction would be considered less than significantwith implementation of Noise Mitigation 1. Operation of the Project would add approximately 2.7 percent to traffic volumes in the area and would not perceptibly increase noise levels in the project area. The Project site is within the 60-65 DBA contour interval which is a permitted noise level for commercial land uses. The Project would not have individually significant or cumulatively significant impacts with respect to noise with implementation of Noise Mitigation 1. 3.12 Population and Housing Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentialty Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the Project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, / either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing / housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, / necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? BACKGROUND The Project proposed a land use and development density that is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning as well as the Gateway Specific and Redevelopment Plan, as noted above in Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning, above. PAGE 3-76 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DISCUSSION a) Population Growth Sign~cance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to induce either directly of indirectly substantial population growth. The Project proposes to develop the site with a 166-room hotel. The Project could indirectly induce population growth though additional employment if it were to exceed the development parameters of a 2.0 FAR outlined in the City's General Plan. The Project proposes a 1.24 FAR and is well within the analysis and density assumed in the General Plan for the Project site. The South San Francisco General Plan assumes a certain amount of employment, and therefore induced population growth by designating and zoning land for such uses. The Project would fit within those growth assumptions and its impact on population growth would be less than significant. b) and c) Displacement of Housing or People Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would result in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing units or people living at the Project site. There are no residential units on the project site, nor are residential units permitted in the East of 101 Area. The Project would not require the displacement of any existing residential units or persons living on-site and therefore would have no impact on the displacement of housing or people. Finding: The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained u1 the South San Francisco General Plan and the Gateway Specific/Redevelopment Plan. The Project site does not include housing and would not displace housing units or residents. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significaritimpact on Population and Housing. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD-INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-77 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES - 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? / iii) Schools? / iv) Parks? / v) Other public facilities? / BACKGROUND The Project proposed a land use and development density that is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning as well as the Gateway Specific and Redevelopment Plan, as noted above in Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning, above. DISCUSSION a - d) Public Services Significance Criteria: 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 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 fire protection, police protection, schools, parks and recreational facilities, or other government facilities. As described above, in Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning and Section 3.12 Population and Housing, the Project would not increase the City of South San Francisco's population. The Project would be redeveloped in an area planned, used and zoned for commercial (a business-serving hotel) use and within the development density envisioned by the General Plan and the Gateway Specific and Redevelopment Plan. With no increase in population, no significant increase in the demand for public services would be expected. PAGE 3-78 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Additionally, as discussed in the Introduction Section, all divisions and departments review the Project and identify conditions of project approval. Through this process any deficiencies or impacts to services are identified, and none have been identified through this process. Therefore, any increased demand for public services as a result of the Project would be considered less than significant. Finding: The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan and the Gateway Specific/Redevelopment Plan. Redevelopment of the Project site would not increase the demand for public services individually or cumulatively. The Project would have less than significantimpact on Public Services. 3.14 RECREATION Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact 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) Does the Project include recreational facilities / or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? BACKGROUND The Project proposed a land use and development density that is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning as well as the Gateway Specific and Redevelopment Plan, as noted above in Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning and Section 3.12 Population and Housing, above. DISCUSSION a) and b) Recreation Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in an increase in the use of existing parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of these facilities could be anticipated, or if it were to include recreational facilities, the construction of which might have adverse physical effects on the environment. The Project would not involve development that would result in a significant increase in the use of existing parks or recreational facilities, and would not incorporate their construction. Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from the development assumptions contained in the 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-79 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST South San Francisco General Plan. The Project Site is proposing a 1.24 FAR and City planning documents evaluated the need for infrastructure, goods, services and parks on cumulative build out in the City which for this site included up to a 2.0 FAR. Therefore, the Project's impact on recreation facility demand or construction would be less than significant. Finding: Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from the development assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project applicant is proposing a 1.24 FAR and City planiziug documents evaluated the needs for infrastructure, goods, services and parks on cumulative build out in the City which for this site a 2.0 FAR. Quimby Act fees, as a matter of the entitlement process, may be levied on the Project. The fees are used to develop parks and open space. Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant impacts individually or cumulatively with respect to parks and recreation. 3.15 Transportation and Traffic Environmenlal Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC -Would the Project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial / in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i,e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, 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 in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design / feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? / f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? / g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or / programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? PAGE 3-80 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST BACKGROUND The Project is the development of a vacant site that has been planned for commercial use since the 1980's by the Gateway Specific and Redevelopment Plan. The proposed FAR is 1.24 where a 2.0 FAR is permitted with a TDM Program. The Project does propose a TDM Program as an employee benefit as well as shuttle service for clients between the Project and the airport. The TDM Program is targeted at a 28 percent mode shift. The proposed 166-room hotel would generate 109 ATD (Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Rates, 7~' Edition). The TDM Program proposes bicycle parking, showers and clothes lockers, free parking for van pool and shuttle services, preferential parking for carpool and vanpool parking, free midday Downtown Dasher taxi service, direct pedestrian paths to transit, a guaranteed ride home, and information boards and kiosks among other ancillary services. The applicant is proposing 154 parking spaces and 166 parking spaces are required by Code (South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.74.060 (i)). However the Gateway Specific Plan District standards stipulate that for airport-related hotels in the Gateway District less than a 1:1 parking ratio may be approved through the Redevelopment Agency's discretionary powers (Table 20.57.250, Municipal Code Section 20.57.250 Gateway Specific Plan District). The City and the Agency have used the 0.92:1 (and in some cases less) parking ratio in the District for other hotels. The Project proposes a 0.92:1 parking ratio which complies with the Agency's actions in the past. Moreover, the parking proposed along with the TDM Program complies with the intent of General Plan Policy 4.3- 1-8, Section 20.74.060 (i)) of the Municipal Code and the requirements of the TDM Ordinance which is to reduce vehicle trips and the need for parking by providing amenities on the site and in the area to foster both trip and parking reductions. Direct access and circulation to the Project site would remain unchanged. Vehicular access to the Project site would be obtained from the existing signalized driveway via Gateway Boulevard. A sidewalk is located along the Gateway Boulevard frontage of the site. City Required Traffic Impact Fee: The City requires the payment of an East of 101 traffic impact fees, which for the Project would be approximately $177,898, and an Oyster Point Flyover reimbursement fee which for the Project would be about $283,507. These fees are to reimburse the City for traffic improvements already in place or planned and approved in the City's Capital Improvement Projects Plan. These improvements are identified in the Introduction Section, Traffic and Transportation Table 1-1 East of 101 Roadway Improvements. 55O GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-81 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DISCUSSION a and b) Increase in Traffic in Relation to Existing Traffic Load and Street System Capacity Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. Project traffic is estimated at approximately 109 average daily trips. Traffic volumes along Gateway Boulevard are 4,000 per day (Sam Bautista, Senior Civil Engineer, City of South San Francisco, April 2008). The Project would contribute approximately 2.7% additional traffic to the traffic volumes in the area. Traffic increases in the East of 101 Area have been planned for and mitigated by the City's planned and under construction area-wide improvements identified in the Introduction Section, Traffic and Transportation Table 1-1 East of 101 Roadway Improvements. As noted above, the Project is required as a matter of law to contribute approximately $453,635 to the construction of the improvements. The fees are collected prior to issuance of building permits (Memorandum from Sam Bautista, Senior Engineer to Gerry Beaudin, Senior Planner, August 16, 2007). Therefore, with the existing and planned improvements in the area and the payment of fees to implement these improvements the project would have a less than significantimpactwith respect to road capacity. c) Alter Air Traffic Patterns Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks Air Navigation Hazards are discussed in Section 3.7: Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The Project would not alter any air traffic patterns that are already in place and, consistent with the previous discussion, the Project would have no impact. d) Hazards Due to Design Features or Incompatible Uses Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to increase traffic hazards due to its design or the introduction of incompatible traffic. Traffic patterns and circulation on the site would remain predominately as they currently exist. Pedestrian access would be improved off of Gateway Boulevard. Lighting would be improved. The Project would have no impact with respect to incompatible land uses. PAGE 3-82 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST e) Emergency Access Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to have inadequate emergency access. The Project would keep the existing site access patterns, and would not change the emergency vehicle access to the Project site and is required to comply with the Building Code provisions for emergency access as prescribed by law. The Project would have no impact on emergency vehicle access. ~ Parking Significance Criteria: The Project would have significant effect if it would result in an inadequate amount of parking being available. Parking is proposed at 0.92 spaces per hotel room. The parking ratio coupled with the TDM Program and area-wide services would be adequate for the Project. The Project would have no lrnpactwith respect to parking. g) Alternative Transportation Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). In 2001, The City Council adopted the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance. The ordinance requires a schedule of alternative mode use requirements based upon project density and in the case of the Project, if an applicant is requesting less parking than required by Ordinance. The Project proposes a TDM Program that includes: • Free parking for car and vanpools and clean fuel vehicles. • Preferential car and vanpool parking. • Passenger loading zone. • Motorcycle parking. • Direct routes to shuttle stops for transit, including BART, Samtrans, Caltrain, Downtown Dasher and future ferry service. • Try Transit Program. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-83 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST • Pedestrian and Bicycle Amenities including pathways and sidewalks with direct access to transit, covered secure bicycle parking and changing and shower facilities.. • Carpool and vanpool ridematching service. • Shuttle services (from Caltrain, BART and other hotels) to the site and between the airport and the site. • Transportation Coordinator. • On-going transit mode shift promotional programs. • Project amenities including food vending, showers and lockers, transportation and commute. kiosks, free Downtown Dasher between 11:00 AM - 2:00 PM. • An "Emergency Ride Home" program for participants in the transit and vanpool programs. • Compliance, monitoring and enforcement including annual commute surveys, annual reporting, penalties for noncompliance and tenant performance and lease language. The Project complies with the City's TDM program requirements. The Chief Planner, after Redevelopment Agency review will amend, modify and finalize the TDM Program as required. The Project would improve the availability of alternative modes of transportation in the area by virtue of the TDM Program which would add to the critical mass of users in the area resulting in an increase of alternative transit modes. The Project would have no impact with respect to alternative transportation. Finding: Based upon the site design, the TDM Program and existing and proposed services and infrastructure improvements in the area, the Project would comply with parking and alternative transportation programs in force by the City. The Project would not result in safety hazards, inadequate parking, or the need to improve circulation on the site or in the area beyond what is envisioned in the City's Capital Improvement Plan of which the Project is required to provide a fair share financial contribution. The Project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to Transportation and Circulation. PAGE 3-84 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.16 Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -Would the 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 significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new / storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve / the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater / treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted / capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes / and regulations related to solid waste? BACKGROUND Utility requirements resulting from Project site buildout were previously assessed in the East of 101 Area Plan EIR and the 1999 General Plan EIR. The development assumptions were based upon up to a 2.0 FAR for the Project. The Project proposes development intensity at 1.24 FAR. The growth projections also take into consideration estimated water and sewage usage projected to 2010. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-85 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DISCUSSION a) Regional Wastewater Treatment Standards Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Project would have no Impact related to an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. This is further discussed in Section 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. b) Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities Potable water is provided for the City of South San Francisco and much of San Mateo County by the California Water Service Company (CWSC), which purchases most of its supply from the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD). All wastewater produced within the City of South San Francisco is treated at the City's Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP), which is located at the end of Belle Air Road, near the edge of San Francisco Bay. The WQCP is jointly owned by the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, and it treats all wastewater generated within the two cities. The WQCP also has contracts to treat most of the wastewater produced by the City of Colma and a portion of the wastewater produced by the City of Daly City. The City of South San Francisco estimates its water and wastewater capacity needs based on the projected General Plan buildout of all land uses. The Project, as demonstrated above in Section 3.9 Land Use, is consistent with and less than the General Plan buildout scenarios, and would therefore has been included in the City's water and wastewater growth projections. The 1999 General Plan EIR indicated that major water delivery, and major wastewater treatment facilities were adequate, or would be improved, in order to meet project water and wastewater demand growth. However, the 1999 General Plan EIR did indicate that local sewer lines in the Project vicinity would be inadequate to handle the projected increased wastewater growth. In response to this problem, the City of South San Francisco initiated a sewer improvement program, whereby individual projects would pay a pro rata, fair share sewer improvement fee to cover the costs of any necessary sewer improvements. The Project as required by law would pay this pro rata fee to help construct local sewer improvements (see e, below). With the mandated payment of the fee, the impact of the Project on increased water and wastewater facilities would be less than significant. c) Storm Water Drainage Facilities Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or in the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. PAGE 3-86 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The proposed Project would replace a porous site with a building and parking area that would add impervious surfaces. The Project would include vegetated swales and improvements required as discussed in Section 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality. Development of the site is governed by law mandating NPDES measures and BMPs into the Project design as identified in the Introduction Section- Hydrology and Water Quality and in Section 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality. The Project is required by law, through the building permit process, to provide drains and downspouts to direct surface water into the storm drain system and the connect to the existing storm drain system along Gateway Boulevard. The Project would have a less than significant impact with regards to increased storm water runoff or expansion of new storm water drainage facilities. d) Water Supply Sign~cance Criteria: 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 Project would utilize existing water entitlements and resources based upon existing site usage and proposed general Plan build out and would have a less than significant impact on other water resources. e) Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a determination 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 City is upgrading its wastewater treatment plant. A "Seaver Facility Development Impact Fee" of $3.74 per gallon is assessed all new and redeveloped projects as a condition of building permit approval. The sewer discharge for the Project is estimated at 400 gallons per day based upon 1,000 square feet of development. Therefore the impact fee for the Project would be $160,970 (Sam Bautista, Senior Engineer. September 15, 2008). With the City planned upgrades the Project would place a less than significant demand on the area's wastewater treatment provider and would not prevent it from fulfilling its existing commitments. f) and g) Solid Waste Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to be served by a landfill with inadequate permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs, or if it were to fail to fully comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-87 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The Building Division, as a requirement of a demolition permit, requires the recycling and / or reuse of demolition materials Qim Kirkman, Chief Building Inspector. July 19, 2007). Project plans are required by law to include recycling areas on the building permit drawings. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would generate a less than significant amount of solid waste, and operation of the Project would be in full compliance with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Finding: The Project as a matter of law the Project would be required to pay wastewater improvement fees. New construction will be regulated by BMPs, an improvement over existing conditions. The Project would result in less than significantimpacts individually and cumulatively to water, wastewater, stormwater and utility impacts and would not exceed regional wastewater standards. PAGE 3-88 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentialty Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact _ Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade / the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the Project have impacts that are / individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects.) c) Does the Project have environmental effects, / which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Quality of the Environment Impacts of the Project are considered to be less than significant with measures that are required by law in addition to the mitigation measures identified herein and as agreed to by the Project sponsor. Implementation of the Project would not degrade the quality and extent of the environment provided all policies, rules and regulations of all relevant governing bodies are adhered to, and the measures contained within this chapter are implemented including the Biology mitigation measure. b) Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts of the Project are considered to be less than significant. As discussed in the preceding sections of this checklist, implementation of the Project would not cumulatively impact the environment provided all policies, rules and regulations of all relevant governing bodies are adhered to, and the measures contained within this chapter are implemented. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-89 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST c) Adverse Effects on Human Beings The Project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Impacts related to noise, air quality, geology and soils and hazards and hazardous materials on adjacent properties are less than significant as mitigated herein and as agreed by the Project sponsor to be included as part of the Project. There would be no other adverse effects on human beings. FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: A. The Project would result in no impact or a less than significant impact with respect to the following environmental areas without additional mitigation identified by this CEQA document. 1. Aesthetics: The Project would not have an impact on the aesthetics or scenic quality at the Project site or in the Project area. There would be no individual or cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetic or visual quality associated with the Project. The Project is not within a scenic corridor. 2. Agricultural Resources: The Project would not adversely affect any existing agricultural operations since the site is vacant, its historical use was steel manufacturing and the site contains low levels of toxic contamination. The Project would not impact agricultural resources individually or cumulatively. 3. Cultural Resources: The Project is located on a previously developed and graded site and in a developed area. Based upon the Holman & Associates reconnaissance, literature search and report there are no historic, archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains located on the Project site. The Project would have no impact on cultural resources. 4. Hydrology and Water Quality: The City's standard conditions of approval which implement state, federal and local regulations are required by law and are adequate to address any potential water quality impacts as a result of project construction or occupation. No mitigation measures, above those required by the City as a matter of law, are identified in this Initial Study. The project would result in a less than significant impact to hydrology or water quality resources and would not contribute to a cumulative impact to hydrology or water quality resources. 5. Land Use: The Project would not physically divide an established community. The Project would not impede or violate any habitat conservation plan or interfere with the implementation of environmental policies. The Project would not result in any individually or cumulatively considerable impacts with respect to land use. Therefore the Project would have no impact with respect to Land Use. PAGE 3-90 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 6. Minerals: The Project Site does not contain any local or regionally significant mineral resources. The Project would result in no impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to mineral resources. 7. Population and Housing: The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan and the Gateway Specific/Redevelopment Plan. The Project site does not include housing and would not displace housing units or residents. The Project would result in a less than significant impact and would not result in a cumulative impact with respect to population and housing. 8. Public Services: The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan and the Gateway Specific/Redevelopment Plan. Redevelopment of the Project site would not increase the demand for public services individually or cumulatively. The Project would result in a less than significant impact and would not result in a cumulative impact with respect to public services. 9. Parks and Recreation: Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from the development assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project applicant is proposing a 1.24 FAR and City planning documents evaluated the needs for infrastructure, goods, services and parks on cumulative build out in the City which for this site a 2.0 FAR. Quimby Act fees, as a matter of the entitlement process, may be levied on the Project. The fees are used for parkland and open space development. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact and would not result in a cumulative impact with respect to parks and recreation. 10. Transportation and Circulation: Based upon the site design, the TDM Program and existing and proposed services and infrastructure improvements in the area, the Project would comply with parking and alternative transportation programs in force by the City. The Project would not result in safety hazards, inadequate parking, or the need to improve circulation on the site or in the area beyond what is envisioned in the City's Capital Improvement Plan of which the Project is required to provide a fair share financial contribution. The Project would result in a less than significant impact and would not result in a cumulative impact with respect to Transportation and Circulation. 11. Utilities and Service Systems: The Project as a matter of law the Project would be required to pay wastewater improvement fees. New construction will be regulated by BMPs, an improvement over existing conditions. The Project would result in less than significant impacts individually and cumulatively to water, wastewater, stormwater and utility impacts and would not exceed regional wastewater standards. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-91 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST B. The Project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to the following environmental areas with the additional mitigation measures identified by this CEQA document. 1. Air Quality Air Impact 1: Antimony, arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, zinc and the PCB Arochlor-1254 are in Project soil and could become airborne during Project grading and site work. Dust containing toxic materials could reach sensitive receptors and would be considered a significant Project impact associated with Project construction activities. Air Mitigation 1: There shall be a "zero tolerance" for Project originated dust to cross the property lines of the Project site. A special construction inspector retained and supervised by the City and paid for by the developer, shall be on the Project site during all grading and site work to monitor dust conditions. In addition to the standard dust mitigation measures enforced by the City through grading permit approvals, the inspector shall have the authority to and shall require all woxk on the site to cease should Project dust be generated such that it crosses the property lines of the Project. The inspector shall inspect the outdoor play areas, and indoor areas, at the two day care centers daily and, as necessary, supervise their clean-up (wiping down of outdoor equipment, sweeping and collection and disposal of dust) in order to enforce this mitigation measure. The inspector shall be authorized and required to work with and notify the day care management in the event of any need to require doors and windows to be shut in an unforeseen event of a dust release. Implementation of Air Mitigation 1 shall be supervised by the Planning, Building and Engineering Divisions and demonstrated as in compliance prior to issuance of grading permits for the Project by the identification of the inspector and notes with respect to "zero tolerance of off site dust" noted on the grading plans. Continued implementation of the mitigation shall be supervised by the Engineering Division. Finding: The Project would not result in a significant impact to air quality and would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria non-attainment pollutants (ozone precursors and PM-10). The City's building permit procedure captures the BAAQMD permitting regulations, and Air Mitigation 1, would mitigate potentially significant dust related impacts to sensitive receptors in the area to less than significant. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to air quality. The Project would result in a less than significant impact to air quality as mitigated. 2. Biology Biology Impact 1: Although presence of migratory birds on the site is a remote possibility tree removal during nesting season which is February 1 through August 31 PAGE 3-92 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST would be in violation of the Migratory Bird Act if it were to result in a take of Migratory Birds. Biology Mitigation 1: Outside of Nesting Season: Vegetation and tree removal shall be scheduled to take place outside of the nesting season (which occurs from February 1 to August 31) to avoid impacts to nesting birds; or, During Nesting Season: A qualified biologist (Biologist) shall conduct a survey for nesting raptors and other birds within five days prior to the start of tree removal activities if tree removal is unavoidable during the nesting season. Tree removal and construction activities may take place as scheduled if active nests are not present. Another nest survey shall be conducted if more than five days elapse between the initial nest search and the beginning of tree removal and construction activities. The Biologist shall determine the appropriate buffer to be established around the nest if any active nests are detected. CDFG generally accepts a 50-foot radius buffer around passerine and non-passerine land bird nests, and up to a 250-foot radius for raptors, however the Biologist shall have flexibility to reduce or expand the buffer depending on the specific circumstances. Implementation of Biology Mitigation 1: shall be supervised by the Planning Division and conducted prior to issuance of tree removal, grading and/or building permits. Documentation from the Biologist shall be provided to the Planning Division five days prior to onset of grading activities. Finding: The Project would result in a less than significant impact to biological resources individually and cumulatively with implementation of the Biology Mitigation 1 pertaining to migratory birds. The Project is not located on ecologically sensitive lands and would have no impact on General Plan policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. 3. Geology and Soils Geology and Soils Impact 1: The Project proposes deep Tubex piles (to 60 feet) to mitigate potential liquefaction and differential settlement. Cotton Shires raised the issue of potential corrosion of the steel piles if not properly emplaced which could ultimately result in steel failure. Steel failure would be a significant impact. Geology and Soils Mitigation 1: Tubex piles, or a reasonable facsimile shall be used for the Project as pile driving is not proposed or permitted due to vibration impacts and potential differential settlement of adjacent properties and structures. An independent Structural Engineer (one of the City's choosing financed at the Developer's sole) shall review the Tubex design and reach an opinion of whether corrosion issues are adequately addressed by the current design. There are options for using additives in the grout mix around Tubex Piles to address corrosion concerns, or possibly placing Tubex piles in larger diameter holes that provide thicker grout coverage of the steel should the current design not be adequate. The review and certification shall be conducted prior to issuance of grading permits for the Project. 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INfTIAL STUDYf MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-93 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Implementation of Geology and Soils Mitigation 1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the Project, a Structural Engineer shall review the Tubex design and reach an opinion of whether corrosion issues are adequately addressed by the current design. The Chief Building Official and if required, the City Engineer will implement this mitigation measure prior to issuing a grading permit. Finding: Project impacts would be less than significant with respect to Geology and Soils individually and cumulatively with the measures required by law as a matter of securing grading and building permits and implementation of Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 1. 4. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hazards Impact 1: Construction activities could penetrate the required one foot clean fill cap on the site. Although unlikely, site soils could also be considered hazardous waste under state and federal regulations. Hazards Mitigation 1: Development plans shall address protection of the one-foot thick clean soil cover and underlying soil containing hazardous materials as required by the CC&R's. A Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared by the developer detailing the measures to be adopted to maintain the integrity of the clean soil cap during and after construction (e.g., pile emplacement, grading, utility trenching, etc.) activities, to protect workers health and safety, and to minimize exposure of contaminated soils to the environment (e.g., transported via wind or surface runoff). The SMP shall be peer reviewed for adequacy by the City or its designated consultant. The costs of staff or peer review shall be borne by the Project sponsor. The SMP plan shall include, at a minimum, appropriate soil handling, soil replacement, soil disposal, soil relocation, and clean soil replacement methodologies. Of primary importance is the need to prevent and minimize human exposure, minimize infiltration of water, and prevent soils erosion (both clean soil cover and underlying hazardous material impacted soils). Further hazardous materials testing will be necessary should development plans result in a need to dispose of excess site soils or require the import of additional clean soil cover material, as described in the CC&R's. Excess material shall be tested for hazardous waste criteria as potential RCRA, non-RCRA (Cal-Haz), and TSCA (PCBs) wastes and appropriately disposed. Disposal of hazardous or non-hazardous waste soil may require additional testing based on the requirements of the specific disposal facility. Hazards Impact 2: Project documents do not indicate compliance with geotechnical requirements of one foot of clean fill cap with respect to its permeability, sieve, liquid limit and plasticity index contained in X761.75. Lack of compliance could result in the cap not functioning to its required limits. Hazards Mitigation 2: Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the soil cap shall be peer reviewed by the City or its designated consultant for compliance with at a minimum Code of Federal Regulations in 40CFR~761. The Chief Building Official and PAGE 3-94 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST the City Engineer may exercise their authority to require an on-site inspector retained by the City and paid for by the Project sponsor to oversee and inspect the reconstruction of the cap. The cap shall be designed to meet the performance parameters of TSCA: Permeability (cm/sec), equal to or less than 1 x 10-'; Percent soil passing No. 200 Sieve, >30; and Liquid Limit, >30; and Plasticity Index >15. These criteria may be met by utilization of various methods including additional fill, reuse of existing cap material that meeting proper specification, normal construction products such as visqueen, concrete and specialized vapor barriers. Implementation of Hazards Mitigation 1 and 2 shall be implemented by the Building and Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of grading permits and its continued implementation supervised by the Engineering Division. Finding: The Project site is appropriate for a hotel use as noted in the CC&R's and as remediated in the 1980's. The one-foot soil cap and Hazards Mitigations 1 and 2 and Air Quality Mitigation 1 reduce Project impacts to less than significant. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact hazardous materials exposure or impede emergency response or pose a hazard to an airport or expose people or structures to wildland fires or to impacts associated with hazards or hazardous materials. The Project would not result in cumulative impacts or Project impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials provided the mitigation measures are implemented. 5. Noise Noise Impact 1: Noise exposure to the outdoor play activities at the day care center, considered a sensitive receptor, could reach 80-85 dBA during grading operations. Noise Mitigation 1: As a part of the grading permit application the outdoor play schedule of the day care center shall be noted on the grading plans and rough and/or unshielded grading operations shall cease during this time. The grading plans shall note the times of outdoor activities and shall also note that rough and/or unshielded grading will not occur during those times. The air quality monitor (inspector) required by Air Mitigation 1 shall supervise this activity for compliance. Additionally, the operator of the day center shall be notified by the Project sponsor or his designee of the days and hours of rough and/or unshielded grading activity. The day care operator may opt to conduct more indoor activities during this period. Implementation of Noise Mitigation 1 shall be implemented by the Building and Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of grading permits and its continued implementation supervised by the Engineering Division. Finding: Noise from grading operations associated with Project construction would be considered less than significant with implementation of Noise Mitigation 1. Operation of the Project would add approximately 2.7 percent to traffic volumes in the area and would not perceptibly increase 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 3-95 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST noise levels in the project area. The Project site is within the 60-65 DBA contour interval which is a permitted noise level for commercial land uses. The Project would not have individually significant or cumulatively significant impacts with respect to noise with implementation of Noise Mitigation 1. PAGE 3-96 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD- INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPENDIX A BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS 1. Phase II Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Holiday Inn Express Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA, Krazan & Associates, Inc. Project No. 044-00112. May 14, 1999. 2. Phase II Subsurface Investigation Proposed Holiday Inn Express Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA., Project No. 044-991112. July 13, 1999. 3. Document keview and Comment -Proposed Holiday Inn Express (letter), Krazan & Associates, Inc. September 10, 2007. 4. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Hotel, 550 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA, Project No. 042-07020, Krazan & Associates, Inc. November 12, 2007. 5. Geotechnical Peer Keview KE: 550 Gateway Boulevard Project/Hyatt Place, South San Francisco, Cotton Shires, Associates. February 15, 2008. 6. Updated Pie~ometer Installation, Proposed Holiday Inn Express Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA, Krazan & Associates, Inc. Project No. 044-08005. March 24, 2008, revised March 26, 2008. 7. Updated Pie~ometer Wlater Levels and Groundwater Sample Results, -Proposed Hyatt Place (letter), Krazan & Associates, Inc. April 30, 2008. 8. Keview of Comments-Proposed Hotel 550 Gateway Boulevard (letter), Krazan & Associates, Inc. August 14, 2008. 9. Geotechnical Peer Keview KE: 550 Gateway Boulevard Project/Hyatt Place, South San Francisco, Cotton Shires, Associates. August 22, 2008. 10. Tubex Grout Injection- Pile for Hyatt Hotel, South San Francisco, Corrosion Kate for Low Carbon Steel Ppe Pile, (letter), Ben C. Gerwick, Inc., September 9, .2008, with attachments. 11. Geotechnical Peer Keview KE: 550 Gateway Boulevard Pr ject/Hyatt Place, South San Francisco, Cotton Shires, Associates. September 22, 200$. 12. Hazardous Materials Environmental Peer Keview, 550 Gateway Blvd Pr ject, Proposed Holiday Inn Express, South San Francisco, CA, CSS Project No: 6533. February 26, 2008. 13. Air Quality Assessment, 550 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA., Miller Consulting. February 25, 2008. 14. Conditional Wlaiver of I~aste Discharge~r)equirements and 1Y>ater Quality Certification for Homestead Village Hotel, Gateway Technology Center, Parcel 2A, South San Francisco, CA, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. April 1, 1998. 15. File Number 23280S, Department of the Army, San Francisco District, CORPS of Engineers. June 24, 1999. 16. e-mail from Patricia Gomes to Homestead Village, Inc.,. March 23, 2001 regarding wetland mitigation. 17. Cultural Resources Study of the SSO Gateavay Pr ject Area, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California, Holman & Associates. October 22, 2007. 18. Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, Homart Development Company. August 14, 19$4. Document # 84089729 San Mateo County Recorders Office .rte .: & ASSOCIATES, INC, ___r_._. GEOTECHNfCAL ENGINEERING ENVfRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION May 14, 7.999 Mr. VJ Patel Holiday Inn. Express 2834 El Camino Real Redwood City, Califoniia 94061 72E: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed I~oliday Inn Express 4fl0 Gateway Boulevas•d South San I+'z ancisco, CaJifoi•nia Dear Mr, Patel: ` KA Project No. 042-99112 In accorcl<~.nce with your request, we have completed a Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the above-referenced site. The results of our investigation are presented in the attached report. Tf you have any questions or if we maybe of further assistance, please da not hesitate to contact our office at (408) 271-2200. Respectfully submitted, KRAZAN & ASSOCIA`T`ES, INC. .~~.~ ~ ~ Dawn Y. Kruckenberg Project Manager DYK:sIc With Tea Offices Servin;; The Western Unites] Sk~ites S50 Parrott Street, Suiie One - San lose CA 95112 • (403) 271-2200 • Fax: (408) 271-2201 04299112.DOC i a ,. i . ~ ~ ~` .: GEOTEC~3NICAL ENGZNEER3NG INVIrSTIGATION PROPOSED .ctOLT;DAY INN EXPRESS 400 GA~'EWAY $OULEV,ARD SouTH SAN ~'1zANC>isca, CALIRaRNiA PRO.>ECT Na. 042-99112 3Ui,Y 12, ! 999 Prepared for: MR. VJ PATEL HaLIDAY'1NN EXX'RESS 2834 EL CAMiNC) REAL REDWOOD CITx, CALIFORNIA 94061 Prepared by: xRAZAN & AssoclA'I'ES, INC. ~7tEOTECHNiC:AI. ENGINEERING DMSION 55Q PARROTT STREET,. S`I,TI7E OPdE SAN JC)5E. CALIF(,>RA1IA 9~ 112 ~~UH) 271-22t}Q F ..~:r~ ..~ -~-~~.. ti} tc_ KA Project No, 042-991.12 Page No. 4 at the time of Ibis investigation. Tha granular aaatura of these fzll materials generally Dave a low expansion potential, Penetration resistance of the fill materials ranged from I~ to 79 blows per foot. Dry densities ranged from 112 to 132 pcf. A representative fill sample consolidated approximately 1 percent under a 2 ksf load when saturated. Underlying these fills were the native soils consisting of mediwn dense to dense fzne-grained sands with variable amounts of silts and clays. These sands extended to the maximum depth explored of SO feet. Penetration resistance ranged from 1S to 64 blows per foot. Dry densities rugged from 111 to 123 pcf. For additional information about the soils materials encountered in our borings drilled for this investigation, please refer to the boring logs in Appendix A. GR®UNDWATiR Test boring locations were checked for the presence of groundwater during and at the completion of the drilling operations. Free groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately i4 to 15 feet below site grades. A few hours after drilling, the groundwater level was measured at depths of 10'12 to I 1 %2 feet. Tt should be recognized that ground water elevations may fluctuate with time, ben~lg dependent upon seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, and climatic conditions, as vvell as other factors. Therefore, water level observatiotxs at the time of the field investigation may vary from those encountered during the construe#ian phase of the project. The evaluation of such factors is beyond the scope of this report. C®N*vLUSi®NS tlNl~ RiEC~1V11VIEN]DATI4NS Based on the findings of our field and laboratory investigations, along with previous geoteclniical experience in the project area, the following is a sununary of our evaluations, conclusions, and recommendations. AdrrAinistratiye Sammary In brief, the subject site and subsurface soil conditions are conducive to the development of the Holiday Inn Express. However, the reworking of the existing fill n~aterials should be incorporated into the grading requirements and the foundation design of the hotel. Demolition activities should include removal of any buried structures and backfilling of the excavations with Engineered Fill, Disturbed areas caused by demolition acti~~ities should be also reri~oved andJor reco~npacted. Approximately 3 to 5 feet of fill materials were encountered across the site of the proposed development. These fill materials consisted of silty and clayey sands. Based on our review of the subsurface information obtained from our field investigation, compactive effart was performed during the fill placement. However, additional co~i~paction testing should be performed an the fill material to verify their Kr:az~tn &. Associ:Ites, Inc. With Ten Utfices Serving 31ie Western T3nited States 04299112.DOC c~ ~FM KA Projeet No. 042-99112 Page No. 3 Three major faults are located near the site -- the Hayward paint Zone, the San Andreas Fault Zone and the Calaveras Fault Zone. The San Andreas Fault is located west of the site and was tiie source of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake. The Calaveras Fault is located east of the site and is also considered capable of producing large earthquakes. A southern extension of the Hayward Fault is east of the subject site. The Hayward Fault is considered capable of producing an upper bound earthquake event of Richter magnitude 7.5. There are no active fault traces in the project vicinity, Accordingly, the project site is not within an earthquake. fault zone {A]quist-priola Special Studies Zone) ar~d will not require a special site investigation by an Engineering Geologist. The site is located within Seismic Zone 4. F'IEL~7 AIVI) LABORAT®IdY IN'4TESTIGATIONS . Subsurface soil conditions were explored by drilling 8 borings to depths ranging from approximately 5 to 50 feet below existing site grade. The borings were drilled using atruck-mounted drill rig equipped with 8-inch outside diameter, hollow stem augers. During drilling operations, penetration tests were performed at regular inten~als to evaluate the soil consistency and to obtain information regarding the engineering properties of the subsurface soils. Soil samples were retained for laboratory testing. The soils encountered in our borings were continuously examined and visually classified in accordance with ~t1ie Uxufied Soil Classification System, A mare detailed description of the field investigation is presented in Appendix A. lii addition, 3 hulk soil samples of the near surface subgrade materials were obtained from the proposed pavement area for laboratory R-Value testing. The approximate exploratory boring and bulk sample locations are shown an the site plan. Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to evaluate their physical characteristics and engineering properties. The laboratory testing program was formulated with emphasis on the evaluation of natural moisture, density, gradation, consolidation potential, and moisture-density relationships of the materials encountered. Tu addition, chemical tests were perforned to evaluate the corrosivit~~ of the soils to buried concrete and metal. Details, of the laboratory test program and results of the laboratory tests are sununarized in Appendix A. This information, along with the field observations, was used to prepare the final baring logs in Appendix A. SOYL PROFILE ANTD SU>&SURFAC~ CONI9ITIONS Based on our findings, the subsurface canditior~s encountered were representative of tl2e geologic region of the site. In our exploratory barings, we encoutered fill. materials at depths of 3 to 5 feet below the general site grades. Boring No. 1 was located on the landscape berm, and therefore, uicluded an additional 4 feet of fill above the general site grades. The fill materials consisted of medium dense to dense clayey and silty sands with traces of gravel and debris. The debris primarily consisted of concrete; brick, and asphaltic concrete fragments. Documentation regarding the fill placement was not available to our off ce I~razan & Associates, Inc. With Ten Offices Serving The Western United States 042991 [Z.D9C ~. KA Project No, 042-99112 Page No. 5 strength characteristics. Fill soils which have not been compacted properly azad certified should be removed azad reconapacted. We estimate that reworking of the existing fill materials to a depth of 30 inches below the bottom of the footuzg foundations will. be required to provide uniform support for the foundations . The more sandy and gravelly, cohesionless fill materials encountered in our borings may have a tendency to cave in trench wall excavations. Shoring or sloping back trench sidewalls may be required ~vitlain these sandy soils. After cozxzpletion of the recommended site preparation, the site should be suitable for shallow footing support. The proposed structure footings supported on 34 inches of reworked fill materials zrzay be designed utilizing an allowable bearing pressure of 3;000 psf for dead-plus-live loads. Footings should have a zninimuzn embedzilezit of 18 inches. Site Preparation At the tune of our investigation, no structures were present at the site. Izz general, any septic tazzks, debris pits, or similar structures should be entirely removed. However, if concrete footings are encountered, they should be removed to an equivalent depth of at least 3 feet below proposed footing elevations or as recommended by the'Soils Engineer. Site clearing and demolition activities should include removal and backfill of the resulting excavations with Engineered Fills. Disturbed areas caused by demolition activities should be removed acadlor recompacted. Tlzis co;npactiozz effort should stabilize the surface soils and locate any unsuitable or pliant areas not found during our field investigation. utlzere vegetation exists, the site should be stripped to a minimum depth of 2 inclzes or until all organics in excess of 3 percent by volume are removed. The actual depth of stripping should be determined in the field by the Soils Engineer at the tulle of construction. The stripped materials wiIl .not be suitable for reuse as Engineered Fill. However, it can be used in landscaped or non-structural areas. Designated trees and their associated root systems should be removed and the resulting excavations backfilled with Engineered Fill. Tree removal operations should include roots greater than 1 'inch in diameter. A representative of our firm should be present during all site clearing and grading operations to test and observe earthwork construction. This testuag and observation is an integral part of our service as acceptance of earthwork constniction is dependent upon compaction of the material and the stability of the material. The Soils Engineer may reject any material that does not meet compaction and stability requirements. Further recommendations of dais report are predicated upon the assumption that earthwork construction. will conform to recozaataiendations set forth in this section and the following Engineered Fill section. Prior to flee pIacemezit of Engineered Fill, the exposed subgrade in building pad, extez~ior flatwork, and pavement execs should be scarified to a depth of .12 inches, worked until uniform. and free from large clods, moisture-conditioned to at Ieast 2 percent above optimum moisture, and reconipacted to a nzinimuna of 90 percent of maximum density based on ASTM Test Method D 15 ~7. Krnzan & Associates, Tnc. With Ten C)ffices Serving Tlie Westen> United States 042997 12.UOC KA Project No. 442-991T2 Page No. 6 To provide uniform support of the footing foundations, we recommend that the existing fill materials be reworked to a mnimum depth of 30 inches belor~v the bottom of the footing foundations. The fill materials should be reworked and recompacted as Engineered Fill. The upper soils, during wet winter months, become very moist due to the absorptive characteristics of the soil. Earthwork operations performed during winter months may encounter very moist unstable soils, which iriay xequire supplemental measures to grade a stable building foundation. Typical remedial measures include: discing and aerating the soil during dry weather; mixing t11e soil with dryer materials; removing and replacing the soil with an approved fill material; or mixing thra soil with an approved lime ar cement product. fur firm should be consulted prior to implementing remedial measures to observe the unstable subgrade conditions and provide appropriate recommendations. In addition, project site winterization ,consisting of placement of aggregate base and protecting exposed soils during the constnlction phase should be performed. Ens?irzeez~ed Fell In general, the sandy on-site fill materials and underlying native sands are suitable for reuse as Engineered Fill. All Engineereed Fill should have an organic content of less than 3 percezrt by volume. Engineered Fill should not contain pieces with no more than 10 percent larger than 3 inches in greatest dimension and should be combined tuith finer particles to create a well graded mixture to avoid clustering. All oversized debris should be removed. Engineered Fill should be placed in lifts of approximately 6 inches uncompacted thickness, moisture-conditioned to at least 2 percent above optimum moisture and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of tl~e maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Additional lifts should not be placed ifthe previous lift did not meet the required dry density or if soil conditions are not stable. The preferred materials specified for Engineered Fill are suitable for most applications Kith t11e exception of exposure to erosion. Project site winterization and protection of exposed soils durigng the construction phase should be the sole responsibility of the contractor, since he has complete control of the project site at that time. All Imported Fill materials. should be approved by the Soils Engineer and be in accordance tenth the requirements ofnon-expansive Engineered Fill. Non-expansive Engineered Fill materials should consist of awell-graded, slightly cohesive, fn~e silty sand or sandy silt, with relatively impervious characteristics when compacted. This material should be approved by the Soils Engineer prior to use and should typically possess the following characteristics: Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve 20 to 50 Plasticity Index I2 IIlax7n1Uit1 UBC Standard 29-2 Expansion Index 1S maximum Krazan & Associates, Inc. With Ten (:)dices Serving The V~Iestem United States 042°9I I2. DOC A'' F MR LS NAME qF Fftir~cifa~ ir~Ut*Y -sk,ersa Vt>wc 19 81 "' 1 ~, ~ • ~~ ~S~ vs ~sakoca "T'OrS Sage 'fiarir~•'c ~~~ " @!fl ~8~ 851: ~.LX'7:yi1~ eta i fii •LtO~t"~ M06Ct {/ ~~ . ; 1 ~~[ 1990--1991 . +~ ~.~ fZ_._.._ ____ _ __ ~,,~ 11 .,MC' 1 ,~ ~gilfi to ik(a 1 I 4 rlatai ~kk La L(7f [~i' R~`l .~~ 0 50 Itla m-les 0 50 S60 150 ktlameters ~,A ~ ~::.; i ,. r '~~~ n ~ y v O ~ 4 ~ O t . .. ~~L e Pwtri cn: f~k 4v •q C73La ~~ 1579--1Q8t}--~ ~,rA Hes~ab 4 iocfey l.akis .t'32J:7::t7Q .~7CII~ ~AI+CY °Keaza Fsrzr & :aid t~:fecz-d L._^-T A'w- N~ L~-~ ~.2"-a Q" t.1~ r °N18~. 'TSB ~ t ~~~ -~ '~vrr°cts Viet;' F"18fl75 ~ ~3~Rf ~~B' ~t7fyS~R1 i~ van~r ~~ bass Canym T,odgers Credcburg r~ea ~ -san Anar~zs san c~ye~ ran t'1tEgOCiO $!7l'7 fx31%I~E{ `$lt~Ct~'t3'S'1~ t'ltstg ~'$ai1 .S2.r*4*n Sierra tJekrrc'a {zsts} San 5lrnext Surpsisa Yaitey Yenrixa WJvttisr gSNfvta i.+l~s. '1'~lhite N!a!C •a,.,rs wiiYt 1r331DriC s'iziarx n~pa~ra. 1k~tp~ ~' SLR? ~ ~ `. /'C Yri /~ l .~ s~ L,~a S s a ~ S7 l ~ ` :j.o i~ ~. `" ~ , ~1CA ~ `~ 5 Pe a01 Cam ~~lJt ~6Y "~ "'~~ J ~~ 1°7n RM~ ;~~-:q-'~s:cs - .1VF ~ lvfc _ _~, '~ .- R - ,t ~~~~ _' '_ ~-- \ k S~~tb,a~ i(~! r? SiR L~ n ~ ~ ~~ ~~-~ RG __,_, ~ *0 ....~,t` any ~'r,~t}t ~ -~ ~ tat t-^~~~`'!,;`,.,li1y\`. 1953-1984 y.. !1 a o ~' ~ y ~ ti4 M i a {{ 'l ,. .a • ~ //~. DS \+r ~w dV .4 r _ t ra l t -r_ ~ ~6 ~ o , ~ ~,~ ~ V ,~ ~"~ i _ Favhs zoned fhroUgf~ J2nuarv i, 1°?it. Aaproxisrst~ baundzries of erorft~i :n regions 2nd yeas s~sdis~. w _ ~ + ` ~ fixate: Offer fav1L5 may b e zoned in tf~e fv6ue a-~d ems°.in~ ~sner may be r~~ised vrhen svartarted by new fae:tf data. KA Project No, 042-99ii2 Page No. 2 s Afield unvestigation consisting of drilling 8 borings to depths ranging from 5 to 50 feet for evaluation of the subsurface conditions. Laboratory testing on representative soil samples obtained from. the borings to evaluate the physical and. index properties of the subsurface soils. Evaluation of the data obtained from the investigation and an engineering analysis to provide reconunendations for use in the project design and preparation of construction specifications. m Preparation of this report summarizing the results, conclusions, recommendations, and findings of our investigation. A site plan showing the approximate baI-ing locations is .presented following the text of this report. A description of the field investigation, boring logs, and boring logs .legend are presented in Appendix A, Appendix A also contains a description of the laboratory testing phase of this study; along with the Laboratory test results. Appendices B and C contain guides to eal`thwork and pavement specifications. When conflicts in the text of the report occur with the general specifications iii the appendices, the recommendations in the text of the report have precedence. SITE L®CA'I'I4N AND SITE DESCRIPTI®N The Holiday Inn Express site is roughly about 300 feet square and encompasses approximately 2 acres. The site is located on the east side of Gateway Boulevard in South San Francisco, California, as sho~~I1 on the site plan. The site has a street address of 400 Gateway Boulevard, At the time of drilling, the site was vacant. A Landscaped berm, approximately S feet high, runs along the west side of the property adjacent to Gateway Boulevard, and then diagonally across the northena corner of the site. Several Large, mature trees and groundcover were present along the full Length of file berm. The remainder of the site was generally flat, with a 3 foot difference in elevation from north to south sides of the site. This level portion of the site contained a lo~v growth of weeds. Two overhead transmission towers were present at the south end of the site. GEQL~?GIC SETTING The subject site is located in the San Francisco Bay Region of the Coast Range Geomorphic Province. The Coast Range Geomorphic Province borders the coast of California and generally consists of northwesterly/southeasterly trending ridges of granitic, metavolcanic, aid nletasedzrrlentary rocks. .Numerous northwest to southeast trending faults parallel ille trend of the Coast Ranges. San Francisco Bay is a broad shallow depression within the Coast Ranges that has been subsequently filled with sedimentary deposits. In the vicinity of the subject site, these deposits consist of unconsolidated and cemented sediments comprised of gravel, sand, silt, and clay that underlie broad valleys and flatlands. The sedimentary deposits vary in thickness from a few feet to about 600 feet east and west of the San Francisco Bay. Krazan & Associates, Ina With Ten Offices Bening Tile Wastem tJnlted States - ~ U4299112.DOC 4' & ASSOCIATES, fNC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & lNSPECTiON July 12, 1999 KAProjectNo.42-99112 GEU7['EC313NICAI. ENGINEERING IN'V'EfiTI~A`I'IUN l<IUI..IDA.'~' INN EXPRESS 400 G.r~'I'EVdAI' ]BOIJI.EVARil2 S®iT'TJ~ SAN k`RANCISCU, CALIFGRNIA INTRCADUCTIUN This report presents the results of our Geoteclurieal Engineering Investigation for fife proposed Holiday Inn Express development. -The site is located at 400 Gateway Boulevard, north of Grand Avenue, in South San Francisco, California. Discussions regarding site conditions are presented herein, together with conclusions and recommendations pertaining to site preparation, Engineered Fill, utility trench baclcfill, drainage and landscaping, foundations, concrete floor slabs and exterior flatwork, retaining walls, .soil cement reactivity, and pavement design. PI243PUSED C®NSTI2ITC'TIQN We understand the proposed development will consist of a four-story, wood-framed hotel structure with associated at-grade parking and access areas. The structure vc~ill likely be supported on a footing foundation system with interior slab-on-grades. Anticipated grade changes, i.e., cuts or fills, will be minimal. In the event these structural or grading details are inconsistent with the final design criteria, the Soils Eno Weer should be notified so that we may update tl~lis writing as applicable. PURPUSE AND SCUPS This investigation was conducted to evaluate the soli and groundwater col.~ditions at the site,, to make geoteclanical engineering recommendations for use. in design of specific construction elements, and to provide criteria for site preparation and Engineered Fill construction. Our scope of services was outlined. in our proposal dated June 10, 1999 (Proposal No. PS399-095) and uicluded the following: ® A site reconnaissance by a member of our engineering staff to evaluate the surface conditions at the project site, With Ten of#ices Serving The Western United States 556 Parrott Street, Suite one • Snli Lose CA 95112 • (408) 271-2200 • Fnx: (408} 27t-2203 Da299112.DOC & ASSOCfATES, 1NC. GEOTECF-iNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TES7lNG & INSPECTION TABLE OP' CONTENTS INTRODUCTI QN .....................................................................................:.......................................... a PROPQ5ED CQNSTRUCTZ>DN .........................................................................................................a ]PURp~1SE Al\TD SCOPE ......................................................................... ........................................a SITE LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIFTION .................................................................................Z GEOLt~GJ;C SET'I'ING ...................................................................................,.......................:...........2 FIELD AND LABdRAT®RY INVESTIGATI4NS .....................................:....................................3 S®IL PI.t®FILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIQNS ......................................................................3 GRQUND WATER........... ................................................................................................................4 CGNCLUSIQNS.AND R1uC01~I1VIENDATI®NS ...............................................................................4 Administrative Summar5~ ........................................ .............................................................................4 Site Preparation Ezlgineered Fitl ...........................:........................... ...............................:.............................................6 Drainage and Landscaping ..................................... ...................................:.........................................7 Utility Trench Backfill ........................................... .............................................................................7 Foundations-Convez~tional .................................... ............................................................................. 8 Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork .:.......................: ...........................:.................................................8 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Wails .......... ............................................................................9 R Value Test Results and Paveme:~t Desig~~ ............ ...........................................................................10 Site Coefficient ...................................................... ...........................................................................11 Pipe Corrosion ....................................................... ...........................................................................11 Soil. Cement Reactivity ........................................... ........................................................................... I I Compacted Material Aceeptance ........................... ............................................................................ l I Testing and Inspection ............................................ ...........................................................................12 LIII~ITATIONS ......................................................................................:........................................... a2 SITE PLAN ...................................................................................................................:...................a4 L®GS ®F BORINGS (1 T4 8) ................ ..................................................................... Appendix A GENERAL EARTHW®RK SI'ECI]F'ICATIGNS .................................................:........... Appendix B GENERAL PAVING SPECIFICA'I'I®NS ........................................................................ Appendix C With Ten Offices Serving Tfte Western Unifet[ Sfafes S50 Parrott Street, Suite Ona • San Jose CA 951 12 • {408} 271-2200. 1'ax; {408} 27I-2201 . D4299172U(7C ~,. .~ S6 N 'L J~Ii SSt~d . ~N3~2 i3c# o o n o 0 0 0 0 o a i ~ O ~ n O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ C D V ' O I p n A - - _ - _ ns - __ - - --- - ~ - - -- ----- s,. _- --- - - - .~ __ _ .__ ___. _~._ 4*1 - -- - -~ --- - - a 0 .S - --- --- --- -- ---- - -°_ ~ __--- m 0 0 i tlf Gs o ~ c V _ ~ o - - - ._ ~ _-_. --. ._.__.. :_..._..__..- _._._.._ ~ 'L7 g/'? sn m ---- _ _ ..._._.._ _~..._.~._ .___ ___._ _.__~ .. . _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .`° T ~ '~ ~i. d ~ ~ y m U . .. r - - -- ...- _ - . ..._ .._ _ . SS. - - . - ___ - . -_ '. .-.__-_ _" _-. _- _. - __ _ Q ~ M r N o~ i.. U r ~ _. - --. C N ,_ . _ ~ o, _. ____. ,-_.._ _,_ _..~.. _r..__~ _.-___~ ._.._ .._._._ _~___ m m M ~_.~...- .._~_._-.- °_--- ---~._..~ ------- -- -~- - O m QS Q. x ~ ~ Q r L[J T ia.. ~ m L O ~ d~ .GI LII .f7 w ~ ~Z u~i ~ ... sv ~ ~ ~ C3 a- O O 'O of 6 t s C :i-+ ~- P•f RS a,. N .~ _~ C '~. ~? .~ L JI~I SStl~ .Lf~~~~ f~d O O o O O b O C 7 O O O O b O O r O O C ~ O O N O - f O D ~ O '~ f' M N r O ~- O O _ ~ V --- --- - O ---- -- - -- ---- w __ ~ ~- ~ ---_-- _._._ _. - fl3 _ ~ -- - - -- - ---- •- --- --- o 0 m --- - - -- E 0 2 o _ C N _. ~ _ _ ~ N ~ i., Q.1 !~ o N ~ o ~ ii f/} ~ o --- -- ---- --- -._~ _..__.-- ------- -~-- VJ ~ ~_ ~ «.. ~ - O --- ~ "i'3 SA) °> - - --- ~ ~ 'a -~- -- Z - --- - -- - --- ~ •~ - - -- - - - r ~ ~ - sfl `°' a ~ ` m a c c~ - - - ~ R p ~ U - - __... _ c ---- -- ---- - - "- - - M N r ~ m ~ C7 (Sf L U r C _ - - - C .N N _ ~ N O e~ C T ' _ ~ Q c a - - -- - - - ---- U - --- -- -• -- ~ M - '-- --- --'- '-- -•-~ - --- ----- -'-~ p O N k UJ C C O r ~ Z s- ~ Q. d7 Q~Um C ~ O ~ ~ .Q ~.. '~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ,N ~ Z ~ Z .~., RS N N ~ ~ f1 ~ ~ O CIf LL (1.U}U) >, 0 ~. qL 4pp~gl •i.i J ~' 4ti a. ~~.. .~ .~ V ~~E~ SS~dd .LN~a? 3~d 0 O 0 m 0 ~ o ~ a a ~ o im Q M b o ~ ( D t V ' C V ~ .-- O r~ . _ _ ~~ _ , - F~ _ _ ~_ _ Q _.T- _ _ _._ _ __ _ rtw _ ~ ~__ . . ~ - _r--- ~___ ____ (~ _ ._ . _ _ _ _ o 0 N _ __._ . _ _, ~ W a . . a - _ --- - --- - --- ~ -- _ _-- --.._ . __ _ __-- o - - --- ---- o _. - - ~ ~ _ _ ~. a ~ ~ o d 'V ~ Li o ~ w tf~ ~ o ------ - - ....- ------ -- -- - -- N N ~Q ~ "~! SJ} { rt . _~_____ ._. . ~ _~ X7'1 Mr l Z _. __ _ ._ __ _ ~ .~ - - r N ~ -- ~~ ~ 'O ~ 4 ( .G i ._~ r - - _~_. - __ - - _ ._.... Q ~ U __ u, _ __ . ~ --- - - - ~ ~~ _ - - o ~ M ~ N _ ~ _ ~- _ ,_ .~ , __.-- rte' N ,y M [ -- ~ ~ .. ~b~., ~ / r . N N _ ~ ..._..._ _,~ _.._ _ y r C .c, T. - _ _ _ ~_~ ~_ -_...___ O .._ U m th _.___. ___ _.__-- -_ __- ,- _ __- -__..__. ..._._.__ _..~ O n N K ~_ ~ Q .fir. J.f) ~ r M Gi. ~ L fl Q~ ~ ~ .Q iy= ~ ~ ~ ~fn ~~ ~,z .~...;.., to cta ~ w U ~ O 4 'O c~6 ~av~cn Q +$r ~` a..d ~~ 4i L~ i'~ 4~4' eV { w/ '~ ~M W Yd .~ br i ~ras ss~d s.n~aa~ ad o 0 0 0 0 o n o b ~r rn ~ h p9 ~ ~ - M N ~ O ~- O O ~ ~ _~ p ~ V _ -_ _ *Ir O O _ ~ _~ ._ N ~ _._ "Q _ _ _ _ .~:_~ .y.- _ -__ _. O L N + Q? ~ r ~ ~ ~. __ r. vI ...~_ _.__ _ ._ ~ i O ~k __ ..._ _~. _ __. _....__ ~ fv ~... ~~ __ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ V f - __.~ _.__ -_. _ _ _- _ _ _ - - ' ~ ~ o (~ ~ v ~ry E G3 ~ Z _ - d, - r ~ ~ r n C - ..~_ - ~q - - ~ m ~k to __ c - - ---- - O ~ c'> N r ~ ~ m -- L V r- S~ RR V C _ _ C 47 N -.~ .--. ~ ~ r ~ . O N ~ M ~_.__ _~-... ..~..__ ~ __.._ __ ,__.. __..._ __. _ c. N C C ~ ~ d' '~ N 2 ~~d. ci. rn ~ D.. ~ U3 0~ C L fl ~ N ~ t6 S1 ~ ~ vim.. 7 Z ~ ~ Z ..~ ~ ~ N N N U Q ~ .~ O t6 aacncn 5~.qr V LL~ f"-' `~`+ IV ~~~ e~~ s' ..y~,~ A pp~ iP0 ~~ $.. :?A4f 5$Hd 1N3~ ~~c~ ° o o a o 0 o a n o Gr rn ~ ~ cp D ~ bp ". M N a p o c- 0 d 0 C7 '- - ' N - - -- -- - --- m O T S. 0 ~ _-_ ..._. _~ _. ~. __ . -- ~ - ,~.. 0 . -- . - . _.. -- - - '-. - ~ ~ L C~6 o cll ~ ._ _ __ _ _ __ _ . _ ~ tCOt _.._ _ ~ _ ~_ # .~ _. _ ._._ - __.~_ ._ ~ _..,.._ .~__ ~~ o ._.._.~_ .~ _ ... . _ _ _ F~ n^ Y/ L _ . _ _._. .~ . _ _ _"'" _ ~ _ _ i ~ j _ .. _ __ ~ rt (p 4,i m - ---- -- - _ _ -- - ro - --~~ ~. - -- -- - a~ m ~--- -___. _- - ----•- - ~-- --~- ~ U - --- ----- -- - ~ ~ - - __ - _ . _ . - --- ---- ~ m c __._ ~ _ _. ._. ~ ~~_ ___ _ _._ _.~ _ _._ r r M N -~ e- ~t r7 ~ N Cr1 _ L U r" C N w ~- ~ °' M --- - Q N X ll.S css ~ a ~ ~ ~ •-- N ~~ ~`tUU)m G ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z m z m a~iU °- oo'om o. a. cn u~ i.. ...~ +F+ L., ~; ~a~p~~t®~ Cc~r~apac~~®~ ~~I~~ Project Number Project Name Date Sample locat(on SamplelGurve Number So(( C(ass'sficatian Test Method ~.~T~ -~ CD~55`T, C~6~~ 4299112 Drop. Hol(day Inn Express 06/30/99 $3 @ 2.5-4' G2 : SC 1557A 1 2 3 4 Wei ht of Moist Specimen & Maid, gm 3983.3 4130.9 4191.8 4104.4 Weight ofi Compaction Mold, m 1987.9 1987.9 1987.9 9987.9 Weight of Moist Specimen, gm 1995.4 2143.0 2203.9 2116.5 Volume pf mo1d, cu. ft. 0:0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 Wet Densi , lbslcu.fit. 132.5 142.3 14fi.3 140.5 Weight a# Wet (Moisture} Sam le, gm 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 Weight of Dry (Moisture} Sample, gm 187.3 184.2 181.0 177.8 Moisture Content, % 6.8% 8.6% 10.5°l0 12.5% Dry Density, Ibs/cu.ft. 124.1 131.1 132.4 124.9 150 " 148 140 135 ~ 130 v ~ 125 ;? 120 p 115 .110 • 108 100 95 . 0°l0 5% 10% 18% 20% 25°l0 Moisture Content, % of Oty Weight ( _ Maximum Dry Density: '133 U IF~slcu.f't ~ . _ = Optimum Moisture Con#ent: 7Q.fl °>° -- J _ ~-- ----. ~---- ~- -- r--- -- - ~. ---- - -~ - -- ~~__.. ~ - ,, --• ~---- __. --- _ _.__ _ ~1 _ _ i -• -- =< L> Y-- > - -- - ~-- - -- t__-. ~---~--.i ......_ , _._.._-_f ~ ( 1 y` _._ -iL~--~ ~ - .F .._-_t ' - I ~ rM i Kr~~~ln ~"~s~~~g ~.~~®ra~~il-~ Project dumber Project Name Date Sample location Sample/Curve plumber So'si Classification Test Me#hod ~'.: La~ora~oir~ ~®rnpao~~®r>t ~u~ire ~~~`1Vt ~ ~J'I X57, ®S9~ :4299112 Prop. Holiday Inn Express : Q6130199 B4 2 3-5' . G4 : SG : 1557A ~ 2 3 4 Wei ht of Moisf Specimen & Mold, 9m 4101.2 4188.9 4260,9 4226.4 Wei ht of Com action Matd, gm 1987.9 187.9 1987.9 1987,9 Weight of Moist Specimen, m 2113.3 2241.0 2273.0 2238.5 Vaiume of mold, Cu. ft. 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 Wet Density, lbs/cu.ft. 140.3 146.2 150.9 148.6 Weight of Wet (Moisture Sample, gm 204.0. 200.0 200.0 200.0 Weight of Dry {Moisture Sara le, gm 187.7 183.9 180.0 177.2 Moisture Con#ent, % 6.6% 8.8% 11.1 % 12.9°/a D Density, ibs/cu.ft. 131.7 -134.4 135.8 13'1.7 150 145 140 135 ~ 130 - 3 ,yp 125 ~'+ ~ 120 d n a 115 110 - 105 100 95 ` ~% 5% 10°/a 15°/a 20°l0 25% Moisture G©ntent, %a of Dry Weight = -' ~ - • «~ - _ Maximum Dry Density: 136 0 l#sfcu.ft - . - O tie~aum Mo'sture Content. 1© ~ - a_ _ p . _ _ - -~ -__. r - -- _ `^ _-'- ~-«- - .,_ __ ____ -- - - - - - - ~ - __ - -- - - - _ _ f-_ ~-- -_ -~ _--~-__- _ _.__ -_.. r -_ -- ~- _- _ .._ _I . __..i .._. ;~ ~ ~ ._..- , , _ _ --- ---l --i ---s ~----1 -== ~Cra~an ~'~~~~li-~g ~.a~orat~ F~• ~, ~~~n~ ~ - ~~~~ j c~.~ ~o~ Project Number Project Dame Date Sample Location/Curve Number Svil Classification 4299112 Prop. Hoiiday Inn 7/2/99 RV# 1 (SM}. TEST A B C Percent Moisture @ Compaction, % 13.5 12.4 1.1.4 Dry Density, ibm/cu.ft. 1'(6.9 119.3 721.7 Exudation Pressure, psi 160 210 340 Expansion Pressure, (Dial Readin) 0 0 0 Expansion Pressure, psf 0 0 0 Resistance Vaiue R 43 50 56 R Vaiue at 3Q0 PSi ~xuctatior} Pressure 54 R Value b~+ Expansion Pressure (T1=): 5 Expansion Pressure nii i .....o..~._ ...._.~._, ~ 3 08 P Si 4 - - - ~ ~ 100 ~ ~ ~ ~ f 90 --~ --- --- - - - _.. ---~ -__ - t - - __! -- ~ ~ 1 ! I i ~ ~ 3 2 . • ! I l i 80 8 2 i ~ • . X I 70 Y ` ~ ~ c 4 ~ ~ } ` ~ 1 2. ~ i I r { ~ 60 H ~ I _ ~ I i m ~ ~ ~ I ! 50 X2.0• { f ~ ~ yr I 3 i ~ ~ ` _ _ a I ~ ~ ao a.s N I ~ , °' ' ' l I I 30 U1.2 i I II I { I + I ~ i f - - ~ i . I I I ~ ~ o,a- i ~ _ ; I ~ ~ I 20 ~-- ~. -~ -- _ - i ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~o n,a ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ` i 1 i i i f f i t I 0.0 Q t i' ~ N ( O O d ' C 6 C V ~D O o O 0 O O 0 Q ~ , 0 O n 0 O O 0 O ~ 0 O ~ 0 O C7 0 O N 0 Q r 0 O O O Co ve r T hi cK. N E xp N . P re N ssu re M , fi t M 'd ' ~ E xu d ati on P re ss ur e, PS I ~Craza~ ~'es~in~ dab®~a~~i~ ~~ ~.. ~~ ~. A~'°~"t~ - 244 l ~. 3~'t Project Number Project Name Da#e Sample LocatlonlCur~re Number Soii Ciassif3cation 4299912 Prop. Holiday inn 7f2/99 RV# 2 (SM} TEST A g C Percent Moisture @ Compaction, % 93.2 14.2 9a 2 Dry Density, lbmlcu.ft. 119,3 918.8 118.9 Exudation Pressure, psi 79Q 430 240 Expansion Pressure, (Dial Reading) 0 p p Expansion Pressure, psf p p 0 Resistance Value R 7$ 61 34 R Value a~ 30!0 PSi Exudation Pressure 4,g R Vaiae isy Expansion i~ressure (ii =j: 5 Expansion Pressure nii 4 0 ~ i on P St . { } ion ~ 3 6 1 ~ I 1 ~ . + ~ so -- --- v - -- -• i s 1 3 2 l ~ 1 1 t ~ I . i r 80 - .~ _ .- s-- - - - -- { -- - l. __ ~._ l ~ i ~2 s ~ ~ ~ ~ t ! i l l ~ . 70 2 4 ~ ~ . ~ + I ~ ~ ~ ! 6d ~~ ~ ~ j ' rJO' N d ._ Y - . _.-.~ _ - - tl _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ii J r I ~ .1f ~ s - 1 + I i ~ I . ~ ~ ~o ~ --~ - ~ _ ~ 3 ~ 1 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ . - - ~ M ~ f f l I i { i ~ ; ~ 30 _ _ ~ I i i I j 44 4 0 _ ~ ~ ~ { 1 ~ } l ~ 1 ~ i ~ j ~ . t i ( 1 + ' t . 10 ~ ( ~ ~ ~ + r i ! j ~ f _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ' # 1 o.o . O O V; O . m O N ~ • O c^ O N 'ct -N cp fV N M tD Cl O 'V' O O ~ O O (T1 O O 0~ p O P. O O tD O O [A O ~ O M O ry O O o tl ~ OV Er T hic k. Ex p, Pr es sure, ff Ex u da tio n Pr es su re , PS[ ~~'~~~~ `~es~~ir~g Lab~ara~~~°v' ~. ~L~~ ~~J~ ~s~~ ~ 2~~~ f ~~L 30~ Project Number i:'roject Name Date Sarnpie LocationfCurve Number Soil Glassification 4299112 Prop. Holiday lnn 712199 , RV#1: 3 (SM), Silty Sand wffrace Clay TEST ~ $ G Percent Moisture @ Cam action, °l0 15.6 1 A'.5 14.0 Dry Densit , Ibmlcu.ft. 116.1 119.9 124.5 Exudation Pressure, psi 244 260 ~k44 Expansion Pressure, {Dia# Readin) 4 0 Q Expansion Pressure, sf 4 0 0 Resistance Va#ue R 17 27 42 R Va#ue at 3013 Psi Exucfaftan Pressure 30 R Va#ue by Expansion Pressure (TI =): 5 Expansion Pressur® nif 3 Q0 P SS 4.0 ~ ._. ~ _ , ._ _ _ E I ~ ~ 100 ~ i ~ 3.& • .~ _. _. I .~ ~ .-- ~ .. . _. _ _ ~ 3 ~ • 90 , ~ ( ~ I 3.2 - __ ( I _ { -.I __ i ~ ` , 80 - _ . ~ _ - 1 I ~ 70 ~ 2.8 I l I ~o ° ?.~ L 1 I I ~I ~ ~ ~o ~ 1 s 2.o i ~ ~ ~ ~ > , _ -- ~- _ - -- _ ~w ~ ~ ~ . JJ i 40 V ~.~ H +i 1 _ 3Q X1.2• I ( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E I ~ ~ ~ -20 0.8 ~ I ~ ! ( i ~ l ` l I ~ _.! __ ~ _ _ 4 I i I i , !! 1 10 1 ~ 0.4• 1 1 i o ~ ~~~ O O ' S O ~ ( 3 Co C ve V. r T C hi D ctc. O C E V xp C . P V V re o N ss 1 ure C' M , f ' .i t { t O o O 'd ' O p r O ~ O oQ D E O D xu d O CO ati O on O 07 Pre O ~ ss r O M e, PS O N f O O `- O Kraz~n Te~t~ra~ Laf~ar~~~ry J d d Appendix. B Page I3.1 APPEI`dDIX B EARTHWORT~ SPECIFTCATT®NS GENERAL When the text of the report conflicts with the general specifications in this appendix, the reconunendations in the report have pr-ecedence. SCOPE OF WORT{: These specifications and applicable plazas pertain to and include all earthwork associated with the site rough grading, including but not limited to the furnishing of all labor, tools, and equipment necessary for site clearing and grubbing, stripping, preparation of foundation materials for receiving fill; excavation, processing, placement and compaction of fill and baclcfill materials to the lines and grades shown on tl~e project grading plans, and disposal of excess materials. PERFORMANCE: The Contractor shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with the project plans and specifications. This work shall be inspected and tested by a representative of Krazan and Associates, Inc., hereinafter known as the Soils Engineer and/or Testing Agency. Attaitzment of design grades when achieved shall be certified to by the project Civil Engineer. Both the Soils Engineer and the Civil Engineer are the Owner's representatives. If the Contractor should fail to meet the tecluzical or design requirements embodied in this document and on the applicable plans, he shall make the necessary readjustments until ail work is deemed satisfactory as determined by both the Soils Engineer and the Civil Engineer. 1`7o deviation from these specifications shall be made except upon written approval of the Soils Engineer, Civil Engineer or project Architect. No earthwork shall be perfornzed ~vitlzout the physical presence or approval of the Solis Engineer, The Contractor shall notify the Soils Engineer at least 2 working days prior to the conunencement of any aspect of the site earthwork. The Contractor agrees that he shall assume soil and complete responsibility for job site conditions during the course of construction of this project, including safety of all persons and property; that this requirement shall apply continuously and not be limited to normal workuzg hours;.and that the Gantractor shall defend, indemnify and bald the Owner and the Engineers harmless from any and all liability, real or alleged, in connection with the performance of work on this project, except for liability arising from the soil negligence of the Owner or the Engineers. TECHNICAL REI~UIREMENTS: All compacted materials shall be densified to a density not .less that 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1~~7, as specified in the tecluzical portion of the Soil Engineer's report. The location and frequency o~ field density tests shall be as detennilled by the Soils Engineer. The results of these tests and compliance with these specifications shall be the. basis upon which satisfactory completion of work will be judged by the Soils Engineer. SOILS AND F®UNDATION CONDITIONS: The Contractor is presumed to have visited the site and to have familiarized himself with existing site conditions and the coizteuts of the data. presented in the soil report. I~razan ~ t~ssocirrtes, Inc. With Ten Offices Serving The Weau:rn United St:lies U4299112.D6C ~~ Appendix B Page B.2 The Contractor shall make his own interpretation of the data contained in said report, and the Contractor shall not be relieved of liability under the contractor for any loss sustained as a result of airy variance between conditions indicated by or deduced from said report and the actual conditions encountered during the progress of the work. DUST CONTROL:. The work includes dust control as required for the alleviation or prevention of any dust nuisance on or about floe site or the borrow area, or off site if caused by the Contractor's operation either during the performance of the earthwork or resulting from the conditions in which the Contractor leaves the site. The Contractor shall assume all liability, including court costs of codefendants, for all claims related to dust or windblown materials attributable to his work. Sl<TlE PREPAk2ATIOl~I Site preparation shall consist of site clearing and grubbing acid the preparations of foundation materials for receiving fill. CLEARING ANA GR><TBBTllrG: The Contractor shall accept the site in this preseirt condition and shall demolish and/or remove from the area of designated project, earthwork alI strictures, both surface and subsurface, debris, organic rnatter, and all other matter determined by the Soils Engvieer to be deleterious. Such materials sha11 become the property of the Contractor and shall be removed from the site. SIUBGRADE PRE)?AI2ATION: Surfaces to receive Engineered Fill, building or slab loads shall be prepared as outlined above, scarifed to a deptta of 12 inches, moisture-conditioned to at least 2 percent above optimum moisture, and compacted to 90 percent relative compaction. Tlie upper ** uches of soil beneath the building shall consist ofnon-expansive Engineered Fill compacted to above 90 percent relative compaction. Loose andlar areas of disturbed soils shall be moisture-conditioned and compacted to 90 percent relative compaction. Ail ruts, hununocks, or other uneven surface features shall be removed by surface grading prior to placement of awry X11 material. All areas which are to receive fill materials shall be approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of any of the X11 material, EXCAVAT1iON: All excavation shalt be accomplisiaed to the tolerance normally defia~ed by the Civil Engineer as shown on the project grading plans. All over excavation below the grades specified shall be backfilled at the Contractor's expense and shat! be compacted in accordance tivith the applicable technical requirements. Kr<iza~n & Assfaci.ttes, Ina Wittz Tezz Offices Serving The Western United 3ttztes oaz~o~ zs.n~r, f Appendix B Page B.3 TrTLL AND BACKFILL lYIATERIAL: No material shall be moved or.compacted without the presence of the Soils Enguxeer. Material from the required site excavation may be utilized for construction site fills provided prior approval is given by the Soils Engineer. All materials utilized for constructu~g site fills shall be free from vegetation or other deleterious matter as deternzined by the Soils Engineer. PLACEMEI~IT, SPREADING AND CE~MPACTIQN: The placement and spreading of approved fill materials and the processing and canipaction of approved fiIl and native materials shall be the responsibility of the Contractor, However, compaction of fill rnateriais by flooding, ponding, or jetting shall not be permitted unless specifically approved by local code, as well as the Soils Engineer. Both cut and fill shall be surface compacted to the satisfaction of the Soils Engineer prior to final acceptance. SEASGNAL LIMITS: No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled While it is frozen or thawing or during unfavorable wet weather conditions. When the Work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill operations shall not be resumed until the Soils Engineer indicates that the moisture. content and density of previously placed fill are as specified. Kraz.in & Asxociaees, Inc. With Ten Offices Serving The Western United Stites 042991 l2.DOC ~,.. Appendix C Page C.1 APPENDIX C PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS i. I)EFIN]1TI{~NS -The tens "pavement" shall include asphaltic concrete surfacing, untreated aggregate base, and aggregate subbase. The term "subgrade" is that portion of the area oza which surfacing, base, ar subbase is to be placed. The term "Standard Specifications": hereinafter referred to is the 3a~iuary 1991 Standard Specifications of the State of California, Department of Transportation, and- the "Materials Manual" is floe Materials Manual of Testing and Control Procedures, State of California, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways. The term "relative compaction" refers to the field density expressed as a percentage of the maximum Laboratory density as defined in the applicable tests outlined in the Materials Manual. 2~. SC®PE 4F WO]~K - Tlus portion of the work shall include all Labor, materials, tools, and equipment necessary for, and reasonably uicidental to the completion of the pavement shown on the plans and as lierein specified, except workspecifically notes as "Work Not Ti~chided." 3. PREPARATION ®F THE SI_TJBGRAJDE -The Contractor shall prepare the surface of the various subgrades receiving subsequent pavement courses to the lines, grades, and dvnensions given on the plans. The upper 12 inches of the soil subgrade beneath the pavement section shall be compacted to a n~tinimum relative compaction of 90 percent. The finished subgrades shall be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of additional pavement courses. 4. UNTREATED AGGREGATE BASE - The aggregate base material shall be spread and compacted on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the Lines, grades, anti dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate base material shall conform. to. the requirements of Section 26 of the Standard Specifications for Class II material, 1'/2 inches maximum size. The aggregate base material shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. The aggregate base material shall be spread and compacted in accordance with Section 26 of the Standard Specifications. The aggregate base material shall be spread in layers not exceeding 6 inches and each Iayer of aggregate material course shalt be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to tl~e placement of successive layers. 5. AGGREGATE SUBBASE -The aggregate subbase shall be spread and compacted on tine prepared subgrade in confornzity with the lines, grades, and dimensions sho~ni on the plans. The aggregate subbase material shall confonn to tl~e requirements of Section 25 of the Standard Specifications far Class II material. The aggregate subbase material shall be compacted to a nunimum relative compaction of 95 percent, and it shall be spread and compacted in accordance with Section 25 of the Standard Spec cations. Each Iayer of aggregate subbase shall be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers. Krazan Ss Associates, Ina With Tea O#'fices Serving The Western United Stetes 04299112.WC k, ~~ (~ Appendix C Page C,2 6. ASPHALTIC` CONCRETE SURFACING -Asphaltic concrete surfacing shall consist of a mixture of mineral aggregate and paving grade asphalt, mixed at a central mixing p#ant and spread and compacted orx a prepared base in conformity with the Imes, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The viscosity grade of the asphalt shall be AR-400. The mineral aggregate sha,11 be Type B, %z iaicll maxi~-r7um size, medium grading, and s11a11 conforni to the requirements set forth in Section 39 of the Standard Specifications, The drying, proportioning, and mixing of the materials shall confoian to Section 39 The prune coat, spreading and coinpactiiag equipment, and spreading and compacting the mixture shall conform to the applicable chapters of Section 39, with the exception that na surface course shall be placed when the. atmospheric temperature is below 50 degrees F. The surfacing shall be rolled with a conxbinatian steel-wheel and pneumatic rollers, as described in Section 39-6. The surface course snail be placed with an approved self-propelled mechanical spreading and fn~islung machine. 7. FAG SE.AIG COAT -The fog seal (mixiug type asphaltic e~nulsion~ shall conforn to aild be applied iu accordance with the requirements of Section 37. Krazan & Associ~ifcs, Znc. WitU Ten Offices Serving Tf~e Western United States oazvvi ~ z.Dar KA Project No. 042-99112 Page No. 7 The on-site fill materials are suitable for reuse as non-expansive materials. Due to the potential variability of the subsurface cozaditiozas, we recommend our represezatative be present at the time of construction to approve the on-site non-expansive fzll materials. Drainage and Landscaping The ground surface should slope away from building pad and towards appropriate drop izalets or other surface drainage devices. It is recommended that adjacent exterior grades be sloped a mizainauzn of 2 percent. Subgrade soils in pavement areas should be sloped a nunimu~ia of I percezrt and drainage gradients maintained to carry all surface water to collection facilities and off-site. These grades should be maintained for the life of flee project. Roof drains should be installed with appropriate downspout ea~tensions out falling on splash blocks so as to direct water a miniznuna of S feet away from flee structures or be coiuaected to flee stone drain system for the development. Slots or weep holes should be placed ui drop inlets or other surface drainage devices in pavement areas to allow free drainage of tlae adjoining base course materials, Cutoff walls should be installed at pavement edges adjacent to vehicular traffzc areas, these ~nralls should extend to a minimzun depth of 12 inches below pavement subgrade to limit tlae amount of seepage water that can infiltrate the pavements. Where cutoff walls are undesirable subgrade drains can be constructed to transport excess water away from planters to drainage izaterceptors. If cutoff walls can be successfully used at the site, coz~.stz-uction of subgrade drains is considered unnecessary. Utility Trench BackfiIl Utility trench backfill placed in or adjacent to building, exterior slabs or under pavement areas should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density based on ASTM Test Method Di5S7. Pipe bedding should be in accordance with pipe n~azrzufacturer's recoza~.snendations. Utility trenches should be excavated according to accepted engineering practices following OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standards by a contractor experiezaced iza such work. The responsibility for the safety of open trenches should be bonne by the contractor. Traffic and vibzation adjacent to trench walls should be muiimized; cyclic wetting and drying of excavation side slopes should be avoided. Depending upon the location and depth of sense utility trendies, groundwater flaw into open excavations could be encountered. Granular fill materials were encountered at the site. These more cohesionless fill materials cazl have a tendency to cave in trench wall excavations. Shoring or sloping back trench sidewaIls may be required within these sandy soils. Tl~ze contractor is responsible for reznaving all water-sensitive soils from flee trench regardless of the backfill location and compaction requirements. The contractor should use appropriate equipment and methods to avoid damage to the utilities azadlor structures during fill placement and compaction. Kraz:m dz Associates, Inc. With Ten t:)ilices Serving The Western I.Jnited States Og299112DUC ~~ KA Project No. 042-99112 Page No. 8 Foundations-Conventional 'The proposed structures may be supported on a shallow foundation system bearing the reworked, recompacted fill materials or Engineered Fills. Spread and continuous footings can be designed for the following maximuzri allawabla soil bearing pressures: ~~ Dead Load Only ~ ~ 2,Of)0 psf ~~ Dead-Plus-Live Load 3,000 psf Total Load, ilcludiug wind or seismic loads 4,000 psf The footings should have a nunimum depth of 18 inches below pad subgrade or adjacent finished exterior grade, whichever is lower. The bottom of the proposed footing should be placed at the same elevation(s) as the bottom of the existing footings of the adjacent building. Footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches, regardless of load. The total settlements is not expected to exceed I inch. Differential settlements should be less than 1 inch. Most of the settlement is expected to occur during constructio~.i as the loads are applied. However, additional post-construction settlement may occur if tine foundation soils are #looded or saturated. The footing excavations should not be allowed to dry out any time prior to pouring concrete. It is recozxux~ended that footings be adequately reinforced at the top and bottom with reinfarcuig bars to minimize cracking and vertical oft=set. Resistance to lateral footing displacement cola be computed using an allowable friction factor of 0.4 acting between the base of foundations and the supporting subgrade. Lateral resistance for footings can alternatively be developed using an allowable equivalent fluid passive pressure of 350 pounds per cubic foot acting against the appropriate vertical footing faces. The frictional and passive resistance of the soil may be combined without reduction in determiiung the total lateral resistance. A ~/3 increase in the above value may be used for short duration, wind, or seismic Ioads. Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwoi•k In areas where it is desired to reduce floor dampness, such as office areas, concrete slab-on-grade floors should be underlain by a water vapor retarder system. The water vapor retarder system should be installed in accordance with ASTM Specification E 1b43-94. According to AS.TM Guidelines; the water vapor retarder should consist of a vapor retarder sheeting underlain by a minimum of 3 inches of compacted, clean, crushed, open-graded coarse rock of 'l-inch maximwn~- size. The vapor retarder sheeting should be protected from puncture damage with 2 inches of sand. The sand should be well moistened prior to pour of the concrete slab. We note that the vapor retarder is in addition to the recommended non-Expansive Engineered Fill. Kraaan & Associates, Tnc. With Ten Uffcoes Serving The Westeni United States Ua2991 @. DOC R 1'.', KA Project No. 042-99112 Page No. 9 The exterior floors should lie poured separately in order to act independently of tl~e walls and foundation system. Exterior finish grades should be sloped a minimum of I percent away from all interior slab. areas to preclude ponding of water adjacent to the structures. All fills .required to bring the building pads to grade should be Engineered Fills. ]Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Walls Walls retaining horizontal backflll and capable of deflecting a minimum of 0.1 percent 'of its height at the top may be designed using an equivalent fluid active pressure of 35 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. Walls incapable of this deflection or are fully constrained walls against deflection may be designed for an equivalent fluid at-rest pressure of 50 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. The stated lateral earth pressures do not include the effects of hydrostatic water pressures generated by infiltrating surface water that may accumulate behind the retaining walls; or loads imposed by construction equipment, foundations, or roadways. Retaining and/or below grade walls should be drained with either perforated pipe encased inflee-draining gravel or a prefabricated drainage system. The gravel zone should leave a nuniznzzzn width of 12 inches wide and should extend upward to within 12 inches of the top of the wall. The upper I2 inches of backflll should consist of native soils, concrete, asphaltic-concrete or other suitable backfzll to mininuze surface drainage into the wall drain system. The aggregate should. conform to Class II penneablc materials graded in accordance with Section 68-1.025 of the CalTrans Standard Specifications {January 1988}. Prefabricated drainage systems, such as MiradrainCl?), EnkadrainCK>, or an equivalent substitute, are acceptable alternatives iz lieu of gravel provided they are installed in accordance with the manufacturers recomrnendations. If a prefabricated drainage system is proposed, our fine should review the system for final acceptance prior to installation. Dravnage pipes should be placed ~c~ith perforations down and should discharge in anon-erosive manner away from foundations and other improvements. The top of the perforated pipe should be placed at or below the bottom of the adjacent. floor slab or pavements. The pipe shoziid be placed in the center tine of the drainage blanket and should have a miiimum diameter of 4 inches. Slots should be no wider tha.zl '/a inch in diameter, while perforations should be no more than %a inch in diaaneter. If retaining walls are less than 6 feet in height, the perforated pipe may be onutted in lieu of weep holes on 4 feet maximum spacing. The weep holes should consist of 4-inch diameter holes {concrete walls) or urunortared head joints (masonry walls} and placed no higher than 18 inches above the lowest adjacent grade. Two 8-iieh square overlapping patches of geotextile fabric (conforming to Section 88-I.03 of the CalTrans Standard Specifications for "edge drains") should be affxed to the rear wall opening of each weep hole to retard soil piping. During grading and backfilling operations adjacent to any walls, heavy equipment should not be allowed to operate within a lateral distance of 5 feet from the wall, or within a lateral distance equal to the wall height, whichever is greater, to avoid developing excessive lateral pressures. Within tens zone, only hand operated equipment ("whackers," vibratory plates, or. pneumatic compactors) should be used to compact t11e backflll soils. Krarar, & Associates, Inc. With Ten (:)ffices Serving The Western LJnited States 042991 ] 2. DUCE ~° ~~.. ~• KA Project No. 042-99112 Page No. 10 R-Value Test Results and Pavement l}esi~n Two subgrade soil samples were obtained from the project site for laboratory R-Value testing at the locations shown on the attached site plan. The samples were tested in accordance with the State of California Materials.Manual Test Designation 301. Results of the tests are as follows: r : .~.' `~' y :;:t• ~ ...... ~:.,; :?f :::. ~:,.:;;i;E:x.;4.,~::.::.: ^F,:y . '+,Cf:i it .U~ ~l?T'' 1 12-24" Silty Sand w/trace of Clay (SM) 54 l 12-24" Silty Sand w/ trace of Clay (SM) 45' 2 12-24" Silty Sand w/ trace of Ciay {SM) 30 These test results indicate low subgrade support characteristics under dynairuc traf~ie' loads. The following table shows the recorn"t~lended pavement sections for various traffic indices based on a design R- Value of 30. r.... .::i. . ~::: v: tiiY~+ }}':•: r. 44. .' .:::: :. ~. ++YY::r ~T •":~(A.WV~~~~iii:•: n ................................... v:'u: :....:..:;rp : ,{: ' .::::i~•i::i::t:y: i;~ i i:%:: •: .' .. ( {'iJ~y~ t~~p .L''L: :~.:~•L7' ~~~Yi{:{j~}'.f~Gf:."8.%Il'.:t~.::•'•'f. ................................. ~..........:.:. •>:4% ~i:riiii:::, ;L•~'?:': i; i:• ;'iY.S::Y:.;6::.is::1yJ,:~pi:~4.:...~{yy(.~eFYi.:(~, `tS?:v:::::v. :ii::•i::.i••• •.~<l1iS~i~~.:~a'..A~:l:' .s4L4::{SJ.G1'J ~:L~•i:tii is i~ ........n~................... iiF%~: J~.,i~WY~ ~.1 f,.4 J~yy.~Yy{~' y~yy v: r :S :. isC%:-1::.U.l'A3~.c{~L'l'..~i~YAJ•~.A•:~F~yyyy~:~•'•iC•~. ~V 4.0 2.0" 5,0" 12.0" 4.5 2.5" 5.0" 12.0" 5.0 2.5" 6.5" 12.0" 5.5 3,0" 5.5" 12.0" 6.0 3.0" 8.5" I2.0" b.5 3,5" 8.5" 12.0" '7A 4.0" 9.5" i2.0" 7,5 4.0" Io.S" 12.0° * 9S% coriipactimt baser! ura ASTM Test Aletltod DIS57 ur CAL 21 G * * 90% com~actian baser! un ASTD1 Test Method DISS7 ar t;AL 2IG Tf traffic u3dices are not available, an estimated index of 4.5 may be used for light automobile traffic, and an index of 7.0 for light truck traffic are typical values. - The following recorrulzendations are for light duty and heavy duty Portland Cement Concrete pavement sections: Kr<iran & Associates, inc. Wit11 Ten C)ftices Serving The Western United Ststes 092991 ] 2. DOC ~r l~ KA Project No, 042-99112 Page No. 11 HFAVV I~iITV '~'k'ac ~rfid~~ l~'o~fl~rKtl C~rne~t tt~cr..~~~::,:> >.~::: Clan >EI:;A:, .:re ate.:l~.~t~~:::;:: >~a1tt.:~o~~l:.U~i;~'~x'~:c~~~*'. '1.0 6.0" 6.0" 12.0" * 95% conapuctio~a bused ottASTilI TestAlel/cad,nlSS7ar CAL Zlb ** 90% corrcpuction bused as ASTM Test Aletjcod DIS57 or CAL Z16 * * *Nli~rincutn coraepressi~~e streri~~flc of 3000 psi Site Coefficient The site coefficient, per Table N. 16-J, California Building Code, is based upon the site soil conditions. It is our opinion that a site coefficient of soil type S2 (1994 UBC} or Sn (1997 I.313C) is appropriate for building design at this site. Pipe Corrosion 'The on-site clayey soils encountered in our field u7vestigatioii conunonly have a moderately, lvgh Gonductivity. High conductivity implies potentially corrosive soil Gondrt~ons to ferrous metals. Appropriate means of corrosion protection to provide electrical isolation between below grade piping and ferrous metal equipment and the foundation reinforcing steel should be provided. Soil Cement Reactivity Excessive sulfate in either the soil or native water may result in an adverse reaction between the cement in Goncrete (or stucco) acid the soil. HUD/)~'HA and UBC have developed criteria for evaluation of sulfate levels and how they relate to cemerrt reactivity with soil anchor watei. Soil samples were obtauted front the site and tested in accordance with State of California _ Materials Manual Test Designation 417. The sulfate concentrations detected from these soil saanples were less than 0.02 percent and are below the maximum allowable values established by HUD(FHA a.nd UBC. Therefore, no special design requirements are necessary to compensate for sulfate reactivity t~aith the cement. Compacted NIatea•ial AccQptance Compaction speci$cations are not the only criteria for acceptance of the site grading or other such activities. However, the compaction test is the .mast utuversally recognized test method for assessing the performance of the Grading Contractor, The numerical test results from the compaction test caiuaot be used to predict the engineering performance of the compacted material. Therefore, the acceptance of Krazan & Associates, Inc. With Tei~ C7ffiees Servn~g The VJestem IJnrtea States U42~9112.DOC P4lE~TLAND CEMENT PAVE1YIluN'I' LIGHT T1UT~ ~, KA Project No, 042-9911.2 Page No. 12 compacted materials will also be depexdent aza the stability of that maternal. The Sails Engineer has the option of rejecting any compacted material regardless of the degree of compaction if that material is considered to be unstable ar if future instaUility is suspected. A specific example of rejection of fill material passing tl2e required percent compaction is a ftll wlinch has been compacted with an in situ moisture enntent signfcantly Tess than optimum moisture. This type of dry fill (brittle fill) is susceptible to future settlement if it becomes saturated or flooded. Testing and Inspeetnon A representative of Krazan & Associates, Xne,, should be present at the site during the earthwork activities to confirm that actual subsurface conditions are consistent with the exploratory field work. Tlus activity is an integral part o£ our service, as acceptance of earthwork .construction is dependent upon. compaction testing and stability of the material, Tlus representative can also verify that the intent of these recoznniendations is incozporated into the project design and constntction. Krazan & Associates, inc., will not be responsible for grades or staking, since tlxis is the responsibility of the Prime Contractor, LIlO~IITAT~f31V5 foils Engineering is one of the newest divisions of Civil Engineering. This branch of Civil Engineering is constantly improving as new teehnoiogies and understandzng of earth sciences advance. Although your site was analyzed using the most appropriate and most current techniques and methods, undoubtedly there will be substantial future improvements in tl~sbranch of engineering. In addition to advancements itz the field of Soils Engineering, physical changes in the sate, either due to excavation or fill placement, new agency regulations, or possible changes in the proposed structure after the sails report is completed may require the soils report to be professionally reviewed. In Inght of this, the Ov~7~er should be aware that there is a practical linut to the usefulness of this report without critical review.. Although the time lisz~znt for this review is strictly arbitrary, it is suggested that 2 years be considered a reasonable time f©r the usefulness of this report. Foundation and earthwork construction is characterized by the presence of a calculated risk t1~at soil acid groundwater conditions Izave been fiilly revealed by the original foitndatnon investigation. This risk is derived from the practical necessity of basing interpretations and design conclusions on limited sampling of the earth. The recozxui~endations zrkzde in this report are based on the assumption that soil condititons do not vary significantly-from those disclosed during our field investigation. If any variations or'und°sixable conditions are encountered during construction; the Soils Engineer should be notified so that supplemental recarnrnendatYOns maybe trade. The conclusions oftl>as report are based on the information provided regarding the proposed construction. if the proposed construction is relocated or redesigned, the conclusions in this report may not be valid. The Soils Engineer should be notified of any changes so the recommendations Wray be reviewed and reevaluated. Kr~tran & Assnci:~tes, Tnc. With Ten {:)ftices Serving The Western t.lnitcd States 0429 112,DOC ~:; f 4~ KA Project Na. 042-9)l t2 Page No. I3 'This report is a Geoteclmical Engineering Investigation with the purpose of evaluating the soil conditions in terms of foundation design. The scope of our services did not include any Environmental Site Assessment for the presence or absence of hazardous and/or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater, or atmosphere; or the presence of wetlands. Any statements, or absence of statements, in this report or on any boring log regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions obsen~ed, are strictly for descriptive purposes and are not uitended to convey engineering judgment regarding potential I~azardous and/or toxic assessment. The geotechnical engineering information presented. herein is based upon professional interpretation utilizing standard engineering practices and a degree of caiservatism deemed proper for this project. It is not warranted that such information mid interpretation caru~ot be superseded by future geotechnical engineering developments. We emphasize that this report is valid for the project outlined above and should not be used for any other sites. If there are airy questions or if we znay be of fiirther assistaa~ce, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (408) 271-2200. ff ~~`~~•hS~~~~~~ ~~G ~ ~ ~A ~~~~~5'~~ ~~ ~~ "''' No.0~2051 ~i czr expires Sap. 30, 1~~9 A Respectfully submitted, TCI.2.A.~AI~ ~ ASSOCIATES, Il'~(C.. ..~~ I?aw~~€ Y. Kruckcnberg, P.E., G.E. Project Engineer t ~- _ < ~ ~ ~i~ ~~ ~E ~- ~, Cam,,,, ,.,~,~ .J ~~.'-~~`~~~~'~ Dean Alexander Principal Engineer RGE No. 002051/RCE No. 34274 DYK1DA:slc Krxian & Associates, dnc. With Ten (~i'fioes Serving'The Wesfen~ ~.1~~ited States 04299 ~ (2. DOC s~ 1~~~ Appendix A Page A.I AP1?1/N~zx .~ FIELl7 AND LAB®RATORY 1!NVESTt~ATIONS ~+ield Jnvesti~tztion The field investigation consisted of a surface recoiaiaaissance and a subsurface exploratory program. Eight exploratory borings were drilled oza June 22 and 23, 1999 using a truck-mounted, drill rig equipped. wifih 8-inch outside diameter (O,D.) hollow stem glad 4%2-inch O.D. solid, continuous flight augers. The borings extended to a inaxirnum depth of 50 feet belotiv existing grade. The approximate boring locations are shown an .the attached site plan, The soils encountered were logged in tlae field by oicr staff engineer during the exploratioia, and with supplementary laboratory test data, are described iaa accordance with tlae Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D24~'1). The boring logs as well as a key for the classification of the soil are included. Relative undisturbed soil sanipies were obtained using a brass ring Tined, 3-inch O.D. Modified California sampler. Additional bulk samples of tlae near surface soils were obtained from tlae auger cuttings. All soil samples were returned to our Clovis laboratory for evaluation. Resistance blow counts were obtained with the sampler by a 140 potuad hammer falliiag 30 inches. Tlae 1V?;odified California sampler was driven i8 izaches, and the number of blows were recorded for each 6 inches of penetration, The blows per foot presented on the boring logs are -the accumulated blows iza the last 12 inches of penetration. The attached boring logs and related information show our interpretation of the subsurface conditions at the dates and approxunate locations indicated, and is not warraiated that they are representative. of subsurface conditions at other locations and tinges, Laboratory Izavesti~~tion Tine laboratory investigation was progranaizzed to deterniiize the physical and mechanical properties of tlae foundation soil underlying the site. Test results were used as criteria for detenaaitaing the eugineeruag suitability of the .surface and subsurface materials encountered. Iu situ moisture content, dry density, coiasolidatioiz, expansion, direct shear glad sieve analysis tests were determined for the undisturbed samples representative of the subsurface material. These tests, supplemezated by visual observation, comprised tlae basis for our evaluation of the site material. The logs of tlae exploratory borings and laboratory determinations are presented in this Appendix. Krazan & Associates, Inc. With Ten Offices Serving The Western United States 04299112.600. ~. ~~~t~~~~~a~i~n ~e~~ Project No Boring No. & Depth Date Soi! Classification 4299112 B3 @ 5-6' 7/2/99 SC Load in Kips per Square Foot 0.1 1 10 ? 00 p i 7 ! ( I o ~^ U L I 3 4 ! ! i i i i, i ~ ~ i I I j ~ !~ i I % Consolid a tion @ 2Ksf: 'i.0 i , I i! ~ 1 ~ 1 I ' i I ~ i I i I ' i ~ ~~• ! ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I ! ,~ ;!' ~ { ~ ~ ~ I 1~ ! ! I!! I, ' ~ ~ i I i j I, i i j I ~ I ~• ~ I ! j I j ~ i I i I i{ I ili ~ i j !! { ~ I l { I , i I I ; i i ' i 1 i ~ I I l I i I ! I i I l ~ I ~ { -1 .i ~; I i i ~ ~ l ii i i;i !; ! I I i ;, i{ ~ I ! I i i ! i . , ! ~ ~ ~ i I I~ I I !. i !( i i ~ I 1 ! I I j~ i i i i i ~ i I i ' I j I ~ i j i ~ ! I ) i i ~ i lI , ;l I ~ , l i ~ i i { j I ~ i j i ~~~ I , i! i' i I ~~.~~ i~ r~ ~ r i : { ~~ ; .. i' ~ ~ ~ ~ ;1 ~ .; l ~ , 1 i ~i l ~ ! . ,. .l, , ~ ~ ;~ ~ i ~ ~ ~.i ~ ~~{ i ~ ,~ i ~ ' ' 4. •~ 1 i t ~ l ~~ 1 (! j i ~ ~ i i ~ I ~, i 1 ~~ I ~ ~, i { i 1 ~ 1 ' ~i li II' j ~ ~, li i~ I•o 1 I ! i ~ i ~ I + ~` I 1 . . ._. _ I~ ' ;i 1 I ~ ; i j j 1 l i i I I, i i i i I I + 'I { I I~ I ~ 1 ~ ~ I i ' j ! I j i i I j I I 1 1{ i j i i ~ I( I ~ i ~ { i ' i i i l i { 1 I i I ! i i I i I i ~ j ~ I ~ i i I i ! I i ! i j i i i ' ( ; j I ~ ~ l I i i ~' ''1 ' i 1 .. , ~ i. 1 ~C~a~an ~'e~f~n~ L~~~~a~~~~ ~F. ~~~sc~~~d~~~c~n ~'~~~ Pro~ect No. Boris No. & Depth Date Soil Cfassificatian 4299112 B3 @ 5-6' 712199 SC Load in Kips per Square Foot 0.1 1 10 100 0 1- C 0 .Q y 2 C O U d 3 4 ! ~ f f i °lo Co ns o lid a ti on @ 2K sfi: 1. 0 °I ° 1 i ~ ~ 4 ~ I ~ ~ ~ I I I i ; 1 ~ 4-~ ' i I ( --- ~ ' i I I i ~ i I y 4 ___-_ __ _ i _ i _ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ __ __ ~ l _.._ I { ' l _ f - R ._.-.___ + ____~ ~ I L.,_._~.. 1 1 f ~___ I __ ~ I ~~ ~ ' .. 1 I I ' ., #,, ~ ' ~ 4 I ~ ~ ~ F ~ ! f i ~ ~ ; I ~ ~ E ( ~ ~ 4 ! I }~il i ! ~f~ r ~ ~y ~ i ~ `i' ~ l I ! ~ _ ~ ~ 111 ~ 4 f I ~ I 1 ~ ' ! f i ' I ~ ~ v ~ I i i ~ j I i ( 1 I ~ ( ~ ! i ~ l ~ ! i ~ ~ ~ ~ i , ~ ~ ~ i ' ' I 1 ! ~ ~ ~ ! ~ I ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ! f ' l i 4 ! I i Kr~~an ~'es~~ng La~o~a~e~ry ,' Log of Drll{ Hole B-8 Project: Proposed Holiday Inn Express ~ Prajeet No: 042-99112 Client: Holiday inn Express Figure tuo.: A-8 Location: Gateway Blvd., South San Francisco, CA. Logged By; Mac-fy Groth Depth to Wafier> initial: None At Gompietion: None St1BSURFACE PRGFfLE SAMPLE Q- 0 o ~ ~ Descrip#ian .~ ~ o ~ ©~ ~ ~ N ~ a F ~ 3 o-°Q Penetration Test Maws/ft 20 40 60 Water Content (°I°} Wp (---0---( W( 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface ~ SlL,TY CLAYEY 5APlD {SC) rained with trace o€ FILL- Fine- to coarse- ~ g fine-grained GRAVEL and SURi'ICfAL dam drills firm{y WOOD CNiPS; brown 12g,7 8.2 62 ~ 2 p, , Lenses o€ fne- to medium-grained SAND and trace CLAY be{ow 2 feet SILTY CLA ~'EY SAN4 (SGj 924.9 9.7 33 4 Medium dense, fine- to medium-grained; brown with dark brown mottling, moist, drills firm! End of Borehole B 8 10 12 14 - 16- 18 20 Drill Method: Solid 1=1igh# Driii Rig: CME 45C Driller; Brent Snyder ~~~Z~l~ ~l~d .~,SB®C~~~.~5 Drill Date: 6-23-99 Hole Size: 4y" Sheet: 4 of 4 l ~ Log of Drt(6 Hafe B-7 ~ Project: Proposed Holiday (nn Express Project No: 042-99 i 12 Client; Holiday Inn Express Figure Na.: A-7 Location: Gateway Blvd., .South San Francisco, CA. Lagged By: Marty Groth II, I Lepth to Waterer Initial: None At Completion: None ,' SUBSURFACE PR(~FiLE ~ SAMP LE a o o ~ ~ Description ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v a_ o j .~, ~ Q ~ ~ 3 -~° Penetration rest blows~ft 20 40 60 Water Content (°%) Wp ~----0---~ WI 10 20 30 40 a ~ Ground Surface _ 2 ~~~y, ~ ,S~ ~ y f SILTY CLAYEY SANG (SC) FILL- Fine- to coarse-grained vdith trace of fsne- to coarse=grained GRAVEL; brovy~n, damp, drills firmly With lenses of increased vRAVCL balow 2 feet 127., 31.9 4.4 D.4 5o Y 5 ~ ~~ I I ~ 1 -7`- ~,d , ~ ~~ j~~ ' ~ 1 ~ ~ ' ~~ ~ ~~ 1 1 j__1 ~ ; ~ ! Y/ ~ ! I j I 1 i End oT Borehcia r ~ ~ ~- ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' , 8- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 1 ! _r 10 I I 1 ~ - 12 _ - ~ i i . ~ I ' _~ i ~ }~~ I i 1 ~ ' i '~ 1 16 _ I ~_~ ~ I I + 18 i i i ' j I ` I j ~ ~ ~i__.__ I + 0 V l - 2 Drift Me~liod; Solid Flight Drill Rig: CME 45C griller: Brent Snyder ~C~~c'~81 c`~~'1d ~S~C~~6sx~E'~ Drill Date: 6-23-99 Hole Size: 4'/" Sheet: 1 ofi 1 Lag of Drii6 Hole B-7 Project: Proposed Holiday inn Express Project No: 042-09112 Client: Holiday Inn irxpress Figure Flo.: A-7 Location: Gateway B(vd., .South San Francisco, Cry, Cogged By: Marty Groth Depth to Water> Initial: None At Corrtpletiort; None SUBSURFACE PRUFii_E SAMPLE -~ D a -o t3 Description ,.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~? ~ ~ a~ FT- ~ `~ m Penetration Test blowslft 20 40 60 Water Content (%) W 0 1JIll 90P 20 30 140 Ground Surface 0 Stt.TY CI..A 1'fr Y SANE? (S C) FILL- Fine- to coarse-grained with trace of fine to coarse=grained GRAVEL; brown, damp drills firmly 127.5 4.4 56 ~ 2 , With lenses of increased GRAVEL below 2 feet 931.9 90.4 45 9 End of Borehole 6 8- 10 92 14- 16 18 2a- Drift Method; Solid Flight Drill Rig: CME 45C Driller: {3rent Snyder ~r~z~n ~Es'f~ ASS®~$~'~~5 Drill Elate: 6-23-99 }sole Size: 4%z" Sheet: '! of 1 ~,. Lag of DriA Hole B-& Pralect; Proposed Holiday Inn Express Project No: 042-99'! 12 Client; Holiday inn Express Figure No.: A-6 Location: Gateway 8fvd., South San Francisco, CA. Logged By: Marty Groth Depth to ~JVater~ Initial: None At Completion: Nane SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE . ~ a ~ ~ Description ,~ c ° ~ Q .~ ~„ p _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Penetration lest blowslft 20 40 6D Water Content (%) ~~ I----o---} vtli 7 0 20 30 40 Ground Surface 0 S1L7Y CLAYEY SAND (SC) FILL- Fine- to coarse-grained with trace of fine- to coarse-grained GRAVEL; grayish-brown damp drills firmly 125,6 9.6 48 2 , , With lenses of increased GRAVEL and MEl'AL DEBRIS below 18 inches CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SM} 121.8 g.6 31 4 FILL- Fine- to medium-grained; blaci< moist, drills firml , - SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC) Medium dense, fine- to medium-grained; ~ brown, moist, drills firmly ___. f B h l E d n o ore o e 8 10 72 14 ~ 16 18 za P3rii! Method; Solid Flight Drill Rig: CME 45C Driller: Brent Snyder ~r~~~n at~d ~SS~cl~t~S Drill Date: fi-23-99 Hole Size: 4'/z" Sheet; 1 of 1 ~~,. l.og ofi Dri!! Hole B-~ Project: Proposed Holiday inn F~cpress Project No: 042-99112 Client: Holiday (nn Express figure No.: A-5 !Location; Gateway Blvd., South San Francisco, CA. Logged By: Marty Grote Depth to Water> Initial: 14 fee# At Completion:. 11 feet SUBSURFACE PRGF(LE SAMPLE V o ra cn Description. ~?- ~ ~ Q ~ v ~ ~ ~ -~° Penetration Test blowslft 20 40 60 Water Gontent {%) 10 2t) 30 40 ~ Ground Surface SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC) FILL- Fine- to coarse-gra'sned with trace of 2 fine- to coarse-grained GRAVEL; brown, damp, drills firmly 121.3 1Q.3 22 4 GLAY6Y SILTY SAND (SM) FILL- Fine-to coarse-grained; black, moist, drills firmly SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC) Medium dense fine- to medium-grained; 121.1 12.7 25 & , brown, moist, drills firmly Lenses of increased and decreased SILT _ 8 and CLAY below 7 feet 10 f 115 4 16 $ 55 SILTY SAND/C S ND{SRS!/SC) . . ~ 12 Dense, fine- to medium-grained with trace CLAY and SILT; brown, moist, drills firmly Increased SAND below 12 feet 14 di d b l M d t t 1 ense, sa ura e e e um ow 15 feet 111.5 18.5 56 6 18 I d SILT d CLAY b l ncrease an e ow 1$ feet 2Q Dri11 Method: Solid Flight Drill Rig: CME 45C Drii[er: Brent Snyder ~'~~c°~~ ~$~d .~SS~3C9~'~~~ brit[ Date: 6-23-99 Hole Size: 4'/2' Sheet: 1 of.2 Log of Dritt Hate B-5 Project: Proposed I-ioliday inn Express Project t`!o: 042-99112 Client: Holiday fnn Express Figure IVo.: A-5 Location: Gateway Blvd., South San Francisco, CA. Logged By: Marty Gro#h Depth to 1Nater} inif'sal: 14 feet At Completion: 11 feet SUBSURFACE PRQFiLE SAMPLE d o E ~ Descrip#ion .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a. 4 ~ : n ~ o ~ ~ ~ -~° Penetration Test blows/)t 20 40 60 Water Content (%) Wp (---a----~ Wf. 10 2Q 3Q 40 115.9 17.& 38 22 24 8lL7Y CLAYEY SAfVD {SC) Medium dense, fine- to medium-grained; 26 brown, moist, drills firmly ` 28 3D End of Sorahola 32 34 3& 38 40 Drii! i~ietilOd: S41id Flight Drill <Rig: CME 45C Driller: Brent Snyder ~Ct'~z~~ ~~1~ ~S~~~iI~~~S Dr!!! C1ate: 6-23-99 Hole Size: 4'!z" Sheet: 2 of 2 4 ~ Log of Drili Hole B-5 I Project: Proposed Holiday Inn Express Project No: 042-99112 I Client: Holiday Inn Express Figure Flo.: A-5 ~ Location: Gateway Blvd., South San Francisco, Cr'\. Logged i3y: Marty Groh ~ Depth to iNater~ Initial: 14 feet At Completion: 31 feet ~', SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMP LE ~ ~ o Penetration Test Water Gontent (%) o Descrip#ion ~ ~, m ~ ~ binwsift ~ Q ~ o Q .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ° 20 40 60 Wp !----0----~ W' ~ 40 20 30 40 { 0 ~ ~ 1i5.3 17.& 38 ~J I 22 I ~! ;~ ~ I ' ' ~ `I , _ ~ f _ , ~ i S/Ll"Y CLAYi~Y SAfJD (S C) I - ---- ~ ` %~~ ~ Madiunt dense, fine- to medium-grained; brown, moist, drills firmly I ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ ~~~ ^~ 26 28 i ~~ ~ - ----- ~ ~ I~ l- - "~- ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ i i i ' j ~ f l / / I ~~~ ~1~ ( I~ V I ~ I 30 ~L ~ - End of Sorehcle ~ 32 I I ~ I ~ i li ~ f ~ i ~ 2 34 - ~ i t I i 3 ~ j ' ~ n ! .I ~ i ~ I 3 I I i ( i 8 40 l I ~ l ~ 1-- Drill Method: Solid Flight Drili Rig: CME Q5C Driller: Brent Snyder ~~-~~~~ and ~~S~G~a~~s Drill t?ate: 6-23-99 Node Size: 4'/z" Sheet: 2 of 2 r` l,og of Dri{{ Hole B-4 Project: Proposed Holiday Inn Express Project No: 042-99112 I Client: Holiday Inn Express Figure Na.: A-4 ~ Location; Gateway Blvd,, South San rrancisco, CA. Logged By: Nlarty Grath 'Depth to Water Initial: 14 feet At Completion: 90.5 feet SUBSURFACE PRQF'ii_E ~ SAf~1P LE I Penetration Test Water Content (%) o Description ~ B ~ Mows/ft E Q~ ~ v ~ a. 3 ~ 20 40 60 W p ~----0--_ f 'JV i 10 20 30 40 ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~~i: 118.1 17.5 36 ! ~ ~ i r t III -- -r 24 S1LTY CLAYl=Y SANG (SC) Medium dense, fine-to medium-arainsd; I ~, 'i -! _ / brown with light gray mottling, moist, drills firmly ' 26 ~ 119.1 16.3 28 - ~ ~ I __ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I , I i ~_. 28 r---' --- ~ - , --}-- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _-___I!- ~ ~ i %~~ - i ~ I 3G -- 120 6 - 0 15 31 I I ~ ~ . . I 9'H I ~ ~ N ! I ~ 7 / I , I ~ i I I 34- /y~/ y I - ~ 3o End of Borehole ~ " I ~ i. ----I- I ~ ~ I ~ ' 38 I t I j I-~ I i ~ E I i f _ - - 1 r ~ ! ~' 40 Drill Method: Hollow Stem Drill ,Rig: CfJiE 45G Driller: Brent Snyder ~~'cx2~~ c"$~€~ ~SS~C9~~~S Drill Date: E-22-99 6-iote Size: 8%" Sheet: 2 of 2 ~, . ~,. ;:~' Lag of Drib Rote S-4 Project: Proposed Holiday lnn Express Project i~{o: 042-99112 Ghent: Holiday Inn Express Figure NQ.: R-4 Lacation: Gateway Blvd., South San Francisco, CA. Lagged By: Marty Grath Depth to Water'S Initial: 14 feet At Campletian: 10.5 feet St)$5tJF2FACE PRC7FlLE SAtVfPLE ~ c ~ Description .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ a~ ~ ~ ~' ~ Penetration lest blowslft 20 40 60 Water Content (%) W 0 Vt11 10p 20 30 ~ 40 ~n :"` u;i 118.1 17.5 36 y~~.~N1 22 •~~~ttiyn SILTY CLAYi=Y SAND {SC) fine-.to medium-grained; Medium dense 24 , brown with light gray mottNng, moist, drills firmly 119.1 '16,3 28 26 28 30 120.6 15.0 31 ~ 32 34 End of Borehole 36 38 40 IQri11 Method: Hollow Stem Drift Rig: CM>= 45G Drifter: Brent Snyder ~~~z~t~ ~~td ~SS~Ci~$~S Drill €}ate: 6-22-99 Rote Size: 8%" Sheet: 2 of 2 v, ~,, ;. Lag of tiritS Hate B-4 Project: Proposed Holiday Inn Express Project No: 042-991'12 Client: Holiday inn Express Figure No.: A-4 Location. Gateway Blvd., South San Francisco, CA. Logged By: Marty Grath d3epth to Water? initial: 14 feet ,fit Completion: 10.5 feet SUBSURFACE f ROFIL.E sAMPLE ,~ o Penetration Test Water Content (o~oj Description ~ ~ ~ blows/ft ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ Wp ~----0---~ WI ~ cn Q °y- ~ ~ . ~ 20 40 60 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface 0 S1L'TY CLAYEY SAND (SC) dark brown rained FILL- Fine- to coarse- g ; to brown, moist, dri}Is firmly 2 112.6 31,4 18 CLAYEY SiL,TY SAND (SM) rained; blank FILL- Fine- to medium- 4 . , g moist, drit}s easily SlL7'YCLRYEYSRND (SC) 322,6 12.9 22 rained dense fine- to medium- diu fVi - g , g e m with cemented fragments; brown to dark drills firmly moist brown , , - Lenses of increased and decreased SILT and CLAY below 7 feet $ 10 111.9 19.0 40 Saturated below 10.5 feet 12 14 .;,,,;;;- ~ ' P SAND (SP) ,i: ,. r1 :'~~"%~~ fine- to medium-grained with trace Dense ,.,.;.., ''"`'''"' , CLAY and SILT; brown, saturated dr'slls , .``M1'1"~ firml 16 y f;ti_i!: ,:~ ir. 'E ij,; ia, ~: {:j •rFp .. 18 k``# :J M+~ 20 ~~=:€~ Medium dense, moist below 20 feet Dritf Method: Hofiow Stem Drill Ftig: GME 45C Driller: Brent Snyder ~$`~~aii ~f9d ~S~~et~~ir~ tariff Date: s-22-99 Hole Size: $'/z~~ Sheet: 1 of~2 Log of Drill Hole B-3 I Pro}ect; Proposed Holiday Inn Express Project No: 042-991 i2 Client: Holiday Inn Express Figure No.: A-3 Location: Gateway Blvd., South San Francisco, CA. Logged By h4arfy Grofh t DeptiZ to Water> lnifia(: 15 feet Af Completion: 11 feet SUBSURFACE PROFILE ~ SAMP LE ~ ~ o Penetration Test Water Content (%) , o Description ~ ~ ,~ blows/ft a a E ~ d~ ~ n. ~ ~ Q h ~ ~° 20 40 60 Wp ,--0---~ Wi I 10 20 30 40 ~ / I ~ ~ ~ I ( ; I ' I i ~ 4` I _ SILTY SAND {SN7) I ~ ~~ I ~ _ ~ Dense, fine- to medium-grained ~,vith trace _ I - `,L. ' ' ~ SI!.T and C'~.AY; brown, moist to ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' I 44 ~ f~ saturated, drills firmly _ `) _ ' ~~~ ~ ~ - __ ! ~ ! I ' ~ r y 112.9 18.8 47 I ~ ~' _~ i I _- ! { 46 I i ~1---- _ ~ ' -- ~ -~i 48 ~ i -- ~-----' I I { i' j ~ I I I ~ _- ~ i i ~ - ' 50- nd of Borehole ~ j ; 52 ~ ~ ~ I i I ~ ~ I i ----~ G4 i 1 i i j - ,- , i I I I I i ~ 6 i. ~ i ~-L, - j I I i ~ I I I ~ ~ I 58 I I ., I I I I I I ` _ I ~i, I i ~ 60 Drill Method: Hollow Stam ~~~~~~ ~gqd ~~~®C~rx~°S Drill Date: &-22-99 Drill Rig: CPJ1E 45C DriNer: Brent Snyder Hole Size: 8%s" Sheet: 3 of 3 t;,,. ~.. Log of Drift Hots 8-3 Project: Proposed Fioiiday inn Express Project Na: D42-99112 Client: Holiday Inn Express Figure IVo.: A-3 Location: Gateway Blvd., South San Francisco, CA. Lagged i3y: Marty troth Depth to Water> tnitia(: 15 feet At Completion: 11 feet SL18SiJRFA~GE PRC?FlLE SAMPLE ~ a o 1' ~, Description ,~ ~ o ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ -~° Penetration Test biowsJft 24 40 60 Water Content (%) Wp j--0---~ WI 10 20 3D 40 ~~ SILTYSAND {SM) fine- to medium-grained with trace Dense , SILT and CE..AY; brown, moist to saturated, drills firmly 44 1 - 112.9 18.8 47 46 48 b0 End of Borehole 52 54 56 58 6D Drill Method: Ho{iow Stem ~t'~~~1~ ~~d ~~~®C62ii~~S Dri14 Date: &-22-99 Drill Rig: GME ~45C Driller: Brent Snyder Hole Size: 8~/z" Sheet: 3 of 3 ~',. ~.,< Log of Driff f-foie B-3 Project: Proposed Holiday Inn Express Project No: 042-99112 Client: Holiday lnn Express Figure No.: A-3 Location: Gateway Blvd., South San Francisco, GA. togged 8y: Many Groth Dep#h #a Wafie-~- lnitiat: 9 b feet At Completion: 41 feet SUS5UF;l^AC~ PROFILE SAMPLE u ~,. ~ o E ~ Description .~ ~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ as ~ ~ 3 in loenetration Test blows/ft 20 40 60 Water. Content (%} Wp ~----0---~ V1lI 90 24 3Q 4Q SILTY CLAYEY SAPID (SCICL) fine-fo medium-grained; ~/ledium dense 113.9 18,3 23 , brawn to dark brown; moist, drills firmly 22 24 Dense below 25 feet 121.6 14.0 42 r 26 28 / 30 32 34 With light gray mottfing below 34 feet 119.2 17.0 21 36 _ 38 40 Drill Methad: Hollow Stem Drill Rig: CME 4~C Drifter: Brent Snyder ~lf ~Zs'A6'9 ~f('l{~ ~aSS®~$~~~~ fJrit( t7ate: 6-22-99 Bole Size: 8'/" Sheet: 2 of 3 L.og of Drill Hoke B-3 Project: Proposed Holiday inn Express Project fro: 042-99112 Clien#: Holiday lnn Express Figure No.; A-3 Location: Gateway Blvd., South San Francisco, CA. Lagged Ely: (Marty Groth Depth #o Water> (nitia(; 15 feet Rt Corr-p(etion: 11 feet SUI3SURFACE PROFILE SAMP LE ,~ ~ o Penetration Test Water Content (%) _ I Description ~ ~ ~ ~ blows/ft ~ E ~ n .N a ~ ~ , Wp ~____0____~ Wl Q p ~ >a a ~ ~ m 20 40 60 10 20 30 40 __.__ Ground Surface _ 0 ' SILTY CLAYEY SAND (S C) I I ~ FILL- Ftne- to coarse-grained with little - / fine- to coarse-grained GRAVEL; brovan, ~ I i i ~ drills firmly damp ~ 2 , Lenses of increased CLAY, decreased 127.9 _ /.8 28 I I ~~ ' ~. ~ SfLT and CONCRETE 5RICK and _ I i , , , `ASPHALTIC CONCRETE DEBR15 i?Biow ~ I ~ ~ i 2 feet ~ ,~ 4 t CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SIi~1) ' = -- FILL- Fine- to coarse-grained with trace of j -- ~ - 5 ~ ~~ ' fine-grained GRAVEL and CONCRETE J `DEBRIS; dark brown, damp, drills very ~ lfirmly _ ~_/ 122. i 13.3 21 ~ ~ --- ~ `~--~ -- )) I ~ I ' i i .~, ~ SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC/CL) ~ 8 Medium dense, fine- to medium-grained; brown to dark brown moist drills firmly _ ' i h ~ , , ~ ~j Lenses of increased and decreased SILT and CLAY below 7 feet i i ~% ' 10 114.4 16.1 44 ; i 'i ~ Dense below 10 feet ~ - ~ l 12 , ~ / Saturated below 11 reet ~ , ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ i V ~ ~ 14 i / ~ - t i 11 SAND (SP) q~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ `~"'<'' rained vdith trace Dense fine- to medium- _.I ' '-' 16 ;.t ,;~~ , g ~ i +::c.; CLRY and SfLT; brown, saturated, drills ~ SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC/CLJ I I i i ~ I I ' 1 & Med+um dense, fine- to medium-grained; 1 I ~~' brown to dark brown, moist, drills firmly ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I - ~, Lenses of increased and decreased ~ ~ ~ I ~ ) ' ~ ' ' 20 ~f~ SILT and CLAY below 20 feet Dri(I Method: Hollow Stem ~k^~2~j-' ~~d ~SSGC~~~~S Dri11 Da#e: 6-22-99 Drill Rig: C(~lE 45C Driller: 6rent Snyder Hole Size: 8'/z" Sheet: 9 of 3 ~. t°~ 4.; Lng of Drii[ Hole B-3 Project: Proposed Holiday Inn Express Project Igo: 042-994 42 Client: Haiiday inn Express Figure No,: A-3 Location: Gateway 81vd., Sautii San Francisco, CA. Logged 8y: Marty Groth Depth to Wafers fnitiai': 45 feet At Cornpietion: 4'f feet SUBSURi=A~E PROFILE SAMPLE y- a Penetration Test Water Content (%) o Description ~ ~ ~ blows/ft Q ~ ~ ~ ~ n Q ~ Wp f ----0----( Wl ~ ~ ~ a. ~ ~ ~ 20 44 60 40 20 30 40 Ground Surface 0 SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC} FILL- Fine- to coarse-grained with }ittle fine-to coarse-grained GRAVi*L; brown, drilis ftrmiy damp 2 , Lenses of increased CLAY decreased 127.9 7.B 28 , SILT BRICK, and and CONCRETE , , ASPi-iALT1G CONCRETE flEBRiS below 2 feet 4 CLAYEYSILTYSAND (S1Y1} FILL- Rne- to coarse-grained with trace of fine-grained GRAVEL and CONCRETE 422.1 13.3 2't E 6 DEBRIS; dark brown, damp, drills very firmly SILTY CLdIYEY SAND (SC/CL) Medium dense, fine- to medium-grained; 8 brown to dark brown, moist, drif(s firmly Lenses of increased and decreased SILT and CLAY below 7 feet 10 114.4 16.1 44 ~ Dense below 10 feet 12 Saturated below 11 feet 14 :'~i~;:.• ~'~~:~ i SA1+1D (SP} 44 '~"~ ~>•' Dense fine- to medium- rained with trace 16 ~.~• ~ , s ,. "' ~ CLAY and SILT; brown, aturated, drills -~%~#'~i firmiy SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC/CL} 1 S Medium dense, fine- to medium--grained; brown to dark 6rovdn, moist, drills firmly Lenses of increased and decreased 0 2 S#LT and CLAY below 20 feet Drill Method: Hollow Stem Drill Rig: CME 45C Driller; Brent Snyder ~ii`SZr~ili~ ~~~ ~SS~C~S'~~S ©rill Date: 6-2Z-99 t~ofe Size: $~/~" Sheet: ~ of 3 ~.; r~; t, dog of Drilt Hole B-2 Project; Proposed Holiday Inn Express Project Mo: 042-99112 Client: Holiday Inn Express Figure Na.: A-2 Locafibn: Gateway Sfvd., South San Francisco, GA. Lagged By: Marty Groth Depth tv 1J1iatQr> Initial: 15 feet At Gompletion: 11.5 feet SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE ~, a o ~ ~ Description .~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ v _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m. Penetration Test biowslft 20 40 60 Water Content (°!o) Wp ~---0---~ W[ 10 20 30 40 SILTY CL.4 YEY SAND (SC) fine- to medium-grained; Medium dense 116.3 15.3 26 ; , brown with light gray mottling, moist, dril4s firmly ~ 24 117.1 16.5 26 26 28 34 End of Borehole 32 34 _ 36- 38 40 Qrill Method: Solid i=light Drill Rig: CME 45C Driller: Brent Snyder K~~Z~I~ ~~lC~ 6~-SS~]C!~'~~S Drill Date: 6-23-99 Hole Size: 4'/i' Sheet: 2 of~2 dog of Drill Hole S-2 Project; Proposed Holiday {nn Express Projeot No: 042-99112 Client: Holiday !nn Express Figure tlo.: A-2 Location: Gateway Blvd., Soutn San Francisco, CA. Logged ay. (v1arty Groth Depth to Waterer lnifiat: 15 feet At Cornpiefion: 19.5 feet SUE•SURFACE PRGFILE SAMP LE ~ o Penetration Test Water Content (°~~) ~ Description •~ v ~ blowslft -~ o .~ ~, a ~ ~ N Q ~' ~ Wp {----0----{ W! c a~ o E >. rn ~' c Q °- . ° ~ >. f- ° m 20 40 60 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface 0 ?`i,i!; CLAYEY GRAVELLY SAtVD (SP) ~ i ~ ' ;``i FILL- Fine- to coarse-grained with lenses • ~~ `+~ ~i' of fine- to coarse-grained GRAVEL; :xr.;; • `' ~ damp drifts firmly brown ~ i 2- , , ;:~ 126.2 8.5 79 r { i I ~ 4 - ia`s J ~ SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC) i ~ ~ ~ ~ _s hlsdium dense, fine- to medium-grained 120,8 i 3.0 16 j ~ ~ I with cemented fragments; brown to dark 6- ~ brown, moist, driNs easily i i i I ~~ ~ Lenses of increased and decreased + ! ~ -- 8 SILT and CLAY below 7.5 feet -- r ~ i rz~>; ~~~ ` ti~i~ii - i:., Dense, fine- to medium-grained with t; aces of S;L T ; bro~.vn, moist drills firmly i { ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ 10 - , 114.0 16.7 64 ( ~ { ~ 2<~'i i ~ I ~ 12- ;( Saturated below 11.5 feet ~ ~~~'^ " ' ~ ~ ~ - '=:~ With trace CLAY below 13 feet i - ;;; ~ i ~ ~ -~'~'"'' 113 1 17 9 18 ~ I ( ? ~ ~ ! 16 /~ SILTY CLAYEY SAMt7 (SC) Medium dense, fin°- to medium-grained; . . _ ~ ~ -.', i I ' ~ I - ~ ~^~, brown with light gray mottiing, moist, drills ~, ~____ ~ ~ - I firmly ~ ~ ' 7 8 N~ Lenses of increased and decreased I ~ - j y SIL7 and CLAY with cemenied ~ ' ~ I ~ i i fraaments below 18 feet ~ - -- I C y~ j I ~ i 20 Drill i~4etho~+: Solid Flight Drill Rig: Ct~E 45C Driiter: Brent Snyder €E~~~~~ ~~d ~~~®G~~~~S Drill Dafe: 6-23-9° Flole Siza: 4%' Sheet: 1 of 2 f;" Log of Drill Hole B-2 Project; proposed Holiday Inn Express Project IVo; 042-99912 Client: Holiday inn Express Figure Mo.: A-2 4.acation: Gateway Blvd,, Soutfi San Francisco, CA. Lagged By; Marty Groth Depth fa Watet~ fnitial: 15 feet At Cornptetion: 91.5 feet SUBSURFACE ARrJFfLE SAMPLE o penetration Test Water Content (°lo) v o Descrip#ion ~ ~ ~ blowslft Q E ~ ~ . ~ a~ ~ Wp j---0__--~ V1f1 ~ G1 ~ ~ Z' g ~ ~ ~T ~ 20 44 60 9 0 20 30 40 0 Ground Surface ~~'''t!'i•~~: CLAYEY GF2AVELLYSAND (SP) '~?`~~'"'' FILL- Fine- to coarse= rained with lenses 9 szaa:;~ i'%:j~• of fine- to coarse-grained GRAVEL; 2 ^z~ss, "„'~ , brown damp, drils firmly .L., , ;.i:::>~ 126.2 8.5 79 a;s~ fiR^...t i~fCr: 4 ij' t ; SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC) !Vlediurr+ dense, fine- to medium-grained 120,8 13.6 16 6 with cemented fragments; brown to dark brawn, moist, drills easily Lenses of increased and decreased 8 SILT CL b 5 fl and elow 7. eet AY ,.. ,.•.; ~~ .~ C. ` "~`ira >;, ;.~: Dense, fine- to medium-grained with 10 . , ~"°~~;» traces of SILT; brown, moist, drills firmly x :r • s.,::, '"'`"~''' 114.0 16.7 84 ~~'~""! z~?•ic: ~ . ~' S t b 1 f 12 ~::E' ; urated elow 1.5 eet a ~ ~i" With t CLAY b l 13 t {:~ race e ow fee a " : .; . ~. ;if '" ~'4~~" 1 113 9 17 18 16 SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC) . . Medium dense, fne- to medium-grained; brown with.light gray mottling moist drills , , firmly 18 L f i d d d d enses o ncrease an ecrease SILT and CLAY with Demented f b ragments elow 18 feet 20 Drill Me#hod: Solid Flight Drill F2ig: CME 45C DPillec: Brent Snyder ~~~z~n e~g'$d ~~S®C;;lc~.'~Ls~ Drill Date: 6-23-99 Hole Size: 4%' Sheet: 9 of 2 Log of Drift Hole B-7 Project: Proposed Holiday Inn Express Project No; 042-99112 Client: Holiday inn Express Figure Na,: A-1 Location: Gafieway Blvd., South San Francisco, CA. Logged By: Marty Groth i?epth to Water> Initial: 20.5 feet At GomQletion: 15.5 feet SUBSURFACE FR©F1LE SAMPLE ,~ o Penetration Test Vliater Content (%j ~ uesctiption ~, ~ ~ ' p ~ -- aE., v3 p ~ ~ ~ ~ 20 40 60 40 1 Q 2Q 30 ~ 110 7 19 2 36 ' - i;;i~~%: SAND (SP} . . ~,:, F;>`~•: :;:: Medium dense, fine-to medium-grained . :;<;.'• with trace SILT and CLAY; brown ;r~?S; , saturated, drills firms to very firml ~~ SC AYJ~ AND ' } ( Y S SJL7 Y CL Medium dense to loose, fine- to t to i i h i e 24- -gray, mo s s n d; brown medium-gra ,~ wet, drills firmly 'T/~ 115.4 17.0 15 f ~. With lenses of increased CLAY and SiL7 below 28 #eet y . i 120.1 15.3 50 CLAYEY SAND (SC} Medium dense, fine- to medium-grained; brown, moist, drills irmly 111.5 18.6 • 24 End of Borehole E Method: Hallow Stem Kra~za~ a~td ,A,SS®Ct~~~'S Drill Gate: 6-22-99 1 Rig: CME 45C i-6ole Size: 8'/z` . ler: Brent Snyder Sheet: 2 of 2 Log of DrIE Hole B-1 Project: Proposed Ho}iday Inn Express Project No: q42-99112 Client: Holiday }nn Express - Figure iVo.: A-1 Location: Gateway Bivd., Soutft San Francesco, GA. togged Sy: Marty troth Depth #a Watery Irtitiai: 20.5 fes# At Completion: 15.5 feet SUESURFACE PROFILE I SAMPLE v C1 o ~ a to Description ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ Q ~ .,. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ in Penetration Test blows/ft 20 4q 6q Water Content (%} Wp {-0-~,-{ WI 10 20 30 40 0 Ground Surface CLAYEY SILTY SAND (Sl4IJ FILL- Fine- to coarse-grained with trace to _ 2 little fine- to ooarse-grained GRAVEL; brown damp drills easily , , (Landscaped Berm) Drills firmly below 2 feet 4 Drifts hard below 3 feet SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SG) FILL- Fine- to coarse-grained with trace of 6 fine-gra'sned GRAVEL; t5rown, moist, drifts firmly to very firmly 8 CLAYEY SAND {SCj Medium dense, fine- to medium-grained; 10 brown to light gray, moist, drips firmly to very firmly 121.5 13.3 26 14 12 14 d h 14 f l H - ar e ow eet 118.1 13, $ 48 - 35 16 18 20 Drell Method: Hollow Stem Drill Rig: CME 45C Driller: Brent Snyder ~~'2R~~t'9 ~tld ~ sS~G~~~~ x Drill Date: 6-22-99 iioie Sixe: fi'lz" Sheet: '! of •2 ~J~.,i~ed .foil ~trxssi, f ica~ir~~ 5';~sterr~ :~ ::.:::::::::::::: ................... ~:::Ma ora~iytstan5•...:::::~~;:~'`-:i: ............. J ....::......,..........:.................. ...., e er;. ...:......:.:... .Ym. ::::::::::::::::::~::::~::.::•;5;....::: escn xa ~i°':~:;:::::::;::::::'::::~: .....,........... GW ~ ""+ ~ Well-gradefl gravelsand gavel-sand mixtures, little or ~ ' „ Clean a"~a ~* nQ ~I105. N 5 ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ N Gravels ,~ • • Poorly-grded gravels and gravel-sand mixtuues, }ittle or , e a ° ~ ~ -r • no fines. .~y ~ " at ~. ~' ~ " '•• z <" a ~ ~ Grmels GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures. '~ u ,.. Wttll ' Fines GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, ~ ~= Clean 5W VJeII-graded sands and gravelly sands, Tittle or no fines. ~.~d~ . ~ U ~,~L4> "' .~ ~ N Sands `~..~. SP ~ .. Poorly--graded sands and gravelly sands, little ox no f nes. ~ y y ~ ~' ~ H '~ o Sands ~~ Silty sands sand-szlt mixtures o a F ~ ~ h , . ~ . ~ wit Trines SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures. „ ~ ~, ' ~~ Inorganic silts, very fine sands, xock flour, silty or clayey "' ~ fine sands. ~ o ~ '"'} ~ ~n ~3 CL Ixorganic clays of lore to medium plasticity, gravelly y ~ ~ .~ v clays, sandy clays, silty clays, leant clays. ~ -- " ~ . . ~ m .=7 0~, ~ Organic silts anal organic silty clays oflow piasciticity. ~ :~ ~ r Ino bank silts, micaceous or diatotraceaus flue sands ar \ ; z a o ~T ~ silts elastic silts. , ,. ~ , :,~ ~ ^ CH ~ Inorganic clays of high plasticity,' fat clays. ` w - ~~ OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity. Highly Orgoasic Soils p'I' ~ Peat, muck, and other highly organic soils. sss:~ass1~;~ ~aXtiQ~ri ~~_ ~oYt.~ISt~ ~~ ~ ' . .... ..:.:.:::•:.:::.:...:::::. . ::::::::::::.....::....~..:...:.::.....:..... SGIL F'! 2Si7C~lY CH'I S C otts as~srv~ ~escriprion Blows/ft Very Soft ~ 3 so Soft 3 - 5 )~irm 6 - lU X °o 5ti$ II- 2U :c. a0 Very Stiff 2l - 4U Hard ~ 40 `U 30 1-- escriprion BIoWS/ft. ~ 20 Very Lapse ~ ~ a. 0 Loose 5 - 15 7 Medium Dense 16 - 40 a ,.; r E :~ - 1, ~ ~ ~ a 1{ v I / ~ `~ ,v o~ ~ F~ht OH Mt rCyt-~ ~~ ~ . DeI15C 4l_ - 65 0 10 20 30 +t0 50 SO i 0 SG °0 1 Od ~ 10 U~tJi~ UM1'C tL? Very Dense. -- > 65 .......... . Ct..ASSIFIC.aTION RANGE OF GRATIS Srze'$ Crr~in ~ ype tan a Sieve ize Grain Size in millimeters Boulders above 12 inches above 305 Cobbles 12 to 3 inches 305 to 76.2 Gravel 3 inches to No. 4 76.2 to '7.74 coarse (c) 3 fn 3/+ inches 76.2 to I9.1 ~ $ne (f} ?', inches to Na. 4 }9.1 to 4.76 Sand No. 4 to No. ZUO 4.76 to 0.074 coarse (c} No. 4 to No, lU 4.76 to 2.0(1 medium {m) No. 10 to No. 40 2.00 fo O.U42 fine {f} No. 40 to No. 200 0.442 to 0.074 i t an av below No. 204 belotiv U. 474 ! _. t Log of Drill HoIE B-7 Project: Proposed Holiday inn Express ProjectlVo: 042-99112 Client: Hcliday Inn Express Figure No.: A-1 Location: Gateway Blvd., South San Francisco, CA. Logged By: Marty Groth DeptiS to Watery initial: 20.5 feet At Completion: 15.5 feet SUESURFACE PROFILE ~ SAMP LE ' b~ Penetration Test Water Content (° o} o Description r ~, o, ~ 61ows;ft °- >. '~' ~ N ° ~ T ~ ° 20 40 6G Op I20 030 ~ 40 r~ cn Q ~ ~ F- m , _ Ground Surface 0 j CLAYEY 51LTY SAND (5M) 1 _ FILL- Fine- to coarse-grained with trace to ! ___ ' ~ little Erne- to coarse-grained GRAY?=L; j brown damp drills easily ~ _ ~ ~ 2 r ~ , , (LandscaFed Berm) _ _ ~ j! ~ ~~ ' Drills firmly below 2 feet Drills hard below 3 feet t ~ i ' --- - 4 _ SILTY CLA YEY SAND (SC) i I -- 6 ~•;~ ~ FILL- nine- to coarse-grained with irate of fine-grained GRAVEL; brown, moist, drrlfs firmly to very firmly i ~ ! ~ ! ~ l ~ _ ~~ I ~ I _ _ ,l~ r'LAYEY SAND (SC} Medium dense fine- to medium-grained; ~_ i _ ~ ~ I ~ ti , brown to light gray, moist, drills f rmly to 121.5 i 13.3 28 ~, j ~ I ~ 10 very firmly ~_ _ - -1 - - 14 ; -- - ' - - -- --~ J~ ' i j 12 ~ ! ! i 1 14 ~ i Hard below 14 feet 118.i 1 8 3. 48 i -- I ( ~ j I - { - -1 ~ I~ i ~ -;- ~ ~ - ~ - -- 16 ~/ J5 i I ~ ' I I , I ~ 18 20 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j I { i I I ~ '. Drill fvlethod: Nolio~~~~ Stem ~~~~gg~ c~~Bd ~~S(3C6~~~~ Drill Date: 6-22-99 Brill Frig: CME 45C Griller: Brent Snyder Hove Size: S%" Sheet: ~ of 2 '~d V ~~ ~` t 0 O N ~ ~ ~' ~o ~ ~ ~- d O ~B ~i g ~MM 1"'ti ~1 Gp L~' 1 t~~r "~ ~ t .r~~y ~ w vl ~ ~ h nc~ W C7 I~ W y S*7 ~ ~ ~ s C/} d CO j ~' ~ Ol 3 .}i p, i 6 Q ~ R ¢ lL ~ ~ ~_ z°rn ~, ~~ ~ V! Q R d ~ W ~ U EY_ Q X C.e.! ~ ~ ~ Z (~ ~~ o ~ U ~~ ~ ', J ~ z Q ~ ~ ~ W ~- ®~ z ~d ~ i cn t~ ';~ z ~- ~ ~ ~ ~' o z PHASE II SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION PROPOSED HOLl[IDA~' INN EXPRESS GATEWAY BOULEVARD SOUT]FI SAN FRA.NCISC®, CALIFORNIA Project No. 014-991 I2 July 13, 3999 Prepared for: NIr. Vijay Patel 2834 El Ca~rzino Real Redwood City, California 940b1 .Prepared 6y: Kxazan & Associakes, lnc. 550 Parrott Street, Suite One San Jose, California 95112 (408} 271-2200 =. I~ra.~ & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ENVfRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING AND INSPECTION TABLE Ol~ CONTENTS Project No. 044-99112 Wage 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... ' .................. B '~ 2.0 PURPOSE OF INVGSTiGATION ......................................................................................... ' ..................2 3.0 SCOPE O.F tiVORK ........................................................................................................................................2 4:4 SITE DATA ............................................................... ........................................................... ...................2 4.1 SITE SE`C`I'ING ........................................................................................:.......................:....................2 4.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY .........................................................................................................................2 S.0 IRE-FIELD INVESTIGATION ACTIViTIES ......................................................................:....................3 6.0 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ......................................................................................................:....................3 6.1 CONDfTIONS .ENCOtTNT'EItED .............................................................................................................4~ 7.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS ........:.........................................................:..........................................................Q 8.0 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS .....................................................:............................................:....................5 9.0 RECOMMENDATIO.NS ................................................................................................................................6 b0.0 L[MITATIONS ...............................................................................................................................................5 Mans ............................. Site Map .................................................................................:........................ .....Figure 1 Appendices Boring Logs .................................................. . ........................................................... A Laboratory Analytical Report ............................................................................ ........... B "-~ t & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOT.ECHNICAL ENGINEERING - ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION Jtily 13, 1999 1,0 INTROI3UCTION Krazan Project No. 044-99112 PHASE II SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION PROPOSEI? ]FIOLII)AY INN EXPRESS GATE`'VA7-' BOUI.,EVARD SOUTI-I SAN FIZAPiTCISCO, CALIFORNIA This report presents the results of a Phase II Subsurface Investigation {Phase II) conducted at the proposed Holiday Inn Express located on Gateway Boulevard in South San Francisco, California (Figure 1; subject site). Mr. Vijay Patel provided written authorization for Krazan & Associates, Inc. (Krazan) to proceed Fvith the Phase II on June 11, 1999 in our proposaUcontract dated June 9, 1999. A Phase .l Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), sumtriarized in a report dated November 25, 1997, was conducted for the subject site by A'I'C Associates Ina. (ATC) for Homestead Village Incorporated. Based on information contained in the 1997 t'hase 1 ESA, the site was part of the Bethlehem Steel Plant from at least 1938 to 1977. Previous subsurface investigations were conducted at the site as part of the closure of the steel plant. The soil at the subject site was reported to contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and heavy metals. The soil containing PCBs was reportedly removed froart the subject site and disposed at a hazardous waste disposal facility. The soil containing heavy metals was gt•aded and covered with 1- foot of clean fill. These activities were conducted under the direction of the California Department of Health Services (now the California Department of Environmental Protection Agency,. Department of Toxic Substances Control [DTSC]) and the California Regional Water Quality Cozitrol Board (RWQCB). Future development of the subject sate is covered by a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictio~as (DCCRs) dated July 12, 1984. The DCCRs limits the rase of tl~e property, requires notification of purchasers aild Lessees of the status of the subsurface coizditions at the property, and requires notificatio:+~ to tl~e DTSC of excavation activities at the site. S50 Parrott Street, Suite ®ne • San Jose California )5112 • {408) 271-2200 -FAX. (408} 271-2201 Offrres Serving fhc Western United Stntes 44997 1?.clot Proposed Holiday Inn Express Project No. 044-99I 12 :Page No. 2 2.0 Pi7RPOSE OF INVESTIGATI(3~N The p~upose of the proposed scope of wor]< was to assess the presence and concentrations of heavy metals aatl PCBs in the shallow soil and groLUldwater at the subject site. 3.0 SCOPE OF V6~ORK The folIorving scope of work was conducted: Task 1. Pre-field Activities; Task 2. .Field Investigation; Task 3. Laboratory Analyses; and Task 4. Preparation of a Sutnmary Report. 4.0 SITE DATA 4.1 Site Setting The subject site is approximately 2 acres of vacant land located in a recently developed area occupied by commercial structures. The subject site is located on the south side of Gateway Boulevard approximately 200 feet east of Corporate Drive. Three PG&E towers are located adjacent to the westerxl boundary of the subject site. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, 7.5-minute San Francisco South, California topographic quadrangle map, dated 1956 and photorevised in 1980, the subject site is eelatively level with a t~egional topography sloping gently to the east towards the San Francisco B.ay. The subject site is at an elevation of approximately 25 feet above mean sea level. 4.2 Regional Geology The subject site area is located within the San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Stucly Area and tke San Mateo Basin. Based on the geotechnical investigation conducted at the subject site by [Crazan, the subsurface materials consist of varying thickness of silty and c3ayey sand 1-ill, underlain by silty sands and sandy clays of the Coltna Formation. KRAZAN &. ASSUCIATES,INC. Offices Serving t/te Weste~~n United Strttes 44991.IZ.doc Proposed I~oliday Inn B,xpress Project No. 044-991 l 2 Page No. 3 Based on a review of the U.S. Geological Survey Topographic map for the area and investigations conducted for properties in the site vicinity, the direction of groundwater fl.ovv is expected to mimic the overlying topography, which generally slopes to the east. Based on the investigations summarized in this report, groundwater is approxiulately 15 feet below the ground surface (BGS}. S.0 PIIE-FIELD YNVl{;STICATION ACTIVITIES The boxing locations were rnar!<ed and Underground Service Alert (USA) was notified of the Locations of the proposed intrusive activities. Additionally, a private utility locator was employed to check the locations of borings for metallic objects and live electrical lines. lCrazan maintains arz annual permit with the County of San Mateo for drilling within the county. fr.0 FIELD INV)~STIGATIONS The subsuz•face sampling was conducted in conjunction with the geotechnical investigation performed by I{razan. A total of eight borings were advanced at the site as part of the geotechnical investigation Because there ace no la~owlr point sources for hazardous materials and the investigation was .intended as a random sampling, the location of the borings were at locations needed for the geotechnical investigation. Soil samples were collected for cizemical analyses from six of the eight borings (B3 through B~) and .groundwater samples were collected from three of the eight borings (borings 132, B3, and B4). The borings were drilled using atruck-mounted drill rig equipped with solid flight and/or hollow-step augers. Soil samples were collected in new brass sample tubes within a split barrel sampler. Soil sarnp.les .for laboratoryy analyses were collected from 2, 5, and 10 feet BGS. Two soil samples per boring wexe collected from the fill materia{ and compos'sted by the laboratory for analyses. In one of the borings (133} the first sample interval was within the native Colma ljorlnation and therefore, the saznpie from the native material was analyzed. The ends of the sample tubes were covered with Teflon and capped with PVC end caps. The samples were labeled with the sample number, collection date, and project number and retained on ice in an insulated chest pending delivery to the laboratory for analyses. KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, {NC. Offices Serving the 1•Yesterrt Ur7ite~lStutes 4499i12.~bc Proposed Holiday Inn Express Project No. 044-99112 Page No. 4 The sampling equipment was cleaned prior to sampling, and between borings to minimize the likelihood of truss-contamination. The work was performed at the direction of aState-registered geologist from Krazan. Chain-of-custody (COC) procedures, wltich include the use of COC farms, were used by ICrazan to docun--ent the handling and transpo~•t of samples from the time the samples are collected to the tune they are delivered to the laboratory for analysis. A total of 11 soil samples were submitted for analyses by Entech Analytical Labs, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California, aState-certified analytical laboratory. Ten of the I l soil samples were composited for single analytical testing. Additionally, three groundwater samples were collected for analyses. The samples were analyzed for PCBs and heavy metals i~t gene-•al accordance with Environmental Protection Agency (CPA) Method 8080 and 6010/7000, respectively. 6.I Conditions >uncauntered The conditions encountered during sampling activities were recorded lit field notes and lobs. Based on observations made during on-site soil sampling activities, the soil consisted of dark gray silt aa~d clayey fill material to a depth of approxirnateiy 5 feet BGS. Tlie underlying the fill material consisted of tan fine to medium sand and silt) sand of the Colma Formation. This material was encountered to tihe maximum depth explored. These lithologies were fairly consistent throughout the areas explored at the subject site with the thickness of the hll n~taterial varying by 1 to 2 feet: Groundwater was encountered at a depth. of approximately 1 S feet BGS. Na odors or staining were noted in any samples cvllected froth the borings during the field investigations. The boring logs are presented in Appendix A, 7.0 ANALYTICAL ItESUL'>cS According to the laboratory analytical results, none of the soil samples collected for tl3is investigation wore reported to contain PCBs in concentrations greater than the detection reporting limit with the exception of the soil samples from B7 which were reported to contain Arocior-1254 at a concentration of I11 micrograms per kilogram (p,g/lcg; equivalent to parts per billion [ppb]). Low concentrations of metals were reported in the svil samples collected from the six bvritt.gs advanced at the subject site. KRAZAIV & ASSOCIATICS, INC. Offices Servin; the Western Uniter! Slntes 4499112.doc Proposed €~Ioliday Inn Express Project No. 444-941 i2 Page No. 5 Tlie groundwater samples collected from borings B2, B3, and B4 did not contain PCBs in concentrations greater than the detection .reporting limit. The groundwater samples were reported to contain low concentrations of selected metals including cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, and zinc. The metals results for both soil and groundwater are summarized in Table 1. The laboratory analytical reports are included in Appendix J3. S.4 DTSCUSSInN 4F FINDINGS Soil samples were collected for chemical analyses from six of the eight borings and groundwater samples were collected fi•otn three of the eight botin.gs. PCBs were not detected in the soil samples collected with the exception of one sample collected from boring B7, which was advanced near the southeast corner of the subject site. The concentration of Aloclor-1254 in these soil samples (I 11 ppb) is will below the Total Tlueshoid Limit Concentration (TTLC) of 5,500 ppb established by the State of California Administrative Code, Title 22. The T-1'LCs are one criteria used to determine if a waste material is considered hazardous. The concentrations of metals are also well below the TTLCs. Additiorlally, witlt the exception of lead, the values are below 10 tithes the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentrations (STLCs), a rule of thumb used to assess whether the samples should be analyzed using a Waste Extraction Test (WET} method. The STLCs ate another criteria used to determine if a waste material is considered hazardous, and the urET method is used to determine the amount of extractable constttuet2ts in the waste material. Therefore, further investigation and/or relnediation of the low concentrations of PCBs and met<~.Is in soil does tint appear to be warranted. In accordance wit11 the DCCRs, if excess soil froth the site development is generated, if would have to be determined if this material was hazardous prior to transportation off-site. The groundwater samples collected from borings B2, S3, and B4 did not contain PCBs in concentrations greater than the detection reporting firnit. The groundwater samples ~-vere reported to contain low concentrations of selected .metals including cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, and zinc. With the exception chromium repotted in tlae groundwater samples collected from B3 and B4, the low concentrations of metals are lower than the State of California.Maximtun Contaminant Level (MCL) for drinking water. Chromium was reported in B3 and B4 at concentrations of 4.053 and 0.068 milligrams per titer (ing/1}. The MCL for cIu•otniuln in drinking water is 0.05 mg/I. However, the shallo4v groundwater in the vicinity of the subject site is not used for drinking water purposes, and given the development of the area and the services provided to the site by the County of San Mateo alxl Cify of South San l+rancisco, and the proximity to ttte KRA2AN & ASSOClATi;S, tNC. Offices Serving t/re 1%Yester» Utriteil States 44991I2.doc Proposed Holiday Inn Express Project No. 044-99112 Page No. G San 1'raIICISGO Bay, it is highly improbable that the shallow groundwater will be utilized for drinking water purposes in the future. Given this information, further investigation and/or remediation of the low concentrations of metals in shallow groundwater does not appear to be warranted. 9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .Based on the data and conclusions presentecl in tlZis report, and the professional judgment of I{ratan & Associates, Inc., the following recommendations are made: • Based on the results of this investigation, further investigation and/or remediation', of the low concentrations of PCBs and metals in soi( or the low concentrations of metals in groundwater does not appear to be wat•1•anted. • In accordance with the DCCRs, if excess soil from the site development is generated, if would have to be determi.ned~ifthis material was hazardous prior to transportation off-site. 14.4 LIMITATIONS The findings of this report were based upon the results of Celd a3~d laboratory ~nvest-gatlon.s, coupled witl~ the inter•~retatiel~ of subsurface conditions associated with our soil. Therefore, the data are accurate only to the degree implied by review of the data obtained and by professional interpretation. Tl-te exploratory soil borings locations were located in the field by review of available maps and by tape measurement from existing landmarks. Therefore, the soil borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by tlse methods used to locate them. The conclusions presented in this report are based upon site conditions as they existed at the time of our -field investigation. Additionally, it is .assumed that the soi3 borings installed on the subject site are representative of subsurface conditions evetywllere on the site; that is, substn•face conditions on the subject site do not vary significantly from those disclosed by the soil borings. ICYZAZAN & ASSOCIATES, f1VC. Offices Servirab the Western Uizited Strctes 4499112.doc Proposed Holiday .Inn Express Project No. 044-99 1 1 2 Page No. 7 Chemical testing was conducted by laboratories certified by the State of California Department of Health Services. The results of tl~e chemical testing are. acet~rate only to the degree of the care of ensuring the testing accuracy and file representative nature of the soils obtained. The findings presented herewith are based upon professional interpretation using state-of--the art methods and equipment and a degree of conservatism deemed proper as of this report date. It is not warranted that such data cannot be superseded by future geotechnical, environments(, or technical developments. This investigation and report were authorized by and prepared for the exclusive use of our client. Unauthorized use of or reliance on the iuforcnation contained iii this report without the expressed. written consent of Krazan 8i Associates, [nc. is strictly prol~ibited.. (f there are any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (408) 27l -2200. Respectfully submitted, ISRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~~ . ~~~ ~~ Alex .f. Gallego, RG 6349 Environrnentsl Department Manager San Francisco Bay Area Operations ~~ :~,. Dean Alexander Geotechnicai Engineer RGE #002051/RC'E #34274 AJG/DA/llc 4c: herewith KRAZAN S. ASSOCIATES, INC. Offr`ces Sc~rviizg tlee Western UniterlStates 4499112.cioc Q U U _~ U Q LL' LL to _ LLJ F. LL' ~ UO Q Q ~ Q m ~~Q ~ ~ }~- j. ~ Q~ z~ 0.. C7 W Z Z Q ~ J ~ Q ~ J 2 w 0 a a N 0 ~ O 0 O ~ ~ h O P o C ~ M r r if1 ~ O V V ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0' o ' O V V V V V V ~ O O O O ~ 0 0 0 O ~ V V V ` 000 - Ooaooo 0 ~n ~ ' ui ui ui ui cr; Sri o ~ a o 0 0- 0 y V V V V V V O o O ~ 00 O OO O O ~'~'-~ ~ o ~ [[~ Ln IA it) to V O r O O O O O V V V V V O O Q y N U O 0 `~ ~ O M O B _ ~ Na 0~ ~1' V' .. N OQD O V ~ ~ ~ ~ e-c~rrr r O 000 SV 0 0 0 0 0 0 y O O O O ~ o00 0 O O u7 cn ~ O ~ r M r M ' Q O O Q} ) ~f3 M v M~ [[ O 0 0 0 O v V V `" R. O~ON007o O M OOM C 0- N .- Mr'd'~' O t ., N OO . V U ~ '~ ~'mu,ti~n O o M W 000 O M f•- O O ~ ti' ~ O O O O ~ U ~ ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 ~ ~ V V V V V 0 `' °OO O 0 ~ ~ O U ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ V V V ~' O O O O ~ V V V O ~ ~ V U '~ O O O M O O O to ~[i tf) q 0 0 O N lCj r 6(j M tf1 l!j O v v v v 'n o 00 0 0 0 0~~0or o r r r 000 L4 0 E ~~cm~ v~ u°~ o oo 0 c v (6 0 Z °~ Q. rn u»' v ~' N ~ U ~ N J ~ ~ N N N N V! CQmCQ WOO CO `o ~ ~EYImCO ~ n ~ C N .~ N cu N C m w ~ N ~ N ~ ~ 07 ~. y ~ C a 0 0 m U -°~' c ~ - ~ N C ~ II. O N N U C 01 N ~ ~( -_ a~i°p m ~mt~E C ~ p p y v-+ r c ~ U ~ ~ ~ 3 .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C f4 f!S ~ ~ ~i ~ .~. O C N ¢ U O O ~ ~ L N U C O N U C w ~ SC ~ °' ~Q ~ ~ a, O w .O C U ~ U Y~°~,.. ~-aoE o ~ a'- ~- :~ ~ " c b ~ o N .°c rn~E~' _ w T 4 t ,~ N ~ I-- C C ~ ~y L ~ ~ =' " ' ~, h ~ ~ N it ~ U N ~ -~ ~~~~~ 0 Zr-NM~7' H ~ ~ ra H ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,., ~ ~ ~ o ~ _° ~` ~ o ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ s ~ -~.- ~ ~~ y U ~W W O T o .4 ~ ~ ~ N ~ Z d ~ 3 ~ n L ~ (y ~ y. R 4 l.. Cp N Z ,~. ~W ~~ z~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N (/) 3 -s ~ ~Qa ~~ ~ ~ 0 ~ (!7 Q ~ W ~ C) h ~ Q CL. ~w x W z~ ~O _m o ?-- U Q ~ t~ n U w --~ Q Z r o~ ~ = W ~. F-- ~ .~ Q ~~ ~ o _ oQ o ~~ ~ Lag of Drill Hole B-7 Project: Proposed Holiday inn Express Project No: 042-981 t2 Client: Holiday Inn Express Figure No.: A-1 Location: Gateway Bivd„ South San 1=rancisco, CA. Logged By: Marcy Groth Depth to Wa#er7 Initial: 20.5 feet At Completion: 15.5 feet 5U8SURFACE PROFILE SAMPL;= a a o E ~ Description ~ ~ ~ a n. o ~ ~. . ~ ~ a ~ ~ 3 ~° Penetration lest blowslft 20 40 80 Water Content (%) Wp (-0--{ Wl 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface 0 CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SM) FILL- Fine- to coarse-grained with trace to I little fine- to coarse-grained GRAVEL; damp drills easily brown 2 , , (Landscaped eermj Drills firmly below 2 feet ~ 1 Drills hard below 3 feet ~ 4 SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC) FILL- Fine- to coarse-grained with trace of fine-grained GRAVEL; brown, moist, drills firmly to very'firmly 1 1 6 I 8 CLAYEY SAND (SC) fine- to medium-grained; Medium dense I , brown to light gray, moist, drills firmly to very firmly 121.5 13.3 26 j ' i 10 1Q ~ i 12 i 1 d Hard below 14 feat 118.'1 13.8 48 16 35 -- 18 2a Drill Method: Hollow Stem Drill Rig: GME 45C Driller: Brent Snyder ~razar~ a~ad Ass®c6a~~s Drill Date: 6-22-9'a Hole Size: 8'fz" Sheet: 3 of 2 L-og of Drill Hole B_7 Project: Proposed Holiday inn Express Project C~4o: 042-99112 Client; Holiday Inn Express Figure No.; A-1 Location: Gateway Blvd., South San Francisco, CA. Logged Sy: Marty troth Depth to 1Nater~ Ini#ial: 20.5 feet At Completion: 15.5 feet St.lBSllRFACE PROFILE .SAMPLE ~ 4 o .n ~ Description .~ ~ d ~. Q ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ m Penetration Test blows/ft 20 40 60 Water Content (°lo) Wp y--0-f Wf 10 20 30 40 110 7 19 2' 38 "~~ ' >; SAND {5P) . . `~~~~` ?rt' ~: >a;~:= Medium dense, fine- to medium-grained with trace SILT and CLAY; brown :t'~~r; , saturated, drills firmly to ve firmly I I ~ SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC) Medium dense to loose, fine- to I I j 24 medium-grained; brownish-gray, moist to wet, drills firmly ~ i ~ 115.4 17.0 15 ~ I ~ ..11 ~ ~ 26 ~ j ~ i I I ' A I 28 With lenses of increased CLAY and SILT below 28 feet ; 30 ~ 120.1 15.3 50 I 32 CLAYEY SAND {SC) rained dium- t di de fi ; o me g nse, ne- Me um brown, moist, drills firmly 34 111.5 18.6 24 -' 36 End of Borehole 40 Drill Method: Hollow Stem ~C>r~Z~~ ~~~ p~,s$~c~~$~$ I?rii! Date: 6-22-99 ©riil Rig: CME 45C Driller: Brent Snyder dale Sing: 8'/z'• Sheet: 2 of 2 Lag of Drill Hole B-2 Project: Proposed Holiday Inn Express Project No: 042-99112 Client: Holiday (nn Express Figure iVo.: A-2 Location: Gateway 13{vd.; South San Francisco, CA. Logged By: Marty Groth Depth to Waterer Initial: 15 feet At Completion: 11.5 feet SUBSURFACE PRQFiLE SAMPLE a Penetration Test Water Content {%) ~. o Description ~ ~ ~ blows/ft ~ ~ a ~ in Q ~ Wp (-0----~ WI ~ ~ a Q ~ ~ -~° 20 40 60 10 20 30 40 0 Ground Surface ?s ••• ,,;_:1: CLAYEY GRAVELLY SAND (SP) ~'`"~~~~~ FlLL- l=ine- #a coarse-grained with lenses ;,::,;;~ "~~~~~= ._.. ( of fine- to coarse-grained GRAVEL; ~ 2 N: f ;z,~" brown, damp, drills firmly ~':~~ 'ts:::? 126.2 8.5 79 i ! > ~ ' :~~~~ . SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC) Medium dense, fine- to medium-grained 124.8 13.6 16 ( ( ~ g ~ with cemented fragments; brawn to dark i brown, moist, drills easily Lenses of increased and decreased ( I 8 d CLAY b l SILT 7 5 f # e ow an . ee i ~':"1:;: :~ ~ SAND (SP) ~ - >'~~-° Dense, fine- to medium-grained v/i#h i ~ 10 y= traces of 51LT; brawn, mots#, drills firmly C . ,,... <'~, 114.0 16.7 64 ~ :Y.r Y ; ~ 1 .i~~:-''.i'f f 12 ;~E<:i~~ jn;:..n ~ Saturated below 11.5 eet i I l ~.N~ i h LA b l :.y;,r: ow 13 feat t trade C e W Y ::hv,< ' 14 '~ ~j ~ ::~^_', ' r:31; '' `'`'` 113 1 17 9 18 SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC) . , 1 fi __ Medium dense, fine- to medium-grained; brown wi#h Eight gray mottling moist drills . , , firmly f d d i8 an increase decreased Lenses o SILT and CLAY with cemented 8 feet fragments below 1 20 Drill Method: Solid Flight ~CraZan aid Associates Drill Date: 6-23-99 grill Rig: CME 45C Driller: Brent Snyder Hole Size: 4'/Z" Sheet: 1 of 2 Log of tJriEi Hale B-2 Project: proposed Holiday Inn Express Pro}ect IVo: 042-9911 Z Client; Holiday Inn t*xpress f=igure IVo.: A-2 Locafson: Gateway Blvd., South San Francisco, CA. Logged 13y: Marty Groth Depth to Waterer Initial: 15 feet At Completion: 11.5 feet SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE a ~ o ~ N Description ;~ ~ ~ ~ a, d v o ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ Penetration Test blows/ft 20 40 60 Water Content (%) Wp I--Q-~ Wf 10 20 30 40 SILTY CLAYEY SAND {SC) Medium dense, fine- to medium-grained; 118.3 15.3 26 f ! ~ ' ~ 22 brown with light gray mottling, moist, drills firmly ~ i ! i _ I_ I I ! 24 ~ I i 1 I 2& 117.1 16.5 28 I I 1 1 ~ i 1 i 28 I I ~ l 34 i End of Borehole [ 32 ~ I I ~ l I 36 38 40 Drift Method: Solid Flight Dril! Rig: CME 45C Drifter: Brent Snyder ~Cra~an and .ass®ela$~S Drill Date: 6-23-99 Note Size: 4'/z" Sheet: 2 of 2 Log of Drill Hole B-3 Project: Proposed Holiday Inn Express Project No: 042-99112 Client: Holiday Inn Express Figure No,: A-3 Location: Gateway Blvd., South San Francesca, CA. logged By; Marty Groth Depth to Water> Initial: 1 b fee# At Completion: 11 feet SUi3SURFAGE PROFILE SAMPLE ~ ,° Pene#ration Test Watet' Content (%) o Description ~ v ~ blowslft ~ ~ ~, ~ a 3 Wp ~---0--~ WI ~ ~ Q Q. ~ ~ ~ 20 40 60 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface h SILTY CLAYEY SAND {SC) rained with fettle FILL- Fina- to coarse- g fine- to coarse-grained GRAVEL; brown, drills firmly dam 2 p, decreased Lenses of increased CLAY 127.9 7.8 28 , BRICK and and CONCRETE SILT , , , ASPt~iALTIC CONCRETE OE$R1S below 2 feet 4 CLAYEY SILTY SAND "(SM} ~ FILL- Fine- to coarse-grained wi#f~ trace of fine-grained GRAVEL and CONCRETE 1221 13.3 21 6 DEBRIS; dark brown, damp, drills very firm! SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SGCL) Medium dense, fine- to medium-grained; 8 brown to dark brown, moist, drills firmly Lenses of increased and decreased SILT and CLAY below 7 feet i I ~ 10 114.4 16.1 44 Dense below 10 feet 12 Satura#ed below 11 feet i 14 ~'`a.A.A ^~%'.;_; SAND (SP) 44 '~ ed ith trace i di f 98 n w ine- to me um-gra Dense, ~':?s f>:~= CLRY and SILT; brawn, saturated, drills _ ~~_•: ~A~`' ! f irm SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC/CL) 18 Medium dense, fine- to medium-grained; brown #o dark brown, moist, drills fiirmiy Lenses of increased and decreased 20 SPLT and CLAY below 20 feet [?rill Method: Hollow Stern ~~~z~n ~l~d ~$Sp~ f~~~$ tirili Date: 6-22-99 Drill Rig: CME 45C DrilEer: Brent Snyder Hole Size: 8'/z" Sheet: 7 of 3 Log of ©rii( Hale B-3 Project: Proposed Holiday inn Express Project No: 042-99112 Client: Holiday inn Express Figure No.: A-3 Location: Gateway Blvd., South San Francisco, CA. Logged ay: Marty Groth Depth to Waters lnitiai: 15 feet At Completion: 11 feet SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE a ~ o ~ ~ Description ~ ~ ~ ~, a a o ~ N ~° a ~ ~ 3 -~° Penetration Test blows/ft 2D 40 60 Wa#er Content (%} Wp ~--_p-..-..~ WI 10 20 30 40 SJLTY GLAYEY SAND (SC/CL} Medium dense fine- to medium-grained; 113.9 18.3 23 ~ ~ 22 , brown #o dark brown, moist, drills firmly i 1 4 ~ 1 2 D ense below 25 feet 121.6 14.0 42 ~ 26 ! 1 28 1 I ~ 3 ~ I 0 i i 32 i b l Wi h l 34 ow t ight gsay mottl e ng 34 feet i 119.2 17.0. 21 ~ ~ !~ 36- 38 I i ~ 40 Drift Method: Hallow Stem ~~'~~~~ ~d1d ~~~~~j~~~$ Drill Date: 8-22-99 Drill Rig: CME 45C Drii[er: Brent Snyder Hole Size: 8%" Sheet: 2 of 3 Lag of Drill Hole B-3 i Project: praposed Holiday fin Express Project No: 042-95112 Giient: Hnliday !nn Express Figure Na.: A-3 Location: Gateway Hlvd., South San Francisco, CA. Lagged By: Marty troth Depth to Water's initial: 15 feet At Gompietian: 11 feet SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE ~ o >. u~ Description .~ c ~ ~, ~ ~ u, ~ u, ~ ~ ~' ~° penetration Test blows/ft 20 40 60 Water Content (%j W 0- WI 10p 2D 30 ~ 40 i i i 42 S1LTY SAND {SM) fine-to medium-grained with trace Dense i I J ) i ~ , SfLT and CLAY; brown, mois# to saturated drills firmly ~ ~ ! 44 , ~ I 112.9 18.8 47 }} I 'i ; 46 I ~ 1 48. } ~ 1 ` I 1 I { I 50 End o€ $orehole + ~ j 52 f 54 f 56 58 60 Driii Method: Hollow Stem ~Irazar~ ~l~1d .AsSpc~ates Drill Date: 6-22-99 Drill Rig: CME 45C Driller: Brent Snyder Hole Size: 8'/z" Sheef: 3 of 3 Log of ©riil Hole B-4 Aroject: Proposed Holiday Inn Express Project No: 042-99112 Client; Holiday !nn Express Figure iVo.: A-4 Loca#inn: Gateway Blvd., South San Francisco, GA. Logged i3y: Marty Groth Depth to Waters Initiat: 14 feet At Completion: 10.5 feat SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE ( ~• o Penetration Test Water Content {%) ~• o Description ~ ~ ~ blows/ft a ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ 3 WP ~--0=-( Wl , © cn cx p ° ~ ~„~, c-°o 20 40 60 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface 0 SILTY CLAYEY SRND (SC} - Fine- fo coarse-grained; dark brown F1Li _ to brown, moist, drills firmly ! j i ! 2 ~ 112.6 11.4 1$ l I ~ CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SM) i FILL- Fine- to medium-grained; black ¢ , moist, drills easily i I SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC} 122.6 12.9 22 i I I ~ Medium dense fine- to medium-grained i 6 , with cemented fragments; brown to dark { I brown moist drills firmly ( , , Lenses of increased and decreased SILT f~ ~ and CLAY below 7 fee# I + 8 i ' I 10 ~ - ff 111.9 19.0 40 I j Saturated below 10.5 feet i Ii 12 14 '°'" ~Y. r~ iS SAND (SP) '~c?%i;; Dense fine- to medium-grained with trace ;.~: • a.; i1•%~~~ :; , CLAY and SILT; brown, saturated, drills 48 i, ;~=•:.:.: firmly 16 a~w:~.:: ::'ii:~ :'Y` t' '• .sil:.t~ 18 ~'~~M1i~...~ l.~i ::~'=~. 20 ;:%~-: .. ,.... Medium dense, moist below 20 feet Drill Method: Hollow Stern ~p'~.~~(~ ~t~d ASSOCi~'~OS Drill Date: s-22=99 Dritl Rig: CME 45C Driller: Brent Snyder Hole Size: 8'/z' Sheet: 1 of 2 Lag of Drill Hole 8-4 Project: Proposed. Holiday !nn Express Project No: 042-99112 Client; Holiday lnn Express Figure No.: A-4 l,acation: Gateway 6ivd., Sauth San Francisco, CA. togged By; Marty Groth Depth to Water initiaL• 14 feet At Completion: 10.5 feet SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE ~ a. o o ~ ~ Description ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ . ~ ~° ~ ~ ~ 3 -~° Penetration-Test blowslft 20 40 60 Water Gonten# (%} Wp ~---Q----~ 1tlfl 10 20 30 40 i'~^V: 118.1 1?.5 36 ~.r SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC) fine- to medium-grained; Medium dense f 24 , brown with light gray mottling, moist, driNs firmly 119.1 16.3 28 26 ~ I i ~ ~ i ~ t I i i I i ~ I ` • f 28 r ~ j 30 120.6 15.0 31 i 32 l 34 End of Sorehoie 36 38 4Q Drill Methad: Hollow Stem Drill Rig: CME 4SC Driller: Brent Snyder ~l"~~aft~l end ,~Sr~yOCla'~~~ Drill Date: 6-22-99 Hole Size: $'li' Sheet: Z of 2 Lag of Drill Hole B-5 Project: Propased Holiday !nn Express Prflject No: 042-99112 Client: Holiday Inn Express Figure No.: A-5 Lacation: Gateway Blvd., South San Francisco, CA. Logged By: Marty Groth depth to Waterer Initial: 14 feet At Completion; 11 feet St3BSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE ~. a a. E ~ ~ Description ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~? .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 -~° Penetration Test blows/ft 'L0 40 60 Water Content (%} Wp ~-0-~ W! 10 20 30 40 0 Ground Surface -SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC) F3LL- Fine- to coarse-grained with trace of 2 fine- to coarse-grained GRAVEL; brown, damp, drills firmly _ ' 121.3 10.3 22 ~ ~ ~ 4 CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SM) FILL- Fine- to coarse-grained; black, moist, drills firmly ~ g SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC) Medium dense fine- to medium-grained; 121.1 12.7. 25 , brown, moist, drills firmly Lenses of increased and decreased SILT ~ 8 and CLAY below 7 feet ~ 10 115 4 5 SILTY SAND/C ND (SM/SCj . 16.8 5 ~ 12 Dense, fine- to medium-grained with trace moist drills firmly CLAY and SILT; brown , , Increased SAND below 12 feet ~ 14 l di d t t d b M 1 e ow e um ense, sa ura e 15 feet 111.5 18.5 56 6 -- d CLAY b l d SILT 18 e ow an Increase 18 feet 20 Drill Method: Solid Flight Drill Rig: CME 45C Driller: Brent Snyder K~~Zai~ ailt~ ~SSOCIa'~@S Drill Date: 6-23-99 Flole Size: 4'/z" Sheet: 1 0f .2 E*og of Drill Hole B-5 Project: Proposed Hofiday Inn Express Project No: 042-99112 Client: Holiday Inn Express Figure No.: A-5 Location: Ga#eway Blvd., South San Francisco, GA_ Logged 6y: Marty Groth Depth to Water> Initial: 14 feel At Completion: 11 feet SUBStJRFACE PROFILE SAMPLE m fa p >, ~ Descri tion p ,~ c W ~ 4 a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~° Penetration Test blowslft 20 40 60 Water Content (%) 10 20 30 40 115.9 17.6 38 ' 22- I ' I ~ ', 24 Sl1.TY CtAY~Y SAND (SC) fine- to .medium-grained; Medium dense , brown, moist, drills frmiy ! i E 26 ` 4 i j I ' j ~ '~ E ` 28 ~ i ~ I 30 End of Borehole ' i 32 I 34 36 38 I 40 Drit[ Ntethad: Sokid Flight Driti i2ig: CME 45C Drifter: Brent Snyder Krazan and Assoeia~es Drift Date: 6-23-99 Hole Size: 4'/z" Sheet: 2 of 2 Log of Drill Hole B-6 Project: Proposed Holiday Inn Express Project No: 042-99112 Client: Holiday Inn Express Figure No,: A-6 Location: Gateway Blvd., South San Francisco, CA. Logged Sy: Marty Groth Depth to Water> Initial: None At Comptetian: None SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE ~. ~ o ~ N Description ~ ~ ~ ~ a fl. o ~ ~? ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~-° penetration Test blowslft 20 40 60 Water Content (%) Wp I---O---I WI 1fl 20 30 40 Ground Surface 0 SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SCJ FILL- Fine- to coarse-grained with trace of _ / fine- to coarse-grained GRAVEL; drills firmly rayish-brown damp 125.6 9.6 48 2 g , , Wi#h lenses of increased GRAVEL and METAL DEBRIS below 18 inches ~ CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SMJ 121.8 9.6 31 ~ ~ 4 FILL- Fine- to medium-grained; black moist, drills firmly ~ ~ ~ SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SGJ Medium dense, fine- to medium-grained; ~ I { E 1 6 brown, moist, drills firmly I l d f B h E 1 ` o o ore e n $ i I II i r I 10 I I I 12 i . 14 16 ( I f 18 2Q ~riil Method: Solid Flight Drill Rig: CME 45C Driller: Brent Snyder ~':Cs~Zr~1i a13t.~ ,QiSS®CIal~2S Drift Date: 6-23-99 Hale Size: 4'h" Sheet: 1 of 1 Log oP drill Hole B-7 t'roject: proposed Holiday lnn Express Project No: 042-999 3 2 Client: Holiday inn Express Figure No.: A-7 Location: Gateway Blvd., South San Franeiscn, CA. Logged 43y: Marcy Groth Depth #a Water Jnitiai: None At Completion: None SUBSURFACE PRQFILE SAMPLE o Description ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Penetratian Test blowslft 20 40 60 Water Content- (%) 10 20 30 40 C,round Surface 0^ 57LTY CLAYEY SAND (SCj rai d with #race of t - FILL Fi ~ ne o coarse g - nd- fine- to coarse-grained GRAVEL; brown, li} f l d d j27.5 4.4 56 2 irm y amp, r s With lenses of increased GRAVEL below 2 feet ~ ~ ' i 131.9 10.4 45 ( ~ ~ 4 f ~ end of Borehole ~ ! i s i ~ I '~ i s ~a ~ 12 ~ ~ 14 16 98 20 Dril( Method: 5alid Flight Drill Rig: CME 45C Driller: Brent Snyder Kra~alt~ as~f.~ ~-SS®C1~~P~S Drilf Date: 6-23-99 Hale Size: 4'1~' Sheet: 1 of 7 Lag of Drill Hote 8-8 Projec#: Proposed Holiday Inn Express Project No: 042-99912 Client: Holiday Inn Express Figure No,: A-8 Location: Gateway Blvd., South San Francisco, CA. Logged By: Marty Groth Depth to Water> Initial: None At Completion: None SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE n `a ~ rn Description .~ ~ ~ U ©a ~ ~ ~, ~ v ~ ~ ~ m Penetra#ion Test blows/ft 20 4o sa water Content (%) wp ~---o---~ w 1o Za as 40 Ground Surface 0 SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC) FILL- Fine- to coarse-grained with trade of i I fine-grained GRAVEL and SURFICIAL WOAD CHIPS; brown damn drills firmly 128.7 8.2 62 ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 2 , , Lenses of fine- to medium,-grained SAND and trace CLAY below 2 feet I ~ i 1 ~ SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC) 924.9 9.7 33 I I i ~ i 4 Medium dense, fine- to medium-grained; brown with dark brown mottling, moist, ~ ~ ~ ' ~ , 1 drills firmly 'End of Borehole ; 1 6 ! f 8 I ~ ~ f 10 ~ ~ i l I ~ j i 1, i2 i i i 1 ~ I T4 96 - i 18 I 1 20 Drill Method: Solid Flight Drill Rig: GME 45C Driller: Brent Snyder ~Cir~lzan r'~Ir]d ~+SS{~~6r'~~E'S Drill Date: 6-23-89 Hole Siae: 4'/" Sheet: 1 of 1 ~ ® ~A ~LAP# 1-2346 525 Del Rey Avenue, Suite E ®Sunnyvale, CA 94086 ~ (408) 735-1'550 ®Fax (408) 735-i 554 i{razan & Associates, Inc. 550 Parrott Street, Suite Otte Satz 3ose, CA 95II.2 Attzt: Alex GalIega ~e>i'talXed Anal3~ical Report Soil Santule Analvsis: (All results in me/k~) Date: 6/3 0/99 Date Received: 6/23!99 Project: 04499112 PO #: Sampled By: Client Sample ID B3-5 $4-2,5 B5-2,5 Sample Date 6/22/99 6/23/99 6/23/99 Sample Time 14:00 7: i5-7:30 5:30-9:45 Lab # GI3906 G13907 GI3908 Result DF DLR Result DF DLR Result DF DLR PQL Method Extraction TTLC TTLC TTLC ' 3050 6010 Analysis Date 6/29149 6/29-6/30/99 6129199 Antimony ND 1.0 5,0 7.5 1.0 5.0 6.8 1.0 5.D 5:0 6010' Arsenic ND 1.0 5.0 16 I.0 5.0 ND I.0 5.0 5.0 6010 Beryllium ND ].0 5.0 ND 1.0 5.0 ND 1.0 5.0 ~.0 6014 Cadmium ND 1.0 S.U ND LO 5.0 ND 1.D 5.0 5.0 6010 Chromium 31 1.0 5.0 74 1.0 5.0 98 1.0 5.0 5.0 6010 Capper 19 1.0 5.0 120 1.0 5.0 82 1.0 5.0 5.0 60I0 head ND 1.4 5.0 31 1.0 S.D 41 ].0 5.0 5.0 6010 747 i Analysis Date 6/29199 6/29/99 6/29/99 Mercury ND L0 0.10 ND I.O . 0.10 ND 1.0 0,10 0.10 7471 Nickel 20 1.0 SA 80 1.0 5.0 140 1.0 5.0 5.0 b010 Selenium ND 1.0 5.0 ND I.0 5.0 ND I.0 5.0 5,0 6010 Silver ND 1.0 5.0 ND 1.0 SA ND 1.0 'SA 5.0 6010 Thallium ND 1.0 5.0 ND 1,0 5.0 ND 1A 5.0 5.0 6010 Zinc 32 1.0 5.0 78 1.0 5.0 100 I.0 5.0 5.0 6010 .r? Michelle L. Anderson, Lab Director DI'=Dilution Faotor ND=bone Detected above DLR PQL= Practical Quantitation Limit DLR=Detection Reporting Limit En vironmenta(finatysis Since 7`9&3 ~ ~A ~l_AP# I-236 525 De! Rey Avenue, Suite E ~ Sunnyvale, CA 9408& ~ (408) 735-1550 a fax (408) 735-1554 Krazan & Associates, Inc. 550 Parrott Street, Suite ®ne San dose, CA 95112 Attn: Alex Gatlega ~erti~ecl Analytical i2eport Soil Sample Analysis: (All results iz~ mb/kg) Date: 6/30/99 Date Received; 6/23199 Project; 04499112 PO #; Sampled By: Client Sample ID B6-2,4 87-2,4 $8-2,4 Sample Date 6/23/99 6/23/99 5/23/99 Sample Time 10:3S-10:42 10;55-11:05 11:28-11:35 Lab # . G13909 G13910 G139i1 Result DF DLR Result DF DLR Result DF DLR .PQL Method Extraction TTLC TTLC TTLC 3 050 6010 Analysis Date 6/30/99 6/30/99 6/30199 Antimony ND 1.0 5.0 ND ].0 5.U 7.1 i.0 5.0 5.0 6010 Arsenic 33 1.0 5.0 ND l.0 5.0 ND 1.0 5.0 S.0 6010 Beryllium ND 1.0 5.0 ND 1.0 5.o ND 1.0 s.o S.0 6010 Cadmium ND 1.0 5.0 ND i.0 5.o ND 1.0 5.0 5,0 b010 Chromium 55 I.Q 5.0 47 1.0 5.0 4S I.0 5.0 S.0 6010 Copper 170 1.0 5.0 49 1.0 5.0 48 ].U 5.0 5.0 6010 Lead 53 1.0 5.0 51 ].0 5.0 33 LO 5.0 S.U 6010 7471 Analysis Date b/29/99 6/29/99 6!29/99 Mercury NIA 1.0 0.10 ND 1.0 0.10 ND 1.0 0.10 0.10 7471 Nictcet 83 1.0 5.0 43 1.0 5.0 43 I.0 5.0 S.0 6010 Selenium 7.4 1.0 5,0 ND 1.0 5.0 ND 1.0 5.0 5.0 6010 Silver ND 1.0 5.0 ND 1.0 5.0 ND 1,0 5.0 S.0 6010 Thallium ND 1.0 5.0 ND 1.0 5.0 ND 1.0 5.0 5.0 6010 Zinc 100 1.0 5.0 b8 7.0 5.0 S90 l.0 5.0 S.0 b010 ichelIe L. Anderson, Lab Director ~~ - DF=Dilution Factor ND=None Detected above DLR PQL=Practical Quantization Limit DLR=Detection Reporting Limit Environmental Analysis Since 1983 ~ ~ cA ~LAp# ~-z3~.6 525 Del Rey Avenue, Suite E ~ Sunnyvale, CA 94086 ~ (408) 735-i 550 ~ F'ax (408) 735-~ 554 ~razan & Associates, Inc. 550 JParrott Street, Suite One San Jose, CA 95112 Attn: Alex GaIIe;o Cer~a~ed A.rta~yt;cal ~epor~ Water Sample Analysis: (All aesults in m~lLiterl Date: 6!30/99. Date Received: 6/23/99 Project: 04499112 PO #: Sampled By: Client Sample ID B2-W B3-W S4-W Sample Date 6/23/99 6/23/99 6/23/99 Sample Tithe 12:00 12:30 13:00 Lab # 613912 613913 613914 Result DF DLR Result DF DLR Result DF DT~R PQL Method 200.7 Analysis Date 6/30/99 6/30199 6/30199 245.1 Analysis Date 6/29/99 6/29/99 b/29/99 Antimony ND 1.0 0.010 ND I.0 0.01.0 ND I.0 0.010 0.010 200.7 Arsenic ND 1,0 0.005 ND 1.0 0.005 ND 1.0 0.005 0.005 200.7 ]3erylliutzt ND 1.0 0.005 ND I.0 0.005 ND 1.0 0.005 0.005 200.7 Cadmium I~ID I.0 0.005 0.005 I.0 0.005 O.OII I.0 0.005 0.005 200.7 Chromium 0.040 1.0 0.005 0.053 1.0 0.005 0.068 1.0 0.005 0.005 200.7 Copper ND 1.0 OAUS 0.020 I.0 0.005 0.033 1.0 0.005 QA05 200.7 Lead ND 1.0 0.015 ND 1.0 0.015 ND 1.0 0.015 0,015 200.7 Mercury ND l.0 0.0005 ND 1.0 0.0005 ND 1.0 0.0005 0.0005 -245.1 Niekel 0.013 IA 0.005 ND I.0 0.005 0.027 lA 0.005 0.005 200.7 Selenium ND 1.0 0,015 ND 1.0 0.015 ND 1.0 0.015 4.015 200.7 Silver ND 1.0 4.005 ND 1 A 0.005 ND 1.0 D,005 0.005 200.7 Thallium ND 1.0 0.015 ND 1.0 0.015 ND 1.0 0.015 O.OIS 200.7 Zine ND 1.0 D.005 ND 1.0 0.005 0.027 1.0 0.005 0.005 200.7 Samples filtered prior to analysis Analysis performed by Entech Analytical Labs, Inc. (CA FLAP #I-2346) r' ichelle L. Anderson, Lab Director ~.• DP=Dilution Factor ND=None Detected above DLR PQL= Practical Quantitation Limit DLR=Detection Reporting Limit Environn~enta! Analysis Since 7 983 525 Del Rey Avenge, Suite E ®S~nnyvale, CA 94086 ~ (40&) 735-1550. * Fax (408) 735-1554 June 30, 1999 Alex GalIego I{razan & Associates, Inc. S50 Parrott Street, Suite One San 3ose, CA 95112 Subject: 6 Soil Samples and 3 Water Samples Lab #'s: G1390b-G1391 I-Soil G13912-G 13914-Water Proj ect Name: Project Number: 04499112 P.O. Number: Method(s): El'A 8080 (PCB's) Subcontract Lab; Advanced Technology Laboratories {CAELAP #1838) Dear Alex Gallego, Chemical analysis on the samples referenced above has been completed. Summaries of the data are contained on the following pages. Sample(s) were received under documented chain-of-custody. USEPA protocols for sample storage and preservation. were followed. Bnfiech Analytical Labs, Irac. is certified by the State of California (#I-2346). If you have any questions regarding procedures or results, please call me at 408-735-1550. Sincerely, Michelle L. Anderson .Lab Director ~nvr`ronmental Analysis Since 7983 June 30, 1999 ELAP No.: 1838 Entech Analytical Labs, Inc. 525 Dei Rey Avenue, Suite E Sunnyvale, CA 94086 ATTN: Michelle Anderson Client's Project: Krazan Lab No.. 36612-OOI/006 Enclosed are the results for sample(s) received by Advanced Technology Laboratories and tested for the parameters indicated in the enclosed chain of custody. Thank you fox the opportunity to service the needs of youx company. Please feel free to call >.ne at (562) 989 - 4045 if I can be of further assistance to your company. Sincerely, ~t~~ ~,• Cheryl De Los Reyes Technical Operations Manager CDRIjh I Enclosures This cover letter is an integral part of this analytical report. This report pertains only to the samples investigated and does not necessarily apply to othei apparently identical or similar maicriats. This report is submitted torthe exclusive use of the client tp wham it is addressed. Any reproduction ofthis report or use of this Laboratory`s name for advertising or publicity purpose without authorization is prohibited, Advctt2cetl Technvlvgy Laboratories 1 SIO E. 33rr1 Str-eet Siareal Hill,; CA 90807 Tel: 562 989-4045 .Fax: 562 989-4040 Client: Attn: Client's Project: Date Received: Extraction Method: Matrix: Units: Date Amended: Entech Anal~~tical Labs, Inc. Michelle Anderson Lab No.: Method Blank 36612-001 Client Sam le I,D.: - G13906 B3-S Date Sato led: - 06/23/99 C` 8atctt #: H998(I80S226 I~998a80S226 Date T'atracted: 06/29/99 06/29!99 Date Anal zed : 06/29/99 06129!99 Anal st Initials: DT DT Dilution !factor: 1 1 '` ~N~LI'TE~ 1~IUti' DLR 12~slglts L'iL~t 12esx21ts' I?L,R' RestlIts` tI}'~..It l.Resultsr ,DL,R Resiilts 's73T~12 1f~e~ilfS' Aroclor-1016 33 33 ND 33 ND Aroclor-1221 67 67 ND 67 ND Aroclor-1232. 33 33 ND 33 ND Aroclor-1242 33 33 ND 33 ND Aroclor-1248 33 33 ND 33 ND Aroclor-1254 33 33 ND 33 ND Aroclor-1260 33 33 ND 33 ND Aroclor-1262 33 33 ND 33 ND Aroclor-1268 33 33 ND 33 . ND MDL =Method Detection Limit It'D =Not Detected (Below DLR}. DLR ° MDL X Dilution Sactor NA ~ Not Analyzed Reviewed/Approved >3y: ~' ~' ~ Sylvia Chan Semi Vaiatiles Group Leader The cover letter is an iutegtal part of this analytical report Date: l ~~~~~ ----- Adva~aced Tec/znology Lat~oratot•ies 1510 E. 33~~d Sneer Sigrcnl Hill, CA 90807 1'e1: 562 989-4045 Fccx: 562 !8l-414! Client: Attn: Entech Analytical Labs, Inc. Michelle Anderson Client's Projeef: Iirazan Date Received: 06!24/99 l;xtraetion Method: 35108 Matrix: Soil Units: ug/kg Date Amended: 07/01/99 1 :.G:... ..re 4..... ..ft .. - _..... PYl ~'~. ~~i~EL~~YO~OVPI ~ ~' i I - ~'~ i. 1 S: r..,. o-:.n _. .. ..: ., .r ~. .t ..,,... ... ~. .... _ ..r Lab No.: 36612-002 Client Sam le I.D.: G13907 B4-2,-5 Date Sam led: 06/23/99 C Bateh #: H9980805226 Date Extracted: 06/29/99' _ .Bate Anal zed : 06/29/99 Anal st Initials: DT Dilution Factor: E i~ L ~..". ' A~Al,"1YT>;', ~' 1 ~ rt~LEt.>.,,E .Rt:~i~lt, f3?tiR Results. ~3l?~ ~ Res:~iTts.~ t~~ DI.~t R:±;,suits ~ t ;~~Tt CteStilts ,~. ~}~;I2~ I2e5u~ts. ~ Aroclor-1016 _ 33 33 ND Aroclor-1221 67 67 ND Aroclor-1232 33 33 ND Aroclor-1242 33 33 ND Aroclor-1248 33 33 ND Aroclor-1254 33 33 ND Aroclor-1260 33 33 ND Aroclor-1262 33 33 ND Aroclor-1268 33 33 ND NIDL = Ntethod Detection Limit ND =Not Detected (Below DLR). DLR = MDL X Dttution Factor NA ° Not Analyzed Reviewed/Approved By: /°~~'~ S lvia~u y Semi Volatiles Groap Leader Tt~e wver letter is an integral part of tfiis analytical report. Dater ~~` , Advanced Technolog~r . LaGorcttories IS10 E. 33rd. Street. Srgnal Hi11, CA 90807 "lel: Sb2 989-4045 Fax: S62 989-4040 Client: Entech Analytical Labs, Inc. Attn: 31~Iichelle Anderson Client's Project: Krazan Date Received: 06/24!99 Extraction Method: 3510'.B Matrix: Soil Units: uglkg Date Amended: 07/01/99 ~` ., .. Y :,~pA~Method80$, ,. Lab No.: 36612-003 Client Sam le I.D.: G13908 i35-2,-5 Bate Sam led: 06/23/99 C hatch #; H9980805226 _ Date Extracted: 06/29/99 Date Anal zed : 06!29199 Anal st Initials: DT Dilution Factor: 1 '~ ° .r :<;~.NA~'S"P~ 14TDL S17'LR :2 ~~ulla~s'y.., ']3~sR !~esglts' TDLR ~';12es~Its ,IDx,R, +.Resuits`? i)I R Results ;DTty7~ R'eshlt"s' Aroclor•-1016 33 33 ND Aroc[or-1221 67 67 ND Aroclor-1232 33 33 ND Aroclor-1242 33 33 ND Aroclor-1248 33 33 ND Aroclor-124 33 33 ND Aroclor-1260 33 33 ND Aroclor-1262 33 33 ND Aroclor-1268 33 33 ND MDL = Method Detectian Limit ND =-Not Detected (Below DLR). DLR = 1tgDL % Dilution Factor NA = Nvt Analyzed Revienved/Approved xy: ___!G'~'~ Sylvia Chan Semi Voiatiles Group Leader Tha caper letter is as integrat part ofthis aaal}>ticat report. Date: ~~~r/~~ Advanced Teclv~olog_y Laboratories ISI D E. 33rd Street Sig~aul Hill, C.A 9D81J~ 7'el: 562 9b'9-4D45 Fax: 562 989-4040 Client: Attn: Client's Project: Bate Received: Extraction Method: Matrix: Units: Date Amended: i Entech Analytical Labs, Ine. Michelle Andexson I~razan 06/24!99 3510B Soil ug/kg 07/02/49 Lab No.: 36612-004 Client Sam le LD.: G13909 B6-2,-4 Date Sam led: Ob/23/99 C Batch #: !39980805226 Date Extracted: 06/29!49 Date Anal zed : 06/29/99 Anal st Initials: DT Dilution Factor: 1 ~" ..A,~~L~'~~;~ '~C ~ '' ; i ,14'TiD`L:. ;~L~i , ,; lt,esutfsi l~i'''1'~ ?Rescifis 7~lik2 i2esulis' ~l•J12~ tRestil~s °DI;It Z 17eslilts DLT'' ~'~esults Aroclor-1016 33 33 ND Aroclor-1221 67 67 ND Aroclor-1232 33 33 ND Aroclor-1242 33 33 ND Aroclar,1248 33 33 ND Aroclor-1254 33 33 ND Aroclor,1260 33 33 ND Atroclot•-1262 33 33 ND Aroclor-126$ 33 33 ND MDL =Method Detection Llm[t RFD =Not Detected (Below DLR}. DLI~ = MDL Y Dilution i~actor NA =Not Analyzed r Reviev«•ed/Approved By: ~~~ Sylvia Chan Semi Valatiles Group Leader The carer letter is an integral pare of ibis analytical report. Date: ~~! ~ ~ ,~ Advanced Tech~tolog~~ T_.abor•atories ISIO E. 33~d Street Signal Dill; C.9 90807 Tel.• SGZ 98.9-4045 Fax; 562 9$9-4040 Client: Attn: Enfech Analytical Tabs, )nc. Michelle Anderson Lab No.: 366.12-005 Client Sam le I.D.: G13910 B7-2,-4 Date Sam led: 06/23(99 QC Batch #: H99$0805226 Date Extracted: 06/29/99 _ Date Anal zed : 05/29/99 Anal sf Inifiais: l?'r Dilution factor: 1 ,,,, AI~tAL~j'l',~,~.='; ~ IVIDL ,DUR ` lt~sul>,5 ~ .. ; ~1iLR. , .•,`Results, ,p, l)LR ,, .l~esuit's Dt,_l2 ,,.; , Rcs~f~s~ T?I.IY Results DLI2 ~FResults Aroclor-1016 33 33 ND Aroclor-122I 67 67 ND Aroclor-1232 33 33 ND Aroclor-1242 33 33 ND Aroclor-1248 33 33 ND Aroclor-1254 33 33 11I Aroclor-126.0 33 33 ND Aroclor-1262 33 33 ND Aroclor-1268 33 33 P1D MDL =Method Detection Limit ND =Not Detected (Below DLR). ALR = MDL X Dllution Factor IVA =Not Analyzed Reviewed/Approved By: The cover letter is an integral part of this aualyrical report Acivancecl7echnology Laboratories ~r~ Sylvia Chan Semi Votatiies Group Leader Date: ~~~ ~~~ ~. 15.'10 ~. 33rd Street Sigtxal. Hill., CA 90807 Tel: 362 989-4045 Fax: 562 98.E-4040 Client: Attn: Entech Analytical Labs, Inc. Michelle Anderson Client's Fraject: I{razan Date Received: 06!24/99 Extraction Method: 3510B Matrix: Soil Units: ug/kg Date Amended: 07/01/99 _ S y • t a"' ,. .: r >, .. ~ ~''~;~ ' r ~ A l~etliod~~48i~~ .. ... '~, .. ....... ~..... , ~. ..~. ..., ., , x.. , ~ Lab No.: 36612-006 Client Sam le I.D.: G13911 T38-2 -4 Date Sam led: 06/23/99 QC Datch #: H99808QS226 Date Extracted: 06/29/99 Date Anal zed : 06/29/99 Anal rst Initials: D3' Diltrtion Factor: ... ~i'~'i<1'~1'~`-j <M +, L~ 1 I3~T;12A k~' Result`s -~ 131.;R, Resut$. .D~i3. Re~llfs fD1R ;Resglts~; ,b~:R ~,esuFts ~ k3Ltt~ ~Ite`su'Its Aroclor-1016 33 33 ND Aroclor~1221 67 67 ND Aroclor~1232 33 33 ND Arodor~1242 33 33 ND Aroclor-1248 33 33 Nll Aroclor-1254 33 33 ND Aroclor-1260 33 33 ND Aroc]or~1262 33 33 ND Aroclor-1268 33 33 Nl) MDL = Mettrod Detection Limit ND =Not Detected (Below DLR), DLR = MDL X Dilution Factor NA =Not Analyzed /"~ Reviewed/Approved By: ~,/i/'~''' Sylvia Chan Semi Volatiles Group Leader The cover letter is an integral part of this anatytieal report. Date: ' ` ~~~ Adl~uncerl Technology Labc~rator•ies 1510 ,~'. 33rd Street Signal Hill, CPi 90807 ?'el.• 5b2 989-4045 ~`ax: 562 9~Rl-4140 Spike Recovery and RPD Summary Report - SOIL(ug/kg) Method C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PCB54I.M (Chemstation Integrator) Title 8080/608 PCB 1254 Last Update : Mon Jun 28 1.5:12:53 1999 Response via Initial Calibration Non-Spiked Sample: HB0629A.D spike Spike Sample Duplicate Sample File ID HMS0629A.D HMD0629A.D Sample Blank MS-PCB E:06/28/99 Blank MSD-PCB E:06/28/99 Acq Time: 30 Jun 2999 ].2:59 am 30 Jun 1999 1:35 am Compo~_tnd Sample Spike Spike Dup Spike Dup RPD QC Limits Conc Added Res Res °sReC ;sRec RPD % Rec - -------------------------- P,ROCLOR 1254 ~ -0.0 ~ 1000 ~ 1008 11087 ~ 101 ~ 109 ( 8 ' 16 155-149 ~C Batch #:H998080522.6 Reviewed and Approved by: ! ~~ `~''~'' Date : ~r3 ~ Sylvia Chan Semivolatile Group Leader Advanced Tecl2nology Laboratories 1510 ,~. 33rd Street Signal Hill, CA 94807 TeZ: Sit .~i~-4145 Fine: 562 9aa-4D40 June 30, 1999 Entech Analytical Labs, lnc, S25 Del Rey Avenue, Suite E Sunnyvale, CA 94086 ATTN; Client's Project: Lab No.: Michelle Anderson 1Crazan 36644-001/003 ELAP No.: 1838 Enclosed are the results for sample{s} received by Advanced Technology Laboratories and tested for the parameters indicated in the enclosed chain of custody. Thank you fox the opportunity to service the needs of your company. Please feel free to call me at {5b2} 989 - 4045 if I can be of further assistance to your company. Sincerely, Cheryl De Los Reyes Technical Operations Managex CDR/jh Enclosures This cover letter is an zntegral part of this analytical report. This re¢oct ¢..°ttains only to the samples iuvtstigated and does not necessartty apply to other apparently identical ar similar materials. Ibis report is submitted for the ezctasive use of the client to whottt it is addressed. Any reproduction of this report or ttse of this Laboratory's name for advertising or publicity purpose without authorization is prohibited advanced Technology Labo~•acor°ies 1 S10 E. 33rd Sty eet. Signal Hill, CA 9080? Tel: 562 989-4045 Fizx.' 562 989-4040 Client: Entech Analytical Labs Attn: Michelle Anderson Client's Projeet: Krazan Date Received: 06(24!99 Extraction Method: 3510C Matrix: Water Units: u~/L .. , ~.. ,. ~ , ~v' soh n..-F ... _.... ol. i. _i.-.n.. ...1.._.- .~ .Z:-. r~ _~~1,L~~7.tfiA~i~~l1 Q~(7 k~~p ~, i ~. ..~.E u .. Lab No.: Method Blank 36644-001 Client Sam le I.D.: G13912 2- Date Saxn Ied: -- 06/23/99 C !Batch #: G998080W223 G998084W223 Date Extracted: 06!28/99 06/28/99 _ Date Anal zed : . 06(28/99 06/28/99 Anal st Initials: D'IC DT Dilution Factor: 7' s'.iv. ~~.4 '..,.„AZ,~ ~~E ..t, k rV~1~A.;~ .; ~~L a . - 7~y 1 ~.,V~,~- }:Ki;~eS1fII~S 1 ..'~„~~ ~~.Y~~eSU1tS -, ~~ ~1` r } ~ f a ~ .. . __ Aroclor-101b 1 1 ND 1 ND Aroclor-1221 2 Z ND 2 ND Aroctor-#.232 1 1 ND 1 ND Aroclor-1242 1 1 ND 1 ND Aroclor-1248 1 1 ND 1 ND Aroclor-1254 1 1 luD 1 ND Aroclor-1260 1 1 ND 1 ND Aroclor-1262 1 1 ND 1 ND Aroclor-1268 1 1 ND 1 ND 1MIDL =Method Detection Limit ND =Not Detected (BelowDLR). DLR = NIDL X Dilution ractor NA =Not Analyzed Reviewed/Approved By: ~../~~/ Sylvia Chan Semi Volatile Group Leader The cover letter is an integral part of this analytical report, , TBate: ~/~~~~~ Advanced Technology La.bot-atories 1 SI D E. 33rc1 Street Signal Hill, CA 90807 Tel: 562 989-4045 ~'ax: 562 989-4040 Client: Entech Analytical Labs Attu: ltichelle Anderson Client's Project: Krazan. ,Date Received: 46/24/99 Extraction Ii'Iethod: 35140 I0~7Catrix: Water Units: lid/L ,~ _. ..~.,_ -- w ..: ., m ~ 1' F' ~ of ocT'~~$~A ~; ]Lab l~to,: 36644-442 Client Sam le I.D.: G13913 B3-W ~ Date Sam led: 46/23/99 C Batch #: G99$480W223 Date Extracted: 46/28/99 Date Anal zed : 46128/99 Anal st Initials: D~' Dilution Factor: 1 _ I' .......~~. t s ~~~ ...__ .. ..~. - -~ 7-~7 ~ns,r.L.L ~D~~v\ -i~~.~11~~~71 s ~r~ - i ~ - ~~ , I f Y.' .: e1:~- Aroclor-1016 1 1 ND ~- - Aroclor-1221 2 2 ND Aroclor-1232 1 1 ND Aroclar-1242 1 1 ND Aroclor-1248 1 1 ND Aroclor-1254 1 1 ND Aroclor-1264 1 1 ND A~-oclar-1262 1 1 ND Aroclor-1268 1 1 ND MDL =Method Detection Limit ND =Not Detected (BeloFV DLR). DLR = MDL X Dilution Factor lYA = Nof Analyzed Reviewed/Approved By: tom.' `~ Sylvia Chan Semi Volatile Group Leader Date ~ ~' /~~~'~~? `1 The cover letter is an integral part of this analytical report. Advanced Tecfu~ology ~ Laborcuortes ISIO E. 33~~d Street Sig~uil HiII, CA 90807 2eZ: SGZ 9S9-4C4S Fcrx: S62 98.9-4040 Client: Entech Analytical Labs Attn: Michelle Anderson Client's Project: 1Krazan Date Received: 06!24/99 Extraction Method: 3510C Matri:~: Water Units: ug/L Lab No.: 36644-003 Client Sam le I.ll.: G13914 B4-~'V Date Sam led: 06/23/99 QC Batch #: G993080~V223 Date E:etracted: 06/2S/99 Date Anal zed : 06/23/99 Anal st Initials: DT utio~z Factor: D zl 1. (~ ry' ,{ }y yA`Y akl7,i nil.4'y~ 34 1~Y~L7~ 5 ~~1~/~ ~7 7G\Qis•~t~ d ~I I ;, r.: ay: ~ t':, s I.ic. Aroclor-1016 1 1 ND Aroclor-1221 2 2 ND Aroclor-1232 1 1 ND Aroclor-1242 1 1 ND ArOC~oI'-245 ~ ~ ND Aroclor-1254 1 1 ND Aroclor-1260 1 1 ND Aroclor-1262 1 1 ND Aroclor-1263 1 1 ND MDL = il4efhod Detection Limit ND =Not Detected (Below DLR): DLit = MDL X Dilufion liacfor NA =Not Analyzed Reviewed!/Approved By: late' ~' % r ~ ~~`~ ~~ Sylvia Chan Semi Volatile Group Leader The cover letter is an integral part of this analytical report. Advanced Technology Laboratories 1 SIO E. 33rd Street Signal Hill, CA 90807 Tel.• Sb2 959-4045 Fizx.• 562 959-4040 Spike Recovery and RPD Summary Report - G7ATER (ug/1) Method C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PCB54AI.M (Chemstation Integrator} Title 8082 PCB's Advanced Technology Laboratory Last Update Thu May 27 15:12:4.9 1999 Response via Initial Calibration Non-Spiked Sample: GB0628A.D Spike Spike Sample Duplicate Sample.. File ID GMS0628B.D GMD0628B.D Sample Blank MS-PCB E:6/28/99 Blank MSD-PCB E:Sj/28/99 Acq Time: 29 Jun 1999 12:03 am 29 Jun 2999 12:3!6 am Compound Sample Spike Spike Dup Spike Dup RPD ' QC Limits Conc Added Res Res aRec oRec RPD % Rec ARgCLOR 1254 ( 0.0^~ 1000 ~ 1087 ( 1030 ~ 109 ' 103 ~ 5 ~ ',8 ( 67-1&5~ QC Batch #:G998080W223 Reviewed and Approved by: Date: {'~%~~~ Sylvia Chan Semivolatile Group Leader Advaiaced Teclxnolagy Laboratories IS.lO E. 33rd Street Signal Hill, CA 94807 Tel: 562 989-4045 Fux: 562 989-4040 Entech Analytical Labs, Inc. QUALTTY C®NTR®L R:IESULTS SL~AR'3C LABORATORY CONTROL SPIKE METHOD: EPA 7471 525 Dei I2ey Avenue, Suite I; Sunnyvale, CA 94056 QC Batch #: SHG990612C Date Analyzed: 06/29/99 Matri3:: Solid Quality Control Sample: Blank Spike Units: mg/kg PARAMETER iVtethod # ~ MB SA SR SP SP SPD SPD RPD QC LIMITS mg/kg ; mg/icg ; mg/kg ; mg/kg ; %R m /kg ; ~/„R %R Mercury ~ 7471 ~ <O. i 0 ~ 0.20 ~ 0.00 ~ 4.18 ~ 91 0.18 E 92 ~ 1.1 ~ 75-125 Definition of Terms: MB: Method Blank SA: Spike Added SR: Sample Result SP: Spike Result SP (%R} Spike % Recovery SPD Spike Duplicate Result SPD (%R} Spike Duplicate % Recovery £ntech Analytical Labs, Ine. QI7ALITY CONTRQL RRSUII`I'S SU14'l1YIAIt~' METHOD: ICP 525 Del Rey Avenue, Suife ~ Sunnyvale, CA 94086 QC Batch #: SM990616 Matrix: Solid Units: mgllcg Da#e Analyzed: 06124!99 Extraction Method: EPA 3050 Spiked Sample: Blank Spike 7 PARAMETER ; Method # MB ~ SA SR SP SP ; SPD SPID '•, RPD QC LIMITS m /icg '• mg/k~ i nrt /lc ~ m /kg 's %R ~m 1Kg °/nR RPD %R ` iAntimony ~ 6010 ~ <1.4 ~ 50. 0.0 { 45. I 90 I 44. i 87 ~ { 3.4 25.0 69-102 3Arsenic 6010 ~ <L0 I 1 50. 1 I 0.4 j 40. ~ 80 I 40. 80 ~ 0.7 ~ 25A 64-107 ;Barium 6010 <1.0 ~ 50. ~ 0.0 49. 97 47. 94 j 3.0 25.0 75-113 I ,Beryiliarn 6010 1 <1.0 1 50. 1 0.0 1 47. i 95 , 1 46. 1 92 1 3.5 25.0 ' 1 , 71-110 ! i ,Cadmiwn p 6010 1 <1.0 i 50. 1 0.0 1 43. 1 86 1 I 43. 1 86 { 0.6 25.0 1 1 70-100 ; 1 1 ;Chromium b610 1 <L© ~ 50. I 0.0 45. 1 91 1 44. I 89 1 2.6 25.0. 1 1 i 68-i12 ' ! 1 ~Cobatt ~ 6030 ! ~ <1.0 ~ ~ 50. ~ ~ OA ; ~ 47. 1 ~ 94 ~ ~ ~ 46. ~ I 9Z ~ ~ 2.3 ~ 25.0 ~ ~ 67-111 'Co et j pp 1 6010 I <1,0 50. b . ~ 0.0 ~ 47. I ~ i 94 ~ 1 46. 1 91 ~ I 3.2 I 25.0 ~ 75-109 ~ 1 ;Lead 6010 <3.0 50. 0.0 44. 7; 87 43. 86 ~ 1.5 25.0 64-113 t 1 1 ;Molybdenum 6010 1 <1.0 1 50. 1 ~ 0.0 1 49. ~ ~ 97 1 1 47. 1 95 / 2.2 ; . 25.0 1 70-113 ; 1 , ;Nickel 6010 1 <LO ~ 50. 0.0 , 45. t 91 ( 1 44. 1 89 I L9 25.0 1 1 72-i 12 ; i l ;Selenium ~ 1 6010 1 ; 1 <1.0 1 ; 50. 1 1 ~ 1 OA 1 i 43. 1 ~ ; 1 87 , I 1 43. ~ 1 1 86 ; 1 1 0,8 1 25.0 ' 1 1 ~ 67-I03 1 1 1 Silver ~ 6010 ~ <1.0 ! 50. ~ 0.0 ~ 43. 86 48. 96 ~ 10.6 ~ 25.0. 70-11] 1 1 i 1 ;Thallium 60I0 ~ ~ <1.0 I 50. 1 0.0 1 47. 1 ~ 45 f ~ i 45. 1 89 j f 6.2 ~ 25.0 70-106 ;Vanadium 6010 <1.0 50. 0.0 47. 95 46. 93 2,2 ~ ~ 25.0 69-1i4 I 1 ;Zinc 1 1 1 6010 , 1 1 <1.0 1 50. 1 1 1 3 , 0.0 i 44. 1 i 1 E 1 i 87 ~ 1 i I 43. 1 i i 87 1 1 0.9 1 / 25.0 - 1 1 69-104 ; t I 1 1 ~ 3 Note: LCS and LCSD results rep i ~ 1 orted for the following Pm-ametets: t ~ I i ~ ~ e ~ ~l11 Definition of Terms: na: Not Analyzed in QC batch MI3: Method BIank SA: Spike Added SR: Sample Result SP: Spike Result SP t%R): Spike % Recovery SPD: Spike Duplicate Result SPD (%R): Spike Duplicate % Recovery Entech Analytical Labs, Inc. QUALITY C®NTR®L RESULTS SUMMARY METHOD: Cold Vapor Atomic Ai~soxption 525 Dei Rey Avenue, Suite E Sunnyvale, CA 94486 QC Batch #: WHG990607• Date Analyzed: 6/29/99 Matrix: Water Quality Control Sample: Blank Spike Units: m /L FARAMETER ;Method # MB SA SR SP SP SPD ~ SPD. RPD QC LIMITS mg/L m;/L mg/L mg/L %R mglL %R %R ;Mercury 245.1 <OAD02 ; 0.0020 ; ND 0.0018 ; 90 ~ 0.0018 9I 1.1 66- 122 ; Note: LCS and LCSD results reported for the follotivtng Parameters: All Definitioxx of Terms: MB: Method Blank SA: Spike Added SR: Sample Result SP: Spiky Result SP (%R) Spike % Recovery SPD Spike Duplicate Result SPD (%R) Spike Duplicate % Recovery Entech Analytical Labs, Tnc. QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS SUMMARY METHOD: ICP Laborabry Control Spikes QC Batch #: WM990625 Matrix: Water. Units: m~/L C PARAMETER :Method # ~ MB SA ~ SRs SP SP SPD SPD ~ RPD mglL mg/L ? mg/L mglL i %R mg/L '; % R Aluminum 200.7 < <0.050 5.0 ND 4.922 ; 98 4.87 97 L1 Antimony ~ 200.7 ~ <OA05 ~ 0.50 ~ ND ~ 0.53 ~ 107 ~ 0.53 ~ 105 ~ 1.4 Arsenic ~ 200.7 ; <0.005 ; 0.50 ND `; 0.53 105 0.55 109 3.7 Barium ~ 200.7 ~ <O.DOS ~ 0.50 ~ ND 0.51 102 ~ 0.51 ~ 102 ~ 0.8 Beryllium 200.7 ; <0.005 ; 0.50 ND 0.52 k 104 0.52 104 ~ 0.3 Boron 200.7 ; <0.005 ; 0.50 ND ~ 0.50 ~ 101 ~ 0.51 ~ 101 ~ 0.2 Cadmium ~ 200.7 ~ <0.005 0.50 ~ ND ~ 0.54 ~ 109 ~ 0.54 ~ i08 IA Calcium 200.7 ; <0.050 ; 14.00 ; ND 994 99 ; 9.71 ~ 47 i 2.3 Chromium ! 200.7 < <0.005 ~ 0.50 ND ~ 0.51 ~ 101 0.50 ~ 100 1.5 Cobalt 200.7 ; <0.405 ~ 0.50 ; ND 0.53 106 0.52 105 ; 1,1 Copper 200.7 ~ <0.045 ; 0.50 ~ ND 4.51 102 0.51 ~ i02 0.8 Iron ~ 204.7 ~ <0.050 ~ SAO ND ~ 5.30 106 ~ 5.19 104 ~ 2.4 'Lead 200.7 ; <4.005 ; 0.50 ND 0.52 105 0.48 95 9.8 Magnesium ~ 200.7 < <0.050 ~ 5.00 ~ ND ~ 4.47 ~ 99 { 4.88 ~ 98 ~ 1.7 Manganese 200.7 ; <0.005 ; 0.50 ND j 0.52 i03 0.51 i01 1.8 :Molybdenum 200.7 ; <0.005 ; O,SO I ND 0.52 i04 0.52 105 1.0 Nickel 200.7 ; <0.005 ± 0.50 ~ ND ~ 0.53 ~ 107 0.53 105 1.5 !Potassium ~ 200.7 ; <0.100 ; .10.00 ; ND 11.32 ; 113 12.46 ; 125 9.6 'Selenium ~ 200.7 ~ <D.005 ~ O.SO t ND . 0.53 106 ~ 0.49 ~ 93 ~ 7.3 ;Silver 200.7 ~ ~ ; <0,005 ; ~ 0.50 ND ~ ~ 0.52 104 ~ 0.51 102 < i.2 Sodium 200.7 ~ <0.100 ; 10.00 ; ND 9.89 94 9.80 98 0.9 ;Strontium 200.7 < <0.005 ; 0.50 ~ ND 0.55 ~ 111 ~ 0.53 106 ~ 4.9 ;Thallium 200.7 ; <0.005 ; 0.50 ND 0.55 ~ i10 0.55 lid 4.6 Tin ~ 200.7 < <0.005 ~ 0.50 ~ ND ~ 0.54 ~ 108 ~ 0.54 ~ 10$ ~ 0.0 ;Titanium 200.7 ; <0.005 ; 0.50 ND j 0.52 ~ 104 ; 0.52 105 4.3 ;Vanadium 200.7 ; <4.005; 0.50 ; ND ~ 0.51 ~ 102 0.50 ~ l0i 1.4 ;Zino 200.7 ; <0.005 ; 0.50 ND O.SS ~ 110 0.54 107 ~ 2.9 Definition of Terms: MB: Method Blank na: Not analyzed in QC batch SA: Spike Added SR: Sample Result SP: Spike Result SP (%R) Strike % Recovery SPD Spike Duplicate Result SPD (%R) Spike % Recovery 525 Dei Rey Avenue, Suite E Sunnyvale, CA 9408G Date Analyzed: 46/25/99 Control Sample: Blank Spike %R QC LIMITS RPD 75- 225 ~ 25.0 75-125 ~ 25,0 75- 125 25.0 75- i25 1 25.0 75- 125 25.0 75- 125 25.0 7S- 125 ~ 25.D 75- i25 ~ 25.4 75- 125 ~ 25.0 75- 125 25.0 75- i25 [ 25.4 75- 12S 25.4 75- 125 25.0 75- T25 i 25,0 75- 125 25.4 75- 125 ~ 25.0 75- 125 25.0 75- 125 ~ 25.4 75- 125 ] 25.4 7S- 125 25.0 ', 75- 125 ~ 25.0 7s- i2s 25.0 ~,` 75- a zs 25.0 '~ 75- 125 ~ 25,0 7S-• 125 25.0 I~ 75- 125 25.4 • l 7S- 125 ~ 25.0 ;~~t~.^4. 199 ~:1 i~f~1 i,lo . ~ 34`~ P . 2r'~ . ~ ,~ 525 D~1 REy Av~nu~, 5ui~e E ~ 5unnyv~f~, CA 94Q86 ~ (4Q~i) 7351550 ®~ax (4fl$) 735-~ 554 ~~~c~~.~x~a~~ ~~. ~f ~~~~~~ Subcotttractl,3s: ~~~-~- AateSeYl~ f ~~~ ~ l FitnjextHaatu7 ~ dl. DucD ~ ~C~ ~~' ~axn, ~e ~ axed Soizzco .I~~7c R lz2xer3 ,A~1t~l LS ~]~te ~8~C11 Tsme TakeX~ ~OYit~lners ~'res? ~~ 1 ,~ -~ ~~ ~'L~ ~ ~~3~ ~ ~~~ ,. ~ 2 ~fiti@crisFxcd ~y HecEit Ey: ~rV ~ ~t "a~~. D~a}fje: tk ~~ y ~~ ~ 3~enjf$e~'~: °~0(~ '- ~~,...4 ~~Ga~y: ~ Da4e~ x~,~~ &tliau~uishertBp; xteceitv~ri~1+: Data gene: r !ur ":i 1594 8:O~kr~ i~l,~.i9`F P, `~,`~ 525 Def Rey Auenue, 5ui~e E ~ Sur~nyuale, CA 9408b ~ t408) 735~~ 554 $ fax 1408) 735w7 5~4 .~ _~ a w C~ a }-- Q 1~ y k~ ~.~.. }' `~+ 'Y M d ° ' 4 ~ 1~ ~ ' E f0 a ~~~ 1 ~ f ...? ~~ - E$ ~. -C3 O c0 ~ tt a ~- ~ Ql ~ ~ ~ ~ u~ ri ~ >,.t r ~ ~ @'°~ ,~ :~,• ~~ ';~ G:: r 1 \ '~ ry i, ) ~ . ~. V` )I G1,: ~- o `! ~ { ~ ~~ ~ ~ , ~ L::J:~ ~ I a ~ a 3. .~., ~ ' ; v: {ase{ Q-Hdl , ~: ~ n~ au}{ose~-Hd.i1X31.8 ,~, °'" s~av{e;uo~ ~ ~: (o~sa/,l LPanlasa~d a{dwelt ~` ~"~- - `~. ~ r- ~.. '~. `u` ~. ~ ~.t ~ 'I - al~sodwo~~~ ge~~xJ adfj a{dwelt ~ ~-' :.~ ~ r.. {`~. '°-~ ' " ~ s E~` ~ ~ • ~a430~0 ~~y_V 1lo6-S 1aleM~M ~ ~` i/'~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ' I"' xu;eyy a{dwelt ; ?~ ~' ~ ~ _ ~ •m` ~.; ~.y ~ ". ` o ;~ U ~_ .1 \ ~. ~. a, . N O h, ,, '`` Wp ~ a ~ ` a ~ I 'J S uj C ~ ai . ~. ..~ ~ ~ ! .,~ .. ~ N E~ 3 °A l~ l a ~ `~ i . ~ ' 4 l~ ~' ~ ~ , ° ~I I ¢ , 1 V ~ E ~ ~' ~ a ~ '~ ~^ l ~,, . ~; ~ ss r ~ is ~ ~ ~ ~ tv r.:y f~' F ! ~ , ~ , .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ti ~ I~ p VJ ~ A. ~ ~~ 1 ~` ~ .. ., r ~ ,,,, ~y ~ t Q a> ~ ~ 'Q U ~ ~i' ~ a t ~ ~ ~ , ~ ! ~ ~ o ~ ~ ai ro a~i my a ~ u>n. 47 ~ "C3 ~_ ~ N ~ 'O ? ~ r/1 ~ 'g y ',~ ~ . . ~~ U O U .Y LL d u 0 } r,_- I~, ~ 1• ~ ==~'~~'~1 & ASSOCIATES INC. SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS September 10, 2007 Mr. Vijay Patel 2834 El Camino Road Redwood City, California 94061 RE: Document Review and Comment Proposed Holiday Inn Express Gateway Boulevard South San Francisco, California Dear Mr. Patel: Project No. 044-07032 In accordance with your request Krazan & Associates, Inc. (Krazan) reviewed our July 13, 1999 report titled Phase II Subsufface Investigation, Proposed Holiday Inn Express, Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, California for the purpose of determining the environmental status of the site related to a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) . conducted by Krazan in 1999. It is Krazan's understanding that you may use our updated recommendations when interacting with lending institutions regarding fixture development. Krazan's review was strictly limited to our July 13, 1999 report. No additional sources related to onsite or offsite circumstances that may have occurred since July 13, 1999 were addressed. A summary of the 1999 Phase II ESA report followed by our updated commentary which is presented below. 3 Summary of July 13, 1999 Phase II Report A Phase I ESA, summarized in a report dated November 25, 1997, was conducted for the subject site by ATC Associates Inc. (ATC) for Homestead Village Incorporated. Based on information contained in the 1997 Phase I ESA report, the site was part of the Bethlehem Steel Plant from at least 1938 to 1977. Previous subsurface investigations were conducted at the site as part of the closure of the steel plant. The soil at the subject site was reported to contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and heavy metals. The soil containing PCBs was reportedly removed from the subject site and disposed at a hazardous waste disposal facility. The soil containing heavy metals was graded and covered with one foot of clean fill. These activities were conducted under the direction of the California Department of Health Services (now the California Department of Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control [DTSC]) and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Future development of the subject site is covered by a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (DCCRs) dated 215 West Dakota Avenue • Clovis, California 93612 • (559) 348-2200 • FAX (559) 348-2190 With Offices Serving the Western United States 4407032 Doc Review ,..A ~_. i Project No. 044-07032 ~`''~ Page No. 2 July 12, 1984. The DCCRs limits the use of the property, requires notification of purchasers and lessees of the status of the subsurface conditions at the property, and requires notification to the DTSC of excavation activities at the site. 'I'lie purpose of the June 1999 scope of work was to assess the presence and concentrations'of heavy metals and PCBs in the shallow soil and groundwater at the subject site. Site Setting The subject site is approximately two acres of vacant land located in a developed area occupied by commercial structures. The subject site is located on the south side of Gateway Boulevard approximately 200 feet east of Corporate Drive. Three Pacific Gas &Electric Company towers are located adjacent to the western boundary of the subject site. According to the U.S. Geological Survey,' 7.5-minute San Francisco South, California topographic quadrangle map, dated 1956 and photorevised in 1980, the subject site is relatively level with a regional topography sloping gently to the east towards the San Francisco Bay. The subject site is at an elevation of approximately 25 feet above mean sea level. Based on a review of the U.S. Geological Survey Topographic map for the area and investigations conducted for properties in the site vicinity, the direction of groundwater flow is expected to mimic the overlying topography, which generally slopes to the east. Based on the investigations summarized in this report, groundwater is approximately 15 feet below the ground surface (BGS}. June 1999 Field Investigations The subsurface sampling was conducted in conjunction with the June 1999 geotechnical investigation performed by Krazan. A total of eight borings were advanced at the site as part of the geotechnical investigation as shown in an attached figure excerpted from the July 13, 1999 report. Because there are no known point sources for hazardous materials and the investigation was intended as a random sampling, the location of the borings were at locations needed for the geotechnieal investigation. Soil samples were collected for chemical analyses from six of the eight borings (B3 through B8) and groundwater samples were collected from three of the eight borings (borings B2, B3, and B4). A total of 11 soil samples were submitted for analyses by Entech Analytical Labs, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California, aState-certified analytical laboratory. Ten of the 11 soil samples were composited for single analytical testing. Additionally, three groundwater samples were collected for analyses. The samples were analyzed for PCBs and heavy metals in general accordance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 8080 and 6010/7000, respectively. KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC Offices Serving the Western United States 4407032 DOC REVIEW __ Project No. 044-07032 Page No. 3 Conditions Encountered The conditions encountered during the June 1999 sampling activities were recorded in field notes and logs. Based on observations made during on-site soil sampling activities, the soil consisted of dark gray silt and clayey fill material to a depth of approximately 5 feet BGS. The underlying the fill material consisted of tan fine to medium sand and silty sand of the Colma Formation. This material was encountered to the maximum depth explored. These lithologies were fairly consistent throughout the areas explored at the subject site with the thickness of the fill material varying by one to two feet. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 15 feet BGS. No odors or staining were noted in any samples collected from the borings during the field investigations. June 1999 Sample Analytical Results According to the laboratory analytical results, none of the soil samples collected June 1999 were reported to contain PCBs in concentrations greater than the detection reporting limit with the exception of the soil samples from B7 which were reported to contain Aroclor-1254 at a concentration of 111 micrograms per kilogram (µg/kg; equivalent to parts per billion). Low concentrations of metals were reported in the soil samples collected from the six borings advanced at the subject site. The groundwater samples collected from borings B2, B3, and B4 did not contain PCBs in concentrations greater than the detection reporting limit. The groundwater samples were reported to contain low concentrations of selected metals including cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, and zinc. The metals results for both soil and groundwater are summarized in revised Table 1. Revised Discussion of Findings ICrazan's evaluation of the results and findings associated with the 1999 Phase II ESA as presented in this letter included referencing the October 2004 U.S. EPA Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for the Industrial Direct Contact Exposure Pathway and the February 2005 San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB) technical document titled, Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites With Contaminated Soil and Groundwater. PRGs are risk-based concentrations that are intended to assist risk assessors and others in initial screening level evaluations of environmental measurements. The intended future use of the site is not residential, and the PRGs that appear to be the most applicable are the Industrial Direct Contact Exposure Pathway. This conservative assumption of direct exposure does not appear directly applicable because the significant majority of the site will be occupied by pavement and structures. KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC Offices Serving the Western United States 4407032 DOC REVIEW Project No. 044-07032 Page No. 4 According to the RWQCB (2005), Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) are considered to be conservative. Under most circumstances and within limits described by the RWQCB, the presence of a chemical in soil, soil-gas or groundwater at concentrations below the corresponding ESL can be assumed not to pose a significant, long-term (chronic) threat to human health and the environment. Additional evaluation will generally be necessary at sites where a chemical is present at concentrations above the corresponding ESL. Active remediation may or may not be required, however, depending on site-specific conditions and considerations. As stated by the RWQCB, the ESL document maybe especially beneficial for use at sites with limited impacts, where the preparation of a formal environmental assessment may not be warranted or feasible due to time and cost constraints. For the purposes of evaluating specific metals, Krazan also referred to a January 2005 technical document prepared by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) titled, Use of California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs) in Evaluation of Contaminated Properties. The California Human. Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs or "Chisels") are concentrations of 54 hazardous chemicals in soil and soil gas that the CaUEPA considers to be below thresholds of concern for risks to .human health. The CHHSLs were developed by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) on behalf of Cal/EPA, and are contained in Cal/EPA report entitled Human- Exposure-Based Screening Numbers Developed to Aid Estimation of Cleanup Costs for Contaminated Soil. The thresholds of concern used to develop the CHHSLs are an excess lifetime cancer risk of one-in- a-million (10-6) and a hazard quotient of 1.0 for noncancer health effects. The CHHSLs were developed using standard exposure assumptions and chemical toxicity values published by the U.S. EPA and Cal/EPA. The CHHSLs can be used to screen sites for potential human health concerns where releases of hazardous chemicals to soils have occurred. Under most circumstances, and within the limitations described in the January 2005 document, the presence of a chemical in soil, soil gas or indoor air at concentrations below the corresponding CHHSLs can be assumed to not pose a significant health risk to people who may live (residential CHHSLs) or work (commerciaUindustrial CHHSLs) at the site. PCBs in Soil and Groundwater The concentration of Aloclor-1254 in these soil samples (111 µg/kg) is will below the 'Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC) of 5,500 µg/kg established by the State of California Administrative Code, Title 22. The TTLCs are one criteria used to determine if a waste material is considered hazardous. The concentrations of metals are also well below the TTLCs. The concentrations of PCBs were also less than the applicable ESL KR,A7.AN & ASSOCIATES, INC Offices Serving the Western United States 4407032 DOC REVIEW ~,._ Project No. 044-07032 Page No. 5 and PRG, both of which are 740 mg/kg. The groundwater samples collected from borings B2, B3, and B4 did not contain PCBs in concentrations greater than the detection reporting limit. Soluble Metals in Soil In the July 13, 1999 report, Krazan stated that with the exception of lead, the value of the metal concentrations were below 10 times the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentrations (STLCs), a rule of thumb used to assess whether the samples should be analyzed using a Waste Extraction Test (WET) method. The STLCs are another criteria used to determine if a waste material is considered hazardous, and the WET method is used to determine the amount of extractable constituents in the waste material. Therefore, further investigation and/or remediation of the low concentrations of PCBs and metals in soil does not appear to be warranted. In accordance with the DCCRs, if excess soil from the site development is generated, if would have to be determined if this material was hazardous prior to transportation off-site. However, as shown on revised Table I, chromium was present at concentrations of 55 mg/kg, 74 mg/kg, and 98 mg/kg. The STLC for chromium is 5 milligrams per liter (mg/L} and therefore it was theoretically possible that soluble chromium could have been present at 5.5 mg/L, 7.4 mg/L, and 9.8 mg/L. Metals in Groundwater The June 1999 groundwater samples collected from borings B2, B3, and B4 did not contain PCBs in concentrations greater than the detection reporting limit. The groundwater samples were reported to contain low concentrations of selected metals including cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, and zinc. With the exception chromium reported in the groundwater samples collected from B3 and B4, the concentrations of metals are lower than the State of California Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for primary drinking water chemicals in water supplied to the public. Chromium was reported in B3 and B4 at concentrations of 0.053 and 0.068 mg/L. The MCL for chromium in drinking water is 0.05 mg/L. However, the shallow groundwater in the vicinity of the subject site is not used for drinking water purposes, and given the development of the area and the services provided to the site by the County of San Mateo and City of South San Francisco, and the proximity to the San Francisco Bay, it is highly improbable that the shallow groundwater will be utilized for drinking water purposes in the future. Given this information, further investigation and/or remediation of the low concentrations of metals in shallow groundwater does not appear to be warranted. Arsenic in Soil Arsenic was detected in the June 1999 soil samples at concentrations of 16mg/kg and 33 mg/kg and the applicable PRG and ESL are L6 mg/kg and 5.5 mg/kg, respectively. However, these concentrations of arsenic may be representative of naturally occurring concentrations of arsenic in local soils. According to KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC Offices Serving the Western United States 4407032 DOC REVIEW Project No. 044-07032 Page No. 6 the U.S. Department of Health and Human Sciences, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (circa 1997}, "background" arsenic in the United States ranges from 1 mg/kg to 97 mg/kg and are conservatively estimated to range from 0.59 mg/kg to 11 mg/kg in California. In addition, according to the January 2005 CHHSLs document, naturally occurring background concentrations of arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium and other metals in soils may exceed their respective soil CHHSLs. Cal/EPA generally does not require cleanup of soil to below background levels. This issue is frequently encountered with arsenic. Natural background concentrations of arsenic in California are often well above the health-based, direct-exposure goals in soil. Re~~ised Recommendations Based on the data and conclusions presented in this report, and the professional judgment of Krazan & Associates, Inc., the following recommendations are made: • Concentrations of arsenic are present in excess of very conservative regulatory agency criteria including U.S. EPA PRGs and RWQCB ESLs. However, in general, the amount of the excess arsenic is minimal and appears to represent naturally occurring or at least background concentrations of these metals in local soils. The concentrations present, in Krazan's opinion, do not warrant remediation. Exposure by construction workers to subject site soils will occur during site redevelopment. Reduction of dust generated during site redevelopment would likely reduce unhealthy exposure to construction workers and off-site occupants. Dust reduction is required by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District during construction and measures including water sprays to reduce dust should be sufficient to reduce the exposure to workers and nearby occupants. • Chromium was detected in three soil samples at concentrations which theoretically could have contained soluble chromium at or in excess of the applicable State STLC of 5 mg/L. However, as shown on Table I, none of the three groundwater samples contained dissolved chromium in excess of 0.068 mg/L. In Krazan's opinion, additional assessment of chromium in soil and groundwater is not warranted. • Based on the results of this investigation, further investigation and/or remediation of the low concentrations of PCBs and metals in soil or the low concentrations of metals in groundwater does not appear to be warranted. • In accordance with the DCCRs, if excess soil from the site development is generated, if would have to be determined if this material was hazardous prior to transportation off-site. KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC Offrces Serving the Western United States 4407032 DOC REV]EW / ._.__, 1 Project No. 044-07032 Page No. 7 Limitations The findings of this report were based upon the results of field and laboratory investigations, coupled with the interpretation of subsurface conditions associated with our assessment. Therefore, the data are accurate only to the degree implied by review of the data obtained and by professional interpretation. The exploratory soil borings locations were located in the field by review of available maps and by tape measurement from existing landmarks. Therefore, the soil borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used to locate them. The conclusions presented in this report are based upon site conditions as they existed at the time of our field investigation. Additionally, it is assumed that the soil borings installed on the subject site are representative of subsurface conditions everywhere on the site; that is, subsurface conditions on the subject site do not vary significantly from those disclosed by the soil borings. Chemical testing was conducted by laboratories certified by the State of California Department of Health Services. The results of the chemical testing are accurate only to the degree of the care of ensuring the testing accuracy and the representative nature of the soils obtained. The findings presented herewith are based upon professional interpretation using state-of--the art methods and equipment and a degree of conservatism deemed proper as of this report date. It is not warranted that such data cannot be superseded by future geotechnical, environmental, or technical developments. This investigation and report were authorized by and prepared for the exclusive use of our client. Unauthorized use of or reliance on the information contained in this report without the expressed written consent of Krazan & Associates, Inc. is strictly prohibited. Closing Please contact us if you have any questions or if we could be of further assistance. Respectfully submitted, KR.AZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Arthur H. Morrill Professional Geologist No. 5383 AHM/awf KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC Offices Serving the Western United States 4407032 DOC REVIEW N M O O d' O z U N O a ' o ,n ,n G N oo O O oo O' `? O O O O O N ,~ Q W •N M r O O 1O ~ O ~ O N O O O; cC z v' V V G.i O q N_ ~ O O O O O O! ~ ~~ v> ~~ N W o 0 o p o o N ~ vl v'~ v'~ h~ .Mti O O O O O O ~ r V V V V V V r ~ O O O N O ~ ~ O v; i" O O O O O O O O O O O i O~ ~n r+ O O O O O O' ~--+ O .ice., '~ V V V V V V ~: v) ~ 0 0 0 O O ~ t. O C H ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ,~ O O O ~ O O ~ O O O O O O O ~ U O O O O R5 N V V V ~ V V v~ .~ .--. V V V! ~ O O ~ I ~ O U ~ N o00 ~. Dent M M' p~ O O ~ p ON N .-+ ~ i a\ d' d' ,__, O N oo O ~ N ~ ~ O. N ~ O ~ 0.i .~ ~ ~ ,_.., ,,,.., ,.._, O O O N N O E.:.i ~ O N N V V pV QV V V OM O N O 0 0 0 0 0 i-. Y H 'q 3~ V] ~ Oyi pa L'. V V V ra ~ ,~ O ~ p `~ ~ va ~ ~ cd ~ ~ O N ~ N ~ ~ yVy Vj W ~ V ~ V M ~' h ~ M ~. 00 l~ ~ O O O ! N ~ t. }1 ' ~ (.ry ~ ~ i7 V V V 1 p, ~ .~ ~ ~ .b ~y .~ ~ i W~~ O ai ~ y 'CS Q~ O~ U ~ O`'i ~ cd ~ a .~ ~ ;; o +~ ~ ~ o~ an N ~ O v O O bq~ ~ ~" ~ O ~ `: O M oo~ O ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ h C7 A. v1 r-. ~ oo v~ ~ v-~ ' ° o0 0 0 ~ ~ o vi '" ~ o °° ;Z.Y o d °' ~ ~ ~ M l~ ~ ~ d' cf' i ~ Vl N ~ ~ O i ~ O N 'C ~ ~" w y U ' ~ s. O O O! O ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~~.~0~03~~, o cn ~ 3 v ~.o ~ ~ g.~ 0 ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 O ~ o 0 0 0 _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ '~ ;ti °~ V V O' O ccf '~-+ P~ ~ V~ V ^ ti W N C.' ~~ p Q~ .~ U ~ ~ ~ a •U ~ a ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ o ~• _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 °o o~~ o 0 o ~ o~~ ~~ ~~ w ~~ vi v-; vi v-i vi vii ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 o ~ ~ d' ~ .--1 ~ ~ ~ V V V V V V i o 0 0 0 N ~ .,-~. ~ ~. ~ 'b ' ~ V V v ° an~.o`-~ ov~~ ~ ~ Y o ~ ~ a; ~ o ' q o ~ o M o o ~ ,n o o Oo 0 o s ~ ~ p., G Gi ~ F'' ~ on ~ ~ ~ C~C ~ .~ V V M V V! ~ ~ O ~ O O O' M O G~ C~ ai .D . ~.n ~E'-'v~W '~a~ ~ h ~D `n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O ~ ~ O -~ G Q V V V `~ V V I o ~ .~ ~ II II II II li ~ ~ ..~ i ~ . ~.a? ~UU v'Fj ~~oi ~ v> ~n d- ~r ~ ~o,o ,,,,aa cn H ~ ~ v~ W a ~ fy ~p-0 N N N N N N '. ~ ~ ~ V a~aaaamcn>~a»a c~aaa ~aawaa a~ v~ r° a w ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ N M ~• ~ ~ [~ oO 0 0 U O N U ~~ U] o ?~~ ~' ~ ~ 5'C a, C ~~ n ~ -~- q y v '~ a d y d .~ H d U ~ T rn s ~ o ~ cn Z co > ~ o v a i 7 d a ~ a. ¢ ~ Z N O ~ z ~ >. m~sUvN ova o~- ~~Q ~° (n Q W ~ ~ Q X ~ wJ z~ zp -m >- ~_ ~ J Q = W O ~ W Q (n ~p °o ~~ Q U 0 U U Q Q Z 0 ICTPllATED f-sEOTECIINI.CAL I<JNGINT;i;RING INVESTIGATION PROP©SED ~3IOTEL 550 GATEWAY BaULEVA.RD SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA PRO.IECT NO.042-070z4 NOVI:MI3F..',12 12, 2007 Prepa~~ed far: 1WIR. V.T PATEL Y:$OLIDAY gNN I+ XPRESS 2834 EL CAMINO REAL REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94061. Prepared ~y: I{RAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. GE{~'TECI-INICAL 1=,NGINEFRING DIVISIf3N 215 W; DAKOTA AVENUE CLOVIS, CALIFORNIA 93612 (559) 348-2200 ;~ -t & ~,ssoc~aT~s, ~~c, GEOTECf-fN€CAL EI~IGI(VEERINC- • (:~IVIRCJNMENTA(_ ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING R~ Ii~iSPECT€ON November 12, 2447 KA Project Na. 042-07020 Mr. VJ Patel holiday Inn Cxpress 2834 EI Camino Real Redwood City, Califai•nia 9446I RE: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed I-Io#eI 550 Gateway Boulevard South San Francisco, California Dear Mr. Patel: In accordance with your request, we Dave ca~npleted a Geotechnical Engineering Investigatipn Update for th.e above-referenced site. The results of our investigation are presented in the attached repot: ~. If you have any questions or if we nay be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (559} 348-2200. Respectfully submii~ted, I~AZAN ~z ASSOCIA'T'ES; TTdC. Dave R. Jarasz, I:I. Managing Engineer RGE No. 2698tRCE Na. 64185 D.RJ:ch With offices Servgng 't'he Western United Mates 215 West.Daicota Avenue • Clovis CA 93612 • (559) 348-2200 • Fax: {559) 348-2201 t}4207(320 Report Clp~fate.POC °~-= _..._._ ~== I & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNfCAL ENGINEERfNG ENVIRON[~iENTAL ENGINEERENG CONSTR€JCTION TESTING & INSPECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS ~• - .. INTRODUCT iON ..................................................................................................................................................... i. PROPOSED CONSTRITCTION .:............................................................................................................................ t PURPOSE AND SCOPE ...............................................................................................................:.......................I SITE LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION .... ....................................................................,............................2 GEOLOGIC SETTING ............................................................................................................................................3 FIELD AND LAI30RATOR~' INVESTIGATIONS ... ......................................................................................3 SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ...........:............................................................................. 4 GROUNDWATER .................................................................................................................................................... 4 SOIL LIQUEFACTI:ON .................................................................................................................:.........................4 SEISMIC SETTL.EMENT ..............:.............................................:...............................................................:...........5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................:.....:.....................................................................5 Administrative Summary .....................................:.................................:.................................................,...............6 Groundwater Influence on Structures/Constraction ................................................................................................ .7 Site Preparation ................................................................................................ ...... ........... . 8 Engineered Fill .................................................................................................................. ........ 10 ........................................ Drainage and Landscaping ............................................................................................. 11 Utility Trench I3ack#ill ..................................................:......,................,....,....:.......,.............................................. 11 Excavation Stabi[ity .......................................:...................:............................:..............,....................................... 11 .......................................... Foundations- Driven Piles ...........................................:............................................. ,. i3 Indicator Piles ..............................................................................................................................:......................... 14 ......................... Pile lnstallatian ..:............................................................................................... ........................... 14 Site Monitoring .......................................................................................................... ......,....,..................... 14 F€aar Slabs and Exterior Flatworlc ......................................................................................................................... 14 Lateral Eartlt Pressures and Retaining WaIls ..........................:.............................................................................. 1 ~ R-Value Test Results and Pavement Design .......................................................................................................... 16 Site Coefficient ...................................................................................................................................................... 17 Compacted Material Acceptance ........................................................................................................................... 13 Testing and lnspectian ...........:................................................:......................................................•-----.................. 1 S LIMITATI.ONS .........................................................................................................................................:..............19 s><TE PLAN .............................................................................................................................................. 2~ LOGS OF 1130RINGS {171'® 3} ..............................................................................................Appendix A GENERAL EARTHWORIK SPECIF~CA'TIONS ................................................................ Appendix I3 GENERAII PAVING SPECIFICA7CI®NS ...........................................................................Appendix C With Offices Serving The Western United States 215 West Bakata Avenue • Ciovis CA 93b12 • (559) 348-2200 ~ Fax: (559) 348-2203 oazo~ozo k~~on vi>~t~«.oac o.,~. ~.. GFOTECHNICAI. ENGINEERING ENV€RCNMENTA(._ E1~€GINEERiNG CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION November 12, 2007 IAA Project No. 042-07020 ~`~~~ UPDATED CEOTECI-INICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGA'T'ION pI20POSED HOTEL 550 GATEWAY BOULEVARD SOUTH SAN FRANCISC®, CALIFORNIA INTRC3DUC'~ION This report presorts the results of our Geatechnical Engineering Investigation Update 'far the Proposed Hotel, to be located at 550 Gateway Boulevard in South San Fi'arCiSCO, California. I~razan & Associates, Inc. previously prepared a Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report far the above-referenced project (I{.A Project No. 042-99I 12) dated .Iuly I2, 1999. At the time of our previous investigation, the building was anticipated to be a 4-story structure. It is understood tl~e current design includes the canstructian of an 8-story hotel structure. The information and data gathered during the previous investigation were reviewed and analyzed as part of this investigation. Discussions regarding site conditions are presented herein, together with conclusions and recommendatians',pertaining to site preparation, Engineered fill, utility trench baclcfill, drainage and landscaping, fOUll'datians, concrete floor slabs and exterior flatwark, retaining walls, soil cement reactivity, and pavement design. PROPOSED coNSTRUCTION We understand the proposed development will consist of an 8-story hotel structure with an associated basement garage that will extend approximately 9 feet below finished lobby floor level. Footing loads are anticipated to be moderately heavy. On-site paved areas and landscaping are also planned far tl~e development of the project. In the event these structural or grading details are inconsistent with the final design criteria, the Sails Engineer should be notified so that we may update this writing as applicable. PURPOS3E AND SCOPE This investigation was conducted to evaluate the soil and groundwater conditions at the site, to make geatechnical engineering recar~mendations for use in design of specific construction elements, a.nd to provide criteria for site preparation and Engineered FiII construction. With Offices Serving The Western United States 215 West Dakota Avenue a Clovis CA 93612 • {559} 348-2200 . Fax: (5S9} 348-2201 D420702D RepuE1 Update.F]OC ''~`~' •x~s ~ Kit ProjectNo. {)42-U7£t2(I rage No. 2 Our scope of services was outlined in our proposal dated. June 4, 3007 {Proposal No. P242-07) and included the following: ® A site reconnaissance by a tnetnber of our engineering staff to evaluate the surface conditions at the project site. Afield investigation consisting of drilling additional 3 borings to depths ranging from 67 to 1.01 feet for evaluation of the subsurface conditions. m Laboratory testing an representative sai.I samples obtained froth the borings to evaluate the physical and index properties of the subsurface soils. e Bvalttation of the data obtained from the previous and current itavestigations and an engineering analysis to provide recommendations for use in the project design and preparation of construction specifications. • Preparation of this report stn~tmarizing the results, conclusions, recommendations, and findings of our investigation. A site plan showing the approximate boring locations is presented following the text of this report. A description of the field investigation, boring logs, and boring log legend are presented in Appendix A. Appendix A also contains a description of the laboratory testing phase of this study; along with the laboratory test results. Appendices B and C cotatain guides to earthwork and pavement specifications. When conflicts in the text of the report occur with the general specifications in the appendices, the recotnrnendatiotts itl the text oftlie report l;a-de precede;~ce. SITI'± LOCATION AND SITT~ D>CSCRIPTION The site is rot.tghiy about 300 feet square and encotttpasses approximately 3 acres. The site is located approximately 250 feet hartbeest of Corporate Drive on the southeast side of Gateway Boulevard in South San Prat~cisco, California. The site has a present street address of 550 Gateway Boulevard. The site is predomit~tately surrounded by commercial developments. During the tithe of our previous investigation, the site was vacant. A landscaped berth, approximately 5 feet high, rams along the northwest side of the property adjacent to Gateway Boulevard, and then diagonally across tl-ie northern corner of the site.. Several large trees and grottndcover were present along the frill length of the berm. The remainder of the site was generally flat, with a 3 foot difference in elevation trending north. to south. This level portion of the site contained a low growth of weeds. Two overhead transmission towers were present at the southwestern end of the site. luring attr recent field investigation of the project site and review of the available documents, there were no significant changes in the surface conditions observed at the site since the tithe of our previous investigation. Krazan & Associates, Inc. With Ten Offices Serving The Western United States q.}?i176?0 3tepo~l LJp<1ate.BOC. ~~,~ ~~" KA Project No. Q42-07020 ~ ~;;,~~ ~~ ~''s~, Page No. 3 GEC$I~~GIC' S`ETT~I~G`' The subject site is located in the San Francisco Bay Region of the Coast Range Geomorphic Pr•avince. The Coast Range Geomorplli.c Province borders the coast of California arld generally consists of northwesterly/southeasterly trending ridges of granitic, nletavolcarlic, and rnetasedimerltary racks. iVlllnerotis rlorthwest to southeast trending faults parallel the trend of the Coast Ranges. San Francisco Bay is a broad shallow depression within the Coast Ranges that has been subsegr.tently filled with sedimentary deposits. In the vicinity of the subject site, these deposits consist of unconsolidated and cemented sediments comprised of gravel, sand, silt, and clay that underlie broad valleys arld flatlands. The sedimentary depasils vary in thickness from a few feet to about b04 feet east and west of the San I~railcisco Bay. Three major faults are located near the site -- the San Andreas Fault Zane {Peilinsul~), the I-Iaywal•d Fault Zone, and the Calaveras Fault Zane. The San Andreas Fault is locat;.d approximately 6 kill west of the site and was the source of the l9Ub San Francisco Earthquake. The Hayward Farylt is located east of the subject site. The Hayward Fault is considered capable of producing an upper bound earthquake event of Richter magnitude 7.5. Th.e Calaveras Fault is located further east of the Hayward Fault and is also considered capable of producing large earthquakes. 1"here are no active fault traces in the project vicinity. Accordingly, the project site.' is not within an earthquake fault zone (Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zane) .and will not require a special site investigation by ail Engineering Geologist. The site is located within Seismic Zone 4. )<>t~L]D AN~3 LABE?ltr~'I'Ulft~' iNVfT:,S~'iGR.'1'iUNS Subsurface sail conditions were explored by drilling additional 3 borings to depths ranging tram appraxiinateIy 67 to l0l feet below existing site grade. The borings were drilled using atruck-lnauilted drill rig. In addition, 2 bulk soil samples of the near surface subgrade materials were obtained from the proposed pavement area for laboratory R-value testing. Tile approximate boring ,arid bulk sample locations are shown on the site plan. During drilling operations,. penetration tests were perfoi-rned at regular intervals to evaluate the soil consistency and to obtain information regat•dir~ib the engineering properties of the subsurface soils, Soil samples were retained for laboratory testing. The soils el].GOllntel•ed iIl our barrngs were COntinuOnSly exarllnled and V1S[,taliy CIaSSi'fied 111 aGCOrdanCe with the Unified Soil Cl.assi.ficatian System. Amore detailed description of the held investigation is presented irl Appendix A. Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to evaluate their physical characteristics and engineering properties. The laboratory testing program was formulated. with emphasis oil the evaluation of natural moisture, density, gradation, shear strength, consolidation potential, atterber•g limits, R-value, and rnaisture-density re{ationships of the materials encountered., Details of the laboratory test program and results of the laboratory tests are summarized in Appendix A. 'I'llis information, along with the field observations, was used to prepare the final boring logs in Appendix A. ICrazaaY & associates, inc. With Ten Offices Serving The Western United States 04?07020 Rep~xt Elpdate.DC~C ~~~ ~ <' ~ ' ~. I<r1 Prn c.~t No. 042-07020 sa ~~ ~ ~~, Page No. 4 S®I[I, P;E2®F~~E Alm Si3BSUR.FAC]E CG1~3~T.IIGNS Based on our findings, the subsurface conditions encountered were representative of the geologic region of the site. Approximately ~'/~ to 4'h feet of fill material was encountered within the test borings drilled throughout the site. In addition, up to 8 feet of fill material was previously encountered within the berm area located along the north and northwest sides of the property. The fill material predominately consisted of gravelly silty sand, clayey silty sand, clayey sand with gravel, or silty sandJsandy silt. The thickness and extent of fill material was determined based on limited test borings and visual observatio~~. Thicker fill may be present at the site. Limited testing was performed otz the fill sail during the tune of our field and laboratory investigatioi#s. This limited testing indicates that soiree compaction effort was applied to the fill soils during placement. Below the fill material, alternating layers of medium dense to very dense clayey sand, clayey silty sand, silty sand with clay, and silty sand/sandy silt were encountered. Field and laboratory tests suggest that these soils are relatively strong and slightly compressible. The clayey sand soils were slightly cohesive. Penetration resistance ranged from 14 blows per foot to over 50 blows per b inches. Day densities ranged fi•on~ 104 io 129 pcf. Representative soil samples consolidated approximately 1 to 2'/~ percent under a 2 ksf load when saturated. Representative soil samples had coefficients of internal friction ranging from 30 to 48 degrees. Representative soil samples. of the clayey sand soils had liquid limits ranging froth 24 to 2fi and plasticity indices ranging from 8 to l 1. Below approximately 78 to 140 feet, very dense, .highly weathered volcanic rock was encountered. These rocks are slightly stronger tha~a the upper soils and extended to the termination depth of our borings. For additional information about the soils/rocks pnaterials encountered in our borings drilled for ibis investigation, please refer to the boring logs in Appendix A. GROVi~]DWATER Test boring locations were checked far tl~e presence of groundwater during and at the completion of the drilling operations. Free groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 103/a to 12`/z feet below site grades. It should be recognized that ground water elevations may fluctuate wi#la time, being dependent upon seasonal. precipitation, irrigation, land use, and climatic conditions, as well as other factors. Therefore, water Level. observations at the time of the field investigation may vary from those encountered during the construction -phase of the project. The evaluation of such. factors is beyond the scope of ibis report. SOIL ]L>fQ[TfL,~'ACTIC~N Soil liquefaction is a state of soil particle suspension, caused by a cotmplete loss of strength when the effective stress drops to zero. Liquefaction normally occurs in soils, such as sands, in which the strength. is purely frictional. However, liquefaction has occurred in soils other than clean sands. Liquefaction usually occurs under vibratory conditions, such as those induced by seismic events. T{razan & .lssaciates, inc. With Ten Offices Serving The Western CJ}cited States (14267f32t) Repot L}}ulzce.DOC ,, ~~ ~~~ X ~ Kr1 Project No. E142-07020 Page Nc~. 5 "lo evaluate the Iicluefaciian potential of the site, the following items we~•e evaluated: l } Soil Type 2} Gro~.n~dwater depth 3} Relative density 4} l:nitial confining pressure 5} Intensity and duration of groundshaking TIZe predominate soils within the project site consist of gravelly silty sand, silty sand, clayey silty sand, clayey sand, and silty sand/sandy silt. Groundwater was encountered below the site at approximately 10/4 to l2'/~ feet below site grade during our exploratogy drilling. The clayey sand soils have law to moderate cohesive strengths. `Fhe potential for soil liquefaction during a seismic event was evaluated using the,"L3QUEI;YP~O" computer program (version 5} developed by Civill'ech .Software. For the analysis, a maximum earthquake magnitude of 7.9 was used. Based an review of the California Geological Survey Seismic I-hazard .Report: Q43, a peak horizontal ground surface acceleration of O.b9g was considered conservative and appropriate for the liquefaction analysis. A high groundwater depth of 8 feet was used for the analysis. The computer analysis indicates that soils above a depth of 8 feet are non-1'iquefiable due to the absence ol.' groundwater. The sails below a depth of 8 feet. have a slight to moderate potential for liquefaction under seismic shaking due to the alternating loose to very dense, saturated silty and clayey sand soils below 1 I to I2'/2 feet. Tl~.e analysis indicates ti~at the fatal seisa~Yic indtieed seLtle~i~anL be ail the order df 3 to 5 incl;es. Differential seismic induced settlement is anticipated to be less than 2'/z inches over the width of the building. Seismic Settlemeztt One of the most common phenomena during seismic slaking accompanying any :earthquake is the induced settlement of loose unconsolidated soils. Based on site subsurface conditions; and the moderate to high seismicity of the region, a.ny loose (Ill materials ~.t tl~e site could be vulnerable to this potential hazard. I-Iowever, this hazard can be mitigated by fallowing th.e design 'arid construction recamtnend.atians of our Geatechnical Engineering Investigation {over-excavation and rework of the loose sails aid/or fill, and deep foundations). Based on th.e density of the on-site soils, the native deposits underlying the site appear to 6e subject to low to moderate seismic settlement. C®NCLUSIONS AND IitECOM1MENDA'I'IONS Based on the findings of our field acid laboratory investigations, along with previous geatechnical experience in the praject area, the fal.lawing is a srzmma~y of our evaluations, conclusions, and recon~.mendatians. Krazaaa & Associates, gs~c. With Ten Oifces Serving The Western United States 04207020 Keport CJpdatc.DOC Klt Project No. 042-07()20 ''~~'• ~ ~~ Pale No. 6 Y~: ~~"a i Administrative Summa In brief, the subject site and soil conditions, with the exception of the fill rnateriat, expansive nature of the clayey sail, and existing development, appear to be conducive to the development of tl~e project. Approximately 3% to 4'/z feet of fill material was encountered within tl3e test borings drilled throughout the site. In addition, up to 8 feet of till rnater•ial was previously encountered within the bean area located along the Wirth and northwest sides of the property. The fill material predominately consisted of gravelly silty sand, clayey silty sand, clayey sand, or silty sand/sandy silt. The thickness and extent of fill material was determined based on limited test borings and v'ssual observation. Thinker fill may be present at the site. Limited testing was performed on the fill sail during the time of our field and laboratory investigations. This limited testing indicates that same compaction effort was applied to the fill soils during placement. It is recommended that compaction testing reports be provided to Krazan & Associates, l.nc., for review. If conclusive compaction testing reports are not available, additional testing should be performed to verify the structural integrity of the fill materials. Fill sails which have not been properly carnpacted and certified shatrld be excavated. and reconipacted. Over-excavation should extend to a minimtrr~~ of 5 feet beyond proposed footing lines. Prior to fill placement ICrazan & Associates, Inc. should inspect the bottom of the excavation to verify no additional ren~rovai will be required. The proposed hotel building is planned to be an eight story structure over one level of subterranean basement. In order to mitigate against the potential. for excessive total and differential settlement, and gain adequate uplift resistance, the new hotel building may be supported by deep foundations. Deep foundations may consist of driven or drilled piles and bottomed at least I0 feet into the very dense soils or at bast ~(? feet below the surface, whichever is deeper. Very dense clayey sand or clayey silty sand were encountered below approximately 10 to 15 feet in the test borings, These hard lenses may pose problems in driving concrete piles to the required embedment depth. Therefore, it is recornrnended that indicator piles be driven prior to the start of production pile driving to determine lengths of the production piles and al.sa determine if p~~edNilling will be required. Tlie number and location of the indicator piles should be deterrtrined by the Contractor in coordination with otrr firm. Deter•ntination of pile cast lengths also should be the responsibility of thc; Contractor. If ~~redr~illi~g will be required, the predriiled holes should have a maximum diameter of 0.85 percent of the nominal pile diameter to prevent substantial reduction in frictional capabilities of the pile. The depth of tl~e predrilled holes should be a maximum of 20 feet below the existing surface. The indicator piles may he used as praducti.on piles for building support if they are properly located and meet the criteria established upon completion of the pile load testing program. Portions of the upper, native soils and fill material are classified as clayey sand and c}aye:y silty sand. The clayey soils appeared to have a moderate swell potential. To minimize potential soil movement, it is recorntnended the upper 24 inches of soil within building areas consist of rion-expansive Engineered Fill or lime-treated Engineered Fill. The on-site silty sand soils will he suitable for re-trse as non- expansive Engineered Fill, provided they are cleansed of excessive organics and debris. If tl3e upper 24 inches of sail below finished pad grade already consists of non-expansive sail, izo additional nan- expansive fill placement will be required. .During construction, it is recommended that additional tests be performed on the on-site soils to verify their physical and index properties. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Witte Ten Offices Serving Tl~e Westenl iJ€sitec! States 04?U7020 Rrgon U3idate.hOC ' &~ '~' KA Prnject Nc~. 0 k2-07020 t'uge No. 7 As an alternative fa the use of non-expansive soils, the upper 24 inches of soil sttppot•ting slab-on-grade areas tnay consist of Iitne-treated clayey soils. The lime-treated soils should be recampacted to a tninin~turrt of 90 percent of maximum density. Prelitnit~ary appiica#ion rate of Iitne should be 5 percent by dty weight. The lime n~taterial should be calcium oxide, cotntnotaIy known as quick lime. The clayey sails should be at or near optintun~t n~ois~u•e during the mixing opera#ians. Commercial developments are loco#ed around the ptojec# si#e vicinity. Associated ~~ritil these developments are buried structures such as utilities tl}at tnay extend into the project site. Any buried structures encountered during construction shottl.d be properly removed and the resulting excavations backfilled with Engineered Fill. I# is suspected that demolition activities of the existing struc#ures will disturb the upper soils. After detnalition activities, it is recotntnended that these disturbed sails be retrtoved and/or recompacted. This compaction effort should stabilize the upper soils and locate any unsLtitable ar pliant areas not found during our field investigation. Trees and shrubs are located within the site. Tree and slarctb removal operations should include roots greater than 1 inch in diameter. The resulting excavations should be baclcfilled with .Etigi.neered Fill compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of rrtaxitrtutn density -based on ASTM Test Method D 1557. 1"ree groundwater was encau~atered at approximately 10314 to 12%Z feet below site grade. Therefore dewatering and/or waterproofing will be required should structures or excavations extend below groundwater table. If groundwater is encountered, our firm should be consulted prior to dewatci-ing the site. Installation of a stand}~ipe piezotrteter is suggested prior to construction should groundwater levels be a concern. Sandy soil conditions were encountered at the site. These cohesionless sails have a tendency to nave in trench wall excavations.. Shoring or sloping back trench sidewalk tray be required vvithsn these sandy soils. Groundwater Influence on Structures/Construction During our field investigation, groundwater was encountered at approximately 103/4 to 12'/z feet below exisfing .site grade. Tl}erefore dewatering andlor waterproofing tnay be required should strueft.tres or excavations extend below this depth. 1f groundwater is encountered, our firn-t should be consulted prior to dewatering the site. Installation of a standpipe piezometer is suggested prior to construction should groundwater levels be a concern. In addition fo the grottndwa#et• Ievel, if earthwork is performed during or sootZ after periods of precipitation, th.e subgrade soils nay become saturated, pump, or not' respond to densification techniques. 'typical remedial trteasures include diseing and aerating tl~e soil during dry weather; mixing the soil with dryet• materials; removing and replacing the soil with an approved fill titaterial; or mixing the soil with an approved lime or cement product. C}ut• ftrart should be consulted prior to itnplen-tenting remedial measures to observe the unstable subgrade conditions and provide appropriate recomtnenda#ions. F~razan & Ass©ciates, I.nc. With Ten Offces Serving The Western United States awza7ozo Fieporc L~~~a~,~.o~c KA Prt~ject Na. 0~2-07020 Page No. 8 ~ ~F Siite I'retsaration General site clearing should include retnovai of vegetation; existing utilities; structures including foundations; basement walls and floors; existing stockpiled soil; trees and associated root systems; rubble; rubbish; and airy loose andlor saturated materials. Site stripping should extend to a nainitnutn depth of 2 to 4 inches, or until ail orgat}ics in excess of 3 percent by volume are ren~aved. Deeper stripping play be required in localized areas. These tnateriais will not be suitable for use as Engineered Fill. I~[owever, stripped topsoil may be stockpiled and reused in landscape ornon-structural areas. Appraxitnately 3'/z to 4'/~ feet of f.Il tt~taterial was encountered within the test borings drilled throughout the site. In addition, up to 8 feet of f I1 material was previously encountered within the bean area. The fill material predominately consisted of gravelly silty sand, clayey. silty sand, clayey sand with gravel, or silty sand/sandy silt. The thickness and extent of fill material was determined based an limited test borings anal visual abservatiat~. Thicker fill tray be present at the site, Limited testing was performed on the fill sail during the time of our field and laboratory investigations. This limited testing indicates that some compaction effort was applied to the fill soils during placement. It is recommended that compaction testing reports be provided to Krazan & Associates, l:na, for review, If conclusive catnpaction testing reports are not available, additional testing should be performed to verify the structural integrity of the fill material. Fill soils which have not been properly compacted and certified should be excavated and reeotnpacted. Over-excavation should exte~td to a tninitnttm of 5 feet beyond proposed footing lines. Prior to fill piacetnent Krazan & Associates, Ina should inspect the bottom of the excavation to verify na additional removal will be required. Any buried. structures encountered during construction should be properly ren3oved and th.e resulting excavations backfilled with Engineered Fill. Aff:er demolition activities, it is recoimtnended that these disturbed soils be removed and/or recompacted. Excavations, depressions,. or soft and pliant areas extending below planned fitaislied subgrade levels should be cleaned to firm, undisturbed soil and baclcfilled with Engineered Fill. In general, any septic tanks, debris pits, cesspools, ar similar structures should be entirely removed. Concrete footings should be removed to an equivalent depth of at least 3 feet below proposed footing elevations or as recommended by the Soils Engiz7eer. Any other buried structures should be removed in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engitleer. The resulting excavations should 6e bacicfilled with Engineered Fili. Trees and shrubs are located within the site. Tree and shrub removal operations should include roots greater than l inch in diameter. The resulting excavations should be backftlled with Engineered Fill compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximmum density based on ASTM Test Method D3 SS7. Within proposed .pavement areas following stripping, demolition, and fill removal operations, it is recotnntended that at a. minimum, the upper 12 inches,of subgrade soils be excavated, worked until uniform and free fratn large clods, moisture-conditioned to a minimum of 2 percent above opti~nun~ tnoi.sture-content, at~d recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density based on ASTM Test Method I~ I S S 7. Krazatl & Associates, Ync. With Ten ©ffices Serving The Western United States tl4?(1711^_tl 2cJwrt UpdnceDOC "' ~ ~'--~'~ ' 1<rA Pro,ject No. 042-07020 m=ss ' ... I~ Page Na. In order to mitigate against the potential for excessive total and differential settle2nent, and ga2n adequate uplif~# resistance, tl~e new hotel building may be supported by deep- foundations. Deep foundations may co2~sist of driven or drilled piles and bottomed at least 10 feet iota the very dense soils or at least 50 feet below the surface, wl2ichever is deeper. Very dense clayey sand or clayey silty sand we2-e encountered below approximately. 10 to 15 feet in the test borings. T here hard lenses may pose problems in driving concrete piles to the required embed2ne2~t depth. Therefore, it is reeo2n2nended that indicator piles be driven prior to the start of production pile driving to deter2nine Lengths of the production. piles and also determine if pr^edrilting will be required. The Dumber and location of the indicator piles should be deter2mined by the Contractor in coordination with our firm. Deter2mination of pile cast lengths also should be the responsibility of the Contractor. Ifl~l^edrillifTg will'be required, the predrilled hales should have a maxi2nun2 diameter of 0.85 percent of the nominal pile diameter to prevent substantial reduction in frictional capabilities of the pile. The depth of the predrilled hales should be a maxi2mum of 20 feet below the existing surface. The indicator piles may be used as production piles far building support if they a2•e properly located and meet the criteria established upon completion of the pile load testing program. It is reco2n2nended that the upper 24 inches of sail withi2~ proposed building and exterior flatworlc areas consist of non-expansive Engineered fill a2• limme-treated Engineered Fill. The intent is to support slab- on-grade -and exterior flatwa2-Ic areas with 24 i2aches of non-expansive or lime-treated fill. The fill placement serves two functions: i} it provides a uniform amount of soil, which will mare evenly distribute the soil press2.2res and 2) it reduces moisture content fluctuation in the clayey material beneath the building area. The .non-expansive fill material should be awell-graded silty sand. ar san.dy silt soil. A clea2~2 sand o2• very sandy sail. is not acceptable for this purpose. A sandy soil will ,allow the surface vJater to drain into tLi°v °vxpa21v2ve claye;T sail bel^`,xt, ;*rhlCll may result in cr,}l SWelli??g. IlmpOrred Fill should be approved by t1~e Soils Engineer prior to placement. The fill should be placed as specified as Engineered Pill. ', As indicated previously, fil} materials are located across the site. It is recaminended tL~at any uncertified fill material encountered within pavement areas, be reimoved and/or reco2npacted. jThe fill materials should be moisture-conditioned to Iaea.r optimum moisture and recampacted to a mini2~~u2n of 90 percent of maximum density based on ASTM Test Method D 1557. As an alternative, the Owner may elect not to recampact the existing fill within paved areas. However, the Ow2~er should be aware that the paved areas may settle which may require annual maintenance. ,At a Inini2nurn, it is recommended that the upper 12 inches of subgrade soil be moisture-conditioned as necessary and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of Imaxiinum density based an ASTM. Test Method Dl 557. The upper sails, during wet winter n~2onths, became very moist due to the absorptive characteristics of the soil.. Earthwork operations perfarined during winter months may encounter very moist unstable soils, which Inay regiii2•e 2•etmaval to grade a stable building foundation...Project.,.site winterization consisting of placement of aggregate base and protecting exposed soils during the canstructian phase should be performed. Keazan & Associates, Tnc. Willa Ten Offices Serving The Western. lJ2aited States e»2o7o;a Report ~?uau~.ooc ~. .. ~, :~~ .. ~:: .3;y ~,~~ 2 ~;,,~~~ „ ..~ v~ KA Project No. 042-07()2(1 Page No. 10 A represez-ztative of our firm should be present during all site clearing and grading operations to test and observe earthwork construction. This testing and observation is an integral paz~: of our service as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent. upon compaction of the material and the stability of the material. The Soils Engineer inay reject any material that does not meet compactions and stability requirenseists. Further recoznznendatians of tlsis report are predicated upon the assumption that earthwork construction will conform to recomme~sdations set forth in this section azsd the Engineered Fill section. Engineered Fitt The upper native sails and fill material within the project site are identified as gravelly silty sand, silty sand, clayey silty sand, clayey sand, anti silty sand/sandy silt. Tlse on-site soils Ihat do not contain clay will be suitable for reuse as non-expansive Engineered Fill, provided. they are cleansed of excessive organics and debris. The clayey sand soils with a [Jniforiss I3iiildizag Code Expansion Index of greater than 1.5 will not be suitable for reuse as non-expansive Engineered Fill. Tlse clayey sand soils will be suitable. for reuse for fill placement within the upper 18 inches of building and exterior #latwork areas, provided they are lime-treated. Tl-zese clayey sails will be suitable for reuse as General Engineered Fiil, within pavensent areas and below 18 inches from finished grade in building areas, provided they are cleansed of excessive organics, debris, and moisture-conditioned to at least 2 percent above optimum moisture. The preferred materials specified for Engineered Fill are suitable for most applications. with the exception of exposuz:e to erosion. .Project site winterization and protection of exposed soils during the constrzzetiozs phase should be the sole responsibility of the Contractor, since lse has complete control of t1s.e project site at that time. All Izs~poz-ted Fill materials should be approved by th.e Soils Engineer and be in accordazsce with Ilse recluirezszezsts of noes-expansive Engineered Fill. Non-expansive Engineered Fill materials should consist of a well-graded, slightly cohesive, fine silty sand or sandy silt, with z•elatively impervious characteristics when compacted. This material should be approved by the Soils Czsgineer prior to use azsd should typically possess the following characteristics: Percenst Passing No• 20Q Sieve 20 to 50 Plasticity Index 10 maximum UBC Standard 24-2 ]Expansion Index 15 maximum Fill soils should be placed in. lifts approximately 6 inches thick, moistzzre-conditioned as necessary, and compacted to achieve at least 90 percent of nsaximum density based ozs ASTM Test Method D1557. Additionsal Ii.fts should not 6e placed. if the previous Lift did nat meet the required dry density or if soil conditions are not stable. ~razaz- & Associates, Ilic. With Ten Offtces Serving The Western Ustited States (}q?Q7U36 2eport [Ipdate.DOC KA Pr~iect Na. 042-d702d Page No. 1 l _. ...-- .~ Ilraina~e and J~anciscatain~ The ground surface should slope away from building pad and towards appropriate drop inlets or other surface drainage devices. It is reeomtnended that adjacent exterior grades be sloped a minimum of 2 percent. Subg~•ade soils in pavement areas should be sloped a trcinimum of l percent and drainage gradients maintained to carry all surface water t© collection facilities and off-site. These grades should be maintained for the life of the project. Roof drains should be installed with appropriate downspout extensions out-falling on splash blocks so as to direct water a minimurr~ of S feet away f.-om the structures or be connected to tl~e stor-n drain system for the development. Slots or weep boles should be placed in drop inlets or other surface drainage devices in pavement areas to allow free drainage of the adjoining base course materials. CLitoff walls should', be installed at pavement edges adjacent to vel~i:cular trafrc areas, these walls should extend to a minimum depth of 12 inches below pavement subgrade to Limit the amount of seepage water that can infiltrate tl~e pavements. Where cutoff walls are undesirable subgrade drains can be constructed to transport excess water away from planters to drainage interceptors. l.f cutoff walls can be successfully used at the site, construction of subgrade drains is considered unnecessary. 1(7tility ~'renclt Backtill Utility trench backRll placed in ar adjacent to building, exterior slabs or under pavement areas should be compacted to at least 40 percent of the maximum density based on ASTM Test Met[~od D1557. Pipe bedding should be in accordance with pipe manufacturer's recommendations. Utility trenches should be excavated according to accepted engineering practices following v5H_A {Occupational Safety and Health Administration} standards by a Contractor experienced in such work. The responsibility for tl~e safety of open trenches should be borne by the Contractor. Traffic and vibration adjacent to trench walls should be tninitnized; cyclic wetting and drying of excavatia€~ side slopes should be avoided. Depending upon the location and depth of some utility trenches, groundwater Raw into open excavations could be encountered. Granular fill materials were encountered at th.e site. These more cohesi.onless fill materials can have a tendetlcy to cave in trench wall excavations. Shoring or sloping back trench sidewalls may be required within these sandy soils. The Contractor is responsible for removing all water-sensitive soils from the trench', regardless of the backfill location and compaction requirements. The Contractor should use appropriate equipment and methods to avoid damage to the utilities and/or structures during fill placement and compaction. ~xcavatiora Stability Temporary excavations planned for the. construction of the structure and other associated structures may 6e excavated, according to the accepted engineering practice following Occupational Safety and Health Administration {OSHA) standards by a Contractor experienced in such work. Open, u~ibraced excavations in undisturbed soils should be made according to the table below. 1K.razan & Associates, Inc. With Ten Office's Serving The Western 1Jnited States 04267U2U Report Uptiate.DOC >. w~ ~. ~' KA Project No. O~t2-0702{) Page No. 12 :.. `:; ~esni~rriei~iiecl L~cav~ttc~n:Sliories: .. ':De th tifflC~eav~~bn {ftj` Sld e (1~(i~r-iz~ntal.Vertacalj `r'ein ora 0-S l:l 5-10 1'/z:1 10-IS 1~/:l If, due to space (imitation, excavation near existing strt€ctrlres or roads is perforn~€ed i€t a vertical position, braced snorings or shields play tie i€sed for sE€l~porting vertical excavations. Therefore, in order to comply with the local and state safety regulations, a properly designed and installed snoring system would be regc€ired to accomplish planned excavation a€.~d installation. A specialty snaring Contractor should be responsible for the design and installation of such a snoring system during construction. The lateral pressures provided below may be .~€sed in the design of a braced-type shoring system. Reccimmended':I;aterai Farah Piressure fiir ~3raced .~hi~riit~ ` . . De t~'ofL~.cavatiin Be'lotiv Girauncl surface {feetj Lateral Sotl.~'ressure'.{ s#} 0 0 1~ d.25 H 40 i~I H 40 1-1 ~~ _, _ Where H is the total depth of tl~e excavation in feet. ~~ Tne foregoing does not include excess hydrostatic pressure or surcharge loading. Fifty percent of any s€.ircnarge load, such as construction equipment weight, should be added to the lateral load given above. Since the Contractor has the ultimate responsibility for excavation stability, he €nay design a different snoring syste€n for the excavation. The excavation recommendations provided herein are based on soil characteristics derived from limited test borings drilled within the site. Variations in soil conditions will likely be encanntered during the excavations. Krazan & Associates, inc. should be afforded the opport€.€nity to provide Feld review to evaluate the actual conditions and account far field condition variations not otherwise anticipated in the preparation of this recom€nendation. Slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth should in no case exceed those specif€ed in local, state, or federal safety regulation, {e.g. OSHA) sta€adards for excavations, 29CFR part 192b, or Assessor's regulations. Kraza~ c4i Ass©ciates, I.nc. With Ten Offices Serving Tile Western United Stares 04?67fJ20 Report ifpt€ate. i)6C ., - ;~~ KA Prc?ject No, 0~2-07020 z` ~~_ ~.,~ i Page Na. 13 Foutadations - T3riven Pyles The proposed ho#el building nay be supported an precas#, prestressed concrete piles. Several pile sizes would be acceptable. Twelve, 14, and 1.8 inch square, prestressed concrete plies roast often have been chosen far projects characterized by soil conditions similar to those at the site. Based on pracedrrres developed by Meyerhaf {1976), the fallowing table presents allowable bearing, lateral, and uplift capacities far preliminary design. In order to utilize the full. capacity of the piles, piles should be spaced a# Least 3-pile diameter apart. Total capacity of pile group spaced 2-pile d~i.ameter should be reduced by 1S pe~•cent. The weigl-tt of the pier cap extending below grade and the weight of each pile may be disregarded in determinations of the net compression load t~•ansferr•ed to the supporting soil. The piles should penetrate at least 1.0 feet into the very dense sails or a# least 60 feet below th.e surface, whichever is deeper. F'or bidding purposes, we recommend an average ti.p elevation of 60 fee# below the surface. ~e emphasize that this elevation is intended for bidding purposes only as variafiio~~ in lengths of driven piles may vary as much as 10 feet fiain one portion of the site to the other. Unit price for the project is in piling lengths from the estimated tip elevation should be included in the bidding schedule as stipulated in tlae attached grtide specification for piling. The pile harnn.3er to be rsed should he a double acting pile hammer with a rated driving energy of at least 48 icip-ft. ``Ailci~vable l'i te Ca` acii ;:~ s LoadSn Conclztiort 12`Ine~:S' ~€ar~'. 14lnch S care 18.3nch ~ pare` Axial Loadin - Dead Load, kips 5$ 70 96 DeadPlus Live Load, kips 78 94 12$ Total Load {inclu.ding seismic or wind), kips LOS 12S 170 Uplift Resistance, kips 2~1 30 43 Lateral Desistance, kips S 6 9 The uplift capacities are based an tl~e assun~tption that piles will be properly reini'arced to transfer pullout forces to the pile tips. Final pile lengths and capacities should be deter-m.ined based oti the results of foil scale load tests performed prior to construction and the driving of indicator piles. lfthe client decides that load tests will not be performed, the pile capacities should be reconsidered and an additional safety factor applied to account for the greater uncertainty, whi.cl~ would then exist. ~i'he la#erai load capacities presented on the above table were developed assuming a. fixed head condition, no brotrp i.ntluerices, and a inaxirnum tolerable pile head deflection of '/~, inch. If larger deflections can be tolerated, the allowable lateral load gray be increased pr•~porti.onate to the derlection, up to twice the loads presented i.n the above table. Krazan & Assoeiates, Inc. With Ten Offices Serving The Western United States 04207Q20 Report L":pdaic.I?OC ~~~ ,\ v~ -r ,. ;~, ~ KA Prgject No. U42-U7U2U Page No. 14 Maximum total arld differential settlements of 1 inch should be anticipated for design. Foundation settlements shauid be primarily elastic, with a majority occurring during or soon after structural loading. The remaining settlement should occur slowly with time due to dissipation of excess pore pressures and soil creep. Iiztliccrtor Piles We recornlnend that indicator piles be driven prior to the start of production pile driving to determine lengths of the production piles. The number and location of the indicator piles should be determined by the Contractor in coordination with our firm. Determination of pile east lengths also should be tl~e responsibility of-the Contractor. If pr~ecb°illing will be required, the predrilled hales should have a Inaxlmurn diameter of 0.85 percent of the noMinal pile diameter to prevent substantial reduction in fr'sctional capabilities of the pile. The depth of the predrilled holes should be a nraxilnum of 20 feet below the existing surface. The indicator piles may be used as production piles for building support if they are properly located and meet the criteria established upon completion of the pile load testing program. Pile Installation A representative from or.rr firm should be present during both indicator and production pile driving to evaluate and record the penetration behavior of each pile as it is driven. It is recommended that the Piling Contractor be required to submit data on the proposed pile driving equipment at least 3 days prior to the beginning of driving operations. Site Munitorin>r The buildings} adjacent to the proposed building should be monitored during both indicator and production pile driving to evaluate any response to hammer-induced vibrations. Records should be kept of the settlement (if any) sustained by adjacent structures. To avoid disputes that may arise between the Pile Contractor and the current property Owner, records should be kept of survey data and photographs should he taken where required, both before and after. pile driving. Reference points should be tied to benchmarks established well beyond the influence of the construction work. Protection of adjacent buildings should be the responsibility oftlte File Contractor. Flour Slabs and Exterior Flatwurk Concrete slab-On-grade floor should be underlain by a water vapor retarder. The water vapor retarder should be installed in accordance with ASTM Specification .C 1643-98. According to ASTM Guidelines, the water vapor retarder shouid consist of a vapor retarder sheeting underlain3 by a mrnimunl of 3 inches of compacted, clean, gravel of 3/~-inch maximum size. To aid in concrete curing an optional 2 to 4 inches of granular fill may be placed on top of the vapor retarder, The granular fill should consist of damp clean sand with at least 10 to 30 percent of the sand passing the 100 sieve. The sand should be free of clay, silt, or organic Material. Rock dust which is manufactured sand from rock crushing operations is typically suitable for the granular fill. This granular fill material should be compacted. Itrazan & Associates, Y.nc. With Ten Offices Serving The Westeni United States OA207Q20 Repnn LJptiate.E)OC. h ~:t ~' "~ ~. ~ ~ K,r1 Project No. 042-07020 Page No. 15 It is recommended that the concrete slab-on-grade floors be designed as structt,tral slabs. Thicl~et• Door slabs with increased concrete strength and reinforcement should be designed wherever large vehict.tlar loads, heavy concentrated loads, heavy equipment, or machinery is anticipated. The exterior floors should be poured separately in order to act independently of the walls and foundation system. All fills required to bring the building pads to grade should be Engineered Fills. Moisture within the structure nay be derived from water vapors, which were transformed froth the moisture within tl>e soils. T}~is moisi~.rre vapor can travel through the vapor membrane a~~d penetrate the slab-on-grade. This moisture vapor penetration can affect floor coverings anal produce mold and mildew in the structure. To tninitmize moisture vapor intrusion, it is recomtmended that a vapor retarder be installed in accordance with ASTM guidelines. It is recamtnended that the utility trenches within the structure be compacted, as specified in our report, to minimize the transmission of moisture through the utility trench backfill. Special attention to the imn~tediate drainage and irrigation around the building is recommended. Positive drainage should be established away from the structure and should be maintained throughout the life of the structure. Pond.ing of water should hat be allowed adjacent to the structure. Over-irrigation within landscaped areas adjacent to the structure should not be performed. In addition, ventilation of the structure (i.e, ventilation fans} is recotmmended to reduce the accumulation of interior moisture. Lateral Earth Pressures and Retainfn~ Walls Walls retaining horizontal backfill and capable of deflecting a minimum of 0.1 percent of its height at the top tmay be designed using an equivalent fluid active pressure of 40 pounds per square foot per foot Of depllt. Walls tt'tcapable of this deflection ur arc fiiilj% constrained vYalls against d'eflevtian may be designed for an equivalent ~htid at-rest pressure of 60 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. The stated lateral earth pressures da not include the effects of hydrostatic water pressures generated by infiltrating surface water that tray accumulate behind the retaining walls; or loads imposed by construction equipment, foundations, or roadways. All. of the above earth pressures a~-e unfactored and are, therefore, hat inclusive of factors of safety. Retainin and/or below rode walls should be drained with ei#her erforated i e encased in free- g g p pp draining gravel or a prefabricated drainage system. The gravel zone should have a Minimum widih of 12 inches wide and should extend upward to within 12 inches of the top of the wall. The upper IZ inches of baelcfill should consist of native soils, concrete, asphaltic-concrete or other suitable backfill to minimize surface drainage into the wall drain system. The aggregate should coilfonp to Class lI permeable materials graded in accordance with Section b8-1.025 of the CalTrans Standard Specifications (January 1988}. Prefabricated drainage systems, such as Miradrain tt, ~nkadrainQ, or an equivalent substitute, are acceptable alternatives- in lieu of gravel provided they are installed in accordance with the: manufacturer's recommendations. If a prefabricated drainage system is proposed, our firtm should review the system for final acceptance prior to installation. Drainage pipes sl.3ould lie placed with perforations down and should discharge in anon-erosive spanner away froth foundations and other improvements. The top of the perforated pipe should be placed at or below the bottaan of the adjacent floor slab or pavements. The pipe should be }~lace'd in the center line Krazaa & associates, Itac. With Ten Offices Serving The Western t;nited States 04267D20 Report Updair.UOC. _ ~-_ ;?r ;s`~ _,.._ .: ~ .%''`~''~ ~ ~ KA Pro}ect No. 042-0702(? Page No. 1 b of the drainage blanket and should have a tninimusn diameter of 4 inches. Slots should be no wider than ~/a inch in diameter, while perforations should be no more than ''/4 inch in diameter. if retaining walls are less than 6 feet in height, the perforated pipe may be omitted in lied of weep holes an 4 feet maximum spacing. The weep holes should consist of 4-inch diameter holes (concrete walls) or untmortared head ,joints (masonry walls) and placed no higher than 18 inches above tl~e lowest adjacent grade. Two fl- inch square overlapping patches of geotextile fabric (conforming to Section 88-I.03 of the CalTrans Standard Specifications for "edge drains") shauid be affixed to tl~e rear wall opening of each weep hole to retard soil piping. During grading anal backfilling operations adjacent to .any walls, heavy equipment should not be allowed to operate within a lateral distance of 5 feet from the wall, or within a lateral distance equal to the wall height, whichever is greater, to avoid developing excessive lateral pressures. Within this zone, only hand operated equipmment ("whackers," vibratory plates, or pneumatic compactors) should be used to compact tl~e backfill soils. R-'Value Test Results and Pavement lf~esi~n Two subgrade soil. samples were obtained from the project site for laboratory K-Value testing at the locations shown on the attached site plan. The samples were tested. in accordance with the State of California Materials lVtanual Test Designation 301. Results of the tests are as follows: . Sa~n'1,e _' De th Desert Lion ` R ~ai~ie a# F, uilbrium 1 12-24" Silty Sand/Sandy Silt (SM-ML) . 37 2 12-24" Silty SandlSandy Silt (SM-Mt,j 32 These test results indicate low subgrade support characteristics under dynamic traffic loads. The following table shows the recommended pavement sections for various traffic indices based on a design R-Value of 32. `Traffic Iriciex '> ~s bait C'oncrQfe Classll ~ rebate laser Com acted Sib ~•acle*' 4.0 2A" S O" 1 ~ 0" 4.5 2.S" 5.0" 12.0„ S.0 2.5" 6.0" 12.0" 5.5 3.0" G.0" 12.0" 6.0 3.0" 8.0" 12 0" b.S 3.5" 8.0" 12.0„ 7.0 4.0" 9.0" 12.0" 7.5 4.0" 10.0" 12.0" * 95% cont~acticrn. ~ase[l on A,STM Test Met/tod UISS7 or LAL .~I b "* 9Q% cnmpactiart Cased an ASTM Tes7 MetJtotl DI557 or CAL 2T6 Ifrazan & Associates, Inc. Wit€~ Ten Offices Serving Ttie Western United States 04207020 Re~to,i ClgAnteDgC -•- ~. ~ ~ IiA Project No. 042-07020 Page No. 1.7 If traffic indices are not available, an estimated index of 4.5 may be used for light atttomabile traffic, and an index of 7.0 for light truck traffic are typical values. The following recommendations are for light duty and heavy duty Portland Cement Concrete pavement sectio~~s. POl<2'1CLAND C~MEI~IT Pr~VE1Vt;'ulh''l<' I.,;tGH7f' DUTY Ltsi~I1C YLI~,I~?i' ~t5i'~~:dlid t'~.~C!}L-'Ili` CC1Ikt.t°~1`>r~"'~ : ~li~tS3-~iI :~~ ~'~%±aiG isa~~~ ~£3i "stt:$8u`~i~~3`"~;t'~i~i~'» 4.S 5.0" 4.U" ;..12.0" IiIEAVY DU~'Y 1 raflie Indes> Tr'ot•tla,nd Cecr-~.t~# Coact=ere*xX ' Crass II A~~~r ate$ase'= Cm~n' acted`S.ub rad+eY'~ 7.0 6.0'" 6.0" ' 12.0" * 95% camfsactian based ox ASTM Tess Metliorll)1537 ar CAL 2i 6 *'~ 9ti% cam~trctlan based an ASTM Test Method I~f557 ar C,9L 2Ib ** *Minimunr co-npressive strength of 30DD psi i It is recommended that any uncertified fill material encountered within pavement areas, be removed andfor recompacted. The fill materials should be moisture-conditioned to near optimum- moisture and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. As an alter~~ative, the Qwner Wray elect scot to recoanpact the existing fill witl}in paved areas. However, the Dwner should be aware that the paved areas may settle which may require annual maintenance. At a minit~tuan, it is recommended that the upper I2 inches of subgrade soil be moisture-conditioned as necessary and ~•ecompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of inaxianum density based on ASTM Test Method D 1557. Si#e Coefficient The site coefficient, per Table t6-J, California Building Cade, is based upon the site soil conditions. It is our opinion that a site coefficient of soil type SD (1997 UBC} is appropriate for btii[ding design at this site. For seismic, design of the structures, in accordance with the seismic piovisians ; of the California $uilding Code (2401 CBC}, we recaniinend the following parameters: °Seis~uic:item :_ ., `:Value UBC Referrrnce Zone Factor 0.4 Table 16I Source Type A Table 16U Coefficient N„ 1.16 Table 16S Coeffi.cientN„ 1.52 Table 16T Coefficient C, 0.510 Tablel6Q Coefficient Cv 0.973 Table 16R #Crazan & Associates, Ync. With Ten Offices Serving The Western United States oaz~nnzo r~~~nn uf~a~~~.aoc .~ ~;~ , ~~ _ `:.; ~ ~ ~ ICf1 Pro~{ect No. f?42-07020 .Page No. 18 For seismic design of the structures based ot~ the seismic provisions of the California Building Code {2407 CBC) which will he adopted in Ja~.~uary 2008, we recommend the following paramete~•s: Seasiriic iie>n 'value ~Ii,C i2eferetE~e Site Class I3 Table i b 13.5.2 SS 1.827 Figure 1613.5 {3} Site Coefficient Fa I.0 Table 1613.5.3 { 1 } S~5 1..827 Table 1613.5.3 Sos 1.218 Table 1b13.S.4 S, 0.942 Ir figure 1613.5 {4} Site Coefficient T~ 1.5 'T'able 1b13.5.3 {2} S~€ 1.413 Section 1613.5.3 So; 0.942 Section 1613.5.4 Compacted Material Acceptance Compaction specifications are not the only criteria far acceptance of the site grading ar other such activities. I-lowever, the Canlpactlon test is the mast universally recognized test method for assessing the performance of the Grading Contractor. The numerical test results from the compaction test cannot be used to predict the engineering performance of the compacted material. Therefore, the acceptance of compacted materials will also be dependent on the stability of that material. The Soils Engineer has the option of rejecting any compacted material regardless of tl~e degree of compaction if that material is considered to be unstable or if future instability is suspected. A specific example of resection of fill material passing tha required percent compaction is a fill which has been compacted witl.~ an in situ moisture content significantly .less than optimum nio~sture. This type of 'dry fill {brittle fill} is susceptible to future settleinerit if it becomes saturated or flooded. 'I`estinE and Inspection A representative of I~•azan & Associates, Inc., should be present at the site during the earthwork activities to confrtn that actual subsurface conditions are consiste~tt with the exploratory fieldwork. This activity is an integral part of our service, as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent upon compaction testing and stability of the material. This representative can also verify that the intent of these recommendations is incorporated into the project design and construction. Krazan & Associates, Inc.,. will not be responsible for grades or staking, since t13is is the responsibility of the Prime Contractor. ICrazan & Assocsates, Inc. With Ten Offices Servi3zg The 1~Iestern tli~ited States t)4?~702c1 Repore Updatc.llUC "('~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ICA Project No. 1142-07£)20 ,-~ ~ ~ Page Nn. 19 I~IIi~I'T~T~®NS Soils Engineering is one of the newest divisions of Civic Engineering. 'I'bis branch of Civil Engineering is constantly improving as new technologies and understanding of earth sciences advance. Although your site 4vas analyzed using the mast appropriate and most curre~~t .techniques and methods, tn~doctbtedly there will be substantial future improvements in this branch of engineering. In addition to advancetnen.ts in the Celd of Sails Engineering, physical changes in the site, either due to excavation or fill placement, new agency regulations, or possible changes in the proposed structure after the' soils report is completed nay require the soils report to be professionally reviewed. In light of tl3is, the Owner should be aware that there is a practical limit to the usefulness of this repoa-t 'without critical review. Although the time timit for this review is strictly arbitrary, it is suggested :that 2 years be considered a reasonable time for the usefulness of this report. foundation and earthwork construction is characterized by the presence of a calculated risk that soil and groundwater conditions have been fully revealed by the original foundation investigation. This risk is derived from the practical necessity of basing interpretations and design conclusions on limited sampling of the earth. The recam~nendations made in this repast are based on the assumptio~t that soil conditions do not vary significantly fP•om those disclosed during our field investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, the Soils Engineer should be notified so that st.applemental recomtnendatians may be made. The conclusions of this report are based on the information provided regarding the proposed eonstructiou. If the proposed construction is relocated or redesigned., the conclusio~as iii this report nay not be valid. The Soils Engineer should be notified of any changes so the recommendations may be reviewed and re-evaluated. This report is a Geotechnical Engineering .investigation Update with the purpose of evaluating the soil conditions in terms of foundation. design. The scope of otu• services did not include any Environtnnental Site Assessment far cite presence or absence of hazardous and/or toxic tnater'ials in the sail, grotmdwater, or atmosphere; or tl~e presence of wetlands. Airy statements, or absence of statements, in this report or on any boring log regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions observed, are strictly for descriptive purposes and are not intended to convey engineering judgment regarding potential hazardous and/or toxic assessment. The geotechn.ical engineering information presented beret:~ is based upon professional interpretation utilizing s#andard engineering practices and a degree of conservatism deemed proper for this project. It is not warranted that such information and interpretation cannot be superseded by future geotechnical engineering developments. We emphasize that this report is valid far the project outlined above and should not be used for any athea• sites. 9{razan & A.ss©ciates, Ieic. With Ten Offices Serving The Western United States (f420902a Report EJpdate.bOC Page tvo. 20 If there are any questions or if we :nay be of further assistance, please do ~;at hesitate to contact ou:• office at {559 348-2200. Respectfully subtr~itted, S~.Q~~~S, 11\i~. ~t ~ r.'~~'A.3-~'a ... Leopoldo Fabian Project Engineer ~~. .,. ~~~ _. .Dave R. 3arosz, 7.I Managing Engineer RGE No. 2698/R.CE No. 60185 LF(f~R3:ch ]Kra~•~n & Assoc4a#es, Inc. With Ten Offices Serving The Western United States 042U7U2U Report l'pdate.~OC w ~a S hy-- ~ 1..~-. -- ~ ~°. ./~ ~' z r ~ Y -1-=' a v' i - ~. > +, ~ ~ :1 ->- L ~ ~ :! to a u ~+- ~ ~ i ~i W 0 --i ~ T d .Sx \ ~ ~ z > (;] r tU N ~ L a a a ¢ t:, ~ O a _ T z° O ~ ~ y G ~ ~ ((~ u ~ 3 a -~ ~~ v i W d o ~, G o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ lR 4 ~ ~ Appendix A Page, A.1 A)1'1'ENI)IL~X A >NI;~I1D fiN® LA>!$®~Tf~RY tl~IVES`1CIC~A'TI®135 Fie~ci Iavesti~atiQn The field investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissal~ce as>d a subsurface exploratory program. Three 4'/z-inch exploratory borings were advaE~ced. Tl~e boring Locations are sl~owl~ on the site plan. The soils encountered were logged in the f7eld dtu•ing the expiora#ion and, with st:.pplemen#ary laboratory tesfi data, al•e described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. lUtodified staldard penetration tests and standard penetration tests were performed at selected depths. This test represents the resis#ance to drivilTg a 2'/~-ilzch dian.3eter core harl•e!. The drivilt enemy was provided by a hamrrrer weighing 140. pounds falling 30 incl3es. IZelativeiy undtst€lrbed soil sal;Zples were obtained while pet-fortrlil~g this Les#. Bag san-tples of the disturbed soil were obtained froth tl~e auger cuttings. The lnodifled standard penetration tests are identified in the sample type nn the boring lags with a full shaded in block. The standard pens#rafiion tests are identified il~ the. sample type on the boring logs with the centl•al portion of the block shaded. All samples were returned to our Fresno laboratory for evall.la#ion. >iJabarato~ I~vesti~atit~u The laboratory investigation was programmed to determine the physical. and mechanical pI•operties of the foundaticln soil elrlderlying the site. Test results were used as criteria for determining the engineering st.litability of the surface and subsurface materials encountered. In-sitt.I moisture content, dry density, consolidation, direct shear, and sieve analysis tests were completed for the clndis#urbed samples representative of the subs~u•face n~laterial. Expansion index and R-value #ests were eolnple#ed for select ba.g samples obtained from the azlger cuttings.. These tests, supplemented. by visual observa.tior~, compl-ised the basis for ol.lr evaluation of the site matea•ial. Tl~e logs of the exploratory borings and labora#ory deternlil~atiflns a.re preselZied iIl this Appendix. ICrazlt€t c~ Assoc@atcs, ~T3c. With Ten 019'~ces Serving Tl~e Westel•n United States 04'.07p?(1 Report Uudnte.E)OC Ui`IiFiEiJ SOiL Ca_ASSII=i'CAi Mitt A~® SYiVii3t~L CHART COARSE-GRAiNE£7 SD1LS {more than 50% of material is larger than No, 200 sieve size.} Glean Gravels (Less than 5% fines} °' Weil-graded gravels, gravel-sand ~ GW ~ mixtures, little or no fines ~.a GRAVELS Mare than 50% ,o ~ Cp ~ Poorly-graded gravels, grave!-sand of coarse ~ a~ mixtures, lit#le or np fines fractian larger Gravels with f€nes {Mare than 72°/a fines) than No. 4 sieve size GM ~ Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures GC ~ Glaysy gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures Clean Sands Less than 5% fines r.~r.• :: SW Well-graded Sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines SAN[)S 54l% or mare Sp Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, of coarse i :::1 ~ lime or no fines fraction smaller Sands with fines More than i2°I° Ernes than No. 4 sieve size € : ; . SM Slity sands, sand-sift mixtures SG ~ Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures .i. _ i 1=INE-GRAINED SO1LS {50% or more of material is smaller than No. 20t7 sieve size.} Inorganic silts and vary f€ne sands, rock ML 1 ftour, silty of clayey f€ne sands or clayey S1LT5 s ~ silts with slight plasticity AN D ~ CLpyg ~f. j Inorganic clays of low to medium Liquid limit ~ CL I plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, less than ,% , ~ silty clays, lean clays J~Q% - ~ ~ ~~ OL ~ Organic slits and organic silty clays of i low plasticity F Inorganic silts, micaceous ar MH ~ diatomaceous Fne sandy or silty sails, StLTB elastic silts AtY D CLAYS inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat CH 4 Liquid limit clays 50 °!o or greater ~ j Organic clays of medium to high ~ OH ~ ~~ plasticity, organic silts HIGHLY ! .-~, [1 ORGAINIC I f, `~I PT Peat and other highly organic sails I soILS I ~~ `- 1 ~f~l~i s~S'~']~NC~I ~~.ASSI~'~CAT.I~1`~ I)escriptiou Blows deg, Foos Gr•c~rzulcar St~ila• ~ Very Loasc ~_. Loose ~ - I _>" Vl.ediuzxa .Dei~zsf~ E 6 -~ 4(} Dense =~I - 6~ V erv Dense '"~ b, Very Soft <:~; Soft - ~31'II1 {~-~{) Sti Cf' i l - 2t) Very Stiff- ~ 21 -4() hard = 40 GRAINY SI7I+1 CI.ASSII+IC.4'TIO1Y Graitr 7;ype S'lcrnctarc~,Sieve Size Grctin Size irr r44i1limeters F3ouiders Above 12 inches Above 3t}5 Cobbles ~ erX 12 inches 305 Eo 7b.2 Gravel 3 inches to r`lo. 4 76.2 to 4.76 Coarse-grained 3 tc'/., inches 76? To 19.i ~ tine-grained 'i:G E11Cl1eS 1:0 NU. ~l 19.1 tl~ d.t6 Sand No 4 to No. 200 4.76 to 0.074 Coarse-grained Nc~. 4 to No, ii} 4.76 to 2.00 Niedi~€m-grained Nca. I (1 to Na. 40 2.00 to 0.042 Line-grained fi)r7. 40 to No. 2011 {1.042 to 0.0'74 Silt and Clay Below No, 2t)U _ Below ().()74 ~ PLAST4CITY CHART 60 e 54 x 40 w ? 3C7 u 2~ 1 7~ !L Q 4 1 ~ 20 30 40 5fl 60 7Q F30 9G i00 Ll4Uii3 LIMIT (LL} (%) { f i ~ f i , C€i ~~ ~ i ~ , I i A l.iNE:, P~ = o.~~iLL-zat ( ~ (Gi. MH&OH .: ~ CL~wti~ ML$ O1 l c Lm~ ~~ ~ri~~ ~®~~ ~'~ Project: Proposed Hotel ff~roject Rla: 042-07020 Cliea~t: Hol"slay Inn Express Figure t`lo.: A-1 Location: 550 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, Califprnia Logged 13y; Wayne Andrade Depth ta'UVater> lnltial: 15 r=eet At Completion: 10/4 Feet SUBSURI=ACE PROFILE SAMPLE Penetration Test U blowslft 3 Water Content {%) Description ~ N ~ ~ L ~ A '~' ° T ~ -° 20 40 60 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface GRA YELL Y CLAYEY SAND {SC) FILL - Fine- to coarse-grained; light ' .:......_,....._.__...,.~::._ ........................ :.: brown, damp, drills easily 2 _ ....... ._.__ _: . ..._ _.. .:_ ._ . .___ ._._ . .... . . . . . .:. :...... _. 124.0 5.7 50+ ^ . ' 4 CLAYEY SAND (SC) Medium dense, fine-grained with trace GRAVEL; brown moist, drills easily . . , .__. ......................._._.~.... _ ....... 120.8 11.7 27 ~e 6 ...._ ..__. .. .. _.~.......... . :_. ._ _....... - ... . . . .. . ._... . . .. 8 , :...... .. ........:..:................................ .: . . SILTY SAND {SM) . ....... ... . ..: i Dense, Erne- to medium-grained with trace CLAY; tight brown, very moist, 10 drills frmly 111.4 17.1 54 12 + .... _.... 53 6 ......._:. .......................... ._ :..... .. .. . 1 ...... ... .... . . ` ' ._... .._' ...__.._._._.. ........_....._.._ . Very dense and.drilis hard below 17 feet _.. ._ . .. 108.6 22.2 50+ 18 s ..... ...........___.._......~......._...._.. ._ _ . . CLAYEY SILTY SAND{SM) ...........__ ....................._..._........._...._._._.. Dense, fine- to medium-grained; fight 20 brown, saturated, drifts firmly brill 1Vlethad; Solid Flight Drill Date: 9-24-07 Drill Rig; 8-80 ~rSZ~~I ~l~d~ ASS®Cl+a'~E$S 1-lole Size: 4'/Z Inches driller: Elevation: 101 Feet Sheet: 1 ofi6 L.eag c~~ ~ri~~ ~e~f~ ~ Project: Proposed Hotel Client: Holiday Inn Express Locatian: 550 Gateway Boulevard, South Sar< Francisco, California I3epth to Vltater7 initial: 16 Feet Projeet l~io: 042-47024 Figure IVo.: A-'( Logged 8y: Wayne Andrade At Go€npletion: 103/4 Feet SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Penetration Test U t)I~WS/ft g Water Content (%} Description y c ~ ~ y .~ ~ ~ ~ p ~' ~° ~ ° 20 40 60 ' 10 20 30 40 128.5 5.4 41 ~ 22 I ... ;..... ._.._.. ...._...... Medium dense With increased CLAY ~ I I __......___....._.____~.___.._.,.~__......._ ............. below 23 feet 39 ' . . .. . . .. . . . 26 ; ..... ..... .. ... ..._.. ....... ......:._... . . CLAYEYSANQ (SC) ' ' 28 Dense, f€ne-9rainad, nran~iSh-brown, ; ` s saturated, drills flrtnly 3 .._...._ '__....._ _....._._...;... ..._._.........._...... 0 . 111.6 20.0 63 ~- CLAYEY SAhtD (SC) 34 Dense, fine-grained; ligh# brown, .............:_._.....:._........_;.._.........,.._.._..._.... saturated, drills frrnly ` ...........................__...................,.._................. With thin lenses of SANDY CLA f below ~. 35 feet 110.1 19.8 53 ~- 40 + ___......~._..._.._.._ .................._ ..__ ......._...._. brill ~1lethod: Solid Flight i3riii bate: 9-24-07 i3rill Rig: 8-80 6"~f~SSl ~Cid ~SSE~CiS~~S t~oi~ Size: 4'/Z [nches l3ritler: Elevation: 101 Feet Sheet: 2 of 6 ~.~ ~ gill ®~ Prapecf: Proposed Note1 3~ro~ect CVcs: 042-07020 Ctiert~: f~oliday Inn Express Figure Pdo,: A-1 Location: 550 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, California C_c~gged t3y: Wayne Andrade t~e~th to 119{ater> tni~iat: 15 Feet A# CompCe~ion: 10~/n Feet SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE 13enetratian Test ~ blawslft ~, Water Content (%) Description ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ .C Q a Q ~ ~ ~: ~ Q zo 40 60 10 2a 30 40 c c SfLTY SAND {StV!} 50 fine- to medium-grained Very dense , with CLAY; light orangish-brown, saturated, drills easily 42 113.4 17.7 49 ®_ _....._........_...............:..._ ............. Very-dense and drills hard below 45 feet 112.2 20.4 50+ cp ...._.._.._._ ................._;............ _..... 46 48 i.oose with trace GRAVEL Caelaw 48 feet ........................ ................................. ! ............_._............` ............._.......... 50 114.4 29.4 14 ®i 52 _............._..._..._._.._....._..:._..._:._.... 54 i __.....;,......_......._....... _.._......._; ............. __..__.......___._....~..__._........__.........__....... Very dense and drills hard below 55 fleet 114.0 23.6 50+ ~ ..................._..~.......,... .. _ ,... 56 With increased SAND below 57 feet '' _ ...................:._........................... 58 ..._..__...._..._....::........_..._.. .............__..... drift C4lCetttatt: Solid Flight t7ritt lDa#e: 9-24-07 E~rttt ;~'sg: C3-80 I~T~Z~9~ ~~d x.55®Ci~~tr:S Mate Size: 4'/s Inches Drittr~r: Etevattan: 1 q1 Feet Sheet: 3 of 8 Leg ~~ ~3rE~i H®I~ L~1 i~roject: Proposed Notes ~'ro~ect No: 042-07420 C[ierst: Holiday Inn Express Figure 9<[0.: A-1 Loeafiion: 550 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, California Logged By: Wayne Andrade [3epth fo UVafier> [nitial: 15 Feet Af Compietion: 103/ Feet SUSSURFAGt= PROFILE SAMPLE Penetration Test ~ -blows/ft a- Wafer Content (°lo) Description y Q N ~ ~ L ~ a ~' ° °: N ° 20 40 64 14 24 30 40 a cn ~ ~ t- m ~ ..._._....~ .............~..._.._..,............_...~..._......_. SILTYSAJUD (SMJ 1Q4.1 24.9 50+ ' ~ Very dense, fine- to medium-grained ! ._____.... _. ... _ with GLAv; light arangish-brown, _._... ._ .._.._ _.._......_.. ......... 6 saturated, dribs easily 2 SJLTY SAND ISM) Very dense, fine- to medium-grained; ._..._. _.._.._.. light brown, saturated, drifts hard 6~F ......_._._.:~ ...................... ...._._.._..'...._._._.... 104.6 21.4 ~o+ 114.5 17.6 54+ ~ 72 ,...... _....___~_....__.._......._ ........:...... 74 _..._ .............................................. . 111.6 18.8 54+ ~ 76 CLA YEY SA1VD (SCj 78 Very dense, frne-grained; tight brown, saturated, drills hard ' .. _... ... . 84 _... _... . ®ri[[ ~[efihod: Solid Flight [~ri[[ Dafie: 9-24-07 Sri[[ Rig: i3-80 ~~'c~Zc~tl ai1C~ ~Ssf~~i~$~S No[e Size: 4'f Inches t~ri[[er: I~[evation: 101 Feet Sheefi: 4 of S Lt~g ®~ r~l~ ~I~ ~ Project: Proposed Hotel Project Pao: 042-07020 Client: Holiday Inn Express Figure ~l®.: A-1 ~.e+caticsn: 550 Gateway. Boulevard, South San Francisco, California dogged thy: Wayne Andrade Depth to iftlater~ initial: 15 Feet At Co~xtpletion: 103/a Feet SUBSURFACE. PROFILE SAMPLE Penetration Test blows/ft ~ Water Content (%) Description . O ~ ~ ~ = ~ d S1 E ia ~ a m ~ N °' ~ ~ m 20 40 60 10 20 30 40 r ~ .. , . . ._ ........ .......... .............. __....,._... ~ 50+ _. %~, ~~ 84 SiL7"Y SAND/SANDY SfLT (SM/ML) Very dense, fine-grained; brown, . saturated, drills hard 113.0 20.6 69 is 86 _._ ......._ ...........:.............. .......... S1L7"Y SAND (SM) 88 Very der<se, fine- to median:-grained _ with trace CLAY; brawn, saturated, drills hard 90 < : _ .............._...._...... ........ _.. ..._........ 113.0 20.5 50+ E~ 92 .:_ ......................_.._..__'.._..:_._.........._. : CL.AYFYSAh1D (Si~) ......_...,...._...... .._.........,_......_....;........_... ~ ~ Dense, fine-grained; olive brown, _._..,.._.......;...........;... ; . ... saturated, drills firmly 111.6 21.1 45 96 _....._.~.._ .............:...`........_._......._.. Very dense with trace GRAVEL below _ ................._... _........ _............... 97 feet 98 ........ ..........................!............ 100 ........................................................ Drill Methrsd: Solid Flight Drill Date: 9-24-07 Dell Rig: ~-a~ ~C~°azan and Ass®c-a~es ®le si~~: 4i2 Inches Driller: Elevation: 101 Feet Sheet: 5 of 6 Project: Proposed Note! ~'roject:[Vo: 042-07020 Cliea~t: Holiday Inn Express Figure i~o.: A-1 Location: 550 Gateway Eoulevard, South San Francisco, California Logged By: Wayne Andrade C}ep$h to UVater~ lnitiat: 15 Feet At Completion: 10'/ Feet SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Penetration Test U blawslft a Water Con#ent (%) Description • ~ ° ~ °' m ~ a ~ ~' ~ ~° m a ~ ° 20 40 60 10 20 30 40 Q cn ~ ~ F- ff1 ...__...~._....._.~...._......~_......._.1..__........ RUCK 12$.3 8.5 50+ ~ Very dense, highly weathered; dark brown, saturated, drills hard 102 End of Bareho[e_ ......................._:°..__~......._~....._....~.__.~...... 104 106 ! ` ' ...:.:...........:..s..~...-..-` ..._.__.....~........... 108 310 ___.__._..._.....___..._....._. .............._.._.... 112 ;, _....___.<.._....._._..... _..._~_........_.L,....:... 114 _...........:__.___.~ .......:....._.._...._.....,.._....... 116 ? ~..._:...~ ...........::.............._...__..._.._............ 11$ ,, , _........_........_ .......................___......_..... 124 Lars{B Method: Solid Flight Drift late: 9-24-07 Drifi Rich: 8-80 ~{i"~Z~C4 c~t~C.~ ~~S~C~~~~S Hobe Size: 4'/z Inches fOriifer: Efevatimn: 101 Feet Sheet: 6 of 6 Project: Proposed Hatet Project: IVo: 042-07020 Client: Ho#iday Inn. Express Figure o.: A-2 Location: 550 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, California Legged sy: Wayne Andrade EOepth to INater> Enitiai: 15 Feet At Completion: 12'h Feet SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Penetration Test biowstft ~- Water Content (%) Description . ~ ~ ~ `~' ~ . Q ~ 0 ~ N ~ N - ° 20 40 60 10 20 30 40 ~ ~ ........_.. ~.._...... _:.t...._..._..,i ..............,i......._..._.. Ground Surface GRAVELLY CLAYEY SAND jSC} , FILL - Fine- to coarse-grained; light ; brawn, damp, drills firmly ...._...... ____.._.. ..._.._.__........_... ___... 2 Y D S ` C} CLA ( EY SAN FILL -tine- to medium-grained with trace 122.2 8.3 5fl+ . : : GRAVEL; light brown, damp, drills firmly _ ....._. ...._.___.__._.__... ._._.._..~_._._._._... ` : 4 CLAYEY SAND jSC} _.._...--.-,---..__._ _.__.__._ ..:..........,..__.... .... Medium dense, f€ne-grained; brown, moist, drills firmly 118.1 15.3 39 ~ ^ 6 .............._.__......,.._ .s.... _ .,.~......... ... ... . i , . _ , .. _. 8 SILTY SAND (SM} ......_ ...._ ....._ Very dense, fine- to medium-grained wittt trace CLAY; brawn, moist, drills 10 firmly _.... . ..... .. .. . .. _ _ ... . .. . _ .._ . .. . ... ....._ ....._ . ...._. .. : 113.4 15.8 49 12 ~ _.__ _...__....._.._.......< ................._.._._ Medium dense and drifts easily be#ow 13 _.._...__.__ ................................. ..__. feet 14 ........I ............... .--....._....__..._...._....._. 111.2 19.6 14 si 16 ......._ : __..__ j_..............___ ............._._.... CLAYEY SAND jSC} 18 Medium dense, fine-grained with trace ~ _ ......... ......_ ;..... GRAVEL; light orsngish-brown, saturated, drills easily ~ ' ! ..... _ 20 tariR Method: Solid Flight C?riil Date: 9-24-07 Driii t~ic~: B-80 ~Ca~~9l and ASS®Ciafie~ E-ioie Size: 4Y2 #nches Drifter; EEevation: 81'I Feet Sheet: 1 of 5 L.ag ~f [~r~~t i~~~ ~2 r roject: Proposed Note! Project No: 042-07020 Glient: Holiday Inn Express Figure Ito.: A-2 tocation: 550 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, California togged ~iy: Wayne Andrade Depth to iltlater> Initial: 15 Feet ,4t Completion: 12"/2 Feet SI;BSURI=ACE PROFILE SAMPLE Penetration Test ~ blowslft i a Water Content {%} I Description ~ ~ o ~ c~ v r ~ ~. ' ~ ~ ~ n ~ p ~ g° ~ h ~ - ° 20 40 60 1 fl 20 30 40 ' c ~ ........._...1..,.........4 ..............t.,......,......1.............. 117.3 16.4 21 ~ ;`• ~ ' I 22 SILTY SAND {SM} .. 24 Mediun; dense, fine-grained with CLAY; - ... { orangish-brown, saturated, driils easily 114.6 18.9 17 t 6 . . :.. :. . . 2 ..._.. . __......__ .......... ... .. ..--.._ ~--........ CLA YEY SAND (SC} 28 Medium dense, t6re- to rnediurr!-grained; ..... gray, saturated, dribs easily 0 ...._ .........__.....-. --__......:..._._........_. : . 3 _. . . .. 115.7 19.0 19 _. . . .. SILTY SAND {SM} .. ........... 34 Dense, fine- to medium-grained with #race CLAY; light brawn, saturated, drills hard 116.6 17.5 38 ®` 6 .... . ... :. . _ : - 3 . .... _......... . .... ..... . . . __....._._......._ 38 _...__.....__.__....._..............! ........_.... _...... SILTY SAND {SNt} Medium dense, fine-grained with trace ': ` ....._.......__.._.... ,__.._._.............._ ......_ CLAY; light brown, saturated, drills 0 easily _...._ .. .. .. . : ! 4 ._...... ._ _ . ._....__..._ _.... _._.... ....._.. - Grill Method: Solid Fiight Brill C3ate: 9-24-07 C3ritl ~tig: B-80 ~r~~~;l"1 ~~d ~SSCeCI~'~4S dole Sipe: 4"!2 Inches griller: Etevatiort: 81"/z Feet Sheet: 2 of 5 .erg ~f 1~~~~~ hl®I~ €'rojeet: Prapased Notes =/fiertt: Holiday inn Express Locatian: 550 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, California Qepth tcs 1N~t2ry < [s~[tia4: 15 Feet Rrs~~ect ~: o4z-o7ozo Figure loo.: A-2 Lagged i3y: Wayne Andrade !fit Cornpiet"scsn: 12'/z Feet SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Penetration Test ~ blows/ft Q- Water Content (%) Description w ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ L Q ~ E ~ j o a U1 o 20 40 60 10 20 30 40 ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ 115.1 18.6 31 42 ....._........_ ......:.....................:......._.:... 44 _ .__ .......:....._.......__._..........._. . '- Dense and drills firmly below 45 feet 116.1 17.8 42 ~i 48 S!L TY SAND (SM) Very dense, fine-grained; brown,. saturated, drills firmly .......... _< :.................................. 50 114.6 18.4 49 ~' 52 _............._........:._._..._......_.._............. 54 ..... _.:...._.....;. _....._..._:........._.......... 108.7 18.4 . 58 ti ..............;................................ . ...... 56 . 58 ..:........... ................................. ... _................ ...:........___.._._. . 60 Very dense and drills hard below 60 feet .. .... _ Drii1 ~#lethad: Solid F#ight C3riiB Date: 9-24-07 ®rili Rich: B-80 ~"~Zc.3~ aid Ass~c~~~es i"#~ale Size: 4'/2 Inches ®riNer: ~ieuatic~rs: 81 ~/z Feet Sheet: 3 of 5 .csg ~> ~~-a~l ~-9®t~ ~~ RroJect: Proposed Hotel Caiet~f: Holiday Inn Express Location: 55~ Ga#eway Boulevard, Sou#h San Francisco, California Depft~t fo Wafer> Irtitia4: 15 Feet ~'ro~ecf X40: fl42-07a2a Figure Nc~.: A-2 Logged By: Wayne Andrade At Comp{efion: 12'/Z Feet SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Penetration Test blawslft g Water Content (%) Description :~ ,~ ~ c °7 ~ ~ $ i .c Q. a ~ n o N ~ ~ ~ ° 10 20 30 40 ~ ~ ~ 117.5 15.5 50+ ~ 62 ~ _.....__ ............:......,........~.........__...._._....:.. 64 ... _. ---_......._......---.._......... _.,...._.. _.. . .~ .. ... . . ._ . . . With trace GRAVEL below 6~ feet . . _.... ......_...:._ . . .. ... ............... ......_ 111.6 18.7 50+ 68 _ .............:_.._...._.........._:..._ .._.._._._._........__. 70 ; 124.2 14.5 71 ~ _ ......... ._.......... ......_._._ _ ...._.. .... . . : . _ SfLTY CLAY {CL} . . ._ . _ . . . . : 72 Very dense, fine- to medium-grained with trace CLAY; brown, saturated, drills hard 129.3 11.9 58 '~ 78 , __..___._._.__.._......._._...;._.__...._._; ............. ROCK Nord, fine-grained; olive brown, '° ....._......< ...............:...._.___..,.._......,._...,...__..._.. saturated, drills firmly ......... . ....... ...... . : sa ... .. ... ~riil iVfefhod: Solid Flight Qrifi Rafe: 9-24-a7 ~~~~~ ~~~: B-sa Kr~zar~ and Ass~c~afes k~oie Size: 4'/z Inches i3riifer: ~ievafior;: 8`1'/Z Feet Sfaeef: 4 of 5 Prajecfi: Proposed Hotel i~r®jecfi ®: 042-07020 Cliergt: !-ioliday inn Express Figure i~o.: A-2 Locatiott: 550 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, California Logged i3y: Wayne Andrade 10epth to Water> irsstial: 15 Feet fist Oorrrpt'etiora: 12'/2 Feet SUBSURFACE PROF`st_E SAMPLE Penetration Test ~ blowslft n- Water Content {°!o} Description ~ ° _ ~ ~ ~ ~ . n ~ ~ ~ - ° 2Q 40 60 10 2d 30 40 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ......,.._......_.._~. _.... ._..~__.. _....,_. .._..... . . . . . . 115.9 18.7 50+ 82 End of Borehote ._._.......__._.._ .:..........._........---...._.... 84 ................................. ...................... 86 ? _..._ .................::.._..._._................. 88 90 :. ..................__..:;._._......._..._..._..___.. 92 .............._.......;.:....._.__.......___........ 94 .........................................:.......... . 98 _.- ...._........__... ................................ 100 _ _ _ ..._. _._ ................ _..............-............. Dri6i Method: Solid Flight Drib late: 9-24-07 Drill Rsg: 8-80 ~Y~Z~1'il ~t1C~ ~eSS~C9c~'~~S mole Size: 4'/2 Inches Drifter: ~te~atiora: 81'/ Feet Sheet: 5 of 5 Lag of ®s~ii9 H®da ~3 Project: Proposed Hote! Project No: 042-07020 Client: Holiday Inn Express Figure IVo.: A-3 Location: 550 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, California Logged #3y: Wayne Andrade Degsttr to Water> Initial: 15 Feefi At Corripletion: ~2'/ Feet ®ritt Method: Solid Flight Driil Date: 0-24-07 flrii: Rig: 8-80 ~irl'a;zalCil acid A~SC~C[a'~{~S Rote size; 4% Inches Dritier: Elevation: 68 fleet Sheet: 1 of 4 ~.®~ ®f ~7ri6~ H®1~ ~3 ~raject: Proposed Hates Project No; 042-07020 Client; Holiday Inn Express Figure hIo.: A-3 Location: 550 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, California Logged By: Wayne Andrade Depth to UtJater> Initial: 15 Feet At Completion: 12'/2 Feet SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Penetration Test ~ blowsift Q- Water Content {°lo) Description p N C ~ ~ ~ .G ~ ,n A p ~' .. ° ~ ° 20 40 60 10 20 30 40 d va O ~ t- m ......_..._,........_.._.a----_._....,_........_..~ ............. 117.8 15.8 35 ~ .............r.. ;...__._. . . . _ : ._ _ . . .~.._ .. SILTY SAND (SM) . _ .. _.... . . . . . .. . ... 24 Dense, fine- to medium-grained with ......... .... . trace CLAY; brown, satura#ed, drills firmly 105.8 18.4 41 ~ ^ 26 __ ................__._._._._._...._.._..._....__:.............. ZtS 30 CLAYEY SAND (SC) .... -- -.._... -...__.. _ _...... :... .. Medium dense, fine-grained; gray, 115 7 17 9 33 a saturated, drills easily . . '- 32 __........._~.....................:...._ .................. 34 SILTY SAND (SM} Dense, fine- to med'€um-grained; fight brawn, saturated, drills firmly 116.1 17.1 43 ' ~ 36 ~ ..._._. ......:......_....€._....:..._:.....,.........j............... 38 _..........._... ....:.........i.........._.._.......... 40 _.._.__.._........... ~.__......s... ._._..__....... . . ... _ . _. Drill Method: Solid Hight Drill Dale: 9-24-07 Drill Rig: B-80 ~{8`c~ZalC9 and ASS®Ci~$~S 1-~ole Size: 4'/2 Inches Driller: Efevatian: 68 Feet Sheet: 2 of 4 ~~g ~f ~ri6~ ~~l~ ~3 F~rcz~ect: Proposed f-iotel Ctienf; f-infiday fnn Express L®ca#ion: 550 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, California C3epth to Vllater> initial: 15 Feet: Projee# i~c~: 042-07020 Lagged By: Wayne Andrade ~t ~orn~Eetion: 12~/~ Feet SUBSURFACE PR~F4LE SAMPLE Penetration Test ~ blows/ft ~ Water Content (°/a) Description . ~ ~ ~ a ~' ~ N N ~ ° a ° ` 2i? 40 60 1 Q 20 30 44 a cn Q ~ ~ m , .......__.C ...._......k. .:_.. . 1 I _. ., . ............. ....., ...:. _ . 112.7 19.1 64 SILTY SAND (SMj 44 Medium dense, fne-grained with trace ! _....... CLAY; brown, saturated, drills easily 114.1 17.7 19 ~ ~'. 46 ~: ....::..............`.......................:....... 48 5Q . `: . ........ ................. ..................... ...._....... 110.8 19'.0 27 ~ 19 52 pense below 52 feet ~ ..........::............................................ 32 28 31 36 56 Very dense below 56 feet _............_..:._....._ .................._..............._. 51 61 71 89 60 . .................i.._._............................. Brill fie#hot#: So{id Flight ~riii ~3ate: 9-24-07 l3 rill Rig: 8-80 ~C~Zc'~i''€ c'~D1~ ASS®Ci~~~S fi-lc~ie size: 4'/~ [rsches ~a~iller: ~leeration: 6$ Feet Sheet: 3 of 4 ~~g ®f ~E"~~~ ~~~~ 3 Project: Proposed Hotel Project Flo: U42-07Q20 Client; Holiday Inn Express Figure f~a.; A-3 Location: 65Q Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, California Lagged i3y: Wayne Andrade Depth to Water> Initial: 15 Feet At Completion: 12'/2 Feet SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Penetrafion Test ~ blows/ft nv- Water Content (%) Description . ~ ~ C ~ N ~ a .~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ m 2a 40 6a 10 20 ~0 4a 111 140 62 ~ ......._.:._._.........____..._..._._ ............... 167 153 64 _ _ .._. 164 169 66 ~ ..._ ....................:!............:.._.................._.... 169 190 68 ~ --_ ................_............___._....................... End of Borehole 70 _...._.._......:_..._._._ ......................_...._..__.. 78 .... 80 _......._._.__......_..__...._ ................_..._._. Drill Method: Solid Flight Drill Data: 9-24-07 Drill Rig: 8-8Q ~C1Z1d"! a~~'lE>7 ~S~®CI~~ES Hole Slze: 4Y2 inches Driller: Elevation: 68 Feet Sheet: 4 of 4 ~s[i a~ s Pro~ect iVo i3orin Ito. & Deptft Date Soii Classification 42d7d2d B1 @ 1d-11' 1d/9120d7 5M w/ clay 0.1 0.04 0.54 1.04 c a ~~ 0 N C Q U C 61 L d 0. 1.5b z.ob 2.54 Load in K'tps per Square foot 1 10 ~ 40 A m I 0 i i w K r a. i8 m " Q b ........................................ ....i............i . ..........._., .... _.........._............... ......: ......... ... .. ~ ..y ..~ ............... ....._ ..... ... I ratan T~~fi~ L,ara~~ r~sl~ ai s Pro'ect No Bonn No. & ©epth Date Sail Classification 4207020 B1 @ 17-18' 1019/2007 SM 0.1 0.00 ~ I 0.50 1.00 c 0 m ~_ 9 C O f3 C Q7 V L d ~. L E .50 2.00 2.50 Load in Kips per Square Foot 1 10 100 i 0. . . . .... . _ i- .. ...... ... .... ~ _ _.. _~ ~ .._ _ .... ... .. C 9 b i a d '; 'a e ' i I . mm > b tr m 0 4M ......_ .. ... i. I i .. .... .... ~ ~ I i m ®em~ I ... ., _ ...... ........ .. i..._'_.:. ~ ~ ......... ._ _ I _. __ ~ I ~a~a~ Tesi~g Lab®~°a~r 0.00 1.OC 2.G c 0 R B n to C O U u C V a, ra~~r~ Test~n ~~b~r~~~cy c~r~~i ti ~s i.oad in Kips per Square Foot 16fl ~~ ~ Pra'ect No Borin No. & Depth Date Soil Classification 4207020 ~ B1 @ 42-43' 10/9/2007 SNi 0.1 0.00 ~ [ o.so I 1.00 Load in Kips pef Square Foot 1 ` 1fl 100 1.50 c 0 w ~a a .o a 2.00 U c m L n. 2.50 3.00 m m o m! i ° s 4 °' Q "~•m _.. ........... ....._ .......... _ ... .. "_. .............._J......._ Consa9idatioro G}a 2Ksf: 1.7 3.50 4.00 Kraz~r~ °~stin Lai®rat~ [i ~ rt hest Pro~ect Igo Borin No. & Depth Date Sail Classification 4207020 B~ @ 55-56' 30/9!2007 SM 0.1 o,aa fl.50 1.00 1.50 c 2.flfl m ti a m C O U ~+ C 2.50 A 3.00 3.50 4AC 4.5C Load in tCips per Square Foot 1 10 100 Consoffidation @ 2ff4sf: 2.2 ~az~n ~~st~n L~~®rat~ry ~~l~ ai Project No Bonin i`to. & Depth Date Soil Classification 4207020 61 @ 90-91' 1 0/912 0 0 7 SM 0.1 0.00 ~e 0.50 1.00 C O V Q 0 1.50 U ', c a 2A4 Load in Kips per Square Foot t 10 __ '[ 00 0 a ~ 1 vi a y 6 i ~ A ~a ". i Q •a H s ~ I I ;; 2.50 3.00 ~Craz~ T"~sting ~a~r~t~ ~ ~ Pro'eot €~o Bonn No. & Depfh Dafe Sail Classification 4207020 B3 @ 15-16' 10/2412007 SiVI wl trace of ela li ~ No ~~~~ t~ 4, { 4.50 n ..;. 0.7 ,~ ~`~'s tLg CI3 N_ m .~ L d OJ E 0 -`o ~, 0 0 rv ,t G 0 0 O 3k 4 tL' ~ ~ _N ~ ~ m ~ c M ~ ~ ~ ~ M N d `n M d L _C c- C cV c G ~a O m ~ m :91VlSS~~ 1N~a2~d 0 ~ O O O G G O G O O O ~ ~ 006 ~ c00 t~ VG' M N ~ O ~- Q O O O ci d C {/~ G yL V 0 0 0 pp~ V L V f~~ VJ m s u. C t4 ~ 3 G A !U IL '/ pTr V m ti R a U G L7 lST V iee .~ .y~A~ Y/ V~* .~ s.r T ~ U O O r S U r- i ~ N ~ ~ Uf O ~'~"'1 4. O ~ V ~ ~U}fil C L, O ~ QS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :M E t~ ~ 'y ~ Z ~ w ~ .~ }. R7 tU ai avi ~7 c 'o 'a ~~ ~ n. ~ cn ~ gyp 4L q~ V S Vp nmsi Sir qVI W ~~~y Iii }.. w/ e~ r ..,,. .~ ~. v v q a G O O N O O 4 a ~ ~ N _N t3 f4 ~ 13 ~ C R M N 7 N M L I _C T C N N [71 C w C ~ ~ ~FdtSSrdd .~iU~~2E~ci 0 CJ q ~ o q o o O p o 4 ~ rjp O Q CO Q ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ Q O a 0 0 0 ~s _~ O w+ 0 0 O ,,.s„~ V t a ~ e W n' Q3 ~"'+ I ~ ~ U ~~ L ~ d p'~~ Vd F . ~ ",~ o° Gl L a ll. }~ ~/ 0} a O U 2 a~ ..~ ~ T Vi O ~ ``nn vJ C ~ .~ ~ CD 1Z RS -D 4V'-_ ti3 7 ~~ ~2 tn~ ++ RS (U ~ ~ U Q ~ O ~ 0.Q tl~ !!J du ...~ {1i a"° V/ •~ .~ N Q '~ O i O a 0 0 0 m as E ~ Z ~ ayi to ~ ~ m ~ -a c m CI1 ~ ~ M N rfl M (ll L U s- C C N m r a d m ~ ~ e3~1tSS~'d l.lV~~lf~~ 0 ~ O O O O O O O O O O- O O O CQ O O CJ O O ~- 63 ~ (~ c1 to ~f• M N .- O .- O O O O O O L N .~ U7 .~ {? O 0 _~ L fl ~fl~F++ vd d,',. C'. u "~ G tC ~ ~ ?z d m 'L 'R a U Id c LL ~Ln V m i 0 U ~. :ad t4 U w .~ N .® 'E7 w .~ ....- O T r N O d u> O m as ~ ~•`~u m C O ~ ~ (~ ~ ~ E~ ~ tt3 ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _N N ~ ~ {~ n 'o 'o •Q ~ ~ CL CA U1 FV ~n ry~p i.f pl~.nd7 a.w b.v r1 ,~ a~ ~•V L r~ ~! .~ QI (il O I ~ T Q O fV ~ ~ N N ~ W ~ ~ z v ~ ~ C w ~ ~ W M N N (`') N L _C r^ C CV N O ~ .~ n d m a~ ~ M ~r~~ss~~ ~~~~~~d 0 O O O, O O b O O 6 ~ 6~ a0 ~ (00 sOb ~ O O O O .- n._ _a_- _ n__-. a-__ a. _. e v n s e e O _O O C3 CO O O L Y ~. Pi C •L {) CJ O U pyd ~/ d C L1. N d L 0 U c LL p {iw V QJ i 0 v 0 W W .~ U .~ y `4+ ,~ _m Q 1 Lf} m o ~ Qo ~ O N cG ~ 0. ~ N ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z ~ Z w ~ ~ v ~ U ~ OL d LFS Q. Q.. ~e >~ppy.~~~ pVesJ i.w i~~q MI LW S~° ~y~y ,V N L .~a pq~1 ,4 pp~ M! .~ /~ V _N N O a Z O O K7 3t 0 m .ca E ~ ~ ~ _N t6 ~ c ~ ~ ~ 3~ m r`r v N M N u ~-- _c c " N N C ~ Q O c7 JNiSS~'d 1i~3~~3d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ O t0 ~ ~ ~ N O O r b N O O O d C3 O C~ C R C ,i C'} 0 0 t~ V Sr pp~ yr Q1 C iA: L 'v d N L R D U m u. {~ L N N O U ~. ~_ W .~ CC '~ ~a= .~ ~..• ~ ~ ~ O ~ O N O 67 O cV ~_ a ~ ~ ~ C ~,. ,0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~CC y.. L (D ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~-. w. (0 Q3 N N U ~ ~ O C4 CL Q.. U3 U} Sa pp®y +~G I~~q qVi W ~Y ~.. N .~ y~ \V ®p~ V! .~ ~r~iss~~ ~~~~a3~ O O O O O O O O b O a 001 ~ ~ t0 ~ C M N~ O O O O rr~ d.d L N O T Y O O N O O O m N ~ ~ z m ~o :~ C ~ ~ r: N ~ M. U r C _C VJ r C d N Cl1 ~ O O O ~~ (f) C1 L 1= i~+ ~ i+.o ~ (~ . N h V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ £ ~ . 7 ~® ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ f ^ wd ~~ L Q U 0 ¢yL V N i O U O 0 m r~ 1 ~_ ~ O O ~ a ~-- ao ~ a`_~c~r~m w. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~C ~ ~ C C ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ z z t11 ~ U U Q ~ 4? V ~ ~ O CiS ~ 0.. f!3 CtJ pL~ ^V vif W N L .~ t~ ~W~Q //Itl V/ .~ N 47 O D T b ~# y N ~ fD ~ ~ _N ~ ~ tV ~ a m m M 'cf' y M L ' U r C C N y O C ~-. 41 a O ~ m J~I95S'dc~ 1Pd~~a~d a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Q O O O O O q Q O O ~ [O h CO ~ 'fit M N O r O N a O O O O O 0 i y Fri .~ L.. 0 Q q~ V qL V `~q~ ~J d c LL '~ 61 4 0 U v fir V m i U a ~~Jp aU ~_ 4e •,^ VLqI aY ~O V$ .~ ~r• ~.. ~ ~- o a cD ~ v W N m ~ Q. O ~ f1 ~ U} m O ,,_, O d? Q) .Q (B .Q C ft3 7 'y ~ ~Z cnZ N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ aacncn W bprq V .~~q VI W p~.. ?.. y~ \\L~.1 a~w N O '~ 7, S .~ .''1 Q Q} yy~ vI pp~,_- dd ~~I[SS~/d .L€V~~li3d 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 ° rn °m ti c°o ~°n ° ° N ° co ~- 0 0 0 r, s. Q ++ O N N .Q ~ ~ W w ~ ~xi -a at c m w M N ~ ~ ~ M U C .r C N N m C •~ ~ a O m m'_ ~ M O O 0 0 O ~t O O o ''~ U3 N C i C O w~+ u" -6+ ~ R5 ~? °s f., C j~ ~ Fi ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ . ® ~ ~ N r <.s ai a C.T d C W O // [1e[.~ V m 0 °o v p O = U N N ~N ~ ~ u7 d ,~ N fl. O ~ ~ ~ N ~ U} 0] C ~- ° `m ~ ~ m ~ EE:~~ ZZ viz ~ ~ a`}i v U a ,Q •~ O t~Q €L ~ CA V1 ~° ~+ L J .p~~@q •V La. .~ _~ ~~g~ rJ d N a i -a >. ~ z Q 4 O Q ~k a a N t33 i ~ ~ ~ ~ Z i > T3 ~ ~ # C l6 N M N 'C' m M N U c- C _e N_ C z- c m Q. d m m J~tSSb'd 1N3~~f~d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 .-- a] 00 ~. Cfy tC1 q' ch N O .- r n .._._. s ___ e. _ a _. a . _ e _..n s a . O O 0 _~ U L d ~ • ~! O O Q ~~ L. C ~ _ .~°.~ ~ ~ _~ ~ '~ V t~ ~ ~ CPJ ~ " C • ~, ~ a N C9 ~ ~ r s.~~ y R 10 U m c iL 0 pL.. V N U 0 ~_ O _ ~ ~ Q M N ~ O fl.. O ~`~Um C O '- _ Q} ~ ~ ~ Q w ~ ~ ~ '~ Z Z cn Z .,... fff 4J aUi a~i U °- oo"oc~a ~~U7cn S~ VO ~rr i..~ pp~pp~p `L L.. .~ ~a i~ .~ `m m E 0 v` T O O N a a Q ~ Q ~~ z ~ ~n ~ ~ ~ x~ a m cri 0 M N to M N L ~ r C N_ m ~ ~G N a a ~ M Jf~fSSY/d 1N~~2l~d 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O ~ r rn o ~ o u~ v m N .- o r 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 ,~ N .~ t~ 0 Q {.~ ~F+ c ~n a~ 0 U d c Q} ~L. 4./ d t[f O V :a.+ u s "`o -...r a~ 0 Z ~ ~ O to vii o <"z o. o (~} d.~.C~ C `' ~ 4J (~ ~CC ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ~~ Z z N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U °- "o 'o •a m Q a. cn u~ .`.,e dr. .Q ~'° 8C$ L ,~ tLt .~ L J~IiSSb'd .LN~3~H~~ 0 O O O O O O O Q O O Q OY m ~ (D ~ d' ~ N Or O v- O O Q ~Y N O T7 7. a 0 cv 0 0 o b M N N ~_ C O S ~ ~ N ro ~ i ~ C m in M N <Y !~ M aS L U .- C C .~ ~ ~ ~ f~1 Q 47 m m O O d i~ i '' p c ~ m' 'a+ m E ~ ~ ~ N "'Z7 (.} to Ct9 ~ ~ 191 ~ ' . ~ ~ ~ ~ °~ I ~ .-- _ W° • ~ N O U c f1. 0 L. ~ V N U o° Q ~ ~ i O u~i O ~ O f~ Q O f1.. ~ U1 Lb L O N c~ .CC1 ~ ~ C C cf= ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ N z N N U ~ a a O co a. a. crs cn L +~ {~ v~ ~_ .~ _~ _N .~ 9.. ~~~ss~~ ~.~~~~~~ 0 O O O - O O ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O .^ O 0p N LD ~ 'V' M N r O r O II T O O 0 0 0 0 _~ n E ~ Z ~ m n a ~ c m ~ ~ m I N N ~ Q c+J L U _C .- C ~ N L33 C ~~ r Q 0 m ~_ ~ M O O O O O O N 41 ++ N C d C ~~ C9 a 0 0 r~A /~ W L. pp~ ~f v c °~ ~ ~ U7 ~ m ~. ca O U d L N •~.. R 0 v Q +.~ tC C3 .~ N R V .Q '~ d ~- .~ .... T m .~ O ~ T ~ ~ ~6~7 ~ ~ ~ QO ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ C Q t QS .Q CO .a EE~~ ~ ~ '~ Z ~ Z ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ O O ~ O (a 2 ~ (n CA &.. ~{{ m.ei V! `~•~pp V/ ~}~ppq MsV, 'Y Ye Shear Strersgth C3iagr~rir~ ~I~irect Shear A,STNI L~ - 3®8iD ! AASF#T'~ T - X36 ~'ro~ect Number Sorin No. & [7epth Sail Type Bate 4207020 B1 @ 5-6' SC 10/9x'2007 3.00 2 00 . ~.~~ ~ O .V 0.0 0.5 T.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 - - -~ I .^. ~ --; _ ~- _ ~ -I ~ohesian: 0.9 Ksf Ang ie of internal Friction: 32 ° I - _ - _ ~-~ - __ - S _._._.E __. ! j ~ ~- i _- ~ ~ _- i I I - i - -_r -. ...__ _ - ! ` ~ i - ---~ ---~ - ~ - - --~ t ~ - ~ ~ - -- - r - ~.i ~ 4 i - . _ _ _ E _ 1 € I .. i ..... ~ - _ _ ce S y t t r ~ _ i '{ ' ! I I _ ~ ~ ~_ . t .....~ r-- ~- - I ~ .. - ~ - - ~ ~ .~ i 4 _ i ~ -- _ _ _ t _. _ ! ._.1 -~ _.. ~ - _ ~ ` _ ~ ~ ^[ _ ~ 4 i I i -- ^ - __ `._ f - - _ ~ _....~ - I I - 1 I E - ~ E .~ _. + - ~. 'r ~ ' ~-- - - I _ .~ -- - ~ ~ - i'- i -- ~- ~ - E - -- -• - - -- -- -_- ~-_- ._ -._... ..__. _ _ . ~_J - ~- T ~. _ - _ . i `- i _ - + f I ~ ~ ~ ~~ i ! I _ _ i --• i^ ..I ..~i -~.~ __{ .~ ._ _ i f . F _. ' ~... ~ I.....-. _ __ I ~Cra~an Testing L.ab®rat®r~ Shear Strength ~ia~ram {®~r~~t ~~ear) AS`~~ C~ - 3001 S~T~ ~" - 236 Pro~ect Numoer Borin No. & De th Soil T pe Date 4207020 B1 @ 20-21' SM w/ cla 10/9!2007 3.00 2.00 1.Ofl 0.00 ~- 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 t~razar~ Testing Lai®rat~ry S~~ar ~firengfih ~iac~rarn ~~irec ~~~ar) ASTM D ®3060 I ~IT'~ i' - 236 Pro~ect (umber Bonn No. & Depth Soil Type Date 42fl7020 81 @ 35-36' ' SC 10/9(2007 3.00 Z.00 ~.oa o.oo ~- fl.0 0.5 1.0 1.~ 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 ~°azan ~`esfi~rag Lab®rat®ry ~h~ar ~tren~®iac~ralnn ~~~rec~ ~hear~ A~TI~ ~] - 3041 SH7'~ T - 236 Pro'ect Number Boring No. & Depth Soil Type Date 4207020 B 1 @ 45-46' SM 1 01912 0 0 7 3.00 2.00 1.00 OAO ~- O.fl 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.6 3.5 ~ra~an Tes#in~ Lab®Iratcry Shear Strength diagram ~C3irect Shear} ASS' ®- 3~~®~ SFfT'® T - 236 Pro"ect Number ! Burin No. & Depth Sflif Type Date 4207020 B1 @ 60-61' SM 10I9/~007 .. ..._... Co~aesior~:. 0.1 Ksf _._ Argle ~f lnte~nal Friction: 38 ° ---~.. . 3.00 _~ _ n _ .. i _ ....... _..._ .. . ~.... _ i i .... .. I ~-- i i _._ _ i ~ f - - _:. ~._ _ . .L_... __ _ _ . _ . ... _. _ . _, i ~ i z.oa ~.oa o.oa ~ o.a 0.5 1.0 ~.s z,a z.s s.o s.5 j I ratan 1'est~ng Lab®rat~ry S~~~r S~r~:~~th ~~ae~ram ~~tr~c~ ~h~ar~ AS`I"6V~ - 3001 SHTt~ ~ - 236 Pro'ect Number Bonn Na. & i]ept:h Soil-Type C3ate 4207020 B1 @ 70-71' 5M 10/9/2007 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.06 a€- a.o _~__. .... ~.. 1 ....,.... - ' ' . .: _. .._ ... .~ .<.. ..... ..... ;_. ... ;.... ~ 1 ;, :- ,... ~ _ 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 {~°aza~ T~s~i~g Lai®r~~®r~/ Shur Strength ®~agram ~®~re:V~ Shear ASS C~ - 30F0 i AAS~T® ~' - 236 Project Number Borng No. & Depth Soil Type Date 4207020 B1 @ 75-76' StV~ 1 01912 0 0 7 3.00 2.00 1A0 0.00 6.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Krazan 1°esfsng La~rat~ry Pro~ect Number Boring No. & Depth Soil Type Qate 4207020 B1 @ 85-86' SM-ML 10!9(2007 s.oa Z.oo 1.00 0.00 ~- 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3A 3.5 Kagan Tes~inc~ ~~b®r~~t~ry shear Strengtf~ ~iaq~a ~~irect Shear AST ®m 36~®f ~lAS~1T'® T' m 236 Pro~ect ~tumber Borin No. & Depth Sail Type Date 4247024 B2 @ 5-6' SC 14!912047 3.aa 2.oa ~ .oa a.oo ~- a. o a.5 1.a 1.5 2.a 2.5 3:0 3.5 Kazan ~estinc~ !ab®rat®r~ shear S~re~~th ®iagrarn (~irec~ Shear AST ~ - 30~Q f A/~5~~'~ ~ - 236 Project Number Borin No. & Depth Soii Type Date 4207020 B3 @ 10-1.1' SM 10/24/2007 ':___.. ._ _ - ~ -~---. __... ...... Cohesion: 0,'t Ksf _. __-` ._ .... Angle of Internal friction: 44 ° -- 3.00 2.00 ~.oa o.oo .___._.. _ _ ...:. . _-i____.___i.._._.._!_.-i .. _ ........ ..:..._....,...:..........,......i. .... .._..._i.....-~____-...__ _,. ~ ~ _ ~.. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 F6ra~ar~ ~'es~~~g Labcrafi®ry shear ~tren~th ~~ac~ra ~~Ar~ct Shear ASS ®3030 I ~ASHT~ T - 236 i~ro'eet f~umbe~ Boring Igo. & depth Soil T pe Date- . 4207420 B3 @ 25-26' SM X0/24/2007 ~ 3.00 ................i..............._i....,... 2A0 1.00 fl_04 0.0 0.5 1.0 i.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 I ra~ar~ Testing ~.abc~r~~r~ Prdect Number Bonin iVa, ~ Depth Soil T pe Date 4207020 B3 @ 35-36' SM 10/24(2007 3.00 _;_ --.. 2.00 1.00 .... _..!.........i ... ...........i........ 0.60 ~- OA 6.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 ~Cra~an Tesfa~g lab®ra~®ry Shur S~rer~c~~h I]~ac~rarn I~~r~ct Sh~ar~ ASTM D - 3001 AAS~TC~ l' - 23~ Pro~ect fVumber Boring No. & i3epth Soil Type date 4207020 $3 @ 50-51' SM 10/2412007 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 20 2.5 3.4 3.5 ratan Test~n~ Lah®ra~®ry At~~rb~rq 1.irnits ®eterrn~na~i®~ Project Number Project Name Date Sample Number Sample Location/Depth ~STM D - 43'~ ~ : 04207020 Proposed Hotel 1019!2007 B2 @ 30-31' Plastic Ltmit Liquid Limit Run Number 1 2 3 1 2 3 Wei ht of Wet Soii & Tare 16.89 28.30 28.43 Wei ht of Dry Soil & Tare 16.20 25.11 25:01 Weight of water 0.69 3.19 3.42 Wei ht of Tare 11.42 11.33 11.08 Weight of Dry Soil 5.18 13.78 13.93 Water Content 13.3 23.1 24.6 Number of Blows 30 24 !'las~9C L1inlt : 13.~Z Liclu€# LaEnet : 2~.~Z Plasticity ]ndex 71.i}8 Classification of ~ #4t3 CL llnifiecl Soil Classification SC ~-~a~~ Te~~~ng Lab®~°at~ry ~tterber~ L~rnits ~eterrra~nati€~n Project Number Project Name Date Sample Number Sample Location/Depth : 04207020 Proposed Hotel 10/9/2007 ' B2 @ 20-21' Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Run Number 1 2 3 1 ' 2 3 Wei ht ol: Wet Soil & Tare 17.9.2 29.69 27.82 .Wei ht of D Soil & Tare 16.97 25.84 24.52 Wei ht of water 0.95 3.85 3.30 Wei ht of Tare 11.48 11.16 ''..,11.24 Weight of Dry Soil 5.49 14.68 !,13.28 Water Content 17.3 26.2 '~ 24.8 Number of Blows 17 i 34 Riasticaty 6r~dex Ciassification cf ~ #~40 lBnified Soi! Ciassificat'toe~ sa 5fl i ....:..................................... 40 a 3C !f! _z 30 U 3- v1 20 PtaS~iC i..Bl'916$ : 17.3Q L.lC(U1f! l~ffYl6t : 15.5tf 8.27 CL ' 5C Chi a ~s L 10 - .~ ............._..._.._......_..............................._...... CL-~flL i~AL 0 0 20 {~r~~an ~°~stir~ dab®rat~ry Atter~er L.irr~its ®etert~ir~ati®r~ A~T~VI d-~31~ PC®jec~ i~l.IB'8'1~3~a 04207020 !'roje~~ ~~6Yi~; Proposed Hote! date: 90/9/2007 ~arnpie i~u~~e~: B2 @ 45-46' Plastic 1..it~~t Ligaaicd #~it~it Piasti~i~r [ndex N.R. N.A. Nan-Plastic Kazan 'e~t~~~ La~r~t® A~t~r~er~ L~rt~i~s f~eterrr~ir~at~or~ SST ~-~31 ~ ~~~,ect 1N~r~be~ Pro~e~t ~la~te: ~3ate: S~rr~pie h~~ambe~; 04207020 Proposed Hotel 9 0/9/2007 a2 @ 1~-rs~ ~i~stic i..,i~it Ligaaid Limit Plasticity Index N•A• N.A. Non-Plastic Gra~a~ 1°~si rig L~k~®ra~r O .~ as G t~ N .~ C~3 L -m.*+ Z a as u a~ .~ o ~ ~ ~ m o ~ a ~ N u3 O N 0 0~'~~ ~~°mcn C '" O ,O N ~ ~ ~ V J (B O ~ ~ _I ~ tU iII U U 4. C} 4) 6S Q) O O ~ 4J O ~a.au~cn c o c ~ Z ZZ a~ a~ ~ a, ~~ooo m ~ ~ Q N fL7 ~S' it) O d' N C~3 Q} (~'1 r N OLD C+7 r ~ Cr7 N r 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DO 0 O O C7 0 i r r r r r Q 0 ~ (O d' N O 03 ~d- N ~ N N N N r r r __ _ _ - -_ N 0 ~ 00 m O N '' 000 ~ '- O O Q O p U to t(7 d' t'? N r 6~ r r .- r ~-- O a ~ aoooat?o Z ~ r r r r r r r- U C Cn ~ ~ (p ,d cri N ~~ 0 0 O ~ O O T > -'.' t~ > L L O t~Q C7 O ~ O U ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ .C ~ "` C 7 ~ ~ .p ~ ~ ~' 4..J I' V J V J .i.. V CO L ~ if5 O O O ~i- ~ N ~ r P'3 LO N d' r .~ ryL W ~-+ >, ro a~ c o ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O ~ i. N ~ O 'ct ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d- 0. ~ C4 tt~ C ~ ~ O Q) U u ~ Cu 'J ~ Z ~ ~ N t4 N N Qy ~'U .~ .~ +. ~ - f1 p,. GI UJ cA ~ U ~.n r~ ~n o coocflo ~ O O M C") N ~ ~ r O O O O >. > ro ~ ~ C~ o ~ U' ci ~ ~ ~ U Q ~ U~ C4 ~ ~ .~ O g ~ .~ ~ i Vf Vf i V ~ ~ c Z Z Z 0. ~ L Q~ U N ~ ~ O O O (6 (Q d ~ 07 ~'3 O N CU C'7 ~t ~ ~t N N CA Cf) [''? r M N r 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O t77 ~ N c~ ('~ d- ~(3 O ti o r~/~ f~ '1] lfJ M r ~ ~j '. ~ r r r r r ~',. ~ rr a~~ co ~ U r r ~- r 0 0 O '' ~ ~ OOO °.ooo Q r r r~ r r r C~ ~' if3 .~. Lf) in lf') 6j ~ "Q ~ r r ~ r 0 0 >, ~ O~ O O O ,~ O z~ r r r <- r r a~ E O ~ ~ N li') r O ~ ~ ~ u> `. r Q W d O .~ ..e! ~i :s:+ C i ~~ ~~ ,~~Tl ®2344 / C~.L 3~ Project Number 4207020 Project Name Proposed i•fo#el Date 1 01212 0 0 7 ~ Sample Location/Curve Number RV#1 Soil Classification SM-ML TEST A 13 C Percen# Moisture Compaction, °l0 10.6 11.5 12.4 D Densi , lhm/cu.ft. 134.0 128.5 125.8 Exudation Pressure, psi 340 250 150 Expansion Pressure, {Dia! Readin } 0 0 0 Expansion Pressure, psf 0 0 0 Resistance Value R 40 32 18 R Value at 30U P51 Exudation Pressure 37 R Value by Expansion Pressure (TI =): 5 Expansion Pressure nil l~razan Testing Lib®ra~®ry A°f ®2~A~4 f CAL 301 Project [Number 4207020 Project Name Proposed Hotel Date 1 0/212 0 0 7 Sample Location/Curve Number RV#2 Sail Classification SM-ML TEST A B C Percent Moisture @ Compaction, % 13.1 11.9 10.9 Dry Densi , lbm/cu.ft. 126.4 127.2 127.5 Exudation Pressure, psi 200 350 490 Expansion Pressure, (Dial Reading} 0 0 0 Ex ansion Pressure, psf 0 0 0 Resistance Value R 14 39 47 R Value at 3f}0 PSI Exudation Pressure 31 R Value by Expansion Pressure (TI =}: 5 Expansion I~ressure nil 4.V 3.6 .....~._...i....l ........ .... ........ ....i.... ......j._.. ......~...... ._... ~.... 1 3.2 $ 2.8 L ~ ~ ; v a 2.4 ro `; ,n 2.0 N 01. .. .._ _. : ...... .. .... ..,.... C ~ 1.6 r.. ... _~.. ~..:....... m 7 ti 1.2 ' i i ...:........... .......r 6.8 ~ F i i ....j .... ...' ........ :... .....~... ...i. .. ... ~.... .... .. 0.4 ~ 0.0 o v w N cfl o ~ co N m o O O O <^ +-^ N N N M M V Cover Thick. exp. Pressure, ft ~Cr~zan ~esfiing Lai®rafi® Appendix f3 Page (3.1 APPENDLX ~ ~AR'~I-~W~Y~$~ SPICCYFI~t~'I'I®NS GI~NiGRAL When the text of the report caizflicts with the general specificatiotzs in this appendix, the recoizzfnendations iiz the report have precedence. SCOPE ~F W®RK: These sped#ications aizd applicable .plans pef•tain to and include a.ll earthwork associated with the site rough grading, including but izat limited to the furnishing of all !oboe, foals, and equipment necessary for site cleariizg aazd grubbitzg, stripping, preparation of foundation materials for receiving fill, excavatioiz, processing, placement and campactiaiz of till and backfill materials to-the lines and grades shown on the project graditzg plans, and disposal pf excess fnater'sals. I'EY2~'f®R1V1A1®tC1C: The Contractor shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with the project plans and specifications. This ~vorl: shall be inspected and tested by a representative of ICfazaiz afzd associates, Inc., hereinafter known as the Soils Engineer and/ar Testiizg Agency. Attainment of design grades when achieved shall be certified by the project Civil Engineer. Bath the Soils Engiizee:• acid the Civil Engineer are the Owner`s representatives. l.fthc Contractor slzattld fail to meet the teclzizica( ar design requirenzeizts embodied iiz this document and on the applicable plans, lze sl~al.i make the iecessary readjustments uiztiI all work is deemed satisfactory as detei•nzined b_y lzatlz the Sails Engineer and the Civil Enguzeer. No deviation from these spccifica.tioizs shall he in.ade except upafz written approval of the Soils Engic~eer, Civil Efzgineef• or project Architect. No earthwork shall be perfvr-zzed witlzaut the physical presence ar approval of the Soils Engineer, The Cafztractar shall fzoti#y the Soils Engineer at least 2 working days prior fix the cammencefneizt of any aspect of the site earthwork. The Contractor agrees that lze shall assume sole and complete responsibility far jab site conditions during the coEirse a#' constf•uctian of this project, including safety of al( persons and property; that this requirement shall apply continuously and not be (united to normal wanking hours; and that the Contractor shall defend, indei~zfzify and hold tl~e Owizer ai}d the Engineers ]zarinless from any Ind all liability, real or alleged, in connection with the performance of work on this project, except for liability arising from the sale negligence of the Owner ai• the Engineers. TECI~NI~Ali., la>C~LT~;ItEIVI111N'I'S: All compacted materials shall be defzsified to a density not less than 90 percent relative compa.ctian based an ASTM Test Method D1557 or CAL-216, as specified in the technical portion of the Sail Engineer's report. The location and frequency of field density tests shall be as deterlni~~ed by the Soils Engineer. The results of .these tests and compliance with these sped#i.catioizs shall be the basis upoiz which satisfactory completion of work will be judged by the Soils Engineer. ICrazan c~z Associates, Laic. With of'f'ices Servif~g Tf~e Western CJnited States 0A3t77t1?U Sicpnrt Updaee.f>OC Appendix B Page B.2 SAILS AI~~ ;C+®~JI~A.'FI®1~ C®IedI~ITI®i®TS: The Contractor is presumed to have visited the site and to have fam.iiiarized himself with existing site conditions and the contents of the data presented in the soil report. Tile ContractoE• shall make his awn interpretation of the data contained in said E•eport, and tl~e Contractor shall not be relieved of liability under the Contract documents for any loss stEStained a.s a result o€ a.ny variance between conditions indicated by oE• dedtECed frown said report and the actual conditions encountered during the progress of the work. I}UST C®1`d'I'RUL: The work includes dust control as required for the alleviation or prevention of any dust nuisance OEl or about the site or the borrow area, or off-site if caused by the Cont•acti:~r's opeE•atian either during the performance of the earthwork or resulting from the conditions iEy which tl~e Contractor leaves the site. The Cont~•actor shall assume all liability, includEng cotn-t Casts o€ codefendants, for all claims related to dust or windblown materials attributable to his work. SITE I'I~I~AI~~.TIG~F Site pE•eparation shall consist of site clearing and grubbing and the preparations n€fou'ndatio€~ materials €or receiving €ill. CLI+,AI2Il~G All) GI~L~i31~IleTG: The CoEitE•actor shall accept the site in this presE~nt condition and shall demolish and/or E•eEnove from the area of designated projec# earthwork ail structures, both surface and subsurface, trees, brush, roots, debris, organic matter, and all other matter dctern',ined by the Soils Engineer to be deleterious or otheE•wise unsuitable. Such materials shall became the property of the Contractor and shall be removed from the site. Tree. root systems in pa•oposed building areas should be removed to a minimum depth o€ 3 feet and to such an extent which would permit removal of alt roots larger than 1 incr. "free 'roots removed in parking areas Enay be lirnitcd to the upper 1'/~ feet of the ground suri~ace. Backfill of t~•ee root excavations s4lould not be permitted until all exposed surfaces Dave been inspected and the Soils Engineer is present tC}E• the proper control of baekf 11 placcmen.t a.nd compaction. 1'3tErniig in areas which are to receive fill materials shall not be permitted. I S?1t1)BGRAI3E PItIlI'AIZATI®l~l: Surfaces to receive Engineered Fill., building or sl~kb loads shall be prepared as outlined above, excavatecl/scarified to a depth o€ i2 inches, moistu~;c-conditioned as necessary, and compacted to 90 percent relative compaction. Loose soil areas, areas of uncertified fill, and/or areas of disturbed soils shall be moisture-conditioned as necessary and recotnpacted to 90 percent relative compaction. A11 ruts, hummoclc5, or otl~eE• tEneven surface features shall be removed by surface grading prior to placement a€ any fill materials. All areas which are to receive till materials shall be approved by the Soils Engineer prios• to the iplacement of a.Ery of the fill material. ;1/~CAVA'I'I~l*t: All excavation shall be accomplished to the toleraEace normally de€ined by the Civil Engineer as shown on the project grading plans. All over-excavation. below tlae grades specified shall be backtiiled a.t the Contractor's expense and shall be compacted in accordance with the applicable technical requirements. I~razata c~c Associates, Inc. With Offices Serving The Western United Scales 0~l207p?6 Report UpdareEsOC Appendix B T'age B 3 ~'iLL A1dTD DACI~F~LL IYIA.~'I~RIA.L: No tr-aterial shall be moved o2• compacted without the presence of the Soils Engineer. Material from the requi.t•ed site excavation nzay be utilized far construction site fills provided prior approval is given by the Soils ingineer. All n~ateriais utiEized for constructing site fills sE~all be free from vegetation or other deleterious matter as detet•tnined by the Soils Engineer. PLACEIVI~IV~, SPIt~ADING AND C~MPAC'~;t~N: The placement and spreading of approved fill materials gild tl~e processing and compaction of approved fill and native materials shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. However, compaction of fill materials by I~ooding, ponding, or jetting shall not be permitted unless specifically approved 6y Iaca.l code, as well as the Soils Ingineer. Both cut and fill areas shall be surface-compacted to the satisfaction of the Soils Ingineer prior to final acceptance. S~AS{~l'+TAL LI1vIILTS: No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled while it is f-•ozen ar thawing or during unfavora.b#e wet weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by Leavy rains, fill operations shall not be resumed r.tniil the Soils Engineer indicates that the moisture content and density of previously placed fill are as specified, IGraAan & Associates, Inc, With offices Serving The Western United Suites 0-0Z(I702U &eport Upctate.AOC Appendix C Page C.1. AI'I'IEPd")i I~ C PA~FMEI~T SI'I+ICIFICAI'I®NS 1. I;tICFIl`dI'I'IOI+dS -The ten~1 "pavement" shall include asphaltic conc~•ete surfacing, arntreated aggregate base, and aggregate subbase. ~I'lre term "strbgtade" is thai portion of the area on. which surfacing, base, ar subbase is to be placed. The tent "Standard Specifications": hereinafter referred to is the May 2006 Standard Specifications of the State of California, Department of Transporl:ation, and the "Materials Manual" i,is the Materials Manual of Testing and Control Procedures, State of California, Departt~~ent of Public,'Works, Division of Highways. The term "relative compaction" refers to the field density expressed as a percentage of the maximum laboratory density as defined in the applicable tests outined in the Materials Manual. 2. SC(~I'F ~F 'W®I~I~ -This portion of the wark shall incl~ide all Tabor, materials, foals, and equiprnetzt necessary for, artd reasonably incidental to tl~e completion of the pavement shown an the plans arld as herein specified, except work specifically natecl as "Work Not Included." 3. I'I2I+IP~RA.~d'I~N ®Ia' 'I'III; ~ITI3GIZA1}L -The Contractor shall prepare tie s€trface of the various subgrades receiving subsequent pavement courses to the lines, grades, and din~tensions given an the plans. TI~e upper I2 inches of the soil subgrade beneath the pavement section shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Tlie finsshed subgrades shall be tested a.nd approved by the Sails Engineer prior to the placement of additional pavement courses. 4. UN'I'ItFATIf.D AGGItF~f~'I'E I~~.SE - The aggregate base material shall be spread and compacted an the prepared subgrade in canfon~~ity wit}t the lines, grades, and dimensions sl~owti on the plans. The aggregate base material shall conform to t1e regitiretnents of Section 2d of the Standa!r-d Specifications for Class I.I material, I %z inches maximum size. The aggregate base material shall be spread and compacted in accordance with Section 26 of the Standard Specificatio~rs. Tl~e aggregate base material shall be spread in layers not exceeding 6 inches and each layer of aggregate material course shall be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of successive layer. The aggregate base ~t~aterial sltali be compacted to a ininimtrrn relative compaction of 95 percent. 5. AGGI~.IJ~ATE SUII]~A,SI±1 -The aggregate subbase shall be spread artd compacted) on the prepared subgrade in canforn~ity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans,''. TI1e aggregate subbase material shall conform to the requirements of Section 25 of the Standard Specifications far Class II material. The aggregate subbase material shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent, and it shall be spread and conzpactetl in accordance with Section 25 of the Standard Specil-ications. Each layer of aggregate subbase shall be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placetrient of successive layers. '' Krazan & Associates, 1<nc. With drfices Serving The Western United States /lj7pendlX ~ Page C.2 6. A5'P~iAL,'I'i~ C~1~T~I~~'~E SI.II~.E+`~~II~G - t~sphaliic concrete surfacing shat[ consist of a mixture of mineral aggregate and paving grade asphalt, mixed at a central mixing giant atl!i spread and compacted on a prepared base iii conforn-~ity with the lines, grades and dimensions shown an the plans. T}Ze viscosity grade of t}.~e asphalt steal} be PG b4-I0. The mines} aggregate sl~ail be Type B, '/~ inch ~naximurn size, medium grading and steal} conform to the requirements set [~orth in Section 39 of the Sta3tdard Specifications. The dcyi~lg, proportioning and mixi~~g of the materials sha[} conform. to Section 39. The prime coat, spreading and compacting equipment and spreading and con~pacth;g n~rixture sha[( conform to the applicable chapters of Section 39, wit}1 the exception that no st~rfa.ce course shall be }a}aced when the atmospheric teE~~perature is below 50° p. T}~e surfacing shall be called with a cambinatian of steel wheel and pneumatic rollers; as described in Sectiar3 39-6. 'I he surface course sha}} be p}aced with an approved self-grape}led cnechanica} spreading and finishing machine. 7. ~'~~ SEPa.1?., C'®~'~' -The fad sea.} (mixing type asphaltic emulsion} shat[ canfornr to and be applied in accordance with t.[~e recjuirements of Section 37. ICr2lZaBF c4r ASSOCtRtCS~ Inc. With Offices Serving The Westen~ United States [l.3?E)7f1211 ktepost U3xlate.P6C COTTOl~T, ~-fIIRJES &~ ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING L~NGxNEERS AND GEOLOGISTS February 15, 2008 1~0087A TO: Allison Knapp Planxiax~.g Consultant C]:TY OF SOUTI~ SAID F1tANCL5C0 P.O. Sox 717. _ South San Francisco, Cali~oznia 9083 SLTBj.ECT: Geotechnical Peer Review 1ZE: 550 Gateway ]3oulevard ProjectiHyatt Place South San Francisco At your request, we have completed a geotedinical peer review of proposed site development using: Updated Geotechnical Engineering ~vestigation -Proposed Hotel (report stamped draft} prepared by IGrazan & Associates, Irtc., dated November 12, 2007; and Docusztent Review and Comment -Proposed PSoliday Inn Express (letter) prepared by TCrazan & Assodates, lnc., dated September 10, ~oa~. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical maps az~d reports from our office files and completed a recent site inspection. DI.3~L]SIOI~ Construction of a hotel is proposed on the subject approximately 2 acre property located on the southeast site of Gateway Boulevard near Corporate Drive. Large electxical power towers are located near the western boundary o.f the site. The referencEd report indicates that the proposed building will be an 8-story structure with a basexxtextt garage. The. project plans (included in the report) depict the proposed building in the center of the property surrounded by proposed parking lot stalls. An entrance driveway is depicted at the northern comer of the site. It appears likely that. earth materials would be exported from the pxopez-ty associated with excavation for the basement garage. The project geotechnical report indicates that the building maybe supported on precast, driven piles extending to at lust b0 feet below the. ground surface. Potential impacts associated with driven piles include vibration and noise during construction, plus potential inducted settlements or other damages to zteazby buildings. The Project Naxthera Cati.fonua Office Cenftal Catifamia Office 330 village Lane 64l7Dogtown Itnad Los Gatos, CA.95030-7228 Saxtfindzeas, C~ 952+F9-9640 (408) 354-5542 • Fax (408? 354-T852 (209} 73G~4252 • Fax (~09) 736-1212 e-mail: losgatos(~cottOnahires.t0~ www. c o tt o n6 h i xe s. cd m e-ma~i• cotton5f,~n~starband.nee ~. ~~ ~ Allison YCnapp Page ~ February 15, 2008 F0087A Geotechnical Consultant recoxrlmends that adjacent buildings be monitored during both indicator and product pile drivix1g to evaluate any response to hammer'.-induced vibrations. SITE COND~'IpNS This site is located in a general area of mapped slope wash, ravine; fi11, and artificial fill deposits. Logs from submitted exploratory boring indicate the presence of approximately 2 to 4 .Feet of existing fill materials across the relatively level portions of property. Greater depths of fzlk materials are presextt where berets have been constructed adjacent to Gateway Boulevard. We understand that the sate was:: part of a previous steel plant and that environmental testing has detected ko~cv levels of a heavy metals, arsexxic, and PCBs at the site. dative clayey sand, silty saxtd, and silty ~I!cla~' soils (provably colluviurn and alluvium) extend to depths greater than 70 feet. j Borings encountered highly weathered volcanic rock (Franciscan greexxstone7) at depths of 7S to 100 feet. T1te site is Located approximately 4 miles northeast of the active Sari Andreas fault. The mapped inactive Hillside fault is located a few hundred feet noxth of the property. We inspected the site on February 1, 2008, arxd observed standing Water and saturated soil conditions across the relatively level center portion of the property, and flowing water in ditches located along the western boundary of the site. Substantial rainfall had occurred locally in January 2008 but significant raixtfall had not occurred within approximately 3 days of our site inspection. We note that groundwater was previously measured at a depth of 15 feet in June 1999 and 14.75 feet in September 2007. It appears likely that groundwater levels are shallower after periods of significant local rainfall. COI~TCT.YJ'SIONS AND IZBCtJMMENDED ACTIONS Proposed site development is potentially constrained by seasonal shallow groundwater conditions, a relatively thin znantLe of undocumented fill materl~ls, a thick sequence of colluvial and alluvial soil deposits, detected trace arx:ounts of toxic substances, and anticipated seismic grouzid shaking conditions. Based on subsurface explorataoxt, material. testing, and analyses, the Project Geotechnical Consultant. has concluded that soils below a depth of S feet have a slight. to moderate p4ten.tial for Liquefaction resulting in total seismic induced settlement on the order of 3 ~0 5 inches with differential settlement tress tlrart 2-1/2 sziches oven the width of the building. In order to mitigate against excessive total and differential settlement, jICrazan & Associates, Inc., (ICAi) has recommended use o,f deep, driven pile foundations for the structure. peep foundations are also intended to mitigate against uplift from idez~ti£ied sites soils with a moderate swe11 potentiai. KA£ notes that if site earthwork is pez£ormed during or soon offer periods of piecipitatiart that groundwater may be encountered and subgrade soils may become saturated. KAI suggests installation of a standpipe piezoxnetez prior to construction CO'T'Y'UN, ~u` HIRES Sc AsSi7CIATES, ZNt*. Allison Knapp February 15, 20Q8 Page 3 F00$7A should groundwater levels be a concern. We-are concerned that seasonally elevated groundwater conditions may occur at the site. We recommend consideration of site groundwater monitoring this winter. Given that previous groundwater levels were measured ix~ the summer and early fall, it appears eroneous to assuzxze that groundwater levels will remain below the level of the parkiztg basement. Confirmation of seasonally elevated groundwater conditionu could impact appropriate geotechnical design criteria for temporary shoring and basement construction.. With the currently recommended basement wall backdraixi system and sump pumps, extended periods of pumping and consequent discharge of groundwater into storm drain systems could occur during periods of elevated groundwater conditions (possibly for the life of the project). Tb.e potential far contaminated water to be collected and discharged in this zxlaru~er should be addressed by KAI. Elevated groundwater could also result in hydrostatic pressures being exerted on basement floors axtd walls, even with good backdrain systems. We recontntend that KAI consider designing for ~uII hydrostatic conditions. Xf basement wall backdrain systems are to be utilized, we recommended that traditional granular backdrain systems be cansidc~.'ed instead o£ the Iess efficient, prefabricated drainage panels. To address the potential for hazardous materials to be present in spoils for predrilling of driven piles, or in excavated xxlaterials for the basement garage, we understand that these materials must be tested for potential toxic content prior to transportation off-site to suitable disposal locatioxts. We aLsa have a number of specific questions for the Project Geotechnical Consultant to consider and address prior to geotechnical approval of proposed project design criteria. We recommend that the following supplemental geotecYunical evaluations be satisfactorily completed. First among our recon~zxlezidations is timely moivtorixr.g of site winter groundwater levels. Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation - The Project Geotechnical Consultant should. complete supplemental evaluations to address the following items: a. As noted above, potential seasonal shallow groundwater conditions could impact appropriate project geotechnical design criteria. Appropriate means to determine and monitor site winter groundwater coxtiditzo~ccs should be implemextted as soon as passible. b. Collected groundwater data should be considered when evaluating appropriate basement wall backdxain systems. 1]esign. of .the basement parking garage for full hydrostatic conditions should be coxisidezed. If subsurface backdrain systems are to be utilized, them typical granular backdrain .systems should be considered over prefabricated drainage panels to improve efficiency. The potential. need far COTTON, SI-I~R~S & ASSOCTATlrS, INC. Allison Knapp Page 4 February 15, 2408 F0087A backup power generation to zun sump pumps should be addressed. c. The potential far contazxvz~ated ~nrater to be intexcepted by backdrain systems and transported into City storm drain systems should be addressed. d. In oxdez to confirm the pile design Capacities and to assist in selection of pile lengths, Pile Driver Analyzer (PDA} should be considered on several of the indicator piles, e. 'zhe selection of pile length, hammer capacity and number of indicator piles should be evaluated by both the Project Stractuxai Engineex and Geotechnical ~oxisultant (ta supplement evaluations by the Contractor}. f. Supplemexttal recommendations should be provided to erasure suitable mixing of lime with local soils if this method is to be utilized for the project, g, Considezation should be given to directing roof downspouts into tight pipes. h. Standard perforated pipe drainage collection should be eoxtisidered far retaining wall backdzains rather than weep hales that are prone to clogging and unsightly wall face staizv~.g. i.. .Clarification should be provided whether field blow counts or .converted Mod Cal blow counts are presented on logs. j. The consultant should clarify whether rotary wash drilling was utilized and whether an automatic hammer or cathead vas utilized. k. Tl1e consultant should address whether criteria should be established for pile refusal, or whether all piles must meet minimum depth criteria {60 feet). LIMTTATTON'S This peen' review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the City 'with discretionary permit decisions, QLU services have been limited to an independent review the referenced geotechnical report to determine the adequacy of the liquefaction hazard evaluation and any associated mitigation measures. Our opinions and conclusions CQTTpN, SHIRES 8~ ASSOCIATES, INC. Allison ICxiapp Wage 5 February 15, 200$ F0087A are made in accordance with .generally aceepCed principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. 'This warranty is in Lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. RespecffuAy submitted, TS;DTS.kd CQTTON, SHIRES ,A~~TD ASSOCIATES, I1~C. CITY GEOTECHNIC.A.L CONSULTANT Ted Sayre Principal Engineering CCealogist CEG 1795 ~~~~ ~ ' David T. Schrier Principal Geoiechnical Engineer GH 2334 Carror~r, SxrRas ~ A$so~xa~~s, iN~. ~_~. - _ .~,,,: ~,. _~ & ASSOCIATES INC. GEOTECNN/CAL ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION March 26, 2008 Mr. Vijay Patel 2834 El Camino Real Redwood City, California 94061 RE: Updated Piezon~eter Installation Proposed Hyatt Place • .South San Francisco, California Dear Mr. Patel: Project No. 044-08005 Two piezometers were installed on the subject property on March 20, 2008. The- purpose of the piezometers (essentially groundwater monitoring wells) is to monitor the depth of the groundwater underlying the property and it is aa~ticipated that groundwater samples. may be collected from the piezometers for chemical analysis of selected constituents, specifically, metals and PCBs which have been detected in soil within the subject property. The location of the two piezometers (P-1 and P-2), as shown on the attached drawing provided by Lee Gage & Associates, Inc. (Gage), were chosen by Gage. The work was conducted in accordance with a drilling permit obtained from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Department. It is Krazan's understanding that the proposed construction on the subject property is a eight-story hotel with a subgrade parking structure. It is the intention of Mr. Patel to maintain the piezometers while construction occurs so that the depths of groundwater can be monitored prior to and during. construction. The 25-foot deep, two-inch diameter wells were construction of Schedule 40 PVC and were placed in an eight-inch borehole. The screen slot-size is 0.020 inch and the screen interval is from 10 to 25 feet below ground surface (bgs). A filter pack, consisting of rounded No. 3 Monterey sand (washed and bagged at one cubic foot per- sack) was placed into the annular space to a depth of approximately two feet above the top of the screen. Athree-foot-thick seal, consisting of hydrated bentonite pellets, was placed above the filter pack. The remaining annular space was filed with sand-cement. Aflush-mounted, traffic-rated well vault was emplaced to provide. access to the wellheads. The well vaults were set as .close as practicable above existing site grade to promote positive drainage away from the wellhead. A well construction diagram is attached to this letter. 215 West Dakota Avenge • Clovis, California 93b12 • (559) 348-2200 • FAX (559) 348-2190 Witli Offr.ces Serving fire Westerai United States ~D 4408005 piezometers updated i Project No. 044-08005 ~ Page No. 2 The filter pack of the piezoineters were surged using a small diameter bailer. The surging was conducted to settle the filter pack before the annular space was filled with hydrated bentonite and grout. According to Krazan's November 12, 2007 report titled Draft Updated Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Ilotel, SSO Gateway Boulevard, South San Ff-ancisco, California, soil in the upper two to four feet bgs consists of a gravelly, clayey sand fill, which is underlain by a clayey sand to a depth of eight feet bgs. Silty sand and clayey silty sand were encountered to a depth of 25.5 feet bgs, the maximum depth explored. As of 1500 hours on March 20, 2008, the water levels in P-1 and P-2 were 12.45 feet bgs and 10.65 feet bgs, respectively. As of 0930 hours on March 25, 2008, the water levels in P-1 and P-2 were 10.50 feet bgs and 9.47 feet bgs, respectively. Krazan appreciates the opportunity to assist in the development of the subject property. Please contact Mr. Art Morrill or Mr. Dave Jarosz if you have any questions or comments at (559) 348-2200. Respectfully submitted, `~NP~ ~F~~O KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.' ~~~~~N. M Q~~i~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ Q N~ ~ p9 a- _ ~ ~~' ~_ Arthur H. Morrill cSJ, ~~~ Professional Geologist No. 5383 ', qrF flF ~P~ AHM/awf Attachments KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Witiz Offices Serving the Western Unite~l States 4408005 piezometers updated Yg 5 og ~$ ode o W6 € ~~ ~ E 3 ~. ~ ,t ~ ~ _ ~ _ ~~ "~9 s c~ g' x~ ~ ~ e € W e a fez 4 ay a `- z ~_ c ~` ~3. 'o ~pp -C C 3~ 9u ' ?a - 3 : i 3 da +ae ~ ._ fE v 5~ & Y 8 $ ~e ~ Z ii 3::.~ ~ ~~ ~ v qi „F-a ' b. aN `' ig ~L is c J yy e ~ a c ~5 ~ n~~ ~ ~_ 6a o~ - nc ~ o. c < ~ w ~- [6 ~8$' n ch ~c u ~_ ~~ ~~ SE a c ..2 S o 6 a6 to ~~ z~`-~,F ~~ - 6~ ~ ~„ :G `~ ~~ ~ €E s~ _ ~` a ~g ~`s W tl0 3g ~y >3 ~~s t _~ nr•5~ ° E ~~ ~2 a ~~ .n Z _ ,. .. e _ m ,. _ - - - - - - - - set F1 u[ :s '~ ~ ~ , 1 ' : ~~ i 1 ~,: 6 ~ \ ¢e §ffi e _ Si e ~~ li Q i ~' ~ .:e._ n ~ > ~ $~ J i m, _ • 6~ ~ ~ W i I ' ' ~ ~ er 3 C '~ ~ i __yl i~i, e i i ~ E~ e ~ eo -f, i ~:, e 3 ~ '1 ~~' Y ~'~~ . + ~{ , ~e ~~ i~ ' '' w~ '•~ V 1 ee...^ ~ , ' ~f ~~. I~ p n `~ 3 _a~ , '~~` , '{ ~dr -~= ~~• i '~ ~~ ~ N• •\ Y i~ }` a~d~aiid~~ 1 ~~` 1 M x` W r V Q ~ ~ d g 9~~ K~ ~ ~~s o~ ~ $ py~~y+~6 Q ~`~b e o J A C e ~\ 3 B3~ ~: ~ ~ b g " Q~ 5~E~65qq ~~~ Z W ~ 1 ! I ~ 3 Sif ~ ~ O ~ - Q . W T: l i o4 ~ I 1 ~ °~secB - J WZ~ ~~ ~ ~ U Q ZQ~ ~ ~ wUU ~O ••1~[ ~j UV> ~~ n FN ~ ~ m~ \ ZC ~ I ~ OG 4J t"5 W (7 Yom' C r /~ ~, ! ~ i ~/ / ~ e Kr-azgn & Associcltes, Inc. ,,. - Environmental Division ~~~ 215 W. Dakota Avenue Clovis, CA 93612 (559) 348-2200 6~9 EZ®(~ ~T~RS 6~- 1 P-2 PROJECT: PROPOSED HYATT PROJECT N0: 044-08005 DATE: 3 08 LOCATION: 550 GATEWAY BLVD S. SAN FRANCISCO DRILLED BY: Krazan & Associates CAP Type: Locking Cap Assembly ', Total Depth 25 Relative Grade. - • ... . - - •~ :.:. •• ~: ~• ~. .:, ..• WELL VAULT ,~ Dia: 8 Type: FLUSH MOUNT ~' i. • BACKFILL MATERIAL Type: Sand cement slurry i • Y. RISER CASING Dia: 2" ~~~ Type: SCH 40 PVC Top of seal ANNULAR SEAL 5 ft_--_ Type: 3/8" dia. hydrated bentonite pellets ack of filter T 8 ft_ _ - - p op FILTER. PACK Type: #3 LONESTAR SAND ', creen To of 10 ft _, - - - p s GWL: 12 TO - SCREEN C 8ft y - Dia: 2" . .( ) 1 Type: Flush Thread 0.020 slotted SCH 40 PVC Bottom of screen 25 ft _ - - ttom of sum B NA - - - - ,. p o Bottom of hole 25.5 ft.- - ~ - ~, ^ D a 8 i i ^ i ~•-r ~ i . v c ~i :.-,. _~ ~~ T & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL EN•GfNEERING ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION April 30, 2008 Mr. Vijay Patel 2834 El Camino Rea] Redwood City; California 94061 RE: Updated Piezometer Water Levels And Groundwater Sample Results Proposed Hyatt Place South San Francisco, California Dear Mr. Patel: Two piezometers were installed on the subject property on March 20, 2008 Project No. 044-08005 The .purpose of the piezometers (essentially groundwater monitoring wells) is to monitor the depth of the groundwater underlying the property. On April 3, 2008, groundwater samples were collected from the piezometers for chemical analysis of selected constituents. The two groundwater samples were analyzed for a suite of constituents included on a Iist titled City of South San Francisco Local Lirnits provided by the municipal wastewater treatment plant. The location of the two piezometers (P-I and P-2), as shown on the attached drawing provided by Lee Gage & Associates, Inc. (Gage), were chosen by Gage. The work was conducted in accordance with a drilling permit obtained from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Department. It is Krazan's understanding that the proposed construction on the subject propeiTy is an eight-story hotel with a subgrade parking structure. It is the intention of Mr. Patel to maintain the piezometers while construction occurs so that the depths of groundwater can be monitored prior to and during construction. The 25-foot deep, two-inch diameter wells were construction of Schedule 40 PVC and were placed in an eight-inch borehole. The screen slot-size is 0.020 i~~ch and the screen interval is from 10 to 25 feet below ground surface (bgs). A filter pack, consisting of row~ded No. 3 Monterey sand (washed and bagged at one cubic foot per sack) was placed into the annular space to a depth of approximately two feet above the top of the screen. Athree-foot-thick seal, consisting of hydrated bentonite pellets, was placed above the filter pack. The remaining annular space was filled with sand-cement. Aflush-mounted, traffic-rated well vault was emplaced to provide access to the wellheads. The well vaults were set as close as practicable above existing site- grade to promote positive drainage away from the wellhead. A well construction diagram is attached to this letter. 215 West Dakota Avenue • Clovis, California 93612 • (559) 348-2200 • FAX (559) 348-2190 Witlr Offr.ces Serving the i~Vestern United States 440SOOS Water Level and BamQle Results ~~. Project No. 044-08005 Page No. 2 The filter pack of the piezometers was surged using a small diameter bailer. The surging was conducted to settle the filter pack before the annular space was filled with hydrated bentonite and grout. According to Krazan's November 12, 2007 report titled Draft Updated Geotechniccrl Engineering Investigation, Proposed Hotel, 550 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, California, soil in the upper two to four feet bgs consists of a gravelly, clayey sand fill, which is underlain by a clayey sand to a depth of eight feet bgs. Silty sand and clayey silty sand were encountered, to a depth of 25.5 feet bgs, the maximum depth explored. As of 1500 hours on March 20, 2008, the water levels in P-I and P-2 were 12.45 feet bgs and 10.65 feet bgs, respectively. As of 0930 hours on March 25, 200.$, the water levels in P-1 and P-2 were 10.50. feet bgs and 9.47 feet bgs, respectively. As of 0830 hours on April 29, 2008, the water levels,.. in P-I and P-2 were 11.15 feet bgs and 9.85 feet bgs, respectively. The two. April 3, 2008 groundwater samples were analyzed for the listed constituents by standard laboratory analytical methods as summarized on the attached laboratory report and sample chain of custody. The results of the groundwater sample analysis are shown on Table I. The analysis of flashpoint was inadvertently omitted for the suite of analyses; however, as shown on Table I, volatile organic compounds capable of ignition at a minimum of 140 degrees Fahrenheit are absent. It is Krazan's opinion that analysis for flashpoint would have been reported as > 140 degrees Fahrenheit. As shown on Table I, ammonia as nitrate and four metals including chromium, copper, nickel, lead, and zinc were detected in the groundwater samples. The pertinent municipal local limits are included in Table I anel the detectable constituents were below the respective local limits. The other organic and inorganic constituents were not detected in the two groundwater samples. Krazan appreciates the opportunity to assist in the development of the subject properly. ! Please contact Mr. Art Morrill or Mr. Dave Jarosz if you have any questions or comments at (559) 348-2200. Respectfully submitted, KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~~-1 ~,M, ~-, Arthur H. Morrill Professional Geologist No. 5383 AHM/awf Attachments KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Servi~ig the Western U~titerl States <4A0300i water Leve! and Sample Results ~-, 0 O co 0 d- ~' O O z U .o ~. U Q a U O m U a U O N _~ Y •~ a ~ y° ~v~~ '"~ ~ O O ~ z ^~ ~ p =' p Q~ 3 acv ~ ~ ~ ~ U >r O C/~ "' .= d o_ ~n ,~ C7 0 C~ .... d- v'~ ~ ~ Q Q z z z z° Q Q z z o Q z z z z Q v, z o O z o ~ O ~ M ~ O N v'l z O O ~I M O a o z z I Q ~] z z ~ Q z z O O ~~, X, - N z O z ~ N c a a. N nl vl ~.. z ~~ Q 0 a 0 0 0 0 N 0 O G1 O N (~1 O r1 N O V' C` o ~ ~ .~ p U ~ w~~ >~ ~ U ~ o U cn -a a O N Y O .~ ~ ,b cd Y U ~ V ~ a U ~ ~ = N ~ °- s. 3 on ~ •~ t' ~ O _ = U O U •~ ~ ~' , O > ~ ~_ U Y O y ~~ ~ y ~ (~ J y ~ > n ~ ~' ~~ y ~ O.~ 1= O N U •C O C ~ U CO ~ U ~~b cC O G ~ 4; ,O ,~ ~ N (C .~ '~ ,7 ~ • U ctS U O r" a> > N ;n ~ C O ~ ~ "6 ~j cC T T ~ O'- "O N Q~ ~z ~No °azz~ ~ II II z II II II ii II it II II II II ~ N r/) ~ ~•-~ ~UUQ~c o zU UZn.NOaazz~ z Oyi rrtiw / ~ _3 V ~' z ~a H i Q `' r, y Uy ~ w d o-0 p71 "~." i Q~ ~~Ny. h X ~ F m C .~ 3 0 0 e .~ e..+aa6~e~+~ wive, ,..e,~~.. ....... ~o..,~, e ,. .,,. y T ~ T .~ °eY ~` ° ~ am - '~ 'G ~ - a.. 8 3 ~ € _ ~ ~ - ~F ~ S ~u - - _ __ i ` A E° ~ 9 ~ 3g - ~ ~ Eg r a ~ d ~ _ ~ s ok L ~ ~ g _ a~ ;a a z _ ~ o 3= ~~ ~ '~ 3 ~ E~ o e ~` ~ ~ c~1 N~ €Y ~ - ~~' x - 2 ^ys 3C k ? ~ ate. o e 'a a }_ _ 'sa ~'e" ~ 4~ i~ oW - ye - _ _ W ~8 i~,-¢ __ s9 e~ - 'i5 36 - "°s 2 'Yy £e o~ : . z_ _ " n - m - _ - - - - - - - '~ s~P sc0 ~a i _> m;~~~ _, , m~ ~., 3..,y . j Y'.~ ~ iAA =a a Z W Jw~a..om s~,.~aw~"~ aamw~a W ( (RR V vJ Z Ill . • +~ 8 9 9~ a ~ ~ b~ 40 ~ ~ ~ ~-.f ~ ~~a y ~'Q ~~ ~~ 3 ~ ss5_~~g J ~ „ ~ ~= ~ ~ $ e ;~ a Q b~ti~~5 ~~~ Z Z ~ \ ~ _ i ; ' ss~ fR O _ (~ 1 V W~~ i I i i ~ UO = z I zQ W_ ~ g ~~ ~ ~~ ' U C`J'S U1 Y " x~ ~ N~ L~ ~ d~ ~2 1 N w~ ~ ! ~ ~-C9 ~ '~ / 1 t ~ /~ ~, ~~ \ 3Ul / C ~ ~' JJ \\ o J~ _i Krazan & Associates, (nc. .,- - Environmental Division ~~~~ 215 W. Dakota Avenue Clovis, CA 93612 (559) 348-2200 ~~ ~ZC~~~TlE1F~S F'- ~ 9 P-~ PROJECT: PROPOSED NYATT PROJECT N0: 044-08005 pgTE; 3 08 LOCATION: 550 GATEWAY BLVD S. SAN FRANCISCO DRILLED BY: Krazan & Associates T CAP Type: Locking Cap Assembly otal Depth 25 Relative Grade. .~~. _ ` _ ;•';' WELL .VAULT Dia: 8" ~~~ ~' ~. Type: FLUSH MOUNT BACKFILL MATERIAL Type: Sand cemenfi slurry Y RISER CASING Dia: 2" Type: SCH 40 PVC Top of seal '' ANNULAR SEAL Type: 3/8" dia. hydrated 5 ft. _ _ _ bentonite pellets To of filter ack 8 ft_ _ _ p p FILTER PACK Type: #3 LONESTAR SAND of screen Ta 1 Q ft_. = p _ 12 TO W - SCREEN G L: Dia: 2" 10.8ft.(t) _ = Type: F{ush Thread 0.020 slotted SCH 40 PVC 25 ffi Bottom of screen Bottom of sum _ _ " NA _ . _ p Bottom of hole _ _ _ 25.5 ft. _ _ I-r-- u,.~,. n•,.. Q" I c i v i c v i m. c~ I u"" 5 f ERR ,4 FN Ai.YTICAL Krazan & Associates; loc. Project: S.S.F. 21 ~ West Dakota Avenue Project Number: 0440500 Reported: Clovis CA, 93612 Project Manager: Art Mon-ill 04;1 S!OS 10:45 .ANALYTICAL RF.POI2T FOR SAMPLES Sample TD Laboratory TD Matrix Date Sampled Date Received p-1 0304113-01 Liquid 04/03;'03 03:30 04!04/03 10:00 P-2 OS04] 18-02 Liquid 04/03%03 OS:45 04/04/03 10:00 CASE NARRATIVE SAMPLE RECEIPT: Samples were received intact, at 4 °C, and accompanied by chain of custody documentation. ', PRESERVATION: Samples requiring preservation were verified prior to sample preparation and analysis. HOLDING TIMES: All holding times were met, unless otherwise noted in the report with data qualifiers. QA!QC CRITERIA: All qualit}~ objective criteria were met, except as noted in the report with data qualifiers: Tl7e re.~'uhr in this report apply In dye sample°.c unalr=ec! in occm'dm7ce ~:ith thr clmin ajcusror/p doctrmervc This arruh~licnl report rrraar be reproclzrced ir7 it> enrirerr. Z605Z MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILtS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TE~EpHONE: (949) 348-9389 Fax: (944) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET Pale 1 of 23 ~; ~-- -- S I E tt R A ANA LVTICAt Krazan & Associates, Inc. Project: S.S.F. ' 215 West Dakota Avenue Project Number: 04~4OSO05 Reported: Clovis CA. 93612 Project Manager: Art Morrill 04(l S/OS 10:45 Conventional Chemistry Parameters by APHAlEPA Methods Sierra Analytical Labs, lnc. Reportin~~ Analyze Result Limit Units Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes r-t Iunu4l 1 s-U t) LtqutU Sanlplea: u4/US/U8 U8:30 Deceived: U4/04JU8 10:00 Ammonia as N 1.30 0.100 mg/L 1 BSD1026 04/04/OS 04!04103 10:2(BM 4500-NH3 Cyanide (total) ND 0.0200 EPA 335:2 Phenolics ND 0.0500 EPA 420.1 Sulfide ND O,pS " EPA 376.2 P-2 (0804118-02) Lit)uid Sampled: 04/03/08 08:45 Received: 04/04/08 10:00 Ammonia as V 2.80 0.100 mgiL 1 BSD1026 04/04/OS O4; 04/OS ]0:2C6M 4500-NH3 Cyanide (total) ND 0,0?pp ~~ EPA 335.2 Phenolics ND 0.0500 " EPA 420.1 Sulfide ND 0.05 EPA 37G? The resrr(IS in this repnrr npph to the samples nnult <ed in accarilunce xith the chcfin of cvsrodr Jncnme»t. This anah~rical report nnect he reprorlucc~7 rn its entirem. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105 LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET Page 2 of 23 ~~~ .~ ~~ ~'_:~_ S I E ft R ,4 aNacrric.~~ Krazan ~. Associates, Inc. Project:- S.S.F. 27 5 Nest Dakota Avenue Project NumUer: 04405005 Repor[ed: Clovis CA, 93612 Projcct'vlanager: Art Morrill 04/1 SiOS 10:45 Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods Sierra- Analytical Labs, Inc. Reponin!_ Analyze Result Limit Units Dihttion Batch Prepared .Analyzed Metlrod Noes P-1 (0804118-O1) Liquid Sampled: 04/03/08 08:30 Received: 04/04/08 10:00 ' .113N Silver ND 0.0030 nth/L I BSD0939 04i09lOS p;i10.'OS 13:12 EPA 200.7 Arsenic ND 0.025 04'10'OS 73:13 Cadmium ND 0.0040 Chromium 0.021 0.0060 Copper ND ., 0.012 ,. „ 04!70/OS 13:72 Mercury ND 0,00073 BSD1403 04/I4/OS 04!14,rOS 1.1:22 EPA 245.1 Nickel 0.017 0.0]0 BSD0939 04/09/OS 04/10,'OS 1.:73 EPA 200.7 Lead ND 0.07 9 Selenium ND 0.026 " Zinc ND 0.024 " „ " „ .. P-2 (0804118-02) Liquid Sampled: 04/03/08 08:45 Received: 04/04/08 10:00 ~gN Silver ND 0.0030 mg/L ] BSD0939 04l09!OS 04,'IUiOS 13:19 EPA 200.7 Arsenic ND .0.025 " Cadmium ND 0.0040 „ „ " " ,. " Chromium 0.32 0.0060 " Copper 0.052 0.012 04no'O3l3:ls Mercury ND 0.00073 BSD7403 04/14/03 04.74/OS 1?:24 EPA _'45.1 Nickel 0.30 O:OIO BSD0939 04109rOS 04;70%OSl:19 EPA 200.7 Lead 0.029 0.019 Selenium ND 0.06 " „ „ " „ Zinc 0.15 0.024 " The results ur rlris repnr'r upplr to the srmrples anul[~xd in nccor'dcntce tvit(t the chain gJ'cnsaulr docan[enl. This a7u/rtirul r'epor't must be reproduced irr in enrir-ern. Z6Q52 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LaGUNa HILLS, CALIFORNIA 926$3 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 Fax: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET Page 3 of 23 :. ~;~. S l E ft R .4 FNAtYrrCh~ Krazan R Associates, Inc. Project: S.S.F. 215 'v'est Dakota Avenue Project dumber: 04403005 Reported: Clovis CA, 93612 Project Manager: Art Morzill 04(13!03 10:45 Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081 A Sierra Analytical Labs, lnc. Reporting , Analyze Result Limii Units Dilution Ba[cla Prepared Analyzed l,7ethod Notes P-] (0804118-O1) Liquid Sampled: 04!03108 08:30 Received: 44/04/08 10:00 DiF Aldrin ND 0.040 Pg/L 1 BSD1413 04/10/OS 0/16;03 OS:~3 EP.A SOSIA HCN-alpha ND 0.020 HCH-beta ND 0.040 HCH-delta ND 0.020 ~~ HCH-ganuna (Lindane) ND 0.020 " " Chlordane ND 0.10 „ " " " " 4,4'-DDD ND 0.040 ., " " '• " 4,4'-DDE ND 0.060 " " " " " 4,4'-DD7 ND 0.060 " Dieldrin ND 0.020 " Endosulfan I ND 0.040 " " Endosulfan II ND 0.10 " " " „ Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.020 " Endrin ND 0.I2 " " " Endrin aldehyde ND 0.020 " L-ndrin ketone ND ~ 0.0_0 " Heptachlor ND 0.020 " Heptachlor epoxide ND 0.020 Metho~ychlor ND 1.0 " Toxaphene _ ND 1.0 Surrogute.• Decuchla•obiphefapt 7f.0 % 42-f47 " Stn•ro,;n>c: Tet?'crchlorv-tne/n-.rvlene 18.2 % 42-147 " P-2 (0804] 18-02) Liquid Sampled: 04/03/08 08:45 Received: 04/04/08 t0:00 MF Aldrin ND 0.040 µ~iL 1 BSD141S 04/l0/OS 04%16;OS OS:S> EPA SOS1.4 HCH-alpha ND 0.020 " HCH-beta ND 0.040 " HCH-delta ND 0.020 HCH-gamma (Lindane.} ND 0.020 " Chlordane ND 0.10 " ,• ., 4,4'-DDD ND 0.040 " " " " 4,4"-DDL- ND 0.06(1 " " '. " " 4,4'-DDT ND 0.060 " " " " Dieldrin ND 0.020 " Endosulfan I ND 0.040 „ " " " " Endosulfan II ND 0 10 " " " " ' Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.020 " Endrin ND 0.12 " „ " " " " Endrin aldehyde ND 0.020 Endrin ketone ND • 0.020 " . " " The results ira this report upplr to the somp(es cnurh~aerl in cx-corclatace vvidt the chain pf caslocly docranaeaat. This annh>ticnl report/ nnrsz be reproclrrcecl in its emireh=. Z6OSZ MERIT CIRCLE SUITE SOS, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 9Z6S3 TELEpHONe: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS ~a SIERRALABS.NET Page 4 of 23 __, S I E R R k kNALVTICAL Krazan & Associates, Inc. Project: S.S.F. 21~ West Dakota Avenue ProjectNun,ber: 0440SOpi Reported: Clovis CA, 93612 Project Manager: Art Morrill 0411 S; OS 10:4 Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA lt9ethod 8081A Sierra Analytical Labs, Inc. Reporting Analyze Result Limit Units Dilu[ion Batch Prepared Analyzed ~', Method Notes P-2 (0804118-02) Liquid Sampled: 04/03/08 08:45 Received: 04/04/08 10:00 N1T Heptachlor ND (1.020 µg/L 7 EiSD141S O4i10!US O4t1G/OSOSS_ EPASOS]A Heptachlor epoxide ND 0.020 " Methoxychlor HD I.0 " " " Toxaphene ND 1.0 " " " " Szu•rognte: Decnchlolrohiphem~! 69.6 % 42-147 Sun•ogale: Teh'nchloro-mesa-xylene cSJ.s % 42-147 " "1'he resuLs in dris reyw t nyp/, to the santp/es on<71v_ed in aecordunce 1VtlI7 II1e Ch[7117 O/C'l/SlOr~l' C/OC117/te17f. I h/s Cf/tUh'tiC'(7/ report umsr be reyroduced in its entb'en. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE. SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPtioNE: (949) 348-9389 Fax: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET Page 5 of 23 f ~..~; ~_- - S T E R R A FNA' YT'ICAL Krazan & Associates, Inc. Project: S.S.F. 315 \~est Dakota Avenue Project Nw»ber: 0440S005 Reported: Clovis CA, 93612 Project Manager: Art Morril] 04!] S;OS 10:45 Polychlorinated Biphenyls by EPA Method 8082 • Sierra Analytical Labs, Inc. Reporting Analyze Result Limit Units Dihnion Batch Prepared Analyzed Method \otes t'-t (USU4t1S-Ut) Liquid Sampled: U4l03/08 U8:3U Received: 04(04/0810:00 1V1F PCB-1016 ND ],Q u!_=/L 1 BSD74]3 04/70/OS 04/1(iiOSOS:~3 EPASOS2 PCB-1221 ND I.0 ~• PCB-1232 ND 1.0 " " " •' ,• " PCB-1242 ND 1.0 " " " " PCB-124S ND 1.0 •• PCB-124 ND 1.0 " " " " PCB-1260 ND 1.0 ~~ " __ _ Sau•ragcrte.• DecnchloroGiplrerTrl _ __ 71.0 % 4Z-147 " " •• •~ Surrogate: Teh-achlaro-metcr-xylerre 78.2 % 4?-147 •• •~ P-2 (0804118-02) Liquid Sampled: 04/03/08 08:45 Received: 04!04/08 10:00 A'IF PCB-1016 ND 1.0 P°/L 1 BSD14lS 04/lOIOS 04/1610803:5; EP.SSOS2 I'CB-1221 ND 1.0 " " " " , PCB-1232 ND 1.0 " " " PCB-1242 ND ] .0 '; " " ~• '~ PCB-1245 ND 1.0 " PCB-1214 ND 1.0 " " " " ,• " PCB-1260 ND 1.0 " " " " ,~ „ Szurogate: Decachlor-obipher?yl 69.6 % 4?-147 " -~ Surrogate: Ten•aclalaro-rnela-.r>derte 85.3 % 41-147 •~ The results in thfs report apple to the samples' analr:ecl in accordance with the drain v/ crrsrura!v Jocunrent. This annlrtical r-epnrr must be rcpt udru ed ire its enrh•en. Z6O52 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE lO$, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPtioNE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET Page 6 of 23 - ( A,~j,A / 1 F 1, S I ERR A FNAL'tT ICAL Krazan & Associates, ]nc. Project: S.S.F. 215 Vilest Dakota Avenue Project Number: 04408005 Reported: Clovis CA; 93612 Project Manager: Art Moni11 04/18/03 10:45 Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260B Sierra Analytical Labs, lnc. Reporting Analyte Result Limit Units Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes P-1 (0804178-01}Liquid Sampled: 04/03/U8 08:30 Received: 04/04/08 70:00 MF Benzene ND l,0 µg!L I BSD0305 04r07.OS O4i0S./03 03:19 EPA 3260B Bromobet-tzene ND I.0 ~~ " Bromochloromethane ND I.0 Bromodiehloromethane ND I ,0 ~~ ~~ Broanoform ND 1.0 " " " „ " Bromomethane ND 1.0 " " n-Butylbenzene ' ND 1.0 " " " „ sec-Butylbenzene ND 10 ~~ tet4-$utylbenzene ND I 0 " " " " L " Carbon tetrachloride ND I,p ~~ Chlorobenzene ND 1.0 „ " Chloroethane ND l.0 " Chloroform ND 1.0 ' " Chloromethane ND I p ?-Chlorotoluene ND I ,0 ~~ 4-Chlorotoluene ND I,0 " •~ '• Dibromochloromethane ND I.0 " 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 5.0 " 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB} ND 1.0 Dibromomethane ND I.0 " " " , 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 1.0 " " " ' " 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 1.0 " " 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 1.0 " Dichlorodiflum'omethane ND 1.0 " I,I-Dichloroethane ND I,p' ~~ 1,2-Dichloroethane ND I .U " ~~ l,l-Dichloroethene ND 1.0 " ~ cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND I0 " " ~~ trans-],2-Dichloroethene ND 1.0 ~~ 1,2-Dichloropropane ND 1.0 " 1,3-Dichloropropane ND 1,0 ~~ " 2,2-Didtloropropane ND 1.0 " " " " l,l-Dichloropropene ND I.0 " " " " " " cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 1.0 " trans-l,3-Dichloropropene ND 1_p ~~ " Ethylbenr_ene ND ].0 He~achlotrobutadiene ND I.0 ~~ " Isopropyibenzene ND 1.0 ~~ p-lsopropyltoluene ND 1.0 " " " " Methylene chloride ND l,p " ~. '~ The resuhs ht this report npplr ro the snnrp/es analv_ec! in nccardance trAh the chain of•cus7oc/r• cloc:ntrent. This analytical report nra.ir be rcprnrluced in its erviren-. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET Page 7 of 23 •. S~ISERRA ANALYrICAI Krazan ~ Associates, Inc. Project: S.S.F. 215 ~~est Dakota Avenue. Project Number: 04403005 iteparted: Clovis CA, 93612 Project Manager: Art Morrill 04r]S/OS 10:45 Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260B Sierra Analytical Labs, Inc. Reporting Analyze Result Limit Units Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Nutes Y-1 ~ViSU411i5-Ul} Llglll(] aamplen: u4/uslua US:3U Received: U4/U4/U8 10:00 ~qF Methy] tert-butyl ether ND l.0 µ`/L 1 BSDOS05 04/07/OS 04lOS;OS OS:19 EPA S2G06 Naphthalene ND 1.0 •• '~ n-Propylbenzene ND 1.0 •• ,. „ Styrene ND I,0 •• ,. „ 1,1,],2-Tetrachloroethane ND l,p •• ~~ „ 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND I,p ~ •• „ TeU-achloroethene ND 1,0 •' ~~ ~~ •~ ,~ Toluene ND ].0 „ " „ ~~ ~~ 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 1,0 ~~ ~• 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND I.p ~~ ~~ ~, l,l,l-Trichloroethane ND 1.0 ~• 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 1.0 •• Trichloroethane ND l,p ., TrichIorofluoromethane ND 1.0 '~ " 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND l.0 '• ~~ 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 1.0 " " ~~ " ],3,5-Trimeth_ylhenzene ND ].U ~~ ~• ,~ Vinyl chloride ND 1,0 •• ~• m,p-Xylene ND 1.0 " " ~~ ,~ Srrrro~nte: DiGrano{luorornethcure 114 o S6-IIS " " •~ ~• Szu•rugctle: To7arette-d8 101 % &L'-110 ~• " Szu-rognte: 4-Bromo~lzrorobenzene 105 ~ 86-115 •• " P-2 (0804118-02) Liquid Sampled: 04/03/08 08:45- Received: 04/04/08 10:00 )\7F Benzene ND l .0 µgiL I BSDOS05 04!07/OS 04/OSiOS OS:19 EPA S26pB Brvmobenzene ND I.0 " " " " Bromuchloromeihane ND ] p ~• ~, Bromodichloromethane ND 1,0 " ~• ~~ Bromofonn ND 1.0 '~ ~~ •• ~. Bromomethane ND 1.0 " " " " " n-Butylbenzene ND 1.0 " " " " ., sec-Butylbenzene ND 1.0 '~ ter!-Butylbenzene ND 1.0 ~~ CarbontcU•achloride ND 1•p " '~ ~~ Chlorobenzene ND 1.0 ~~ ,~ Chlvroethane ND 1.0 " " " ~~ Chloroform ND I p ., ~~ Chloromethane ND 1.0 ~~ 2-Chlorotoluene ND ].p ~~ ~~ ., ~, The results i» this report appl7 to the samples maahcec! in uca»•clmrc•e ,rizh the chahr of cusroclr ~/ocmnent. This unulvlical r•epun mast be reprrodtrc ed in its entirety. Z6O52 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, I.AGUNA HILLS) CALIFORNIA 92553 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 Fax: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS ~ SIERRALABS.NET Page g of?3 <- _ S I E ft ft A AN AIYTICAI Iirazan & Associates, Inc. Project: S.S.F. ? 15 West Dakota Avenue Project Number: 04405005 Reported: Clovis CA, 93612 Project Manager: Art Morrill 04i I5lOS 10:45 Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA A'Iethod 82608 Sierra An»lvtical i,ahc_ lnc_ ' Reporting Analyze Result Limit Units Dilution Batclr Prepared Analyzed', Method Notes P-2 f0$04I7$-02) Liquid Sampled: 04/03/0$ 08:45 Keceived: 04104/0$ 10:00 MF' 4-Chlorotoluene ND 1.0 EtS/L 1 BSDOS05 04/07!08 0'08/OS OS:19 EPA S260B Dibromochloromethane ND 1.0 ~' 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND ;,0 " ^ I,2-Dibromoethane (E-DB) ND ].0 Dibromomethane ND 1.0 " 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND I.0 " 1,=-Dichlorobenzene ND l.0 " 1.4-Dichlorobenzene ND 1.0 " Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 1.0 l,l-Dichloroethane ND 1.0 " 1,2-Dichloroethane ND 1.0 " " 1,1-Dichloroethene ND I.0 " cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND I.0 " trans-l,2-Dichloroethene ND 1.0 " 1,2-Dichloropropane ND ].0 " " 1,3-Dichloropropane ND 1.0 ' " 2,2-Dichloropropane ND I.p " ] , I -Dichloropropene. ND ] .0 " " cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 1.0 " trans-l,3-Dichloropropene ND 1.0 " Ethylbcnzene ND 1.0 " " " " " „ Hexachlorobutadiene ND 1.0 " Isopropylbenzene ND 1.0 " " '• '. " p-Isopropyltoluene ND 1.0 " " " " " Methylene chloride ND 1.0 ' " Methyl tert-butyl ether ND 1.0 ' " Naphthalene ND 1.0 " " " " " n-Propylbenzene ND 1.0 '. " " " " Styrene ND 1.0 '~ " " " " 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND I.0 " 1,1,2,3-Teh-achloroethatte ND I.0 " Tetrachloroethene ND 1.0 " Toluene ND l.0 " " " " " 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene N'D ].0 " " „ „ 1,2.4-Trichlorobenzene ND 1.0 " " " " „ l,l,l-Trichloroethane ND 1.0 " 1.1 ?-Trichloroethane ND 1.0 " Trichloroethane ND 1.0 " Trichlorotluoromethane ND 1.0 " ]?,3-Trichloropropane ND l.0 " The rerr)!b' in )his report e7/JAI}' /p lh[' .5'ti/77~IE'S C!A['IIT_E'C/ IA QCC'OP(I(U7C'C' lF1)Ir II7L' C/)C)f/7 O, C'lISIOC/1' (~(1C'1I77rC']rl. ~Ir1S CllrQh'77C(II TE'~OJ'f 7771(SI OG' TG(>I'O(IrfC'C'CI tl] 7rS (!full'ell'. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 1O5f LAGUNA ]-TILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHDNE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET P1~e 9 Of 23 arcnErls RFA Krazan & Associates, Tnc. Project: S.S.F. ~1~ West Dakota Avenue Project Number: 0440S005 tteported: .Clovis CA, 93612 Project Manager: Art Morrill 04;1 Sl08 10:45 Volatile UI•ganic Compounds by EPA A9ethod 8260B Sierra Analytical Labs, Inc. Reportin~~ Ana{yte Result Limit Units Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed Med)od Notes r-~ {usuvt t~-v~l Ligma aampiea: u4tustuzj us:as itecelved: U4/U4/U8 IU:UU ~qg 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND l,0 µ./L 1 BSDOSUS U4/07lOS ~ 04/03;65 OS:19 EP.A S~60B 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1\TD 1.0 " " " „ Vinyl chloride ItrD 1.0 ~~ '~ m.p-~ylene ND 1.0 ~~ ,~ ,~ ,~ o-~ylene ND _ 1.0 ~~ ,~ ~~ ,~ ~~ Stnrogate: Dibrnn:n~lzroronrerl:nne 11 •' rb SG-1I8 " ~• ~~ Surrogate: TnTuerte-d8 103 % 8[5-110 " ~~ '~ Surrogate: 4-Br•omo~luorobenzc:ne 100 % 56-11 j The resalrs in dtis report apply !o the SC11I7p1eS CU7[7/1':ecl (77 (7CCW'CIUJ7CY tt7f/1 Ihc' C'hGl77 OI C4[S)o[h' CIoC'IO])8171. flAS CO7C(rY'1!C'[711'C'p(11'r )])1p't L)N )'Bf)r0(h IC'C'[I /17 fl.5' G'IV71'elY. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAx:(949)348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET Page 10 of 23 ~_`~.., ~- -~ S I E ft ft A ANALYTICAL Krazan ~f: Associates, Inc. Proiecr S.S.F. 215 West Dakota Avenue Project Number: 04405005 Reported: Clovis CA, 93612 Project Manaeer: Art l~lorrill 04/1 S/OS 10:45 Polynuclear Aromatic Compounds by EPA Method 8310 Sierra Analytical Labs, Inc. Reponin~* Analyse Result .Limit Units Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed MetL'od Dotes P-1(0804118-01) Liquid Sampled: 04/03!08 08:30 Received: 04/04/08 10:00 MF Naphthalene ND 1.00 Ft~/L 1 63D151i 04/10/OS O~h'IS/OS 09:23 EPASi10 AcenaphQtylene ND Z.00 „ " „ '• " " Acenaphthene ND 2.00 Fluorene ND 0.200 " " " Phenanthrene ND 0.200 " Anthracene ND 0.100 Fluoranthene ND 0.200 Pyrene ND 0.200 " " Benzo {a) anthracene ND 0.100 " Cluysette ND 0.200 „ " „ Benzo (U) fluoranthene ND 0?00 ~~ Benzo (k) fluoranthene ND 0.100 '~ " " " ' " Benzo (a) pyrene ND 0.100 „ „ „ " " Dihenzo(a,h)anthracene ND 0.200 Benzo (g,h,i) perylene ND 0.200 Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene ND 0.200 " " " " „ Surro,;ute: DearJluorabiphenvl 46.7 % 3/J-115 -~ P-2 (08041]8-02) Liquid Sampled: 04/03/03 08:45 Received: 04/04!08 10:00 MF Naphthalene ND 1,Op µg/L I BSD15Li 0417U!08 Oa/13/U3U9:33 EPA 3310 Acenaphthylette ND 2.00 " '. " " " Acenaphthene ND x.00 „ " " " " Fluorene ND 0.200 " " Phenanthrene ND 0.200 Anthracene ND 0.100 Fhiaranthene ND 0.200 " Pyrene ND 0.200 " Benzo (a) anthracene ND 0.100 " Chtysene ND 0.200 „ •' " " Benzo (b) fluoranthene ND 0.200 " " „ " Benzo (k) fluoranthene ND 0.100 " Benzo (a) pyrene ND 0.100 " " „ " ,. Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene ND 0?00 " Benzo (g,h,i) petylene ND 0.200 hideno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene ND 0.200 " Surro,;nte: Deccrflrrnrohipher+pl 59.0 % 3(I-11? The resnbs in this reyeu7 apple +o the samples analr=ed in accorJance tril/t the chain of cusrocfr docrunent. This aa~nlrtica! repa> nnrst he repracluced in its enm-ern. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 Fax:. (949) 348-4115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NEI' Past: ] 1 Of ') j ~a{{ ((~.i ji,: ,. _~_ _.. li 5 1 E R R .4 ANH LYTICAL Krazan cC Associates, htc. Project: S.S.F. 215 West Dakota Avenue Project Number: 04408005 Reported: Clovis CA, 93C 12 Project Manager. Art Morrill 0411 S/OS 10:45 Conventional Chemistry Parameters by APHAlEPA Methods -Quality Control Sierra Analytical LaUs, lac. Repacting Spike Source % REC RPD Analyze Resul[ Limit Units Level Result DREG Limits RPD Limit Notes Batch B3D1026 -General Preparation Blank (B8D10?6-BLkI) Prepared & Analyzed: 04l08!OS Ammonia as N ND 6.100 m ~!L Blank (B8D1026-BLK2) _ __ _ Prepared & Analyzed: 04/04/OS Ammonia as N ~ ~ ND 0.100 m,/L T/re resuhs nr this report app/r to the .ranrples anaA~sed in necorclunce a ith the chain of custuclr dorunrerrt. This crna(rtical report attest be reprodrrcecl in ils enriretr. Z6OSZ MERIT CIRCLE SUITE SOS, LACUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHDNE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET Page 12 Of Z3 .,.~' -.~ :~~::t~. S I E R R A ANAiYTi(:Fl Krazatt R: Associates, ]nc. Project: S.S.F. ? 151rJest Dakota Avenue Project Number: 04405005 Reported; ~Iovis CA. 93612 Project Manager: Art Morrill 04/1 SrOS 10:45 Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods -Quality Control Sierra Analytical Labs, lnc. Reponing Spike Source ";,RL-C RPD nalyte Result Limit Units Level Result ';4,REC 1_imits RPD Limit Notes Batch B8D0939 -EPA 200 Series Blank (B8D0939-BLKl) Prepared: 04i091OS Analyzed : 04; l OIOS Arsenic ND 0.025 m~/L Cadmium ND 0.0040 ' Chromium ND 0.0060 " Copper ND 0.012 Lead ND OA19 " Nickel ND 0.070 Selenium ND 0.026 Sih•er ND 0.00:0 " Zinc ND 0.024 " LCS (B8D0939-BS7) Prepared: 04/09tOS Analyzed: 04; I OrOS Arsenic 0.196 0.025 m_tL 0 200 95.0 SO-120 Cadmium 0.190 0.0040 0.200 95.0 SS-115 Chromium 0?Ol 0.0060 U.2D0 10D SS-I 15 Copper 0.798 0.012 0.200 99.D SS-115 Lead 0.202 0.019 0.200 101 55-715 - Nickel 0.205 0.010 0.200 102 SS-115 Selenium 0.139 0.026 0.200 94.5 SS-119 Sih~er 0.197 O.D030 0.2D0 95.5_ 35-] 15 Zinc 0.1$9 0.024 0.200 94.5 SS-ll 5 A'latrix Spike (B8D0939-MS1) Sow•ce: 0804072-04 Prepared: 04!09JUS Analyzed: 04'10/OS Arsenic Q_2UG 0.025 me/L 0 ~00 ND 103 70-130 Cadmium O.ISS 0.0040 0?00 0.0011 93.4 70-130, Chromium 0.1 S6 0.0060 0?UO 0.0025 91.5 75-130 Copper 0.205 0.012 0.200 ND 104 70-730 Lead 0.183 0.019 0.200 ND 91.5 70-130 Nickel O.1SG 0.010 0?00 0.0045 90.S 7U-130 Selenium 0?OS 0.026 0.200 0.014 95.5 70-]30 Sil,~er 0?OS 0.0030 " (1.2D0 ND ]02 70-130 Zinc 0.196 0_U24 0?00 0.022 57.0 70-130 The resuhs in this report apply to the samples unnh~secl in nccurclnnce n'idr the chain of crrstoclr clncunrenr. This c,nalrtica! report nur.,'t Ge re}n'ochrcud in its entirely. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 1O$, L4GUNA DILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET Pane ] 3 Of ?3 n ~. t S.__..- _...._3 S I E R R ,4 ANR L'/T ICAL Krazan & Associates, Inc. Project: S.S.F. 215 West Dakota Avenue Project Number: 04405005 Reported: Clovis CA, 93Ci12 Project Manager: Art Morrill 04/14/04 10:45 Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods -Quality Control Sierra Analytical Labs, Inc. Reporting ~ Spike Source "/"REC RPD. Analgte Result Limit Units Leeel -Result %REC Limits RPD Limit ?\otes Batch B8D0939 -EPA 200 Series Matrix Spike Dup (B8D0939-MSDl) __ Source: 0804072-04 Prepared: 04./04/OS Analyzed: 04/10/OS Arsenic 0.203 0.025 m_/L 0.200 ND 102 70-130 1.47 20 Cadmium 0.137 0.0040 0100 0.0011 93.0 70-] 30 0.533 20 Chromium 0.155 0.0060 0.200 0.0025 91.2 75-130 O.S9 20 Copper 0.207 0.072 0.200 ND 104 70-130 0.452 20 Lead 0. ] 31 0.019 0.200 N D 90.5 70-130 1.10 20 Nickel 0.135 0.010 0.200 0.0045 901 70-li0 0.539 20 Selenium 0.203 0.026 0.200 0.014 94.5 70-130 0.950 20 Silver 0.205 0.0030 0.200 ND 102 70-130 0.00 20 Zinc 0.]93 0.024 .0.200 0.022 355 70-130 1.54 ~0 Batch B8D1403 -EPA 200 Series Blank (B8D1403-BLKI) _ Prepared & Analyzed: 04; ] 4/08 h•Icrcwv ND 0.00073 m~/L LCS (B4D1403-BSI) Prepared & Analyzed: 04!14/04. _ _.__ __ Mercury 0.00115 0.00073 mg/L 0.00100 115 75-125 Matrix Spike (B8ll]403-MSl) Source: 0804116-OG Prepared ~ Analyzed: 04!14/04 hlercuty 0.OO11S 0.00073 mg/L 0.00700 ND 11S 75-125 )i7atrix Spike Dup (BSD1403-bISDi) Source: 0804716-06 Prepared & Analyzed: 04/14/04 1`9ercury 0.00]23 0.00073 mg/L 0,00100 ND 123 75-i2> 4.15 20 The results in this repcu•t apply to the samples analvaecJ in crccordmrce rrit/r the chain ofcrtsroc/r document. this ana/mica/ report nntst be rcprot~ucec/ in ila eMirerv. Z6OSZ MERIT CIRCLE SUITE LOS, LAGUNA )-)ILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949} 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS ~a SIERRAtABS.NET Page 14 of 23 ' ~ °_ _ °_ S I E R R A kNA LYTICAL Krazan & Associates, Inc. Project: S.S.P. 215 West Dakota Avenue Project Number: 0440500 Reporced: Clovis CA. 93612 Project Ntanaeer: Art Morrill 04;1 S(OS 10:45 Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A -Quality Control Sierra Analytical Labs, Ine. Reportine Spike Suture °oREC ~, RPD Analyze Result Limit Units Level Result °/RFC Limits RPD Limit Notes Batch B8D1418 -EPA 3510C Sep Funnel. Blank (B8Di418-BLKl) Prepared: 04!14;03 Analyzed_ :_04I16/OS Aldrin ND 0.020 µ~/L HCH-alpha ND 0.010 HCH-beta ND 0.02U " HGH-delta ND 0.010 " HCH-~amma(Lindane) ND 0.010 " Chlordane ND 0.050 4.4'-DDE ND 0.0;0 " 4,4"-DDT ND 0.030 " Dieldrin ND O.OIU " Endosulfan 1 ND 0.020 " Endosulfan I1 ND O.USU " Endasulfan sulfate ND 0.010 Endrin ND 0.060 " F.ndrin aldehyde ND 0.010 Endrin ketone NU 0.010 " Heptachlor ND O.U10 " Heptachlor epoxide NU 0.010 " ~9ethoavchlor ND O.SU , Toxaphene ND O.SU Sm~roeate: Drcach/orobijrhenrl 0.149 0.'St1 %9.6 42-147 Stna'ogate: Tetrrrchlara-nrehr-.n'lerre O.IC,1 0.?i0 (4.S 4.-747 LCS (B8D1413-BSl) --- - _ Prepared: 04/14/08 Analyzed: 04/16.108 -- - Aldrin D.0750 0.020 µgiL 0.0300 93.5 SO-120 HCH-eamma(Lindane) 0.071} U.OIU 0.0500 39.2 SO-720 4.4'-0D"f 0.174 OA30 0.200 57.0. SO-120 Dieldrin 0.195 0.010 0?00 99.0 SO-]20 Heptachlor 0.0751 0.010 0.0$00 97.6 3U-]20 Thc~ resrrlls in thin repor( npph~ to the samples anah-red in urcurdunce with the chain uJ custrnly doc:unent. This anah~tknl report must be reproducer! in its enrirem. 26O5Z MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET Page 15 of 23 ~._ S l f R R .4 ANALYTICAL Krazan & Associates, Inc. Project: S.S.F. 21 S ~~/est Dakota Avenue Project Number: 04408005 Reported: Clovis CA, 936] 2 Project Nlana~er: Art V1ort'ill 04,` 1 S/08 10:45 Organochlorine Pesticides by >;PA Method 8081A -Quality Control Sierra Analytical Labs, Inc. Repuning Spike Suurce "~REC RPD \nalyte Result Limit Units Leve] Result "DREG Limits RPD Limit Nures Batch B8D1418 -EPA 351OC Sep Fnnnel R4atrix Spike (B8D1418-MS]) Source: 0804113-01 Prepared: 04/]4/03 Analyzed: 04/]6/08 Aldrin 0.0666 -0.020 ua'L O.OS00 ND Sit 50-150 HCH-eanunalLindane) 0.07]1 0.010 O.OS00 ND SS.9 50-150 4,4'-DDT 0.106 0.030 0.200 ND 53.0 50-I50 Dieldrin 0.253 0.010 0.200 ND 126 50_j SQ Heptachlor 0.0771 0.010 0.0300 ND 53.9 50-150 Matrix Spike Dup (B8D1A18-D'ISD1) _ _ Source: 0804113-01 Prepared: 04!I4;08 Analyzed: 04/16!08 Aldrin U.OT4 0.020 µg,'L O.OS00 ND 91.5 50-150 9.71 30 HCH-eauuna (Lindane) 0.077> 0.010 O.OS00 ND 96.9 50-150 5.61 30 4.4'-DDT 0.130 0.030 0.200 ND 65.0 50-I50 20.3 30 Dieldrin 0.251 0.010 0,200 ND 140 50-15U 10.5 30 Heptachlor 0.0774 0.010 O.OS00 ND 96.5 SO-1S0 S.4S 30 T/re r•esu/ts in thrs repurr crpplr to rhz ~cnup/es ancdv~ed irr ~ccardcmce irirh the chain o{c:rstar/r dncrnnent This mrah~tica! r•epa-r must hr reprodrrcecl in its entirem. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE SOS, LAGUNA 1-IILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRAL4BS.NET Paoe ] 6 of 23 ~~__.- S I t R K .a. AWALYTICAL Krazan ~ Associates, Inc. Project: S.S.F. 16 «%est Dakota Avenue Project Number: 04405005 Repm•ted: ~lovis CA, 93612 ProjectManaeeri Art Morrill 04i1S/OS 10:45 Polychlorinated Biphenyls by EPA 1~lethod 8082 -Quality Control Sierra Analytical Labs, lnc. Reporting Spike Soarce ".ioREC RPD nalyte Result Limit Units Levcl Result %REC Limits RPD Liinit Notes Batch BSD1418 -EPA 3510C Sep Funnel Blank (B8D1418-BLI{1) Prepared: 04'14/05 Analyzed: 04/16/03 PCB-1076 ND Q50 µg!L PCB-7221 ND 0.50 PCB-1232 ND 0.50 " PCB-1242 ND 0.50 " PCB-1243 ND 0.50 PCB-1254 ND 0.50 " PCB-1260 ND OSO " ,Sm~rogare: Dec•cTChlorobiphenv! _-- 0.199 U15U 79.6 42-147 - Sruroome: Ten•uchloro-meta-sylene 0.lG•' 0.?50 <4.8 42-147 LCS (B8D1418-BSI) Prepared: 04/14!03 Analyzed: 04(16/08 _ PCB-1260 x.15 OSO ~Ig!L 200 109 SO-120 A4atriz Spike (B8D7418-MSI) Source: 0804]18-01 __ Prepared: 04/14!OS Analyzed: 04/l6/OS __ __ PCB-1260 235 0.50 µg!L 2.00 ND I19 50-150 Nlatris Spike Dup (B8Dt418-MSDI) Source: 0804118-O1 Prepared: 04/14/05 Analyzed: 04!16%OS PCB-1260 1.95 0.50 µe!L 2.00 ND 97.5 50-150 19.9 30 Thc• resrr/ts in this report apph~ to the ~nnrplec unalvred in ucenr'rlance mirk dre chuirr of crrsrodr cloctunenl. This cJna(vticn/ report Hurst be reprnclrrr:ed i.n its enriren•. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUI IE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949} 348-9389 Fax: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET Page 17 Of 23 ~~~:;~ S f ERR,4 ANA LYTICFL Krazan ~ Associates, Inc. Project: S.S.F. 21~ West Dakota Avenue Project Number: 0=}40500 Reported: Clovis CA, 93612 Proicct Manager: Art Morrill 04!15/05 ]0:45 Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260B - Quality Cont>;•ol Sierra Analytical Labs, Inc. Reporting Spike Sow-ce ",'oREC RPD ~rrt{y[e Result Limit Units Le~~el Result o/REC Limi[s RPD Limit Nutes Batch B8D0805 -1EPA 5030B P Si T Blank (B8D0805-BLKI) _ _ - Prepared: 04!07/05 Analyzed: 04!OS/OS Benzene ND 1.0 u~JL ' Bromobenzene ND I.0 l3romochloromethane ND 1.0 " Bromodichloromethane ND 1.0 " Btnmofontt ND 1.0 " Bromomethaae ND 1.0 " n-Butylbenzene ND I.0 " sec-Burylbenzene ND 1.0 " tent-Burylbenzene ND 1.0 " Carbon tetrachloride ND 1.(1 Chlorobenzene ND l.0 ~~ Chloroethane ND 1.0 " Chloroform ND 1.0 Chloromedtane ND lA " -Chlorotoluene ND 1.0 " 4-Chlorotohtene ND LO " Dibromochloromethane ND I.0 7.2-Dibronro-3-chloroprop;ute ND ~.0 " 1?-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND I.0 " Dibtomotmcthane ND LO " 1 ?-Dichlorobenzene ND 1.0 " 1.3-Dichlorobenzene ND LO " 1.4-Dichlorobenzene ND 1.0 " Dichlorodifluorontedtane ND LO l.l-Dichloroethane ND 1.0 " 1,2-Dichloroethttne ND LO " l.l-Dichloroethene ND 1.0 " cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 1.0 " trans-l,2-Dichloroethene ND 1.0 " 1 ?-Dichloropropane ND 1.0 " 1.3-Dichloropropane ND 1.0 " 2,2-Dichloropropane ND 1.0 " 1.1-Dichloropropenc ND I.0 cis-1,3-Dichloropropenc ND 1.0 n.nts-1.:-Dichloropropenc ND 1.0 " 6thylbenzene ND 1.0 " Hexachloroburadiene ND 1.0 The results in this report uppfr m the sanrples nnalyrec! in crccarduncr tsirh the chain of cnsroclp docunrenl. This anulrlical report rnrfs'f Ge reprnc/acrd in its emirem. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHDNE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET Page I S Of 23 aNlaEvRricn4 Krazan R Associates, Inc. Project: S.S.F. 21 ~ West Dakota Avenue Project Number: 0440S005 Reported: Clovis GA, 93612 Project Manager: Art Mon-il1 04lIS!OS 10:45 Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260B -Quality Control Siena Analytical Labs, lnc. Reporting Spike Source °4~REC RPD Anah¢e Result Limi[ Units Leeel Result °,;,RL-C Limits' RPD Limit Notes Batch B8D0805 -EPA 5030E P & T Blank (B8D0805-BLKI) Prepared: 04,t07'OS Analyzed : 04/03!OS Isopropylbenzene ND 1.0 u~;L p-(sopropyltoluene ND 1.0 " Methylene chloride ND I.0 " Methyl tart-butyl ether ND 1.0 Naphthalene ND 1.0 " n-Propylbenzene ND 1.0 Styrene ND 1.0 " 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 1.0 " 1.1,2,2-Tenachlornethane ND LU Teh•achloroethene ND I.0 " Tohtene ND 1.0 ' L2.3-Trichlorobenzene ND 1.0 " 12.4-Trichlorobenzene ND ].0 " I,1,J-Trichloroethane ND 1.0 " 7,1 2-Trichloroethane ND 1.0 Trichloroethane ND I.0 " Ttichlomfluoromethane ND 1.0 1,2.3=hrichloropropttne Nll LO " 1 2,4-Trimethvlbenzene ND 1.0 " 1,35-Trimethytbenzene ND 1.0 " Vinyl chloride ND 1.0 m,p-Xylene ND 1.0 " n ::\ylene ND 1.0 __ Sur•rogute: Dibrom~/luor•onterharte SO.d 50. (J 101 56-1 /8 Srtrrogate: Toluene-d~S 50.3 S0. (J 101 S'.5-110 Sat•rogate:9-Bromq/Tuuroben_ene 54.~i 50.0 1(J9 Sfi-115 LCS (B8DOA05-BSl) .. Prepared: 04/07/OS Analyzed: 04lOS!OS _ _. _ Benzene 52.9 1.0 µg/L 50.0 109 SO-120 Clilorobenzene 46.2 ].0 50.0 92.4 SU-120 ],1-Dicltloroethene 54.9 1.0 90.0 109 80-120 Toluene 57.7 I.0 50.0 119 SO-120 Trichlorocdtene Sfi.3 1.0 50.0 114 SO-120 The restrhs in Il7is report upplr to the .rumples ntrah <-cd in uccordance ivit1711te chain of cats7ud7~ dncwnent. TJ7it rnlnh~ticol repa•t ttttrsl be rcpraclucrcl in i[.r entirrtt . 26O5Z MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LP,GUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAx:(949)348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET Paf?t: 1 y Of 23 ~f- S I E R R•A ANALYTICAL Krazan cC Associates, Inc. Project: S.S.F. 215 LVesi Dakota Avenue Project Number: 04408005 Reported: Clovis CA, 936] 2 Project Manager: Art Morrill 04/18/08 10:45 Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260E -Quality Control Sierra Analytical Labs, Inc. Reporting Spike Source "LREC RPD Analyte Result Limit Units Le~~el Resuh ",DREG Limits RPD Limit Notes Batch B8D0805 -EPA 5030B P S T A7ah•ix Spike (BSD0805-i•7Sl) Sourc e: 0804109-10 Prepared: 04!07;OS Analyzed: 04!03!08 Benzene 52.] 1.0 µg/L 50.0 ND 104 :7_151 --- Chlorobenzene 39.7 1.0 50.0 ND 79.4 37-160 ],1-Dichloroethene 36.5 1.0 50.0 ND 73.6 50-150 Toluene 44:6 1.0 SOA ND 39.2 47-150 Trit:hloroethene 46.] 1.0 50.0 ND .92.2 71-157 Matrix Spike Dup (B8D0805-MSDI) _-- Sourc e: 0804109-10 Prepared: 04!07!OS Analyzed: 04!OS/08 Benzene 57.0 1.0 }tg1L 50.0 ND ] 14 37-151 _ S.9S 30 -_ Ch]orobenzene 43.4 LO 50.0 ND 56.3 37-160 5.90 30 l,l-Dichloroethene 42.5 1.0 50.0 ND 35.0 50-150 14.4 30 Toluene 5I -0 1.0 50.0 N D 102 47-i 50 13,4 30 Tricliloroethene 52.3 I.0 50.0 ND 105 71-157 12.6 30 The results in rlris report apply w the samples u»crlr_ed in accorrlarcc n~ilh the chnn7 ufrusior~r document. This analytical rc7mrt n»tsi he reproclrrc•ec~ i» its enrn'elr. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653- TELEPHONE:(949)348-9389 FAx:(949)348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET Page 20 of 23 ~~ ~, ~. ~~ S I ERR R ArtAtv7iCat Krazan & .Associates. Inc. Projecr. S.S.F. 215 West Dakota Avenue Projecr Number: 04403005 Reported: Clovis CA, 9:612 Project Manager: Art Morrill 04i1S/03 10:45 Polynuclear Aromatic Compounds by EPA Method 8310 -Quality Control Sierra Analytical Labs, lnc. Reportin, Spike Sow-ce %REC RPD ~nalvte Result Limit Units Level Result ",'DREG Limits RPD Limit Notes Batch B8D1513 -EPA 3510C Sep Funnel Blank (B8D1513-BLK1) __ Prepared: 04.10/OS Analyzed: 04/13/OS Naphthalene ND 0.500 µa/L Acenaphthylene ND 1.00 " Acenaphthene ND 1.00 " Fluorene ND 0.100 " Yhenanthrene ND 0.100 " Anthracene ND 0.0500 " Flttormthene ND 0.100 " Pyrene ND 0.100 " Benzo (a) anthracene ND 0.0500 " Chrysene ND 0.100 " Benzo (b) fluoranthene ND 0.100 " Benzo (k) fluortnthene ND 0.0500 Benzo (a) pyrene ND 0.0500 " Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene ND 0.100 " Benzo [„h,i) perylene ND 0.100 " lndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene ND 0.100 " - Stn'I'ogufe: DecaJluorohiphet(pl 5.07 111.0 80.? 30-115 - LCS (B8D1513-BSi) _ Prepared: 04!10./OS Analyzed: 04lIS/OS Naphthalene 0.0750 0.500 µg/L O.lOU 75.0 60-130 Fluorene 0.07.0 0.100 0.100 73.0 (i(7-130 Pyrene 0.104 0.100 0.100 104 Ci0-130 Benzo (a) pyrene O.US20 0.0500 0.100 52.0 60-130 Indeno11,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.0640 0.100 0.100 64.0 60-130 Surrugnlc: Decu/h+ornbiphent'! Z9? 10.0 7).1 iQ-115 LCS(B8D1513-BS2) Prepared: 04/10/OS Aualyzed:04!l~%08 __ Naphthalene (LUS(i0 0.500 µJL 0.100 S(i.0 60-I30 Fluorcne 0.100 0.100 0.]00 100 60-I30 Pyrene O.IOS 0.100 0.100 IOS GO-130. Benzo (a) pyrene 0.106 f).0500 0.100 106 60-130 Intleno 11,2.3-cd) pyrene 0.0960 0.700 0.100 96.0 CiU-I30 Surrotnle: DecnPubornbiphetml 7.58 ]O,p 75,8 i(1-115 77m resa+!!s i» this report upplr to, the sumpTes mtalv_ed in aa•a~dunce t+?itTi thr idmin q( cuswdt~ document: This analytical r-epvrt most be rrpruchriec( bt its entiretp. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS? CALIFORNIA 92653 TeLepBONe: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET Pale 2l of 23 ~. -~ ~, ~ .. ~. S I ERR A A[JA lv71CAL Krvan ~ Associates, htc. Project: S.S.F. 215 West Dakota Avenue Project ,Lumber: 04405005 Reported: Clovis CA, 93612 Project Manager: Art Morrill 04,'1 Si08 10:45 Yolynuclear Aromatic Compounds by EPA Method 8310 -Quality Control Sierra Analytical Labs, Inc. Reporting Spike Source "4,REC RPD Analyze Result Lnnit Units Leeel Result °/RLC Limits 1tPD Limit Notes Batch B8D1513 -EPA 3510C Scp Funnel LCS Dup (BSDI.513-BSDI) _ _ _ ___ __ Prepared: 04,'10/ OS Analyzed: 04%15/OS Naphthalene 0.0790 0.500 µv!L 0.100 79.0 60-130 L27 30 Fhiorene 0.077(1 0.100 0.100 77.0 60-UO 5.33 30 Pyrene 0.123 0.100 0.100 123 60-130 I6.7 30 Benzo (x) pyrene O.OS70 0.000 0.100 57.0 60-130 5.92 .0 hideno 11.?,3-cd) pyrene 0.0750 0.100 0.100 75.0 60-130 19.7 30 Surroate: DecnJlua'ohiphem:7 fi.S9 7D.D S8.9 3D-11 The resrdts nt this report apply u, thr samples onrrlt•_ed in accurtlmece n'ith the chain of cusntch~ duc:rnrz:nt. Tlrls cnmh~lical report macs! be reproduced In its entiren•. Z6O52 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92b53 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS ~ SIERRALABS.NET PB~~e ?? Of 23 S I ERR A Ah10. LYT tCh! Krazan & Associates,Ine. Project S.S.F. 2l ~ West Dakota Avenue Project Number: 04403005 Reported: Clovis CA, 93612 Project Manager: Art Mon•ill 04113,'03 10:4 Notes and Definitions JBN ,4na]yzed by Justin B. Null MF Analyzed by Mindy Froome RF Analyzed by Richard Forsyth DET Analyte DL-TECTL-D ND Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the reporting. limit NR Not Reported dly Sample results reponed on a dry weight basis RPD Relative Percent Difference The resuhs i» rlris report upph to the arunples unulraed nr ace iu-darrce frith the chain ~~ cusrciclr cloc•ronenr. This cmcrlv~icnl report nrrru be rrproc/uced in its. entire(t-. 26O$Z MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LACUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET Page 23 of 23 _m W 1 z /v~ r ~ n z W ' ~ Ftt ~ z w j 0. 0 z ,~/~ = tl. W 18.1 z w J J r ~ U i ~ [ O ar a ~; N~ 9 QI s~ Q': "' N J .Q (`~ ,°o z~ ~~ to ~ ~ 4 F ~ ~ z w ,~ Q z °; -, N d ~~ LL ~ e r In O {C ra ~~ O J i5 O N O q N _ r, V N U M _ In CO N tq l~ •~- . 'C '~. 'C °C ~ ~ n. a~o.a m rn Q d Q ~S ~ CtiI -J O d 4f N d IA = T ~- ro ~a 14 r4 '~ ID 0 r~ I~ I~ ~ ni 'o ~. ~ gar u~ us u_ °' 'C o m is .> ?` o ~. ~ ~ ~ u c ~ ~ R ,Q a ~ ~ r~ ~ Q ~. ~~ ~(] O ~? ~ '~ ~ ~ lp N N "'I CI Q' oO u 'Q rn `] v `- U m y ~ 9 ~ ~ C C7 2 iR (~ O rtJ ~C [~@ C LL ]] C~ a' I~ Ci R a 11 J i 7 ~ ? T (~1 . [!] cv J :?. J fJ~ 11.1 C7 ~ iti ~ r~ '_ a l~ Q ~ _ U ~ ~ is ~ ,v .n ati Ise 7~ t7 ~ ~ .~ ~S w I!J ro o y ~ I 0 9] O> m Q. N I',1: :v r ~[ I r y ~~~ „ r=- w ~s .u:i ;.-: 7 ~ CD f.]7 ' ~' i9 0 I U a ~ ai ro tw ,~. „~ ~ ~~:~.' -rarn~-N 3 r) r J 7 u I. C.I r7 - ~L - .-~ ii •'_. ;, ,i i ~L I~, u 1 CL ~ - 'i ~ n ~ *- ~ m °o L. c ~=> r c •r IC9 ' J ~ IL7 .c: r- : V i IU' ' n; u~ ~a I , ~ q as l U cn Q, I~ rn ~~,i i.i I: vi ~ ai ~ (~' C t'~' .CF ~~ rp ._I r:] - p Gt 'D d (~~ m is ~ I- :D C ~ '~ rn a ti V 7. ~tc 'Y m to N CJ m. L- c '! lu t. , .C] w ~ J7 ~ {9 T ~ cJ c r_ ~ U.i 47 ~7 C.% f-' C' <6 C .~ r ~ O b _ ro 0 0 ~ u, [V ~ f;l L e.] y _ [d (U 4 i'1 17 1: 'J I_- IL` !J CU C l7 ~_ ~ t(i ~ O 0.i ~~ O '~ ~ N -o ~ GL PJ d7 ~ ~~m ro w .v O v- ii t] t j' E~; c{ - tJ_ ~r. fr1 .--t Li a` rC ,~ .: j: ~ ~ ~ C rr ~. d ur I , _z ~~. U (~ R ?, O C ' ~L O ~ U a {1 m c O d t9 Q ~ L 7 3 m ~~ m~ , ¢ I~ y; m I:, ~~ e~ da c LD N ': .E :.. ' . N b G •~ c'o me a o T ~ ~.N G C n m ,o o~ ro ~ I~ ~ ~ 8~ o~ i ~~ Qa : m t} a ~ '`} > c `i n m U ~m I . S ~ V:~ ~' o •c ~ ~ y V >_ m~ C `~ .C O U ~ C ~ /0 '; `o ~ a ~~~ 'j,~ moo= „~ 'o tmi aac~ ~~ ~~E '' _ .0 p y4COC Q~ 'a ~ °...i ~ m ~._ N O O '~ rj ~ ~ a (9 d.~ C !~ 'C m W q _. v~ CL' C N NL >` r_ya ~~ n is T N ~ c atd r o cr v~3 ~~~~ ~'~E N ~m~ rj U c ~ I~ F-m a i r~ W m 0 0 o ~ ca ~i ~ i 2 O u' N V U ~ ~O Z U7 ~ 3 V ~' z >~ Q ~ Z ~ J CV 1~ .~ ~. ~, ~Q 4 ` O cD 7J p O o p O N o o cv t0 G c') N N U~ tD CC N C) C~7 r- 07 P __ .. _ ._I ~ O 1~ Sl. L'1 t1 11 ~ !~ C77 Q d, c[ c( ~ J a o ,$ y m `u ~ a Z Z ea ep ie la •- `;D ,.V. O ~' C7) Qf !!1 ~ O m 4„i iC ~.. (~ ~ ~ ~~= l7 l' ~ H" I.[-~ O ~~ i/1 W_ ~~qp '~6 ry z ~J ~ W ~ ~ W ~ _ 2 lu a z z I W w J x ~- W 0 ~ ~ ~ lD N 7 ~ ~. 1] ~ N ro .4. ~, ~~ w ~ V v7 0 . . U U Q7 :Ac ui ~.{c-~: Ci ~r,i _t17 ~C. - T ~ ~1 ~ C d x 7 ~ (n Ci Q~ cv D N 2 0~ ~ ~ = u" 't7 l6 m O t ~ w x '~ C 4 ~ v A L ~ ~ Q a LrJ N J Z ~ LII L.I G7 F m G Ci ¢i ~~ C o [r ~ 0 . ~~ y ~ .~ 7 Ln ~ U %- ~ ~ m v m • () Q ~ ~ C e I:r t tt ~.. L-, y c) > ;° D c~ u ,p ~" IIL. i' C.: !: G: ' Y 'I L C. v O v ~ ~' ~ ~~ M cp J C ~ cn ,) '~ CO to CI V ~. 1; ] ~ ® C) ~. a ~~i! c~ 'Y C 1 (ll .~ up 'q U ~ i- cu ~•~. r y ' _ p7. ~J :f. .~ .~ f,1 i~ IJ S. (n (n '~ a) j~! _°_ Id .y~y ~ (.J (- j U tLJ w ~ G 4' 1K O ~? :9~ •cr • ~ L7~ ll7 .~• ~ iU ~ m C9 ~ s rJ U N C L. o fj °D 1~ o r, a) ; le: lf') ~ eC L1') ~Q '.7 c7 _ m T :~= C v ~ ~ u7 L~) c ~J r.~ alc L°n I v °C CJ L FO tM1 C `C [. Q C) . C j.l Q a~ ~ ^, LL ~}n ~': ~~ !w, ~~k 4; 0` us 0) ~~ ~n 1,~ ~% C.~ ti -r f~~~ ~~ I ~L` ~ 4 C-: ti) ~~ ~ - O b i ?+ [ CL ~ ~~ f ~. i rr~ ~ J u ~ 'O u '.: .gj ~-! L i'C) y I l1 iiC i~ 4 f II tlf~ II Ci Lil .4 l J 7 I ! 1 ~, ~1 ~ N ~i ~, r.. 3 ~~ >V y ~ l a ~Y; U) U ~~o'•~~- ~•T~ «:: ,- ~Y Si i ' 1 a:. ~lJ~l I y1 f i V Lt,j4~ ~- . o c ~ c ~ '~ ~~ ~_ I~ L9 111 N ~- :9 ~ I I' i ~Y •= f C~: %i C.~ L~ crJ .- ~ U c,~' - U J ~;c~ J .a ti{ J ~ G c~ o G`O Lr) , In T !:L m ; C~) ~ m m c T. Q) a L' .O, is 3 C C.'t! ,4. S . w ~ ~ w . °7 c ~ v m ' C O t ~ C ..! 41 1 s ~ •t l~ -~ _ 1 ~~ i 11 O, f -~ ~ C.1 l7 ~ .~ a- ~ o N ~i 1 , ~ ~ , . °3 - I' E p c0 ~ ~ ._ ) ~ N ~ ~ ' w ~ [ ~. 4 •- U ill P+ ; ~ ~ ~ C ~w li ~~. N ~- O ~ 'a N N p ~,~ •b ~~1 cv i . vo ~. ~ N C L U1 "' P lU G ~r O N ~ b O'er c o'ti . ~ :o w ~ N dl 8 ~ ~.~ I - E o Q) t L 0 9 i+ . ? C _~ v 'p C~) ~~ ?. O C ~ ~ y N N N ~ w a) ~~~ ,~ . ; [ = Q ` ~' ~ `~ -. ~ O a ~ L C ~ ~ O•W D i ~~ qa~ ~ ~r ~~E .i O D e ~~~ a~ GG• ~ o ~ ~ 6~ „J ~ ~ ~"'N tl r_ o :: ? ~ a ~ ip ~ L O O L C c U N ~ ~ w~' ~~ a•- c .R = .~ y Ln ~ C a v ~ i ~i ~ ° t °7 ~ ~ ~ ; C (~ 4 i~ O .C V E c E L U gcg~~ '' 4 ~ m ~ . ~~ ' ~ 4-~ c, y __ c 1 3 ~ a ~ i N ~i ~ -~ ,~ ~ ~ m E 4 v) u; S i~ ~ ` ~L ,J J ~ . t'OCCaa •~ 0 ~1~ I.1. ~' O W Q ~ ~ Q ~ U 111 Q Q .'~. ro ;o ~\ D @ .~ ~ -~ m c 8 ~ ~ ^ ~ ' O ° a ~ N 'G O V p~ ~i .o "~ ~ O Z ~ ~' ~ . '~ N .~ ~ ~ - ~ ` ~ E ' ° g' T ~ i C '~ ~ i 03 ~ Z © ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ U Q ~ O~ c9 m~ n m T ~~``'tt' 7, a.. 3 (~ a. p S N It ~ -J V d J 2 to I- I I `+ i 1 I ~f ~~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~ r d 7~ ~ X i i ~: ~: I -a a.:. ~5 ,N G ~ ~ G z Q ~ ~ a ~ ~ 8P ~ ~~ n: w, s~a~ar~ r uJ ~s~ ~ }~ ~ ,~ ._; t--- W (suem~lsulxalfl) 0828 ~1d~ ~ ; I _° (aiosoa~~nouaydololyos~uad) l'SZ4dd3 d~ ~ E E E E W' ~~ G'8 Lf' b'd3 ~Sq Hdbl ~: E ~ a E w m 'oi _ (asal0-Hdl ~. ~; i~ ~. Q' 3fl1W(awlose~-Hd!lX3ifl SJauleiuo~ ~- ~o lagwnN ~; ~_ 4 S' ipan~asa~d aldweg ~ S { aie~aslp_o I `i ausadwo~=~ yet~J=~J 5~ ~,~~ ~ ' addl aldweg . {pL ~ay10=0 ny=V IIog=S ialeM=M ~ t~\ ' yJ ~ xuieW aldweg +~~ ~ ~, N r'. p: S. v'1 v y y I ~ ~ ' c O ~ d_ -_.. C. ~ ~V N O '°!1: ~ N G m _ . ~ M tv [n ~ N `` Z c ~° O a n. ~ ~? 7 I ~ W ~ ~ ~ l z ~ ~ ~ • Z (n ~ m a,°i C~ fYJ W ~ ~ o. l - Q N U }- a =`c ~ ; , O ~ w O ~ ~ ~ ~ ?' :~ ` g~~ X ~ C 3 Y~ ~ I C Q~Q ~' ~ ~ ~~ n I~ o v~ N ~ t rt ~ N N W ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ . I ~ I I' ~ f ~ ~ .C v m < • n ~ . v N . ~ . vi z m i ;~ a ~~~ rn rn I ~ c ~a c 'a c ~Q ~ om` E c ~- J O I i i I ~ ~ ~ Y N U ~ ~ n . ina ~ I I,. ~,: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U CO U c 4. ti 3 0 r ,. J iii y~ === ~~~~ & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION Apri] 30, 2008 Mr. Vijay Patel 2834 EI Camino Real Redwood City; California 94061 RE: Updated Piezometer Water Levels And Groundwater Sample Results Proposed Hyatt Place South San Francisco, California Dear Mr. Patel: Project No. 044-08005 Two piezometers were installed on the subject property on March 20, 2008. The purpose of the piezometers (essentially groundwater monitoring wells) is to monitor the depth of the groundwater underlying the property. On April 3, 2008, groundwater samples were collected from the piezometers for chemical analysis of selected constituents. The two groundwater samples were analyzed for a suite of constituents included on a Iist titled City of South San Francisco Local Limits provided by the municipal wastewater treatment plant. The location of the two piezometers (P-1 and P-2), as shown on the attached. drawing provided by Lee Gage & Associates, Inc. (Gage}, were chosen by Gage. The work was conducted in accordance with a drilling permit obtained from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Department. It is Krazan's understanding that the proposed construction on the subject property is an eight-story hotel with a subgrade parking structure. It is the intention of Mr. Patel to maintain the piezometers while construction occurs so that the depths of groundwater can be monitored prior to and during construction. The 25-foot deep, two-inch diameter wells were construction of Schedule 40 PVC and were placed in an eight-inch borehole. The screen slot-size is 0.020 inch and the screen. interval is from 10 to 25 feet below ground surface (bgs). A filter pack, consisting of rounded No. 3 Monterey sand (washed and bagged at one cubic foot per sack) was placed into the annular space to a depth of approximately two feet above the top of the screen. Athree-foot-thick seal, consisting of hydrated bentonite pellets, was placed above the filter pack. The remaining annular space was filled with sand-cement. Aflush-mounted, traffic-rated well vault was emplaced to provide access to the wellheads. The well vaults were set as close as practicable above existing site grade to promote positive drainage away from the wellhead. A well construction diagram is attached to this letter. 215 West Dakota Avenue • Clovis, California 93612 • (559) 348-2200 • FAY (559) 348-2190 With Offices Serving the Western United States 4408005 Water Level and Sample Results Project No. 044-08005 Page No. 2 The filter pack of the piezometers was surged using a small diameter bailer. The surging was conducted to settle the filter pack before the annular space was filled with hydrated bentonite and grout. According to Krazan's November 12, 2007 report titled Draft Updated Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Hotel, 5~0 Gateway Boulevard, Soasth San Francisco, Califon°nia, soil in the upper two to-four feet bgs consists of a gravelly, clayey sand fill, which is underlain by a clayey sand to a depth of eight feet bgs. Silty sand and clayey silty sand were encountered to a depth of 25.5 feet bgs, the maximum depth explored. As of 1500 hours on Marcll 20, 2008, the watet• levels in P-1 and P-2 were 12.45 feet bgs a~~d 10.65 feet bgs, respectively. As of 0930 hours on March 25,2008, the water levels in P-] and P-2 were 10.50 feet bgs and 9.47 feet bgs, respectively. As of 0830 hours on April 29, 2008, the water levels in P-t and P-2 were 11.15 feet bgs and 9.85 feet bgs, respectively. The two April ;, 2008 groundwater samples were analyzed for the listed constituents by standard laboratory analytical methods as summarized on the attached laboratory report and sample chain of custody. The results of the groundwater sample analysis are shown on Table i. The analysis of flashpoint was inadvertently omitted for the suite of analyses; however, as shown on Table I, volatile organic compounds capable of ignition at a minimum of 140 degrees Fahrenheit are absent. It is Krazan's opinion that analysis for flashpoint would have been reported as >140 degrees Fahrenheit. As shown on Table I, ammonia as nitrate and four metals including chromium, copper, nickel, lead, and zinc were detected in the groundwater samples. The pertinent municipal focal limits are included in Table I and the detectable constituents were below the respective local limits. The other organic and inorganic constituents were not detected in the two groundwater samples. Krazan appreciates the opportunity to assist in the development of the subject property. Please contact Mr. Art Morrill or Mr. Dave larosz if you have any questions or comments at (559) 348-2200. Respectfully submitted, KRAZAN Sc. ASSOCIATES, INC. Cox-~ -. Arthur H. Morrill ~~ Professional Geologist No. 5383 AHM/awf Attachments KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offrces Serving the Western United States A40S005 Water Level and Sample Results O 0 ;o 0 0 0 z a~ •o a U U Q a U O m U a N a U O N ~ •^ .9 ~ ~ `.'O+ Gi.. ~~ = ~~• J ~ ~' ~ ~ to z a ~ T•~ ~ ern ~ ~o o ~. 3 ~ ~ -c~~•=U cow '" ~ ~ rr~ ~ ~.J ~ ~ U U 0 R, 'C3 tr• tt v'~ ~ ~ f~ Q z z,l °z °z~~ Q Q ' z z z z° z z Q "-' z o Q O z o ~ 0 O M O ~ Q N vl z 0 nl No cn o z z °z °z z z° ~' II p oN0 o-I~ d. a ~ N_ nl VI z ~^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 N a1 •~ 0 Q G\ O ~i 0 ~~ N 0 c c ~ ~_ '~ ro o c c ~. ~ -~ O~ T ~ U O CJ rj -~ a O 3 ,-; o ~. .5 •n ~; U O U ~ ~ y ~ ~ o ° =- 3 ro bn ~a ~ - ~ ~ U O CU " ~ v ~' i T O U ~ ~ x o ~~ ~ . ~., ~; ~ _ ~, -~ T 'O N r • ~ O ~ J ~ .~ O .^ ,r: O ~ V ~ ~ U v~ '~ c0 .V 'B ~ ~~ ~ c~ ^ O C Y N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cG ^~ ~ •C ~ • ;) a3 > N ~ ~ . O p O ~ -+ C ' . O 6 L.i. v O- x 'CS U cG T T 0 ° ~ Q U .. a .. z z~, U z~ N 0 a : r i II II z II II II II II II II 11 II II ~~ .. C m U N W ~•-~ ~UUQ~e. o zU UZ~-NOa.azz~ z t _~,~ ~ `' s ~_' zw _ = ~ 3 ~ ~ a s ` 4 - 0 ~ ~ a ~ ~~ Yz ~~ ~ ~ F$ ~ _ ~ ~ Y ~ o ~4 ~` _ e _ °c ~~ nn __ _ ~ _ A~ ~ ' Z ~ 3 e $O~ K '7 ~ ~ g ° _ q L'"' `~i t _ g ~ 5 2 Yy ~£ _ MV _ c 3u _ Z_ ~ ~ m m - _ - - - - - - - `~ ii7 5-0 :il .:b .~ Q ~ ff~V'Id a.LLS'1LH ~ (~ c ~3 2 ~ ~~.~~ ~~ W ( \~ (^ ~ $ e ~a~ Qg ~ ~ ~~:i ~: ~ Q , ~ ~ - `y \ ~sA ~ ~ ~ ~5 Q~~( 6~g ~ W Z I ~ Z m V a V J / ~ i i ~ .. UD o ZQ~ H~ Off- w~ ~~ _ UC~~ ~ ~J ~ ~ wt~ !?F ~i q sal ~2n Krazan & Associates, .Inc. ,,,. Environmental Division azan 215 W. Dakota Avenue Clovis, CA 93612 {559) 348-2200 ~~ ~Z~~~~~~~ ~- ~ 9 ~`~~ PROJECT: PROPOSED HYATT PROJECT N0: 044-08005 DATE: 3 08 LOCATION: 550 GATEWAY BLVD S. SAN FRANCISCO DRILLED BY: Krazan & Associates CAP Type: Locking Cap Assembly Total Depth 25 Relative • Grade. - .~ .. I 1 1~1 1 ICI I I-i 1 1-1 I I-I ~' ~'. 1 I-III-III-1 I H 1 1-1 I I-t 1 I-I 111 1 I-III-I 1 I-I 11-I 1 1-1 11-1 _ ~..., ~... ~ WELL VAULT Dia: 8" _ ~' ~- Type: FLUSH MOUNT ~'' BACKFILL MATERIAL Type: Sand cement slurry .y RISER CASING Dia: 2" Type: SCH 40 PVC Top of seal "' ANNULAR SEAL 5 ft. _ _ _ Type: 3/$" dia. hydrated bentonite pellets ack To of filter 8 ft_ _ _ _ p p FILTER PACK Type: .#3 LONESTAR SAND of screen To 10 ft_ p _ _ SCREEN GWL: 12 TO =_ 2" 10.8ft.(t) - Dia: Type: Flush Thread 0.020 slotted SCH 40 PVC 25 ft Bottom of screen _ _ Bottom of sum _ NA _ _ _ .• _ p Bottom of hole 25.5 ft._ _ ~- u,.l„ n.,,. Q,~ l I Ivlc vl~. v r~ ~' S I E~.ft~ R ,A ANA I'/T ICAL Krazan & .Associates, Inc. Project: S.S.F. ? 1 ~ West Dakota A~~enue Project Number: 04405005 Reported:. Clovis CA, 93612 Project Manager. Art Morrill 04!13!03 10:45 ANALl'T1CAL REPORT FOR SAMPLES Sample ID LxUoratorp 1D Matris Date Sampled Date Received P-1 030411 S-Ol Liquid 04/03/03 OS:30 04/04/03 10:00 P-2 030411$-02 Liquid 04/03103 OS:45 04/04/03 10:00 CASE NARRATIVE SAMPLE RECEIPT: Samples were received intact, at 4 °C, and accompanied by chain of custody documentation. PRESERVATION: Samples requiring preservation were verified prior to sample preparation and analysis. HOLDING TIMES: All holding times were met, unless othenuise noted in the report with data qualifiers. QA%QC CRITERIA: All quality objective criteria were met, except as noted in the report with data qualifiers. The resnlti in this report crpplr ro the scnnp/es unu(r~ed irT nccor<innce is ith the chin of'custo</p clacument. This utau/rrieu/ report rtvtrst he reprndtrced in its emireh-. 26052 MERl-f CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA H1Lt5, CALIFORNIA 92(53 Tet_EPHONe: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRAtABS.NE' Page 1 of 23 r a y ~ ~_''' S I Eli R .4 ANAL`7T IL:AL Krazan & Associates, Inc. Project: S.S.F. 215 West Dakota Avenue Project Number: 04408005 Reported: C]ovis CA, 936I2 Project s~Ianager: Art Morrill 04i ] 8!08 10:45 Conventional Chemistry Parameters by APNA/EPA Methods Sierra Analytical Labs, loc. Reporting Analyze. - Result Lintie Units Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed h9ethod Notes P-] (0804]18-O1) Liquid Sampled: 04!03/08 08:30 Received: 04/04/08 10:00 Ammonia as N . 1.30 0.100 ntgiL 7 BSD1026 04/04/OS 04/04/OS 1Q2($Tt4 4500-NH3 Cyanide (total) ND 0.0200 ~~ L-PA 3152 Phenolics ND 0.0500 ~~ EPA 420.1 Sulfide ND 0.05 ~~ L-P,4 376.2 P-2 (0804118-02} Liquid Sampled: 04/03!08 08:45 Received: 04/04/08 10:00 Ammonia as N 2.80 0,100 mg/L 1 BSD1026 04/04/OS O4;04i0S 10:2(SM 4500-NH3 Cyanide (total) ND 0.0200 ~~ EPA 335? Phenolics ND 0.0500 EPA 420.1 Sulfide ND 0.05 ~~ EPA 376.2 The r esdhs n7 this report npp/r to the samples anah _ec1 in nccorJunce x ith the clurin ~(custuclr clocuntent. This nnn(t~lical report nnre7 bc~ reln~nelucccl ire itt entirerr. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, EAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPIioNE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET Page 2 of 23 "~ -Y_ S I E R ft •4 FN0. LYTtCF: Krazan ~C Associates, Inc. Project: S.S.F. 215 West Dakota Avenue Project Number: 0440800~ Reported: Clovis CA, 93612 Project Manager: Art Morrill 04i 1 Sl08 10:45 Metals by EPA 2QQ Series Methods Sierra Analytical Labs, Inc. Reportin .4nalyte Result Limit Units Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes P-1 (0804118-0]) Liquid Sampled: 04/03/08 08:30 Received: 04/04(08 10:00 JBN Silver ND 0.0030 mg/L I BSD0939 D4r09/OS 04!l0lDS li:12 EPA 200.7 Arsenic ND 0.025 04/10105 ]3:13 Cadmium ND 0.0040 " " " " Chromium 0.021 0.0060 Copper ND O.Ol2 '. " 04!IDlOS 13:12 .' Mercury ND 0.00073 BSD1403 04/14/08 04!14/08 15:22 EPA 245.] Nickel 0.017 0.010 - BSD0939 04/09/08 04/10/08 13:1= EPA 200.7 Lead ND 0.019 Selenium ND 0.026 " " '. " , Zinc ND 0.024 " " " " P-2 (0804118-02) Liquid Sampled: 04/03/08 08:45 Reccived: 04/04/08 10:00 JBN Silver ND 0.0030 try°/L I BSD0939 04/09!08 04,'iD/OS 13:19 FPA 200.7 Arsenic ND 0.025 " Cadmium ND 0.0040 " " " " " Chromium 0.32 0.0060 " Copper 0.052 0.012 04;10108 73:15 Mercury ND 0.0007; BSD7403 04/14/05 04c`741DS 7524 FPA 245.1 Nickel 0.3U 0.010 BSD0939 04/09/DS D4'70rOS 13:19 EPA 200.7 Lead 0.029 0.019 " Selenium ND 0..026 " " " " Zinc 0.15 0.024 The r'esuLs in dris re/lorl upplr• /n the sum7rles unulr~ed in acc•ordcmc•e pith the chain q/'cusuxlr c%cument. This unulrric•u! report mart he rc1~rrrduced in its enrire(r. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105r LAGUNA FIILLSr CALIFORNIA 92(53 TELePHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET PaSe 3 of 23 ~~, S I E R R A araacvrics,t Krazan & Associates, Inc. Project. S.S.F. 215 1'v'est Dakota Avenue Project Number: 04405005 Reported: Clovis CA, 9.1612 Project Manager: Art Morrill 041] S/OS 10:45 Urganochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A Sierra Analytical Labs, lnc. Reporting Analyze Result Limit Units .Dilution Bntch Prepared Analyzed, Method -Notes Y-1 (VSV411d-V1) L1gU1V J3111p1eU: U4/US/V25 US:SU 1{CCCIPCd: U4/U4/U8 lU:(IU - ~ ~~1; Aldrin ND 0.040 µg/L 1 BSD141S 04/10/03 04/]6/0305:3 EPASOSIA HCH-alpha ND 0.020 " " HCH-beta ND 0.040 .' .. " " ., HCH-delta ND 0.020 ~~ " HCH-ganvna (Lindane) ND 0.020 " " ,~ •, Chlordane ND O.IO '~ " 4,4"-DDD ND 0.040 " " " '• 4,4 "-DDE ND 0.060 ~~ 4,4'-DDT ND 0.060 ~~ Dieldrin ND 0.020 ~~ ~~ Endosulfan I ND 0.040 ~~ Endosulfan Il ND 0.10 " " " " " Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.020 ~~ Endrin ND 0.12 " " " " ~~ Endrin aldehyde ND 0.020 ~~ Endrin ketone ND 0.020 '~ Heptachlor ND 0.020 '~ ~~ Heptachlor epoxide ND 0.020 Methoxychlor ND 1.0 ~~ Toxaphene _ ND 1.0 ~~ Sut•ragcne: Decnchlorol~iplren)~1 71.(1 % ~!?-147 ~~ _ ~- Surrogme: Teu•achla-o-melcr-.crlerre 78.2 °G 4'-147 r. „ P-2 (0804118-OZ} Liquid Sampled: 04/03!08 08:45 Received: 04/04/08 10:00 A'iF Aldrin ND 0.040 µg%L 1 BSD7473 04/10lOS 04/1G/OS OS:S; EPA S031A HCH-alpha ND 0.020 ~~ HCH-beta ND 0.040 " " " '• ~~ HCH-delta ND 0.020 HCH-gamma (Lindane} ND 0.020 Chlordane ND 0.10 ~~ 4,4"-DDD ND 0.040 " " " " ~~ 4,4"-DDL- ND 0.060 " " " ,~ 4,4'-DDT ND 0.060 " " ~~ Dieldrin ND 0.020 ~~ Endosulfan I ND 0.040 ~~ Endosulfan 1I ND 0.10 " " " " ~~ Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.020 ~~ Endrin ND 0. ] 2 " " " " Endrin aldehyde ND i 0.020 Endrin ketone ND 0.020 ~• The resrrhs nr Ihis re:pun upp/r to the .rump/es ann/r<ed in accw'dnnce :vit/r du: clrcrin ~f cusrodr docnrnertt. This tnurh~ticul report Hurst he reproduced in irs enliren. Z6O5Z MERIT CIRCLE SUITE lOSr LACUNA HILLSr CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 Fax: (949} 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS ~ SIERRALABS.NET Page 4 of 23 1 :~.r~ 51 ERR,4 ANALY7ILAL Krazan & Associates, Iuc. Project: S.S.F. 215 ~~est Dakota Avenue Project Nmnber: 0440800$ Reported: Clovis CA, 93612 Project Manager: Art Motrill 04/13/03 10:45 Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A Sierra Analytical Labs, Inc. Reporting Analyze Result Limit Units Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes P-2 (0804118-02) Liquid Sampled: 04/03!08 08:45 Received: 04/04!08 10:00 NIT Heptachlor ND O,p2p µ;!L ] E35D1415 04/10,x05 04!1G;OS 05:5. EP.A S051A Heptachlor epoxide ND 0.020 " Methoxychlor 1~tD l.0 " " Toxaphene ND 1.0 " " " " _. _. __ Strr•rogcrte: Decncltlorohiplrenyl 69.6 % 42-147 Su,•rogctle: Ten•nchlw•oanern-.cirlene 85.5 % 4_'-147 " The results in this reyot't npp(p to the sonry(es mrn(r_ed rn accerrclunee wrtk the chairr qJ custodu cluczrment. "this unalvt(ecr! report must he reprodacecl in its enrirerv. 26O$2 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, IAGUNA f11LL5, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 ' E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET Page 5 of 23 A ~._~ .' ~- __-~ 5 I ERR A ANALYTICAL Krazan & Associates, Iuc. Project: S.S.F. 215 luest Dakota Avenue Project Number: 04408005 Reported: Clovis CA, 93612 Project Manager: Art Morrill 04!1 S; OS 10:45 Polychlorinated Biphenyls by EPA 1Vletllod 8082 Sierra Analytical Labs, Inc. Reportirn~ Anah•te Result Limit Units Dilutirnr Batch Prepared Analyzed., Method Notes P-1 (0804118-O1) Liquid Sampled: 04/03/08 08:30 Received: 04/04/08 10:00 I IV1F PCB-10]6 ND 1.0 µ'_'JL 1 BSDl4l5 04/10/05 04l16i0S OS:53 EPA SOS2 PCB-1221 ND l.o ,. ,. PCB-1232 ND I.0 '. " " " PCB- ] 242 ND 1.0 " " " " " PCB-1248 ND 1.0 PCB-1254 ND 1.0 " " '. PCB-1260 ND I.0 " Srn-rognte: Deccrclrloro6rpher?1'I 71.0 % 41-147 " " ~~ " Surr•ogute: Terrncb]ar-o-meta-xpleree 75.1 % 42-147 " ~~ " P-2 (0804] 18-02) Liquid Sampled: 04/03/08 08:45 Received: 04/04(08 10:00 A'IF PCB-1016 ND 1.0 µJL 1 BSD1415 04/70/05 04/1(i0S08:5; EPASOS2 PCB-1221 ND ].0 " " '. " PCB-1232 ND I.0 " " .' " " PCB-1242 ND I.0 " '~ " " PCB-1248. ND 10 " " " " PCB-1254 ND 1.0 ~~ PCB-1260 ND i.0 " _. Sur•rognte: Decachlvrabiphenvl 69.6 % 42-147 ~~ Se+rrognle: TeU•adtla•o-meta-a}~lene 85.8 % 41-147 -~ ~' The res:r(ts in dris report apply to the samples arra(r<'ed in accordance tvittr the chain of custat(v ducunrerrt. Tlris mrahvical report mast be reprudrrced in its ernireh. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPtioNE: (949) 348-9389 FAx: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET Page 6 Of 23 `F 5 { E~R R A aNALr7ICnl Krazan & Associates, Inc. Project S.S.F. Z 1 S West Dakota Avenue Project Number: 0440800 Reported: Clovis CA, 93612 Project Manager: Art Morrill 04/l8/03 10:45 Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260B Siena Analytical Labs, Inc. Reporting Analyte Result Limit Units Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes P-1 (0804178-01) Liquid Sampled: 04/03lU8 08 :30 Received: 04/04/08 10:00 MF Benzene ND I.0 µgiL 1 BSD0305 O=I~'07/OS 04i0S%OS 03:19 EPA 82GOB Bromobertzene ND I.0 ~~ ~~ Bromochloromethane ND l,p ~' Bromodichloromethane ND 1 p " ~~ Bromofonn ND 1.0 " " " " " Brotnomethane ND I.0 ~~ n-Butylhenzene ND 1.0 " sec-Butyihenzene ND l,p ~~ ' tent-Butylhenzene ND I,p " ~~ Carbot) tetrachloride ND I.0 " " ~~ ~' Chlorobenzene ND ].0 " Clilometltane ND I.0 Chloroform ND 1.0 " ' Chlorome8tane ND I.0 " 2-Chlorotoluene ND I.0 " " ~~ ~' 4-Chlorotoluene ND 1.0 " .' " " " " Dibromuchloromethane ND 1-0 " ~~ ~' 1,2-Dibromo-3-ch]oropropane ND 5.0 " 1,2-Dibrotnoethane (EDB) ND j.0 ~~ '~ Dihromomethane ND I p ~~ 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 1.0 " 1,3-Dichlorobenzenz ND I.0 „ " " " " " l,4-Dichlorohenzene ND I.0 " " Dichlorodifluoromethana ND I.0 I,1-Dichloroethane ND 1.0 " 1,2-Dichloroethane ND I.0 " 1,1-Dichloroethene ND 1.0 cis-1,2-Dich]or-oethene ND I.0 trans-],2-Dichloroethene hTD 10 " " ],2-Dichloropropane ND 1.0 " ~~ ~' 1,3-Dichloropropane ND I.U .. " " 2,2-Dichloropropane ND 1.0 " ],I-Dich]oropropene ND I.0 ' cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 1.0 " trans-l,3-Dichloropropene ND 1.0 " " Lthylbenzt:ne . ND I 0 " " " ., Hexachlorohutadiene ND I.p " ~~ , Isopropylbenzerse ND 1.0 " " " " " p-]sopropyltoluene ND I.0 " " " " .' Methylene chloride ND 1.0 " The resuhs in this report upph~ ro fhe snmpfes' unah~_ed in nccordmtce mith the chain oj'enswdr document. This anafi'ricer/ report must he reproduced nr its ervirerr. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA FALLS, CALIFORNIA 9Z6S3 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAx: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET Page 7 of 23 e, `~ 1_ ~l SI E~R~~RA ANA 2Y71ChL Krazan ~ Associates, hoc. Project S.S.F. 21 ~ West Dakota A~~e»tte Project Number: 04403005 Reported: Clovis CA, 93612 Project Manager: Art Morrill 04/18/OS 10:45 Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260B Sierra Analytical Labs, lac. Reportin Analyte Resul[ Limit t!nits Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed, Method Notes r-r tunu~ri to-viJ wyum Jarupteu: v4tuJtua ub:JV 1(Ccelve(l: V4/U4/UtS IU:UU 1\'1F Methyl tert-butyl ether ND 1.0 µJL 1 BSDOS05 04/07/OS 04/OS/03 OS:19 L-PA 32h06 Naphthalene ND l ,p " " „ ~~ n-Propylbenzene ND 1.0 " " " " " Styrene ND ].p ~~ ~~ ],1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND l.0 ~~ 1,1?;2-Tetrachloroethane ND 1,0 ~~ ., ~~ Tetrachloroethene ND ].0 ~ " Toluene ND 1.0 " " " " 1,2,3=frichlorobenzene ND 1.0 " " " ,~ 1,2,4-Triclilorobenzene ND 1.0 ~~ l,l,l-Trichloroethane ND I.0 '~ „ ~~ 1,1?-Trichloroethane ND 10 " ~~ „ ~• Trichloroethene ND 1.0 ~~ " Trichlorofluoromethane ND I.0 ~~ " 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ],p " ~~ ~~ 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND I.0 1,3,x-Trimethylbenzene ND I.0 ~~ ~~ Vint'] chloride ND l.0 " .. ~~ m,p-~ylene ND 1.0 „ " " " " v-Xylene ND 1.0 " _ " " " Sr.n-ro~ate: DiGromofluoronrethnne 114 % _ Sh-IIS ~• Surrugate: Toluene-cIS 107 4o SS-110 San-irogcrte: 4-Brmngflua•ol>eruene 705 io S6-11~ ~~ P-2 (0804118-02) Liquid Sampled: 04/03/08 08:45 Received: 04!04/03 10:00 A4F Benzene ND l .0 µgiL' 1 BSDOSOS 04/07lOS O410Si0S OS:19 EPA S260B Bromobenzene ND 1.0 '~ '. „ " Brotnochloromethane ND l,0 " ~~ ~~ ~~ BrotnodichloromeUiane ND 1.0 ~~ " Bromoform ND 1,0 " " ~~ ~~ Branomethane ND l.p " ~~ ~. n-Butylbenzene ND ].0 ~~ ^ sec-Butylbenzene ND 1•p '~ ~~ ~~ tort-Butylbenzene ND 1.0 ~~ ~' Carbon tetrachloride ND I,0 " ~~ ~, ~~ Chlorobenzene ND 1.0 ~~ Chloroethane ND 1.0 Chloroform ND I O ~~ ~~ Chloromethane ND ].p ~~ „ ~~ 2-Chlorotoluene ND 1 p " ~~ ~• The results irr this report dpplr n, the.ranrples ancrlr¢ed in accordance n ith the chain of cus7odv docrnnern. This analnticx~l repurt nrvst be reproduced in its enriren~. Z6O$2 MERIT CIRCLE -SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (9R9) 348-9389 FAX: (949} 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS ~ SIERRALABS.NET Pale 8 of 23 5 1 E R R A ANALY71Ch: Krazatt IX. Associates, Inc. Project S.S:F. 215 West Dakota Avenue Project Number: 04403005 Reported: Clovis CA, 93612 Project Manager: Art Morrill 04r 18/03 10:45 Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA iVlethod 82608 Sierra Analytical LaUs, Inca Reporting Analyze Result Limit Units Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes P-2 (0804178-02) Liquid Sampled: 04/03!08 08:45 Received: 04/04(08 10:00 NIF 4-Clilorotoluene ND I ,Q µgtL I BSD0305 04!07%OS 04/OS/OS OS:I4 EPz3 S2GOB Dibralnochlorontethane ND I.0 ~~ 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropvte ND ~.p " " .. " 1;2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 1.0 " Dibromomethane ND I.p ~~ 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 1.0 " 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 1.0 ~~ 1.4-Dichlorobenzene ND 1.0 " ' Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 1.0 " l,l-Dichloroethane ND 1.0 1,2-Dichloroethane ND 1.0 " ' l,l-Dichloroethene ND 7.0 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND I.0 ~ " ~~ trans-l,2-Dichloroethene ND 1.0 " 1,2-Dichloropropane ND I0 ~~ " 1,3-Dichloropropane ND ]A '• " ' 2,2-Dichloropropane ND 7.p ~~ " 1;1-Dichloropropane ND I,0 " ~~ ' cis-1,3-Dichloroprnpene ND 1.0 " trans-l,3-Dichloropropane ND 1.0 " Ethylbenzene ND ],p ~~ " Hexachlorobutadiene ND 1.0 " " Isopropylbenzene ND 1.0 ~' p-Isopropyltoluene ND 1.0 " Methylene chloride ND I.0 " ' Methyl tart-butyl ether ND 1.0 " Naphthalene N'D 1.0 " n-Propylbenzene ND 1 0 " " " " " Styrene ND 1.0 „ " 1,1,1;2-Tetrachloroethane AdD 1:0 " 1,1,3,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 1.0 Tetrachlaoethene ND 1.0 Toluene ND 1.0 '. " " " 1,2,3-Trichlorobetrzene ND 1.0 " " 1,2,4-Trichlarobenzene ND I.0 " l,l,l-Trichloroethane ND 1.0 " 1,1,3-Trichloroethane ND. 1.0 " Trichloroethane ND 1.0 " " Trichlorolluoromethane ND 1.0 " I?,3-Trich]oropropane ND 1.0 " The restrtts in this reynrt r~pplr to the samples nnnli~red in ctccordnnce widr the chain of ctrs7ncl)- eloctnnent. 1'lris mrrahaicn! report nmst be reprnrlucecl in in rNirem. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA FALLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 1=Ax: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALA85.NET Page 9 of 23 fi ~ ~_ S I E R ft A ANALYTICAL Iirazan & Associates, Inc. Project: S.S.F. 21~ West Dakota Avenue Project Number: 04405005 Reported: Clovis CA, 93612 Project Manager: Art Morrill 04.%1 Si08 10:45 Volatile Organic Compounds uy EPA 1Vlethod 8260B Sierra Analytical Labs, Inc. Reportin Analyte Result Limit Units Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed', Method Notes ^ -~ ~oov-~.,v-vc~ ,.~y u.u .~a..~~~cu. v-r, v.n vu vo.-r.~ ,.a,..a,..cu. v~,v„vu ,v.v tv,r 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 1.0 µg/L I BSDOSOS 04iO7/US p4/OSiOS pS:I9 EPA S260B 1,3,x-TrimeEhylbenzene ND 1.0 " Vinyl chloride TTD 1.0 " " " " '' " m,p-Xylene ND I.0 " " " " ,~ " o-Xylene ND 1.0 _" " Sau•rognre: DiGromgJlzrnronaethcme 111 % s6-IIS ~~ Stn•rogcr/e: Toltrerre-d8 103 % 88-I10 Szrnrognle: ~1-BronroJlzrorobenzerae 100 u cS6-11~ ~~ " T/te resrrlrs in this report apph~ to zlre sonrp(es rrnulrzed fi acc•ordunce vil/r dre clruhr ~f cusrodr document. This iurnh-rich( repot! nrrtst Ge reproclrrrer! in its enrir•ern. Z6OSZ MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 1OS, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAx:(949)348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET Page 1 O Of 23 '~ ;r', ~-,_ ~ , S I E R R A Ft~fAl~'T ICAI Krazan & Associates, inc. Project: S.S.F. ~ l5 west Dakota Avenue Project Number: 0440S005 Reported: Clovis CA, 9361 Z Project t~']anaeer; Art Morri)1 04/15/08 ) 0:45 Polynuclear Aromatic Compounds by EPA Method 8310 Sierra Analytical Labs, lne. Reporting Anaiyte i2esuit Limit Units pilution Batch Prepared Analyzed A~edtod Notes Y-1 (4844118-U1} Liquid Sampled: 44/43148 48:34 Received: 44/04!08 14:00 D'iT Naphthalene ND 1,00 R~!L 1 B8D1513 04/70/08 04!lS/OS09:2S EPAS310 Acenaphthylene ND 2.00 " " „ " Acenaphthene ND 2.00 " '. " „ •, Fluorene ND 0.200 " „ " .. " Phenanthrene ND 0.200 " Anthracene ND 0.100 " „ " " Fluoranthene ND 0.200 " Pyrene ND 0?00 " " " Benzo (a) anthracene ND 0.]00 " Chrysene ND 0.200 '~ ° Benzo (b) fluoranthene ND 0?00 Benzo (k) fluoranthene ND 0.100 " " '. " Benzo (a) pyrene ND 0.100 " '• „ " " Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene ND 0.200 Benzo (~,It,i) petylene ND 0.200 " lndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene ND 0.200 " " " " Surrogate: Decc fhra-obiphenvl 4G. ? % 3D-I Li " " P-2 (0804]18-42} Liquid Sampled: 44/03/08 08:45 Recei~'ed: 04/04/08 10:44 nqp Naphthalene ND I,QQ µS/L 1 B8D1~13 04110!03 04;15;0809:25 FPA 5310 Acenaphthylene ND 2,00 " " ~~ Acenaphthene ND 2.00 Fluorene ND 0.200 '~ " Phenanthrcne ND 0.200 ~~ Anthracene ND 0.100 '~ FAioranthene ND 0.200 Pyrene ND 0.200 " " " Benzo (a) anthracene ND 0.100 " Chrysene ND 0?00 " „ " Benzo tb) f7uoranthene ND 0.200 " " Benzo (k) fhtoranthene ND 0. ] 00 '~ Benzo (a) pyrene ND 0. ] 00 " " " " ' Dibenzu(a,h)anthracene ND 0?UO " " Benzo (g,h,i) perylene ND 0.200 " .' " " '. lndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene ND 0.200 " '. " Seu•r•og«!e.• Decq/7ua•obipherly! .59.D % 30-IIJ The resalts in this report npph to the samyles annh,-;ed in accordance mirh the chain o~crrsroclp document. T/rrs annlrricul reppri nnrsr he nNrnJuced in its entirefi. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 926$3 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET Page 1 1 Of?3 ~: StERft,4 5N k!YTICA! Krazan & Associates, Inc. Project S.S.F. 215 West Dakota Avenue Project Number: 04403005 Reported: Clovis CA, 93612 Project Manager: Art \Aorrill 04113/OS 10:45 Com~entional Chemistry Parameters b1' APHA/EPA Methods -Quality Control Sierra Analytical Labs, lnc. Reporting Spike Source °%REC RPD Anatyce Result Limit Units Level Resuh %REC Limits-..RPp Limic Notes Batch B8D1026 -General Preparation Blank (B8D1026-BLK1) __ _ Prepared & Analyzed: 04/OS!OS Annnonia as N ND 0.100 mg/L Blank (B8D1026-BLIi2) _ - __ Prepared & Analyzed: 04104/OS Ammonia as N ND 0.100 mg/L The results in this report apply ro rhr sanrplca• atralr_ed ir7 nccw'danrr a i1h dye chain q(crrstadr doczunenl. This nrralvUcal report murv he reproduced in i!s enriren'- 2EO$2 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE IOS, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET Page 12 of 23 ~:, ,~ S G E R R A ANALYTICAL Krazan & Associates, Inc. Project: S.S.F. Z15 `'t'est Dakota Avei~tte Pro}ect Number: 04405005 Reported: Clovis CA, 93612 Project Manager: Art Morrill 04/15105. 10:45 Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods -Quality Control Sierra Analytical Labs, loc. Reporting Spike Source "uRL-C RPD nalyte Result Limi[ Units Level Result °oRGC Limits RPD Limit Notes Batch B8D0939 -EPA 204 Series Blank ($8D0939-BLKl} Prepared: 04r09/08 Analyzed: 04!10lOS Arsenic ND OA25 mg'L Cadmium ND 0.0040. " Chromium ND O.U060 Copper ND 0.012 Lead ND 0.019 Nickel ND O.U10 " Selenium ND 0.026 Silver ND 0.0030 " Zinc ND 0.024 LCS (B8D0939-BSl) Prepared: 04l09i05 Analyzed: 04;10/OS __. Arsenic 0.196 0.025 mgrL 0.200 95.0 ' SO-120 Cadmium 0.190 0.0040 0.200 95.0 SS-11~ Chromium 0?O1 0.0060 0.200 l0U SS-115 Copper 0.195 0.012 0.200 99.0 SS-115 Lead 0.202 0.019 0.200 101 SS-] 15 Nickel 0.205 U.OIU 0.240 102 SS-115 Selenium 0.139 0.026 0.200 94.5 SS-179 Silver 0.197 0.0030 0.200 93.5 SS-115 Zinc 0.1 S9 0.24 0:?00 94.5 SS-] 15 Niatris Spike (B8D0939-1\'ISI) Sou rcci 0804072-04 Prepared: 04109!08 Analyzed: 04110/05 Arsenic 0.206 UA25 me/L 0.200 ND 103 70-130 Cadmium O.iSS OA040 0 Z00 000L1 93.4 70-130 Chrmnium O.ISG 0.0060 O~UO 0.0025 91.5 75-130 Copper 0.205 0.012 0.200 ND 104 70-130 Lead QlS3 0.419 0:100 ND 91S 7U-134 Nickel 0.136 0.010 OIUO 0.0045 90.3 70-)30 Selenium 0.205 0.026 0.200 0.014 95.5 70-li0 Silver 0?OS 0.0030 (1.200 ND 102 70-130 Zinc 0.196 DA24 0?00 0.022 S7.0 70-130 The resifts itt this report appip to the samples intai)::ei/ in aecnrclance lrirh the chnin of custoc/r docrnnent. Tl>is cntah lien( reyort must he reprodicetf ix irs entiren-. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LACUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 926$3 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAx: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET Paoe 13 of 23 E -~ 5 1 E R R ,4 AfJALYTICAL Krazan & Associates. Inc. Project: S.S.F. 215 West Dakota Avenue Project Number: 04405005 Reported: Clovis CA, 93612 Project Manager. Art Morrill 04/lS/OS 10:45 Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods -Quality Conh•ol Sierra Analytical Labs. Inc. Repor[in~ Spike Source "/aREC RS'D Analyze Result Limit Units Level Result °,oREC Limits RPD Limit Nines Batch B8D0939 -EPA 200 Series Matrix Spike Dup (B8D0939-MSDI) __ Source: 0804072-04 Prepared: 04/09!OS Analyzed: 04r l0lOS Arsenic 0.203 0.025 mgfL O.Z00 ND 102 70-130 1.47 20 Cadmiuin 0.1 S7 0.0040 0.200 0.001 ] 93.0 70-130 0.533 20 Chromium 0.7 SS 0.0060 4.200 0.0025 91.2 75-]30 0.539 20 Copper 0.207 0.012 0.200 ND 104 70-130 0.452 20 Lead 0.]Sl 0.019 0.200 ND 90.5 70-130 1.10 20 Nicke] O.1S5 0.010 0.200 0.0045 90? 70-130 0.539 20 Selenium 0.203 0.026 0 '00 0.014 94.5 70-130 0.950 20 Sih~er 0.205 O.U030 Q200 ND 102 70-130 0.00 20 Zinc 0.193 0.024 0?00 0.022 85.5 70-)30 L54 20 Batch B8D1403 -EPA 200 Series Blank (BSD1403-BLKI) -- _ ___ _Prepared r~ Analyzed: 0~1,~]4/OS ]vlcrcurv ND 0.00073 ma/L LCS {BSD1403-BSl) Prepared & Analyzed: 04;` 14!03 Mercury 0.00115 Q00073 mgiL 0.00100 115 75-125 i\'latris Spike (I3Sll1403-1\'ISI) Source: 0304116-OG Prepared & Analyzed: 04,t14/OS h4ercmy 0.0(1115 0.0007; me/L 0.00100 ND 113 74 ]~5 Matrix Spike Dup (BSD1403-NISD1) Source: OSO47IG-06 Prepared & Analyzed: 04!14108 Mercury 0.0011.3 0.00073 mgJL -0.00100 ND 1~3 75-i25 4.1> 20 The resalrs iu this report app(r~ to the sunvpies nnolt ~ecl in nccarrlance !+'iJr dte chain of cus7oclt' rJocmxenl. This arralrtical report nnest he reprodrlred in its enrirern. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNa HILLS, CALIFORNIA 926$3 TELEPNONE:(949} 348-9389 Fax: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET Page l4 of 23 S I E R R A ANA LV 7ICAL Krazan & Associates, Inc. Project: S.S.F. 21 S West Dakota Avenue Project Number: 04408007 Reporrea: Clovis CA, 93612 Project Manaeer: Art Mon•ill 04(18rOS 10:45 Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A -Quality Control Sierra Analytical Labs, Inc. Reporting Spike Source f REC RPD tnalyte Result Limit Units Leeel Result ~%REC Limits RPD Limit Notes Batch B8D1418 -EPA 3510C Sep Funnel Blank (B8D1418-BLKi) _ v Prepared: 04!14; OS Analyzed: 04;16/08 _-- Aldrin ND O.fl20 µe/L HCH-alpha ND 0.010 HCH-beta ND O.U20 " HCH-delta ND O.OIU " HCH-~amma(Lindane) ND 0.010 " Chlordane ND 0.050 " ~ 4'-DDD ND 0.020 4.4'-DDE ND 0.030 " 4,4'-DDT ND 0.030 " Dieldrin ND 0.070 " Endosulfan i ND OA20 " Endosulfan 11 ND U.O50 Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.010 " L•ndrin ND 0.060 " Endrin aldehyde ND 0.010 " Endrin ketone ND 0.010 " Heptachlor ND 0.010 " Heptachlor epoxide ND 0:010 " A•iethoxvchtor ND OSO " Toxaphene ND Q50 Sru-r•ognre: Decachlarofiipheny! 0.199 Q150 -'_ 746 4~-147 Snr-rogate: TenncJrlrn-o-nrern-.rnlene O.IC? 0.?50 ~4.b' 4?-Id7 LCS (BSD1413-BS1) _ _ Prepared: 04/14/OS Analyzed: 04!16.!0_S Aldrin 0.0750 0.020 µg/L OASUO 93.5 SO-120 HCH-emnnm (Lindane) 0.0714 0.010 0.0800 59.2 SO-120 4,4'-DDT 0.174 0.030 " 0.200 57.0 SO-120 Dieldritt 0.195 0.0]0 0?UO 99.0 SO-120 Heptachlor 0.0?S1 0.010 O.OSU(1 97.6 SD-120 The resrdrs in this repot r apph~ ro the samples unulv_erl in uccordurree trilh the c•lrnirr gjcustorh- clvevnreru. l his urrnh'dcal repa•r must br reprodacec/ nr iu entiren•. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, L4GllNA }-{ILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET Page l 5 of 23 •~ -----_ S I E R R A AtJFLYTIC~! Krazan cC Associates, Inc. Project: S.S.F. 21 ~ \~'est Dakota Avenue Project Number: 04408005 Reported: Clovis CA, 93612 Project Ivlana~er: Art ~/forrill 0411 S/08 10:4 Organochlot•ine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A -Quality Control Sierra Analytical Labs, Inc. Reponing Spike Source "~REC RPD .4nalyte Result Limit Units Levzl Resuh %RCC Limits RPD Limit Notes Batch B8D1418 -EPA 35] OC Sep Funnel Matrix Spike (B8D7418-~'iSl) Source: 0804118-O1 Prepared: 04!14,'08 Analyzed: 04/I6/08 Aldrin 0.0666 -0.020 ue/L O.OS00 ND 53.2 50-I50 HCH-~annna (Lindane) 0.0711 0.010 O.OS00 ND SS.9 50-150 4:?'-DDT 0.106 0.030 0200 ND 53.0 50-150 Dieldrin 0.253 0.010 0.200 ND 126 50-150 Heptachlor 0.0711 0.010 0.0300 ND 55.9 50-150 Matrix Spike Dap (BSD1418-11'iSDI) __ Source: 0804178-01 Prepared: 04/14!08 Analyzed: 04!]6/08 Aldrin 0.0734 0.020 µgrL 0.0300 ND 91.5 50-150 8.71 30 HCH-eannna(Lindttne) 0.0775 0.010 U.O500 ND 96.9 50-550 S.b] 30 4.4'-DDT 0.130 0.030 0200 ND 65.0 50-150 20.3 30 Dietdrin 0251 0.0]0 0.200 ND ]40 Sfl-150 J0.5 3U Heptachlor 0.0774 0.010 O.OS00 ND 96.5 50-150 3.45 30 The resrr/ts in this report npp(r to the samples analv_ed in accordance +rilh the chain of castnclr ck~crnnent. This anrrh~tica! report nm.rt he reproduced hr H.> entirem. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA FALLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHOnIe: (949} 348-9389 FAx: (949} 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NET Page 16 of 23 } F ,~.:.. .._.__~A S~aE~R RqA Krazan & Associates. Inc. Project: S.S.F. 3 ~ West Dakota A~~enue Project Number: 0440800> Reported: ~lo~is CA, 93612 Project \1ana~er: Art Morrill 04/18/08 10:45 Polychlorinated Biphenyls by EPA IV7ethod 8082 -Quality Control Sierra Anah'tical Labs, Inc. Reporting Spike Source "%REC RPD Analyze Result Limit Units Lend Result ! IZEC Limits RPD Limi+ A'otes Batch B8D141$ -EPA 3510C Sep Funnel Blank (B8DS418-BLK1) Prepared: 04!14;0$ Analyzed: 04/76/03 ~~ PCB-lOlEi ND Q50 ~ µ+~!L PCB-122] ND 0.50 ' PCB-1232 ND Q90 " PCB-1243 ND 0.50 " PCB-1248 ND OSO " PCB-1254 ND 0.50 PCB-1260 ND OSO " ,Sarno„ate: Decac/tla•oGiphenr'1 0.199 0._'?0 79.6 41.147 - $rpTO~a16: T(ft'aChlOrp-1t7('fG-.lt"1Cttt' 0.161 " 0.?9t1 fi9.,S 41-147 LCS (B8D14i8-BS]) Prepared: 0=t!14%08 Analyzed: 04(16/03 PCB-1260 ~JS 0.50 µ~jL 2.00 109 SO-1 Z0 il4atris Spike (B8D1418-MSl} Source: 0804118-01 Prepared: 04/14(03 Analyzed_ 04;16lOS _.... ___ YC'B-1260 2.35 0.50 µg!L 2.00 ND 119 50-150 n'latrix Spike Dup (B8D1A18-f\9SD1) - _ Source: 0804]18-O1 Prepared: 041]4!08 Analyzed: 04/16/03 _. . _ ______ PCB-1260 1.95 0.50 µg/L 2.00 ND 97.5 90-190 t9.9 30 The resu/ts in t/ris rryort nyplr ut the sanryles attah'.ec1 in arrorclvnce frith the cltnitt a/ cuctoel~~ cloeuutent, This iftrah tica(report must 6e reyroduced ix its entirena 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949} 348-9389 Fax: (949} 348-9115. E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALAB5.NET Page 17 of 23 a . i S h E R R .4 ANA LY71CAl ~razan & Associates, Inc. Project: S.S.F. ? 15 ~V est Dakota Avenue Project Number: 04405005 Reported: ~lovis CA, 93612 Project Manager: Art Morrill 04/IS/OS 10:4 Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260E -Quality Control Sierra Analytical Labs, lnc. Reporting Spike Source ",'DREG RPD Analyze Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes Batch B8D0805 -EPA 5030B P 3c T Blank (B8D0805-BLKl) _ _ _ _ Prepared: 04/07IOS Analyzed: 04/05/08 Benzene ND 1.0 ug/t Bromobenzene ND 1.0 " Bromochlorotnethune ND 1.0 Bromodichloromethane ND 1.0 Btromofonn ND 1.0 " Bromomethane ND 1.0 " n-Butvlbenzene ND 1.0 " sec-Bnrylbenzene ND 1.0 " tort-Butylbenzene ND 1.0 " Carbon ten-achloride ND l.U Chlorobenzene ND 1.0 Chloroethane ND 1.0 Chloroform ND 1.0 ' Chloromethane ND 1.0 2-Chlm-utohtene ND LO 4-Chlorotohtene ND I.0 " Dibromochioromethane ND I.0 1?-Dibromp-~-chloropropaute ND i.U " 1.'-Dibromoethane (L-DB) ND {.0 " Dibromomethane ND 1.0 L2-Dichlorobenzene ND l.U " 1.3-Dichlorobenzene ND 1.0 " 1.4-Dichlorobenzene ND l.0 " Dichlorodifhtoromethane ND 1.0 " I.1-Diclslm'oethane ND 1.0 " 1..7.-Dichloroethane ND I.0 " l.l-Dichloroethene ND 1.0 " cis-l,?-Dichloroethene ND 1.0 " n-ans-l2-Dichloroethene ND 1.0 L2-Dichloropropane ND I.0 l,:-Dichloropropane ND l.0 " ?,2-Dichloropropane ND 1.0 " 1,1-Dichloropropene ND 1.0 cis-1.~-Dichloropropene ND 1.0 treats-1„-Dichloropropene ND L(.1 " L-thylbenzene ND ].0 I3exachlorobutadiene ND ].0 " Tl7e re.)'1/I!S ill th/J' I'f'pa'! CffJ1J~1' /D 1I7e .t'C701fJIL'J' Cf77G(l'=L't! 177 OC'C'01'C/OpC'C' frith the chain afcrrsx7clr docunrrnl. This unalrlicu! repro'! rnnst be r eproc(a7ced in its entire(v. 26O5Z MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALA85 @ SIERRALABS.NET Pa,e 1$ of 23 /, 5 1 E R R .A AriRl`!T IC<! Krazan ~ Associates,Ine. Project: S.S.F. '_l~ West Dakota Avenue Project Number: 04408005 Reported: Clovis CA, 93b12 Project Manager: Art Mon-ill 04/] 8/OS 10:45 Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260B -Qua{ity Control Sierra Anal~rtical Labs, loc. Reporting Spike Source °!oREC RPD nalyte Result Limit Units Level Result % RL-C Limits RPD Limit \otes Batch B8D0805 -EPA 5030B P & T Blank (BSD0805-BLK]) Prepared: 04/07(OS Analyzed: 04(08(08 Isopropylbenzene ND 1.0 ug/L p-Isopropyholuene ND 1.0 " Methylene chloride ND 1:0 Methyl tert-butyl ether ND ].0 " Naphthalene ND 1.0 " n-Propylbenzene ND 1.0 " Srvrene ND 1.0 " 1.1,1,2-Ten'achloroethane ND 1.0 " 1.1.2,2-Tetrachloroeth. ne ND I.0 " I-eR'achloroethene ND 1.0 " Toluene ND lA 1.2.;-Trichlorobenzene ND 1.0 " ]:_'.4-Trichlorobenzene ND ].0 " ]-l.l-Trichloroethane ND 1.0 " 1.1.2-Trichloroethane ND 1.0 Trichloroethene ND I.0 " Ttich}oroflu~romethane ND 1.0 " ],2._-Trichloropropane ND LO " ].2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 1.0 " 1,:.5-Trimethylbenzene ND 1.0 " Vinyl chlo+'ide ND 1.0 " m,p-Xylene ND 7.0 " o ;\vlene ND 1.0 Surro~ute: DiGrorn~Jl:rorcnnethane Sll.d _ _ s(J,(J _ _ NJI _ _. _ S6-IIS Sru-rogure: Toluena'-dS ?(J.3 50.0 10J 88-1 JO S'rn•rogate: 4-Bronco/Jucn'ohenrerre 54.4 -S~.O 109 Sfi-1 JS LCS (B8D0805-BSJ) Prepared: 04!07/08 Analyzed: 04?OS/0S . _ _ Benzene 52.5 1.0 µgiL i0.0 105 40 1'0 C'hlorobenzene 46.2 1.0 SQO 92.4 SO-120 1,1-Dichloroetheue ~4S 1.0 SQO 109 SO-120 Toluene 57.7 I.0 50.0 11 ~ 30-120 Tnchlaroethcnc 56:5 LO 50.0 114 SO-120 Thc' PC'1'r!1!y' Ir7 I171.S /'B~Orl U(JJJJ7' !D tlrc d'(l117JJJPS C'Orah'=C'(! O7 GCi01'C/GRCr' ltp(1] (17l C'1rCU17 of C'»5'!DC/1' docanrent. Thrs analvtrca! report rnu~t Ge reproduced in ies entir4h. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 1OS, EAGUNA HILIS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 Fax: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRAIABS.NET Page 19 of 23 a S I Eft R ,4 aruntvrickt Krazan & Associates, Inc. Project: S.S.F. 215 tiVest Dakota Avenue Project Number: 0440800 Reportra: Clovis CA, 93612 Project Manager: Art Morrill 04/1 S/08 10:4_ Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260B -Quality Control Sierra Analytical Labs, Inc. Repor[ine Spike Source ^,laREC RPD .4nalyte Result Limit Units Lecel Result %REC Limits RPD Limit \otes Batch B8D0805 -EPA 5030B P S T Matrix Spike (B8D0805-MSl} Source: 0804109-10 Prepared: 04(07!08 Analyzed: 04!08103 Benzene 52.1 1.0 µe!L 50.0 ND 104 37-151 Chlorobenzene 9.7 1.0 50.0 N D 79.4 37-160 1,1-Dichloroethene ,6.5 1.0 50.0 ND 73.6 50-150 Toluene 44.6 1.0 50.0 ND S92 47.150 Ttichloroethene 46.1 1.0 50.0 ND 92.2 71-157 Mtttris Spike Dup ($8D0805-MSDI) Sourc e: 0804109-10 Prepared: 04J07/OS Analyzed: 04/08/08 Benzene 57.0 1.0 µe!L 50.0 ND 114 37-151 8:J5 30 Cit]oroben2ene 43.4 LO 50.0 ND S6.3 37J60 5.90 30 1,1-Dichloroethene 42.5 1.0 50.0 ND 55.0 50-150 14.4 30 Toluene 5L0 1.0 50.0 ND 102 47-150 1..4 30 Ttichloroethene 52.3 1.0 50.0 ND 105 71-157 12.6 30 The results in dris repor/ apph m /he sunrp(es unnlrud in crecordarrce x ilh the c/min o/ cusrodr docmrrerv. This mrcdnticu/report mus[ lae r-eprocl:a'ed in its erviren~. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE lO$, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 SAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS @ SIERRALABS.NEr Page 2O Of 23 A t S I E R R R AM At~'T IChI Krazan ~~ ,Associales, Inc. Project: S.S.F. 5 West Dakota Avenue Project Number: 04403005 Reported: Clovis CA, 93612 Project Manager: Art Morrill 04(18/OS 10:45 Polynuclear Aromatic Compounds by EPA Method 8310 -Quality Control Sierra Analytical Labs, Inc. Reporting Spike Source 4„REC RPD 4nalvte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limi[s RPD Limi[ Notes Batch B8I)1513 -EPA 3510C Sep Funnel Blank(BRD1513-BLK1) _ - R Prepared: 04/]0/OS Analyzed: 04/13(08 Naphthalene _ ND ~ 0.500 µU~`L .4cenaphrhylene ND 1.00 " Acenaph[hene ND 1.00 " Fhiorene ND 0.100 " Phenandvene ND 0.100 Anthracene ND 0.000 " Fluoranthene ND UJ00 Pvrcnc ND 0.100 " Benzo (a) anthracene ND 0.0500 " Chrvsene ND 0.100 " Benzo (b) thtotanthene ND 0:100 Benzo {k) tluoranthene ND 0.0500 Benzo (a} pyrene ND 0.0500 Dibenzo{a,h)antluacene ND 0.100 Benzo (e,h,i) perylene ND 0.100 Indeno (1,2.3-cd) pyrene ND 0.100 --- " Sur-ragate: Drcu/luorabiphenpl 8.07 10.0 50,7 30-I1 LCS (B8D1513-BS1) _- Prepared: 04l10!OS Ana]yzed: 04/18lOS -- - Naphthalene U97S0 ' 0.500 µg/L 0.100 - 74.0 60-]30 _ Fluorene O,U730 0.100 0.100 T,.O 6U-130 Pvrene 0.104 O.lUO 0.100 104 Ci0-130 Benzo(a)pyrene O.OS20 0.0500 O.i00 52.0 60-f30 ]ndeno (1,2,. -cd) pyrene 0.0640 ^ 0.100 ' 0.100 64.0 (iU-130 Surrugure: Dcra/lno,rohiphe,nl - ----- 7.9d •' IO.U 79.2 ~(1-IIS LCS (B8Di5i3-BS2) Prepared: 04l10i08 Aualyzed: 04liS/08 Naphthalene (l,OS60 0.500 µg/L 0.]00 S6.U 60-130 Fluorine O.lOU 0.100 0.100 100 60-liU Pvrene O.lU4 0.100 0.100 lUS ti0-13U Benzo (a) pyrene 0.106 0.0500 0.100 106 60-130 htdenu (i.2,?-cd) pyrene 0.0960 0.100 0.100 9Ci.Ct 60-130 SenraLine: DecaJluoroGiplrerrrl 7.Sb' 10.0 '?.8 i(1-/1? The results in dris report applt~ to the smnples aaoh>_ed i,r accordance frith the chain c~l~cusmdr document. This cnxrlrtical re:pcn~t nrusr be rcprochrced irr its entirep. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE IOS, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949} 348-9389 FAx: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIER