HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-28 e-packet
A
GENDA
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REGULAR MEETING
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
COMMUNITY ROOM
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2011
7:00 P.M.
PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council
business, we proceed as follows:
The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at
7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco,
California.
Public Comment: For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-Agendized item,
please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber’s and submit it to the City
Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public
comment. California law prevents the City Council 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
(optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER.
Thank you for your cooperation.
The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes
reading an item, it will be ready for Council action.
KEVIN MULLIN
Mayor
RICHARD A. GARBARINO MARK N. ADDIEGO
Vice Mayor Councilman
PEDRO GONZALEZ KARYL MATSUMOTO
Councilman Councilwoman
RICHARD BATTAGLIA KRISTA MARTINELLI
City Treasurer City Clerk
BARRY M. NAGEL STEVEN T. MATTAS
City Manager City Attorney
PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS
HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, 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
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PRESENTATIONS
Proclamation establishing October as Fire Prevention Month in the City of South San
Francisco.
AGENDA REVIEW
PUBLIC COMMENTS
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
Announcements.
Committee Reports.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1.Motion to approve the minutes of September 14, 2011.
2.Motion to approve expense claims of September 28, 2011.
3.Motion approving response to Grand Jury regarding Aircraft Noise Report.
4.Resolution approving an agreement with Miracle Playsystems, Inc. for the purchase and
installation of Playground Equipment at Orange Memorial Park in an amount not to
exceed $307,743.
5.Resolution awarding a construction contract to Bayview Painting and Construction of
Burlingame, California, for the City Hall exterior lead based paint stabilization
(Abatement), and City Hall, Tower, and City Hall Annex painting project in an amount
not to exceed $120,000.
LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
6.Waive reading and introduce an ordinance relating to Franchise Towing Agreement and
Resolution approving Franchise Towing Agreement
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 2011
AGENDA PAGE 2
PUBLIC HEARING
7.Project #: P10-0031 – GPA10-0002, UP10-0031, DR10-0015 & ND10-0003
GIMBAL’S FINE CANDIES
John M. Ward – Applicant
Gimbal, Lance North & P L TR – Owner
250 HILLSIDE BLVD. APN - 012070360
General Plan Amendment, Use Permit, Design Review and Negative Declaration to
construct an 8,810 sf addition to an existing 28,902 sf food preparation use and to allow a
6 space parking reduction at 250 Hillside Blvd in the Community Commercial (CC)
Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.090, 20.330, 20.460, 20.480,
20.490 & 20.540.
8.Resolution authorizing submittal of 2010-2011 Consolidated Annual Performance and
Evaluation Report (CAPER) to the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD); and CDBG-R Budget
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
9.Motion to approve transmittal of Annual Financial and Audit Reports for Fiscal Year
2009-2010.
10.Resolution approving the Conference Center FY 2011-12 Operating/Capital Budget.
11.Resolution authorizing Shelter Network to submit a grant application to the County of
San Mateo Continuum of Care (COC) for the Permanent Supportive Housing Bonus of
$215,065 in order to implement a Permanent Urban Supportive Housing Program and a
Homeless Outreach Team in South San Francisco; including a letter of support from the
City of South San Francisco committing to the provision of housing, consisting of 18
bedroom, for program participants.
12.Resolution amending the 2011-2012 fiscal year budget table of organization for the
Public Works Department adding the position of Assistant Public Works Director/City
Engineer and deleting the position of City Engineer and revising the salary schedule for
the Mid-Management Unit
COMMUNITY FORUM
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 2011
AGENDA PAGE 3
DRAFT
INITIAL STUDY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GIMBAL’S FINE CANDY
250 HILLSIDE BOULEVARD
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
LEAD AGENCY:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION
315 MAPLE AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
(650) 877-8535
JUNE 3, 2011
Prepared by:
ALLISON KNAPP WOLLAM CONSULTING
www.AllisonKnappConsulting.com
TABLEOFCONTENTS
CHAPTERPAGE
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1Initial Study and Legislative Framework 1-1
1.2City of South San Francisco Project Review Process and 1-4
Mitigation Measures Required by Law
1.3Lead Agency Determination 1-12
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1Project Location and Setting 2-1
2.2Project Description 2-3
2.3Required Entitlements 2-7
2.4General Plan and Zoning 2-8
CHAPER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3.1Aesthetics3-2
3.2Agricultural Resources 3-7
3.3Air Quality 3-8
3.4Biological Resources 3-33
3.5Cultural Resources 3-35
3.6Geology and Soils 3-38
3.7Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3-45
3.8Hydrology and Water Quality 3-51
3.9Land Use and Planning 3-56
3.10Mineral Resources 3-59
3.11Noise3-61
3.12Population and Housing 3-69
3.13Public Services 3-71
3.14Recreation3-72
3.15Transportation and Traffic 3-74
3.16Utilities and Service Systems 3-78
3.17Mandatory Findings of Significance 3-82
3.17.ASummary of Findings 3-83
APPENDIX A 4-1
i
1
I
NTRODUCTION
IS/LF
1.1
NITIAL TUDYEGISLATIVERAMEWORK
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), which can be found in the California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section
21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines found in California Code of Regulations Title 14,
Chapter 3, (CCR) Section 15000 et seq., as amended. This Initial Study identifies the
potential environmental impacts associated with grading, construction and future occupancy
of the Project which includes any reasonably foreseeable impacts associated with the Project
in its entirety. CEQA (PRC Section 21065) defines a Project as:
An activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and which is any
of the following:
a)An activity directly undertaken by a public agency.
b)An activity undertaken by a person which is supported, in whole or in part,
through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one
or more public agencies.
c)An activity that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license,
certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more agencies.
The Applicant is seeking entitlements to expand their existing candy manufacturing facility
at 250 Hillside Boulevard in South San Francisco, California. An 8,800 square foot addition
to an existing 28,900 square foot building on a 75,433 square foot site is being requested.
The request triggers legislative, adjudicative, and ministerial actions. Legislative actions
include a proposed Amendment to the City’s General Plan to address the expansion of a legal
nonconforming use (Section 3.8, Land Use); adjudicative actions include a conditional use
permit and design review; and the ministerial action includes a grading permit.
The proposed project (Project) meets criteria “c”, identified above, and therefore requires
environmental review. Preparation of an environmental analysis and subsequent
environmental determination is required prior to or simultaneously with entitlement review.
Environmental review does not constitute Project approval, but is an independent analysis of
potential Project impacts and mitigation measures. The Lead Agency may after review of the
250--ISP1-1
HILLSIDE BOULEVARDGIMBAL CANDYNITIALTUDYAGE
C1:I
HAPTER NTRODUCTION
entirety of the record, find that the environmental analysis is adequate and approve,
disapprove or conditionally approve the Project based upon environmental and merits review.
The Lead Agency for this document is the City of South San Francisco. The Planning
Commission will make a recommendation on this document and the requested Project
entitlements. The recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for final action.
These actions will take place in legally-noticed public hearings.
This Initial Study, City Project Number: P10-0031, UP10-0004, GPA10-0002 and DR10-
0015 is for the Project identified as 250 Hillside Boulevard in South San Francisco,
California (APN: 012-070-360). The 75,433 square foot (1.73 acre) lot is developed with
28,902 square foot candy manufacturing facility.
Project Applicant/Team/Contact
The property owner and applicant is Gimbal Lance North & PL TR represented by Estle
Kominowski. The applicant has assembled a Project team consisting of Jerry Winges of
Winges Architects, Inc., as the architect, Roland Haga of BKF Engineers as the civil
engineer, Matt Gruber of Callandar Associates as the landscape architect, and John Ward of
John M. Ward and Associates as the Project manager. The contact for the Project is:
John Ward
792 Willborough Place
Burlingame, CA 94010
(650) 342-0683
Lead Agency/Contact
The Lead Agency for this Initial Study is the City of South San Francisco. The
administrative record for the Project is on file at the City’s Planning Division. The following
person has been assigned as the custodian and Case Planner/Project Manager for the Lead
Agency:
Billy Gross, Associate Planner
Department of Economic and Community Development-Planning Division
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080 (650) 877-8535
Main Contact
: Questions on this document should be directed to:
Allison Knapp Wollam, Environmental Consultant
Knapp Planning and Environmental Consulting
511 Linden Street, Suite B
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 902-3238
P1-2250--IS
AGE HILLSIDE BOULEVARDGIMBAL CANDYNITIAL TUDY
C1:I
HAPTER NTRODUCTION
The environmental consulting team consists of Allison Knapp Wollam Consulting, KB
Environmental Engineering for the hazard risk assessments and Miller Consulting for the air
quality analysis.
Documents Incorporated Herein By Reference
GEOLOGY
Geotechnical Investigation Gimbal’s Building Expansion, 250 Hillside Boulevard, South San
Francisco, CA, Cornerstone Earth Group, May 28, 2010.
Geotechnical Peer Review, Geotechnical Investigation Gimbal’s Building Expansion, 250
Hillside Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA , Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., March 14,
2011.
Geotechnical Investigation Gimbal’s Building Expansion Responses, 250 Hillside Boulevard,
South San Francisco, CA, Cornerstone Earth Group, April 9, 2011.
Geotechnical Peer Review, Geotechnical Investigation Gimbal’s Building Expansion, 250
Hillside Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA , Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., March 14,
2011.
Geotechnical Peer Review, Geotechnical Investigation Gimbal’s Building Expansion, 250
Hillside Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA , Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., April 22,
2011.
250-–IS P1-3
HILLSIDE BOULEVARDGIMBAL CANDYNITIALTUDYAGE
C1:I
HAPTER NTRODUCTION
1.2CSSFPR
ITY OF OUTH ANRANCISCOROJECT EVIEW
PM
ROCESS AND ITIGATION MEASURES REQUIRED BY
LAW
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. As such, these requirements are considered a part of the
Project, not a separate and distinct requirement.
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 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 are 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 from City staff or in
absence of the requirements being incorporated into the Project plans.
P1-4250--IS
AGE HILLSIDE BOULEVARDGIMBAL CANDYNITIAL TUDY
C1:I
HAPTER NTRODUCTION
1. Aesthetics
Aesthetics Light and Glare:
Signage is required to be reviewed by staff, and in some
instances the Design Review Board and 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 Sign Permit
procedure (Chapter 20.360 South San Francisco Municipal Code-Zoning). The Planning
Division implements and monitors this requirement.
Projects are reviewed by the City’s Design Review Board consisting of professional
architects and landscape architects. The Planning Commission and in some cases the City
Council adds design elements to projects. Projects that are within a state or local scenic
corridor are further addressed through the CEQA process.
2. Air Quality
Air Quality 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.
250-–IS P1-5
HILLSIDE BOULEVARDGIMBAL CANDYNITIALTUDYAGE
C1:I
HAPTER NTRODUCTION
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.
l)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.
n)All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance
with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified
mechanic and determined to be in proper running order prior to operation.
o)Diesel powered equipment shall not be left inactive and idling for more than five
minutes, and shall comply with applicable BAAQMD rules.
p)Use alternative fueled construction equipment, if possible.
q)All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
r)Post a visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead
Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective
action within 24 hours. The Air District phone number shall also be visible to ensure
compliance with applicable regulations.
Air Quality 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 are 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.
Air Quality Vehicle Emissions:
The potential for air quality degradation from vehicle
emissions is regulated to some extent by Section 20.400.003 of the South San Francisco
Code. Table 20.400.003 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
P1-6250--IS
AGE HILLSIDE BOULEVARDGIMBAL CANDYNITIAL TUDY
C1:I
HAPTER NTRODUCTION
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.
3. Geology and Soils
Geology and Soils 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.
Geology and Soils 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 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.
4. Hydrology and Water Quality
Hydrology and Water Quality:
South San Francisco updated their development review
procedure January, 2010 to implement the new, regional requirements mandated by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board that will affect private development projects
beginning December 1, 2011. The following is a summary of applicable new requirements in
Provisions C.3.b.ii and C.3.c.i.2 of the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional
Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (“Municipal Regional
Permit” or “MRP”). The full text may be downloaded at
www.flowstobay.org/ms_municipalities.php.
New restrictions on methods of stormwater treatment require that beginning December 1,
2011, all projects that are required to treat stormwater will need to treat the permit-specified
amount of stormwater runoff with low impact development methods. These methods include
rainwater harvesting and reuse, infiltration, evapotranspiration, or biotreatment. However,
biotreatment (filtering stormwater through vegetation and soils before discharging to the
storm drain system) will be allowed only where harvesting and reuse, infiltration and
evapotranspiration are infeasible at the Project site. Vault-based treatment will not be
allowed as a stand-alone treatment measure. Where stormwater harvesting and reuse,
250-–IS P1-7
HILLSIDE BOULEVARDGIMBAL CANDYNITIALTUDYAGE
C1:I
HAPTER NTRODUCTION
infiltration, or evapotranspiration are infeasible, vault-based treatment measures may be used
in series with biotreatment, for example, to remove trash or other large solids. (see Provision
C.3.c.i.2 of the MRP.)
New rules for auto service facilities, retail gasoline outlets, restaurants, and uncovered
parking begin on December 1, 2011. At that time, projects that create and/or replace 5,000
square feet or more of impervious surface related to auto service facilities retail gasoline
outlets, restaurants, and/or surface parking will be required to provide low impact
development treatment of stormwater runoff. This requirement will apply to uncovered
parking that is stand-alone, or included as part of any other development project, and it
applies to the top uncovered portion of a parking structure, unless drainage from the
uncovered portion is connected to the sanitary sewer (see Provision C.3.b.ii.1 of the MRP).
For all other land use categories, 10,000 square feet will remain the regional threshold for
requiring low impact development, source control, site design, and stormwater treatment,
although municipalities may have the authority to require treatment to the maximum extent
practicable for smaller projects. The new requirements are built into the following standard
requirements.
Hydrology and Water Quality 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.
P1-8250--IS
AGE HILLSIDE BOULEVARDGIMBAL CANDYNITIAL TUDY
C1:I
HAPTER NTRODUCTION
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.
f)Drainage from paved surfaces shall be filtered through vegetated swales, buffer or
sand strips before discharge to the City’s storm drain system.
Hydrology and Water Quality 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 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 of 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.
f)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.
250-–IS P1-9
HILLSIDE BOULEVARDGIMBAL CANDYNITIALTUDYAGE
C1:I
HAPTER NTRODUCTION
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.
l)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
th
grading during the wet weather season, October 15 to April 15.
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.
5. Noise
Noise Interior Ambient Noise:
The City of South San Francisco regulates noise exposure
through state law and their General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan. 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
dn
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 L).
dn
P1-10250--IS
AGE HILLSIDE BOULEVARDGIMBAL CANDYNITIAL TUDY
C1:I
HAPTER NTRODUCTION
Title 24 requirements are enforced as a condition of building permit issuance by the Building
Division.
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
PlanAircraft 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, L, echoing state law. Residential land uses are
eq
prohibited. The Noise Guidelines are implemented by the Planning Division through new
project review.
Noise 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 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.
250-–IS P1-11
HILLSIDE BOULEVARDGIMBAL CANDYNITIALTUDYAGE
2
PD
ROJECTESCRIPTION
PLS
2.1
ROJECTOCATION AND ETTING
Project Location
The Project is at 250 Hillside Boulevard in South San Francisco, California. The Project site is
located in the northern portion of the City. The site can be accessed via Airport Boulevard to
South Linden Avenue then to Hillside Boulevard or from Sister Cities Boulevard to Hillside
See Figure 2.1 Project Location
Boulevard..
FIGURE 2.1
PROJECT LOCATION
250--ISP2-1
HILLSIDE BOULEVARDGIMBAL CANDYNITIAL TUDY AGE
C2:PD
HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION
FIGURE 2.2
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Site Characteristics
See Figure 2.2, Site
The 75,433 square foot Project site is predominately rectilinear in shape.
Characteristics
. The majority of the site is less than a 10% slope, 58 feet in elevation, with some
steep rises along the undeveloped northern and eastern edges.The site rises approximately 30
feet in elevation within 40 feet of North Spruce Avenue, for a 75% slope in this area. The
eastern portion the site rises 40 feet within 65 feet (62% slope). The addition is proposed in the
southeast portion of the site and would cut into the hillside at approximately the 65 foot
elevation, leaving the majority of the hillside untouched. The area where the addition is
proposed is predominately asphalt cluttered with unenclosed storage and haphazardly parked
vehicles. No landscaping would be removed to construct the addition, according to the Project
drawings.
The Project site is accessed by Hillside Boulevard, classified as ‘other streets” in the General
Plan (Figure 4-1, Street Classifications) from Sister Cities Boulevard (a major arterial) to the
north. Both Linden and Spruce Avenues (minor arterials) provide access to Hillside Boulevard
from the south. Spruce Avenue originates south of the Project site from El Camino Real and at
Grand Avenue is called School Street (identified as a collector street) then north of Hillside
Boulevard converts back to North Spruce Avenue. North Spruce Avenue(classified as other
streets) ends above the Project site just below Sister Cities Boulevard.
P2-2250--IS
AGE HILLSIDE BOULEVARDGIMBAL CANDYNITIAL TUDY
C2:PD
HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION
Project Setting
Surrounding Land Uses and Development in the Project Area
The Project site is located in the northern area of the City of South San Francisco within the
Paradise Valley Neighborhood.The Paradise Valley Neighborhood is one of 12 neighborhoods,
or planning areas within the City of South San Francisco. The Project site is adjacent to single
family residential development to the north and west. Heavy commercial and or light industrial
land uses flank the Project’s eastern property line. The commercial uses include a linen supply,
storage, newspaper publishing and bus repair. The Martin School, the Girls and Boys Club and
residential land uses are located west and southwest of the site across Hillside Boulevard and
North Spruce Avenue. Two small-service grocery stores are located in the Project vicinity; one
across Hillside Boulevard and one at the corner of Hillside Boulevard and Linden Avenue.
Residential land uses are located behind the commercial uses fronting Hillside Boulevard, to the
south, southwest and west.
Existing Use of the Project Site
The site is developed with a single story 28,900 square foot building that supports the
manufacturing of Gimbal’s Fine Candy and infrastructure supporting the use. Review of aerial
photographs indicate that the building was built in the early- to mid-1950’s. The parking area
appears to have been constructed in the mid- to late-1960’s. The parking area is uneven and in
poor condition suggesting that it has reached its design life (Geotechnical Investigation
Gimbal’s Building Expansion, 250 Hillside Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA, Cornerstone
Earth Group, May 28, 2010).
2.2 Project Description
Construction
The Project would add approximately 8,800 square feet of floor area to an existing 28,900 square
foot building. The applicant, Gimbal’s Fine Candy manufactures candy from this location at 250
Hillside Boulevard. The requested addition would provide additional staging areas for the
finished product prior to packaging as well as some expansion of the existing shop area. The
addition would be one story similar to the existing one story concrete building. The height
would be 30 feet including the six foot parapet that would screen the rooftop mechanical
equipment. The addition would be three to seven feet taller than the existing building. The
parapet of the existing building is 20 feet tall, while the pitched roof extends up to about 27 feet.
The addition would be on the southeastern portion of the lot and would be built at the southern
property line. The addition would be constructed to the toe of the slope in the eastern area of the
site and approximately 55 feet from the northern property line.
The grading plans show that 940 cubic yards of cut and 15 cubic yards of fill would be required
Figure 2.3
to construct the Project. The proposed site plan is shown in .
250--ISP2-3
HILLSIDE BOULEVARDGIMBAL CANDYNITIALTUDY AGE
C2:PD
HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION
FIGURE 2.3
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
P2-4250--IS
AGE HILLSIDE BOULEVARDGIMBAL CANDYNITIAL TUDY
C2:PD
HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION
Operation
Gimbal’s’ operates their business from two locations in South San Francisco. Candy production
is at 250 Hillside Boulevard. The candy is transferred to 228 Shaw Road where it is packaged
and distributed. Twenty-four foot (24-foot) bobtail trucks transfer the finished product between
the two locations Monday through Friday. Typically five round-trip trips are required each
weekday between the two sites. Raw products (syrup and sugars) are delivered to the Hillside
Boulevard site three times a week, usually between 5:00 and 7:00 AM (John Ward, project
submittals). The Project would increase truck trips two to three per day between the Hillside and
Shaw sites.
Operations at 250 Hillside Boulevard are conducted in two shifts. The first shift begins at 6:00
AM and ends at 2:30 PM. Approximately 27 employees are on the site during this time period of
which 13 are office and management and 14 are production employees. The second shift begins
at 2:00 PM, ends at 10:30 PM and includes 11 employees. The requested 8,800 square foot
expansion would permit a full second shift consisting of 18 employees and increase the
production area from the existing 22,400 square feet to 31,200 square feet (John Ward, site tour,
project submittals). Office area would remain at 2,540 square feet; storage at 2,500 square feet;
boiler/mechanical, lockers and restrooms at 1,460 square feet for a total of 37,700 square feet.
The Shaw Road facility packages and distributes the finished product. Shaw Road is located in
the southern portion of the City; within the industrial area of the Lindenville Planning Area. The
Shaw facility employs 12 workers in one shift. The requested expansion would streamline
operations at Hillside Boulevard and would not require any modifications to the Shaw Road
facility..
The following is a brief discussion of existing conditions on the Project site. The site conditions
Chapter 3
are discussed in greater detail in of this document.
Other General Characteristics
Other general characteristics of the Project are identified below.These elements and others are
Chapter 3.
analyzed in
Topography
Undocumented fill is located in the area of the proposed expansion. The fill has varying
degrees of compaction. The ground level in this area ranges from 52 to 60 feet (unspecified
datum) (Geotechnical Investigation Gimbal’s Building Expansion, 250 Hillside Boulevard,
South San Francisco, CA, Cornerstone Earth Group, May 28, 2010). The southeast and
southwest areas of the site are relatively flat. Steep slopes ring the property boundaries on the
Chapter 3.6 Geology and Soils
southeast, northwest and southwest (see ).
250--ISP2-5
HILLSIDE BOULEVARDGIMBAL CANDYNITIALTUDY AGE
C2:PD
HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION
Geology
The site is in an area of South San Francisco where slope debris (“Qsr”) has been deposited
over bedrock of the Franciscan Complex. The Qsr deposits consist of undifferentiated
alluvium/colluvium that occurs in areas adjacent to bedrock exposures at the base of slopes
and in accumulations in swales and gullies. The sheared rock is predominately sandstone and
is exposed at the ground surface over most of the sloping areas of the site. The exposed
sandstone is hard and fractured. The colluvium increases in thickness across the site from
northeast to southwest (Geotechnical Investigation Gimbal’s Building Expansion, 250
Hillside Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA, Cornerstone Earth Group, May 28, 2010).
Chapter 3.6 Geology and Soils
See for a detailed analysis of this issue.
Hydrology
Ground water was not encountered in site borings to 23.7 feet in depth (Geotechnical
Investigation Gimbal’s Building Expansion, 250 Hillside Boulevard, South San Francisco,
CA, Cornerstone Earth Group, May 28, 2010). Localized seepage of water was noted at the
base of the slope along the northwest property line and is thought to be the result of a leaking
Chapter 3.6 Geology and Soils and 3.7
irrigation pipe or water main, upslope. See
Hydrology and Water Quality
for a detailed analysis of this issue.
Utilities
Water, storm drain, sanitary sewer and telephone and electrical service are on site. New fire
water and storm drains would be installed on the site as part of the Project.
Cut and Fill
The Project will require 940 cubic yards of cut and 15 cubic yards of fill. The site paving is
assumed to be 15 inches below grade. The building section is assumed to be 12 inches below
finished floor. Building sections assume a five-inch concrete slab, one-inch vapor barrier or
Chapter 3.6 Geology and Soils
sand and six inches of a Class II aggregate base. See for a
detailed analysis of this issue.
Proposed Circulation and Access
Access to the Project site would remain as is which includes a curb cut off of Hillside
Boulevard. The curb cut and site driveway directs cars to the rear (i.e., north and eastern)
Chapter 3.15 Traffic and Circulation
portion of the property. See for a detailed analysis of
this issue.
P2-6250--IS
AGE HILLSIDE BOULEVARDGIMBAL CANDYNITIAL TUDY
C2:PD
HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION
Construction Schedule and Equipment
Overall Project construction is anticipated to consume 37 weeks, from mobilization to complete
landscaping installation. Project mobilization would take approximately two weeks.
Demolition, grading, site preparation, hauling, installation of site utilities, building foundation,
plumbing and retaining wall construction would consume 15 weeks. Building construction
would take approximately 18 weeks, fine grading, paving and striping and landscaping would
take approximately two weeks.
A bulldozer (D-6) with a ripper, compactor and road grader would be used for rough grading,
access area and the building addition and parking area. A hoe ram and jackhammer may be
Section3.11, Noise
required for excavation in very dense soils (see ). Pile driving is not
proposed, or analyzed in this document. A 10-wheel dump truck would be used to move excess
material from the site, and a water truck to provide dust control on a daily basis. Approximately
925 cubic yards of excess earth material would need to be off hauled from the site during the
three weeks of construction associated with the building pad grading and parking
access, retaining wall foundation and infrastructure-related grading. Based upon 10 cubic yards
per truck, the off haul would equate to a total of 90-95 trucks or approximately 20 to 25 trucks
per day for four to five days during the grading period to dispose of excess material.
Utility installation would require a backhoe for trenching, manual labor forces to place utility
pipes, structures, catch basins, storm water treatment facilities, as well as wheel vibrator on a
back hoe for compacting, trench backfilling and multiple concrete trucks for placing concrete
structures associated with the building and retaining walls. Multiple 10-wheel dump trucks
would also bring trench backfill material to the site from off-site sources for utility trenches and
a water truck would be provided for dust control on daily basis. There will likely be a smaller
excavator and loader (bobcat type) for construction of storm water treatment facilities and other
improvements, providing access to the more difficult areas of the site.
Additional equipment for construction would likely include numerous delivery trucks and
forklifts to deliver masonry, mechanical equipment, trusses, doors, windows and all other
materials used in the building. There would be a few cranes also used to lift trusses and
mechanical equipment and roof materials during construction and would be on site during those
relatively short durations. There would be other trucks and equipment used to fine grade and
Chapter 3.3 Air Quality
landscape the Project. See for a detailed analysis of this issue.
2.3 Required Project Entitlements
The Project requires the following entitlements and actions by the City of South San Francisco:
A Conditional Use Permit:
To construct an addition to an existing building; to allow
operation of the site between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 6:00am; and to allow a
Parking Reduction (South San Francisco Municipal Code-SSFMC 20.480, 20.490, &
20.330);
Design Review:
To construct an addition to an existing building (SSFM 20.480.002);
250--ISP2-7
HILLSIDE BOULEVARDGIMBAL CANDYNITIALTUDY AGE
C2:PD
HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION
Grading Plan and Permit:
For 940 cubic yards of cut and 15 cubic yards of fill;
General Plan Amendment:
To Section 3.8 of the Land Use Element to allow the
expansion of the existing manufacturing operations at the corner of Hillside Boulevard
and Spruce Avenue; and,
2.4 General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan
The General Plan land use designation is Community Commercial. The Project is located in the
Paradise Valley/Terrabay planning area. Paradise Valley/Terrabay Implementing Policy 3.8-1-4,
(General Plan, page 121) states:
Ensure that any redevelopment of the site on the north of Hillside Boulevard at the
terminus of Linden Avenue includes a supermarket, or a grocery store at least 10,000
square feet in area. Require any new development on the site to be built to the edge
of the property along Hillside Boulevard, with transparent storefronts and awnings for
pedestrian comfort.
A General Plan amendment is needed to modify the existing language to allow redevelopment of
the site to continue as a transitional manufacturing use; to allow the continuation and expansion
of long-term manufacturing uses and to require any new development to be consistent with the
Community Commercial land use designation.
The General Plan amendment would be similar to the language in South Spruce Corridor Area B:
South and Central Corridor Policy 3.3-I-11. The intent of these policies is to recognize long-
term manufacturing uses such as See’s Candy, Orowheat Bread, and Gimbal’s’ Fine Candy,
which have been in South San Francisco since the 1950’s, as transitional manufacturing uses that
should be retained, and which may require some modification or expansion of the existing
facilities
Zoning
The zoning for the site is Community Commercial (CC). The purpose of the commercial, office
and mixed use zoning districts is to provide appropriately located areas for a full range of
commercial and office uses to ensure the stability of the City’s economy, provide a variety of
goods and services for residents, employees and visitors, and increase employment opportunities
close to home for current and future residents consistent with the General Plan. The zoning
district encourages a diverse mix of commercial and office businesses and aims to ensure that
new development is designed to minimize traffic and parking impacts on surrounding
neighborhoods. Development should also be appropriate to the physical characteristics of the
site (South San Francisco Municipal Code, Zoning, Chapter 20.090.001 A-F).
P2-8250--IS
AGE HILLSIDE BOULEVARDGIMBAL CANDYNITIAL TUDY
C2:PD
HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION
The CC zoning district is intended to provide areas for locally oriented retail and service uses,
community serving offices, restaurants, retail, public and quasi-public uses, and similar and
compatible uses. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) is 0.5 (South San Francisco Municipal
Code, Zoning, Chapter 20.090.001 A-F). The Project proposes a 0.50 FAR.
250--ISP2-9
HILLSIDE BOULEVARDGIMBAL CANDYNITIALTUDY AGE
3
EC
NVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
This Environmental Checklist (Initial Study) provides the technical analysis and discussion of
potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project at 250 Hillside Boulevard, South San
Francisco, California. The following checklist is consistent with CEQA Guidelines, Appendix
no impact
G. A “” 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
less than significant
does not have the potential to cause an effect on the resource. A “” 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
less than
and have been agreed to by the Project Applicant to reduce the impact to a level of “
significantpotentially significant impact
.” No “” responses are identified, indicating that the
Project would not exceed established thresholds and that therefore 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.
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS P3-1
NITIALTUDYAGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
3.1A
ESTHETICS
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for PotentiallyLess Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact SignificantSignificantSignificantNo
Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
I.AESTHETICS — Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
x
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, x
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
x
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
x
glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
S/B
ETTINGACKGROUND
PROJECT SITE
The Project site is predominately rectilinear in shape. The majority of the site is less than a
10% slope, 58 feet in elevation, with some steep rises along the undeveloped northern and
eastern edges. The site rises approximately 30 feet in elevation within 40 feet of North
Spruce Avenue, for a 75% slope in this area. The eastern portion the site rises 40 feet within
65 feet (62% slope). The addition is proposed in the northeast portion of the site and would
cut into the hillside at approximately the 65 foot elevation, leaving the majority of the hillside
untouched. The area where the addition is proposed is predominately asphalt cluttered with
unenclosed storage and haphazardly parked vehicles. No landscaping would be removed to
construct the addition, according to the Project drawings.
The Project site is accessed by Hillside Boulevard from Sister Cities to the north. Sister
Cities Boulevard connects the east and west portions of the City. Both Linden and Spruce
Avenues provide access to Hillside Boulevard from the south with Spruce Avenue
connecting to School Street at Grand Avenue northward.
The Project site is surrounded by single family residential development to the north and west.
Heavy commercial and or light industrial land uses flank the Project’s eastern property line.
The commercial uses include a linen supply, storage, newspaper publishing and bus repair.
The Martin School, the Girls and Boys Club and residential land uses are located west and
southwest of the site across Hillside Boulevard and North Spruce Avenue. Two small-
service grocery stores and are located in the Project vicinity; one across Hillside Boulevard
and one at the corner of Hillside Boulevard and Linden Avenue. Residential land uses are
P3-2 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
located behind the commercial uses fronting Hillside Boulevard, to the south, southwest and
west.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
South San Francisco’s suburban 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 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.
The Project is located in the northernmost planning area of the City and west of Highway
101. The planning area encompasses land on both sides of Sister Cities Boulevard. The
General Plan (page 116) notes that the planning area encompasses older development, such
as the Project site and surrounding area as well as newer development, that being the
residential and office development known as Terrabay/Centennial Towers on the skirt of San
Bruno Mountain. The Project site fronts Hillside Boulevard facing mixed-use residential and
commercial development (both in zoning and use) across Hillside Boulevard. Gimbal’s
moved to and developed the Project site in the early 1950’s. The commercial development
on the south side of Hillside Boulevard is similar in age and tenure.
Project Description
The Project would add approximately 8,800 square feet of floor area to an existing 28,900
square foot building. The applicant, Gimbal’s Fine Candy manufactures candy from this
location and delivers it to Shaw Road in South San Francisco for packaging and distribution.
The addition would be one story similar to the existing one story concrete building. The
height would be 30 feet including the six foot parapet that would screen the rooftop
mechanical equipment. The addition would be three to seven feet taller than the existing
building. The parapet of the existing building is 20 feet tall, while the pitched roof extends
up to about 27 feet. The addition would be on the northeastern portion of the lot and would
be built within a foot of the eastern property line.The addition would also be constructed to
the toe of the slope in the eastern area and approximately 55 feet from the northern property
line. The addition would not be visible from Hillside Boulevard. The grading plans show
that 940 cubic yards of cut and 15 cubic yards of fill would be required to construct the
Project.
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-3
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Design Review Board
Chapter 1.2.1,
As identified in the Project is required by law to undergo review by the City’s
Design Review Board and incorporate changes by this Board, the Planning Commission and
City Council. This review regulates signage, site layout, design and light and glare.
General Plan
The South San Francisco General Plan identifies maximum heights for structures with
respect to potential aircraft hazards as well as areas with special scenic considerations. The
Project site is within a special height limit restriction associated with aircraft use. The
maximum permitted height is 50 feet. (Figure 2-3, Special Area Height Limitations, General
Plan, page 35). The zoning ordinance height limit is 50 feet for primary structures and 20
feet for accessory structures (Table 20.090.003 Development Standards, page 58). The
maximum existing height of the Project is 30 feet save for the six foot parapet screening wall,
which would be 14 feet below the maximum permitted height.
The Project site is not located within a scenic vista or scenic corridor (Figure 2-4 Viewshed,
General Plan, page 36 and General Plan Background Report). San Bruno Mountain,
approximately 0.25 miles northeast of the Project and Sign Hill, approximately 0.5 miles
southeast from the Project provide scenic views of South San Francisco, the Peninsula, the
Bay and San Francisco. The Project would not impact these views because its height and
mass is similar to surrounding development.
Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 20.300.008 (Zoning, South San Francisco Municipal Code) Lighting and
Illumination, identifies prescriptive standards with respect to lighting and glare. Section
20.300.010, Section G, Lighting and Glare, subsection 3 prohibits incidental or direct glare
from site operations to be visible beyond the boundaries of the site. Figure 20.300.008 (B)(4)
Shielding, prescribes cutoff luminaries to prevent off site light seepage. Chapter 20.300.005,
Fences and Walls, addresses the use of certain materials visible from public streets,
prohibiting the use of chain link fencing and untextured concrete block.
I
MPACTS
a) Scenic Vistas
Significance Criteria: For the purpose of assessing impacts of a 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.
P3-4 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Project is not located within a formally designated public vista, nor would it result in the
obstruction of a formally designated public vista (Figure 2-4 Viewshed, General Plan, page
36). The Project would not conflict with an adopted planning policy regarding scenic vistas.
no impactwith an adopted planning policy regarding
Therefore, the Project would have
scenic vistas
.
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 is not within and would not be visible from a state scenic highway. The existing
building is over 50 years of age and as such could pose historic significance. However, the
building is not identified on Figure 7-3 Designated Historic Resources in the City’s General
Plan (page 241). The addition would be concrete keeping with the existing construction
consisting of concrete. The Project site does not contain historic buildings or trees or
no impact on scenic
significant rock outcroppings. Therefore the Project would have
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.
The existing building is visible from the public right of way, Hillside Boulevard, but is not an
identified viewpoint (Figure 2-4 Viewshed, General Plan, page 36). The addition (i.e.,
Project) would not be visible from Hillside Boulevard. Although not a viewpoint, the Project
does engender some importance as it would be visible from a small portion of North Spruce
Avenue, a public right-of-way, as one travels up North Spruce Avenue from Hillside
Boulevard. The site and the Project addition is and would be visible from privately held
views from residential backyards along North Spruce Avenue and Leo Circle. The perimeter
of the site is marked with a chain link fence which is visible from public right-of-ways.
The site is currently developed and as such occupants of the residential uses have overseen
the Project site in a developed form since the 1950’s. Some storage on the site is outside
enclosed buildings and visible to the adjacent residential uses. The vantage point is due to
the topography, described above, as the elevation rises considerably from the Project site to
the residential areas.
The zoning ordinance, Chapter 20.300.005, Fences and Walls subsections C. 2 and 3,
prohibits the use of chain link fences that are visible from public streets. The chain link
fence is visible from North Spruce Avenue. The fence is a legal non-conforming structure as
the zoning code was amended in 2010 to prohibit such fencing. The expansion of the
building provides the City with the opportunity to require a different type of fencing or more
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-5
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
landscaping to screen the fence. These types of issues will be addressed during entitlement
review, as they are not environmental issues. The Project does not propose the use of
untextured concrete block.
The Project proposes to improve the landscaping by restoring and augmenting existing
landscaping (Project submittals, landscape plan, Callandar Associates, June 16, 2010). The
Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the Project on July 20, 2010 and has required more
significant landscaping at the toe of the slope, the addition of street trees, the replacement of
the Holly Oak varietal with an evergreen from the City’s suggested planting list, the addition
of Toyon shrubs and consideration of replacing the grass along the Hillside Boulevard
frontage with native landscaping. The DRB has required a revised landscape plan for DRB
landscape architect review and approval. The revised plan would be reviewed and approved
prior to or as a part of building permit issuance, should the Project be approved.
The Project would result in repaving the parking area which is at the end of its design life.
The paved parking area would be striped in order to assign and organize parking areas. The
additional warehouse area would provide area to store items inside the building that are
currently stored outside in the open. The yard area of the Project would be organized and
improved over existing conditions with parking occurring in designated areas as opposed to
haphazardly and the storage of items inside the addition. The reorganization of site layout
would result in an improvement over exiting conditions. The City will levy a condition of
Project approval to require property maintenance and interior storage of items should the
Project be approved (Associate Planner, Billy Gross, March 10, 2011). The condition, in
addition to the City’s Municipal Code which prohibits exposed storage of items, would serve
to clean-up site conditions. The building expansion would provide the requisite area to do
no impact on visual character
so. Therefore the Project would have .
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.
Lighting design, as a matter of law, is required to comply with Chapter 20.300.008, Lighting
and Illumination and Figure 20.300.008 (B)(4), Shielding, which prescribes the type of light
. No substantial increase of light and glare
shielding to prevent glare and offsite seepage
emanating from the Project site is anticipated, therefore the impact would be considered
less than significant
.
Finding
: The Project would not have an impact on the aesthetics or scenic quality on 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’s new
construction at 30 feet with areas of parapet screening rooftop mechanical to 36 feet would
not exceed the City’s 50 foot height limit. The Project would clean-up and organize site
layout and parking and afford indoor storage of items.
P3-6 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
3.2AR
GRICULTURAL ESOURCES
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for PotentiallyLess Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact SignificantSignificantSignificantNo
Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
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
x
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
x
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
x
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?
S/B
ETTINGACKGROUND
The Project site was graded and developed in the early 1950’s and has supported Gimbal’s
candy manufacturing since its development.
I
MPACTS
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.
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
no impact
haveon agricultural resources.
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-7
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
Finding:
The Project would not adversely affect any existing agricultural operations. The
Project site is not planned or zoned for agricultural use and is not in agricultural use. The
Project would not impact agricultural resources individually or cumulatively.
3.3AQ
IRUALITY
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for PotentiallyLess Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact SignificantSignificantSignificantNo
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
x
of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
x
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net x
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
x
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a x
substantial number of people?
This air quality analysis is based on an air quality assessment that was prepared for the
Appendix A
Project (see ) that was performed using methodologies and assumptions
recommended within the existing and proposed air quality impact assessment guidelines of
1
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). This section describes
existing air quality, air pollutant construction and operations impacts, and air quality
Chapter 1, Section 1.2.1
Conditions of Approval (see ) that are required to be implemented as
part of the Project pursuant to the City of South San Francisco’s project review process.
The BAAQMD Board approved and adopted new revised CEQA Air Quality Guidelines on June 2, 2010.
1
P3-8 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
S/B
ETTINGACKGROUND
Climate
The peninsula region of the Bay Area Air Basin (Bay Area) extends from the area northwest
of San Jose to the Golden Gate. The Santa Cruz Mountains extend up the center of the
peninsula, with elevations exceeding 2,000 feet at the south end, and gradually decreasing to
an elevation of 500 feet in South San Francisco, where it terminates. San Francisco is at the
north end of the peninsula and because most of the topography of San Francisco is below
200 feet, the marine layer is able to flow across most of the city, making its climate relatively
cool and windy (Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Bay Area Climatology
http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Communications-and-Outreach/Air-Quality-in-the-Bay-
Area/Bay-Area-Climatology.aspx, accessed February 4, 2011 (BAAQMD, 2011).
Meteorological data collected at the San Francisco International Airport (SFO), which is
approximately four miles southeast of the Project site, are representative of general
conditions in South San Francisco. Average maximum and minimum winter (i.e., January)
temperatures at SFO are 56 and 42 ºF, respectively, while average summer (i.e., July)
maximum and minimum temperatures are 72 and 54 ºF, respectively.Precipitation at SFO
averages approximately 20 inches per year (Western Regional Climate Center, 2010. Local
Climate Data Summaries for San Francisco International Airport, California. Obtained
online (http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/clilcd.pl?ca23234 on
February 4, 2011 (BAAQMD,
2011).
Annual average wind speeds range from five to 10 miles per hour (mph) throughout the
peninsula. The east side of the mountains has a westerly wind pattern; however, it is
influenced by local topographic features. That is, a few hundred feet rise in elevation will
induce flow around that feature instead of over it during stable atmospheric conditions. This
can change the wind pattern by as much as 90 degrees over short distances. On mornings
without a strong pressure gradient, areas on the east side of the peninsula often experience
eastern flow in the surface layer, induced by upslope flow on the east-facing slopes and by
the bay breeze. The bay breeze is rarely seen in the afternoon because the stronger sea breeze
1
dominates the flow pattern (BAAQMD, 2010).
Sensitive Receptors
People that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution within the general population
include children, elderly, and those that suffer from certain illnesses or disabilities.
Therefore, schools, convalescent homes, and hospitals are considered to be sensitive
receptors to air pollution. Residential areas are also considered sensitive to poor air quality
because people usually stay home for extended periods of time, which results in greater
exposure to localized air pollutants. The Project site is surrounded by single family
residential development to the north and east. The closest residence is approximately 150 feet
to the northeast of the Project. Heavy commercial and or light industrial land uses flank the
Project’s southern property line. The commercial uses include a linen supply, storage,
newspaper publishing and bus repair. The Martin Elementary School, the Girls and Boys
Club and residential land uses are located west of the site across Hillside Boulevard and
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-9
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
North Spruce Avenue. Martin Elementary School is located approximately 500 feet to the
west of the Project. Residential land uses are located behind the commercial uses fronting
Hillside Boulevard, to the south and southwest.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Criteria Pollutants
The BAAQMD monitors and regulates air quality pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, as
amended, and the 1988 California Clean Air Act. The BAAQMD adopts and enforces
controls on stationary sources of air pollutants through its permit and inspection programs.
Other BAAQMD responsibilities include monitoring air quality, preparation of clean air
plans, and responding to citizen air quality complaints. The BAAQMD has also published
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, June 2010, to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality
impacts of projects and plans proposed in the Bay Area.
CURRENT AIR QUALITY
The BAAQMD operates a regional monitoring network for ambient concentrations of six
criteria pollutants. Currently, the criteria pollutants of most concern in the Bay Area are
ozone and particulate matter. The monitoring station closest to the Project site is in San
Francisco on Arkansas Street. This air quality monitoring station monitors levels of ozone,
particulate matter in the form of PM10 and PM2.5, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and
Air Quality Table 1
sulfur dioxide). summarizes the most recent three years of data
published by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) for the San Francisco, Arkansas
Street air monitoring station, which is approximately eight miles to the north-northeast of the
project site. The State 24-hour PM10 standard was exceeded two times in 2007. The federal
24-hour PM2.5 standard was exceeded five times in 2007 and once in 2009. No other State
or federal air quality standards were exceeded during the three year period.
AIR QUALITYTABLE 1
AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY
SAN FRANCISCO, ARKANSAS STREET, CA, 2007 – 2009
PollutantStandardDays Standard Exceeded
200720082009
Ozone State1–Hour 000
Ozone Federal 8–Hour 000
Ozone State8–Hour 000
PM10Federal 24–Hour 000
PM10State24–Hour 200
PM2.5Federal 24–Hour 501
Carbon Monoxide State/Federal 000
8–Hour
Nitrogen Dioxide State 1–Hour 000
Sulfur Dioxide State 24-Hour 000
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summaries, 2011.
P3-10 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Bay Area is currently designated “nonattainment” for State and national (1-hour and 8-
hour) ozone standards, for the State PM10 standards, and for State and national (annual
average and 24-hour) PM2.5 standards. The Bay Area is designated “attainment” or
“unclassified” with respect to the other ambient air quality standards.
I
MPACTS
a)Conflicts with the Current Air Quality Plan
Significance Criteria: Any project that would not support the goals of the 2010 Bay Area
Clean Air Plan (CAP) would not be considered consistent with the 2010 CAP.
On September 15, 2010, the BAAQMD adopted the 2010 CAP. The 2010 Bay Area CAP
updates the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the
California Clean Air Act (CCAA) to implement all feasible measures to reduce ozone;
provide a control strategy to reduce ozone, particulate matter, air toxics, and greenhouse gas
emissions in a single, integrated plan; and establish emission control measures to be adopted
or implemented in the 2010 through 2012 timeframe. The primary goals of the 2010 Bay
Area CAP are to:
• Attain air quality standards;
• Reduce population exposure and protecting public health in the Bay Area; and
• Reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate.
The recommended measure for determining project support of these goals is consistency with
BAAQMD-approved CEQA thresholds of significance. Therefore, if approval of a project
would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts after the application of all
feasible mitigation, the Project would be considered consistent with the 2010 Bay Area CAP.
The Project would be consistent with the 2010 Bay Area CAP, and thus, the impact is less
than significant
.
b and c) Violation of Standards and a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would
exceed BAAQMD’s construction and/or operational mass emission thresholds for exhaust
emissions and/or if appropriate air pollutant control measures are not implemented. The
BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend that cumulative air quality effects
from criteria air pollutants also be addressed by comparison to the mass daily and annual
thresholds. These thresholds were developed to identify a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant regional air quality impact.
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 projects.
BAAQMD regulations applicable to the construction of the project relate to portable
equipment (e.g., gasoline- or diesel-powered engines used for power generation, pumps,
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-11
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
compressors, and cranes), architectural coatings, fugitive dust, and paving materials. Project
construction and operation impacts are discussed below.
Construction Related Impacts
The Project would involve the construction of a building addition and parking. The Project is
designed to expand Gimbals Candies’ existing manufacturing facility at 250 Hillside
Boulevard in South San Francisco, California. An 8,800 square foot addition to an existing
28,900 square foot building is being requested.
Approximately 940 cubic yards of cut and 15 cubic yards of fill is required (i.e., a total of
955 cubic yards of earth movement). Grading and site preparation is anticipated to take
approximately eight weeks. Types of equipment on the site during this phase of construction
would be a grader, skip loaded, front loader, standard asphalt paving equipment and
excavator. Project construction would take approximately an additional six months to
complete, for a total construction period of seven months. Types of equipment on the site
during this phase of construction would be mobile cranes, haul trucks, concrete trucks
delivery trucks and private vehicles.
Project construction would generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including
fugitive dust and equipment exhaust emissions. The recently adopted BAAQMD CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines recommend quantification of construction-related exhaust emissions and
comparison of those emissions to significance thresholds. Therefore, this analysis includes
quantification of construction emissions and comparison of the emissions to the BAAQMD’s
construction significance thresholds. The URBEMIS 2007 Version 9.2.4 model was used to
Appendix A
quantify project construction emissions of criteria pollutants (see for emissions
Air Quality Table 2
estimate assumptions). provides the estimated short-term construction
emissions that would be associated with the Project and compares those emissions to the
BAAQMD’s thresholds for construction exhaust emissions. Total construction emissions
Therefore, Project impacts
would be well below the BAAQMD significance thresholds.
that would be associated with construction related exhaust emissions would be less than
significant.
AIR QUALITY TABLE 2
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS
(pounds per day)
Emission Sources ROGNOxPM10PM2.5CO
Total Construction Emissions 36352222
Significance Thresholds 54548254---
Significant Impact? NoNoNoNoNo
Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all assumptions used as input to the URBEMIS2007 model.
Although construction-related emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD’s significance
thresholds for criteria pollutants, the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines recommend the
implementation of Basic Construction Mitigation Measures for all projects, whether or not
significant impacts have been identified. The City of South San Francisco has required
P3-12 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
BAAQMD measures to be implemented into project construction as a matter of law (see
Introduction, Chapter 1, Section 1.2.2
).
Long-Term Operational Impacts
The URBEMIS2007 (Version 9.2.4) model was used to estimate emissions that would be
associated with natural gas space heating, water heating, and landscape maintenance
emissions expected to occur due to implementation the Project. Emission factors obtained
from ARB’s EMFAC2007 emissions model were used to estimate emissions that would be
associated with employee vehicles and delivery trucks.
Estimated operational daily and annual emissions that would be associated with the Project
Air Quality Tables 3 and 4
are presented in , and are compared to BAAQMD’s thresholds of
As indicated, the estimated operational emissions that would be associated
significance.
with the Project would be below the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds and would be less
than significant.
AIR QUALITY TABLE 3
PROJECT DAILY OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS
(pounds per day)
Emission Sources ROGNOxPM10PM2.5CO
Area Sources 0.20.80.010.012.2
Mobile Sources 0.40.50.90.24.4
Total0.61.40.90.26.6
Significance
54548254---
Thresholds
Significant
NoNoNoNoNo
Impact?
Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all assumptions used as input to estimate emissions. Values reflect rounding.
AIR QUALITY TABLE 4
PROJECT ANNUAL OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS
(tons per year)
Emission Sources ROGNOxPM10PM2.5CO
Area Sources 0.030.20.000.000.3
Mobile Sources 0.10.10.20.030.8
Total0.10.20.20.031.0
Significance
10101510---
Thresholds
Significant
NoNoNoNoNo
Impact?
Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all assumptions used as input to estimate emissions.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) screening analysis method states that
projects would not create a violation of the CO standard if intersections affected by the
Project would not be reduced from Level of Service A through D to E or F (i.e., significantly
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-13
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
deteriorated). The Project is expected to accommodate three additional delivery trucks and
three additional employees during the second shift, a minimal number compared to the
regional and local roadways surrounding the Project. Therefore, impacts that would be
less than significant
associated with long-term operational exhaust emissions would be .
Cumulative Impacts
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend that cumulative air quality effects
from criteria air pollutants also be addressed by comparison to the BAAQMD’s mass daily
and annual significance thresholds. As shown in Air Quality Tables 2 through 4, Project-
Therefore, the Project would not be
related emissions would be below the thresholds.
cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be less than significant
.
d) Impacts to Sensitive Receptors
Significance Criteria: The significance of impact to sensitive receptors is dependent on the
chance of contracting cancer from exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs) or of having
adverse health effects from exposure to non-carcinogenic TACs. A project is considered to
be significant if the incremental cancer risk at a receptor exceeds 10 in a million. For
cumulative analysis of cancer risk, BAAQMD recommends that the risks from all sources
within a 1,000 foot radius of the source or receptor be assessed and compared to a cumulative
increased risk threshold of 100 in one million. The non-cancer hazard index significance
threshold of 1.0 is defined in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. For cumulative
analysis of non-cancer hazard index, BAAQMD requires that the hazards from all sources
within a 1,000 foot radius of the source or receptor be assessed and compared to a cumulative
hazard index threshold of 10.
Because emissions of PM2.5 are associated with health risks, the BAAQMD has established
a separate significance threshold for PM2.5 to protect public health. For individual projects,
the BAAQMD significant threshold for PM2.5 impacts is an average annual increase of 0.3
3
µg/m. For cumulative analysis, BAAQMD recommends that the PM2.5 concentrations
from all sources within a 1,000 foot radius of the receptor be assessed and compared to a
3
cumulative threshold of an average annual increase of 0.8 µg/m.
Cancer Risk
Cancer risk is defined as the lifetime probability of developing cancer from exposure to
carcinogenic substances. Cancer risks are expressed as the chances in one million of
contracting cancer, for example, ten cancer cases among one million people exposed.
Following HRA guidelines established by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA) and BAAQMD’s Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines,
incremental cancer risks (i.e., the additional risk above baseline levels attributable to the
Project) were calculated by applying toxicity factors to modeled TAC concentrations in order
to determine the inhalation dose (milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day [mg/kg-
Appendix A
day]). See for details.
P3-14 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
As a result of construction activities, the maximum cancer risk for a residential receptor
(approximately 150 feet to the northwest) would be 0.7 per million. The maximum cancer risk
for the nearest school (Martin Elementary School) receptor would be less than 0.1 per million.
The maximum cancer risk for a worker receptor (adjacent to the Project to the southeast) would
Thus, the cancer risk due to construction activities alone is below
be less than 0.1 per million.
the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per million and would be less than significant.
The maximum cancer risk from operations at a residential receptor would be 0.3 per million.
The maximum cancer risk from operations at the nearest school receptor would be less than 0.1
per million. The maximum cancer risk from operations at a worker receptor would be less than
The cancer risk due to operations would be well below the BAAQMD
0.1 per million.
threshold of 10 per million and would be less than significant
.
The maximum cancer risks from construction and operations of the Project would be well
below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per million and less than significant.
Non-Cancer Health Impacts
Both acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) adverse health impacts unrelated to cancer
are measured against a hazard index (HI), which is defined as the ratio of the predicted
incremental exposure concentration from the Project to a published reference exposure level
(REL) that could cause adverse health effects. The RELs are published by OEHHA based on
epidemiological research. The ratio (referred to as the Hazard Quotient [HQ]) of each non-
carcinogenic substance that affects a certain organ system is added to produce an overall HI
for that organ system. The overall HI is calculated for each organ system. If the overall HI
for the highest-impacted organ system is greater than 1.0, then the impact is considered to be
significant.
The chronic reference exposure level for DPM was established by the California OEHHA as
5g/m3. There is no acute reference exposure level for DPM. Furthermore, diesel fuel
(unlike gasoline) does not emit significant amounts of organic vapors such as acrolein, which
has an established acute REL.
As a result of Project-related construction and operations, the chronic HI would be less than
The chronic HI would be well below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of
0.1.
the Project would therefore be less than significant.
PM2.5 Concentration
Dispersion modeling was also used to predict exposure of sensitive receptors to Project-
related concentrations of PM2.5. Because emissions of PM2.5 are associated with health
risks the BAAQMD has established a separate significance threshold to protect public health.
The BAAQMD guidance suggests inclusion of PM2.5 exhaust emissions only in this analysis
(i.e., fugitive dust emissions are addressed under BAAQMD dust control measures to be
implemented into Project construction). The maximum annual PM2.5 concentration as a
3
The annual PM2.5
result of Project construction and operations would be 0.09 µg/m.
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-15
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
concentration due to implementation of the Project would be well below the BAAQMD
3
threshold of 0.3 µg/m, and hence is considered less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
BAAQMD has published health risk information for major roadways within San Mateo County,
including State Route 101; located approximately 1,400 feet to the east and south of the Project. The
BAAQMD also developed a geo-referenced database of permitted TAC emissions sources throughout
the Bay Area, and has developed the Stationary Source Risk & Hazard Analysis Tool for estimating
cumulative health risks from permitted sources. The cumulative health impacts from the roadway
were based on conservative (overestimation) estimates within BAAQMD’s Roadway Screening
Tables and analysis using EPA’s AERMOD dispersion model coupled with traffic volume data from
CalTrans.
Air Quality Table 5
lists the BAAQMD-permitted facilities and major roadways within
1,000 feet of the Project. Air Quality Table 5 also shows the cumulative cancer risk, chronic
3
hazard risk, acute health risk, and PM2.5 concentrations (in µg/m) associated with these
The total cumulative cancer risk,
facilities (developed by BAAQMD), as with the Project.
chronic hazard, and PM2.5 concentrations associated with the nearby major roadways and
the permitted facilities would be less than significant.
AIR QUALITY TABLE 5
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
SiteFacility Type Address CancerChronicAcutePM2.5
#RiskImpactImpactConcentrati
on
8956Fuel901 Airport Road 1.20.001 0.0003 0
Dispensing
1117Fuel899 Airport Road 1.60.001 0.00000
0Dispensing4
1807Emergency 830 Dubuque Ave. 0.80.0003 00.001
4Generator
Permitted 3.60.002 0.0003 0.001
Sources Total
Route 10114.7<0.1<0.1 0.48
s Total 14.7<0.1<0.1 0.48
Roadway
Proec1.0<0.1<0.1 0.09
jt
Grand Total19.3<0.1<0.1 0.57
BAAQMD Cumulative Significance
10010100.8
Criteria
Significant Cumulative Impact?
NoNoNoNo
e) Odor Impacts
Significance Criteria: The BAAQMD’s significance criteria for odors are more subjective
and are based on the number of odor complaints generated by a project. Generally, the
BAAQMD considers any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the
P3-16 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
public to objectionable odors to cause a significant impact. Projects that would site a new
odor source or a new receptor farther than the applicable BAAQMD-established screening
distances from an existing receptor or odor source, respectively, would not likely result in a
significant odor impact. An odor source with five more confirmed complaints per year
averaged over three years is considered to have a significant impact on receptors within the
screening distances.
Typical odor sources of concern include wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills,
transfer stations, composting facilities, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical
manufacturing facilities, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, auto body shops, rendering
plants, and coffee roasting facilities. Diesel-fueled construction equipment would generate
some odors associated with diesel exhaust; however, these emissions typically dissipate
quickly and would be unlikely to affect a substantial number of people. The Project
operations include an expanded warehouse space, administrative office, and light industry,
Therefore, odor impacts
which would not be expected to create or increase odors.
associated with construction and operation of the Project 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 PM10). The City’s building permit procedure captures the BAAQMD
permitting regulations, as well as BAAQMD’s basic control measures. No mitigation
measures, above those required by the City as a matter of law, are identified in this Initial
Study.
2.7GGE
REENHOUSEASMISSIONS
PotentiallyLess Than Less Than
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
SignificantSignificantSignificantNo
Determination of Environmental Impact
with
Impact Impact Impact
Mitigation
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS —Would
the Project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
X
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
x
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere,
similar to a greenhouse. The accumulation of GHG emissions has been implicated as a
driving force for Global Climate Change (GCC). Definitions of climate change vary between
and across regulatory authorities and the scientific community, but in general can be
described as the changing of the Earth’s climate caused by natural fluctuations and the
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-17
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
impact of human activities that alter the composition of the global atmosphere. Both natural
processes and human activities emit GHG emissions.
The major concern is that increases in GHG emissions are causing GCC. GCC is a change in
the average weather on earth that can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation,
and temperature. Although there is disagreement as to the speed of global warming and the
extent of the impacts attributable to human activities, the vast majority of the scientific
community now agrees that there is a direct link between increased GHG emissions and long
term global temperature increases. Potential global warming impacts in California may
include, but are not limited to, loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per
year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years. Secondary
effects are likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in
disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity.
The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the Earth’s temperature and
emissions from human activities, such as electricity production and motor vehicles, have
elevated the concentration of GHG emissions in the atmosphere. This accumulation of GHG
emissions has contributed to GCC as an increase in the temperature of the Earth’s
atmosphere. GHGs include all of the following gases; carbon dioxide (CO), methane (CH),
24
nitrous oxide (NO), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, nitrogen trifluroide (NF3), and
2
sulfur hexafluoride (California Health and Safety Code section 38505(g)). CO is the
2
reference gas for climate change because it gets the most attention and is considered the most
important GHG. To account for the warming potential of GHGs, GHG emissions are often
quantified and reported as CO equivalents (COe). The effects of GHG emission sources
22
(i.e., individual projects) are reported in metric tons per year of COe.
2
California and Bay Area GHG Emissions
GHG emissions contributing to GCC are attributable in large part to human activities
associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and
2
agricultural sectors. The State of California alone produces about 2% of the entire world’s
GHG emissions, with major emitting sources here including fossil fuel consumption from
transportation (41%), industry (23%), electricity production (20%), and agricultural and
forestry (8%). The State of California is looking at options and opportunities for drastically
reducing GHG emissions with the hope of thereby delaying, mitigating, or preventing at least
some of the anticipated impacts of GCC on California communities.
In 2008, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) completed a baseline
inventory of GHG emissions for the year 2007. According to that inventory, 102 million
3
GHG EmissionsTable 1
metric tons of COe were emitted in the Bay Area that year. shows
2
the emissions breakdown by pollutant.
California Energy Commission (CEC). California’s Major Sources of Energy.
2
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/overview/energy_sources.html, 2008.
3
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse
Gas Emissions, December 2008.
P3-18 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
GHGEMISSIONSTABLE1
2007 BAY AREA COe EMISSIONS BY POLLUTANT
2
COe (Million Metric
2
PollutantPercentageTons/Year)
Carbon Dioxide 91.493.7
Methane2.42.5
Nitrous Oxide 2.22.3
HFC, PFC, SF6 3.94.0
Total100102.6
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2008.
The Bay Area’s transportation sector contributes 40% of the COe GHG emissions, followed
2
by industrial and commercial sources (34%), electricity and co-generation (15%), residential
fuel usage (7%), off-road equipment (3%), and agriculture and farming (1%). Bay Area
GHG EmissionsChart 1
emissions by sector are illustrated in .
Absent policy changes, Bay Area GHG emissions are expected to grow at a rate of 1.4% a
4
year due to population growth and economic expansion. Economic activity variations and
the fraction of electric power generation in the region will cause year-to-year fluctuations in
GHG EmissionsChart 2
the emissions trends. shows the emission trends by major sources
for the period of 1990 to 2029.
GHGEMISSIONSCHART1
BAGGES,PT
AYREA REENHOUSE ASMISSIONS BY ECTOR AS A ERCENT OF OTAL
E
MISSIONS
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2008.
Ibid.
4
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-19
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
GHG EMISSIONS CHART 2
BAGGETS
AYREA REENHOUSE ASMISSIONSRENDS BY ECTOR
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2008.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions in South San Francisco
In 2005, the City of South San Francisco emitted approximately 526,766 metric tons of
GHG EmissionsTable 2
COe. As shown in , the transportation sector is the largest
2
contributor to GHG emissions, responsible for 46% of all emissions, with emissions from
cars traveling on State highways within the city almost twice as much as emissions from cars
traveling on city roads. This reflects the regional nature of trip making in South San
Francisco and through-traffic through the city.The commercial/industrial sector accounts for
approximately 35% of emissions, while the residential sector accounts for 13% of total
emissions. Emissions from natural gas usage are higher than emissions from electricity
usage for both the residential and commercial sectors. The waste sector accounts for 6% of
total emissions.
P3-20 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
GHG EMISSIONS TABLE 2
2005 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY EMISSIONS
2005 GHG Emissions GHG Emissions
1
Sector(CO2e)(% CO2e)
Residential70,059 13%
Electricity22,2584%
Natural Gas 47,801 9%
Commercial/Industrial185,240 35%
Electricity80,723 15%
Natural Gas 104,517 20%
Transportation240,257 46%
City Roads (Non-Highway) 87,406 17%
State Highways 152,851 29%
2
Waste31,210 6%
Solid Waste 31,210 6%
Total526,766 100%
GHG Emissions Per Capita 8.5
1.
Emission Factors and Calculation Methods: ICLEI, Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology for Bay
Area Governments, prepared as part of the BAAQMD-ICLEI Workshop, December 6, 2007.
2.
EPA WARM Model was used. Model accessed:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_Form.html, May 2009.
Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 2009; ABAG Projections 2007; City of South San Francisco/ ICLEI, 2009.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
Global Change Research Act (1990) (15 United States Code Sections 2921 et seq.)
In 1990, Congress passed and the President signed Public Law 101-606, the Global Change
Research Act. The purpose of the legislation was: “…to require the establishment of a
United States Global Change Research Program aimed at understanding and responding to
global change, including the cumulative effects of human activities and natural processes on
the environment, to promote discussions towards international protocols in global change
research, and for other purposes.” To that end, the Global Change Research Information
Office (GCRIO) was established in 1991 (it began formal operation in 1993) to serve as a
clearinghouse of information. The Act requires a report to Congress every four years on the
environmental, economic, health and safety consequences of climate change; however, the
first and only one of these reports to-date, the National Assessment on Climate Change, was
not published until 2000. In February 2004, operational responsibility for GCRIO shifted to
the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-21
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
Energy Policy Act of 2005
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 seeks to reduce reliance on non-renewable energy resources
and provide incentives to reduce current demand on these resources. For example, under the
Act, consumers and businesses can attain federal tax credits for purchasing fuel-efficient
appliances and products. Driving fuel-efficient vehicles and installing energy-efficient
appliances can provide many benefits, such as lower energy bills, increased indoor comfort,
and reduced air pollution; therefore businesses are eligible for tax credits for buying hybrid
vehicles, building energy efficient buildings, and improving the energy efficiency of
commercial buildings. Additionally, tax credits are given for the installation of qualified fuel
cells, stationary microturbine power plants, and solar power equipment.
Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) (549 U.S. 497)
In this U.S. Supreme Court case, 12 states, three cities, and 13 environmental groups filed
suit that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should be required to regulate
CO and other GHGs as pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act. In April 2007, the U.S.
2
Supreme Court found that the EPA has a statutory authority to formulate standards and
regulations to address GHG emissions, which it historically has not done. In April 2009,
EPA released an Endangerment Finding that GHGs significantly contribute to air pollution,
triggering the process under the Clean Air Act for potentially developing National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for GHGs and establishing emissions standards for stationary and
mobile sources.
Federal Fuel Efficiency Standards
In December 2007, President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (Public Law 110-140, at 42 USC Section 7545(o) (2)). This energy bill increased the
supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS),
requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. It also tightened
the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards that regulate the average fuel
economy in the vehicles produced by each major automaker, requiring that these standards be
increased such that, by 2020, the new cars and light trucks sold each year deliver a combined
fleet average of 35 miles per gallon.
In mid-May 2009, President Barack Obama ordered vehicle makers to increase mileage
standards to 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, four years earlier than required by law. The
nationwide fuel-economy standards would be phased in beginning in 2012. Rules were
finalized in April 2010. Carmakers had wanted a national standard, saying that meeting a
quilt of state standards would be too difficult.
The EPA in June 2009 approved California's rules to regulate GHG emissions from cars and
light trucks, putting the standards into effect immediately for much of the nation and
reversing a Bush administration policy. California had urged the EPA to allow the state's
rules to go into effect immediately, arguing that the lengthy federal rulemaking process
would delay action that could begin immediately. California's rules apply beginning with the
P3-22 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
sale of 2009 model year cars, and extend to much of the nation, since 13 other states and the
District of Columbia have adopted the California standard. In 2012, companies may comply
with the national standard in place of the state standard.
State Regulations
California Public Utilities Commission
As a public utility that provides electricity and natural gas to the City, PG&E is under the
jurisdiction of the CPUC. PG&E provides service in accordance within the policies and
extensions rules on file with the CPUC.
Senate Bill 1771 Sher (Chapter 1018, Statutes of 2000)
SB 1771 requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to prepare an inventory of the
state’s GHG emissions, to study data on GHG, and to provide government agencies and
businesses with information on the costs and methods for reducing GHG emissions. It also
established the California Climate Action Registry to serve as a certifying agency for
companies and local governments to quantify and register their GHG emissions for possible
future trading systems.
State of California Integrated Energy Policy (2002)
The CEC adopts and transmits to the Governor and Legislature a report of findings
biannually. The Legislature passed Senate Bill 1389 in 2002. The legislation reconstituted
the state’s responsibility to develop an integrated energy plan for electricity, natural gas, and
transportation fuels, known as the Energy Report. The CEC adopted the 2003 Integrated
Energy Policy during a Special Business Meeting on November 12, 2003. The 2004 Update
to the Integrated Energy Policy was adopted by the Energy Commission on November 3,
2004. The 2005 Integrated Energy Policy was adopted by the Energy Commission on
November 21, 2005.
The plan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to
improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the
least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of
strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing
incentive programs for Zero Emission Vehicle and addressing their infrastructure needs, and
encouragement of urban design that reduces vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and
accommodates pedestrian and bicycle access.
Assembly Bill 1493 (Chapter 200, Statutes of 2002) (Calif. Health & Safety Code Sections
42823 and 43018.5)
Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (Pavley) amended California Health & Safety Code sections 42823
and 43018.5 requiring the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and adopt, by
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-23
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
January 1, 2005, regulations that achieve maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by
passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles used for noncommercial personal
transportation in California. The regulations apply to motor vehicles manufactured in 2009
or later model year.
Pursuant to AB 1493, the ARB approved regulations to reduce GHG emissions from new
motor vehicles in September 2004. Under the regulation, one manufacturer fleet average
emission standard is established for passenger cars and the lightest trucks, and a separate
manufacturer fleet average emission standard is established for heavier trucks. The
regulation took effect on January 1, 2006 and set near-term emission standards, phased in
from 2009 through 2012, and mid-term emission standards, phased in from 2013 through
2016 (referred to as the Pavley Phase 1 rules). The ARB intends to extend the existing
requirements to obtain further reductions in the 2017 to 2020 timeframe (referred to as
Pavley Phase 2 rules). The ARB has included both Pavley 1 and 2 rules in its Climate
Change Scoping Plan (December 2008), pursuant to the Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006 (AB 32), which outlines the State’s strategy to achieve 2020 GHG emission reductions.
After initially refusing to grant a waiver, on June 30, 2009 the EPA granted a waiver that
allows California to implement these standards.
The ARB calculates that in calendar year 2016, the Pavley Phase 1 rules will reduce
California’s GHG emissions by 16.4 million metric tons of COe, and by 2020, Pavley Phase
2
2 will reduce emissions by 31.7 million metric tons of COe. Further, the AB 1493 new
2
vehicle requirements will cumulatively produce 45% more GHG reductions by 2020
compared to the federal CAFE standard in the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (above).
Without Pavley rules, both state and regional CO emissions will increase steadily between
2
now and 2035 as VMT increases with population growth; with Pavley rules, CO emissions
2
are projected to decrease between now and 2035. This decrease in regional 2035 CO
2
emissions compared to current levels is in large part a result of technological changes
expected to reduce CO emissions per VMT. The regulations will reduce climate change
2
emissions from the light duty passenger vehicle fleet by 12.6% statewide and 22.9% in the
Bay Area in the 2035 calendar year compared to 2006.
Senate Bill 1078 Sher (Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002)
The Sher bill established a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requiring electricity
providers to increase purchases of renewable energy resources by 1% per year until they have
attained a portfolio of 20% renewable resources by 2010.
Executive Order S-20-04 (Gov. Schwarzenegger, July 2004)
Executive Order S-20-04, signed on July 27, 2004, requires that the State commit to
aggressive action to reduce state building electricity use, and more specifically, that State
agencies, departments, and other entities take measures to reduce energy use by 20% by
P3-24 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
2015. In addition, the Order requires that the CEC increase energy efficiency standards by
20% by 2015, compared to the 2003 Titles 20 and 24 standards.
Executive Order S-3-05 (Gov. Schwarzenegger, June 2005)
Executive Order S-3-05, signed on June 1, 2005, recognizes California’s vulnerability to
climate change, noting that increasing temperatures could potentially reduce snow pack in
the Sierra Nevada, which is a primary source of the State’s water supply. Additionally,
according to this Order, climate change could influence human health, coastal habitats,
microclimates, and agricultural yield. The Order set the GHG reduction targets for
California: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020 reduce GHG emissions
to 1990 levels; by 2050 reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels.
Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (2005)
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations is the California Building Code, governing all
aspects of building construction. Included in Part 6 of the Code are standards mandating
energy efficiency measures in new construction. Since its establishment in 1977, the
building efficiency standards (along with standards for energy efficiency in appliances) have
contributed to a reduction in electricity and natural gas costs in California. The standards are
updated every three years to allow new energy efficiency technologies to be considered. The
latest update to Title 24 standards became effective on October 1, 2005. The standards
regulate energy consumed in buildings for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and
lighting. Title 24 is implemented through the local plan check and permit process.
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) (Calif. Health & Safety Code
Sections 38500 et seq.)
In September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the
California Global Warming Solutions Act (Health and Safety Code Section 38500 et. seq.).
The Act requires the reduction of statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020.
This change, which is estimated to be a 30% reduction from business as usual emission levels
projected for 2020, will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG
emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. The Act also directs the ARB to develop
and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources and
address GHG emissions from vehicles. The ARB has stated that the regulatory requirements
for stationary sources will be first applied to electricity power generation and utilities,
petrochemical refining, cement manufacturing, and industrial/commercial combustion. The
second group of target industries will include oil and gas production/distribution,
transportation, landfills, and other GHG-intensive industrial processes. The ARB developed
a Climate Change Scoping Plan, finalized in December 2008, outlining the State’s strategy to
achieve 2020 GHG emission limits (CARB, 2008). The Plan proposes a comprehensive set
of measures designed to reduce overall GHG emissions. These measures, shown below in
GHG EmissionsTable 3
by sector, also put the State on a path to meet the long-term 2050
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-25
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
goal of reducing California’s GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. The measures
will be developed over the next two years and be in place by 2012.
GHG EMISSIONS TABLE 3
LIST OF RECOMMENDED MEASURES BY SECTOR
GHG
Reductions
(Annual Million
MeasureMetric Tons
No.Measure Description COe)
2
Transportation
T-1Pavley I and II – Light Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas 31.7
Standards
T-2Low Carbon Fuel Standard (Discrete Early Action) 15
1
T-3Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas Targets 5
T-4Vehicle Efficiency Measures 4.5
T-5Ship Electrification at Ports (Discrete Early Action) 0.2
T-6Goods Movement Efficiency Measures. 3.5
Ship Electrification at Ports
System-Wide Efficiency Improvements
T-7Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction 0.93
Measure – Aerodynamic Efficiency (Discrete Early Action)
T-8Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Hybridization 0.5
T-9High Speed Rail 1
Electricity and Natural Gas
E-1Energy Efficiency (32,000 GWh of Reduced Demand) 15.2
Increased Utility Energy Efficiency Programs
More Stringent Building & Appliance Standards
Additional Efficiency and Conservation Programs
E-2Increase Combined Heat and Power Use by 30,000 GWh (Net 6.7
reductions include avoided transmission line loss)
E-3Renewables Portfolio Standard (33% by 2020) 21.3
E-4Million Solar Roofs (including California Solar Initiative, New 2.1
Solar Homes Partnership and solar programs of publicly owned
utilities)
Target of 3000 MW Total Installation by 2020
CR-1Energy Efficiency (800 Million Therms Reduced 4.3
Consumptions)
Utility Energy Efficiency Programs
Building and Appliance Standards
Additional Efficiency and Conservation Programs
CR-2Solar Water Heating (AB 1470 goal) 0.1
Green Buildings
P3-26 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
GHG
Reductions
(Annual Million
MeasureMetric Tons
COe)
No.Measure Description
2
GB-1Green Buildings 26
Water
W-1Water Use Efficiency 1.4†
W-2Water Recycling 0.3†
W-3Water System Energy Efficiency 2.0†
W-4Reuse Urban Runoff 0.2†
W-5Increase Renewable Energy Production 0.9†
W-6Public Goods Charge (Water) TBD†
Industry
I-1Energy Efficiency and Co-Benefits Audits for Large Industrial TBD
Sources
I-2Oil and Gas Extraction GHG Emission Reduction 0.2
I-3GHG Leak Reduction from Oil and Gas Transmission 0.9
I-4Refinery Flare Recovery Process Improvements 0.3
I-5Removal of Methane Exemption from Existing Refinery 0.01
Regulations
Recycling and Water Management
RW-1Landfill Methane Control (Discrete Early Action) 1
RW-2Additional Reductions in Landfill Methane TBD†
Increase the Efficiency of Landfill Methane Capture
RW-3High Recycling/Zero Water 9†
Commercial Recycling
Increase Production and Markets for Compost
Anaerobic Digestion
Extended Producer Responsibility
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
Forests
F-1Sustainable Forest Target 5
High Global Warming Potential (GWP) Gases
H-1Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems: Reduction of 0.26
Refrigerant Emissions from Non-Professional Services
(Discrete Early Action)
H-2SF Limits in Non-Utility and Non-Semiconductor Applications 0.3
6
(Discrete Early Action)
H-3Reduction of Perfluorocarbons in Semiconductor 0.15
Manufacturing (Discrete Early Action)
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-27
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
GHG
Reductions
(Annual Million
MeasureMetric Tons
COe)
No.Measure Description
2
H-4Limit High GWP Use in Consumer Products Discrete Early 0.25
Action (Adopted June 2008)
H-5High GWP Reductions from Mobile Sources 3.3
Low GWP Refrigerants for New Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioning Systems
Air Conditioner Refrigerant Leak Test During Vehicle Smog
Check
Refrigerant Recovery from Decommissioned Refrigerated
Shipping Containers
Enforcement of Federal Ban on Refrigerant Release during
Servicing or Dismantling of Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning
Systems
H-6High GWP Reductions from Stationary Sources 10.9
High GWP Stationary Equipment Refrigerant Management
Program:
Refrigerant Tracking/Reporting/Repair Deposit Program
o
Specifications for Commercial and Industrial
o
Refrigeration Systems
Foam Recovery and Destruction Program
SF Leak Reduction and Recycling in Electrical Applications
Alternative Suppressants in Fire Protection Systems
Residential Refrigeration Early Retirement Program
H-7Mitigation Fee on High GWP Gases 5
Agriculture
A-1Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1.0†
1
This is not the SB 375 regional target. CARB will establish regional targets for each of California’s 18
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO’s) regions following the input of the regional targets
advisory committee and a consultation process with MPO’s and other stakeholders per SB 375
† GHG emission reduction estimates are not included in calculating the total reductions needed to meet
the 2020 target
Senate Bill 1368 (Chapter 598, Statutes of 2006) (Calif. Public Utilities Code Sections 8340
et seq.)
Senate Bill (SB) 1368 required the CPUC to establish a GHG emissions performance
standard for “baseload” generation from investor-owned utilities by February 1, 2007. The
CEC was required to establish a similar standard for local publicly-owned utilities by June
30, 2007. The legislation further required that all electricity provided to California, including
imported electricity, must be generated from plants that meet or exceed the standards set by
the CPUC and the CEC. In January 2007, the CPUC adopted an interim performance
P3-28 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
standard for new long-term commitments (1,100 pounds of CO per megawatt-hour), and in
2
May 2007, the CEC approved regulations that match the CPUC standard.
Executive Order S-01-07 (Gov. Schwarzenegger, January 2007)
A Low-Carbon Fuel Standard was established by Executive Order S-01-07 in January 2007.
The Order calls for a statewide goal to be established to reduce the carbon intensity of
California’s transportation fuels by at least 10% by 2020 (“2020 Target”), and that a Low
Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels be established for California. Further,
it directed the ARB to determine if an LCFS could be adopted as a discrete early action
measure pursuant to AB 32, and if so, ARB was required to consider the adoption of a LCFS
on the list of early action measures required to be identified by June 30, 2007, pursuant to
Health and Safety Code Section 38560.5 (see GHG Emissions Table 3; Measure T-2). The
LCFS applies to all refiners, blenders, producers or importers (“Providers”) of transportation
fuels in California, and will be measured on a full fuels cycle basis, and may be met through
market-based methods by which Providers exceeding the performance required by a LCFS
shall receive credits that may be applied to future obligations if traded to Providers not
meeting the LCFS.
Senate Bill 97 (Chapter 185, Statutes of 2007) (Calif. Public Resources Code Sections
21083.5 and 21097)
Senate Bill (SB) 97 directed the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare, develop,
and transmit to the California Resources Agency guidelines for feasible mitigation of GHG
emissions or the effects of GHG emissions, by July 1, 2009. The Resources Agency was
required to certify and adopt amendments to the Guidelines implementing the CEQA
Guidelines on or before January 1, 2010. OPR submitted recommended Amendments to the
CEQA Guidelines for GHG emissions to the Natural Resources Agency on April 13, 2009
(OPR, 2010). On July 3, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency commenced the
Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process for certifying and adopting these
amendments pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.05. The Natural Resources
Agency transmitted the adopted Amendments and the entire rulemaking file to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) on December 31, 2009. The Office of Administrative Law
approved the Amendments, and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the
California Code of Regulations on February 16, 2010. The Amendments became effective
on March 18, 2010 (OPR, 2010).
Senate Bill 375 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008)
September 30, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill (SB) 375 into law.
SB375 links transportation and land use planning with the CEQA process to help achieve the
GHG emission reduction targets set by AB 32. Regional transportation planning agencies are
required to include a sustainable community strategy (SCS) in regional transportation plans.
The SCS must contain a planned growth scenario that is integrated with the transportation
network and policies in such a way that it is feasible to achieve AB 32 goals on a regional
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-29
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
level. SB 375 also identifies new CEQA exemptions and streamlining for projects that are
consistent with the SCS and qualify as Transportation Priority Projects (TPP). TPPs must
meet three requirements: 1) contain at least 50% residential use; commercial use must have
floor area ratio (FAR) of not less than 0.75; 2) have a minimum net density of 20 units per
acre; and 3) be located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high quality transit
corridor included in the regional transportation plan.
Executive Order S-14-08 (Gov. Schwarzenegger, November 2008)
Executive Order S-14-04, signed on November 17, 2008, mandates a RPS of 33% by 2020.
Regional Coordination
In the Bay Area, the Joint Policy Committee (JPC) coordinates the regional planning efforts
of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the BAAQMD, the San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC). The JPC commenced a six-month program to study the
issue of climate change and to recommend an initial set of actions to be pursued jointly by
the four regional agencies in the fall of 2006. The study recommends that the regional
agencies build their Joint Climate Protection Strategy in service of this key goal: To be a
model for California, the nation, and the world. The JPC then organizes initial actions by the
following six strategy elements: establish priorities; increase public awareness and motivate
action; provide assistance; reduce unnecessary driving; prepare to adapt; and break old
habits.
The region plans to invest $400 million towards a five-year Transportation Climate Action
Campaign aimed at smart traveling and smart driving. The investment is an effort to reduce
GHG emissions from the transportation sector as part of the proposed investments in the
Transportation 2035 Plan. The action campaign, to be implemented by the four regional
agencies, focuses on outreach/education, Safe Routes to Schools, Safe Routes to Transit,
transit priority measures (TPMs) for local bus transit, and grants/incentive programs.
City of South San Francisco Regulations
The City of South San Francisco does not currently have any adopted policies or plans
regarding the reduction of GHG emissions. The City participated in a training workshop
held by BAAQMD and ICLEI on community GHG emission inventories in December 2007
to begin the process of conducting a government and community-wide GHG emissions
baseline inventory. A 2005 Government Emissions Inventory was completed in 2009, and in
January of 2011, the City Council accepted the 2005 baseline City-wide emissions inventory.
Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (Chapter 20.120 of the Municipal Code)
South San Francisco’s current Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance states
that for non-residential sites generating more than 100 daily trips, a minimum of 28% of all
P3-30 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
trips must be made through alternative mode use. For projects that seek a floor area ratio
(FAR) bonus in accordance with the General Plan, 30% to 45% of all trips must be made
through alternative mode use, depending on the type of development and requested FAR.
This project does not trigger the TDM requirement, but the applicant will be implementing
several trip reduction measures as part of their parking reduction application.
I
MPACTS
a) Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Significance Criteria:The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines identify a project
specific threshold of either 1,100 metric tons of COe per year or 4.6 metric tons of COe per
22
year per service population (i.e., the number of residents plus the number of employees
associated with a new development) as resulting in a cumulatively considerable contribution
of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact to GCC. Alternatively, a project
that is found to be consistent with a Qualified Climate Action Plan would have a less than
significant impact to global climate change. This analysis applies the 1,100 metric tons of
COe per year significance criterion.
2
URBEMIS2007 and the BAAQMD GHG Model (Version 1.1.9) were used to quantify GHG
emissions associated with project construction activities (for informational purposes), as well
as long-term operations associated with natural gas space and water heating, electricity,
landscape maintenance, and vehicles. Estimated construction GHG emissions that would be
GHG Emissions Table 4
associated with the Project are presented in . As indicated, short-
term annual construction related GHG emissions would be 182 metric tons.
GHG Emissions Table 4 also provides the estimated operational GHG emissions that would
The GHG impacts would be 112 metric tons per year, which
be associated with the Project.
is less than the BAAQMD threshold of 1,100 metric tons and thus, less than significant.
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-31
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
GHG EMISSIONS TABLE 4
PREFERRED PROJECT RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Emission Source GHG COe Metric Tons Per Year
2
Construction 182
Operations
Area Sources 0.2
Electricity 24.5
Natural Gas 2.0
Water & Wastewater 0.3
Solid Waste 6.1
Motor Vehicles 78.4
Operations Total 112
BAAQMD Threshold 1,100
Significant?No
Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all assumptions used as input to estimate emissions.
b) Potential Conflicts with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation
The City of South San Francisco currently does not have an applicable adopted plan, policy,
or regulation regarding the reduction of GHG emissions. The City is currently in the process
of establishing a baseline government and community-wide inventory of GHG emissions.
The Project would result in a significant impact if it would be in conflict with AB 32 State
goals for reducing GHG emissions. The assumption is that AB 32 will be successful in
reducing GHG emissions and reducing the cumulative GHG emissions statewide by 2020.
The State has taken these measures, because no project individually could have a major
. Therefore, the
impact (either positively or negatively) on the global concentration of GHG
Project has been reviewed relative to the AB 32 measures and it has been determined that
the Project would not conflict with the goals of AB 32.
Finding:
The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact
with respect to GHG emissions or GCC.
P3-32 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
3.4BR
IOLOGICALESOURCES
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for PotentiallyLess Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact SignificantSignificantSignificantNo
Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the
Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either x
directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
x
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
x
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
x
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
x
ordinances protecting biological resources, such
as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
x
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
S/B
ETTINGACKGROUND
The Project site has been developed since the early 1950’s. The Project site is surrounded by
single family residential development to the north and east, upslope from the Project. Heavy
commercial and or light industrial land uses flank the Project’s eastern property line. Mixed-
use residential, commercial and school uses are across Hillside Boulevard from the Project.
The Project is in an area that has been developed since the 1950’s.
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-33
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
South San Francisco
Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 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 Open Space and Conservation Element-Habitat and
Biological Resources Conservation
Figure 7-1, General Plan Policies for Sensitive Biological Resources (page 225), identifies
areas within the City that habitat and resource conservation policies shall apply. Figure 7-2,
Special Environmental Studies Required for Development Proposals, (page 227) identifies
areas that require additional biological and geotechnical engineering studies prior to
entitlement review.
State of California
California Department of Fish and Game
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.”
Federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA: 16 U.S.C., Section 703-71)
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 typically enforced by the
California Department Fish and Game. A standard 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 and should
nests be found they 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.
P3-34 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
I
MPACTS
a-d) Habitat
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant impact if it were to substantially
impact habitat, wetlands, migratory corridors and Waters of the United States as identified in
3.4 a-d, above. Suitable habitat requires the presence of vegetation for cover and food and a
source of water. Suitable wildlife habitat is located approximately 0.25 miles north of the
Project in San Bruno Mountain.
The Project site itself is void of vegetation, such as large trees, and water suitable for wildlife
habitat. The proximity of suitable habitat, San Bruno Mountain approximately 0.25 miles
north of the site, further renders the habitat value of the Project site as insignificant.
no impacton any endangered, threatened or rare species or their
The Project would have
habitats, or to any federally protected wetlands or wildlife corridors
.
e) and f) 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.
There are no Protected Trees on the site. The Project site is not identified in General Plan
Figures 7-1, General Plan Policies for Sensitive Biological Resources and 7-2 Special
Environmental Studies Required for Development Proposals. No Habitat or Conservation
Plan governs the site, as the site does not contain habitat. The Project is not located on
no impacton General Plan policies or
ecologically sensitive lands and would have
ordinances protecting biological resources
.
Finding:
The Project would not result in a significant impact or significant unavoidable
impact to biological resources individually or cumulatively. The Project is not located on
ecologically sensitive lands, does not contain habitat and would have no impact on General
Plan policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-35
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
3.5 CR
ULTURAL ESOURCES
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for PotentiallyLess Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact SignificantSignificantSignificantNo
Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
V.CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the
Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the x
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
x
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
x
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including x
those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
S/B
ETTINGACKGROUND
The Project is located approximately 2/3rds of a mile west of San Francisco Bay and
approximately 0.25 of a mile from the southern edge of San Bruno Mountain. The Project
geotechnical report (Geotechnical Investigation, Cornerstone Earth Group, May 28, 2010)
notes that site soils are comprised of two to six feet of clayey sand (artificial fill) over
sandstone and shale bedrock of the Franciscan Complex. As noted in previous sections, the
Project site was graded and developed in the early 1950’s.
Native Americans, over 5,000 years ago, typically settled along creek banks and the margins
of San Francisco Bay. The South San Francisco General Plan (page 242) identifies three
cultural resources within its jurisdiction. Two sites are located on San Bruno Mountain
located within a parcel deed restricted as open space in perpetuity at the northern edge of
South San Francisco within the legal jurisdiction of San Mateo County. The other site is
along Colma Creek within the City’s El Camino Corridor planning area. The three sites are
not within the vicinity of the Project site.
I
MPACTS
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
§15064.5.
P3-36 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Project site or buildings contained therein are not identified on Figure 7-3 Designated
Historic Resources in the City’s General Plan (page 241). There are no historical resources
no impact on historic resources
or structures on the Project site. The Project would have .
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 §15064.5, directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
unique geologic feature, or disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
formal cemeteries.
State law requires that in the event human remains or evidence Native American habitation
are uncovered during Project activities is discovered for all construction activity to cease.
Depending upon the findings, a coroner and/or archaeologist is required to inspect the site.
Project work that would not impact the findings may continue under supervision of an
archaeologist. A removal or preservation plan is required to address the find.
The San Francisco General Plan acknowledges the importance of encouraging municipal and
community awareness and appreciation of historic and cultural resources (Guiding Policies
7.5-G-1 and 2). The policies also speak to conservation of cultural and historic resources.
The site is not known or suspected to contain cultural resources as noted on page 242 of the
General Plan. Moreover, soil borings conducted since in 2010 (Cornerstone, 2010) did not
uncover shell bits associated with previous habitation associated with Native Americans.
The soil is composed of clayey sand (artificial fill) over sandstone and shale bedrock of the
no impact on archaeological resources
Franciscan Complex. The Project would have
The Project is located on a previously graded parcel and in a developed area.
Finding:
There are no known historic, archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains
located on the Project site. Moreover soil borings taken from the Project do not show
evidence of soils associated with archaeological resources, such as shell bits. The Project
would have no impacton cultural resources.
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-37
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
3.6GS
EOLOGY AND OILS
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for PotentiallyLess Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact SignificantSignificantSignificantNo
Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the Project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
x
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? x
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including x
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
x
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
x
of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
x
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the Project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
x
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
x
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
waste water disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of waste water?
S/B
ETTINGACKGROUND
Geotechnical investigation was submitted as part of the Project:
Geotechnical Investigation Gimbals Building Expansion 250 Hillside Boulevard,
South San Francisco, California, Cornerstone Earth Group, May 28, 2010); and,
P3-38 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Geotechnical Investigation Gimbals Building Expansion 250 Hillside Boulevard,
South San Francisco, California, Cornerstone Earth Group, April 9, 2011.
The geotechnical reports were peer reviewed by Cotton Shires, Associates, Inc, the City’s
consulting geologists.
Geotechnical Peer Review Gimbals Building Expansion 250 Hillside Boulevard,
Cotton Shires Associates, March 14, 2011; and,
Geotechnical Peer Review Gimbals Building Expansion 250 Hillside Boulevard,
Cotton Shires Associates, April 22, 2011.
The evaluation contained in this section summarizes the findings of the reports as modified
or confirmed by Cotton Shires.
Site History and Conditions
Review of aerial photographs indicates that the Project site and surrounding area were
undeveloped in 1943, with the exception of Hillside Boulevard and Linden Avenue. The
area of the site encompassed the lower part of a southwest facing, moderately sloping
hillside. The main building appears in photographs taken in 1953, but without any parking
areas. Creating the building pad required substantial cuts into the hillside. The 1968 aerial
photographs indicate additional grading had occurred on the slope, northeast and upslope
from the site, and severe erosion was apparent on the cut slope on the northeast property line.
The 1974 photographs indicate that extensive grading had occurred on the parcel northeast of
the Project site which resulted in further erosion.
Today the Project site is located at the base of a moderate to steep southwest and southeast
facing hillside, just east of the intersection of Hillside Boulevard and North Spruce Avenue.
The existing building area is on a relatively flat portion of the site. A gentle slope of two to
three feet in height is located along the southeastern site of the proposed 8,800 square foot
addition. Cut slopes facing to the south and southwest, beyond building area are steep
ranging in inclination from 55 to 60 percent. A shallow landslide (i.e., slough), less than five
feet in depth is located on the cut slope.
The Project is located where slope debris (Qsr, Cornerstone, 2010) has been geologically
deposited over bedrock of the Franciscan Complex. These Qsr deposits consist of
alluvium/colluvium that occur in areas primarily adjacent to bedrock exposures, at the base
of slopes, and in accumulations in swales and gullies. These deposits are primarily clay to
sandy clay, sandy silt, clayey to silty sand, clean sand and silty gravel. These types of
deposits are generally defined as “unstratified or poorly stratified stoney to clayey sand with
local variations to silty or clayey sand or gravel. Slope debris overlays “sheared rocks” (KJu)
of the Franciscan Complex. The sheared rock is small to large fragments of hard rock in a
matrix of sheared rock derived mostly from shale and sandstone of Franciscan Complex.
The sheared rock is generally coherent and firm but soft in places where weathered.
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-39
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
Cornerstone performed four exploratory borings on the site on April 29, and May 3, 2010.
The borings went to depths ranging from three to 23.7 feet below ground surface (bgs). An
engineering geologist conducted site reconnaissance to map the aerial extent of geologic
deposits and obtain other details regarding site conditions and potential hazards.
Cornerstone’s reconnaissance revealed the sheared rock on the site is predominately
sandstone and exposed over much of the site. The exposed sandstone is hard and fractured,
with close spacing, and is massive and cemented. The colluvium increases over the site from
northeast to southwest. A layer of undocumented fill overlies the colluvium and bedrock on
most portions of the site, save the slope located near the northeast property line above the
area proposed for the building expansion.
Groundwater was not encountered in site borings up to 23.7 feet bgs. Cornerstone notes that
the site is in an area where historic high groundwater has not been determined (May 28,
2010, page 5). Localized water seepage in the slope above the driveway was noted during
site visits and is likely attributed to a leaking irrigation or water line.
The San Andreas and San Gregorio faults lay approximately 3.5 and eight miles,
respectively, west of the site. The Hayward fault is approximately 15 miles east of the site.
The Calavaras fault is approximately 24 miles east of the site. The inactive Hillside fault is
th
approximately 1/8 of a mile north of the site.
Cotton Shires notes the site is constrained by undocumented fill, variable depths to bedrock,
potential shallow sloughing of steep slopes near the proposed addition and anticipated
seismic groundshaking (March 14, 2011). Cornerstone notes (and provides design
mitigations for) localized slumping and raveling on slopes; ground water seepage,
undocumented fill, potential difficult excavation and building setbacks from the base of the
slope.
I
MPACTS
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.
i) Surface Fault Rupture
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 the
surface rupture of a known earthquake fault. This type of an impact is associated with
development atop or within 100 feet (i.e., 50 feet on either side) of a known active fault. The
enabling legislation known as Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zones was adopted by the
California Legislature in 1972, has been amended over the years and is commonly referred to
as “earthquake zones”. The legislation requires the California Division of Mines and
P3-40 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Geology to map known earthquake faults and fault traces and most development is now
prohibited in these zones.
The site is not underlain by an active earthquake fault and as such would not be affected by
surface rupture. The San Andreas and San Gregorio faults lay approximately 3.5 and eight
miles, respectively, west of the site. The Hayward fault is approximately 15 miles east of the
lessthan
site. The Calavaras fault is approximately 25 miles east of the site. There would be
significant impactassociated with ground rupture
.
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. It is reasonable to assume that an earthquake
with a magnitude similar to that of the Loma Prieta, 7.1, would occur during the lifetime of
the Project.
USGS identifies the site and Project area as bordering on both Soil Type C and D. Soil Type
C exhibits moderate ground amplification during a seismic event. Soil types A and B less
ground amplification during a seismic event and types D and E exhibit more amplification
with Soil Type E exhibiting the strongest ground amplification.
Additional development on the Project would slightly increase the size of structures and
number of 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 California Building
Code (CBC) standards for seismic safety.
The geotechnical report (Cornerstone, May 28, 2010) contains design criteria based upon the
2007 CBC. The Project as a matter of law would be required to conform to and implement
the 2010 CBC requirements. The 2010 CBC contains considerable seismic design updates
from previous years. The Project is required by law to conform to the 2010 CBC and this
seismic ground-shaking is reduced to a level ofless than
would ensure that the impact of
significant
.
iii) Liquefaction
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.
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-41
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
Liquefaction is a secondary seismic hazard involving saturated cohesionless 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, non-cohesive, uniformly-graded, fine-grained sands that are saturated and bedded with
poor drainage. These soils are often, but not exclusively, located along the bay and ocean
margins and in areas of artificial fill.
The Project site is not currently mapped by the State of California with respect to
liquefaction potential. The Association of Bay Area Governments mapping identifies the site
as having a very low liquefaction potential.Cornerstone (May, 2010) screened the site for
liquefaction potential. Cornerstone found the site contains medium dense to dense granular
soils underlain by shallow bedrock. Groundwater was not found within the bedrock (up to
23.7 feet). Cornerstone concludes the site exhibits a very low potential for liquefaction, and
less
Cotton Shires (March, 2011) concurs with this assessment. The Project would have a
than significant impact with respect to liquefaction of subsurface materials
.
iv) Landslides
Significance Criteria: A landslide is a mass of rock, soil and debris displaced down slope by
sliding, flowing or falling. The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it
were to expose people or structures to substantial hazards from landslides; a landslide with
potential volume or velocity to destroy property or endanger life.
Cornerstone (May, 2010) notes that the state has not finished mapping landslide hazards in
the San Francisco South Quadrangle where the Project is located. The preparer of this
document reviewed websites and concurs with this conclusion. Bonilla (1971 Preliminary
Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7.5-minute Quadrangle and part of the Hunters
Point 7.5-minute Quadrangle, California: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field
Studies Map MF-311, 2 sheets, scale 1:24,000 and 1998, Preliminary Geologic Map of the
San Francisco South 7.5-minute Quadrangle and part of the Hunters Point 7.5-minute
Quadrangle, San Francisco Bay Area, California: A Digital Database: U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 98-354, scale 1:24,000) shows two small slumps located in the
moderately inclined slope just southeast of the Project. Bonilla does not show any landslides
in areas that potentially impact the Project. Cornerstone (May, 2010) concurs with this
finding as does Cotton Shires (March, 2011).
Cornerstone does note small scale sloughing on the fill slope near the northwest property
line. Cornerstone also notes the presence of a few small scale arcuate scarps in the same
area. One of these features was investigated by Cornerstone and was found to contain very
moist conditions. The proposed retaining wall would remove some of the sloughing, but not
all of the material. Cornerstone recommends total removal of the sloughing material and
replacement with rock slope facing (May, 2010, page 15). There is no threat of a major
landslide on the site but there is minor sloughing on the northwest slope. The Project would
P3-42 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
less than significant impact with respect to major landslides. There is localized
have
sloughing on the site and included as part of the Project design are measures to mitigate
the sloughing. These measures are required to be implemented as a matter of law.
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.
Cornerstone (May, 2010, page 15) recommends permanent erosion control measures for the
slopes around the Project. These measures include hydroseeding slopes, landscape ground
cover, jute netting, straw matting or erosion control blankets. These measures are required
by law as the geotechnical report and City’s peer review are required to be incorporated into
the Project.
Cornerstone (page 15, May 2010) notes seepage from the slope above the driveway entrance.
Cornerstone notes that the source is unknown and could be a leaking water or irrigation pipe
or a naturally occurring spring. Cornerstone concludes that the seepage is a maintenance
issue, not a hazard. Cornerstone recommends checking the pipes for leaks and if no leaks are
found to install a subdrain to control the water. A design detail for a subdrain is included in
the geotechnical report.
Peer review of the plans indicates that the building addition would be one foot from the
eastern property line. The Project as designed would require a spread footing that would be
six inches from the eastern property line and would not require grading over the property line
(Cotton Shires, e-mail April 14, 2011 and memorandum April 22, 2011).
The Project would have very little potential to increase erosion during construction and post
construction. In addition to the requirements of the geotechnical report, the Project is subject
to the NPDES C-3 erosion control requirements which would be implemented during and
Chapter 1, Section 1.2.4Section 3.8: Hydrology and Water Quality
post construction. and ,
erosion control measures are required as a matter
describes these measures in detail. The
of law and as a result this impact is considered to be less than significant.
c) Geologic Instability and d) Expansive Soils
Significance Criteria: 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; and if located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or
property.
Expansive Soils: Cornerstone (May, 2010) performed a Plasticity Index (PI) on site soils. A
PI test is used to determine the plasticity, or expansion potential of soils. The PI test
indicates a value of 7, a very low expansion potential.
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-43
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
Differential Settlement: Differential settlement typically can occur if a project is built upon
loose unsaturated soils or across two vastly different soil types. Foundation design can
mitigate the impacts of differential settlement. Project soils are dense and consolidated
(Cornerstone, May 28, 2010). The potential for differential settlement on the Project site is
th
1/8 of an inch over 30 feet (Cornerstone, April 9, 2011 and Cotton Shires, April 22, 2011)
which is considered less than significant.
Lateral Spreading: Lateral spreading is the horizontal or lateral ground movement of
relatively flat-laying soil deposits towards a “free face” which is an area of excavation, a
channel, or open body of water.Lateral spreading is typically associated with liquefaction of
one or more surface layers near the bottom of an exposed slope.
There are no open faces within 200 feet of the Project where lateral spreading could occur
a.
(Cornerstone, 2010. Moreover the liquefaction potential of the site is very low as noted in
iii
, above. Cornerstone concludes the site exhibits a very low potential for liquefaction and
lateral spreading and Cotton Shires (March, 2011) concurs with this assessment. Therefore
the potential for lateral spreading is very low.
Setting/Background Sectiona b, above
Available data, identified in the and in and, indicate
that the site is relatively stable. Soil borings indicate the site soils are very low in plasticity
and as such do not introduce the potential for substantial risks to life or property. The Project
less than significantimpactwith respect to a geologic unit becoming
would result in a
unstable
and the Project would not result in the potential for on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, differential settlement or collapse. The Project would
less than significant impact with respect to expansive soils.
have a
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 and will continue to be connected to the City’s sanitary sewer
system as a requirement of general engineering conditions of approval. Therefore, the Project
no impacton soils due to septic systems
would have .
Finding:
The Project site is not underlain by an earthquake fault and as such the potential
for ground rupture is very low. Conformance with the 2010 California Building Code would
reduce seismic shaking impacts to less than significant. The site soils are low in plasticity.
Ground acceleration is in the mid-range (Type C/D soils, USGS). Site soils are considered
low impact with respect liquefaction. Subsidence would be considered negligible. The
Project would not be connected to a septic system and as such would not contribute to ground
failure. There is no threat of a major landslide on the site but there is minor sloughing on the
northwest slope. Based on the analysis, the Project would have a less than significant impact
with respect to Geology and Soils.
P3-44 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
3.7HHM
AZARDS AND AZARDOUS ATERIALS
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for PotentiallyLess Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact SignificantSignificantSignificantNo
Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS — Would the Project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or x
the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
x
the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
x
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
x
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a Project located within an airport land
x
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the Project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the Project area?
f) For a Project within the vicinity of a
x
private airstrip, would the Project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the Project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
x
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
x
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-45
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
S/B
ETTINGACKGROUND
The Project site has been developed since the early1950’s with the Gimbal’s candy use.
INTRODUCTION
The term “hazardous materials”, for the purposes of this analysis, refers to both hazardous
materials and hazardous wastes. Under federal and State laws, any material, including wastes, may
be considered hazardous if it is specifically listed by statute as such or if it is toxic (causes
adverse human health effects), ignitable (has the ability to burn), corrosive (causes severe
burns or damage to materials), or reactive (causes explosions or generates toxic gases). The
term “hazardous material” is defined as any material that, because of quantity,
concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or
potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the
State of California, Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.95,
workplace or the environment (
Section 25501(o).
Hazardous materials, including but not limited to pesticides and herbicides, heavy metals,
volatile organic compounds, oil and gas, may be present in soil and groundwater in areas where
land uses have resulted in leaking fuel or chemical storage tanks or other releases of hazardous
materials have occurred. Land uses that typically involve the handling of hazardous materials
include commercial or industrial operations, as well as agricultural areas where soils may contain
pesticides and herbicides.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Various federal, State, and local regulatory agencies maintain lists of hazardous materials sites
where soil and/or groundwater contamination is known or suspected to have occurred,
typically as a result of leaking storage tanks or other spills. These facilities are readily
identified through regulatory agency database searches, such as the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker online database, the California Environmental Protection
Agency (CalEPA), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor online
database, and several other federal, State and local regulatory agency databases.
There are numerous federal, State, and local laws, regulations, ordinances and guidance intended
to protect public health and safety and the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA), CalEPA, DTSC, RWQCB, California Air Resources Board (CARB),
federal and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), California
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), CAL FIRE and the local
oversight agencies are the major federal, State, and regional agencies that enforce these
regulations. The main focus of OSHA is to prevent work-related injuries and illnesses,
including from exposures to hazardous materials. CalRecycle is mandated to reduce waste,
promote the management of materials to their highest and best use, and protect public health
and safety and the environment (CalRecycle, 2010). CAL FIRE implements fire safety
regulations. In accordance with Chapter 6.11 of the California Health and Safety Code (§ 25404,
P3-46 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
et seq.), local regulatory agencies enforce many federal and state regulatory programs through the
Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) program, including:
Hazardous materials business plans (Chapter 6.95 of the Health and Safety Code,
§25501 et seq.).
State Uniform Fire Code requirements (§80.103 of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted
by the state fire marshal pursuant to Health and Safety Code §13143.9).
Underground storage tanks (Chapter 6.7 of the Health and Safety Code, §25280
et seq.).
Aboveground storage tanks (Health and Safety Code §25270.5[c]).
Hazardous waste generator requirements (Chapter 6.5 of the Health and Safety Code, §25100
et seq.).
I
MPACTS
a) and b) Hazardous Materials
Significance 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.
The Project predominately involves the manufacturing of candy; an activity not associated
with the storage or use of hazardous materials or hazardous chemicals to the extent that, as an
example, car or tool manufacturing does. Some maintenance activity does occur on the site
and is discussed in the following paragraph. There are truck deliveries to and from the site
that bring in food products for manufacturing and to transport the finished product to the
Shaw Road distribution facility. Any risk of upset due to routine transport of materials
would be of a food nature and not toxic, save for any spills associated with motor fuel. Risks
associated with vehicular transport would be similar to existing conditions on the Project site
and in the neighborhood should an accident involving motor vehicles occur. These risks are
minor; none have been reported in the area.
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I) was conducted (Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment, Cornerstone Earth Group, April 5, 2011). The Phase I was conducted
pursuant to “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment Process” (ASTM Standard). The ASTM Standard is in compliance with the
Environmental Protection Agency rule titled, “Standards and Practices for All Appropriate
Enquiries; Final Rule.” The Phase I notes that the maintenance area, a separate area from the
manufacturing area, does contain paints, lubricants, adhesives and caulk stored in a metal
cabinet. The products are contained in their retail packaging and not in quantities larger than
a quart. Water treatment chemicals to prevent corrosion in the on-site boiler are also present.
There was no evidence of spills or leaks. The Phase I notes that a 1,000 gallon gasoline
underground storage tank is located on the site was closed in compliance with San Mateo
County Department of Environmental Health (SMCDEH) oversight. SMCDEH performed
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-47
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
borings in 1986 to detect if any leaks or spills from the tank occurred. No spills or leaks
were recorded and no diesel or gasoline hydrocarbons were detected in the soil. SMCDEH
issued a letter in 2007 stating the tank was closed in place and no further action is required.
A Hazardous Materials Management Plan for the site is on file with SMCDEH. SMCDEH
has permitted and does regulate the site. The Plan notes the presence of a 55-gallon drum of
waste oil, up to 65 gallons of polishing glazes containing ethyl alcohol and compressed gases
(oxygen, acetylene, argon and propane) on the site. A permit to store less than 219 gallons of
hazardous materials and generate less than 27 gallons of hazardous wastes per year is also on
file with SMCDEH. SMCDEH notes no violations of permitting or spills on the site. South
San Francisco Fire Department records note no violations or spills.
The South San Francisco Fire Department did not identify any concerns with respect to the
Project during internal review. Moreover, the South San Francisco Fire Department conducts
routine inspections of all commercial and industrial land use activities within the city for
compliance with fire codes which include proper hazardous materials handling and disposal.
impact of the Project with regards to hazardous materials transport or spill would be
The
less than significant
.
c) Hazardous Activities within ¼ mile of a School
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.
The Martin Elementary School and the Girls and Boys Club are located west of the site
across Hillside Boulevard and North Spruce Avenue. Martin Elementary School is located
approximately 500 feet to the west of the Project. The Project involves the manufacturing of
candy; an activity not associated with materials or hazardous chemicals. The Project would
less than significant impactwith regards to the presence or release of hazardous
have a
materials or waste within a quarter mile of a school
.
d) Hazardous Materials Presence
Significance CriteriaThe 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”) and clean pursuant to regulatory
permitting and oversight is not in progress.
noimpact from the
The Project is not located on a hazardous material site would have a
emission or handling of hazardous materials or wastes or from any environmental
contamination posed by sites listed on the Cortese List
.
P3-48 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
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 and not in conformance with the plan’s development
and use standards (or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport), if it would result in a 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 not located within two miles of a private airstrip. The Project site is
located approximately two miles north of San Francisco International Airport, and within the
San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC) jurisdiction. The maximum
permitted height in the Project area is 50 feet (Special Area Height Limitations, Figure 2-3,
General Plan, page 35). The height limitation is related to the airport height limitations
pursuant to the ALUC oversight. The ALUC height limitation is based upon safety factors.
The existing height of the Project is 20 feet at the top of parapet and approximately 27 feet at
the top of roof, and the proposed height of the addition is 30 feet.
The Project would be 14 feet below the height established by the ALUC as requisite to
protect public safety and would not result in a safety hazard for people working at the Project
no impactwith respect to safety hazards or height limitations
site. The Project would have
due to a nearby airport.
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 has been reviewed by Police and Fire representatives of the City and provides
no impacton the
adequate access and circulation area. The proposed Project would have
implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan
.
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.
The City classifies fire management areas in three categories: High, Medium and Low
Priority Management Units (Fire Hazard Management Units, Figure 8-4, General Plan, page
265). The classification refers to the level of risk management. The Project site is neither
within a wildland fire management area nor at an urban/wildland interface zone. The Project
no impacton
is in the Low Priority Management Units area. The Project would have
fighting wildland
fires.
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-49
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
Finding
: The Project site is appropriate for continued manufacturing use. The Project
would not introduce fire, safety or hazardous materials risk into the area beyond that
normally anticipated with a food manufacturing use land use. Moreover, no accidents or
spills have been recorded on the site (Phase I ESA). The Project would not expose a school
to the risk from hazardous materials; and would not result in an impact or contribute to a
cumulative impact from hazardous materials exposure.
P3-50 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
3.8HWQ
YDROLOGY AND ATERUALITY
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for PotentiallyLess Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact SignificantSignificantSignificantNo
Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY —
Would the Project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or x
waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies
x
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses
or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage x
pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
x
pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner, which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
x
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
x
quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood
x
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
x
structures, which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
x
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-51
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for PotentiallyLess Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact SignificantSignificantSignificantNo
Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
x
mudflow?
S/B
ETTINGACKGROUND
Colma Creek, the City’s main natural drainage system, is a perennial stream with a watershed
of about 16.3 square miles that trends in a roughly southeasterly direction through the center
of the City. The Colma Creek watershed is one of the three largest in the County. The basin
is bounded on the northeast by San Bruno Mountain and on the west by a ridge traced by
Skyline Boulevard. Dominant topographic features of the drainage basin include two
relatively straight mountain ridges that diverge toward the southeast that are connected by a
low ridge at the northern boundary of the area. The valley enclosed by the ridges widens
toward the southeast where it drains into San Francisco Bay.
The site is located in Flood Zone C defined as “areas of minimal flooding” on the City’s
Federal Emergency Mapping Act (FEMA) map (Community Panel # 065062 0007B,
September 2, 1982).
The 75,433 square foot (1.73 acre) Project site is developed with a 28,902 square foot
building. The Project would add 8,810 square feet for a total of 37,712 square feet. Lot
coverage would be 0.50; a 22 percent increase from the existing 0.38 lot coverage and floor
area ratio. If approved, the Project shall comply withNational Pollutant Discharge
Regulatory
Elimination System Storm filtration, retention and drainage requirements (see
FrameworkChapter 1, Section 1.2.4, Hydrology and Water Quality
, below and ).
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water 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
Elimination 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 of 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
P3-52 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
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. Typical storm water quality protection measures are identified
Chapter 1, Section 1.2.4
in of this document.
State Water 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 Control Board’s general permitting requirements
which require 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.
I
MPACTS
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
Chapter 1.2.4, Hydrology and Water Quality
of the Public Works Department (see ). The
less than significant impact with respect to violations of water
Project would present a
quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
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 would not increase impervious surfaces on the site. The Project would add floor
impact on depletion or
area in an area that is already paved and impervious. The Project’s
interference with groundwater would be less than significant
.
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-53
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
c and d) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Erosion and Siltation Effects or 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 in a manner which would result
in substantial erosion or siltation. 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.
There are no streams or water courses on the Project site. Therefore streams, watercourses or
rivers would not be affected by the Project.
The Project would correct the current drainage patterns on the site. The site currently drains
by sheetflow off the slopes and onto the paved area. The Project proposes to improve the
storm drain system on the site to correct this situation. Moreover, the Project would be
required to incorporate BMP’s into construction and design of the site and as such would
improve drainage patterns eliminate any siltation into the storm drain system.
Geology and Soils Section 3.6
The, above notes the presence of water seepage at the base of
the driveway slope. The cause of the seepage is either leaking water or irrigation pipes
upslope or a naturally occurring spring that became evident likely due to the high volume of
recent rains. The Project proposes to correct the water seepage and depending on the source,
either a drain would be installed or leaking water or irrigation pipes repaired. There would
no impact related to altered drainage patterns or siltation at the Project site
be.
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 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/Setting SectionChapter 1, Section 1.2.4
, above, and 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
P3-54 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
correction notices, citations or a Stop Work Order. Plans for the Project will 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
less than significant with respect runoff, polluted runoff and
Project’s impact to a level of
storm drain capacity
.
f) Otherwise Degrade Water Quality
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to degrade water quality.
The Project would improve drainage and site conditions with respect to filtering and
directing water prior to release into the City’s storm drain system. The Project manufactures
candy and is not associated with the use of hazardous materials that could be emitted into the
water system. Minor repair of manufacturing equipment does occur in the shop area of the
Project. To date there have been no issues with solvent, gasoline or diesel releases (City
less than significant impacton
website and Phase I ESA). Therefore, there would be a
water quality from point source water pollution at the Project site
.
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 which would impede or redirect flood flows; or if it were to result in
the exposure of people or structures to flooding hazards.
The site is located in Flood Zone C defined as “areas of minimal flooding” on the City’s
Federal Emergency Mapping Act (FEMA) map (Community Panel # 065062 0007B,
September 2, 1982).
no impact related to the placement of people or structures in a
The Project would have
flood hazard area, the exposure of people or structures to a flood hazard, or a structure in
such a way that it would impede or redirect flood flows
.
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 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 for
a 500-year tsunami (Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, page 250). The
Project site is not located in a tsunami hazard zone as shown on Association of Bay Area
Government maps (ABAG,http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/eqfloods/floods.html).
the impact of potential inundation by tsunami or seiche is considered toless
Therefore, be
than significant
.
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-55
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
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 not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to hydrology or water
quality resources.
3.9 LUP
ANDSE AND LANNING
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for PotentiallyLess Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact SignificantSignificantSignificantNo
Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the
Project:
a) Physically divide an established
x
community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
x
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 x
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
S/B
ETTINGACKGROUND
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
City of South San Francisco
General Plan
The General Plan land use designation is Community Commercial. The Project is located in
the Paradise Valley/Terrabay planning area.Paradise Valley/Terrabay Implementing Policy
3.8-1-4, (General Plan, page 121) states:
Ensure that any redevelopment of the site on the north of Hillside Boulevard at the
terminus of Linden Avenue includes a supermarket, or a grocery store at least
10,000 square feet in area. Require any new development on the site to be built to
the edge of the property along Hillside Boulevard, with transparent storefronts and
awnings for pedestrian comfort.
A General Plan amendment is needed to modify the existing language to allow
redevelopment of the site to continue as a manufacturing use; to allow the continuation and
P3-56 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
expansion of long-term manufacturing uses and to require any new development to be
consistent with the Community Commercial land use designation.
The General Plan amendment would be similar to the language in South Spruce Corridor
Area B: South and Central Corridor Policy 3.3-1-11. The intent of these policies is to retain
long-term manufacturing uses such as See’s Candy, Oroweat Bread and Gimbal’s Fine
Candy which has been in South San Francisco since the 1950’s.
Zoning
The zoning for the site is Community Commercial (CC). The purpose of the commercial,
office and mixed use zoning is to provide appropriately located areas for a full range of
commercial and office uses to ensure the stability of the City’s economy, provide a variety of
goods and services for residents, employees and visitors, and increase employment
opportunities close to home for current and future residents consistent with the General Plan.
The zoning district encourages a diverse mix of commercial and office businesses and work
to ensure that new development is designed to minimize traffic and parking impacts on
surrounding neighborhoods. Development should also be appropriate to the physical
characteristics of the site (South San Francisco Municipal Code, Zoning, Chapter 20.090.001
A-F).
The CC zoning district regulations are intended to provide areas for locally oriented retail
and service uses, community-serving offices, restaurants, retail, public and quasi-public uses,
and similar and compatible uses. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) is 0.5 (op., cit). The
Project proposes a 0.50 FAR.
San Mateo County
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. The ALUC does not have any authority
over airport operations, but it does have the authority to conduct land use planning for areas
around airports 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 50 foot maximum permitted height limit (Figure 2-3, Special
Area Height Limitations, General Plan, page 35). The height limitation is related to the
airport height limitations pursuant to the Airport Land Use Commission oversight. The
ALUC height limitation is based upon safety factors. The maximum existing height of the
Project is 30 feet.
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-57
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
I
MPACTS
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 located in the northern area of the City of South San Francisco within the
Paradise Valley Neighborhood. The Paradise Valley Neighborhood is one of 12
neighborhoods, or planning areas within the City of South San Francisco. The Project site is
adjacent to single family residential development to the north and west. Heavy commercial
and or light industrial land uses flank the Project’s eastern property line. The commercial
uses, located in multi-tenant buildings include a linen supply, storage, book binding, boiler
and engineering company, newspaper publishing, religious institution, cargo freight services,
exercise business and bus repair.
The Martin School, the Girls and Boys Club and residential land uses are located west and
southwest of the site across Hillside Boulevard and North Spruce Avenue. Two small-
service grocery stores and are located in the Project vicinity; one across Hillside Boulevard
and one at the corner of Hillside Boulevard and Linden Avenue. Residential land uses are
located behind the commercial uses fronting Hillside Boulevard, to the south, southwest and
west.
The Project would not change land uses in the area; it would allow for a slight intensification
Project would not
and the continuation of the business established in the early 1950’s. The
divide an established community but would continue with the existing land use and would
therefore have no impact on dividing an established community.
b) Conflicts with Land Use Plan and Zoning
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 Project does require a General Plan amendment to allow the expansion of the
manufacturing business. The City, through its General Plan update process in 1999,
identified the need for a full service grocery store on the Project site. The General Plan
policy states that any redevelopment of the site shall include a supermarket or at least a
grocery store of 10,000 square feet. The policy is based upon area service needs and is not an
environmental protection policy. Environmental protection policies are noted throughout the
General Plan and are discussed in subsequent paragraphs in this section and throughout this
chapter.
The Project site is designated as one with a maximum height limit of 50 feet identified by the
Federal Aviation Administration deemed necessary to protect public safety. The FAA height
P3-58 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
limits are adopted in the City’s General Plan. The Project would be 36 feet maximum or 14
feet below that established by the ALUC as requisite to protect public safety and would not
Section
result in a safety hazard for people working or living at the Project site. As noted in
3.8, Hazards and Hazards Materials
, the Project would not impact airport height limitations.
The Project site is not identified on Figure 7-1, General Plan Policies for Sensitive
Biological Resources or Figure 7-2, Special Environmental Studies Required for
Development Proposals (pages 225 and 227, General Plan). As such the Project would have
no impact with respect to land use or zoning controls developed to address environmental
concerns.
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.
There are no conservation plans either currently in force or proposed for the subject property
Section 3.4, Biological Resources.no
as discussed in Therefore, the Project would have
impacton conservation plans.
Finding:
TheProject would not physically divide an established community. The Project
site is not in a conservation plan area, or under special study for conservation. The Project
would not result in any individually or cumulatively considerable impacts.
3.10 MR
INERALESOURCES
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for PotentiallyLess Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact SignificantSignificantSignificantNo
Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
X.MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the
Project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
x
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a x
locally-important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
S/B
ETTINGACKGROUND
Review of aerial photographs indicates that the Project site and surrounding area were
undeveloped in 1943, with the exception of Hillside Boulevard and Linden Avenue. The
main building appears in photographs taken in 1953.
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-59
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
I
MPACTS
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 a
locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan.
No mineral resources of value to the region and the residents of the state have been identified
at the Project site or within the Project area (General Plan Background Report, 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
no impacton any known mineral
plan. Therefore, the proposed Project would have
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 not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to
mineral resources.
P3-60 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
3.11N
OISE
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for PotentiallyLess Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact SignificantSignificantSignificantNo
Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
XI.NOISE — Would the Project:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
x
noise levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
x
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in
x
ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity
above levels existing without the Project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic x
increase in ambient noise levels in the Project
vicinity above levels existing without the
Project?
e) For a Project located within an airport land
x
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the Project expose
people residing or working in the Project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a Project within the vicinity of a x
private airstrip, would the Project expose people
residing or working in the Project area to
excessive noise levels?
S/B
ETTINGACKGROUND
NOISE SOURCES
The dominant influences on sound levels in the Project area are derived from a combination
of U.S. 101 highway noise, local roadway noise and aircraft flyovers. The loading and
unloading of trucks associated with adjacent heavy commercial/light industrial land uses
occasionally pepper the noise landscape.
NOISE DEFINED
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
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-61
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
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 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 of 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.
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Land uses that are typically considered sensitive to excessive noise include hospitals, day
care centers, schools and residential uses. The closest sensitive receptors are residential land
uses west and north of the Project located along North Spruce Street and Leo Circle. The
closest residence is 150 feet to the west located on North Spruce Street. Residences on Leo
Circle are approximately 200 feet from the Project. School and open space uses are south
and southwest of the Project. Martin Elementary School is located approximately 500 feet
from the Project.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
South San Francisco General Plan
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,
Land Use Criteria for Noise Impacted Areas, of the General Plan (page 280) identifies a
5
noise environment 70 dBA, CNEL or less as acceptable for commercial land uses.
The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit used to quantify sound intensity. Since the human ear is not equally
5
sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, human response is factored into sound
descriptions in a process called "A-weighting" written as "dBA". CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level.
Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night,
state law requires that for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a
24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL).
P3-62 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Section 8.32.050)
The City’s Noise Ordinance restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also limits noise generation of any individual piece of
equipment to 90 dBA, at the property line (Section 8.32.050 (d) (2)). The ordinance does
provide for exceptions to this rule where it is appropriate, i.e., the adjacent land use is not
noise sensitive or the duration of the noise is not determined to be excessive.
The California Building Code (CBC) Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 2.35 of the California
Code of Regulations
The regulation is collectively known as Title 24 which 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
dn
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 L). Title 24 requirements are enforced as a condition
dn
of building permit issuance.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA
)
The USEPA identifies 70 dBA, L as the noise level based on continuous exposure (i.e., 365
eq
and 24-hour a day exposure) below which the public is protected from hearing loss due to
ambient noise sources. The L measurement is not a “weighted” noise descriptor as is the
eq
L.
dn
EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
The Project site is within the 60 to 65 dBA, CNEL noise contour (Figure 2, Projected Road
and Rail Noise, General Plan, page 283). The Project site is not within an area impacted by
aircraft noise (Figure 9-1, Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program Area, General Plan,
page 279).
I
MPACTS
a – d) 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.
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-63
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
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 (i.e., 75 dBA, CNEL without insulation
for industrial or manufacturing land uses), the City’s Noise Ordinance (90 dBA, CNEL at
the property line, in absence of an approved exception for non-noise sensitive adjacencies) or
the USEPA’s threshold of 70 dBA, L continuous noise exposure (i.e. 365 and 24-hour a day
eq
exposure).
Project Construction
Overall Project construction is anticipated to consume 37 weeks, from mobilization to
complete landscaping installation. The noisiest part of construction would be site preparation
which includes demolition, grading, hauling, installation of site utilities, building foundation,
plumbing and retaining wall construction. This phase would take approximately 15 weeks to
complete. Building construction would take approximately 18 weeks, fine grading, paving
and striping and landscaping would take approximately two weeks.
A bulldozer (D-6) with a ripper, compactor and road grader would be used for rough grading,
access area and the building addition and parking area. A hoe ram and jackhammer may be
required for excavation in very dense soils. Pile driving is not proposed, or analyzed in this
document. A 10-wheel dump truck would be used to move excess material from the site, and
a water truck to provide dust control on a daily basis.
Approximately 925 cubic yards of excess earth material would need to be off hauled from the
site during the three weeks of construction associated with the building pad grading and
6
parking access, retaining wall foundation and infrastructure-related grading. Based upon 10
cubic yards per truck, the off haul would equate to a total of 90-95 trucks or approximately
20 to 25 trucks per day for four to five days during the grading period to dispose of excess
material.
Project construction would result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the
operation of grading and construction equipment.Noise levels from grading operations are
usually the noisiest part of construction activities. Sound levels range from about 85 to 90
dBA at 50 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment, such as jack hammers
and hoe rams. Construction noise would be lower ranging from 75 to 85 dBA at 50 feet for
most types of construction equipment. Interior construction of the building would result in
lower noise levels for those outside the building because the shell of the building would
attenuate noise.
The geotechnical report (Cornerstone, April 9, 2011) indicates that grading in very dense
rock may be required. Therefore, a hoe ram or a jackhammer may likely be required for
6
The geotechnical report notes that the 15 cubic yards of fill material may be derived from the excavation. The
air quality and noise sections both use a worst-case assumption of 940 cubic yards and the truck trips associated
with this quantity
.
P3-64 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Project construction. Pile driving is not proposed as noted above, and if due to unforeseen
circumstances was needed, drilling in place is a quieter and less intrusive option.
Grading activities would not be a continuous source of noise on any given day. Noise
impacts due to use of a jackhammer or hoe ram can be reduced in duration with a minimal
and imperceptible (i.e., three dB) increase in sound levels. The geotechnical report notes that
operations requiring a jack hammer or hoe ram could take two weeks to complete using one
crew and one week using two crews. Using two crews to complete the jack and hoe ramming
portion of the Project would add 3 dB to the noise levels (i.e., 88 to 93 dB) but reduce the
duration of noise by one week. The following table illustrates this difference.
NOISE TABLE 1
WORST CASE GRADING EQUIPMENT SOUND LEVELS
Exterior dB at 50 Feet Exterior dB at 50 Feet
One Crew Two Week Duration Two Crews One Week Duration
Jack Hammer/
85-9088-93
Hoe Ram
Exterior Residential Exposure Exterior Residential Exposure dB at
dB at 150 Feet 150 Feet
One Crew Two Week Duration Two Crews One Week Duration
70-7573-78
Interior Residential Exposure Interior Residential Exposure
60-6563-68
The closest sensitive receptor is the single family residential neighborhood west and north of
Noise Figure 1
the Project (see ). The closest residence is approximately 150 feet from the
Project. The residences on both North Spruce Avenue and Leo Circle are elevated from the
Project by a minimum of 30 feet. The residences are separated from the Project by soft
terrain, that being landscaped hillside. Softscape attenuates noise approximately 7.5 dB per
doubling distance and hardscape attenuates approximately 6 dB per doubling distance. Noise
levels reaching the closest residential use would attenuate approximately 15 dB, 73 to 78 dB
using two crews or 70 to 75 dB using one crew.Interior noise levels would attenuate another
10 to 15 dB with windows closed, 63 to 68 dB using two crews or 60 to 65 dB using one
crew. Interior noise levels could be annoying during daytime hours while grading occurs.
Project site preparation and construction would be annoying but would not exceed the
USEPA’s threshold of 70 dBA, L continuous noise exposure (i.e. 365 and 24-hour a day
eq
exposure) requisite to protect health.
The General Plan can be used as a guide for assessing temporary construction impacts.
Exterior noise levels would exceed the 70 dB standard identified in the General Plan for
residential land use (page 280) without noise insulation for new construction. The standard
is however applied to new residential construction, and is a metric applied to continuous
exposure not one that is temporary in nature.
The City’s Noise Ordinance restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-65
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
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)). The ordinance does
provide for exceptions to this rule where it is appropriate, i.e., the adjacent land use is not
noise sensitive or the duration of the noise is not determined to be excessive. The adjacent
land use which is light industrial is not noise sensitive.
NOISE FIGURE 1
LOCATION OF SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
The additional truck traffic to deliver and remove materials from the site during grading and
construction would add to the noise environment. Approximately 925 cubic yards of excess
earth material would need to be off hauled from the site during the three weeks of
construction associated with the building pad grading and parking access, retaining wall
foundation and infrastructure-related grading. Project off haul would equate to 90-95 trucks
or approximately 20 to 25 trucks per day during the grading period to dispose of excess
material.
P3-66 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Safety regulations require backup beepers on trucks and heavy equipment. These sounds are
designed to differ from the background din of construction noise in order to warn workers as
to the location of equipment. The additional truck traffic in conjunction with the required
intrusive beepers can be jarring and could interrupt the concentration of people residing in
the area. Noise levels would not exceed the EPA standard of impact, 90 dB, Leq of
continuous noise exposure.
Notifying surrounding land uses of the construction phases and duration in conjunction with
reducing the duration of the noisiest part of Project construction (grading) would reduce the
annoyance. The City (Mr. Billy Gross, Associate Planner) has indicated that a condition of
project approval will require the following:
The Project shall reduce the period of time required for hoe rams and jack
hammers by using two crews simultaneously to complete this portion of site
preparation work. The Project sponsor shall prepare a Project construction
schedule with the name(s) of contact person(s) in case of questions or concerns.
The schedule shall be mailed to all residences and businesses within 500 feet of
the Project site and visibly posted along the front elevation of the site. The City
Planning Division shall review and approve the notice prior to the Project
sponsor mailing and posting the notice.
The Martin School and Boys and Girls Club are approximately 500 feet southwest of the
Project, across Hillside Boulevard. These sensitive receptors would benefit by the noise
attenuation afforded by the Gimbal`s Candy Building, in addition to being 500 feet from the
Noise levels reaching this area would be expected to attenuate a minimum
source of noise.
of 50 dB and as a result would be a less than significant impact to school uses
.
The industrial land uses, including surface parking for those uses lay immediately east of the
Project. Industrial land uses are not considered noise sensitive. Noise levels would be the
greatest in the surface parking lot and would range from 84 to 90 dB. The industrial building
south of the parking lot would shield noise to land uses across Hillside Boulevard. The
building envelope of the industrial buildings would attenuate interior noise 10 to 15 dB.
The Project itself is not considered a noise sensitive land use. There are noise sensitive land
uses within the Project area that could be impacted by grading and to a lesser extent
Construction related noise would be considered less than significant.
construction noise.
Project Operational Noise
The operation of the Project could increase ambient noise levels in two ways, through the
creation of additional traffic on local roadways and the operation of exterior mechanical
equipment. Typically, 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 add approximately three
Section 3.15 Traffic and Transportation
truck trips and 14 vehicle trips per day (see ) along
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-67
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
Hillside Boulevard and onto other connecting streets.
The surrounding road network supports considerably more traffic. For example, Hilllside
Boulevard supports approximately 15,000 average daily traffic vehicle trips (ADT). Traffic
volumes along Spruce Avenue are 18,200 ADT’s. Traffic volumes along Linden
Section 3.15 Traffic and
Avenue/South Linden Avenue are 12,900 ADT (see
Transportation
). The Project would not double traffic volumes in the area and would not
Operational noise impacts would be considered
add perceptibly to the noise environment.
less than significant
.
The Project is within the 60 to 65 dBA, CNEL noise contour (Figure 9-2, Projected Road
and Rail Noise, General Plan, page 283) which is under the 75 dBA, CNEL standard for
industrial land use and at the 70 dBA standard for commercial land uses. The Project is in
Operational noise impacts are
compliance with the General Plan standards for noise.
considered to beless than significant for industrial and manufacturing land uses.
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 Project site is approximately two miles from San Francisco International Airport. The
Project site is not within a noise environment impacted by aircraft operations identified on
Figure 9-1, Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program Area, (General Plan, page 279).
The site is within the 60 to 65 dBA, CNEL noise contour influenced by rail and road noise
sources (Figure 9-2, Projected Road and Rail Noise, General Plan, page 283). The Project,
less than significant impact with
based on the City’s land use criteria would not result in a
respect to aircraft noise
.
Finding:
The Project, existing, plus Project and cumulative noise environment is and would
remain within the 60 to 65 dBA, CNEL and under the acceptable 75 dBA, CNEL for
industrial land uses and 70 dBA, CNEL noise levels for commercial land uses. The Project
would have a less than significant impact with respect to construction noise impacts.
P3-68 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
3.12PH
OPULATION AND OUSING
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for PotentiallyLess Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact SignificantSignificantSignificantNo
Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the
Project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an x
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
x
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
x
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
S/B
ETTINGACKGROUND
The Project proposes a land use and development density that is consistent with the City’s
General Plan and Zoning as noted above in Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning, above.
I
MPACTS
a) Population Growth
Significance Criteria:The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to induce either directly of indirectly population growth of a magnitude that additional
housing, roads and/or infrastructure would need to be developed to serve the additional
population.
Operations at 250 Hillside Boulevard are conducted in two shifts. The first shift begins at
6:00 AM and ends at 2:30 PM. Approximately 27 employees are on the site during this time
period. The second shift begins at 2:00 PM, ends at 10:30 PM and includes 11 employees.
The requested 8,800 square foot expansion would permit a full second shift consisting of 18
employees and increase the production area from the existing 22,400 square feet to 31,200
square feet. Office area would remain at 2,540 square feet; storage at 2,500 square feet;
boiler/mechanical, lockers and restrooms at 1,460 square feet for a total of 37,700 square
feet. The expansion would also provide for a safer working environment.
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-69
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
The Project would accommodate seven additional employees on the afternoon shift, from 11
to 18, and increase overall employees on the site from 38 to 45 total. The employment
increase is on par with Table 3.8-1, Paradise Valley/Terrabay: Development, Population,
and Employment Under the General Plan (page 120). Existing employment associated with
Community Commercial land use is a little higher than that anticipated in the General Plan
which is 36 employees. The existing Gimbal’s operation is at 38 employees and would
increase to a total of 45. The increase is very minor and is more than offset by the change in
land use within the Terrabay/Centennial Towers Project approved in 2006. Approximately
700 employees are not anticipated on the Centennial Towers site due to the revised land use
mix that does not include a hotel. Moreover, these employment projections are not meant to
be exact, but an anticipation of the growth or change within the South San Francisco
planning areas. The Project falls within a reasonable range of the projections. The Project
less than significant impacton population growth
would have .
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. The Project would not require the
displacement of any existing residential units or persons living on-site and therefore would
no impacton the displacement of housing or people
have.
Finding
: The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained
in General Plan. The Project does not contain housing and would not displace housing units
or residents. The Project would have no impact on population or housing.
P3-70 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
3.13PS
UBLICERVICES
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for PotentiallyLess Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact SignificantSignificantSignificantNo
Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
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?
x
ii) Police protection? x
iii) Schools?
x
iv) Parks?
x
v) Other public facilities?
x
S/B
ETTINGACKGROUND
The Project proposes a land use and development density that is consistent with the City’s
Section 3.9 Land Use
zoning and population and employment projections as noted above in
and Planning Section 3.12 Population and Housing
and.
I
MPACTS
i-iv) 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.
Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning Section 3.12 Population
As described above, in and
and Housing
, the Project would not increase the City of South San Francisco’s population
beyond the population projections contained in the General Plan. No significant increase in
the demand for public services would be expected with no increase in population. The
no impactassociated with public services
Project would result in .
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-71
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
Finding
: The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained
in the General Plan. School impact fees are collected by the City’s Building Division based
upon the square footage of residential, commercial and industrial construction. These fees
are used by the school districts for school services. Additional development on the Project
site would not increase the demand for public services individually or cumulatively.
3.14R
ECREATION
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for PotentiallyLess Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact SignificantSignificantSignificantNo
Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
XIV. RECREATION —
a) Would the Project increase the use of
x
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the Project include recreational x
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which might
have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
S/B
ETTINGACKGROUND
Parks and recreational open space areas provide residents, employees and visitors
opportunities for passive and active recreation.A range of recreational opportunities exist in
South San Francisco, from shoreline open space on San Francisco Bay; Sign Hill Park, with
an elevation of 600 feet; neighborhood parks; linear parks; recreational opportunities at
schools; and San Bruno Mountain County Park. Although San Bruno Mountain County Park
is outside the City limits, walking trails within the Terrabay and Centennial Towers
developments on the northern boundary of the City provide recreational opportunities.
Moreover, San Bruno Mountain County Park is within minutes, either by bicycle or vehicle,
to South San Francisco.
South San Francisco recently completed improvements to Orange Memorial Park and the
Centennial Way linear park, a linear park above Colma Creek, extending from Noor Avenue
to the City’s northern boundary. The Project is within a quarter mile radius of Centennial
Towers and Terrabay trails and parkland on Sign Hill.
Chapter 5, Parks, Recreation and Open Space of the General Plan (page 174), states that the
7
City has 319.7 acres of parks and open space, or 5.4 acres or parkland per 1,000 residents.
This includes 70 acres of developed parkland which includes community, neighborhood,
7
This number does not reflect the recently completed Centennial Way linear park
.
P3-72 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
linear and mini parks. There are three community parks, six neighborhood parks, 12 mini
parks, 11 school parks and five open space areas within South San Francisco. In addition,
there are two linear parks, one along the bayshore and the other as mentioned, Centennial
Way. The Oyster Point Marina Park is in the bayshore area, within Terrabay is a recreation
center and within Centennial Towers is a history and nature walk and the Sign Hill park
contains open space.
The City has identified future development of six parks (Figure 5-1, Schools, Parks and
Open Space, General Plan, page 175).Figure 5-1 identifies a planned linear park less than a
quarter mile east of the Project.
Parkland improvements are in part funded by Quimby Act fees, as a part of the subdivision
process. Quimby Act fees enable a lead agency to levy park-in-lieu fees to developments
based upon population estimates and a targeted acreage of recreational land per person. The
Project is not subject to Quimby Act fees as no subdivision is being proposed.
I
MPACTS
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.
Parks and recreational needs within the City are identified from the development and
employment assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project
Section
proposes a development density that is consistent with the zoning, as noted above in
3.9 Land Useand Planning
and employment levels consistent with projections in the
Section 3.12 Population and Housing
Paradise Valley area as noted in, above. The
impact on recreation facility demand or construction would be less than
Project’s
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 is proposing
development consistent with the General Plan employment projections. Therefore, the
Project would not result in an individual or cumulatively considerable impact on parks and
recreation.
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-73
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
3.15TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for PotentiallyLess Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact SignificantSignificantSignificantNo
Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
XV. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC — Would
the Project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is x
substantial in relation to the existing traffic load
and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,
x
a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, x
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
x
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
x
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or x
programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
S/B
ETTINGACKGROUND
From the north, the Project site is accessed via Sister Cities Boulevard to Hillside Boulevard
or from Airport Boulevard, to Linden Avenue then Hillside Boulevard. Both Linden and
Spruce Avenues provide access to Hillside Boulevard from the south. Spruce Avenue
originates from El Camino Real in the southern portion of the City. Spruce Avenue traverses
in a north/south direction and as it crosses Grand Avenue becomes School Street. School
Street becomes North Spruce Avenue north of Hillside Boulevard. North Spruce Avenue
terminates above the Project site just below Sister Cities Boulevard, and does not access
Sister Cities Boulevard. Linden Avenue also traverses in a north south direction through the
City; beginning near the Project, extending to the southern boundary of the City terminating
at Tanfroan Avenue and Shaw Road. Linden Avenue becomes South Linden Avenue
approximately midway along its length.
P3-74 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
STREETS AND FREEWAYS
The primary road network that serves the Project site is Airport Boulevard, Hillside
Boulevard, Sister Cities Boulevard, Spruce Avenue and Linden Avenue. Following is a brief
description of the roadways.
Streets
Hillside Boulevard
is a two lane collector street connecting Linden Avenue with Sister Cities
Boulevard to the northwest along the Project frontage. At the signalized intersection of
Hillside Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard it converts to a four lane road trending to the
west. Average daily traffic volumes (ADT) are 15,000 (Figure 4-1, Street Classifications,
General Plan, Page 141).
Airport Boulevard
is a four- to six-lane, north-south arterial street that parallels the west side
of the U.S.101 freeway. This roadway continues north into the City of Brisbane and the City
of San Francisco, where it is called Bayshore Boulevard.South of San Mateo Avenue,
Airport Boulevard changes names to Produce Avenue. Airport Boulevard is classified as a
major arterial (op.cit) and in the vicinity of the project supports 8,700 ADT’s (Crane
Transportation Group, April, 2011).
Sister Cities Boulevard
is a four lane major arterial extending from its intersection with
Airport Boulevard in the east to its intersection with Hillside Boulevard in the west. ADT’s
range from 6,000 near Airport Boulevard to 15,000 where the roadway converts to Hillside
Boulevard (ibid.). The Project is mid way between these two points.
Spruce Avenue/School Street/North Spruce Avenue
is a two lane street adjacent to the
Project on the west, classified as “other street” in the General Plan (ibid.). North Spruce
Avenue turns into School Street when it crosses Hillside Boulevard in front of the Project.
School Street is a minor collector and converts to a minor arterial and Spruce Avenue, just
south of Grand Avenue. Spruce Avenue terminates at El Camino Real near the southern
edge of the City. Traffic volumes along Spruce Avenue are 18,200 ADT’s (ibid.).
Linden Avenue/South Linden Avenue
is a two-lane collector street running in a general
north-south direction from San Mateo Avenue in the southern edge of the City to downtown
South San Francisco and Airport Boulevard on the north. Traffic volumes along Linden
Avenue/South Linden Avenue are 12,900 ADT (ibid.). The roadway is classified as a minor
arterial (ibid).
Freeways
U.S.101
is an eight-lane freeway running in the north-south direction. U.S.101 is
approximately half a mile east of the Project site. U.S.101 is over 1,500 miles long and runs
between Los Angeles and Olympia, WA, and is a major regional freeway on the peninsula.
The freeway has an Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) of approximately 229,000
vehicles south of I-380 including 15,900 vehicles during the peak hour. Additionally, north
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-75
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
of I-380 the AADT is approximately 204,000 vehicles and 14,700 vehicles during the peak
hour (Crane Transportation Group, March, 2011).
I-280
is an eight-lane freeway that generally runs in the north-south direction 1.25 miles west
of the Project site. I-280 is one of two major regional freeways on the peninsula and has its
northern and southern termini respectively in San Francisco and San Jose. I-280 supports
four mixed use lanes in each direction, in the vicinity of the Project site. I-280 has an Annual
AADT of approximately 101,000 vehicles south of I-380 including 12,000 during the peak
hour; and approximately 165,000 north of I-380 including 12,900 during the peak hour (op.
cit).
I-380
is an eight-lane spur freeway that runs in the east-west direction for 1.5 miles between
I-280 and U.S.101 and is a little more than half a mile south of the Project site. I-380 has an
AADT of approximately 120,000 vehicles west of S.R.82 with 9,200 vehicles during the
peak hour; and approximately 142,000 vehicles east of S.R.82 with 10,700 vehicles during
the peak hour. Access to and from I-380 from the Project site is most nearly accessed from
El Camino Real / S.R.82 or via the U.S.101 freeway (ibid.).
State Route 82 (S.R.82) (El Camino Real)
is an arterial which extends north from the Santa
Clara County line across the San Francisco County line. The arterial is approximately three
quarters of a mile west of the Project site and has six lanes with three in each direction. In
the vicinity of the Project site, the roadway has an AADT of approximately 36,000 vehicles
south of I-380 including 3,200 during the peak hour. North of I-380, the AADT is 41,500
with 3,700 vehicles during the peak hour (ibid.).
I
MPACTS
a) and b) Increase in Traffic in Relation to Existing Traffic Load and Street System Capacity
Significance Criteria:Intersection and roadway segment significance criteria have been
adopted from the 2007 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Based
on the CMP standards, the acceptable operating level of service is defined at LOS D. No
CMP intersections are included in this analysis, based on the location of the Project. An
impact on local roadways is defined as an increase in traffic is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system.
The Project would add up to five additional truck trips between the Shaw Road and Hillside
Boulevard facilities per day. The likely travel path would be Linden Avenue which currently
supports approximately 12,900 ADT. The Project increment to this traffic stream is de
minimus.
Full employment on the afternoon shift would add seven employees and approximately seven
new round trips added to the road network in the Project area would be de minimus. The
local roadways support volumes from 6,000 to 18,200 ADT’s. Moreover, the Project
includes a Trip Reduction Program that is designed to reduce parking demand and vehicle
P3-76 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
use. The Trip Reduction Program includes incentives for ride sharing, public transit subsidies
and provisions for bicycles.
a less than significant impact with respect to increasing local
The Project would result in
roadway traffic and street capacities
.
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
Section 3.7: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Air Navigation Hazards are discussed in .
The Project would not alter any air traffic patterns that are already in place and, consistent
no impact with respect to air
with the previous discussion, the Project would have
navigation hazards
.
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.
no change
The Project would not alter access to the site. Therefore the Project would have
or no impact with respect to hazardous design features.
e) Emergency Access
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to have
inadequate emergency access.
Section3.8, Hazards
Emergency access to the site would remain unchanged. As noted in
and Hazards Materials, no impact on emergency access
the Projectwould have .
f) 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).
The Project proposes a Trip Reduction Program which implements alternate transportation
would not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting
modes. The Project
alternative transportation and would have no impact.
Finding:
The Project’s impact on local roadway traffic volumes would be de minimus. The
Project would not alter site access and as such would not impact emergency access or
introduce hazardous maneuvers or design features. The Project supports alternative
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-77
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
transportation modes by implementation of the proposed Trip Reduction Program. The
Project would have no impact on aircraft flyovers.
3.16USS
TILITIES AND ERVICE YSTEMS
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for PotentiallyLess Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact SignificantSignificantSignificantNo
Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS —
Would the Project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
x
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
x
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
x
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
x
serve the Project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the
x
wastewater treatment provider, which serves or
may serve the Project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand
in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
x
permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s
solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
x
statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
S/B
ETTINGACKGROUND
The Project site has been developed since the early 1950’s and is in an area that has been
developed since the mid to late 1950’s. Infrastructure and utilities are in place and are
currently serving the site and the area.
P3-78 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
I
MPACTS
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 (RWQCB).
The City’s storm drain outfalls operate under NPDES permits granted by the RWQCB. The
South San Francisco Municipal Code (Title 14) contains regulations related to stormwater
Chapter 1.2.4
management. As identified in as a matter of law, projects are required to
implement BMP’s and comply with SWPPP regulations.
less than significantimpactrelated to an exceedance of
The Project would have a
wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB
.
b and e) Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities
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.
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.
Wastewater
The City’s Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) was upgraded in 2000-01. The City of
South San Francisco has a current allocation of 8.74 million gallon per day (MGD) and is
currently generating 5.6 MGD. The capacity allocated to the City of South San Francisco is
based upon the growth projections identified in the City’s General Plan. The Project is in
conformance with the development and employee assumptions contained in the General Plan.
The Project is not requesting a variance to floor area or density regulations. The Project, as a
condition of approval, would be required to pay a pro rata, fair share sewer improvement fee
a less than
to cover the costs of the wastewater improvements. The Project would have
significant impactwith respect to wastewater treatment
.
Water
See discussion under d, below.
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-79
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
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.
The Project is connected into the stormwater facilities, proposes to improve storm water
facilities on the site and is required to implement BMP measures as identified in the
Introduction Chapter 1.2.4Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
and . The Project
less than significantimpact respect to increased water runoff or the building
would have a
or expansion of new storm water drainage facilities
.
d) Water Supply
Significance 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. Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) was adopted in 2001 and became effective January 1,
2002. SB 610 requires cities to consider water supply assessments to determine whether
projected water supplies can meet a project’s water demand. SB 610 and the CEQA
Guidelines (Section 15083.5) identify residential projects generally exceeding 500 units and
commercial or industrial projects employing more than 1,000 persons as potential impact
thresholds.
Potable water is provided for the City of South San Francisco and much of San Mateo
County by the California Water Service Company (CWSC), which purchases most of its
supply from the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD). CWSC drafted and adopted an
Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in 2006. The UWMP was established in
accordance with the California Urban Water Management Planning Act, (Division 6 Part 2.6
of the Water Code, Section 10610-10656). Water Code Section 10910 subd. (c)(2),
Government Code, Section 66473.7, subd. (c)(1) notes that it is acceptable to use the most
recently adopted UWMP to assess water supply in accordance with the California Urban
Water Management Planning Act and SB 610.
less than significant impact with respect to water supply
The Project would have a . The
Project is consistent with the development and employee assumptions identified in the
General Plan and the UWMP which builds upon the development and growth assumptions in
planning documents.
The Project would not result in a cumulative impact with respect to water usage. The
UWMP projects and accounts for the South San Francisco service area within the CWSC
jurisdiction. The projected City population is 57,977 which includes the 2,410 additional
persons anticipated as a result of land use intensification identified in the South/El Camino
Real General Plan Amendment (2010), the latest planning document anticipating and
analyzing growth and population increases due to land use modifications.
P3-80 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
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.
The Building Division, as a requirement of a demolition permit, requires the recycling and /
or reuse of demolition materials. Project plans are required by law to include recycling areas
Construction and operation of the Project would generate
on the building permit drawings.
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 City’s wastewater treatment plant was upgraded in 2000-01 and has adequate
capacity to treat Project wastes. The Project as a matter of law would be required to pay
wastewater improvement fees. The UWMP was adopted in 2006 and adequate water is
available for the Project. New construction will be regulated by BMPs, an improvement over
existing conditions. The Project would not contribute individually or cumulatively to water,
wastewater, stormwater, and utility impacts.
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-81
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
3.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for PotentiallyLess Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact SignificantSignificantSignificantNo
Impact with Impact Impact
Mitigation
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE —
a) Does the Project have the potential to
X
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
X
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
X
effects, which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
a) Quality of the Environment
less than significant with measures that are
Impacts of the Project are considered to be
required by law
. 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.
b) Cumulative Impacts
less than significant.
Cumulative impacts of the Project are considered to be 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.
P3-82 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
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. Noise, air quality, and traffic impacts
less than significant
on adjacent land uses are . The Project would not expose people to new
hazards such as geologic risks, flooding, or airport hazards. There would be no other adverse
effects on human beings.
3.17.A. FINDINGS
NO OR LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND NO MITIGATION REQUIRED
Aesthetics
The Project would not have an impact on the aesthetics or scenic quality on 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’s new construction at 30
feet would not exceed the City’s 50 foot height limit. The Project would clean-up and
organize site layout and parking and afford indoor storage of items.
Agriculture
The Project would not adversely affect any existing agricultural operations. The Project site
is not planned or zoned for agricultural use and is not in agricultural use. The Project would
not impact agricultural resources individually or cumulatively.
Air Quality
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 PM10). The City’s building permit procedure captures the BAAQMD
permitting regulations, as well as BAAQMD’s basic control measures. No mitigation
measures, above those required by the City as a matter of law, are identified in this Initial
Study.
Greenhouse Gas
The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact with respect to
greenhouse gas emissions or global climate change.
Biology
The Project would not result in a significant impact or significant unavoidable impact to
biological resources individually or cumulatively. The Project is not located on ecologically
sensitive lands, does not contain habitat and would have no impact on General Plan policies
or ordinances protecting biological resources.
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-83
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
Cultural Resources
The Project is located on a previously graded parcel and in a developed area. There are no
historic, archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains located on the Project
site. The Project would have no impacton cultural resources.
Geology and Soils
The Project site is not underlain by an earthquake fault and as such the potential for ground
rupture is very low. Conformance with the 2010 California Building Code would reduce
seismic shaking impacts to less than significant. The site soils are low in plasticity. Ground
acceleration is in the mid-range (Type C/D soils, USGS). Site soils are considered low
impact with respect to liquefaction. Subsidence would be considered negligible. The Project
would not be connected to a septic system and as such would not contribute to ground
failure. There is no threat of a major landslide on the site but there is minor sloughing on the
northwest slope. Based on the analysis, the Project would have a less than significant impact
with respect to Geology and Soils.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Project site is appropriate for continued manufacturing use. The Project would not
introduce fire, safety or hazardous materials risk into the area beyond that normally
anticipated with a food manufacturing use land use. Moreover, no accidents or spills have
been recorded on the site (Phase I ESA). The Project would not expose a school to the risk
from hazardous materials; and would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative
impact from hazardous materials exposure.
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 not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to hydrology or water
quality resources.
Land Use and Planning
TheProject would not physically divide an established community. The Project site is not in
a conservation plan area, or under special study for conservation. The Project would not
result in any individually or cumulatively considerable impacts.
P3-84 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
C3:
HAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Minerals
The Project site does not contain any local or regionally significant mineral resources. The
Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to mineral
resources.
Noise
The Project, existing, plus Project and cumulative noise environment is and would remain
within the 60 to 65 dBA, CNEL and under the acceptable 75 dBA, CNEL for industrial land
uses and 70 dBA, CNEL noise levels for commercial land uses. The Project would have a
less than significant impact with respect to construction noise impacts.
Population and Housing
The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in the
General Plan. The Project does not contain housing and would not displace housing units or
residents. The Project would have no impact on population or housing.
Public Services
The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in the
General Plan. School impact fees are collected by the City’s Building Division based upon
the square footage of residential, commercial and industrial construction. These fees are
used by the school districts for school services. Additional development on the Project site
would not increase the demand for public services individually or cumulatively.
Recreation
Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from the development assumptions
contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project is proposing development
consistent with the General Plan employment projections. Therefore, the Project would not
result in an individual or cumulatively considerable impact on parks and recreation.
Traffic and Transportation
The Project’s impact on local roadway traffic volumes would be de minimus. The Project
would not alter site access and as such would not impact emergency access or introduce
hazardous maneuvers or design features. The Project supports alternative transportation
modes by implementation of the proposed Trip Reduction Program. The Project would have
no impact on aircraft flyovers.
250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCOP3-85
INITIAL STUDY AGE
C3:EC
HAPTERNVIRONMENTALHECKLIST
Utilities
The City’s wastewater treatment plant was upgraded in 2000-01 and has adequate capacity to
treat Project wastes. The Project as a matter of law would be required to pay wastewater
improvement fees. The UWMP was adopted in 2006 and adequate water is available for the
Project. New construction will be regulated by BMPs, an improvement over existing
conditions. The Project would not contribute individually or cumulatively to water,
wastewater, stormwater and utility impacts.
P3-86 250HILLSIDEBOULEVARD,SOUTHSANFRANCISCO–IS
AGENITIALTUDY
A
APPENDIX
A-1: Air Quality Assumptions and Methodologies (7 pages)
A-2: URBEMIS and BAAQMD GHG Model Output (22 pages)
APPENDIX A
Appendix A-1
Assumptions and Methodologies
Construction Activities
The project would involve the construction of a building addition and parking. The project is
designed to expand Gimbals Candies’ existing manufacturing facility at 250 Hillside Boulevard
in South San Francisco, California. An 8,800 square foot addition to an existing 28,900 square
foot building is being requested.
Approximately 955 cubic yards of cut and fill is required. Grading and site preparation is
anticipated to take approximately 8 weeks. Types of equipment on the site during this phase of
construction would be a grader, skip loaded, front loader, standard asphalt paving equipment and
excavator. Project construction would take approximately an additional six months to complete,
for a total construction period of seven months. Types of equipment on the site during this phase
of construction would be mobile cranes, haul trucks, concrete trucks delivery trucks and private
vehicles.
Construction emissions were estimated using the URBEMIS2007 model (Version 9.2.4). The
model combines information on vehicle trip generation with equipment emissions data specific to
the Air Basin with CARB’s OFFROAD and EMFAC emission models to estimate emissions.
Operations
Gimbal’s operates their business from two locations in South San Francisco. Candy production is
at 250 Hillside Boulevard. The candy is transferred to 228 Shaw Road where it is packaged and
distributed. There is an average of five truck trips running during week days between the two
facilities as trucks take finished candy to Shaw and bring back raw ingredients (syrup and sugars),
boxes and empty trays. In addition, three trucks of raw materials arrive at Hillside each week.
With the proposed expansion, no change in the number of employees is anticipated for the first
shift, while three additional employees could be needed for the second shift. With a full second
shift, there would be no more than three additional truck trips between Hillside and Shaw. In
summary, the operations would not change significantly at either site with the proposed
expansion.
The Proposed Project would also result in a slight increase in emissions associated with onsite
stationary sources and area sources (i.e., natural gas combustion emissions from space and water
heating, gasoline combustion emissions from landscape maintenance, etc.) and employee motor
vehicles.
URBEMIS2007 (based on a light industry and warehouse land use condition) was used to
estimate emissions that would be associated with natural gas space and water heating, landscape
maintenance, delivery trucks, and employee vehicles. The average daily round trip distance for
the delivery trucks and employees was estimated at 7.4 and 9.5 miles, respectively. The delivery
truck and employee trip distances were based on default information for San Mateo County with
APPENDIX A
URBEMIS. It is approximately two miles between the 250 Hillside Boulevard and 228 Shaw
Road facilities.
Health Risk Assessment
A health risk assessment (HRA) is accomplished in four steps; hazards identification, exposure
assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization. This attachment describes the
methodologies and assumptions that were used to execute each step and presents the detailed
results of a HRA that was performed for the project.
TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
As the practice of conducting a HRA is particularly complex and involves concepts that are not
altogether familiar to most people, several terms and definitions are provided that are considered
essential to the understanding of the approach, methodology and results:
Acute effect
– a health effect (non-cancer) produced within a short period of time (few
minutes to several days) following an exposure to toxic air contaminants (TAC).
Cancer risk
– the probability of an individual contracting cancer from a lifetime (i.e., 70
year) exposure to TAC in the ambient air.
Chronic effect
– a health effect (non-cancer) produced from a continuous exposure
occurring over an extended period of time (weeks, months, years).
Hazard Index (HI)
– the unitless ratio of an exposure level over the acceptable reference
dose (RfC). The HI can be applied to multiple compounds in an additive manner.
Hazard Quotient (HQ)
– the unitless ratio of an exposure level over the acceptable
reference dose (RfC). The HQ is applied to individual compounds.
Toxic air contaminants (TAC)
– any air pollutant that is capable of causing short-term
(acute) and/or long-term (chronic or carcinogenic, i.e., cancer causing) adverse human
health effects (i.e., injury or illness). The current California list of TAC lists
approximately 200 compounds, including particulate emissions from diesel-fueled
engines.
Human Health Effects
- comprise disorders such as eye watering, respiratory or heart
ailments, and other (i.e., non-cancer) related diseases.
Health Risk Assessment (HRA)
– an analysis designed to predict the generation and
dispersion of TAC in the outdoor environment, evaluate the potential for exposure of
human populations, and to assess and quantify both the individual and population-wide
health risks associated with those levels of exposure.
Incremental
– under CEQA, the net difference (or change) in conditions or impacts when
comparing the baseline to future year project conditions.
Maximum exposed individual (MEI)
– an individual assumed to be located at the point
where the highest concentrations of TAC, and therefore, health risks are predicted to
occur.
Non-cancer risks
– health risks such as eye watering, respiratory or heart ailments, and
other non-cancer related diseases.
APPENDIX A
Receptors
– the locations where potential health impacts or risks are predicted (schools,
residences and work-sites).
HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION
TAC emissions associated with the project would occur from the following project activities:
Off-road equipment and haul trucks during construction activities
Delivery truck operations along nearby roadways and near the facility
Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of numerous individual gaseous and particulate compounds
emitted from diesel-fueled combustion engines diesel particulate matter (DPM) is formed
primarily through the incomplete combustion of diesel fuel. DPM is removed from the
atmosphere through physical processes including atmospheric fall-out and washout by rain.
Humans can be exposed to airborne DPM by deposition on water, soil, and vegetation; although
the main pathway of exposure is inhalation.
In August 1998, the California Air Resource Board (CARB) identified DPM as a TAC. The
Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-
CARB developed
Fueled Engines and VehiclesRisk Management Guidance for the Permitting of New
and
Stationary Diesel-Fueled Engines
and approved these documents on September 28, 2000. The
documents represent proposals to reduce DPM emissions, with the goal of reducing emissions
and the associated health risk by 75 percent in 2010 and by 85 percent in 2020. The program
aimed to require the use of state-of-the-art catalyzed DPM filters and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel.
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
Dispersion is the process by which atmospheric pollutants disseminate due to wind and vertical
stability. The results of a dispersion analysis are used to assess pollutant concentrations at or near
an emission source. The results of this analysis allow predicted concentrations of pollutants to be
compared directly to air quality standards and other criteria such as health risks.
Dispersion Modeling Approach
This section presents the methodology used for the dispersion modeling analysis. This section
addresses all of the fundamental components of an air dispersion modeling analysis including:
Model selection and options
Receptor locations
Meteorological data
Source release characteristics
Model Selection and Options
The AERMOD dispersion model (Version 09292) was used for the modeling analysis. AERMOD
is the US EPA preferred dispersion model for general industrial sources. The model can simulate
point, area, volume, and line sources. The AERMOD model is the appropriate model for this
analysis based on the coverage of simple, intermediate, and complex terrain. It also predicts both
APPENDIX A
short-term and long-term (annual) average concentrations. The model was executed using the
regulatory default options (stack-tip downwash, buoyancy-induced dispersion, and final plume
rise), default wind speed profile categories, default potential temperature gradients, and no
pollutant decay.
The selection of the appropriate dispersion coefficients depends on the land use within three
kilometers (km) of the project site. The land use typing was based on the classification method
defined by Auer (1978); using pertinent United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000 scale
(7.5 minute) topographic maps of the area. If the Auer land use types of heavy industrial, light-to-
moderate industrial, commercial, and compact residential account for 50 percent or more of the
Guideline on Air Quality Models
total area, the EPA recommends using urban dispersion
coefficients; otherwise, the appropriate rural coefficients were used. Based on observation of the
area surrounding the project site, rural (urban is only designated within dense city centers such as
San Francisco) dispersion coefficients were applied in the analysis.
Receptor Locations
Sensitive receptors such as residences, schools, offsite workers, and outdoor recreational areas
near the project were chosen as the receptors to be analyzed. Receptors were placed at a height of
1.8 meters (typical breathing height). Residences are located to the northeast about 150 feet of the
project site, while offsite worker receptors are generally located to the south of the project site.
The Martin Elementary School is located to the west of the site. Terrain elevations for receptor
locations were used (i.e., complex terrain) based on available USGS information for the area.
Meteorological Data
Air quality is a function of both the rate and location of pollutant emissions under the influence of
meteorological conditions and topographic features affecting pollutant movement and dispersal.
Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, atmospheric stability, and air
temperature gradients interact with the physical features of the landscape to determine the
movement and dispersal of air pollutants, and consequently affect air quality.
Hourly meteorological data from San Francisco International Airport (surface data) and Oakland
International Airport (upper air) were used in the dispersion modeling analysis. The data from
2005 through 2009 were used. Exhibit 1 within Attachment A displays the wind rose during this
period. Wind directions are predominately from the west and there is a high frequency of calm
and low wind conditions.
Emissions Estimates
The emissions from construction activities were derived from the URBEMIS2007 (Version 9.2.4)
emission model. The emissions from delivery trucks and employee trips were derived from the
EMFAC2007 emissions model. The DPM emissions are based on estimated daily delivery trucks
trips for the baseline and proposed project. Trucks and employee trips were assigned a speed of
35 miles per hour.
Source Release Characteristics
APPENDIX A
Construction equipment was treated as an area source within the facility expansion area. The
release height of the off-road equipment exhaust was 3.05 meters. Delivery trucks and employee
trips were treated as a line source (i.e., volume sources placed at regular intervals) located along
the access road from/to Route 101. The delivery trucks were assigned a release height of 3.05
meters and an initial vertical dimension of 4.15 meters, which accounts for dispersion from the
movement of vehicles.
Terrain elevations for emission source locations were used (i.e., complex terrain) based on
available USGS DEM for the area. AERMAP (Version 09040) was used to develop the terrain
elevations, although the project site is generally flat.
Dispersion Modeling Results
Using AERMOD, the maximum annual and 70-year average annual concentrations were
determined for DPM emissions for the emission sources of concern. These concentrations were
estimated for a unit emission rate (1 gram per second) and adjusted based on the calculated
emission rate.
TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
The HRA was conducted following methodologies in BAAQMD’s Health Risk Screening
Analysis Guidelines and in the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA) guidelines. This was accomplished by applying the highest estimated
concentrations at the receptors analyzed to the established cancer risk estimates and
acceptable reference concentrations (RfC) for non-cancer health effects.
The toxicity values used in this analysis were based on OEHHA guidance. These toxicity values
are for carcinogenic effects and chronic health impacts. The primary pathway for exposures was
assumed to be inhalation and carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects were evaluated
separately. The incremental risks were determined for these sources of TAC as described above
and summed to obtain an estimated total incremental carcinogenic health risk.
th
The 80 percentile adult breathing rate of 302 L/kg-day was used to determine cancer risks to
residents from exposure to TAC. The residential exposure frequency and duration was assumed to
be 350 days per year and 70 years.
For school children, exposure is assumed to occur 10 hours per d
weeks) per year. For children, OEHHA recommends assuming a breat
day to assess potential risk via the inhalation exposure pathway
upper 95 percentile of daily breathing rates for children.
An adult breathing rate of 149 L/kg-day was used to determine cancer risks to workers from
exposure to TAC. The worker exposure frequency and duration of 245 days per year and 40 years
(at eight hours per day) was used. The modeled TAC concentrations were used to represent the
exposure concentrations in the air. The inhalation absorption factor was assumed to be 1.
APPENDIX A
Cancer risk estimates also incorporate age sensitivity factors (ASFs). This approach provides
updated calculation procedures that factor in the increased susceptibility of infants and children to
carcinogens as compared to adults. OEHHA recommends that cancer risks be weighted by a
factor of 10 for exposures that occur from the third trimester of pregnancy to 2 years of age, and
by a factor of 3 for exposures from 2 years through 15 years of
for residential receptors over a 70 year lifetime, the incorporation of the ASFs results in a cancer
risk adjustment factor (CRAF) of 1.7. For offsite worker, the ASF is 1 and for school children the
ASF is 3.
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
For the cancer risk assessment, emission rates were determined based on the average emission
rate over the 70-year lifetime (i.e., the project emission rate divided by 70 years). However, for
the chronic and acute health impacts, the maximum emission rate was used. In the case of DPM,
these maximum emission rates occur in the beginning of the time
Cancer risk is defined as the lifetime probability of developing cancer from exposure to
carcinogenic substances. Cancer risks are expressed as the chance in one million of contracting
cancer (i.e., number of cancer cases among one million people exposed). The cancer risk is the
probability of an individual developing cancer as a result of exposure to air toxics. The cancer
risks are assumed to occur exclusively through the inhalation pathway. The cancer risk based on a
one-year exposure can be estimated by utilizing the cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day), the 70-
3
year annual average concentration (µg/m), and the lifetime exposure adjustment.
The cancer risks occur exclusively through the inhalation pathway; therefore, the cancer risks can
be estimated from the following equation:
-6
Dose-inh = C * {DBR} * A * CRAF * EF * ED * 10
air
AT
Where:
Dose-inh = Dose of the toxic substance through inhalation in
kilogram (kg) of body weight per day (mg/kg-day)
-6
10 = Micrograms to milligrams conversion, Liters to cubic meters
conversion
3)
C = Concentration in air (microgram (g)/cubic meter (m)
air
{DBR} = Daily breathing rate (liter (L)/kg body weight Î day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
CRAF = Cancer Risk Adjustment Factor, Age Sensitivity Factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged in
(25,550 days for a 70 year cancer risk)
Non-cancer adverse health impacts, acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term), are measured
against a hazard index (HI), which is defined as the ratio of the predicted incremental exposure
concentration from the project to a published reference exposure level (REL) that could cause
APPENDIX A
adverse health effects as established by OEHHA. The ratio (referred to as the Hazard Quotient
[HQ]) of each non-carcinogenic substance that affects a certain organ system is added to produce
an overall HI for that organ system. The overall HI is calculate
overall HI for the highest-impacted organ system is greater than one, then the impact is
considered to be significant.
The Hazard Index is an expression used for the potential for non-cancer health effects. The
3
relationship for the non-cancer health effects is given by the annual concentration (µg/m) and the
3
Reference Exposure Level (µg/m). The acute hazard index was determined using the ÐsimpleÑ
concurrent maximum approach, which tends to be conservative (i.e., overpredicts).
The relationship for the non-cancer health effects is given by t
HI = C/REL
where,
HI Hazard index; an expression of the potential for non-cancer health effects.
3
C Annual average concentration (g/m) during the 70 year exposure period
REL Reference exposure level (REL); the concentration at which no adverse
health effects are anticipated.
The chronic reference exposure level for DPM was established by the California OEHHA as 5
3
g/m.
CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
For the cumulative impacts from Route 101, the peak hourly and average annual daily traffic
(AADT) data were developed from CalTrans measurements for 2007 and 2008 at the Route 101
and Route 380 interchange. In 2008, the peak hourly volumes were 704 for trucks and 16,000 for
all vehicles. In 2008, the AADT was 10,120 for trucks and 230,000 for all vehicles. In 2007, the
percentage of vehicles classified as trucks was 4.4 percent.
Growth factors were applied to estimate future volumes for the 70-year lifetime cancer risk
impacts. The cumulative impacts were based on daily operational
hourly volumes for each hour during an annual average day. Thus, the cumulative analysis
estimates the peak hourly impacts and the average annual impacts. The analysis was conducted
Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and
according to BAAQMDÓs
Hazards
(dated May 2010).
APPENDIX A
Appendix A-2
URBEMIS and BAAQMD GHG Model Output
URBEMIS Annual Output (6 page)
URBEMIS Summer Output (6 page)
URBEMIS Winter Output (6 page)
BAAQMD GHG Model Output (4 pages)
APPENDIX A
RESOLUTION NO. DRAFT 9/28/11
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONFERENCE
CENTER FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 BUDGET
WHEREAS, South San Francisco Municipal Code §2.78.010 et seq. requires that
the Conference Center budget be approved by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Conference Center Authority has conducted public meetings,
considered available public input, and reviewed the Fiscal Year 2011-2012 budget; and
WHEREAS, the Authority found that the budget represented the appropriate level
of expenditures for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 and recommended that the proposed budget
be approved by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco as follows:
1. The budget identified as the "Conference Center Fiscal Year 2011-2012
Operating Budget" in the amount of $3,280,000 in revenue and $3,040,717 in
expenditures is hereby approved by the City Council.
2. The budget identified as the “Conference Center Fiscal Year 2011-2012
Capital Improvement Budget” in the amount of $64,060 in capital expenditures is hereby
approved by the City Council.
3. Each budget category listed in Municipal Code §2.78.106 is funded to the
limits specified in the proposed budget.
4. The funds collected pursuant to Municipal Code §4.20.035 are hereby
appropriated to fund the Conference Center budget.
5. The City Manager and Finance Director are hereby directed and
authorized to make the specified funds available to the Conference Center.
6. Copies of the Conference Center budget shall be made available for
public review and inspection in the Offices of the City Clerk and Administrative Offices
of the Conference Center.
* * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and
adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a
meeting held on the day of , 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: ________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
NOES:________________________________________________________________
ABSTAIN:_____________________________________________________________
ABSENT:______________________________________________________________
ATTEST:
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CONFERENCE CENTER AUTHORITY
FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 BUDGET
September 28, 2011
As Recommended by the
Conference Center Authority
July 18, 2011
South San Francisco Conference Center
Fiscal Year 2011-12 Budget
Revenue and Expenditure Projections - All Sources
FY 11-12FY 10-11FY 10-11
Budget RequestApproved Budget Year-End Projection
Total Revenue
3,144,6793,280,000 3,252,310
Total Expenditures
3,093,6513,040,717 3,019,252
Surplus
51,029239,282 233,058
209/28/11
South San Francisco Conference Center
Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Budget
Revenue Projections - All Sources
FY 11-12FY 10-11FY 10-11% change % of Year End
Budget RequestApproved Budget Year-End ProjectionBudget Request toProjection to
Approved BudgetTo Approved Budget
Conference Center
Operations1,295,000 1,275,000 1,256,078
1.57%99%
Transient Occupancy 1,860,6791,955,000 1,970,232
5.07%106%
Tax
Interest Income30,000 9,000 26,000
233.33%289%
Total3,280,000 3,144,679 3,252,310
4.30%103%
Expenditure Projections - All Sources
FY 11-12FY 10-11FY 10-11% change % of Year End
Budget RequestApproved Budget Year-End ProjectionBudget Request toProjection to
Approved BudgetTo Approved Budget
Conference Center
Operations2,094,269 2,134,708 2,060,309
-1.89%97%
Debt Service468,350 467,675 467,675
0.14%100%
Propert Leases/Tax 491,268478,098 491,268
ye
-2.68%100%
Total3,040,717 3,093,651 3,019,252
-1.71%98%
39/28/11
South San Francisco Conference Center
Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Budget
Revenue Projections-Conference Center Operations
FY 11-12FY 10-11FY 10-11% change % of Year End
Budget RequestApproved Budget Year-End ProjectionBudget Request toProjection to
Approved BudgetTo Approved Budget
Rent690,000 720,000 655,937
-4.17%91%
Food & Beverage440,000 420,000 434,655
4.76%103%
Event Services165,000 135,000 165,486
22.22%123%
Total1,295,000 1,275,000 1,256,078
1.57%99%
49/28/11
South San Francisco Conference Center
Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Budget
Expenditure Budget Conference Center Operations
FY 11-12FY 10-11FY 10-11% change% of Year End
Budget RequestApproved BudgetYear-End ProjectionBudget Request toProjection
Approved BudgetTo Approved Budget
Salaries/Benefits
Salaries907,345 889,561 889,561 2.0%100%
Car Allowance2,400 2,400 2,400 0.0%100%
Workers' Compensation2,500 2,500 500 0.0%20%
Health, Dental, Vision, LTD, STD196,460 196,460 196,460 0.0%100%
Pension, Medicare FICA113,551 111,374 111,374 2.0%100%
1,202,2951,222,256 1,200,295 1.7%100%
Operations/Maintenance Services
Set Up/Tear Down Service108,000 108,000 108,000 0.0%100%
Janitorial Service87,000 93,000 86,600 -6.5%93%
Transportation Service5,500 4,500 4,920 22.2%109%
Linen/Water Service21,500 18,500 21,500 16.2%116%
Temporary Event Labor55,000 55,000 58,000 0.0%105%
Electr/Plum/HVAC Main. Service32,000 32,000 30,000 0.0%94%
Pest Control3,200 3,200 3,000 0.0%94%
Fire Extinguisher/Alarm Service2,500 3,800 2,000 -34.2%53%
Landscape Service18,500 18,500 18,000 0.0%97%
336,500333,200 332,020 -1.0%99%
Operation/Maintenance Supplies
Janitorial Supplies11,500 14,000 11,500 -17.9%82%
Operations Supplies20,000 25,000 16,000 -20.0%64%
39,00031,500 27,500 -19.2%71%
Marketing Services
Ad Production/Placement122,500 122,500 100,656 0.0%82%
Public Relations5,000 8,000 3,064 -37.5%38%
Client Entertainment5,500 4,500 5,106 22.2%113%
Client Gifts6,000 5,200 4,900 15.4%94%
Booth Rental & Equipment Fee4,500 5,300 3,600 -15.1%68%
Industry Event Registration5,500 3,000 5,204 83.3%173%
Group Incentive Rentals7,500 7,500 3,000 0.0%40%
156,000156,500 125,530 0.3%80%
Meeting Travel/Dues/Memberships
Dues/Memberships5,500 5,000 5,020 10.0%100%
Meeting Travel Expense13,000 8,000 11,220 62.5%140%
13,00018,500 16,240 42.3%125%
Legal/Professional Services
Legal Services9,000 12,000 4,500 -25.0%38%
Professional Services70,000 123,000 112,551 -43.1%92%
135,00079,000 117,051 -41.5%87%
59/28/11
Expenditure Budget Conference Center Operations Detail
FY 11-12FY 10-11FY 10-11% change% of Year End
Budget RequestApproved BudgetYear-End ProjectionBudget Request toProjection
Approved BudgetTo Approved Budget
Audit/Payroll Services17,000 17,000 16,250 0.0%96%
City Finance Services13,390 13,390 13,900 0.0%104%
General Insurance
Property Insurance14,055 14,055 14,055 0.0%100%
Liability Insurance14,468 14,468 14,468 0.0%100%
28,52328,523 28,523 0.0%100%
Bank Charges/Bad Debt
Bank Charges32,000 35,000 32,000 -8.6%91%
6,0006,000
Bad Debt 0.0%0%-
41,00038,000 32,000 -7.3%78%
Office Machines/Publication/Supplies
Postage/Rental Equipment
Office Machines12,500 12,500 12,500 0.0%100%
Computer Supplies6,000 3,500 2,500 71.4%71%
Office Supplies/Water4,000 3,500 4,200 14.3%120%
Postage2,600 3,500 2,600 -25.7%74%
23,00025,100 21,800 9.1%95%
Printing3,500 4,000 3,200 -12.5%80%
Utilities
Gas/Electric98,800 98,000 98,800 0.8%101%
Telephone/Long Distance17,500 17,500 15,700 0.0%90%
Water11,500 10,500 11,500 9.5%110%
126,000127,800 126,000 1.4%100%
2,134,7082,094,269 2,060,309 -1.89%97%
69/28/11
South San Francisco Conference Center
Fiscal Year 2011-12 Budget
Capital Improvement Budget
1Replace all Flourscent Bulb Ballasts as part of Energy Efficiency Upgrades23,182$
2Replace Compressor for Walk-in Cooler/Freezer4,055$
3Replace storm-damaged awning at the rear entry of the building 2,375$
4Purchase Racks for Eight (8) Bicycles1,149$
5Add Horns and Strobes to Fire Alarm System as required by the 20,000$
South San Francisco Fire Department
6Replace one HVAC unit$6,298
7$7,000
Purchase Five (5) Defibrillators
TOTAL
$64,060
7
9/28/11
South San Francisco Conference Center
Fiscal Year 2011-12 Budget
Unrestricted Fund Balance/Designated/Undesignated Reserves
Ending Unrestricted Fund Balance1,710,725$
6/30/10 per Audit
Plus Projected FY 2010-11 Surplus233,058$
Less FY 2010-2011 Capital Expenditures(67,172)$
Projected Unrestricted Fund Balance 6/30/111,876,611$
Plus Projected FY 2011-2012 Surplus 239,282$
Less FY 2011-12 Capital Expenditures(64,060)$
Projected Unrestricted Fund Balance 6/30/122,051,833$
Authority Designated Reserves *500,000$
Projected Undesignated Reserves1,551,833$
Projected Fund Balance 6/30/12$ 2,051,833
* Designated Reserve Categories
Capital Improvements100,000$
Insurance100,000$
Debt. Service150,000$
Contingencies150,000$
Total500,000$
89/28/11
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE CENTER
Salary Schedule effective July 1, 2011
Sales Assistant Sales Assistant
(Carol Norcia) 1/1/06
Hourly 24 @ 2,176.2052,228.8025.11
Semi-Monthly2,176.20
Monthly4,352.40
Senior Sales Manager (Teresa Martinez)Senior Sales Manager
10/16/98
Hourly 24 @ 3148.5775,565.6836.33
Semi-Monthly3,148.57
Monthly6,297.13
Director of Sales (Dean Grubl)Director of Sales
4/1/00
Hourly 24 @ 3,967.1295,210.7645.77
Semi-Monthly3,967.12
Monthly7,934.23
Security Officer (2) (Tully Mortenson, Conrado Zulaybar)Security Officer (2)
7/1/02
Hourly 24 @ 1,352.5232,460.4815.61
Semi-Monthly1,352.52 32,460.48
Monthly2,705.04
Security Supervisor (Tofa C Talauat)Security Supervisor
7/1/02
Hourly 24 @ 1,983.7647,609.4022.89
Semi-Monthly1,983.73
Monthly3,967.45
Facility Service Coordinator (Austin Middleton)Facility Service Coordinator
7/16/97
Hourly 24 @ 2,176.2052,228.8025.11
Semi-Monthly2,176.20
Monthly4,352.40
Director of Facility Service (Jorge Cruz)Director of Facility Services
7/1/93
Hourly 24 @ 3,642.9987,431.7641.21
Semi-Monthly3,642.99
Monthly7,285.98
Administrative Service Assistant (Earsie Johnson)Administrative Service Assista
8/1/99
Hourly 24 @ 2,600.8762,420.8030.01
Semi-Monthly2,600.87
Monthly5,201.74
Director of Event Services (Ted Luff)Director of Event Services
4/1/98
Hourly 24 @ 3,715.8589,180.4042.88
Semi-Monthly3,715.85
Monthly7,431.70
Controller (Faina Vinarskaya)Controller
5/1/98
Hourly 24 @ 3,967.1295,210.7645.77
Semi-Monthly3,967.12
Monthly7,934.23
Executive Director (Sandra O'Toole)Executive Director
9/1/90
Hourly 26 @ 6988.57185,336.8489.10
Biweekly7,270.91
Monthly15,444.74
Total907,344.96
99/28/11
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CONFERENCE CENTER AUTHORITY
FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 BUDGET
Explanations of Changes
September 28, 2011
Revenue and Expenditure Projections - All Sources - Pages 2 and 8
A surplus of revenue over expenses in the amount of $239,282 is projected. This
contributes to the fund balance and provides for capital improvements. The projected Fund
Balance at June 30, 2011 is $1,876,611. The budgeted surplus for FY 2010-11 was
$51,029, however, the year-end projection of $233,058 is more than budgeted.
Revenue Projections - All Sources - Pages 3 and 4
Conference Center Operations - A 1.57% increase is projected from the FY 2010-11
budget and a 3.09% increase is projected from FY 2010-11 year-end projection. The
economy is still affecting the Conference Center’s business; however, 99% of the FY 2010-
11 budget projection was met. Food and event services revenue was greater than
budgeted but rental revenue was less. The FY 2011-12 projections are anticipated to be
met based on the level of confirmed business.
Transient Occupancy Tax - An occupancy rate of 75% is projected. It is anticipated that
FY 2010-11 year-end occupancies will be approximately 75% which is an improvement
from the budgeted 70%.
Interest Income - Interest income has increased due to a different investment mechanism
for the debt service reserves.
4.30% increase projected from FY 2010-11 budget and .85% increase projected from
FY 2010-11 year-end projection.
Expenditure Projections - All Sources - Page 3
Conference Center Operations- 1.89% decrease projected from FY 2010-11 budget and
a very slight increase projected from FY 2010-11 year-end projection. Please see the
Operations Detail section for explanations.
Debt Service - Amounts reflect a continuation budget.
Property Leases/Taxes - Amounts reflect a continuation budget with a decrease in the
sewer charges.
1.71% decrease projected from FY 2010-11 budget and very slight increase projected
from FY 2010-11 year-end projection.
Expenditure Projections - Conference Center Operations Pages 5 and 6
All operating areas reflect the level of projected business. A two (2) percent cost-of-living
increase for all employees has been included. Funds have been budgeted to produce a
new website design, mobile website, and all the online and print collateral materials to
reflect the new design. The meeting travel expenses have been increased to reflect our
participation at events in which meeting planners make appointments with the Conference
Center sales staff to discuss their needs. These type of events are increasing and are
proving much more worthwhile to our sales efforts than events with traditional trade shows.
Trade show booth costs have decreased as a result.
Capital Improvements Budget - Page 7
The Capital Improvement Budget lists projects which require code upgrades,
environmentally-positive improvements, purchase of life-safety equipment, replacement of
worn equipment, or replacement of a storm-damaged exterior awning. Of note is the
project in which San Mateo County Energy Watch is working with the Conference Center.
Every florescent bulb ballast in the building, with the exception of the Oyster Point Room,
will be replaced with new, energy efficient bulb housing. The total cost of the project is
$54,861; however, San Mateo County Energy Watch will rebate $31,678.58 of the total
cost. The Conference Center’s budgeted portion is $23,182, which is reflected in the
Capital Improvement Budget. The estimated cost savings annually is $15,264; so with a
year and a half of savings, our portion of the cost will be recovered. No cost savings have
been reflected in the operating budget as the exact timeline of the project is not yet known.
The Capital Improvement Budget reflects the Authority’s continued commitment to making
annual capital improvements to the Conference Center so no single year requires an
excessive amount of funds to be budgeted.
09/28/11