Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEast Jaime Court Project Draft Initial Study and MND 11-21-2002Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration East Jamie Court Project City of South San Francisco ~~;~si_ NU: '1 _~.; c DATE CIRCULATED: ~~} ~~jr~~jt~_ UATGRECOMMENDGD:F~~ro~ r~I~fT~~C, DA"1'E APPROVED: ~'~ ~~T~ ©~ _. ,. ,!:"~"`~~~-sue ~t's~e::3:~ Morehouse Associates Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration East Jamie Court Project Prepared for: City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Prepared by: Morehouse Associates Consultants in Urban Planning and Design Corte Madera, CA In association with: Dowling Associates, Oakland Don Ballanti, Certified Consulting Meteorologist, El Cerrito Andrew Leahy, Registered Civil Engineer, San Francisco Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, San Francisco Treadwell & Rollo, Oakland LSA Associates, Point Richmond September, 2002 Table of Contents Page Authority .......................................................................................................... 1 Project Information ............................................................................................. 1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ..................................................... 19 Determination (Finding) .................................................................................... 19 Environmental Checklist ...................................................................................20 Checklist Issues and Answers to Questions ...................................................... 24 I. Aesthetics ..................................................................................... 24 II. Agricultural Resources ................................................................ 26 III. Air Quality .................................................................................. 27 IV. Biological Resources ................................................................... 32 V. Cultural Resources ...................................................................... 36 VI. Geology and Soils ....................................................................... 38 VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................. 41 VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................... 44 IX. Land Use and Planning .............................................................. 49 X. Mineral Resources ...................................................................... 51 XI. Noise .......................................................................................... 51 XII. Population and Housing ............................................................. 54 XIII. Public Services .......................................................................... 55 XIV. Recreation ................................................................................. 57 XV. Transportation/Traffic ............................................................... 58 XVI. Utilities and Service Systems .................................................... 62 XVII . Mandatory Findings .................................................................. 64 Sources ........................................................................................................... 67 Appendices ..............................................................................................Appx-1 1: Air Quality Impacts Analysis Checklist Section III Issues .............................................Appx-1 2: Biological Site Report - Checklist Section IV Issues ............................................. Appx-3 3: Transportation Impacts Analysis - Checklist Section XV Issues .......................................... Appx-7 Tables 1. Summary of Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Project Which would Reduce the Impacts to Less Than Significant levels..........21 2. Predicted Worst Case Carbon Monoxide Concentrations at Selected Intersections ..............................................................................30 3. Project Regional Emissions in Pounds Per Day ........................................... 31 4. Base Floor Area Ratios Allowed on the Project ........................................... 50 i Figures Page 1. Vicinity Map ................................................................................................ 3 2. Vicinity Aerial ............................................................................................... 5 3. Site Plan ....................................................................................................... 7 4. A.L.T.A/A.C.S.M. Land Title Survey ............................................................ 9 5. Preliminary Landscaping Plan ..................................................................... 11 6. Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan ...................................................... 13 7. Site/Building Elevations ............................................................................... 15 8. Building Elevations ...................................................................................... 17 Appendices Tables 1.1 Air Quality Data Summary for San Francisco and Redwood City, 1999-2001 ...................................................... ........ .... pp -2 A x 2.1 Special Status Plants and Animals with the Potential to Occur in the Vicinity of The East Jaime Court Project site ................... Appx-6 3.1 Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections............ Appx-34 3.2 Level of Service Definitions for Unsignalized Intersections ........ Appx-35 3.3 Existing Intersection Operations ...................................................... Appx-36 3.4 Approved Development Traffic Generation .................................... Appx-37 3.5 Potential Development and Traffic Generation Brisbane ................ Appx-38 3.6 Traffic Distribution .......................................................................... Appx-39 3.7 Baseline Intersection Operations ...................................................... Appx-40 3.8 Proposed and Potential Development Traffic Generation ................ Appx-41 3.9 Project Vehicle Trip Generation ...................................................... Appx-42 3.10 Menu of Potential Transportation Demand Management Mitigation Measures and C/CAG Guidelines Trip Credits ............. Appx-43 3.11 Freeway Operations ........................................................................ Appx-44 3.12 Year 2003 Intersection Operations .................................................. Appx-45 3.13 Year 2020+Intersection Operations ................................................ Appx-46 3.14 Project Parking Requirements ......................................................... Appx-47 Appendix 3 Transportation Impact Analysis Figures 3-1 Study Area ... .................................................................................. Appx-48 3-2 Existing Peak Hour Volumes and Lane Geometries ......................... Appx-49 3-3 Transit Service .................................................................................. Appx-50 3-4 Approved Projects ............................................................................. Appx-51 3-5 Year 2003 Baseline Without Project Traffic Volumes ..................... Appx-52 3-6 Year 2020+Baseline Without Project Traffic Volumes ....................Appx-53 3-7 Project Only Traffic Volumes ..........................................................Appx-54 3-8 Year 2003 With Project Traffic Volumes ........................................ Appx-55 3-9 Year 2020 With Project Traffic Volumes ........................................ Appx-56 ii Page 3-10 Site Plan ......................................................................Appx-57 3-11 Intersection Mitigations for Year 2020 With Project- Intersection 3: E. Grand Crossing & E. Grand ......................... Appx-58 3-12 Intersection Mitigations for Year 2020 With Project- Intersection 4: Gateway Blvd. & E. Grand Ave ........................ Appx-59 3-13 Intersection Mitigations for Year 2020 With Project- Intersection 5: Forbes Blvd/Harbor Way & E. Grand Ave........... .Appx-60 3-14 Intersection Mitigations for Year 2020 With Project- Intersection 6: Littlefield Ave & E. Grand Ave ........................ .Appx-61 3-15 Intersection Mitigations for Year 2020 With Project - Intersection 7: Allerton Ave & E. Grand Ave .......................... .Appx-62 3-16 Intersection Mitigations for Year 2020 With Project- Intersection 9: Haskin Way & E. Grand Ave ........................... .Appx-63 3-17 Intersection Mitigations for Year 2020 With Project- Intersection 10: Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave/Produce Ave...... .Appx-64 3-18 Intersection Mitigations for Year 2020 With Project- Intersection 11: S. Airport Blvd & Gateway Blvd/Mitchell ..........Appx-65 iii INITIAL STUDY AUTHORITY Pursuant to § 15063 of CEQA Guidelines, the City of South San Francisco, California has prepared the following Initial Study of environmental impacts of the proposed East Jamie Court commercial Project. PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Project title: 2. Lead agency name and address: East Jamie Court Project. Planning Division City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 3. Contact person and phone number: 4. Project location: 5. Current land use: 6. Assessor's Parcel Number: 7. Project sponsor's name and address: 8. General Plan designation: 9. Zoning District 10. Description of project: Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner (650) 877-8535 Southeast corner of Jamie Court and Haskins Way (no street address) See Figure 1. Vacant, soil stockpiling. 015-102-250; Parcel 2. Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. Pasadena, CA Mixed Industrial/Coastal Commercial. P-1 Planned Industrial. Use Permit to construct atwo- building, office/R&D complex on a 6.13-acre site adjacent to the San Francisco Bay. The project consists of two buildings totaling 133,000 sq. ft.: Building 1 -two stories (57,700 sq. ft.) over a parking level ,and Building 2 -three stories (75,300 sq. ft.). City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 -1 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study 11. 12. Floor Area Ratio proposed: Parking provided: 13. Lot Coverage proposed: 14. Surrounding land uses and setting 15. Other public agencies whose approval is required: The Project also includes a segment of the Bay Trail, that will connect to existing Bay Trails east and west of the site (See Figure 2). 0.50 FAR (yields 133,000 sq. ft). The figure is well within the limit of an estimated 1.0 FAR allowed by the combined Mixed Industrial/ Coastal Commercial categories as defined in the City General Plan (see Land Use/Planning). 375 spaces at City standard of 2.81spaces/ 1000 gsf, subject to a Use Permit. 320 spaces are located in surface parking lots; the balance of 55 spaces are located in the garage under Building 1. 20%. The zoning standard is up to 60% coverage. The property is located approximately 1 mile east of Highway 101 via East Grand Avenue, at the southeastern corner of Haskins Way and East Jamie Court. The site is bordered on the south by San Francisco Bay, on the east by the South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station, on the north side of East Jamie Court by Yellow Trucking - a container cargo business; and on the west side of Haskins Way by warehouse/contractor businesses (Regal Capital; Angel Marble; Ray Gain International; Takashima Trucking; Freed, Teller & Freed; and Capitol Glass). The larger East of 101 Area is characterized by a mix of industrial, office and warehouse, and R&D biotechnology businesses. BCDC, RWQCB CDFG City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 2 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study grand roject der Co. ;overy Facility -3- Figure 2 AERIAL PHOTO 4 t' i ~ ~' `' y ~ __ +- /~ 3-,, 4r--~ -, iz I~ m x v_ ~ S A ~ o ~ p z D i m z p G'7 -C O y G) 'i D 9 ~T7 < n i 0 ~ p N A ~ ~ ~ O y 3 Z N m n o { c z O Z fT O N O Z Z ~ ~ N N Z V ~ ~ m m m a~ o? o! 3 3 ~ Z 2 2 m n p D n~ Z m Z a 2 4 r-a r O O O Nm c yD Dv 2A u ,, a CNi a [7 n (i ~ x m ~'~' m ~ m m m +Z o rn m of N l.7 W ~ _~ _~ ~_ p m p ... Z 2 2 "~ N P V i a ~ so o ~ Z _? m { ~Z ~ cni cc ~ ~ a N o ~ m N v o_ m O Z ~ ~ ~ Z { t N + ~ N n A O A n '" c z c p m 0 m 3 m z N (T d k N A O1 9 Q °3 8 N 0 o -1 O m m c c .~ m n ~~ ~ ;D ~^v C~- n r ~~ g0 m fx ~~_ DO ~~ A A.G1 Z Z N + = A Z D r D Z G j r2 m ~7 b ~~ u N v o R A m p m ~ n "~ C FD ~ S~ o O C N y 2 2 N ~ O .Z 7 ~ $ ~y') ~j ~0 ~ m mn Z m D ~ 61 00 ~~ 0 $3 ~ my mO C i mm ~ ;c ~ ow T N T°m On A~°f O z 10 L. T 3 i O D m mzo m~i ~' c ~ m co r- `v o rn a +n w m~ m OD Z ~,n y m ~ N ~ pC ~~ m 1 O~ m 'D D j C GlZ T rp m lm m m O A 'fy ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ >_ ~ T A <v i `O D ~ Ni ~ m~ ~D >'A D ~ Y~ *i ~ <<n r A IV ~ ~c f~ ~ v m m m m~ m 3a ?< A D O~ m p ~O 'O Z x Dx OZ m `rC "~i 7Z =~ ODD? mz4 n ~..; ` A m x w_ = N m~ n m ~,~ .!_.: n = ` n m p`a' p'4s ~V w N N `~N i.~ O I~ ~ V is ~o a n n n m :N mm U1 !!1 A O _C .a O A 9 N 0 tni~D O y ~ (A p -1 ~ m r m (n r N m C Aim o D = D m O ~2 T A ~ m n D D (fir WW A (~ p ,Z j ~ -1 n p m r y .~ ..}~vZZ irzz z n ~~ ~mmvp ~mvp ` c ~ o of trim ~ O ~v<< m ~ r~ ~ ~ E ; ~ ~ A f ~ ~ o ~'' Fi:. e N ~:. (( 01 i.T ~~ ~Vl N N O IJ IV OD :rl. N m ~ti G v D V ~ D 2 A W w ~~ bTTr Nit "yjt, CiT o~ m ~ ~ N W {N~ 7C N p N V ~ N w N ~ ~ ~ v ~Z O W N 01 ,~ =a ~. Q. K r7 ~ ~. r °« g ~' c~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ b ~p ~ ' ~ ~ ~ k .A~- g o. a ~ ~ ~ a HASKINS _~ ~_ ~ ~. rn~ ~~ a `"' z ~~~~~~ a~ ~~~ ~ d No11711 . .. I~R~~ fi~ _~ ~rAq I ~ ~ HASKINS WAY FACE ~ ~ BA.W! ff BENAIOS (N009C00'E 3 !08.45' M-M POt 47 PM 4) ---so------su----_____~____~______ ~.~ qd~~ ~ p'~141~' ~~ q C •c ~ rp FACE OF /~ ~~ I ~, ii EX CLEC. 801 I I \~PAilKgltu ;e 3 Q 1~ __ I~es~~ 'I 15.08' 1 Iii ~/ 'I I +FR3 ~"- I ~~ \ ''I ~~ I ~ I ~~ ' ~I I ~ I ti ~-'~~ ° ~_I f" f Y N ~~ ~~ ~~ oA ~ ~ I~ I ~ ~~ y » ~ gB ~fQ r~ ~ i1 1~ i ~ 4 F~ ~~~ `~,- D •9 O O oaf o~ aN N m 7 ~ ~ <D ~D C O ~ n a z 1\ r P~dN~'~~ Z ° b o g ?Z ~ o ~ i o v o c o ° ~SI°mg°y .41r$mz~?~F~, VIZ Z ~ q.D9A rry. ~vNO <r5. ~Nmc~i°~i Pvlr~ Dm~ ° =~°A~yy~ m~O ~2° S A z i A y~ro>~ ulz~"~mx ~~~~i~ ~^ ~ a ° a f A ~ Z ~ O 1>n 8 A ° ~ y ~ yQo~~~ o ~;"ii LTA o ~ ~ ~ A 3 y~ 2AA p~;(pry~ A~2 ~, 9~ ZO v f =~1 -y( !q ~ o II I ~I I II II I 11 I II 1 II I II I \`~ ~ I ~~~ JII aaa ~~ 1 ~~ I I I I 1 -I- I I 1 I .~- 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I ® I I ~~ n ~I ~T ° 1 8 ~'~' , A I x~ q I y I I k s 1 ~~ ~" I '-%~ $ I n I .a ~~ 1 1 0 . I ~• I I i 1 ~a ~~F Qo %~ ~~ ~~ ~/ ® XI t-~\ \ ~~ \ \ I D ~ ~\ Z w ~ '~ o D C7 L ~~~'sB;Z ~ N ~ ~~~~o I° ~~ ~o~~~ II A ~,0,.,~ ~A~~ 1 1 I 1 ~~ i Ili ~~,tf v x u+ _ p N ~ ~ Z ~ 9 B !i 9 m ~~ .7 ~ z ~ ~~ m Nr~o °y ~~ ~ ~ q P^ f7m {r~ ec,n8-< .off Ten. g^~ A~yg§ NOR1H ~~ - '~6'~!" ~-Qri =+= m$>~~ m~ ~ `I SOJ'10'18'N I ,'SO,IYO'16'W ~ $ .1 C m ~ m ~ N ° ~ v b ~ V IJt00' 201.65 - Nu~ ~m °~ ~~~N Z= C ~ I I f ~"~ Ig N',B o QA ~ ~mzg B m .+p15 t! ~ I v++ c°~ I/11 I °fr~l 1 ~~ .~ ~ .. d~aRECRrf~ ~ ~~ ~~ z~~~ s //~~ ' ~ ~ _ ~ ~~ ~ g ~ ~o~~ Q r . 1,f >~f~ e I sum' ~ f~ gz m ~ I ~ ~ I ~y~ * a3~~~,~ ~ ~g W ~4 ~ ~ IV 6 R~=1 ~ ly ~' IIt ~e m-`N AO~hy~ N>-i~ N ~ W > 2 m mr/r ~1'V 9 .~ 2 mN IA'O I, '~I yf '•fi~Fi°o...D22 ~pp11//~~o ouo~~ #~j 3rm >~yy~aQ+ mA Q ~yy$°> e~ r rC G I y N ["'~ Z Z ^-1 'r•1 AI 0+ n~~m52 Q2nrz ,~~;^ "~ ~p Z-2A b II I. ~: . I w ~iv O ~'zvl~'-3 1 11 m Iz".~~ * x ° ~ ~ ~z'd * ~ I f dr'j~R:my c>~ t?q 5sa ~Q H g s 3: $~ ~ $~ Cr] 1' 'i of I I $a9>o ~ O ~r~a o~'~+IF a'1 ":~g~ u,>S>P~r, y ~ }^oy~ gy~y ~~ y f e4.am/w onA°~,m- d vA~~ ~-+ r/~ ~-r°r°F~ ~ ~~ ~rcill*„~y ~oDVO~a> L~~J 'n ~r'rP~ ~o~vo;o,> t-+ 4' ~?II f .r l>il r~' ~~C N i v~ Zi mminoZ ~ ~ ~9~ ~ ~ao~Tn~ ati >~~~~ iya~~~ir rqi i~ ~D r~ ~~m o "ro~5~~ ; c o Nm d 1I~t'd'? 41 ~ °-~NyZ1s~'~li O 4iymcAi ~Oy DD~.$uj C/~ '~•. Fiy ^Q~aryps~ ~ar^' ~vc~~ ~ zz>Q8~ u~pDmpo ~ 1`F '~ I ~ I> 2~N K'~'N~~pZ~N ~~~ ~ 0~~~~" C .DiO ~'10~~z~ O~~£~~ y'rl°~0~~ n ' ~ il~ ~~ m°~im$ ~ ~(-^co° Da ~ ~- +~ N~ ~~ o ~~ o ° D a ~ vet ~D. 'ip C' rSm22m ~v~ rr~ ~ y~~ z~ Dazj^z $CIl N f~ c'in~lnz $ ~~ ~! °g~~P~~ z g~~~ ~3 egg ~ ~~ ~m~" ~;,~om~~ o N ~~~~$ ~~~r~mQ~~ `b x~<csYz`zJo~o`rr0 mmx '^ mFA- >~ ~ m~ cg ~.' I ~8 ~$ ~ ~*° H ',Ii ~~;=! I~e~~~n~~D,~~~~NNZ cy~ Q ~~~~y~m~ vpL~yi oz~g~ ° ~~~N g~r~, ~`riz O I ~ ~ p~ p~ y ~~yy~~ ~ m~ y>~~~ z II ~ 1 ~fO~y?C lyy ;ZOµ f)2~ '•1 -=1~N4i~~g}A~ V'~1y Z.110~~ ~~~m JV ~ZA~ I' I ~ I ~ INVr~'Op.'ovr17; O Am D ~mm`4 z~~~~z7a ~mcNiP`b'>a ~ ~ K~~ A~~~B g~ I li ~I' ClDrzlm<r ~4~ rNAi ... ~ °~$°'~`r1, NO~sr°.r ~' n v ~>'•~ NO~~ Y II '~I I~t 1 Ap~pSorQp~r'~ it rn G4 p~1~~ ~vsoi$s~ ~ 3~8mr~ b~g~$i~ rrlIl n' I f ~! LYDD"° ° Z µ~'v='~-~m mAZ>>v1~ z NZ C ~e~ D Ilyf~ t ,~ c~ °Dp~N$ '^ ~ ~ ,~in'xy ~'v~.ri z~r'~I+a°y~ry 4 Pi's D z~rya~~ 1 i~ I m r~nimvca o ~ z~ o~mc• ~oc~$s O U -~~~i~ ~o ?C°~~ m z o m I~'q°,r 'y I v~oQ'mml~ N ~ ~o rA.l~~~~q`r~.~ a~`p~t+yc~.rZ Y r.s~~~ o°~~~ r l I I 1 D v '~ ° v y ~N m~Ki ~ ZC7 Dfy2~ rv "ab~~ Zc~TZ S2m I t ,I { iy~ ~n ~ y c~~c~ zv nrsi ~'ozm P~ ~~OaiS 1 Io~~ ~~°b5 i I i ~ /, U ~~ v z z 'fit I ~"•1 ~ I~ v a s f f t i~ I N AOymO O.'OO 'O~~ rzmZAppmm Am-1 m 1/1 z ~ 3; x 1 ~s rd m mDPZ-c Om l0 D1IA•A•11 W 201n ~CO< m~0 < DI VI ~1n ~potn O O mom/ y~ r~r~•1 t ; fp'I ^~" ? Avm ~ ~oo cy~° ~oCp'~~~00'z^ o~ ~cA-i-i/ ~ p L~ Aop ~ gsz i-~i~ y ~~ ~ I °° 8 ~ m --zi`~'zy5' ~~oZ c~r~i~gc>i;.`°IC 6" ~y 8 $ 8P5 = ~z-t -'"° ~~ '~~ "t' O~ ° ~ ~ O~z !Am`~i a~°r~e~m D v°i~ o ..° ~z y~ yxy~o >Inl O I 1 tO ~ z p2-1 ~2 ~o A DZ ~ N ~ a~ENZ y Z b ~. >~~ '~~ ~I I m Qi~y~~'a m ~m~ yZQi~B~mC .. .. .y r Z ~r r~-'o jY' ° pVl pm 2. 7-' _ ~Jr-( CN 'Z ~ S~ <V4~p J D TI rI1 0 t -1 4<,c~ F;~ ~~g rn°mr~~~ J>nssyp'^ my ~ o m r^ ~mm -r urn -+ Ab'. and D C)° gD x p~' T ~r~iuA l vbv_ ~"o ;~~y ~'+p~Q~~~~~o~ Z~r~ 0o+1 vvi- ~ pQ r~1j m~'L ~'O~ p8~ ~ ' f Nm~ C nbJSAR ~Wg ~NO Cpo~°°~>'J~ma AO DUI ~VyI A N'~'~ m0 .Zy yyO r+N1; 2A A-C~ 1 i `t ~t I F pJIJN_CZ ryOA aIOD L~ CNZr((A~~ bbNZ~ °Z F mR° °N -pN•1 o~m ~z ~~g cl• ~I V ylm Zf) A~pZ nF0 °Om (N•IyD~mO jrNO y ~v 9 pOp~ ~Z° al c~r~+° _~ ODin ~ o `>p~ZZ Z A Q 1'~ ~' ~ ~ b~ broil Sy'r'i vu~°i -umii ~Q ~r71g~'.°U. Q "~ IOiI ~Z ~ m>>z ~~^ ii ~o~~ ~vl ~~$ m D ~A N~~ A r~ ND 'JF Oyy ~ 'r'~ r V~° ~~ ; Av ~y m~> ~,' ' ~ Oo O m0 D r"/ ~m Orry Z N A 1- ~2 D DDS mn m ~YI~ y u~ ,~„ tQi 1 b y MGI~ _ OZZ9° ~ n A O° O° m Z 1 V ? O m Z D D Z m yl m0 ~y m ~ yZ° ~~°°,,'' 'e D z r^ $ ~g ~~o p o v ei m~ oo z~D °f` °m '"c*cb` ? m cm Ns ogD ~y p°z f$R~tmi ~ ~ R g.~~ ~°~< °N i o ,PI'^, )R ryz'al I ~ r~ m r ~b °' 1/1 <<_ .FO~°fp~~ yp°:~ D S Dn ~Z{ ~1>/1 ~ IDiI~ D).$;] n2g 1, ` i ~ { "Jp CAO <O °pf>il0 yl < A .9 m °z ° ~ ~m$ aD1M hl> S\ rb Q ? (~~ N ~ _~i 1~1 > ° Nn~ '" N ~ ~ PZr ~ zC f) f) t~~~ ` 1 ++ 1 m ~ A2 -Z1~~ ~ ~XQ°y~ ~ ~ ~C_ ~ D IA.I= > ~~> Ty ~~ ~C ~ y~ t~ I O ~ ~g ~. V ~ y~ ~~y~C AA1 0~ y Z~ b O ~A1 ZO rl~i+I OrN ~n ~~ = O TIZ..r oZ f ON~OUN V 'OT ~ ~Z ~ ~ boZ VI YO r~ ~x0 °y 1 J ~ IA m ~ ~ ~ ~ -i 'O ~ pl p~p y~p C A ~ m i y r~Di Q~ ~~ ~ I > $ m° Fv° Z O~QN ~ Z Z m. ~ -~ iO .9~ Ap P; OA i ~ ~ b~ o~ Ln ~FZrn r D ~+ r Zp O 3y~ °~ x P-1 A I~ II - r 5 ~ ~ I Il~fl'I i I \\ i = I ~ ` 1 i II I I I 1 .`IP~ ay°-1 °v- $ Z ms2~9 r~•1 mKm' $ I rl 11 1I~ ~' 11 O y y~ Q O v O o owl ^~ po r~O R m r ~ 1 ~1 II /~.. •, I Sl ~ I ' 1 ' 'mss, 1 AO $ $v FI m ~1 o~m f•~14'l D p Dt1 °O I4n"~o nP7b ~ ~I x~'~ 1~ ~O l -- I1 ~ I No rm" °m= 6 5 mm o ~ A~~S v o ~i ~ sw 4 Fli y~^' II V~ / I ~ ~..~ ` ~ ~ ~ `Ij y ~~ ~ om ~~YIpB ~ a ~ ., z.. m Qo > $Z - ~'• 4 1 > ~ n ~ I ~ 1y I Q. 1 ~ fl1 ~~O 7C ~> m ~$ ~ D 1^Qic~~AQ ~ ; ~~~1~ •~ ~ ti~~ y~0 1 I $ I~ (I ` C 'eo 'd' ''°'v L~~ a ~a o ~ y''JOr ~ A m ~ A Rv ~ 1 I ~ M la (,I~ OD Z C-fx° In Z ~C p~ I~1+1 ..1 ~ ' ~i ~n ~ ~~ y I I 8 I~ 1 1 1 1 ~ Q. 1 V µ~~ ~~ NzcrPti b °Q~rn~" > "r 8 1 j ( I, _ ~ ~< m v~ v~ y ''1 r^ Q C M n yr D ~ ~ I ' ~n ~a s~ Fi r'~{ ~Ap-. In Z ~ !n ~ - I ~ ~ ..~ ~ o ~ I ~ ~~ N I ~ ! s I ~i D. ~ z $~ o b_~ o _x ~'~ w pf e mo mctz ~~ 11 G I ~ ~ \~ C> <D I ~ 1 1 2~V~ ~°c °p~ xpx 'r^ F" 5goe`'~ ~ ~ c~ ao~ ~ C1 S.1 ~ ~ a ~ ° ~ ~o~ I <D ! W ~ 4r mc7 Ins y X~ f f $o.•'i ~b F yZ ~ z Z Q r~ b m ~ '~ I I~ \ J ~~ i~ I~ I' f ~ P~ rnv iy f ~ 5Nf i b° m a g m v m ~^ v°~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ I Q. \~ ~~_ % ~G ~D ~~ I~. I ~ ~e~//Iy~ ~ ~D yo `~ °~ yT.~~ ~ ~ ~,rA m i3 1 ~ • II ~ rm.~ 1 ~n ~ I~ ~ ~ A 0` 1 v 2 ~ './ C Z y y N D ° IA OA O~ ~ ' i II t 1_~D ~ ~7 ~ _1~'~~ p i °A Z N f.2 u~ C ~N AL~ ~/~ ~ r~ z S v > 1 Se r+ Gl I ~ 1. ~g w ~^ ~ m a0 U b 'O ~ a ° o hr li'3 \ ~'•• Zn ~~rn ~ >? ~-I -~ ~ o~'~. t~ $ ~-+~ ~ro _ ~ ~ ~m° » v S 3: !^ vx $ @ D ~ iiiiii{{ c ~. \ L~ ~ ~ ~i D D ~y c>i o yr ~ 9 > j $ x •~ ~y•.•,;: '..`.:..-: ;. - zm. :. ti ~, p`X ., :5::._:;. ;.- z ~ m~ ? u 3 ~ r6> n ~° ~ ~' A ~ ~ I ..' • FACE OF CUMI _ ~ ~ x ~ '° ~ m v ~ $ /"~ 1:: m A v ~' z m ~ I 1 ~ 'T1 C> ~~ ~~a~~~N m~ R z ~ o ~~ A ~~ ~~ 9 e b o _ -~!}~! I ~D ~c <s~'~~'gr~ r~ Nlr~ ~ m p ~_ o ~ o ~uP ~ D m ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ F7 ~ ~y~~- I n ~ ~ ~~ m ; m ~ o oly ~ ~1 O z Z e O ly W ~ FG ~ ~1~ ~ ~ g K u O A p m , rj's ~' r ~ ty/C~ ~ [ly']! I ~ ~ o ~~ N Z Z ~ Z 8 41 x ~~ z ~__ ~ z ~p 275.5D ac. PAYEDVeni~":•~;..,;, _.... 6. ~ b "'' JC ° ~ ~ ' .1-~•~ ~~' `•~_v'~~,.~.5__-!-s~a_a ` ~ ~ UI °S r~ 9 O S ~ O YI ~ ~n :E N 9.r. UI 1I1 9 Q 9 L ~1 V A 1 G 8~c ?_` + Q 8fP847 8N~>' 8P8 ~I"'~8 ~o~~ a > °v8 -'i 1~Qim If °' ~ ~ ~ I I l ~ I I I ~I ~~~ `t F'P ~ ~~~ ~~~i ~_~~ E3jc iy~ ~ ~ ~r Z ~QSE3 t o f I I I o a In m ~~ ~~'~ 8 ~r~1B ~ ~'~ ~ ~~ ~P~g~ ~ ~~ w . ,.0.., + ~ >z~_'~t~cm~/ ~t ~~®~ O Ii~III I• ®A~~Pl,I'sFs~~pz°yA~r"rP-I~1~i3•c~iz ~rc"u$~Qm`~' ~Q Q,~~sl~es7~ ~ '"p.~~~Z~'zJ ~ = ft _ ~ t E ~ f bb I ~ ~ I ~ A n ~ ~ ~ g ~ g ~ ~~ ~ .~~iq~ ~ ~ ' ' & ~ N y~ , 1! ~? I! I I I I I I ~ 1 °~ D ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ Cl ~f mA NNbmD C/yNVI° OzC~Zp pA ag~°mO V/"Im mC Nm vOSp Ds Pvrmz~~Opmvm "D i> ?C D Y ~ ~~j~ •Z 1°iIOyS IS.IN w~>D~~~~~jOavi ~nP-.Ig~z~~n ys~ ~ ~'~y~<~"c~~~ooc~~igPa~$$~ ~C~ -<~i° ~v~D$~ ? C Z4 .e _ n ~IZ~_F ~.' x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s s ~So ~ z z ~ R: ~ -1 Uy~rymry~~PPJJ ~ "~ ~i g r~ `r~rrr1'~ 1~+1 yo0 17~ °~ vii a yi rr`j. >L~ c (/v(/~~ yryy~ r~5• y s_ c~ ~I pp ~ ~ x ~y ~e ~ ~ ,p o ~~?G<jD OOOD~;gmC..{°$C08~0~ m~C ZQn,~p -ib°~B Db r; TCOf-V~I C~A'r1~ ~•g4 ~~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ OZ~ o ~ ~ ~ M ~ z z z ~~ c m m ~ czi SL -mNiPmv'yi~ ~ yo A m pm c pm ~on2cA $~ V~~" ~ 'c o Az ~ rm^ g m rm~• upi zr7,~n 4~ ~ m i ~ ~d4 ~ ~ ~p g~ ~ ~ ~ `t~;c=i .. oo bC m C $ ;t m C Nr.i~ r;~O C! ~ CA p° ~ Op 5jj yp y~ i< D m $ z ~ ~ ~ ~ DV.<2 X y O ~ ~ A D y?~ DZ z ~ Z ~ OAm gA V O ~ Z~ (~1 l$" !•1 C 03p: ^' A~ °~ < 'S -1 ;) y D~ ~ } yO X ; ~ ~ y + °~ CC m QA~Z yz {9 ~ Q y i• r.~ yZ SZ '~ Z ~ r°.,m~ ~$ ~ ~ ~ ~ .r~-1, a>yt y y ~~1/1-~1 ~° X gg'M Si O ; ~ y =L Z ~ K VI C ?C r fz'1K ~ D ~ ~ ~ n~Nx m Fi a ~" ;~ m ~iN~ ~ ~ $ > ~ z m ~ ~ ~ c ~ yo m mg ~>a "' >S~~ $~g ~~4 ~ ~ o~ c~°~ kl -~ ~ zo rn vl m o y ~ o z m ~ v ~ z Z e~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ Z ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ r~ ~~gg ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ st oAlc MK sccr aewsKRls " eT °` ~ ~' A.L.T.A./A.C.S.M. LAND TITLE SURVEY j P ~ ~-°~ PARCEL 2 = _ = _= ROBERT A. KARN J~, ~"" EAST JAMIE COURT AND HASKINS WAY - - - ~ ASSOCIATES, INC. ~ ~T'® SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 3AN MATED COUNTY, CA - -- - """,~`aT~°~'" K,~ °'~' Pnal rat. r C I V, / L E N ~/ N E E R 8 Rlo~ von aae-ass Fix von gas-aese tTJ FOR: ALE%ANORIA REAL ESTATE EQUITIES. INC. s-beAi pAMrrekerrohrsavaewn O C0P1RIQIT 2002 KOBFItT A. KARN ANU ASSOgAIEA RIG ~'. C~ I I N " o f/l w III <D - 1 '} II •y z v n D m ~ 'rl me r ~ ~ ~, Z a W fl.. ~ n p~ O ~ '~-'~• ~ 3 co ~ z fl u c[ C G fl w rv r ©® ®®®®® 0000 O C)O O©O~ yyy lC 1 S ~ ~ S `' ~ S {~ t~ `a or :~$~ N ~ ~ ("~ tl ~d C m ~I b tl I~rf' ~ ~IL~ ~d~ D ~ryl'' ~~ ~ Z ~$1 ~Pq ~ CC~ ~v ZZ ~ ~ s ~f~1C ~~~t .~VV ~;8~ I[~y,< ~~<~~ s ~ -+ D $~f i ~ O~ ~~~~t 5 ~ ~2 Y~ ~ Ih b €o~ (c]I-! ~ ~~~ ~~ N2 0 ~ ~~~ } g,L,lj ~ dip PN r~'~ ~ < ~W ~~~ ~ _ a ~ ~p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~;~ ~ ~~ r ~~ p~ ~~ a `~ ~ sppy ~ ~ a ~ S s % S F, ~+ Y ~ ~ ~~ ~ a .~ ~ ~s 7~ ~ ~~ ~C ~a w r ~ 3 yp `~ ~ <~~ A~ ~ IU Nt olU ~A y `~'~ ~ vi r q PY 'V ~~ 1y a n Jt S5' y1 ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ rj f ~ 5 0~ it ~ 'T 1 pp ~ r a n ~ __ ~ ~ ~~ r x H n u [~ i~~ (;; z ri ~# a ~ l~ ~ S A ~ goo,®.., O~PP~~ I?9~ ; o ~~~ lid ~lo ff II i 1 4~g[1IM II ~ I88H~ MI ~ e ~~~II it ~ I~ ~~~§~~~~~~~~~i$~~fi~~ ^ €~a~ e1 ~~a~~~Ee~~ b T~~ ~ ~~ Z I~ (fl om= v~~ ~~~ zZv ~~ m~ -~ ~z t v, O m n o. z ~ ~ W c v z J et•-o• Pt~aFt ti~P4 ~ ~ (? 4 ~P 4 ~ ~ ~ 4 I~ 1 I I 1 I _j._.._..~. ~~ ~~ ~n o ~, N ' O ' O n ~~~ V/ ~ m n z ~ v n ~ N s; k, b b s -- - - -Q- O O ~ T ` •T1 N m m m Fi ~ tt o -- - -- -~- r. I S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;r~ P 4 P ~4 ~ P 4 ~P ~4 g~ ~$ P 4 I te'-o• t e•-o• te•_o• te'-o• I 66'-0• - ---{---- -- -n r O Z c v z n r m O Z _C r v z ...- c _v Z N b 5 s S 1~ Y ~', d ~ Q ~ 4 ~ ~ f ~ 4 'R te•-o• te•-e• te'-o• te•-o• ~.~. "'~ ~ C ~ r v z G7 rn O ----f-------r. et'-o• *t •-a•x te•-o• * te•-o• * te'-o• 0 w 0 Of 0 ,, 6~+; , ~ !~ ' ~ i . 61 ~ tii III ~ 16~ 16~ g~. N' `~G' ~6' fed ~ $ g g m m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ' ~ m < < w 3~ " T ~ ~ ~ ~ . . .. ~ I' 0 - ~ , _. w ~ ~ .. +h~ :~, . M ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ - . fD ~ ~ O ~ ~ ; ,~ '~ ~~ o , cC~ I ~ ,--~. ~ ~ rn ~,.~ .., - -- ° O , O z ~ ~ .~ ~~ m: _~ _ , ' z ~ ~` ~ ~ ~ ;~ ; ~ a i- . `~ O ~~. i E r,t' ~ ' ' ~ ~; r 1 : . Q. N N . ~ t~. ;. ,' # , ~~~~ f ~~. ~~~ ~ ~a ~,:, ~~ ~,' i i ~ ~, _ N ~ 1 ~ ,f% is IV ~', ` ~ l ~ '~ ~ _.. f ~ ~ , ~ ? . ~. ' 3 (./I~\.J.. g ~.. .\J C7 .Z7 (D S ~7 J m m ~ < co o ~ ~ °3 -, _..._ ~ i_ou i c !° p~ v fn sn ~' pr p :' W yy!! C ~"i~~~~c~c~~c~ D Z ~ zA~~ ~ ,t ~ '~An ~ ~~g,m{~~~ ~~~ ~ii~ y~ ~ ~g~~ ~~ -i 1~ ~1 z ~:` ~ N ~ I .f r--- ~ I I. I ~: I• } Y+ ~. .A~. g ~ m ~ m Ou ~.a i ~ ~I1\~ ~' hV i ~~t ~;. v c~~n' O r-1~ m m C' N .~ a_ ~~ N N, ~: ~ TI C_ ~' r ~ v~ g. i Z OD g $ ~ m ~„ IT1 ~r ` ~rn - m~ ~ -~ //Z~ • VI ~~ g .°o m ~ m vcn-, ~ w 18' V ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental issues checked below [/] would be potentially effected by this project. The Project would cause at least one "Potentially Significant Impact", before miti ation, as indicated in the discussion of environmental impact issues on the following pages. [/] Aesthetics [ ] Agriculture Resources [/] Air Quality [/] Biological Resources [ ] Cultural Resources [/] Geology /Soils [ ] Hazards & Hazardous [J] Hydrology /Water [/] Land Use /Planning Materials Quality [ ] Mineral Resources [/] Noise [ ] Population /Housing [/] Public Services [/] Recreation [/] Transportation/Traffic [/] Utilities /Service Systems [/] Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (Finding): On the basis of this initial evaluation: [/] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR and other Sources, including revisions or mitigation measures that are incorporated into the proposed project, pursuant to the attached Initial Study Checklist, so that the lead agency finds that the mitigated project would not have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Signature Date City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 -19 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Terms used in the environmental checklist form are as follows: ^ All answers to questions about impacts take account of the whole action involved, including off- site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. "No Impact" responses. A brief explanation is provided for all answers including "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information Sources that the lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. The list of Sources is provided at the end of the checklist. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information Source(s) show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one being proposed (e.g., the project is not located where it could effect agriculture). A "No Impact" answer is explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. "Potentially Significant Impact" responses. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact could occur, then the checklist answers indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. The "Potentially Significant Impact" response is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impacts" when the determination is made, an EIR is required. ^ "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" responses. This applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures into the Project would reduce an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency describes the mitigation measures, and briefly explains how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Table 1 summarizes the "Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" responses. ^ Earlier analyses are used where, pursuant to tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in earlier EIRs or Negative Declarations CEQA Guidelines § 15063(c)(3)(D). - Earlier Analysis Used. The South San Francisco General Plan Update EIR, June 1999, Francisco and the South San Francisco East of 101 Area Plan EIR, January, 1994 are available for review at the Planning Division of the Department of Economic and Community Development, 315 Maple Avenue. - Impacts Adequately Addressed. Effects from the checklist are within the scope of, and adequately analyzed in the earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and identifies effects that were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. - Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they are applicable to the proposed project are described. City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 20 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Sources. The lead agency incorporates, at the end of the checklist, numbered information Sources that support the answers to questions in the checklist. ^ Issues. The explanation of each of 17 Issues identifies: - The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and - The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. ^ Summary. Mitigation measures incorporated into the Project are included in Table 1. Table 1 Summary of Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Project Which Would Reduce the Impacts To Less Than Significant Levels Issue Checklist * Mitigation Measures uestion I Aesthetics a) Comply with policies of the East of 101 Area Plan (Policies DE-1, DE-5, DE-17, DE-24, DE-52, DE-54, DE-56, DE-58) to take advantage of bay views and view corridors. d) Comply with East of 101 Area Plan Design Element Policy DE- 29, regulating levels of security lighting. III Air Quality a) Comply with of BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines to reduce the impact of construction emissions (dust). IV Biological a) Consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Resources Department of Fish and Game as to appropriate habitat avoidance and precautions during construction. b) Protect mudflat and tidal salt marsh habitats from intrusion during construction and operation, by compliance with measures listed under section IV b) of the checklist discussion, including preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). c) Comply with requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game, if the upland seasonal wetlands, and upper salt marsh habitat in the vicinity of the new storm drain are Corps, RWQCD, and BCDC jurisdictional. d) Require conformance with General Plan Policy 7.1-G-2 to restore salt marshes. City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 21- East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Issue Checklist '~ Mitigation Measures Question VI Geology and a) ii, iii To migitate for seismic impacts, comply with policies of the East Soils of 101 General Plan (GEO-1, GEO-2, GEO-3, GEO-7, GEO-10, GEO-11, GEO-12) and the Uniform Building Code. b) The landscape architect shall minimize erosion from precipitation or irrigation through accepted erosion control measures. c), d) Conduct a geotechnical investigation to assess the potential for settlement and subsidence and comply with policies of the East of 101 General Plan (GEO-1, GEO-2, GEO-3, GEO-7, GEO-10, GEO-11, GEO-12) and the Uniform Building Code. VII Hazards and a) Comply with all applicable regulations for the storage, use and Hazardous handling of hazardous substances, as established by federal Materials (EPA), state (DTCS), (RWQCB), California OSHA, California EPA, local (County of San Mateo), and City of South San Francisco regulations. VIII Hydrology a) Comply with NPDES, SWPPP, the San Mateo County Urban and Water Runoff Clean Water Program, BMPs, erosion control and Quality filtration of runoff to reduce non-point source pollutants entering San Francisco Bay. d) Replace and enlarge the storm drainage outfall that will reduce potential off-site flooding, based upon a drainage study prepared by the applicant's Project Engineer and approved by the City. e) Replace the storm drainage outfall to provide adequate capacity and reduce the potential for polluted runoff. f) Implement the water quality control measures required under Discussion VIII a). IX Land Use and b) Allow a Base Floor Area Ratio up to 1.0 FAR to accommodate the Planning Project proposal for 0.50 FAR, consistent with General Plan Table 2.2-2. c) Comply with requirements and guidelines of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) related to any land alteration within the "Shoreline Band", and consistent with potential habitat impacts discussed in checklist issue Section IV Biolo ical Resources. City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 22 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Issue Checklist '~ Mitigation Measures Question XI Noise a) Comply with General Plan noise mitigation policies NO-2 and NO-4, related to loading and auxiliary equipment areas. b) Comply with measures to minimize noise and vibration from pile driving, based upon ground conditions discussed in checklist Section VI Geology and Soils, and subject to detailed monitoring measures approved by the City Engineer. XIII Public a) Comply with building and fire codes, use of keyed entry (Knox Services Boxes) during construction, and key pad digital equipment when the project is operational, for fire and police accessibility. b) Submit a "Security and Safety Plan" making provision for private security guards and provision for Knox Boxes to be on-site, commencing with the construction phase, and key pad digital equipment when the project is operational. XIV Recreation b) Coordinate improvements within and adjacent to the BCDC Shoreline Band, to minimize the potential for physical impact to the environment. XV Transportation/ a) Prepare a TDM Plan -pursuant to the City TDM Ordinance - Traffic implementation of relevant General Plan Policies, and participate in a traffic improvement fee at eight impacted intersections in the East of 101 area. b) Prepare a TDM Plan pursuant to South San Francisco TDM Ordinance (Schedule 20.120.030-B). f) Reduce the amount of parking required by the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 20.74), pursuant to relevant policies of the General Plan (4.3-I-11 to 4.3-I-13), and action by the Planning Commission in determining that the amount of parking is supported by the overall TDM Plan for the Project. XVI Utilities and b) Reduce the total volume of wastewater demanded by the Project Service by such measures as recycling, pre-treatment and off-peak Systems discharge. c) Replace the storm drain outfall, while protecting water quality and habitat values (see Issue IV Biological Resources) City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 23 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Issue Checklist 'Mitigation Measures Question XVII Mandatory b) See measures to mitigate cumulative impacts to intersections Findings of (XV), vehicular trips (XV), water conservation (XVI), wastewater Significance capacity (XV 1). ~` Note: Mitigation measures in this table are also identified with an asterix (*) in the text of the checklist. CHECKLIST ISSUES I. AESTHETICS -Would the project: Potenriatiy Significant Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a [ ] scenic vista? (Sources: 1, 4, 10) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, [ ] including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Sources: 1, 10) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual [ ] character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Sources: 1, 10, 26) d) Create a new source of substantial light or [ ] glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 4) Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated [/] [ ] [ / ] [ ] [ / ] [ ] [ ] No Impact [] [/] City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 24 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Discussion I a: During the occupational phase as well as the construction phase of the Project, bay views could be blocked by the two proposed buildings adjacent to the waterfront. Drivers using Haskins Way and East Jamie Court would have their views of the bay blocked by the two-story building and the three-story building. However, because there would be open landscaped parking lots fronting on the bay at each end of the Project and a plaza on the bay separating the buildings at the middle of the Project, about 40% of the length of the site allows views through to the bay. Also, views along the Haskins Way alignment to the bay would not be impaired. ~` The following policies of the East of 101 Area Plan are intended to preserve and take best advantage of bay views and view corridors. These mitigation policies are incorporated into the Project, so the impacts would less than significant. Policies DE-1 and DE-5: "Development should take advantage of bay exposure and views of the bay". The site plan includes a public plaza and landscaped segment of the Bay Trail which will provide continuous views of the bay for pedestrians. "Buildings should face towards the bay wherever possible, and should be connected with direct pedestrian access to the Bay Trail . Wherever possible, parking should not be built between a building and the Bay; instead parking should be behind or on the side of a bayshore building. Service and loading areas should be behind the building, as far from the bayshore as possible". DE-17: Loading should be located at the side of development, separate from parking. Policy DE-24: "Office buildings are not subject to a height limit other than that of the ALUC (Airport Land Use Commission)". The two, two- and three-story office buildings should not block views of the bay from inland locations, such as industrial businesses. Policies DE-52 and DE-53: "Roof-top mechanical equipment should be screened from view by integral enclosures and architectural elements such as pitched roofs, ornamental parapets ... paint roof-top mechanical equipment the same or compatible color as the roof'. Project "roof screen areas" will include walls which will screen roof-top equipment from view (see Figure 8). Policies DE-56 and DE - 58 : "Comply with design Policies of the Coastal Commercial land use category, as part of a mixed designation with the Business and Technology Park [Mixed Industrial] category": "The following additional design policies apply [to the Coastal Commercial category] .. . street trees ...landscape buffer ...blank walls ...parking lot trees ...parking lot shrubs .. . view corridors ...building massing ...building height ...building entries ...roof shape .. . building materials ...plant materials ...preservation and access." Discussion I b: The Project will have no impact upon scenic resources, because the property is not located within a state scenic highway corridor. City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 25 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Discussion I c: The site's flat and barren features and the industrial character of the area (including southerly views over the bay to oil tanks and airport facilities) will not be degraded by the proposed Project, so the impact of the Project is less than significant. The Project will upgrade the visual character of the site, consistent with the nearby Britannia East Grand Project, an office/R&D project of buildings in a campus setting, that was approved by the City on Apri124, 2002. Discussion I d: Light and glare should not adversely affect views in the area during the day and night, in part because there are no sensitive receptors in the area such as housing. Levels of security lighting will be mitigated by City review of proposed lighting levels, lamp shields, and regulation of light pole heights, spacing and locations for pedestrians, pursuant to East of 101 Area Plan Design Element Policy DE-29. Building lighting and landscaping should be coordinated. * With mitigations incorporated into the Project, lighting impacts that regulate levels of security lighting would be less than significant II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Would the project: Incorporates a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique [ ] [ ] [ ] [~/] Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (Sources: 1, 10) b) Conflict with existing zoning for [ ] [ ] [ ] [~/] agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Sources: 1, 10) c) Involve other changes in the existing [ ] [ ] [ ] [~/] environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Sources: 1, 10) Discussion II a, b, c: No Impact. No agricultural resources exist on the site or the area, so there are no Project impacts to agriculture or mitigation measures. City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 26 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study III. AIR QUALITY -Where available, Potentially Less Than Less Than No the significance criteria established by the Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact applicable air quality management or air Mitigation Impact Incorporated pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation [ ] [ ] [/ ] [ ] of the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 15) b) Violate any air quality standard or [ ] [/] [ ] [ ] contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 15) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net [ ] [ ] [/] [ ] increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Source: 15) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial [ ] [ ] [/] [ ] pollutant-concentrations? (Source: 15) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a [ ] [ ] [/] [ ] substantial number of people? (Source: 10) Note: See Appendix 1, Air Quality Impacts Analysis, in support of this chapter of the checklist City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 27 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Discussion III a: The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently non-attainment for ozone (state and federal ambient standards) and PMso (state ambient standard). While air quality plans exist for ozone, none exists (or is currently required) for PMsa. The Revised San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-Hour National Ozone Standards is the current ozone air quality plan required under the federal Clean Air. The state-mandated regional air quality plan is the Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan.Z These plans contain mobile source controls, stationary source controls and transportation control measures to be implemented in the region to attain the state and federal ozone standards within the Bay Area Air Basin. A project would be judged to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality plan if it would be inconsistent with the growth assumptions, in terms of population, employment or regional growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled. The project would not conflict with any of the growth assumptions made in the preparation of these plans nor obstruct implementation of any of the proposed control measures contained in these plans, so the impact would be less than significant. Discussion III b: Construction. The proposed project would not require demolition of any existing structures. Construction activities would temporarily affect local air quality, causing a temporary increase in particulate dust and other pollutants. Uncontrolled dust emissions during construction have the potential to exceed the ambient air quality standards locally. This impact is potentially significant, but normally mitigatible. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines] provide thresholds of significance for air quality impacts. The BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction dust impacts is based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emission of PMso. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less-than-significant. Miti ag tion: The following measures are recommended for inclusion in construction contracts to control fugitive dust emissions. ^ Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. ^ Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. ' Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Revised San Francisco Bav Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1- Hour National Ozone Standard, October 24, 2001. ` Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan and Triennial Assessment, December 20, 2000. ' Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 (Revised 1999). City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 28 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study ^ Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. ^ Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. ^ Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. ~` With appropriate mitigation measures incorporated as part of the Project, the impact of construction emissions would be reduced to a level that is less than significant. Operation. Development projects in the Bay Area are most likely to violate and air quality standard or contribution substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation through generation of vehicle trips. New vehicle trips add to carbon monoxide concentrations near streets providing access to the site. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommends estimation of carbon monoxide concentrations for projects where project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service D, E, or F or would cause Level of Service to decline to D, E, or F; or where project traffic would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more. The CALINE-4 computer simulation model was applied to four intersections affected by project traffic that meet the above criterion for modeling. The four model runs were: ^ Existing conditions (2003) ^ Existing Plus Approved Projects (2003) ^ Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Proposed Project (2003) ^ Cumulative Plus Proposed Project (2020) The model results were used to predict the maximum 1-and 8-hour concentrations, corresponding to the 1-and 8-hour averaging times specified in the state and federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide. Table 2 shows the results of the CALINE-4 analysis for the peak 1-hour and 8-hour traffic periods in parts per million (PPM). The most stringent ambient air quality standards are also shown. Concentrations are predicted not to exceed the ambient standards with or without the proposed project. The additional project traffic would increase carbon monoxide concentrations by up to 0.2 PPM for the 1-hour averaging time and 0.1 PPM for the 8-hour averaging time, but predicted concentrations remain below the applicable state and federal standards. City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 29 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Miti ag tion: Project impacts on local carbon monoxide concentrations are considered less-than- significant, so mitigation is not required. Discussion III c: To evaluate emissions associated with the project, the URBEMIS-2001 computer program was employed. The daily increase in regional emissions from auto travel is shown in Table 3for reactive organic gases (hydrocarbons) and oxides of nitrogen (two precursors of ozone), carbon monoxide and PM~o (particulate matter, 10 micron ). Guidelines for the evaluation of project impacts issued by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District consider emission increases to be significant if they exceed 801bs per day for regional pollutants (ROG and NOx, PM~o). The increases in emissions shown in Table 3 are well below these criteria, so the project would have ales-than-significant impact on regional air quality. Discussion III d: The Bay Area Air Quality Management District defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to located. These land uses include residences, schools playgrounds, child care centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics. There are no sensitive receptors in proximity to the project site. Surrounding land uses are commercial or industrial. Table 2 Predicted Worst-Case Carbon Monoxide Concentrations at Selected Intersections in Parts Per Million Intersection Existing Existing + Existing + Cumulative + (2003) Approved Approved Proposed Project Projects Projects (2020) (2003) +Proposed Project (2003) 1-Hr 8-Hr 1-Hr 8-Hr 1-Hr 8-Hr 1-Hr 8-Hr Airport/ 6.1 3.7 6.4 3.9 6.5 4.0 5.6 3.3 Gateway Airportl 6.4 3.9 6.7 4.1 6.8 4.1 5.8 3.5 San Mateo E. Grand/ 6.3 3.8 6.5 4.0 6.6 4.0 5.3 3.2 Airport Grandview/ 5.3 3.2 6.1 3.7 6.3 3.8 5.3 3.2 E. Grand Applicable 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0 Standard City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 30 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Table 3 Project Regional Emissions in Pounds Per Day Reactive Or anic Gases Nitrogen Oxides PM~o Project New Daily Emissions 24.8 22.8 12.4 BAAQMD Threshold 80.0 80.0 80.0 The proposed project would contain research and development uses that could release toxic air contaminants (TACs). Any project occupant who would release toxic air contaminant emissions would be subject to the rules, regulations and procedures of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. In evaluating sources of TACs, the District estimates how much of a contaminant would be found in the air at a specific location. The second step involves determining if the estimated amount of contaminant is hazardous to those exposed to it. This determination includes an evaluation of both carcinogenicity (tendency to cause cancer) and non-cancer health effects. Chemical toxicity is based on the results of animal studies and, in some instances, on the results of human exposure. In general, projects with risks greater than one in a million, but less than 10 in a million, are approved if other determining factors are acceptable. In general, projects with risks greater than 10 in a million are not approved. The above regulations and procedures, already established and enforced as part of the air quality permit review process for any future occupant of the project, would ensure that any potential impacts due to emission of hazardous or toxic air contaminants would be reduced to a level of insignificance. Discussion III e: During construction the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would create odors. These odors are temporary and not likely to be noticeable much beyond the project boundaries. The potential for diesel odors impacts is less-than-significant. City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 31- East Jamie Court Project Initial Study IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Would the project: Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either [ ] directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source see Appendix 2) [/] b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any [ ] riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources : 19, see Appendix 2) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on [ ] federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Source :see Appendix 2) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source : 1) e) Conflict with any local policies or [ ] ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Source: 1) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted [ ] Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Source : 1) [/] [/] ~/~ ~ ~ [J [] [/] [/~ City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 32 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Note: See Appendix 2, Biological Site Report in support of this chapter of the checklist. Discussion IV a: The Project site borders a zone of salt marsh cordgrass that occurs along the bay shoreline. This zone may provide potential habitat for the salt marsh harvest mouse and the California clapper rail, both federally listed Endangered species. Other special status species that could potentially forage in this habitat area include California black rail, listed by California as a Threatened species and Double-crested cormorant, a California Species of Special Concern (see Appendix 2 Biological Site Report). However, the habitat quality for these species is extremely marginal (see Appendix 2 Biological Site Report) and as a consequence their occurrence in the project vicinity is unlikely. Foraging visits by the two rail species and the cormorant may occasionally occur at high tide. The Project will temporarily impact a very small portion (estimated 350 square feet) of the cordgrass area for replacement of the storm drain outfall pipe. Following pipe installation, the cordgrass should re-colonize the disturbed area, provided that the contractor restores submerged subtrates to pre-project conditions. Due the very small extent of temporary impact, the marginal nature of the habitat, this impact is considered less than significant. Nevertheless, as part of the Project and prior to the start of work, the Project proponent should consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G) as to appropriate impact avoidance measures and precautions to be taken before and during construction. ~` With these consultation measures incorporated into the Project, the impact would be less than significant. Discussion IV b: The Project has the potential to cause indirect impacts to sensitive mudflat and tidal salt marsh habitats in the adjacent bay, as a result of human activities (see Appendix 2 Biological Site Report). The proposed Bay Trail and associated look-out areas will bring people and dogs within close proximity to the marsh, potentially disturbing wildlife. In particular, off-leash dogs will chase and harass waterfowl and shorebirds. These impacts could be especially harmful to birds that do not habituate well to human disturbance, such as the endangered California clapper rail. A range of other human use related impacts are possible. The Project's parking area, lookout areas and the proposed buildings have the potential to disturb marsh wildlife through streetlight and vehicular headlight illumination. Storm water runoff could degrade water quality and mudflat areas in the tidal marsh habitat and in the bay. Runoff from the construction area could be laden with turbidity and sediments as well as oil, gasoline and lubricants from construction equipment. Post-project runoff has the potential to include a range of constituents associated with urban areas, including heavy metals (e.g., copper, lead, zinc, cadmium), lawn-care chemicals (e.g., insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and rodenticides), oils and greases, and nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus). Trash, litter and dust from construction work could also adversely affect these habitats. City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 33 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study * The following mitigation measures would be incorporated into the Project to reduce these potential impacts to the level of less than significant: ^ All parking and walkway illumination lights shall be shielded to off-site glare. ^ Landscaping between the buildings and the Bay Trail shall be increased to provide a denser band of buffering vegetation. Landscape species shall be limited to native trees and shrubs, adapted to the coastal environment. ^ A minimum 4-foot high protective fence shall be installed on the shoreward side of the Bay Trail. Humans and their pets shall be excluded from this area. An alternative to a fence would be dense upland planting acceptable to BCDC and the City. ^ Leash laws shall be actively enforced and there shall be signage advising trail users of this requirement. ^ Trash bins shall be placed along the Bay Trail and at the look-outs. ^ Prior the start of construction, temporary protective fencing shall be placed between the construction zone and the shoreline marsh areas to prevent intrusions. The fencing shall be posted at minimum 300-foot intervals with signs stating "Environmentally Sensitive Area -Keep Out." The protected areas should be designated a "no construction zones" on the Project maps and plans. ^ The City shall engage a qualified biologist to monitor construction activities to ensure compliance with these mitigation measures in this section. The Project applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs of this monitoring. The biologist shall hold a training session with the construction contractor, advising all work foremen and other supervisory personnel of the biological constraints of the Project site and that the contractor will be held responsible for violations of these constraints. ^ The contractor shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and City of South San Francisco requirements. ^ The Project applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) in accordance with RWQCB guidelines and rules. The plan shall provide on-site best management practices (BMPs) and structural elements designed to treat runoff, particularly the runoff associated with the "first-flush" of urban storm water runoff (i. e., the first runoff of the winter season, or the first runoff following a dry period of several weeks or longer.) The SWMP shall include plans to minimize concentrations of constituents of concern in storm runoff, through implementation of specific management and treatment control measures (see also Section VIII Hydrology/Water Quality). Discussion IV c: Construction of the Project will impact a total of approximately 2,800 square feet of possible seasonal wetlands that occur along a swale on the eastern boundary of the Project site (i.e., along Haskins Way) and within a small zone along the northern boundary (see Appendix 2 Biological Site Report). These are potential wetlands, located well above the High Tide Line, that maybe subject to Corps of Engineers (Corps) and RWQCB jurisdiction under Sections 401 and 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. These potential wetlands do not provide significant habitat value. Both are extremely small and isolated, and are likely to have surface waters and/or saturated soils only for extended periods during the rainy season (see Appendix 2 Biological Site Report). Nevertheless, if the wetlands are jurisdictional, their loss City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 34 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study should be mitigated, in conformance with South San Francisco Policy 7.1-G-2 ,which calls for reasonable and feasible protection and restoration of wetlands, and with potentially applicable Federal and State wetland regulations. Replacement wetlands could be created on a one-to-one basis in areas above or below the Bay Trail. Installation of the new storm drain pipeline will impact an estimated 400 square feet of upper salt marsh habitat (located landward of the cordgrass habitat), characterized by pickleweed, salt grass and other wetland species. This upper salt marsh area, which appears to be below the High Tide Line, is likely to be Corps, RWQCB, and BCDC jurisdictional. The loss should be mitigated, in conformance with General Plan Policy 7.1-G-2, which calls for reasonable and feasible protection and restoration of salt marshes, and with potentially applicable Federal and State wetland regulations. * The following mitigation measures would be incorporated into the Project to reduce these potential impacts to the level of less than significant: A wetland delineation, in accordance with Corps methodology, shall be performed and submitted to the Corps for final jurisdictional determination. The delineation shall include the limits of the shoreline tidal marsh along to the entire southern property boundary in order to ensure that Project and Bay Trail construction do not intrude into this area. The Corps jurisdictional delineation should also include the outfall area. If the impacted wetland areas are jurisdictional, Corps, RWQCB and BCDC permit applications should be submitted. Impacted jurisdictional wetlands shall be replaced with new wetland habitat established within or adjacent to the Project site. Possible locations for the replacement wetlands could include zones on either side of the Bay Trail. If feasible, based on post-construction topography and maintenance considerations, the upper salt marsh area to be disturbed by the replacement storm drain pipe could be re-established in the same location. The final designs, locations and extent of replacement wetlands should be made acceptable to the Corps and RWQCB. Procedurally, potential wetland issues should be addressed by the Corps of Engineers, pursuant to sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act. Normally, the Corps consults with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game in permitting wetland mitigation measures. Additional permits may be required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Discussion IV d: The Project will not occur within any native wildlife movement corridors or nursery areas, so there would be no impact. Discussion IV e: * In the absence of suitable mitigation, the potential wetland impacts could conflict with South San Francisco General Plan Policy 7.1-G-2. However, with the mitigation measures described under IV b and IVc, incorporated into the Project, these potential impacts would be reduced to the level of less than significant. City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 35 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Discussion IV f: There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans that will be affected by the project so there would be no impact. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would Potentiauy Significant the project: Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 (Sources 1, 2, 4, 5,10) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5 (Sources 1, 2) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Sources 1, 2) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Sources 1,2) Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated [l [] No Impact [/ ] [/] [/] [/) City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 36 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Discussion V: A development project could cause a significant environmental effect on cultural resources if it would "disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic archaeological site or a property of historic or cultural significance to a community or ethnic or social group; or a paleontological site, except as part of a scientific study" (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). However, there is little likelihood that the Project would encounter or disrupt such resources. No historic resources are known to exist in the East of 101 Area. Moreover, because the Project site was created by fill in San Francisco Bay between 1970-72, there would be no evidence of historic, archaeological or paleontological resources, nor human remains on the site. Therefore, the Project would cause no impact to cultural resources. Discussion V a: Although industry played a critical role in South San Francisco's history, no industrial buildings or sites [in the East of 101 Area] are currently designated historic resources (South San Francisco General Plan Update, DEIR, p. 4-191, June, 1999). No permanent buildings have existed on the site that was created by fill during the period 1970 - 1972 [Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of an Undeveloped Property at East Jamie Court in South San Francisco, California, Dec. 20, 2001- for Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc., P. 10. Therefore, the Project would cause no impact to historic resources. Discussion V b: Because the Project site was created by fill material in San Francisco Bay between 1970-72, It is highly unlikely that it contains "important archaeological resources" as defined by CEQA (Supplementary Document K, Archeological Impacts). Therefore, a formal excavation plan is not necessary and a mitigation plan and monitoring program pursuant to General Plan Implementing Policy 7.5-I-I is not necessary. The Project would cause no impacts to archaeological resources. Discussion V c: There are no known paleontological resources, or site, or unique geologic features on the site, nor are there policies of the City for preservation of such resources. Therefore, the Project would cause no impact to paleontological resources. Discussion V d.: It is unlikely that excavation and construction of the Project would disturb any human remains, because the site contains only fill material in San Francisco Bay. Therefore, there would be no need to comply with Requirements of CEQA Supplementary Document K, Archeological Impacts, Section VIII. Discovery of Human Remains. Therefore, the Project causes no impacts to human remains. City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 37 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would Potentially Less Than Less Than No the project: Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as [ ] delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Sources: (2, 4, 21) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Source: 4) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source: 4) iv) Landslides? (Sources: 10, 20) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Sources: 10, 20) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Sources: 4, 17,18, 26) d~ Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Sources: 4, 17, 18, 26) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Source: 10) [/] [ ] [ / ] [ ] [ ] [ / ] [ ] [] [] [ ] [/] [ ] [/] [/] [] [ ] [/] [] [] [] [] [ ] [/] Gity of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 38 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Discussion: VI a i): The site lies within the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of Central California. The Coast Ranges consist ofnorthwest-trending mountain ranges, basins, and narrow valleys paralleling major geologic structures and the coastline of California. The area is bounded by the northwest-trending San Andreas and Hayward strike-slip faults on the east and west, respectively, which are considered active faults. Other major active faults in the Bay Area include the San Gregorio and Calaveras Faults. Several other minor faults are also located within the vicinity of the site, including the Hillside, San Bruno, and Serra Faults. The Sena and San Bruno Faults have shown evidence of displacement of early Quaternary deposits (less than two million years old), and therefore, are considered potentially active. The Hillside Fault has not shown evidence of Quaternary Age displacement, and therefore, is considered inactive. The site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and no known active or potentially active faults exist on the site. Therefore, there would be no impact associated with fault displacement. VI a ii iii): The major geologic formations underlying the Project site, from youngest to oldest, include artificial fill, Young Bay Mud, alluvial/estuarine deposits, and Franciscan bedrock. The artificial fill generally consists of heterogeneous mixtures of sand, silt, gravel, and clay. Young Bay Mud consists of soft, weak, compressible marine clay prone to settlement and strong shaking. Bay Mud also typically contains sand and silty sand pockets that are loose and prone to liquefaction during large earthquakes. The alluvial/estuarine deposits typically consist of stiff to hard silt and clay with interbedded sand and gravel layers. The bedrock in the vicinity of the site generally consists of bedrock of the Franciscan Complex, which consists of a mixture of sandstone and shale, with some serpentinite and chert. Typically, Franciscan bedrock is highly fractured and sheared by past tectonic activity. The topography of the site is generally flat with a gradual slope down to the west. The site is a few feet higher in elevation than East Jamie Court and Haskins Way to the north and west, respectively, and is at the same elevation as the adjacent parcel to the east. A relatively short, 5- to 12-foot-high soil slope forms the south property line. This slope leads to a lower, relatively flat tidal area and the San Francisco Bay south of the Project site. The south edge of the site is also underlain by a perimeter dike that was used to retain the artificial fill during site development (see c and d). The site is within a seismically active area, and during the life of the proposed Project, strong to very strong shaking is expected to occur at the Project site. Strong shaking during an earthquake can result in ground failure such as that associated with soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, and cyclic densification. Other potential seismic hazards include inundation due to tsunami or seiche. The East of 101 Area Plan EIR set forth City of South San Francisco Geotechnical Safety Element policies that are designed to mitigate potential impacts to new developments constructed in areas propone to seismic instability. In particular, policies GEO-1, GEO-2, GEO-3, GEO-7, GEO-10, GEO-11, and GEO-12 relate to the proposed development at the site. Policies GEO-l, -2, and -3 require geotechnical investigations to be performed for sites constructed on artificial fill such that potential instability, including liquefaction and ground failure, can be evaluated. Policy GEO-7 requires new and/or existing slopes to be checked for adequate static and seismic slope stability by a geotechnical engineer. This policy requires that potential shoreline stability issues, such as lateral spreading of the shoreline or movement of the underlying perimeter dike, are properly evaluated and mitigated. Policies GEO-10 and GEO-11 stipulate that investigations must be performed to determine City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 39 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study liquefaction potential at a site and mitigate the potential adverse affects if liquefiable soil is encountered. Finally, policy GEO-12 requires all structures built in seismically active areas to be designed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. ~` The requirements of the East of 101 Area Plan Policies and the Uniform Building Code are incorporated into the Project, so the impact would be reduced to less than significant. VI a iv :The existing slope on the south side of the site appears relatively stable and free of slides, slumps, or erosion in its current condition. The slope is relatively short, and the current Project plans do not indicate that the height of the slope will be increased. Therefore, the potential impact of landslides on this slope is less than significant. The potential for other types of lateral movement, including lateral spreading of the shoreline or movement of the underlying rock dike, is discussed above. VI b: The majority of the Project site will be covered by the proposed buildings or asphalt concrete pavement, and therefore, will not be subject to erosion. Some regrading of slope along the south property line is proposed, and a portion of the San Francisco Bay Trail will be constructed adjacent to the slope. ~` Although the soil slope could be subject to erosion from precipitation or irrigation, the use of ground cover and proper erosion control measures by the landscape architect will reduce the potential for soil erosion in this area to a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. VI c and VI d: The parcel to be occupied by the Project was initially part of San Francisco Bay. The land was reclaimed by placing fill across the site between 1970 and 1972. The fill was retained by constructing a perimeter dyke that extends beneath the southern edge of the site. Since 1972, the site has been intermittently used to stockpile various types of fill soil and as a construction storage and staging area. Subsurface information on the Project site and an adjacent parcel indicates the site is underlain by up to 25 feet of heterogeneous fill consisting of mixtures of sand, silt, gravel, and clay. The fill is expected to have variable engineering properties. Underlying the fill is a layer of soft, compressible Bay Mud that is expected to be up to 40 feet thick. The Bay Mud is expected to consolidate under new fill and/or building loads, resulting in ground surface subsidence. The Bay Mud may still be consolidating under the existing fill load. The Bay Mud is likely underlain by alluvial and estuarine deposits consisting of stiff to hard silt and clay with interbedded dense sand layers. The depth to bedrock at the site is unknown. Because of the presence of artificial fill and Bay Mud beneath the site, the proposed structures may be subject to significant total and/or differential settlement and subsidence. Furthermore, ground failure during or after a large earthquake, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, and landsliding, could occur, and the structural systems for the buildings will be subject to high lateral and uplift loads during large seismic events. In addition, the stability of the rock dyke used to retain the fill should be checked under static and seismic conditions. City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 40 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Because of the Project location, City of South San Francisco Geotechnical Safety Element policies GEO-1, GEO-2, GEO-3, GEO-7, GEO-10, GEO-11, and GEO-12, presented in the East of 101 Area Plan, apply to the site. These policies require that a geotechnical investigation be performed to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site, to determine the potential for settlement and/or subsidence to occur, and to evaluate the potential seismic hazards that may occur at the site. The geotechnical investigation should include an evaluation of the existing fill, including a determination of whether expansive soil is present, and what mitigation measures are required, if any. In addition, these policies require the proposed structures be designed in accordance with current seismic codes and standards specified in the Uniform Building Code. The Policies also require that the foundations be designed to resist the effects of soil movement at the site, including ground-surface subsidence, liquefaction- induced settlement, lateral spreading, and rock dyke instability. * Because these General Plan and Uniform Building Code measures are incorporated as requirements of the Project, the impacts would be less than significant. VI e): Since there will be no septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems on the Project site, there would be no impacts associated with these systems. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS Potentiaiiy Less Than Less Than No MATERIALS -Would the project: Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to the public or [ ] [/] [ ] [ ] the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Source: 20) b) Create a significant hazard to the public [ ] [ ] [/ ] [ ] or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Source: 18) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle [ ] [ ] [/] [ ] hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources: 17, 24) d) Be located on a site which is included on [ ] [ ] [/ ] [ ] a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 17) City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 41 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study e) For a project located within an airport [ ] land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 11, 24) f) For a project within the vicinity of a [ ] private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically [ ] interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 8) h) Expose people or structures to a [ ] significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources: 1, 2, 8) [] [] [/] [ ] [ ] [ / ] [] [] [/] [] [] [/] Discussion VII a: The research and development uses that may potentially occur at the site could involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Prior to issuance of a City permit for such use, the applicant will have to obtain clearance from the San Mateo County Health Department for hazardous materials handling. The tenants would subsequently comply with all applicable regulations and provisions for the storage, use, and handling of hazardous substances as established by federal (EPA), State (DTSC, RWQCB, California OSHA, California EPA) and local (County of San Mateo, City of South San Francisco) regulations. * Incorporation of all applicable regulations into the Project would minimize the risk to the public or the environment, and reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Discussion VII b: During construction of the proposed project, soils at the site may be disturbed. Previous investigations at the Property indicated several metals including aluminum, barium, total chromium, copper, nickel, vanadium, and zinc were present within the soils. However, the levels detected in the soil samples collected were found to be well within published soil concentrations for naturally occurring background levels (Report of Phase II Subsurface Investigation, East Jamie Court, South San Francisco, California. ENVIRON, Page 7, December 20,2001). City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 42 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Therefore, the impact to the public or environment due to soil disturbance would be less than significant. Groundwater samples for the Property were tested for metals, volatile organic compounds, and total petroleum hydrocarbons. For each of these tests, the analytes were either not detected or detected at levels below any level of regulatory or environmental concern (Report of Phase II Subsurface Investigation, East Jamie Court, South San Francisco, California. ENVIRON, Pages 5 -8 December 20, 2001). Therefore, the impact associated with groundwater exposure would be less than significant. Discussion VII c: As supported by the discussion for VII b, there will be no significant impact to any existing or proposed school within one-quarter mile of the property, including an approved childcare center on the Britannia East Grand Project site, north of the East Jamie Court Project (Britannia East Grand Project EIR, Page 3-6, October, 2001. Therefore, the potential for exposure of children to hazardous materials would be less than significant. Discussion VII d: A review of standard environmental databases indicates that the property is not on any list of hazardous materials sites (Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of an Undeveloped Property at East Jamie Court in South San Francisco, California -for Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc., Page 3). Therefore, the impact to the public or the environment would be less than significant. Discussion VII e: The Project site is no more exposed to aircraft operations at San Francisco International Airport than other business facilities in the East of 101 Area. Nor would the proposed buildings reach a height inconsistent with the standards of the FAA (Britannia East Grand Project EIR, p. 4-8). Therefore, the Project would cause no impact to persons residing or working in the area. Discussion VII f: Since there is no private airstrip in the vicinity, there would be no impact associated with exposure of residents or workers in the Project area to small aircraft operations. Discussion VII Q: The proposed project is comparable to other existing and proposed projects in the area and will not impair any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, the Project would cause no impact. Discussion VII h. Since the Project vicinity is not in an area of potential wildfires, it would cause no impact associated with exposure to such fires. City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 43 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Potentially Less Than Less Than No VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER Significant Significant with Significant Impact QUALITY -Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Violate any water quality standards or [ ] [/] [ ] [ ] waste discharge requirements? (Sources: 10,19, 24, 27) b) Substantially deplete groundwater [ ] [ ] [/] [ ] supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted. (Source: 17) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage [ ] [ ] [/] ~ [ ] pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Source: 10) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage [ ] [~/] [ ] [ ] pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Sources: 8, 10,20) e) Create or contribute runoff water which [ ] [/ ] [ ] [ ] would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 8) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water [ ] [/ ] [ ] [ ] quality? (Sources: 10, 19, 24, 27) City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 44 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Discussion VIII a: The construction of impervious surfaces on the Project site, in particular paved parking areas, would introduce non-point source pollutants into storm water runoff from the site. In light industrial/office park areas, these pollutants principally consist of litter, landscaping fertilizers and pesticides, and the heavy metals, oil and gas residues, tire fragments and debris normally deposited by vehicular traffic. These pollutants, if discharged from the site, would cause a small but cumulatively significant degradation of water quality in San Francisco Bay. Erosion. In addition to long-term impacts, there would be a short-term risk of erosion and hazardous material or fuel oil spills during Project construction. Erosion would be expected to increase as on-site soils are regraded and stockpiled, exposing them to wind and water erosion that could potentially increase sedimentation in San Francisco Bay. Following the completion of construction, the likelihood of on-site erosion would be virtually eliminated, because all disturbed areas would be stabilized underneath buildings, pavement, and landscaping. As a result, there should be little significant threat of long-term erosion or increased sedimentation in the Bay resulting from Project development. NPDES, SWPPP, BMP's. The Project's potential short- and long-term impacts on local surface water quality would be reduced to a less than significant level by following standard mitigation measures. State and federal law would require the Project sponsors to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general construction permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. The terms of these permits require applicants to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that demonstrates Project development would not cause any increase of sedimentation, turbidity, or hazardous materials concentrations within downstream receiving waters, both during construction and long-term operation of the Project. In accordance with its responsibilities as a co-permittee of the San Mateo County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program (a coordinated effort by local governments to comply with the federal Clean Water Act), the City of South San Francisco would require the applicant to incorporate into its SWPPP both short-term (construction period) and long-term "best management practices" (BMPs) protection measures designed to ensure that Project development does not degrade water quality on the Project site and within adjacent receiving waters. Short-term measures typically focus on erosion control and the handling of hazardous material during construction, while long-term measures attempt to control pollution through a combination of public education (such as labeling storm drains "Drains to Bay" and discouraging the use ofnon-organic fertilizers and pesticides), preventative maintenance (regular parking lot sweeping and storm drain cleaning) and predischarge treatment. BMPs approved for use on the Project site would be based on the Construction Handbook of Best Management Practices,4 in accordance with current provisions set forth in Chapter 14.04, Storm Water Management and Discharge Controls, of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code. 4 Camp Dresser & McKee, Larry Walker Associates, Uribe & Associates, Resources Planning Associates, for the State Stormwater Quality Task Force (a municipal agency advisory body), "California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks: Construction Activity," March 1993. City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 45 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Filtration. As now proposed, runoff from almost 90 percent of the driveways and parking areas on the site would be routed through grassed, filtration swales before entering the on-site storm drain system. Filtration swales are an accepted BMP for removing pollutants from paved area runoff, so their use should be consistent with the goals of the San Mateo County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program. For the limited areas that would not drain to these swales, the Project engineer reports that some type of approved catch basin filters would be installed to provide an equivalent level of contaminant removal. Catch basin filters must be regularly cleaned and maintained throughout the life of a project in order to remain effective. Swales. The Project plans do not indicate whether the building roofs and pedestrian plaza would drain through the parking lots to the filtration swales, or whether they would be directly connected to the storm drain system. Pollutant levels are generally low in runoff from both roofs and pedestrian areas, so direct discharge should not have any significant adverse effects on local surface water quality. Routing it into the swales, however, would increase the rate of flow through the grass (thereby lowering the pollutant removal efficiency) and reduce the amount of paved area runoff that can percolate into the ground before discharge. As a result, it is recommended that the roofs and pedestrian plaza either be discharged on to the lawn areas on the south side of the buildings, or directly connected into the storm drain system. It is noted that the proposed landscaping plan indicates trees would be planted at regular intervals in the filtration swales, both around the perimeter of the site and within median islands. The area available for construction of these swales varies between 6 and 10 feet wide, so it is not clear how tree planting would be compatible with the swales' primary function of filtration and water conveyance (all of the swales slope toward catch basins situated at low points). Filtration swales are typically designed with no obstructions to permit easy maintenance and to ensure positive drainage to the outlet. As a result, the City may require some modification to the current landscaping plan if the swales are to provide the site's primary means of long-term storm water runoff pre-discharge treatment. * Compliance with NPDES, SWPPP, the San Mateo county Urban Runoff Clean Water Program and BMPs, including erosion control measures, and filtration of runoff would reduce water quality impacts to a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Discussion VIII b: According to a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Environ International Corporation (dated December 20, 2001), the imported fill placed on the Project site overlies at least 50 feet of fine grained sediments (Bay mud and alluvial valley deposits), in which groundwater was encountered between 22 and 40 feet below the ground surface. Groundwater flow through these relatively impermeable sediments was determined to be to the south-southwest (toward the Bay), and, owing to its proximity to the Bay, this flow is most likely influenced by tidal action. Development of the proposed Project would increase the amount of impervious surface on the site, resulting in a substantial increase in storm water runoff. It is expected a small percentage of this runoff City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 46 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study would percolate into the ground within the proposed filtration swales in and around parking lots, but most runoff would ultimately be discharged from the site. It is not expected this reduction in the infiltration and groundwater recharge that now occurs on the site would adversely affect usable groundwater supplies, since all rain water that now seeps into the ground on the site moves directly into a brackish, non-potable tidal zone that underlies the Bay. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact on local groundwater resources. Discussion VIII c: Existing drainage patterns on the Project site would be significantly altered and total storm water runoff would be increased by the construction of impervious surfaces. Runoff would be directed into grassed filtration swales and underground storm drains, though, where there would be little chance of increased erosion. The only area within the site vicinity that might be subject to erosion is the existing slope where the high ground on the Project site now drops sharply down into the wetlands at the edge of the bay. However, Project plans indicate a significant portion of this offsite area would be regraded and landscaped as part of the Bay Trail construction, which should leave the ground surface far more stable and protected from erosion than in its current condition. The Project's storm water runoff is to be discharged to an existing City maintained storm drain line that now outfalls to the bay at the end of Haskins Way. High velocity flows during major storm events might cause limited erosion in the marsh at the end of this drain line, but it is not expected additional runoff from the Project site would significantly increase existing rates of erosion. The Project's impact on drainage patterns and erosion would be less than significant. Discussion VIII d: As currently proposed, the Project's storm water runoff would be directed away from all on-site buildings and other improvements that might be adversely affected by flooding. In addition, the ground surface in the Project vicinity generally slopes toward the bay, so in the event that runoff overflows the perimeter of the site (if the on-site storm drain system becomes blocked), it would flow away from neighboring properties. The only area that might be subject to worse flooding following Project development is the southerly end of Haskins Way. According to a representative of the City Engineering Department, the storm drain line that the Project would tie into does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the runoff from its existing drainage area. This area extends north past East Grand Avenue, encompassing approximately 56.5 acres (excluding the 6 acre Project site). It appears that the westerly 80 percent (±) of the Project site now drains toward Haskins, while the remainder drains to a pair of storm drain inlets near the easterly site boundary that discharge through a pipe to the edge of the bay. However, the portion that drains to Haskins Way does not do so directly. Runoff is detained behind a low perimeter dike and overflows through a small diameter pipe to the corner of Haskins and East Jamie Court, where it then runs downhill to a catch basin at the south end of Haskins. It is expected that this arrangement significantly slows storm water discharges from the site and increases on-site percolation, limiting the property's effect on existing drainage conditions in the Haskins Way storm drain. City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 47 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Project development would route runoff from the entire site toward Haskins Way, increase the total amount of runoff through the construction of impervious surfaces, and significantly reduce the site's existing storm water detention time. These changes would increase the rate and total volume of runoff discharged to the Haskins Way storm drain, potentially increasing the frequency and duration of back ups at the low point of the system, the paved cul-de-sac and parking areas around the catch basin at the south end of Haskins. To prevent this worsening of existing flooding conditions, the City would require the Project sponsors to increase the system's discharge capacity by replacing the 48 inch diameter outfall pipe that runs from the last catch basin out to the edge of the bay. The required pipe size would be determined through preparation of a drainage study by the Project engineer, in accordance with the City's drainage design criteria. Installation of a properly sized pipe, designed to operate against a range of high tide conditions in San Francisco Bay, should reduce the impacts associated with a potential increase in offsite flooding that might otherwise result from Project development. ~` Replacement of the outfall pipe is incorporated into the Project, so the storm drainage impact would be less than significant. Discussion VIII e: As discussed under Section VIII d, replacement of the existing Haskins Way storm drain outfall pipe should provide adequate capacity to accommodate unattenuated storm water runoff from the developed Project site. * With incorporation of the outfall replacement as part of the Project, the impact would be less than significant level. Potential increases in polluted runoff from impervious surfaces on the developed site should be adequately mitigated through incorporation of the water quality control measures as part of the Project (discussed under VIII a.) Discussion: VIII f . Local surface and groundwater quality would be adequately protected through implementation of the water quality control measures described under VIII a. * The water quality control measures would be incorporated into the Project, reducing the Project's potential water quality impacts to a less than significant level. Discussion: VIII e . The proposed Project does not include any housing, so there would be no impact. Discussion: VIII. h . No construction is proposed within the 100 year flood hazard zone, so there would be no impact. Discussion: VIII i . The entire site would be above 7.0 NGVD, the elevation of the 100 year flood, so there would be no flooding impact. City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 48 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Discussion: VIII i . There are no landforms that would generate mudflows in the Project vicinity. Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rating Maps do not indicate the Project site would be subject to inundation by a seiche or tsunami, so there would be no impact. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Potentfalfy Less Than Less Than No Would the project: Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Physically divide an established [ ] [ ] [ ] [/ ] community? (Sources: 1, 4, 6) b) Conflict with any applicable land use [ ] [/] [ ] [ ] plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or miti- gating an environmental effect? (Sources: 1, 6, 10) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat [ ] [/ ] [ ] [ ] conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Source: 12) Discussion IX a : The "established community" within which the Project site is located consists of a mix of office, light industry, R&D, commercial and coastal recreation. There is no residential development East of Hwy. 101 so there is no established neighborhood. The General Plan land use designation for the Project site is a combination of Mixed Industrial and Coastal Commercial. Both categories accommodate offices, as proposed by the Project. Office/RD development has recently been approved to the northeast of the Project site (Britannia East Grand Project, Apri124, 2002). The combination of existing uses in the vicinity of the Project and designated land uses in the General Plan will reinforce the formation of an established community rather than divide it. Therefore, there is no impact. Discussion IX b: The Project proposes development of 133,000 square feet of office space on the 6.1 acre site, at a floor area ratio of 0.5. (see Project Information). The maximum amount of office space that may be developed is governed by the Base Floor Area Ratios stipulated for Mixed Industrial and Coastal Commercial land uses in Table 2.2-2 of the General Plan. The allowed FARs are 1.0 for Coastal Commercial and 0.40 for Mixed Industrial (see Table 4). The proposed Project FAR of 0.50 would be consistent with the maximum allowed 1.0 FAR for Coastal Commercial, but inconsistent with 0.40 for Mixed Industrial. The inadequacy of the Mixed Industrial designation alone in meeting the proposed Project FAR of 0.50 would require mitigation. City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 49 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study The recommended mitigation would comply with the dual land use designations of Mixed Industrial and Coastal Commercial, with a combined maximum Base Floor Area Ratio of 0.50 (0.4 for Mixed Industrial plus 0.1 for Coastal Commercial) consistent with the Proposed Project FAR 0.50 - or well below the allowed FAR of 1.0 for offices in the Coastal Commercial alone. ~` Therefore, an allowed increase in floor area ratio would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated into the Project. Table 4. Base Floor Area Ratios Allowed on the Project Site (See General Plan Table 2.2-2) Mixed Industrial Coastal Commercial Base Floor Area Ratio 0.40 1.0* Up to 1.0 FAR for combined districts * Notwithstanding the allowed FARs in the Table above, offices in the Coastal Commercial district may be granted an FAR up to 1.0 (General Plan Page 42), subject to design review by the Planning Commission. Discussion IX c: The Project would not conflict with any existing habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. There is no habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan associated with the Project site. However, the site does abut the Bay which is regulated by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission's San Francisco Bay Plan. The BCDC jurisdiction consists of the 100-fot wide "Shoreline Band", measured inland from the mean high tide line. The Shoreline Band is a zone within which any filling, grading, construction or other land alteration is subject to BCDC permit approval. The only work proposed within the Shoreline Band is the proposed BCDC Bay Trail segment, a portion of the proposed plaza, and landscaping (see Figure 3 Site Plan) These elements would not inhibit or conflict with any habitat protection or conservation plan. However, development of the Project along San Francisco Bay will create activity such as tidal area disturbance to waterfowl by off-leash dogs, and introduction of invasive exotic plant species along the shoreline. * Measures to inhibit these bay front impacts are discussed under Section IV Biological Resources, and incorporated as requirements of the Project, so the impacts to habitats would be less than significant. City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 50 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Sources: 2, 3) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Sources: 2, 3) Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated [] [] [] Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Discussion X a, b: There is no impact because there are no known mineral resources on the Project site. XI. NOISE - Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact a) Result in exposure of persons to or [ ] generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources: 1, 2, 4, 7,11, 23) b) Result in exposure of persons to or [ ] generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Source: 10, 26) c) Result in a substantial permanent increase [ ] in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source: 1, 10, 25) d) Result in a substantial temporary or [ ] periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources: 10, 24) [/] No Impact [/] [/] No Impact [ / ] [ ] [ ] [/l [ ] [/] [ ] City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 51- East Jamie Court Project Initial Study e) For a project located within an airport [ ] land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 2, 11) f) For a project within the vicinity of a [ ] private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 11) [/] [/] Discussion: XI a: Most of South San Francisco is exposed to some form of exterior noise: aircraft noise from San Francisco International Airport, vehicular noise from Highways US 101 and I-280, and noise from industrial operations affecting exterior areas as well as interior spaces. Aircraft. With respect to aircraft noise, average measured noise levels created by aircraft operations would not adversely affect the Project site (South San Francisco General Plan, Figure 9-1 Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program Area, October 1999). The site lies outside the 65 dB CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) contour generated by noise from aircraft overflights (San Francisco International Airport Land Use Plan and adopted City standards for different types of development in areas impacted by aircraft noise). This is not considered a "significant" level of noise, and no special sound-deadening building insulation is required for commercial development. Road and Rail. With respect to road and rail noise, the Project site is not exposed to the 65 dB CNEL contour that runs along East Grand Avenue (General Plan). Therefore, no special measures to buffer or incorporate insulation to reduce noise levels inside the proposed buildings are required. MFR/TS With respect to noise generated by the South San Francisco Material Recovery and Transfer Station, see Section XI c: Ambient Noise. With respect to the generation of noise, activities proposed in office and R&D buildings will not generate noise that would exceed local standards. The Project would increase traffic noise on East Grand Avenue by 4 to 6 dBA at full build-out of the East of 101 Area (Brady & Associates, Revised Draft, East of 101 Area Plan EIR, Page 299, January, 1995). For reference purposes, a 3 dBA sound is barely audible to most people. AncillarYEqu~ment. Although the proposed Project is not anticipated to generate a significant amount of noise, Research and Development uses typically include electrical generators and other ancillary equipment housed in outside, walled enclosures. Noise from such equipment and truck loading operations areas may adversely effect nearby interior office City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 52 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study space, and exterior open space. Therefore, loading and auxiliary equipment areas shall be designed to shield nearby interior space to 45 dB and exterior open space to 60 dBA (East of 101 Area Plan Policies NO-2 and NO-4, respectively. ~` The applicable General Plan Policies would be incorporated into the Project to reduce the impacts of auxiliary equipment and loading areas to less than significant levels. Discussion XI b: Construction phase noise impacts are determined to be less than significant because they are short-lived and there are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity. However, proposed groundborne pile driving may conceivably contribute to ground vibration, affecting the foundations of existing buildings in the vicinity of the Project site, or ground fill conditions. Depending upon geotechnical site conditions, pile driving shall be monitored for foundation movement of nearby existing structures. Detailed monitoring measures shall be defined in the required geotechnical investigation approved by the City Engineer. ~` To reduce the significance of these impacts, noise and vibration mitigation measures are incorporated as requirements of the Project (See VI.Geology and Soils c). for discussion of development on potentially unstable ground conditions.) Discussion XI c: The Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise. Traffic and railroad noise created at build-out of the East of 101 Area is not expected to increase more than 4 dBA to 6 dBA. The Project will not expose itself to any increase in noise from Aircraft operations. Based on ambient noise monitoring exposure of the Project to noise generated by the Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station the Project would operate in anoise-impacted, ambient environment. Such noise is typical of industrial properties in the East of 101 Area (South San Francisco MRF/TS EIR, Page IIIG.8, October 28, 1998) so the minor change to ambient noise levels would be less than significant. Discussion XI d: The Project would result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels associated with Project construction. Pile driving would be the noisiest construction activity of an interrupted or temporary nature. However, the construction phase is short-lived, so the Project impact would be less than significant. Discussion XI e: See Discussion X a: Discussion XI £ There is no private airport in the vicinity, so there would be no impact. City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 53 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentfauy Less Than Less Than No Significant -Would the project: Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Induce substantial population growth in an [ ] [ ] [/] [ ] area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Sources: 1, 2, 4, 24) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing [ ] [ ] [ ] [/] housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 1, 2, 24) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, [ ] [ ] [ ] [/] necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 1, 2, 24) Discussion XII a: The Project would not directly induce substantial population growth in the City as a result of Project employment growth. Approximately 332 full-time-equivalent employees are estimated to be employed by the Project (employment projected at 1 person/400 gsf for R&D businesses). These new employees would utilize City facilities and services, but not to a significant extent. That is because the Project's estimated share of 332 employees would represent less than 2% of the 19,480 employees projected to be added to the East of 101 Area by the year 2020 (Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, Table 3.5.2 Existing and Projected Building Area Employment, October, 1999). The East of 101 Area Plan EIR January, 1994 found that the amount of employment generated by build-out of the 101 Plan Area was not excessive and would not place unacceptable demands upon City services. Moreover, the General Plan anticipates the level of employment proposed on the Project site, based upon allowed floor area ratios for Mixed Use and Coastal Commercial development (Dyett &Bhatia, pages 42 and 43). The Project would not directly induce population growth by development of housing in the vicinity, since housing is not allowed in the East of 101 Area (Dyett &Bhatia, Land Use Diagram, page 31). The Project would not indirectly induce population through extension of roads or infrastructure. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact to population growth. Project-generated jobs will grow faster than the availability of housing, in part because there is little suitable land in the City and no land for housing in the East of 101 Area. However, job growth should not be discouraged, because the jobs/employed residence ratio is gradually declining in South San Francisco, and there is a slight shortage of jobs in the County as a whole. Since South San Francisco is well served by all modes of transportation, the General Plan argues that the City should continue to be an important regional employment center in the County: "Continued job growth in the City will City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 54 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study promote greater regional balance between jobs and housing" (Dyett & Bhatia, Page 52). The Project is consistent with these objectives, so the impact to the jobs/employed residents is less than significant. Discussion: XII b, c: The Project site has been zoned and used for industrial purposes. No existing housing units would be displaced by the proposed Project. Nor would any existing population be replaced by the project. Therefore, there would be no impact associated with displacement of housing or population. Although the Project would not displace housing, new housing would be needed to meet the needs of employees of the proposed Project and other projects in the City. The need for housing is documented in the City's Housing Element of the General Plan, which includes the City's "fair share allocation" of the region's projected housing needs for housing to be built over a planning period that is periodically updated by the Association of Bay Area Governments (Britannia East Grand Project, Fuller O'Brien Property, EIR ,Page 17-3, Morehouse Associates, Oct. 2001). No specific requirements for new housing associated with population and employment increases generated by the Project are required; therefore the impact would be less than significant. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES - Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: Fire protection? (Sources: 8, 24) [ ] [/] [ ] [ ] Police protection? (Sources: 4, 8, 24) [ ] [ ] [/] [ ] Schools? (Sources: 1, 6) [ ] [ ] [ ] [/] Parks? (Sources: 1, 4, 12) [ ] [ ] [/] [ ] Other public facilities? (Sources: 9, [- ] [- ] [- ] [- ] 25) City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 55 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Discussion XIII a: The Project would increase demand for public services, including police, fire prevention and emergency services, and security measures during the construction and operational phases of the Project. Fire/EMS. With respect to fire protection and emergency medical services, Development of the Project should not create any significant increase in demand for fire protection services, according to Jim Kirkman, City Fire MarshallBuilding Official (Britannia East Grand Project (Fuller O'Brien Property) EIR, Page 15-5) Morehouse Associates, Oct. 2001. Current fire- fighting staff and equipment are adequate whenever the Project is built-out. As long as the proposed Project complies with the City's approved building and fire codes for new construction, no additional mitigation measures would be required. As discussed under the police department security measures below, keyed entry (Knox Boxes) will be required during construction; and key pad digital equipment should be installed when the Project is operational. * These fire and EMS measures are incorporated into requirements of the Project, so the impact would be less than significant. Police. With respect to police protection, the Police Department participates in the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (OPTED) principles and the City's Minimum Security Standards Ordinance (Chapter 15.48 M.C.). The department calculates the demand for new police officers and police equipment associated with square footage of proposed new development. In this case, the 133,000 square foot Project would generate a demand for funding for less than 1 % of the cost of a new sworn officer, and less than 1 % of the cost of a new police cruiser (standards based on the East of 101 Area Plan EIR, Table 69, January, 1994). The applicant cannot be required to compensate the City for additional police associated with the Project. Given the small demand, the Police Department would not recommend that the applicant contribute to the cost of the police car. Therefore, the unmitigated demand for police services would be less than significant. However, the Police Department requires the applicant to submit a "Security and Safety Plan", to make provision for private security guards to be on the site commencing with the construction phase. The plan shall also make provisions for emergency access for fire and police vehicles and keyed entry (Knox Boxes) for all structures that do not have personel on- site for 24 hours. Key pad digital equipment for police and fire departments should be installed when the project is operational. ~` These above police and fire security measures are incorporated into requirements of the Project, so the impact would be less than significant. City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 56 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Schools. The Project would not create any significant direct demands upon public schools because the Project would not include any housing. There are no schools in the East of 101 Area, because there are no residents allowed in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Project would have no impacts to schools. Parks. The Project would create a minor demand for parks. An estimated 332 Project employees would generate a demand for about 0.17 acres of parkland in employment areas based upon the General Plan standard of 0.5 acres of parkland per 1000 new employees (Policy 5.1-I-2). No contribution of land or fees by commercial project developers for parks is currently required by the City, although it is outlined in Policy RE-2 of the East of 101 Area Plan. However, the Project is proposed to include about 2 acres of park-like shoreline band, including the approximately 850-foot long Bay Trail and ancillary park improvements. Improvement of the 100-foot wide shoreline band will be coordinated by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission which has jurisdiction over the shoreline band. Therefore, the Project will have a less than significant impact on parks in South San Francisco. XIV. RECREATION -Would the Potentiauy project: Signif cant Impact Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Impact Mitigation Incorporated [] [] No Impact a) increase the use of existing neighborhood [ ] and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Sources: 1, 2, 12) b) include recreational facilities or require [ ] the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Sources: 1, 2, 12) [/] [ ] [/] Discussion XIV a: The Project would not increase the use of existing peighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, to the extent that substantial physical deterioration would occur. Project employees could use the linear park and Bay Trail in the vicinity of the Project, such as adjacent to the South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station, and adjacent to Genentech. The Bay Trail is underutilized and BCDC is highly supportive of maximum feasible guaranteed public access to the trail. Overuse of recreational facilities is highly unlikely, so there would be no impact. City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 57 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Discussion XIV b: The Project would include improvement of the 100 ft. wide shoreline band adjacent to San Francisco Bay. The primary recreational feature would be the Bay Trail, a paved, multi-use path within the shoreline band (see Figure 3 Site Plan). The trail could have an adverse physical effect on the environment if it were to be located below the mean high tide line, known as the BCDC's shoreline band, where it could potentially adversely affect the tidal habitat of San Francisco Bay. BCDC will require approval of a permit, to address pedestrian access, appropriate landscaping within the shoreline band, and measures to protect wildlife. `The impact would be less than significant with mitigation identified in the BCDC permitting process that would be incorporated into the Project. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant - Would the project: Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Cause an increase in traffic which is [ ] [/ ] [ ] [ ] substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Sources: 1, 6, 24, 28, 31) b) Exceed, either individually or [ ] [/ ] [ ] [ ] cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources: 29, 31) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, [ ] [ ] [ ] [/ ] including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Source: 11) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a [ ] [ ] [/] [ ] design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Source: 10) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [ ] [ ] [/ ] [ ] (Source: 8) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [ ] [/] [ ] [ ] (Sources: 1, 6, 24) City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 58 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or [ ] [ ] [ ] [/] programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Sources: 1, 12, 31) Note: See Appendix 3, Transportation Impacts Analysis in support of this chapter of the checklist. The appendix includes figures showing Intersection Mitigations for 8 impacted intersections for year 2020+. The mitigations show physical improvements, the cost of which would be shared by the applicant and other benefiting developers. Discussion XV a: The Project would generate more than 100 new trips during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours (188 trips in the A.M. and 180 trips in the P.M.). The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for the Implementation of the 1999 Congestion Management Program ("C/CAG Agency Guidelines") specify that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants will mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development. In addition, the General Plan requires the establishment of baseline TDM requirements for all new projects generating more than 100 peak period trips (General Plan Policies 4.3-I-8). As a result, the Project sponsors shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to meet C/CAG requirements as well as General Plan requirements, and it would also need to be consistent with the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 20.120). These programs, once implemented, must be on-going for the occupied life of the development. The C/CAG guidelines specify the number of trips that may be credited for each TDM measure. A total of 193 trip credits are generated by the TDM measures to offset the 188 A.M. peak hour trips and 180 P.M. peak hour trips generated by the Project. Intersections are evaluated in terms of "level of service" (LOS), which is a measure of driving conditions and vehicle delay. The City of South San Francisco has a minimum performance standard for signalized intersections of LOS D, and a performance standard for unsignalized intersections of LOS E. An exception would be for unsignalized all-way stop controlled intersections, which are required to operate at LOS D. The LOS is determined using the "Operations Method" from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Chapter 16 for signalized intersections and Chapter 17 for unsignalized intersections). Traffic generated by the approved and potential developments plus the East Jamie Court Project would cause Levels of Service (LOS) to exceed standards at eight intersections for the year 2020 + Baseline Plus Project Traffic. City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 59 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study The Project shall implement a TDM program consistent with the City of South San Francisco TDM Ordinance. The City of South San Francisco shall implement physical improvements to provide LOS D or better operations at the impacted intersections (see Appendix Figures 3-11 through 3-18). The following policies of the General Plan should be implemented: "4.2-G-7 Provide fair and equitable means for paying for future street improvements including mechanisms such as development impact fees." "4.2-I-7 Continue to require that new development pays a fair share of the costs of street and other traffic and transportation improvements, based on traffic generated and impacts on service levels. Explore the feasibility of establishing an impact fee. "4/2-I-7a Establish a traffic improvement fee to fund transportation improvements in the East of 101 area." The Project would participate in the traffic improvement fee in the East of 101 area and would contribute a proportionate amount to the cost of improvements at the eight impacted intersections, pursuant to the East of 101 Transportation Improvements Plan. ~` Incorporation of these TDM measures into the Project, implementation of applicable General Plan Policies, and participation in a traffic improvement fee program for eight impacted intersections, would reduce the impact of the Project to a less than significant level. Discussion XV b: Freeway segments are evaluated based on the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual as specified by the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The Project would cause traffic volumes to exceed capacity on one (1) freeway segment. However, the Project would not contribute more than one percent (1%) of traffic to any segments of U.S. 101 that are projected to have traffic volumes that exceed the standard capacities of freeway segments. No Deficiency Plan would be required by the San Mateo County Congestion Management Agency based on exclusion of interregional traffic. The Project sponsors shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to minimize potential increases in freeway traffic. The TDM plan shall contain all required measures and additional measures required by the City of South San Francisco TDM Ordinance (Schedule 20.120.030-B). Implementation of the TDM measures would reduce, but not fully mitigate impacts, so that the impacts would remain at a less than significant level and unavoidable. Since the freeway impacts identified for this development were also identified in the General Plan FEIR, there is no need for the lead agency to make a statement of overriding considerations for freeway impacts for the East Jamie Court Project in order to take action on the Project. ~` Incorporation of the TDM measures into the Project would reduce the impact of the Project to a less than significant level. City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 60 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Discussion XV c: Since the Project is not in the path of the existing air traffic routes, it will have no impact upon air traffic patterns. Discussion XV d: The Project will not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses. Since street improvements would be designed to ensure traffic and pedestrian safety, these impacts of the Project would be less than significant. Discussion XV e: The Project will have less than significant impacts on emergency access. All street improvements would be designed to ensure that none of the emergency routes would be blocked and that emergency vehicles could reach their destination within a reasonable time period. Discussion XV f: The Project would provide fewer parking spaces than required by existing Off-Street Parking Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 20.74), although a reduction in parking standards for the Project is encouraged by the General Plan, which would require fewer spaces. The Zoning Ordinance parking standard for office/R&D space is 3.3 spaces/1000 s.f., yielding 443 parking spaces for the 133,000 s.f. Project. The Project proposes a reduced standard of 2.83 spaces/1000 s.f., yielding 375 spaces - a reduction of 68 spaces. The reduced parking standard of 2.83 spaces/1000 was recently approved for other office/R&D projects in the East of 101 Area: the nearby East Grand Britannia project (2002); the Bay West Cove project (2001), and the Gateway Specific Plan area (1998). The General Plan encourages a reduction in parking standards for projects that agree to implement trip reduction methods (General Plan Policies 4.3-I-11 to 4.3-I-13). The TDM Ordinance allows the Planning Commission to reduce parking standards as long as the amount of parking generated by the standards is supported by the overall TDM Plan for the project. * The parking reduction measures, including relevant policies of the General Plan (4.3-I-11 to 4.3-I- 13), and action by the Planning Commission, would be incorporated into the Project, resulting in a less than significant parking impact. Discussion XV ~: The Project will have no conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The TDM mitigation measures recommended to offset the peak hour project trips include installing bicycle lockers, racks, showers and changing rooms, implementing new shuttles or funding expansion of existing shuttles, subsidizing transit tickets, providing preferential parking for carpoolers and vanpoolers, and implementing an emergency ride program. Since these policies and programs will not conflict with the Project, the Project will have no impact. City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 61 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE Potentially SYSTEMS - Significant Impact Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment [ ] requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources: 10, 24) b) Require or result in the construction of [ ] new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source: 24) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Sources 8, 10, 19) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Source: 24) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? (Sources: 1, 8, 24) fj Be served by a landfill with sufficient [ ] permitted capacity to accommodate the projects solid waste disposal needs? (Source: 25) Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated [] [] [/] [ ] [/] [ ] [ ] [/] [/] [/] No Impact [/ ] [] Discussion XVI a.: The proposed Project would not directly discharge any wastewater into San Francisco Bay or into local surface or groundwaters, and so would not exceed applicable discharge requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. All the Project's wastewater would be treated at the City's wastewater treatment plant, as discussed below. Therefore, the Project would have no impact due to wastewater discharge. City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 62 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Discussion XVI b: A recently completed expansion of the South San Francisco/San Bruno wastewater treatment facility has made 2.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of additional wastewater treatment capacity available to accommodate continued growth within the City. It is estimated the proposed Project would generate approximately 33,250 gallons of wastewater per day (gpd), or 1.33 percent of the newly available capacity. The City of South San Francisco currently estimates that newly developed industrial projects will generate wastewater at the rate of 0.25 gallons per day per square foot of building space. At this rate, the 133,000 square feet of proposed new buildings would generate 33,250 gal of wastewater per day. Although there is clearly sufficient capacity available to accommodate the proposed Project's wastewater flow, rates of wastewater generation on newly developed industrial properties located east of Highway 101 have been increasing in recent years. As a result, it is expected that cumulative development will require construction of additional wastewater capacity sooner than projected at the time the last upgrade was designed, and a higher than anticipated total capacity at build-out of the treatment plant's service area. To slow this utilization of available treatment capacity and help limit future discharges of treated wastewater into San Francisco Bay, the City should develop a program that encourages R&D facilities and pharmaceutical manufacturers to reduce the total volume of wastewater discharged to the collection system, in accordance with policies set forth in the General Plan. The program should include incentives to implement recycling and/or pretreatment and, where appropriate, provide assistance in planning these facilities so as to maximize the benefit to the City's wastewater system. In addition, the City should encourage its high volume dischargers to minimize their impact on peak wastewater flows by stretching the discharge of process wastes over longer periods of time or by scheduling them for off-peak periods (typically night time). ~` Incorporation of these wastewater reduction measures as part of the Project should reduce the Project's impact on local wastewater treatment capacity and effects on the environment to a less than significant level. South San Francisco's water provider, the California Water Service Company (CSWC), is not required to treat water from its principal source, the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct, which is owned by the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD). Construction of the proposed Project would not generate a need for any new or expanded water treatment facilities. Discussion XVI c: As discussed under VIII d, development of the proposed Project would require replacement of an existing City maintained storm drain outfall pipe at the end of Haskins Way, which should reduce the Project's impact on existing storm drain facilities. ~` Incorporation of the outfall is made a part of the Project, so the impact would be less than significant. Construction-related impacts within the existing wetland and marsh habitats along the edge of San City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 63 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Francisco Bay are fully addressed under Section IV Biological Resources. Discussion XVI d: As noted under XVI b, the City's water supplier, the California Water Service Company (CWSC) purchases most of its water from the San Francisco Water Department. To supplement this supply and increase overall system reliability, CWSC also utilizes some locally obtained groundwater. At this time, CWSC estimates that total demand throughout its service area in the year 2010 will equal only about 80 percent of the maximum delivery rate of 42.5 mgd allowed under its current SFWD contract. No additional water entitlements or contract increases would be needed to serve the proposed Project, so the Project's impact on local water supplies would be less than significant. Discussion XVI e: As discussed under XVI b, 2.5 mgd of additional wastewater treatment capacity has recently been made available to the City of South San Francisco, so the treatment plant would have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed Project and also meet all its existing service commitments. Because of the sufficient wastewater capacity, the Project impact would be less than significant. Discussion XVI f: The Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity to meet solid waste disposal needs. The Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station (MRF/TS), located immediately east of the Project, transfers solid waste to the Ox Mountain landfill in Half Moon Bay, which has at least a 15-year capacity (Stephanie Uccelli Menner, South San Francisco Scavenger Company, June 4, 2001). Because the landfill has good capacity, the impact of the Project would be less than significant. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially Less Than Less Than No SIGNIFICANCE -Would the project: Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Have the potential to degrade the quality [ ] [ ] [/ ] [ ] of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Source: 10) b) Have impacts that are individually [ ] [/] [ ] [ ] limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 64 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? (Sources: 1, 2, 4, 28) c) Have environmental effects which will [- ] [- ] [-] [-] cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Source: 1) Discussion XVII a: It is unlikely that the Project would cause major substantive, irreversible environmental impacts, due to the nature of the Project (office buildings) and the proximity and sensitivity of the environment to disruption. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on the environment. Discussion XVII b: The Project would cause potentially significant cumulative impacts, including: traffic impacts at specific intersections in the East of 101 Area in the year 2020; future cumulative shortage of water; cumulative degradation of regional air quality; and cumulative demand for wastewater treatment capacity. ~` The following mitigation measures are incorporated into the Project, so the cumulative impacts would be reduced to less than significant impacts: Transportation Improvements. Make intersection improvements and contribute to the funding of transportation improvements programs in the East of 101 Area approved by the City; Water Conservation. Reduce water consumption by incorporating water conservation measures into the General Plan, pursuant to California Assembly Bill 325, which requires the use of low flow plumbing fixtures and drought-tolerant landscaping, and recycled water used in R&D businesses; Vehicular Trips Reductions. Comply with the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management program to reduce vehicular trips; and Sewer Improvements. Encourage R&D facilities and pharmaceutical manufacturers to reduce wastewater discharged into the collection system, involving recycling, pretreatment, off-peak scheduling and upgrade/replace wastewater lines in the area, pursuant to a recently approved Sewer Improvements Program for the East of 101 Area . Develop a sewer collection model to identify, prioritize and correct wastewater problems and require fair share contributions to benefiting property owners. City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 65 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study This page intentionally left blank City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 66 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study SOURCES: 1) General Plan Update, October, 1999 -City of South San Francisco 2) General Plan Update EIR, October, 1999 -City of South San Francisco 3) Municipal Code -City of South San Francisco 4) East of 101 Area Plan EIR, January 1994 -City of South San Francisco 5) Historic Resource Inventory -City of South San Francisco 6) Zoning Ordinance -City of South San Francisco 7) Noise Ordinance - City of South San Francisco 8) Communication with appropriate City of South San Francisco Departments/Divisions 9) Communication with appropriate service provider or public agency with jurisdiction 10) Project Description, Plans 11) Comprehensive Airport Land use Plan, 1999 -San Mateo County 12) San Francisco Bay Plan -Bay Area Conservation and Development Commission 13) Bay Ares Air Quality Management District, Revised San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-Hour National Ozone Standard, October 24, 2001 14) Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan and Triennial Assessment, December 20, 2000 15) BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 (revised 1999) -Bay Area Air Quality Management District 16) FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map -Federal Emergency Management Agency 17) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of an Undeveloped Property at East Jamie Court in South San Francisco, California, Dec. 20, 2001, Environ International Corp. 18) Report of the Phase II Subsurface Investigation, East Janie Court, South San Francisco, California, December 20,2001 19) San Francisco Region State Water Resources Control Board, "Directions for Preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan," December, 1995 20) CAL/EPA Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List 21) Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map 22) Site visit 23) San Francisco International Airport, Noise Exposure Map Update, 1995 May 1995 24) Britannia East Grand Project (Fuller O'Brien Property) EIR -Morehouse Associates, Oct. 2001 25) South San Francisco Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station EIR - Environmental Sciences Associates, October 28, 1998 26) Geotechnical Investigation, MRF/Transfer Facility, Treadwell & Rollo, Inc., South San Francisco, California, 19 November, 1998. 27) "California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks: Construction Activity," Camp Dresser & McKee, Larry Walker Associates, Uribe & Associates, Resources Planning Associates, for the State Stormwater Quality Task Force (a municipal agency advisory body), March 1993. 28) City/County Association of Governments (Agency Guidelines for the Implementation of the 1999 Congestion Management Program. 29) Highway Capacity Manual 1994 -San Mateo County Congestion Management Program 30) Highway Capacity Manual 2000 -Transportation Research Board 31) Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (TDM) -City of South San Francisco All documents listed above are on file for public review in the South San Francisco Planning Division, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, during regular business hours, M-F, 8 AM-SPM. City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 67 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study This page intentionally left blank. City of South San Francisco, September, 2002 - 68 - East Jamie Court Project Initial Study APPENDICES The background material and analyses on the following pages support the answers to the questions that are contained in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist. The three topics are as follows: 1. Air Quality Impacts Analysis, in support of checklist Section III Issues 2. Biological Site Report, in support of checklist Section IV Issues 3. Transportation Impacts Analysis, in support of checklist Section XV Issues APPENDIX 1 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS (CHECKLIST SECTION III) Prepared by Donald Ballanti, Certified Consulting Meteorologist Existing Conditions The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the rate of release and the atmosphere's ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and, for photochemical pollutants, sunshine. Northwest winds are most common in South San Francisco, reflecting the orientation of wind gaps within the mountains of the San Francisco Peninsula. Winds are persistent and strong, providing excellent ventilation and carrying pollutants downwind. Winds are lightest on the average in fall and winter. The persistent winds in South San Francisco result in a relatively low potential for air pollution. Even so, in fall and winter there are periods of several days when winds are very light and local pollutants can buildup. Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants which represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called "criteria" pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. The local air quality agency is the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The BAAQMD enforces rules and regulations regarding air pollution sources and is the primary agency preparing the regional air quality plans mandated under state and federal law. The BAAQMD has prepared air quality impact guidelines for use in preparing environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) monitors air quality at several locations within the San Francisco Bay Air Basin, although none are located in South San Francisco. The monitoring sites closest to the project site are located in San Francisco to the north and Redwood City to City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-1 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study the south. Table 1.1 summarizes exceedances of the state and federal standards at these two sites. Table 1.1 shows that most of the ambient air quality standards are met in the project area with the exception the state standard for PMIO and ozone. The federal ozone standard is also exceeded in other parts of the Bay Area air basin. Under the federal Clean Air Act the Bay Area in considered as having attained all federal ambient air quality standards except for ozone. Under the California Clean Air Act the Bay Area is considered non- attainment for ozone and PM~o. Table 1.1 Air Quality Data Summary for San Francisco and Redwood City, 1999-2001 Monitoring Site Days Standard Exceeded Pollutant Standard 1999 2000 2001 Ozone Federal 1-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood Ci 0 0 0 Ozone State 1-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood Ci 0 0 1 Ozone Federal 8-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood Ci 0 0 0 PM~o Federa124-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood Ci 0 0 0 PMio State 24-Hour San Francisco 6 2 7 Redwood Ci 3 1 4 Carbon Monoxide State/Federal San Francisco 0 0 0 8-Hour Redwood Ci 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide State 1-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood Ci 0 0 0 Source: Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Management (ADAM), 2002. Significance Thresholds The CEQA environmental checklist provides five questions regarding air quality impact significance. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the determinations of significance. City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-2 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide the following definitions of a significant air quality impact: ^ A project contributing to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of 9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over 8 hours or 20 ppm for 1 hour would be considered to have a significant impact. ^ A project that generates criteria air pollutant emissions in excess of the BAAQMD annual or daily thresholds would be considered to have a significant air quality impact. The current thresholds are 15 tons/year or 80 pounds/day for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) or PM~o. Any proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. ^ Any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant impact. ^ Any project with the potential to expose sensitive receptors or the general public to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants would be deemed to have a significant impact. The term "substantial levels" is further defined as an exposure associated with an excess cancer risk of 10 in one million. The BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction dust impacts is based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emission of PM~o. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less-than-significant. APPENDIX 2 BIOLOGICAL SITE REPORT (CHECKLIST SECTION IV) Prepared by LSA Associates, July 26, 2002 Summary On June 18, 2002 at approximately 7:30-9:15 am LSA biologist Lee Miles conducted a reconnaissance level site visit to the East Jamie Court Project site. A second site visit was conducted by Ms. Miles on July 17, 2002. The project site is located in an industrial area in South San Francisco along East Jamie Court at its intersection with Haskins Ave. Areas directly to the north, east, and west of the project site are used for trucking, storage or other similarly related industries. To the south of the Project site is San Francisco Bay and associated shoreline and estuarine wetlands. There is little natural habitat on the Project site, itself, as it has been disked and graded. Two small, low-quality wetlands occur on the project site. The San Francisco Bay and associated shoreline provide significant aquatic habitat directly south of the project site. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 (revised 1999). City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-3 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study The Project site consists almost entirely of filled baylands that have been heavily disturbed by former industrial land uses. Soil at the site is composed of fill material and has been disked and/or graded in the past year. It also appears that some riprap materials may have been stored on the site at one time. Habitats on the Project site are summarized as follows: Ruderal Areas The majority (roughly 90 percent) of the project site consists of patches of ruderal, non-native vegetation. Where vegetation occurs, it consists of ruderal (weedy) fortis, shrubs, and annual grasses typical of disturbed uplands. Species observed include wild oats (Avena sp.), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), black mustard (Brassica nigra), bristly-ox-tongue (Pichris echioides), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), and curly dock (Rumex cripsus). Due to its continued disturbance, the ruderal area has little habitat value. Faunal species that were observed or expected to use the site would include house sparrow (Passer domesticus), California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), purple finch (Carpodacus purpureus), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus),and jackrabbit (Lepus californicus). Disturbed Non-native Annual Grasslands The perimeter of the project site contains annual grassland vegetation with patches of ruderal species within. Dominant grass species are non-native and include Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), wild oat, and ripgut brome. Vegetation cover was dense around the perimeter of the site and sparse to moderately sparse in the center of the property. Bird species such as purple finch and California towhee may use the grassland for foraging and nesting materials. Mammals, such as the jackrabbit would also be expected to use this area and at least one individual was observed during the site visit. Seasonal Wetlands There are two small potential seasonal wetland areas within the project site boundary. These wetland areas have not yet been mapped under Corps of Engineers delineation protocol, and their status with respect to Corps jurisdiction is unknown. A wetland delineation should be performed, and verified by the Corps of Engineers, to ascertain whether or not these areas are jurisdictional wetlands. Both of these areas are depressional wetlands that appear to have resulted from on-going land use activities (e.g., grading; disking). The first area is approximately 250 square feet and is located along the northern property boundary along East Jamie Court. Vegetation in this depression includes rabbitfoot grass (Polypogon monspliensis), Italian ryegrass, and curly dock. Vegetation in this depression is sparse but the crackling of the topsoil indicates recent hydrology. (See Section VIII Hydrology/Water Quality). The second potential wetland area begins at the northeastern corner of the property, at the intersection of Haskins Way and East Jamie Court. There is a storm drain outfall that drains onto the Project site and the crackling of the top soil indicates recent hydrology. This potential wetland area is approximately 0.06 acres (2560 square feet). This area contains sparse vegetative cover including rabbitfoot grass, Italian ryegrass, curly dock, spike rush (Eleocharis sp.), umbrella sedge (Cyperus eragrostis). City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-4 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Both wetland areas are extremely marginal and are unlikely to provide significant habitat value. Based on hydrophytic vegetation types and hydrology indictors, the wetlands are likely to have surface waters and/or saturated soils only for extended periods during the rainy season. Species likely to use these areas would be those previously mentioned species that use grassland and ruderal habitats. Occasional shorebird use during the rainy season may also occur. Shoreline/Tidal Marsh Immediately south of the Project site is a tidal salt marsh along the edge of the bay. This marsh is contained within the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) jurisdictional area, as defined by the BCDC "Shoreline Band." The Shoreline Band is the zone of land lying within 100 feet of the Mean High Water Line (6.46 feet - H.T. Harvey and Associates 2002) or from the edge of the tidal marsh, whichever is higher (See Section VIII Hydrology/Water Quality). A small band of riprap occurs along the boundary of the shoreline. The shoreline supports dense stands of cordgrass (Spartina spp.) in bands 25-50 feet wide along the entire southern boundary. High tide occurred at 6:06 in the morning on the day of the first site visit. During the site visit there was a narrow band of intertidal mudflat habitat at the southeastern area of the project site because the tide was receding. The stands of cordgrass could provide marginal habitat for the California Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus), and California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis corturniculus). During low tides, the intertidal mudflat zone provides feeding habitat for shorebirds such as the black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus), western sandpiper (Calidris mauri) and the American avocet (Recurvirostra americana). The mudflat area also provides habitat for species such as the Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) which was observed foraging at the site. Along the southwestern border of the site is a tidal marsh. Vegetation in this area includes pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), salt grass (Distichlis spicata) and saltbush (Atriplex sp.). This area is on the southwestern side of the proposed Bay Trail and is approximately 30-50 feet from the project site. The vegetation is dense and could provide marginal habitat for the salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris). Based on preliminary project drawings, the Project site boundary varies between approximately 20 and 100 feet from the shoreline. Therefore, portions of the Project will apparently be within BCDC jurisdiction. With the exception of the storm drain outfall construction area (see below), the Project appears to be located landward of the limits of Corps of Engineers jurisdiction which is defined by the High Tide Line or the landward extent of shoreline wetlands, whichever is higher. A wetland delineation should be performed, and approved by the Corps of Engineers, to verify these preliminary observations. Storm Drain Outfall A storm drain outfall, approximately 42 inches in diameter, occurs along the western border of the project site. This storm drain is quite old and will need to be replaced to accommodate the development at the site. Anew larger outfall will be installed (See Section VIII Hydrology/Water Quality). The current storm drain is bordered the east and west by cordgrass that occurs in 10-15-foot widths. Pickleweed City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-5 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study occurs along the northern side of the storm drain and a canal leading to the Bay occurs at the mouth of the storm drain. Replacing this storm drain will likely impact approximately 750 square feet of tidal marsh habitat including pickleweed and cordgrass. Special Status S ecies The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFG 2002) was consulted for the potential presence of special status plants and animals, or their habitats. Results are summarized in the attached table. Table 2.1 Special Status Plants And Animals With the Potential to Occur In the Vicinity of The East Jaime Court Project Site Species Listing Status Habitat Potential Occurrence Salt marsh CDFG - SC Fresh and brackish marsh with No habitat on or adjacent to the common thick, continuous cover of tules Project site yellowthroat or willows. (Geothypis trichas sinuosa) San Francisco CNPS 1B Coastal bluff scrub; coastal No suitable habitat on or adjacent gumplant scrub to the Project site. (Grindelia hirsutula var. maritima) California black CA - T Tidal emergent marsh Unlikely except as an occasional rail (Laterallus dominated by pickleweed; tidal forager. Suitable habitat very jamaicensis sloughs with full tidal limited, and there is a high level corturniculus) connection; upper salt marsh of surrounding disturbance and habitat very low populations in South Bay. Double-crested CA - SC Shallow waters, sloughs, salt Could potentially forage in the cormorant ponds, tidal rips. tidal marsh area and shallow areas (Phalacrocorax offshore. auritus) California clapper F - E Emergent salt marsh and No suitable breeding habitat on or rail CA - E brackish tidal habitat; tidal near the site; no known breeding (Rallus channels and sloughs with pairs within 6 miles of the site; longirostris dense and abundant pickleweed, however could potentially forage obsoletus) cordgrass, or Scirpus. in the tidal marsh area. Observed in other small marshes in the area. nesting bank CA - T Vertical banks or cliffs with No suitable habitat on or near swallow (Riparia fine-textured or sandy soils near project site. riparia) streams, rivers, lakes or ocean. City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-6 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Species Listing Status Habitat Potential Occurrence Salt marsh harvest mouse F - E Salt marshes and adjacent diked Unlikely due to lack of adjacent (Reithrodonto- CA - E wetlands and adjacent upland core habitat, lack of significant mys raviventris) area with good cover. middle to upper marsh area, and lack of dense upland cover; no known populations north of SFO in South Bay. San Francisco F - E Freshwater sag ponds or No suitable habitat on or near garter CA - E artificial waterways with dense project site. snake(Thamno- cover and water depths of at phis sirtalis least 1-foot. tetrataenia) References H.T. Harvey and Associates. 2002. Letter Report -East Jaime Court, Parcel 2, Identification of BCDC Jurisdiction, prepared for Dowler-Gruman Architects. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2002. California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), South San Francisco and adjacent Quadrangles. APPENDIX 3 TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS ANALYSIS (CHECKLIST SECTION XV) Prepared by Dowling Associates This appendix provides the transportation analysis that supplements the responses to the questions in the Initial Study Checklist. 3-1 SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed location for the East Jamie Court Project is the area bounded by Haskins Way on the west and East Jamie Court on the north. (Figure 3-1). The proposed Project would include a total of 133,000 square-feet (sf) of office or research and development (R&D) space in two buildings. A total of 375 parking spaces would be provided on-site, of which 320 would be surface parking spaces and 55 would be underground parking spaces. Office space is not proposed, but is assumed in this chapter to provide a more conservative estimate of trip generation and parking demand than would occur if all buildings were occupied by R&D uses. City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-7 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study 3-2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This section describes the transportation conditions in the study area in terms of existing roads and traffic operations, transit service, and pedestrian and bicycle conditions. Street Network The proposed East Jamie Court site would be served primarily by E. Grand Ave via Haskins Way and East Jamie Court. Regional access would be provided by US 101. The San Mateo County Congestion Management Plan Roadway S sy tem The Congestion Management Plan (CMP) Roadway System designates the roadway system for use in annual monitoring of level of service standards, identifies roadways and intersections to be evaluated in land use impact analyses, and identifies potential candidates for the capital improvement program. Near the Project study area, the CMP roadway system includes US 101 only. Freeways and Exnresswavs US 101 is an eight-lane freeway that provides regional access to the Project area. It extends from downtown San Francisco and northern California to Los Angeles and southern California. Within the study area, US 101 has northbound on-ramps at Grand Avenue and from South Airport Boulevard (between Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue), northbound off-ramps at East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive and at South Airport Boulevard (between Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue), a southbound on-ramp at Produce Avenue, and a southbound off-ramp at Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue. Streets East Grand Avenue is the central access route to the area East of 101. Between the US 101 northbound off-ramp and its intersection with the East Grand Avenue Overcrossing, East Grand Avenue is a six-lane arterial. It continues east of this intersection as a four-lane facility, narrowing to a fifty-foot pavement width with two lanes, east of Haskins Way. Airport Boulevard is a four-lane north-south arterial street that parallels U.S. 101. Gateway Boulevard is a four-lane street connecting East Grand Avenue with South Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. Harbor Way is a two-lane street serving existing and planned industrial uses south of East Grand Avenue. Harbor Way provides access to South Airport Boulevard and several U.S. 101 freeway ramps via Mitchell Avenue. City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-8 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Forbes Boulevard is a four-lane collector street connecting the San Bruno Point Genentech area with East Grand Avenue. Littlefield Avenue is a two-lane local street that serves the industrial area south of East Grand Avenue and provides a connection to South Airport Boulevard via Utah Avenue. Allerton Avenue is a two-lane local street that serves businesses north of East Grand Avenue. Grandview Drive is a two-lane local street that provides a second connection between East Grand Avenue and the San Bruno Point Genentech area. Haskins Way is a two-lane local street that primarily serves the recently-completed Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). Traffic Operations Intersection operations were evaluated for both the AM and PM peak hours for the 12 study intersections approved by the City of South San Francisco, which include: 1. Airport Boulevard & US 101 Southbound off-ramp/Miller Avenue. 2. Airport Boulevard & Grand Avenue. 3. East Grand Ave Crossing and East Grand Avenue. 4. Gateway Boulevard & East Grand Avenue. 5. Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard & East Grand Avenue. 6. Littlefield Avenue & East Grand Avenue. 7. Allerton Avenue & East Grand Avenue. 8. Grandview Drive & East Grand Avenue. 9. Haskins Way & East Grand Avenue. 10. Airport Boulevard & San Mateo Avenue. 11. Gateway Boulevard & South Airport Boulevard. 12. South Airport Boulevard & US 101 Northbound Ramps Traffic Counts The counts at the 12 study intersections were compiled from a variety of sources. Morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and afternoon (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak period vehicle turning movement counts were conducted by Wiltec in July 2002 at the three intersections of Airport Boulevard & US 101 Southbound off-ramp/Miller Avenue, Littlefield Avenue & East Grand Avenue, and South Airport Boulevard & US 101 Northbound Ramps. Traffic volumes at the other nine study intersections were determined by adjusting traffic counts obtained from other recent traffic studies (conducted between 1998 and 2001) to be consistent with the nearby intersections where new counts were conducted (Figure 3-2). City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-9 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Level of Service Roads and intersections are evaluated in terms of "level of service" (LOS), which is a measure of driving conditions and vehicle delay (see Table 3.1). Levels of service range from A (best) to F (poorest). Levels of service A, B and C indicate conditions where traffic can move relatively freely. Level of service D describes conditions where delay is more noticeable. Level of service E describes conditions where traffic volumes are at or close to capacity, resulting in significant delays and average speeds that are one-third the uncongested speed or lower. Level of service F characterizes conditions where traffic demand exceeds available capacity, with very low speeds (stop-and-go) and long delays (over one minute) and queuing at signalized intersections. The City of South San Francisco has a minimum performance standard for signalized intersections of LOS D, and a performance standard for unsignalized intersections of LOS E. An exception would be for unsignalized all-way stop controlled intersections, which are required to operate at LOS De San Mateo CMP Standards for Resional Roads and Local Streets The LOS standards established for roads and intersections in the San Mateo County CMP street network vary based on geographic differences. For roadway segments and intersections near the county border, the LOS standard was set as E in order to be consistent with the recommendations in the neighboring counties. If the existing level of service in 1990/91 was F, the standard was set to LOS F. If the existing or future LOS was or will be E, the standard was set to E. For the remaining roadways and intersections, the standard was set to be one letter designation worse than the projected LOS in the year 2000. If a proposed land use change would either cause a deficiency (to operate below the standard LOS) on aCMP-designated roadway system facility, or would significantly affect (by using greater than one percent of the facility capacity) a deficient CMP system facility that operated at LOS F in the 1991 CMP baseline LOS, mitigation measures are to be developed so that LOS standards are maintained on the CMP-designated roadway system. If mitigation measures are not feasible (due to financial, environmental or other factors), a Deficiency Plan must be prepared for the deficient facility. The Deficiency Plan must indicate the land use and infrastructure action items to be implemented by the local agency to eliminate the deficient conditions. A Deficiency Plan may not be required if the deficiency would still occur if traffic operation outside the county were excluded from the determination of conformance. Freeway Analysis Methodology Freeway segments are evaluated based on the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual as specified by the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Lane capacities are determined based on a theoretical maximum of 2,300 vehicles per lane per hour, reduced by factors to City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-10 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study account for heavy vehicles and peaking within the hour. For U.S. 101, the capacity of a four-lane segment is considered to be 8,528 vehicles per hour (2,132 vehicles per lane per hour), with LOS E for volumes between 7,235 and 8,528 vehicles, LOS D for volumes between 5,767 and 7,234 vehicles, and LOS C for volumes below 5,767 vehicles. Existing Freeway Operations Existing freeway volumes were used to evaluate existing levels of service on the freeway segments north and south of the Project site. The freeway traffic volumes are derived from Caltrans peak hour traffic count data reported for year 2000, adjusted based on peak hour directional splits at the San Mateo/San Francisco county line as reported in "1999 Traffic Volumes on the California State Highway System" (Caltrans, 2000). Northbound U.S. 101 operates at LOS F in the vicinity of Grand Avenue during the A.M. peak hour when compared to the standard capacity of a four-lane segment, although auxiliary merging and weaving lanes may provide some additional capacity in this area. Freeway volumes are near capacity at LOS E in the southbound direction during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Northbound U.S. 101 near Grand Avenue operates at LOS D during the P.M. peak hour, although P.M. peak period traffic volumes and congestion increase north of Oyster Point Boulevard. Intersection Analysis Methodoloay Existing conditions at the signalized study intersections were analyzed using the "Operations Method" from Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000). This method evaluates the amount of green signal time available to each traffic approach and the total intersection capacity used by the traffic demand, and assigns a level of service based on the average delay that the drivers would experience at the intersection during the peak hour (Table 3.1). Analysis assumptions include: ^ 90 to 150 second average cycle length. ^ 3 seconds lost time per major signal phase. ^ Minimum green times of 10 seconds for through movements and 6 seconds for turns. The unsignalized intersections were evaluated using the methodology from Chapter 17 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. At these intersections, each turning movement that yields to an opposing movement is evaluated separately and assigned a level of service. The level of service is based on the average delays for turning traffic to find adequate gaps in conflicting traffic flows (Table 3.2). Intersection Operations Existing levels of service were calculated for each study intersection (Table 3.3). All of the intersections operate at a satisfactory level of service D or better. The intersections of Airport Blvd and San Mateo Ave and South Airport Blvd. and Gateway Blvd both operate at LOS D during the P.M. peak hour, meeting the City of South San Francisco standard. City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-11 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Signal Warrants Traffic signal warrants are standards that provide guidelines in the determination of the need for a traffic signal. A traffic signal should not be installed if no warrants are met, since the installation of traffic signals may increase delays for the majority of through traffic and increase some types of accidents. If one or more warrants are met, a signal may be appropriate. The following three unsignalized study intersections were evaluated using the Peak Hour Warrant (Warrant No. 11) from the Caltrans Traffic Manual: Allerton Avenue and East Grand Avenue. Grandview Drive and East Grand Avenue. Haskins Way and East Grand Avenue. The Peak Hour Volume Warrant is intended for application where traffic conditions are such that for at least one hour of the day, the minor street suffers long delays in entering or crossing the major street. Before a signal is installed, a more detailed signal warrant study is recommended that considers volumes during the eight highest hours of the day, pedestrian traffic and accident histories. It is possible that an unsignalized intersection will not meet signal warrants, but will have one or more movements that experience LOS F operations. Level of service F can be indicated for a very low volume of vehicles at a stop sign. Although these stopped vehicles may experience long delays of one minute or more, there would not be an overall benefit if the higher numbers of vehicles on the major street are stopped in favor of the few vehicles on the minor street. The signal warrant considers a balance between major street and minor street delays, and may indicate that there is overall benefit if drivers on the minor street continue to experience long (LOS E or F) delays. The results of the signal warrant analysis are as follows: ^ Allerton Avenue and East Grand Avenue is just below the Peak Hour Warrant volumes during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. ^ Grandview Drive and East Grand Avenue does not meet the Peak Hour Warrant. ^ Haskins Way and East Grand Avenue does not meet the Peak Hour Warrant. Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Grandview Drive and East Grand Avenue is a proposed mitigation for the East of 101 Transportation Improvements Plan and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance. City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-12 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Transit Transit service in the study area includes local bus service, shuttle service and regional rail service (Figure 3-3). Bus Service The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service in the study area. Route 32: Airport/Linden - Arroyo/El Camino operates along Linden Avenue and Grand Avenue in the study area. It operates with 30-minute peak period headways and 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 60 minute headways on Saturdays. Route 34: Tanforan Shopping Center -Geneva operates along Linden Avenue and Baden Avenue in the study area. This route operates during mid-day only on weekdays with headways of about two hours. Route 130: Daly City BART -South San Francisco operates along Linden Avenue and Grand Avenue in the study area. It operates with 20-minute peak period headways and 30- to 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays, 30-minute headways on Saturdays and 60-minute headways on Sundays. Route 131: Tanforan Shopping Center - Colma BART operates along Linden Avenue and Grand Avenue in the study area. This route operates with 12- to 30-minute peak period headways and 60-minute non-peak headways on the weekdays and 60-minute headways on Saturdays. Route 292: San Francisco - SF Airport -Hillsdale Shopping Center operates along Airport Boulevard. It operates with 20- to 30-minute peak headways and 25- 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 30- to 60-minute headways on Saturdays and Sundays. Caltrain Caltrain provides train service between Gilroy, San Jose and San Francisco. There is a stop at the station located on the corner of Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue in South San Francisco. Trains operate every 15 to 20 minutes during commute periods and hourly during midday. Caltrain/BART Shuttles Van shuttles are provided between the South San Francisco Caltrain station and employment centers east of US 101 during commute hours. Separate shuttles provide service from the Glen Park BART station. The Gateway Area/Genentech Shuttle (BART and Caltrain) provides service on Gateway Boulevard, Oyster Boulevard, Forbes Boulevard, Grandview Drive and East Grand Avenue. City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-13 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study There are 15 morning trips and 15 afternoon trips on the BART shuttle, and six morning trips and five afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle. The Utah-Grand Shuttle (BART and Caltrain) serves over 20 employers in the Utah/Grand/Littlefield area. It provides service on Harbor Way, East Grand Avenue, Cabot Court, Grandview Avenue, Littlefield Avenue, Haskin Way and Utah Avenue. There are six morning trips and six afternoon trips on the BART shuttle, and seven morning trips and seven afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle. The service is fixed-route, fixed-schedule and is provided on weekdays during the commute periods. The shuttles are free to the riders. The operating costs are borne by the Joint Powers Board (JPB), SamTrans, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the City/County Association of Governments (75 percent) and sponsoring employers (25 percent). Bicycles and Pedestrians Bicycle lanes are provided on the north side of East Grand Avenue between its intersection with East Grand Avenue Overcrossing and Executive Drive. The bicycle lanes continue along the east side of Executive Drive. Many of the streets in the East of 101 area do not have sidewalks. 3.3 BASE CASE ANALYSIS WITHOUT THE PROJECT This section evaluates the following future scenarios: ^ Existing plus approved projects without the East Jamie Court Project. This scenario can be considered to represent Year 2003 conditions. ^ Cumulative traffic, including traffic from approved, proposed and potential development in South San Francisco and Brisbane, but without the East Jamie Court Project. This scenario is representative of traffic conditions beyond 2020. Year 2003 Baseline Conditions Without Project The Year 2003 baseline conditions include traffic generated by approved development in the study area, as well as traffic generated by projects that are under construction. Based on recent observed construction and occupancy schedules in South San Francisco, it may be assumed that these approved development projects will be completed and occupied within the next two years. Committed Road Improvements The City of South San Francisco is currently finalizing construction documents and funding arrangements for two improvement projects associated with ramps to and from the US 101 freeway. City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-14 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Cumulative Year 2020+ Baseline Conditions Without Project The Year 2020+ baseline conditions include traffic generated by approved development in the study area, traffic generated by projects which are completed or under construction but were not yet fully occupied at the time of the counts in mid 2001, traffic generated by proposed projects, and traffic generated by potential development of vacant or underutilized land in the study area. This evaluation of Year 2020 + Conditions is based upon the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001. The proposed Project in the SEIR consists of a General Plan Amendment and a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance, and it includes a set of physical street improvements as well as policies requiring TDM measures and traffic reduction at employment sites. The program of street improvements and TDM measures is referred to throughout this Appendix as the "East of 101 Transportation Improvements Plan TIP ". Potential Development in South San Francisco The City of South San Francisco identified several projects east of US 101 that have been proposed, but are not yet approved for construction. Additionally, there are parcels that are known to have development potential for which no development applications have been filed. Traffic generation for the proposed and potential developments in South San Francisco are listed in Table 3.8. The East of 101 TIP would require developers to implement aggressive TDM policies in order to achieve the densities and development levels represented in the Year 2020+ scenario. The analysis in the SEIR for the East of 101 TIP assumes that the TDM program approved by the City will reduce peak hour traffic generation by 9.5 percent compared to existing traffic generation rates. Potential Development in Brisbane The current planning for the City of Brisbane assumes that the maximum level of Baylands development that could be accommodated without major transportation infrastructure improvements would range from one million square feet of high trip-generating uses to 4.2 million square feet of low trip-generating uses. This traffic operations analysis is based on the most conservative scenario considered in the Brisbane General Plan EIR, which would include 4.2 million square feet of development with high generating uses. This scenario would have higher traffic generation than any of the Baylands development scenarios currently assumed by the City of Brisbane. The specific land uses assumed for the Baylands subarea were not documented, so the land uses shown in Table 3.5 were assumed for this study. City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-17 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study General Plan Amendment Street Improvements The East of 101 Transportation Improvements Plan includes a series of physical improvements that would be implemented along with an aggressive TDM program in order to mitigate traffic impacts of the potential development of the East of 101 area. General Plan Policy 4.2-I-6 is amended to read as follows: "4.2-I-6 Incorporate as part of the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) needed intersection and roadway improvements to enhance mobility in the East of 101 area." The following improvements are included in the East of 101 TIP and are therefore assumed for the Year 2020+ baseline scenario: ^ Airport Boulevard and Miller Avenue/US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp: Widen the off-ramp and reconstruct retaining wall to provide a second left-turn lane. Re-stripe the existing off- ramp through-left lane as a through lane. ^ Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue: Re-stripe the existing southbound Airport Boulevard right-turn lane as a shared through-right lane and restripe the southbound shared through-left lane as a left-turn lane. Widen eastbound Grand Avenue to add two left-turn lanes, re-stripe the eastbound shared through-left lane as a through lane and the eastbound right-turn lane as a shared through-right lane. Provide a third westbound left-turn lane. ^ Gateway Boulevard and East Grand Avenue: Add a second westbound left-turn lane on East Grand Avenue. ^ Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard and East Grand Avenue: Widen westbound Grand Avenue to provide one additional through lane and one additional left-turn lane. Widen southbound Forbes Boulevard to provide one additional through lane and change the existing shared through-right lane to a right-turn-only lane. Widen northbound Harbor Way to provide one additional through lane, one right-turn lane, and change the existing shared through-right lane to a through lane. ^ Grandview Drive and East Grand Avenue: Install a traffic signal. Add aright-turn lane on southbound Grandview Drive. Re-stripe eastbound Grand Avenue to provide one left-turn lane and one shared through-left lane. ^ Airport Boulevard and San Mateo Avenue: Widen westbound Airport Boulevard to provide one additional left-turn lane, and re-stripe the existing shared through-left lane as a left-turn lane for a total of three left-turn lanes. ^ South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard and Mitchell Avenue: Widen eastbound Airport Boulevard to provide one additional right-turn lane, and re-stripe the existing shared through-left lane as a through lane. Widen westbound Mitchell Avenue to provide two additional through lanes and aright-turn lane. Widen southbound Gateway Boulevard to provide one additional right-turn lane, and change the existing shared through-right lane to a right-turn lane. ^ Railroad Avenue: Construct a new four-lane road within the Union Pacific Railroad right-of- way between Linden Avenue and Gateway Boulevard. ^ Harbor Way: Widen to four lanes between Grand Avenue and Mitchell Avenue. ^ Mitchell Avenue: Widen to four lanes between Gateway Boulevard and Harbor Way. City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-I8 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study The Oyster Point "flyover" project will construct a new off-ramp from southbound US 101, connecting directly with eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard at Gateway Boulevard. The flyover ramp will form a fifth leg of the intersection. The flyover off-ramp will provide improved access to the East of 101 area, and will divert traffic from the existing Bayshore Boulevard off-ramp and from segments of southbound Bayshore Boulevard and eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard. ^ The "hook ramps" project will replace the existing "scissors" off-ramp from southbound US 101 to Bayshore Boulevard with a more conventional hook ramp terminating at a signalized intersection. Anew on-ramp will be constructed from Bayshore Boulevard to southbound US 101. The hook ramps will significantly improve access to and from southern Brisbane, and will divert additional traffic from Bayshore Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. Intersection improvements are also committed by the approved Bay West Cove development project for the intersections of Bayshore Boulevard & Oyster Point Boulevard (change existing 2"d westbound left-turn lane to through lane and re-stripe westbound through/right lane to a right-turn lane), Veterans Road & Oyster Point Boulevard (widen southbound Veterans Road to add a right turn lane and re-stripe optional through/left lane to an optional right/through/left lane), and Gateway Boulevard & East Grand Avenue (re-stripe existing northbound Gateway Boulevard shared through/right lane to a right turn lane and re-stripe existing eastbound Grand Avenue approach to provide a separate left turn lane). Approved Development Trip Generation Trip generation was estimated for approved developments in the area (Table 3.4 and Figure 3-4). Information on approved developments was obtained from City of South San Francisco staff. The traffic generation rates for approved development are based on the analysis conducted for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (April, 2001). Traffic counts were conducted at existing office, R&D and hotel uses in the East of 101 area. The resulting peak hour traffic generation rates were somewhat lower than the standard national averages reported in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation reference. In addition, all recently approved development in the East of 101 area is required to implement transportation demand management (TDM) measures to reduce vehicle traffic. The analysis for the General Plan Amendment assumes that a moderate TDM program will reduce peak hour traffic generation by an additiona19.5 percent compared to existing traffic generation rates. Brisbane Development and Trip Generation Traffic generated by development in Brisbane was estimated based on the City of Brisbane 1993 General Plan ("Traffic and Circulation Technical Memorandum, Brisbane 1993 General Plan," Wilbur Smith Associates, January 1994). The Environmental Impact Report (EIR for the General Plan identified 13 planning subareas with potential development in each. The development City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-15 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study scenario is based on Brisbane Scenario K, which assumes 10-year development plus other long- term growth beyond 10 years, plus development of the Baylands subarea (Table 3.5). The Year 2003 baseline conditions assume development of all Brisbane land uses except the Baylands subarea. Trin Distribution The estimated distribution of development traffic was based on employee surveys conducted for the East of 101 Area Plan Environmental Impact Report (Brady and Associates with Barton Aschman Associates, January 1994). The inbound and outbound traffic generation from each development was divided according to the percentages shown in Table 3.6. Year 2003 Intersection Operations Without the Project Traffic that would be generated by approved development was added to the existing intersection traffic volumes (Figure 3-5). The analysis includes completion of committed road improvements (Table 3.7). The approved development would cause traffic operations to exceed level of service standards at the following four study intersections: ^ Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue would change from C to E during the A.M. peak hour. ^ E. Grand Avenue Crossing and East Grand Avenue would change from C to E during the A.M. peak hour. ^ Littlefield Avenue and East Grand Avenue would change from C to F during the A.M. peak hour. ^ Allerton Avenue and East Grand Avenue would change from B to E in the A.M. peak hour and from C to E in the P.M. peak hour. The level of service grades at the other study intersections would remain at D or higher. In order to provide acceptable traffic operations for Year 2003 conditions without the proposed Project, the City of South San Francisco should implement the following improvements: ^ Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue: Widen eastbound Grand Avenue by 12 feet to provide one left-turn lane, one through lane and one right-turn lane. This improvement is also recommended for Year 2003 Baseline plus Britannia East Grand Project. ^ E. Grand Avenue Crossing and East Grand Avenue: Re-stripe northbound approach on East Grand Avenue to provide two right-turn lanes and one left-turn lane. ^ Littlefield Avenue and East Grand Avenue: Re-stripe northbound Littlefield Avenue to provide one shared left-right lane and one right-turn lane. ^ Allerton Avenue and East Grand Avenue: Signalize the intersection. Year 2003 Baseline traffic volumes with approved development would marginally meet the Peak Hour Warrant for signalization during the A.M. peak hour. uty or Soutn San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-16 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Year 2020+ Intersection Operations Without the Project Traffic generated by approved, proposed and potential development was added to the existing traffic volumes using the distribution percentages shown in Table 3.3. The addition of traffic generated by proposed and potential development would result in increased traffic volumes at all 12 study intersections (Table 3.7 and Figure 3-3). Year 2020+ cumulative development without the East Jamie Court Project would cause traffic operations to exceed level of service standards at seven study intersections after all General Plan Amendment street improvements are implemented: ^ East Grand Avenue Crossing and East Grand Avenue, LOS F in the A.M. peak hour. ^ Gateway Boulevard and East Grand Avenue, LOS E in the A.M. peak hour. ^ Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard and East Grand Avenue, LOS F in the P.M. peak hour. ^ Littlefield Avenue and East Grand Avenue, LOS F in the A.M. peak hour and LOS E in the P.M. peak hour. ^ Allerton Avenue and East Grand Avenue, LOS F in the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. ^ Airport Boulevard and San Mateo Avenue, LOS E in the P.M. peak hour. ^ Gateway Boulevard and South Airport Boulevard, LOS F in the A.M. peak hour. Measures to Offset Year 2020+ Base Case Without Proiect The traffic impacts related to traffic generated by approved, proposed and potential development will require a combination of physical improvements and policy measures in order to provide acceptable traffic operations. It is recommended that the City of South San Francisco implement the following physical intersection improvements in addition to the improvements proposed for the General Plan Amendment: ^ E. Grand Avenue Crossing and East Grand Avenue: Re-stripe northbound approach on East Grand Avenue to provide two right-turn lanes and one left-turn lane. This improvement is also recommended for Year 2003 Baseline without the proposed Project. ^ Gateway Boulevard and East Grand Avenue: Widen northbound Gateway Boulevard to provide a second right-turn lane. ^ Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard and East Grand Avenue: Widen southbound Forbes Boulevard to provide a second through lane. ^ Littlefield Avenue and East Grand Avenue: Widen northbound Littlefield Avenue to provide one shared left-right lane and one right-turn lane. Widen East Grand Avenue to provide a third eastbound through lane. ^ Allerton Avenue and East Grand Avenue: Signalize the intersection. Widen eastbound East Grand Avenue to provide aleft-turn lane in addition to the two through lanes. ^ Airport Boulevard and San Mateo Avenue: Re-stripe southbound Airport Boulevard to provide one left-turn lane, two through lanes and one shared through-right lane. City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-19 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study ^ This improvement is also recommended for Year 2020+ Baseline plus Britannia East Grand Project. ^ Gateway Boulevard and Airport Boulevard: Re-stripe the northbound approach on South Airport Boulevard to provide one shared right-through lane and one right-turn lane. The East of 101 TIP will require all new development to implement an aggressive TDM and traffic monitoring program in order to achieve the maximum development densities. The TDM measures would be expected to reduce, but not eliminate, the level of service issues at the study intersections. 3.4 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The transportation impacts evaluation includes traffic impacts on regional roads and study area intersections, site access, parking and transit. Standards of Significance and Summary of Impacts Impacts would be significant if they were to result in any of the following conditions: ^ The Project would exceed 100 new peak hour trips. ^ Signalized intersections would operate at an LOS lower than level D. ^ Unsignalized intersections would operate at an LOS lower than level E. ^ A 2-percent or greater increase in traffic entering an intersection due to the proposed Project, when the intersection is a signalized or all-way stop intersection already operating at a base case LOS of E or F, or when the intersection is a stop sign controlled intersection already operating at LOS F. ^ A 2-percent or more increase in traffic entering an intersection due to the proposed Project, when the base case traffic volume levels at an unsignalized intersection already exceeds signal warrant criteria levels. ^ The Project worsens traffic and pedestrian safety. ^ Public streets adjacent to the Project are not in conformance with the minimum dimensions specified in the Municipal Code. Upon application of these standards, the Project would cause one significant impact, four potentially significant impacts and two less than significant impacts. Traffic Impact Methodology Project traffic impacts are evaluated for the following scenarios: 1. Year 2003 Baseline (Existing plus Approved Development) plus Project. 2. Year 2020+ Cumulative Baseline (Approved, Proposed and Potential Development) plus Project. City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-20 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Proiect Trin Generation Trip generation relates land uses to the number of persons or vehicles entering or exiting the site. The trip generation rates are based on traffic counts and surveys at similar existing land uses. The traffic generation rates for the East Jamie Court Project area based on the standard reference Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 6`h Edition, 1997). The "Office" category assumes that building space is occupied by employee work spaces and supporting facilities at densities of approximately 3 to 4 employees per 1,000 square feet. The "R&D" category assumes that a significant amount of building area is dedicated to laboratory equipment, so that employee densities are in the range of 2 to 3 per 1,000 square feet. The "Office" category of trip generation has been assumed for all Project office and R&D space. This assumption provides a conservative estimate of Project traffic generation and traffic impacts regardless of either type of business occupying the space. Total trips are calculated for daily, A.M. peak hour and P.M. peak hour (Table 3.9). The standard trip generation rates are based on averages of surveys of office buildings conducted during the past 30 years, primarily in suburban locations. They assume minimal use of transit and other TDM measures. The Project will be required to implement a TDM program as required by the City of South San Francisco and C/CAG. It is assumed that a moderate TDM program would reduce peak hour traffic generation by a minimum of 9.5 percent compared to standard rates, as assumed in the analysis for the General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance. By comparison, existing transit shuttles already carry about seven percent of employees in the Gateway and Genentech areas served by those shuttles (City of South San Francisco and Redevelopment Agency, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Bay West Cove Commercial Project, August, 2000). Additional traffic reductions would be expected through carpool and vanpool programs, parking policies, and flexible schedules allowing travel outside the peak hours. The Project would generate 1,464 daily trips, with 188 in the A.M. peak hour and 180 in the P.M. peak hour. Proiect Trin Distribution The estimated distribution of Project traffic was based on employee surveys conducted for the East of 101 Area Plan Environmental Impact Report (Brady and Associates with Barton Aschman Associates, January 1994) and is consistent with the traffic distribution assumed for other approved and potential development projects (Table 3.6 and discussion in Section 3.3). These distribution percentages were compared with recent employee residence location information from Genentech and were found to be consistent with the more recent information. Assumptions about Approval of Mitigation Measures The East of 101 Transportation Improvements Plan has been approved by the City. Therefore, the street improvements and trip reduction measures in the East of 101 TIP are referenced as suitable mitigation measures. City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-21 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study The Project Exceeds 100 Trips During Peak Hours ^ Potentially Significant Impact The Project would generate more than 100 net new trips during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours (188 trips in the A.M. and 180 trips in the P.M. as shown in Table 3.9). The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for the Implementation of the 1999 Congestion Management Program ("C/CAG Guidelines") specify that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants will mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development. • Mitigation Measures The Project sponsors shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program consistent with the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable to C/CAG. These programs, once implemented, must be on going for the occupied life of the development. The C/CAG guidelines specify the number of trips that may be credited for each TDM measure. Table 3.10 outlines TDM programs that can generate trip credits to offset the 188 A.M. peak hour trips generated by the Project. Implementation of measures would reduce the impact of the Project to a less than significant level. Discussion The East of 101 TIP includes the following revision of General Plan Policy 4.3-I-8: "4.3-I-8 Adopt a TDM program or ordinance which includes, but is not limited to the following components: ^ Establishment of baseline TDM requirements for all new projects generating more than 100 peak period trips. ^ Establishment of additional requirements for projects seeking a FAR bonus. ^ An ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure TDM measures are actually implemented. ^ Reduced parking requirements for new projects implementing a TDM program." The Project will be required to implement a TDM program to meet C/CAG requirements as well as General Plan requirements. The Project will not be required to establish additional TDM requirements for an FAR bonus. The Base FAR for the General Plan land use classification of "Mixed Industry" is 0.40, and the Base FAR for the "Coastal Commercial" designation is 1.0. The Project is proposed with an FAR of 0.50. See the Initial Study checklist Section IX for discussion of project compliance with FAR Land Use requirements for the combined land uses. City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-22 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study The Draft Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, June 13, 2001, Schedule 20.120.030-D, indicates that the Project will be required to achieve an alternative mode use (modes other than driving alone) of 30 percent. The Project Would Contribute Traffic to Three CMP Freeway Segments with Total Traffic Exceeding Segment Capacity ^ Sisnificant Impact The addition of traffic generated by approved development in South San Francisco (Year 2003 Baseline without Project) would cause two freeway segments to operate at LOS F in addition to two that currently operate at LOS F. The Project would cause traffic volumes to exceed capacity on one additional freeway segment. The Project would not contribute more than one percent of traffic to any segments of U.S. 101 that are projected to have traffic volumes that exceed the standard capacities of the freeway segments. • Mitieation Measures The Project sponsors shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to minimize potential increases in freeway traffic. The TDM plan shall contain all Required Measures and Additional Measures required by the City of South San Francisco TDM Ordinance, Schedule 20.120.030-B, in order to achieve a minimum alternative mode use of 40 percent. The Project applicant shall submit a Preliminary TDM Plan containing checklists of Required and Additional Measures, along with a site plan indicating the locations of TDM elements such as preferential parking areas and bicycle facilities. The Project applicant shall submit a Final TDM Plan incorporating conditions imposed by the Planning Commission. The Project shall coordinate with the City in an annual survey of compliance with the TDM plan, with a minimum required response rate of 75 percent of employees at the Project. The Project shall also submit a Tri-Annual report of TDM effectiveness, and be subject to penalties for non-compliance in accordance with the City's TDM Ordinance. No Deficiency Plan would be required by the San Mateo County Congestion Management Agency based on exclusion of interregional traffic. Implementation of the TDM measures would reduce, but not fully mitigate impacts to a less than significant level, so that the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. In determining whether to approve the proposed Project, decision-makers must balance its benefits against its unavoidable environmental risks. To approve a project despite its environmental risks, the lead agency must make a statement of overriding considerations, giving reasons in writing to support its action based on the FEIR and/or other information in the record [CEQA Section 15093. (a)]. The City may take action on the East Jamie Court Project based upon a statement of overriding considerations that was made by the City Council in the process of approving the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan. At that time, the lead agency determined that the City could not City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-23 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study implement feasible mitigation measures for cumulative impacts on the U.S. 101 freeway. Therefore, the agency adopted a statement of overriding considerations for freeway impacts, based on the identified benefits of projected development under the General Plan. Since the freeway impacts identified in this chapter were also identified in the General Plan FEIR, there is no need for the agency to make a statement of overriding considerations for the East Jamie Court Project, in order to take action on the Project. The 1999 statement of overriding considerations should be cited in the appropriate findings and the Notice of Determination for the proposed Project. Discussion Freeway operations were evaluated for Existing Conditions, 2003 Baseline Without Project and 2003 Baseline With Project scenarios (Table 3.11). Each segment is evaluated based on the capacity of a four-lane freeway segment as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual. An impact is identified if the Project would add traffic amounting to one percent or more of the capacity of a deficient CMP freeway segment (operating at LOS F). The existing traffic counts on U.S. 101 were compared to the standard freeway capacities. Traffic volumes would exceed capacity (LOS F) on the following two segments: ^ Northbound U.S. 101 south of Produce/Airport during the A.M. peak hour. ^ Northbound U.S. 101 north of Grand Avenue during the A.M. peak hour. The addition of traffic generated by approved development in South San Francisco and Brisbane (Year 2003 Baseline without Project) would cause two additional freeway segments to operate at LOS F: ^ Southbound U.S. 101 north of Grand Avenue during the P.M. peak hour. ^ Southbound U.S. 101 south of Produce/Airport during the P.M. peak hour. Traffic added by the proposed East Jamie Court Project would cause the LOS to change from E to F on the following segment: ^ Southbound U.S. 101 north of Grand Avenue during the A.M. peak hour The Project would not add traffic equivalent to more than one percent of segment capacity to any of the segments projected to operate at LOS F under the Year 2003 Baseline without Project scenario. The San Mateo County Congestion Management Program indicates that a jurisdiction may be required to develop a Deficiency Plan for segments of the CMP roadway system that exceed LOS standards. For these purposes, it may be determined if the deficiency would still occur if traffic originating outside San Mateo County is excluded from the determination of conformance. U.S. 101 southbound traffic originating in San Francisco, Alameda and Marin counties may be City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-24 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study excluded. In the northbound direction, traffic originating in Santa Clara County may be excluded. The C/CAG regional travel model for year 2000 was applied to determine the amounts of traffic on U.S. 101 that originate in San Mateo County. A "select link analysis" was used to identify the origins and destinations of peak hour traffic on northbound and southbound U.S. 101 in South San Francisco. The percentages are as follows: ^ A.M. peak hour, northbound U.S. 101: 71% of trips originate in San Mateo County. ^ A.M. peak hour, southbound U.S. 101: 2% of trips originate in San Mateo County. ^ P.M. peak hour, northbound U.S. 101: 86% of trips originate in San Mateo County. ^ P.M. peak hour, southbound U.S. 101: 4% of trips originate in San Mateo County. Table 3.11 indicates the freeway level of service that would result when considering only trips that originate in San Mateo County. In the northbound direction, the level of service would not exceed E. In the southbound direction, nearly all of the traffic originates outside of San Mateo County, so San Mateo County vehicles do not contribute significantly to deficient conditions. Therefore, preparation of a Deficiency Plan would not be required. Decline in LOS Below "D" at Seven Intersections for Year 2003 Baseline Plus Project Traffic ^ Potentially Significant Impact Without mitigation, traffic generated by approved development plus the East Jamie Court Project would cause LOS to exceed standards at seven intersections. • Mitigation Measures The Project shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program consistent with the City of South San Francisco TDM Ordinance. The East Jamie Court Project shall participate in transportation improvement funding programs as approved by the City of South San Francisco in conjunction with the East of 101 TIP. The City of South San Francisco shall implement physical improvements to provide LOS D or better operations at the following intersections: ^ Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue. ^ East Grand Avenue Crossing and East Grand Avenue. ^ Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard and East Grand Avenue. ^ Littlefield Avenue and East Grand Avenue. ^ Allerton Avenue and East Grand Avenue. City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-25 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study ^ Haskin Way and East Grand Avenue. ^ South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard and Mitchell Avenue. The Project shall contribute a proportionate amount to the cost of improvements at these seven intersections. Implementation of these measures would reduce the impact of the Project to a less than significant level. Discussion Traffic that would be generated by the East Jamie Court Project (Project increment shown in Figure 3-7) was added to the traffic generated by Year 2003 Baseline approved development (total traffic shown in Figure 3-8). Year 2003 Baseline traffic combined with Project traffic would result in traffic operations that exceed LOS standards at the seven intersections listed above, compared to four intersections with Year 2003 Baseline traffic only (Table 3.12). The Project traffic would cause the following changes in LOS compared to the Year 2003 Baseline: v Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue would continue to operate at LOS E during the A.M. peak hour. ^ E. Grand Avenue Crossing and East Grand Avenue would change from E to F during the A.M. peak hour. ^ Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard and East Grand Avenue would change from D to E during the A.M. peak hour. ^ Littlefield Avenue and East Grand Avenue would continue to operate at LOS F during the A.M. peak hour. ^ , Allerton Avenue and East Grand Avenue would change from E to F during the P.M. peak hour and would continue to operate at LOS E during the A.M. peak hour. ^ Haskin Way and East Grand Avenue would change from C to F during the P.M. peak hour. ,~ South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard and Mitchell Avenue would change from D to E during the P.1VI. peak hour. The following physical improvements would mitigate traffic operations at the seven impacted intersections: Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue: Widen eastbound Grand Avenue by 12 feet to provide one left-turn lane, one through lane and one right-turn lane. This improvement is also recommended for Year 2003 Baseline Without the Project. The level of service would improve from E to D during the A.M. peak hour. The Project would contribute 8 percent of the additional A.M. peak hour traffic at this intersection. E. Grand Avenue Crossing and East Grand Avenue: Re-stripe northbound approach on East Grand Avenue to provide two right-turn lanes and one left-turn lane. This improvement is also recommended for Year 2003 Baseline Without the Project. The level of service would City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-26 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study ^ improve from F to C during the A.M. peak hour. The Project would contribute 17 percent of the additional A.M. peak hour traffic at this intersection. ^ Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard and East Grand Avenue: Re-stripe eastbound approach on East Grand Avenue to provide one right turn lane, two through lanes, and two left turn lanes. The level of service would improve from E to D during the A.M. peak your. The Project would contribute 17 percent of the additional A.M. peak hour traffic at this intersection. ^ Littlefield Avenue and East Grand Avenue: Re-stripe northbound Littlefield Avenue to provide one shared left-right lane and one right-turn lane. This improvement is also recommended for Year 2003 Baseline Without the Project. The level of service would improve from F to C during the A.M. peak. The Project would contribute 13 percent of the additional A.M. peak hour traffic at this intersection. ^ Allerton Avenue and East Grand Avenue: Signalize the intersection. The traffic signal is also recommended for Year 2003 Baseline conditions without the Project. The level of service would improve from F to B during the A.M. peak hour and from E to A during the P.M. peak hour. The Project would contribute 14 percent of the additional A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic at this intersection. ^ Haskin Way and East Grand Avenue: Signalize the intersection. The level of service would improve from F to B during the P.M. peak hour. The Project would contribute 20 percent of the additional P.M. peak hour traffic at this intersection. ^ South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard and Mitchell Avenue: Widen westbound Mitchell Avenue to provide aleft-turn lane, a through lane and aright-turn lane. The level of service would improve from E to D during the P.M. peak hour. The Project would contribute 13 percent of the additional P.M. peak hour traffic at this intersection. The East of 101 TIP includes the following revisions of General Plan Policies 4.2-G-7 and 4.2-I-7: "4.2-G-7 Provide fair and equitable means for paying for future street improvements including mechanisms such as development impact fees." "4.2-I-7 Continue to require that new development pays a fair share of the costs of street and other traffic and transportation improvements, based on traffic generated and impacts on service levels. Explore the feasibility of establishing an impact fee, especially for improvements in the Lindenville area. 4.2-I-7a Establish a traffic improvement fee to fund transportation improvements in the East of 101 area." The Project will participate in the traffic improvement fee in the East of 101 area and will pay a fair share of the cost of improvements based on traffic generated and impacts on service levels. City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-27 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Decline in LOS Below "D" at Eight Intersections for Year 2020+ Baseline Plus Project Traffic ^ Potentially Significant Impact Without mitigation, traffic generated by approved and potential development plus the East Jamie Court Project would cause LOS to exceed standards at eight intersections. • Mitigation Measures The Project shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program consistent with the East of 101 TIP. The East Jamie Court Project shall participate in transportation improvement funding programs as approved by the City of South San Francisco in conjunction with the East of 101 TIP. The City of South San Francisco shall implement physical improvements to provide LOS D or better operations at the following intersections: ^ East Grand Avenue Crossing and East Grand Avenue. ^ Gateway Boulevard and East Grand Avenue. ^ Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard and East Grand Avenue. ^ Littlefield Avenue and East Grand Avenue. ^ Allerton Avenue and East Grand Avenue. ^ Haskin Way and East Grand Avenue. ^ Airport Boulevard and San Mateo Avenue. ^ South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard and Mitchell Avenue. The Project shall contribute a proportionate amount to the cost of improvements at these eight intersections. Implementation of these measures would reduce the impact of the Project to a less than significant level. Discussion Traffic that would be generated by the East Jamie Court Project (Project increment shown in Figure 3-7) was added to the traffic generated by Year 2020+ Baseline approved and potential development (total traffic shown in Figure 3-9). Year 2020+ Baseline traffic combined with Project traffic would result in traffic operations that exceed LOS standards at the eight intersections listed above, compared to seven intersections with Year 2020+ Baseline traffic only (Table 3.13). City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-28 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study The Project traffic would cause the following changes in LOS compared to the Year 2020+ Baseline: ^ East Grand Avenue Crossing and East Grand Avenue would continue to operate at LOS F during A.M. peak hour. ^ Gateway Boulevard and East Grand Avenue would continue to operate at LOS E during the A.M. peak hour. ^ Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard and East Grand Avenue would continue to operate at LOS F during the P.M. peak hour. ^ Littlefield Avenue and East Grand Avenue would continue to operate at LOS F during the A.M. peak hour and at LOS E during the P.M. peak hour. ^ Allerton Avenue and East Grand Avenue would continue to operate at LOS F during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. ^ Haskin Way and East Grand Avenue would change from C to F during the P.M. peak hour. ^ Airport Boulevard and San Mateo Avenue would continue to operate at LOS E during the P.M. peak hour. ^ South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard and Mitchell Avenue would continue to operate at LOS F during the A.M. peak hour. The following physical improvements would mitigate traffic operations at the eight impacted intersections (see intersection mitigations in Figures 3-11 through Figure 3-18): ^ E. Grand Avenue Crossing and East Grand Avenue: Re-stripe northbound approach on East Grand Avenue to provide two right-turn lanes and one left-turn lane. This improvement is also recommended for Year 2020+ Baseline Without the Project. The level of service would improve from F to C during the A.M. peak hour. The Project would contribute 10 percent of the additional A.M. peak hour traffic at this intersection. ^ Gateway Boulevard and East Grand Avenue: Widen northbound Gateway Boulevard to provide a second right-turn lane. The level of service would improve from E to D during the A.M. peak hour. The Project would contribute 7 percent of the additional A.M. peak hour traffic at this intersection. ^ Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard and East Grand Avenue: Widen southbound Forbes Boulevard to provide a second through lane. This improvement is also recommended for 2020+ Baseline traffic without the Project. The level of service would improve from F to D during the P.M. peak hour. The Project would contribute 5 percent of the additional P.M. peak hour traffic at this intersection. ^ Littlefield Avenue and East Grand Avenue: Widen northbound Littlefield Avenue to provide one shared left-right lane and one right-turn lane. Widen East Grand Avenue to provide a third eastbound through lane. These improvements are also recommended for 2020+ Baseline traffic without the Project. The level of service would improve from F to D during the A.M. peak hour and from E to C during the P.M. peak hour. The Project would contribute 9 percent of the additional A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic at this intersection. ^ Allerton Avenue and East Grand Avenue: Signalize the intersection. Widen eastbound East Grand Avenue to provide cleft-turn lane in addition to the two through lanes. This improvement is also recommended for Year 2020+ Baseline conditions without the Project. City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-29 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study ^ The level of service would improve from F to C during the A.M. peak hour and from F to C during the P.M. peak hour. The Project would contribute 9 percent of the additional A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic at this intersection. ^ Haskin Way and East Grand Avenue: Signalize the intersection. The level of service would improve from F to B during the P.M. peak hour. The Project would contribute 12 percent of the additional P.M. peak hour traffic at this intersection. ^ Airport Boulevard and San Mateo Avenue: Re-stripe southbound Airport Boulevard to provide one left-turn lane, two through lanes and one shared through-right lane. This improvement is also recommended for Year 2020+ Baseline conditions without the Project. The level of service would improve from E to D during the P.M. peak hour. The Project would contribute 9 percent of the additional P.M. peak hour traffic at this intersection. ^ Gateway Boulevard and South Airport Boulevard: Re-stripe the northbound approach on South Airport Boulevard to provide one shared right-through lane and one right-turn lane. This improvement is also recommended for Year 2020+ Baseline conditions without the Project. The level of service would improve from F to C during the A.M. peak hour. The Project would contribute 3 percent of the additional A.M. peak hour traffic at the intersection. Parking Provisions Do Not Meet City Standards ^ Potentially Sienificant Impact Using standard City parking requirements, the proposed Project would have a shortfall of 69 parking spaces. • Mitieation Measures The City of South San Francisco shall apply reduced parking standards of one parking space per 355 gross square feet of office/R&D space (2.82 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet), consistent with General Plan policies for projects that have agreed to implement trip reduction methods. The reduced parking standards will help to support the TDM program. Implementation of these measures would reduce the impact of the Project to a less than significant level. Discussion The City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance has established the following minimum parking requirements for various land uses. Although office space is not proposed, parking for offices is included if offices were to replace R&D in the future. ^ Office -one parking space for each 300 gross square feet of floor area. ^ R&D -one parking space for each 250 gross square feet of floor area, plus 3 for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area over 50,000 square feet. City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-30 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study ^ Restaurant -one parking space for each 200 gross square feet of floor area. ^ Retail -one parking space for each 200 gross square feet of floor area. ^ Fitness Center -four parking spaces for each 1,000 gross square feet of floor area. ^ Day Care Center -one parking space for each 5 children based on maximum enrollment. The City has also implemented policies to provide alternative numbers of parking spaces in support of TDM programs and trip reduction goals. The policies affecting the proposed Project are contained in the General Plan and in the East of 101 Area Plan. General Plan Parking Policies. The East of 101 TIP includes the following revisions of General Plan Policies 4.3-I-11 to 4.3-I-13: "4.3-I-11 Establish parking standards to support trip reduction goals by: Allowing parking reduction for projects that have agreed to implement trip reduction methods. 4.3-I-12 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to reduce minimum parking requirements for projects proximate to transit stations and for projects implementing a TDM program. These standards should be examined as transit service changes. Parking above a minimum amount should be allowed only if additional amenities for bicyclists, pedestrian, transit and/or landscaping are also provided. 4.3-I-13 Investigate opportunities for shared parking facilities whenever possible to reduce the number of new parking stalls required." East of 101 Area Plan. "Policy CIR 16. For master planned developments (as described under Policy LU-16), the City may allow flexible parking requirements or facility-wide parking standards based on the characteristics of the development." Parking requirements relative to City standards were calculated for each land use proposed as part of the Project (Table 3.14). The total parking requirement would be 444 spaces. The Project proposes to provide 375 parking spaces. The proposed supply is 69 spaces less than the standard City requirement. The reduced parking requirement proposed as mitigation would be one space per 335 square feet of office/R&D space (2.82 spaces per 1,000 square feet), approximately 15 percent less than the standard requirement of one space per 300 square feet of office space (3.33 spaces per 1,000 square feet). This reduced parking requirement would help to support the reductions in traffic City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-31 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study generation that have been assumed based on the implementation of a comprehensive TDM program. See the checklist discussion of Section XV ~. 3.5 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Less Than Significant Impact The East Jamie Court Project will implement a segment of the regional Bay Trail along the bay frontage. On-site pedestrian paths will link the Project to the Bay Trail and to adjacent uses and recreational opportunities. Mitigation Measures None required. However, The East Jamie Court Project will provide secure on-site facilities for bicycle parking in conjunction with the required TDM program. The proposed Project site plan is shown in Figure 3-10. Construction Disruption to Nearby Properties Less Than Significant Impact During construction, property and business owners, employees and visitors to the area would be disrupted. The mobilization and movement of equipment may require temporary closure of traffic lanes. However, these disruptions would be temporary, and deemed less than significant. Note: Air quality impacts due to construction dust are described in Section III Air Quality. Mitigation Measures None required. A Construction Management Plan could be required to minimize disruption. The Project sponsors could be required to alert adjacent property owners of time periods when East Jamie Court would have reduced access. Certain construction activities could be restricted to specified days and hours (see Section III Air Quality, and Section XI Noise). City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-32 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study This page intentionally left blank. City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-33 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Table 3.1 Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections Level of Service Control Delay per Description Vehicle seconds A <_ 10 Free flowin .Most vehicles do not have to sto . B >10 to 20 Minimal delays. Some vehicles have to stop, although waits are not bothersome. C >20 to 35 Acceptable delays. Significant number of vehicles have to stop because of steady, high traffic volume. Still, many pass without stopping. D >35 to 55 Tolerable delays. Many vehicles have to stop. Drivers are aware of heavier traffic. Cars may have to wait through more than one red light. Queues begin to form, often on more than one approach. E >55 to 80 Significant delays. Cars may have to wait through more than one red light. Long queues form, sometimes on several approaches. F >80 Excessive delays. Intersection is jammed. Many cars have to wait through more than one red light, or more than 60 seconds. Traffic ma back u into "u -stream" intersections. Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Washington, D.C., 2000, Exhibit 16-2. City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-34 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Table 3.2 Level of Service Definitions for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay (seconds per vehicle) Descri tion A 0 to 10 Little or no delay B >10 to 15 Short traffic delay C >15 to 25 Average traffic delays D >25 to 35 Long traffic delays E >35 to 50 Very long traffic delays F >50 Extreme delays potentially affecting other traffic movements in the intersection Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manua! 2000, Exhibits 17-2 and 17-22 City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-35 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study TABLE 3.3 Existing Intersection Operations AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour INTERSECTION Control LOS Delay LOS Delay Ai ort Blvd & US 101 SB off/Miller Ave Si nal C 24.3 C 28.1 Ai ort Blvd & Grand Ave Si nal C 33.2 C 33.1 E Grand Ave Overcrossin & E Grand Ave Si nal C 31.1 B 16.8 Gatewa Blvd & E Grand Ave Si nal C 28.0 C 24.2 Harbor Wa /Forties Blvd & E Grand Ave Si nal C 24.4 C 31.4 Littlefield Ave & E Grand Ave Si nal C 22.5 B 15.7 Allerton Ave & E Grand Ave Sto A B 1.8 14.9 A C 2.9 17.6 Grandview Dr & E Grand Ave Sto A C 6.1 16.0 A B 6.4 12.5 Haskins Wa & E Grand Ave Sto A B 2.3 10.2 A B 4.0 10.1 Ai ort Blvd & San Mateo Ave Si nal C 29.7 D 38.7 Gatewa Blvd & S.Ai ort Blvd Si nal C 27.9 D 35.1 S Ai ort Blvd & US 101 NB Rams Si nal C 25.7 C 31.8 Notes: LOS = Level of service Delay =Average delay for all vehicles passing through intersection, in seconds For two-way stop controlled intersections, A(D) reflects overall intersection LOS(most constrained approach LOS) City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-36 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Table 3.4 Approved Development Traffic Generation AM PEAK PM PEAK HOUR HOUR Pro'ect Status Size Land Use Rate Tri s Rate Tri s Bay West Hines Approved 10,000 sf Retail 0.93 10 3.39 34 10,000 sf Restaurant 0.93 10 3.39 34 350 Rooms Hotel 0.27 95 0.19 67 600,000 sf Office 0.95 570 0.86 516 Bay West Britannia Under 5,000 sf Retail 0.93 5 3.39 17 Constr. 5,000 sf Restaurant 0.93 5 3.39 17 564,000 sf R&D 0.59 332 0.54 304 Terrabay Residential Approved 213 Units Condominium 0.98 208 1.32 281 135 Units SF Housing 1.05 141 1.41 191 94 Units Townhomes 0.44 42 0.54 51 62 Units SF Housin 0.86 54 1.16 72 Terraba Phase III A roved 665,000 sf Office 0.95 632 0.86 572 Gatewa NW Unocc. 199,000 sf Office 0.95 189 0.86 171 Gatewa E Under constr. 50,000 sf Office 0.95 48 0.86 43 Trammel Crow Unocc. 81,230 sf R&D 0.59 48 0.54 43 itt _A.__ e~ From'-- ~ "~~ A roved 325 Rooms Hotel 0.27 88 0.19 62 ~Ist. Grand Harbor Wa ~ roved 100,000 sf Office 0.95 95 0.86 86 rea A roved 36,000 sf R&D 0.59 22 0.54 20 Brittania Easf Grand Approved 5,000 sf Fitness 0.27 2 3.89 20 8,000 sf Childcare 11.50 92 11.94 96 8,000 sf Retail 0.90 8 3.39 27 783,530 sf R&D 1.12 878 0.98 768 -354,880 sf Lt Industrial 0.48 -170 0.54 -191 Genentech A roved 407,440 sf R&D 0.59 241 0.54 220 Clarion Hotel A roved 106 Rooms Hotel 0.27 29 0.19 21 Gateway (Boston Approved 264,510 sf Office 0.95 251 0.86 227 Pro erties 152,000 sf R&D 0.59 90 0.54 82 Sierra Point Approved 152 Rooms Hotel 0.27 41 0.19 29 440,000 sf Office 0.95 418 0.86 379 Cell Geres s A roved 154,000 sf R&D 0.59 91 0.54 83 345 E. Grand A roved 210,000 sf R&D 0.59 124 0.54 113 180 O ster Pt. A roved 105,000 sf Office 0.95 100 0.86 90 200 O ster Pt. A roved 155,000 sf Office 0.95 147 0.86 133 TOTALS Approved 4,479 4,274 Unocc. 237 214 Under Constr 390 381 Existing -170 -191 TOTAL 4,936 4,678 sources: miry or ~oum ~an rranc~sco Ylannmg CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 1997 Note: Trip generation rates for approved projects and projects under construction were reduced by 9.5% to reflect a 35% alternative mode usage as defined in the City of South San Francisco's Draft Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (June 13, 2001). City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-37 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Table 3.5 Potential Development and Traffic Generation Brisbane AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Plannin Subarea Size Land Use Rate Tri s Rate Tri s 1. Sierra Point 42,000 sf Retail 0.67 28 2.93 123 1,646,990 sf Office 1.56 2,569 1.49 2,454 1,100 Rooms Hotel 0.67 737 0.76 836 8,000 sf Restaurant 3.32 26 4.78 39 2. Southeast Ba shore n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 3. Southwest Bayshore 35,000 sf Retail 0.67 23 2.93 102 3,500 sf Office 1.40 5 1.32 5 66,500 sf Trade Comm. 0.98 65 1.24 82 4. Brisbane Acres 210 Units SF Residential 0.74 156 1.01 213 5. Central Brisbane 139 Units SF Residential 0.74 102 1.01 140 16 Units Townhouse 0.44 7 0.55 9 6. Owl/Bucke a Can ons n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 7. ua n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 8. Crocker Park 2,500 sf Health Club 0.12 0 1.70 5 2,500 sf Retail Outlet 0.36 1 2.14 5 3,000 sf Restaurant 3.32 10 4.78 15 120,140 sf Trade Comm. 0.98 117 1.24 149 9. Northeast Ridge 87 Units SF Residential 0.74 65 1.01 88 268 Units Townhouse 0.44 118 0.55 147 214 Units Condo/A ts. 0.67 143 0.82 176 10. Northwest Ba shore 228,000 sf Trade Comm. 0.98 224 1.24 283 11. Northeast Ba shore n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 12. Baylands 2,000,000 sf Retail 0.77 1,540 3.34 6,680 500,000 sf Office 1.40 700 1.32 660 690,000 sf R&D/Educ. 1.07 738 0.94 649 75,000 sf Restaurant 3.32 250 4.78 359 2,000 Rooms Hotel 0.67 1,340 0.76 1,520 (app. 1 mil. sf) SUBTOTAL 4, 200, 000 s 4, 568 9, 868 13. Candlestick Cove n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 TOTALS 8,964 14,739 n/a = No net additional development planned. ~ Baylands land uses shown are estimated land uses to match maximum high generating traffic increment reported in General Plan EIR traffic analysis. The range of development currently considered feasible by the City of Brisbane would be one million SF of high traflc generating uses to 4.2 million SF of low traffic generating uses. Sources: City of Brisbane 1994 General Plan EIR; CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc. City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-38 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Table 3.6 Traffic Distribution Direction South San Francisco Brisbane Develo ment Develo ment Year 2003 US 101 North/San Francisco 29% 47% US 101 South 48 24 South San Francisco (central area) 3 4 Daly City/Colma via Sister Cities Blvd. 8 3 Daly City/Colma via Guadalupe Parkway 0 7 Brisbane 7 13 Airport area via South Airport Blvd. 3 0 Local east of US 101 2 2 TOTAL 100% 100% Year 2020+ US 101 North/San Francisco 29% 47% US 101 South 48 24 South San Francisco (central area) 2 4 Daly City/Colma via Sister Cities Blvd. 1 3 Daly City/Colma via Guadalupe Parkway 0 7 Daly City/Colma and South San Francisco 8 0 (central area) via Railroad Avenue Extension Brisbane 7 13 Airport area via South Airport Blvd. 2 0 San Bruno/south via San Mateo Avenue 1 0 Local east of US 101 2 2 TOTAL 100% 100% Source: City of South San Francisco, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April, 2001. City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-39 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Table 3.7 Baseline Intersection Operations Existing Year 2003 Baseline w/o Pro'ect Year 2020+ Baseline w/o Pro'ect Intersection Control LOS Dela LOS Dela LOS Dela AM PEAK HOUR Ai ort Blvd & US 101 SB Off Si nal C 24.3 C 28.9 C 29.5 Airport Blvd & Grand Ave Signal C 33.2 E 58.6 D 37.3 E Grand Ave Crossing & E Grand Ave Signal C 31.1 E 74.4 F >80 Gatewa Blvd & E Grand Ave Si nal C 28.0 C 31.3 E 66.2 Harbor/Forbes & E Grand Ave Si nal C 24.4 D 46.5 D 38.7 Littlefield Ave & E Grand Ave Signal C 22.5 p >80 p >80 Allerton Ave & E Grand Ave Sto A B 1.8 14.9 A E 2.0 38.4 A F 5.1 >50 Grandview Dr & E Grand Ave Stop Si nal A(C) 6.1(16.0) B 18.2 C 24.0 Haskins Wa & E Grand Ave Sto A B 2.3 10.2 A C 1.6 24.4 A C 1.7 24.9 Ai ort Blvd & San Mateo Ave Si nal C 29.7 C 28.1 C 29.7 Gatewa Blvd & S Ai ort Blvd Si nal C 27.9 C 27.8 F >80 S. Ai ort Blvd & US 101 NB Si nal C 25.7 C 22.8 D 36.8 PM PEAK HOUR Ai ort Blvd & US 101 SB Off Si nal C 28.1 C 30.9 C 29.8 Ai ort Blvd & Grand Ave Si nal C 33.1 D 39.2 D 37.2 E Grand Ave Crossing & E Grand Ave Signal B 16.8 B 19.2 B 16.5 Gatewa Blvd & E Grand Ave Si nal C 24.2 C 28.1 C 29.2 Harbor/Forbes & E Grand Ave Si nal C 31.4 C 33.7 F >80 Littlefield Ave & E Grand Ave Si nal B 15.7 C 25.2 E 55.3 Allerton Ave & E Grand Ave Stop A(C) 2.9(17.6) q(E~ 3.6(42.8) C(F) 21.7(>50) Grandview Dr & E Grand Ave Stop Si nal A(B) 6.4(12.5) C 30.0 C 30.0 Haskins Wa & E Grand Ave Sto A B 4.0 10.1 A C 2.8 23.3 A C 3.0 24.1 Airport Blvd & San Mateo Ave Signal D 38.7 D 35.3 E 57.5 Gateway Blvd & S Airport Blvd Signal D 35.1 D 49.1 C 31.3 S. Ai ort Blvd & US 101 NB Si nal C 31.8 C 27.8 C 28.0 Notes: LOS =Level of service Delay =Average delay for all vehicles passing through intersection, in seconds A(D) =For two-way stop controlled intersections, overall intersection LOS (LOS for most constrained turn movement ) City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-40 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Table 3.8 Proposed and Potential Development Traffic Generation AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Pro'ect Status Size Land Use Rate Tri s Rate Tri s Trammel Crow Potential 273,580 sf Office 0.95 260 0.86 235 Potential 11,400 sf Commercial 0.93 10 3.39 39 Potential 65 Rooms Hotel 0.27 18 0.19 13 Existin -94,990 sf Lt. Industrial 0.48 -46 0.54 -52 Oyster Point Potential 3,250 sf Commercial 0.93 3 3.39 11 Marina Potential 78,090 sf Office 0.95 74 0.86 67 Potential 20 Rooms Hotel 0.27 5 0.19 4 Pt. Grand Potential 2,110 sf Commercial 0.93 2 3.39 7 Potential 15 Rooms Hotel 0.27 4 0.19 3 Pt. Grand Harbor Potential 100,000 sf Office 0.95 95 0.86 86 Wa Forbes Area Potential 750,690 sf Office 0.95 713 0.86 645 Potential 279,790 sf R&D 0.59 165 0.54 151 Potential 10,590 sf Commercial 0.93 10 3.39 36 Potential 60 Rooms Hotel 0.27 16 0.19 11 Existin -366,300 sf Lt. Industrial 0.48 -176 0.54 -198 Eccles Area Potential 2,178,840 sf Office 0.95 2,069 0.86 1,874 Potential 90,790 sf Commercial 0.93 85 3.39 308 Potential 520 Rooms Hotel 0.27 140 0.19 99 Existin -799,410 sf Lt. Industrial 0.48 -384 0.54 -432 MRF Area Potential 35,130 sf R&D 0.59 21 0.54 19 Existin -17,570 sf Lt. Industrial 0.48 -8 0.54 -9 Genentech Potential 686,630 sf R&D 0.59 405 0.54 371 Grandview Area Potential 527,900 sf Office 0.95 502 0.86 454 Potential 30,750 sf Commercial 0.93 29 3.39 104 Potential 175 Rooms Hotel 0.27 47 0.19 34 Existin -329,530 sf Lt. Industrial 0.48 -158 0.54 -178 Dubuque Area Potential 794,580 sf Office 0.95 755 0.86 683 Potential 36,100 sf Commercial 0.93 34 3.39 123 Potential 135 Rooms Hotel 0.27 36 0.19 26 Existin -21,830 sf Lt. Industrial 0.48 -10 0.54 -11 TOTALS Proposed 0 0 Potential 5,498 5,403 Existing -782 _880 TOTAL 4,716 4,523 ovu.co. ~,i~y ~~ ~ouin man rrancisco, lirart supplemental Environmental Impact Report, South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April, 2001. Note: Trip generation rates for proposed and potential projects were reduced by 9.5% to reflect a 35% alternative mode usage as presented in the East of 101 Area Plan (April, 2001). Gity of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-41 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Table 3.9 Project Vehicle Trip Generation DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Land Use Size Rate Tri s Rate Tri s Rate Tri s Proposed Project: Office / R&D 133,000 SF 11.01 1,464 1.41 188 1.35 180 Total Net New Tri s 1,464 188 180 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 1997. Note: Peak hour trip generation rates were reduced by 9.5% to reflect a 35% alternative mode usage as defined in the City of South San Francisco's Draft Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (June 13, 2001). City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-42 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study TABLE 3.10 Menu of Potential Transportation Demand Management Mitigation Measures and C/CAG Guidelines Trip Credits Total TDM Number of Trips Credited* Recommended Quantity Trip MEASURE Credits Bicycle lockers and 1/3 per bike locker/rack 1 1 racks Showers and 2 trips per facility Install 4 shower/locker facilities 8 chan in rooms Operation of a 2 trip per round trip shuttle seat Implement new shuttles or fund 26 shuttle service to expansion of existing shuttles to rail stations provide 13 additional round trip seats. Subsidize transit 1 trip per transit pass subsidized at $20 Subsidize 33 monthly transit 33 tickets for per month. passes (10% of 330 employees) em to ees Preferential 2 trips per reserved parking spot for 12 reserved parking places 24 parking for carpools ca oolers Preferential 7 trips per parking spot for vanpools 3 reserved parking places (1 % of 21 parking for 375 total) van oolers Implement a 10 trips with Guaranteed Ride Home Implement Guaranteed Ride 30 van ool ro ram ro ram Home. Im lement 3 van ools. Emergency Ride 1 trip per every two members 100 members 50 Pro am TOTAL ~n ----- 193 .wuicc. t./l..t'1V VLL1UGllI1CS ~JUIIC~ LVUL~ pity or 5outn San rrancisco, August, 2002 Appx-43 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Table 3.11 Freeway Operations Existing Year 2003 Year 2003 Baseline w/o Baseline Project with Project Segment Volume LOS Volume LOS Project Percent Total LOS Increment Increase Volume AM PEAK HOUR Northbound South of Produce/Airport 8,900 11,503 F 79 0.7% 11,582 F San Mateo Origins Only ~'' 8,167 8,223 E E Southbound South of Produce/Airport 7,600 E 8,412 E 11 0.9% 8,423 E San Mateo Ori ins Onl 168 A 168 A Northbound North of Grand 8,800 F 10,855 F 7 0.1 % 10,862 F San Mateo Origins Only 7,707 7,712 E E Southbound North of Grand 7,500 E 8,511 E 48 0.6% 8,559 F' San Mateo Origins Only 170 A 171 A PM PEAK HOUR Northbound South of Produce/Airport 6,920 D 8,106 E 15 0.2% 8,121 E San Mateo Ori ins Onl 6,971 D 6,984 D Southbound South of Produce/Airport 8,450 E 10,676 F 72 0.7% 10,748 F San Mateo Origins Only 427 430 A A Northbound North of Grand 6,830 D 7,862 E 43 0.5% 7,905 E San Mateo Ori ins Onl 6,761 D 6,798 D Southbound North of Grand 8,350 E 10,232 r, 9 0.1% 10,241 F San Mateo Origins Only 409 410 A A Note: Segments exceeding the LOS E standard shown in bold. City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-44 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Table 3.12 Year 2003 Intersection Operations Year 2003 Baseline w/o Pro'ect Year 2003 Baseline with Pro'ect Intersection Control LOS Dela LOS Dela AM PEAK HOUR Ai ort Blvd & US 101 SB Off Si nal C 28.9 C 29.6 Airport Blvd & Grand Ave Signal E 58.6 E 65.5 E Grand Ave Crossing & E Grand Ave Signal E 74.4 F >80 Gatewa Blvd & E Grand Ave Si nal C 31.3 C 33.6 Harbor/Forbes & E Grand Ave Signal D 46.5 E 64.2 Littlefield Ave & E Grand Ave Signal p >80 F >80 Allerton Ave & E Grand Ave Sto A E 2.0 38.4 A E 2.2 48.0 Grandview Dr & E Grand Ave Si nal B 18.2 B 19.9 Haskins Wa & E Grand Ave Sto A C 1.6 24.4 A D 2.4 31.5 Ai ort Blvd & San Mateo Ave Si nal C 28.1 C 28.1 Gatewa Blvd & S Ai ort Blvd Si nal C 27.8 C 27.8 S. Ai ort Blvd & US 101 NB Si nal C 22.8 C 22.8 PM PEAK HOUR Ai ort Blvd & US 101 SB Off Si nal C 30.9 C 31.3 Ai ort Blvd & Grand Ave Si nal D 39.2 D 39.3 E Grand Ave Crossin & E Grand Ave Si nal B 19.2 B 19.5 Gatewa Blvd & E Grand Ave Si nal C 28.1 C 28.2 Harbor/Forbes & E Grand Ave Si nal C 33.7 C 34.8 Littlefield Ave & E Grand Ave Si nal C 25.2 C 25.3 Allerton Ave & E Grand Ave Stop p(E~ 3.6(42.8) p(F~ 5.5(>50) Grandview Dr & E Grand Ave Si nal C 30.0 D 35.4 Haskins Wa & E Grand Ave Sto A C 2.8 23.3 B F 14.0 >50 Ai ort Blvd & San Mateo Ave Si nal D 35.3 D 37.0 Gateway Blvd & S Airport Blvd Signal D 49.1 E 56.8 S. Ai ort Blvd & US 101 NB ,..-•--- Si nal C 27.8 C 27.8 1\ V ICJ: LOS =Level of service Delay =Average delay for all vehicles passing through intersection, in seconds For two-way stop controlled intersections, A(D) reflects overall intersection LOS (most constrained approach LOS) city of south San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-45 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study TABLE 3.13 YEAR 2020+ INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Year 2020+ Baseline w/o Pro'ect Year 2020+ Baseline with Pro'ect Intersection Control LOS Dela LOS Dela AM PEAK HOUR Ai ort Blvd & US 101 SB Off Si nal C 29.5 C 30.3 Ai ort Blvd & Grand Ave Si nal D 37.3 D 38.3 E Grand Ave Crossing & E Grand Ave Signal F >80 F >80 Gatewa Blvd & E Grand Ave Si nal E 66.2 E 75.1 Harbor/Forbes & E Grand Ave Si nal D 38.7 D 41.8 Littlefield Ave & E Grand Ave Signal p >80 p >80 Allerton Ave & E Grand Ave Sto A 5.1 >50 A F 6.7 >50 Grandview Dr & E Grand Ave Si nal C 24.0 C 33.1 Haskins Wa & E Grand Ave Sto A C 1.7 24.9 A D 2.5 32.4 Ai ort Blvd & San Mateo Ave Si nal C 29.7 C 29.7 Gatewa Blvd & S Ai ort Blvd Si nal F >80 F >80 S. Ai ort Blvd & US 101 NB Si nal D 36.8 D 36.8 PM PEAK HOUR Ai ort Blvd & US 101 SB Off Si nal C 29.8 C 30.0 Ai ort Blvd & Grand Ave Si nal D 37.2 D 37.2 E Grand Ave Crossin & E Grand Ave Si nal B 16.5 B 16.8 Gatewa Blvd & E Grand Ave Si nal C 29.2 C 29.2 Harbor/Forbes & E Grand Ave Si nal F >80 F >80 Littlefield Ave & E Grand Ave Si nal E 55.3 E 65.8 Allerton Ave & E Grand Ave Sto C F 21.7 >50 D 31.1 >50 Grandview Dr & E Grand Ave Si nal C 30.0 D 42.3 Haskins Wa & E Grand Ave Sto A C 3.0 24.1 C F 15.5 >50 Airport Blvd & San Mateo Ave Signal E 57.5 E 62.3 Gatewa Blvd & S Ai ort Blvd Si nal C 31.3 C 31.7 S. Ai ort Blvd & US 101 NB Si nal C 28.0 C 28.0 Notes: LOS =Level of service Delay =Average delay for all vehicles passing through intersection, in seconds For two-way stop controlled intersections, A(D) reflects overall intersection LOS(most constrained approach LOS) City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-46 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study Table 3.14 Project Parking Requirements LAND USE Zoning Requirement Project Quantity Required Spaces Office / R&D 1 er 300 sf 133,000 sf 444 TOTAL 133,000 sf 444 Pro osed Su 1 375 Su 1 -Re uirement -69 airy of ~outn pan rranasco, August, 2002 Appx-47 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study w U w .~ 0 --, +~ H a w W T M S.. Q ~''.A. V/ z N R O s a~ O 3 ~ O n Q i Appx-48 N V Q •d N [W N W_ F- W W W Z Z Q N W J fY 0 Y Q W a N ~ M Z 3 N tl. W V C d .~ R ~~ O a, a Df _C ~ ~3 D t z Appx-49 .~ 0 U v .~ v w N 0 ~ ~ ~ • r ~ ~• l8ONf1M8NNS'ld f ~~biy `~~ • 0 • ~ • ~ i ~ ~ i t ~ f ~ 1 .~~ : ~ • • • 0~)~ ~.~. ~~ s~, ~~~~ ~~ .r ~ ~~1~ ~1 *~f ~ ~~ ~ ~•.••. •. ;f •ii~p. ~~~ : ~~ys1 ~ ^ ^ ^ • ^ • ~ ~M ~ `~~. ~ S~ ~ ~• `~ ^ ~1b~ r! • ~ ~ ~~~ zi d ~ a,,,~ S ~ • ~ . ably ` ~~ W V . W ch N M ~ as ~ ~' u. t- ~ ~n0i'e~Q •~ •~ ~' •~ , 3 - ~- m ~ N 4? ~ o Y ~ w y 0! (n ,C V: 4. ~ ~ N N ~- t1J ~...~.......... ~ V V m ~ AtlM SNINStlH E ~ ^ E ^ ^ ^ ^ , ~ ~ ^ e J ~ ~^ /~ '3~tl O131j3lllll ^~r^~^^^^^~ r f ~. s o~ s • '~.~, ~~ .~, t HARBOR WAY ~~ J J~ / w ''~, ~ ~ ~ ~' .+ L ., ~,. ~~b~ ~ -~ ~~1~Od21tb ~ • rsri'~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • • ` ~ .~b0~lbyynbg Q ~; I ~ qr •_~ i ~ ~ F ~,". l 1 ~~ t e~y~/, ~ V C N d R ~a a a ~~ a c LL o ~ o Appx-50 N ~~' U W O~/ LL a D y~ w M O i ~ ~a a ii. Q U .~ e y ti W v c w d .~ 0 m C 0 0 n Appx-51 0 si g~ .- N ~ ~- {F.SZ) 9E9 `r 14 (4L) Zt r H r,aiiawn it p i N ~ v ~ L, ai ~ Owl i ~ N W J 0 V ~.~. 1- V W a 1- ~_ w z J W a M ~ ~ M CV Q _~ LL O N m n c` ~ (9'L) 4S N r (EEZ) ros N sarroi ' i r (St)L4 -~ 1 e fy^ m 19L4) LZL ~ ui ~ rn ~ n v ~ m ~- (lOL) LSL a 1 i ~ ,~ (89) LL ,r Ar~al.fl y ~ 1 r (sb) LzL -~ : _ m ~ ~ ~ (8£Z!CE "1, W N N p i O tl 0 V s d s7 M O 0 a N a M °a o ~ ~ L (tES} 090'l 1 ~ ,r~ (eoE} 4liL H rMrr~ •a it = r ~ ti s ~ d ~ v ~ L {fls}ELr. ~ ~ N ~ (6L4} SO£ J 1 l /- (Y6) 9Z 1ro~rry O o m (98Z) LZL 1 m ~ ~ °i ~ ~ O ~- (OEE) DbZ N ~~ j /~ (90L) ZE .~ ! l N iro~rnr tses) Lzs -~ m ~ {_ O O M i o` J ~ »awaw».rA 1 i I~ (LZ) sz J a ~ m (8L9)6EL-1 ° o ~ ~ ~_~ ~ 0 0 JN N •~y Noarany ` i (8L)GL -r ~ l n ~ (OLL)98-~ ' ~ ~ 0 fV c~ i Y a s ~-- {ss) Dez y s~ m f ~ ~ f ~- (ZSS} l6V (EL)oL J, M ~ i {OZS}8ZL ~ ~ = ~ ~ s E 0 a T ~~ 'y Y ~ ~ (SL}9Z ~ ~ ~ N poppp M ~~ (Gh) 8£ J 1 ` r (sfl) LsL H •roarry ~ ~ i (S8L)OhZ - (SBD' L) 18L -~ ~ _ u°Di .- N ti ,.. .. los) u L ~ Appx-52 V a~ .~ O ~'~, W ci ,_ d •O N Q C ,O ~3 3 N i W J ~ o r C a~ ~ `~ r ~' I V W€ e O N li ~ ST.. :.'~ C c+f o' ~n - ~ w~i voo a. ~ ° ~ N ~-- (910) 00£ ~ ) ~ ~ r (06) 9z to p .,~.ri~ (!LS) LSS.L 1 , t r r„ ILSti) 9L6 ~ ~ ~ N ~ z J ~ ~W/~ V/ m p Q O '{, ~ O P7 N ~W ~ . ~ LL ........... v ~ ~' o N N ~ ~ O ~_ r (~£) 997. ' ; r csoL) ze J ~ ` H ~ari~ r (Z£S)ZOS ~ ^ M IES) [5 1, ~ ~ a M 0 OO a h .. t ~.°° s J1 xau~awvyp (LZ) 9Z -~ C ~ ~ (Zbz L)19Z ~ ~ -- M ~ f ~. N ~ pp i ~ ~ J + ( a •nd woara~r- ` l I (8L)6t .l' a ~ ~8LL)88 -~ ~ ~ m N f~0 fV ............................ Appx-53 O b Z r f Mg P i cc-.' ~ M ~ '- (064) 09E j ~ f ./- (84S) 090 is~ su -r to ~ ~ r IB£S) E£L -~ h ~ N a N O g ~ pi N ~- (6S) LOZ r (89) Z6 L .w y trw~/ 1 ) I ~ f ~ SLL SEZ 0 t 1S80'L) l9L -+ ~ r N ~ ~ (£OL) 9LL ~ c N ... V i a~ i ~ € v :~ € w N i Q W c ewe' W •Q 6~ a C ~ / ` ~ ~ n e '~ h 3 O 2 '; o wi M • s O r YI e z ^ d Yi s n O 2 d a n 3 °o 3 0 MMW !"I z d W $ ': J V ti N LL fl t... a C ', ~ Z y V Z d LU .~ ~ r u. a ~~ 'ate ~ (O)£ oo N (~) 4 N N ~ 4 OtiUillltl H 2 N ~ ~ h ~~ C~.,°_ ^a ^~ (4)0 N '" 9iiY0~ 1 O R u ~i N N r~ ~ o~ :~ o~ ~ N av vfl i 0 M N _ 6 O [~ M GI V7 d ~~ o a L SSL 8L. lyL 09 H °Ynq •3 1 ~~ _ Oo ~$ Yi r-_ _..._._.. N N ~ v M N O O / 1 -" lYWYIr (LL1 L9 1 t (vi) £L e I fl` =~ ~~ ~~p fl (ZL) L ~N LYON ~ -" (¢f sL (v) ss -- r m j O O N M = N11N ~ Mi~OMVYfl (a) E ~ i to) s ~ ,.. ~~ n' ~N+ 4 N~ O N •n1f YOlYlTr ~~ 3 f d r a r e~ W ~ r v v . . J . O N ~ ~ ~ ` H l£) £L ~, co) o ~ • p ss O N ~.N..F O ~ ~ ~ 4 i H , „ i t o ~ q O N T C O N N ~~ 0 N m Z Appx-54 U .~ -, N a w ci w= W W •Q Q C ~ r 9y W 8 ~ _ N ~ n ~- (45Z) l49 y maiia~au~ it ~ a v v ~ ~ r ° L l9Zl 4S ~ m a E ~- (4S) 69 s;trro~ H lei) L4 ~ 1 i r tos) 44 -. ~ r (915/ LzL -~ ri ~ N a N 0 i ~ M. G_ ~"? N ,., ,- X89} £8Z w ~ h b < m n a] ~`~ tLOL) Lei i ` r cas) Lc ~ N ' A11M9A~ " 1 i r t54)LZL .~ tZ4£i 60t o ---~ n A ,^~~ ~ ~ d, t8£z`~ 4e ~. W ~ ~ ° N 0 V n O S • n o ~ 180£I46L 1 Iw ai+va}~ ~ rr t r ~~ .. ~, b f m ~ w ~ N m v N ~ L (96)£tZ Aroarry YI !eze) 904' L -~ ~ i /~ e 1 (B54)LL4 -- ~ ~ $ ~ (99Z) Lbt "1~ W i4, N m s N v C N N T ~ S ~~ r tf.e£) E4Z ^ ; r tso~> z£ ~ ! ~ H aroaary (£S) LS ~ ~ ~ S ~ N M ,Wj N ° `V F~ (9)L s ~ ~-• tS9Z)OOt w P r 1 ~ a rMgf11N it w 4 ~ ^, ~ ~ u ~; m ~ N N ~ ^ t+1 W ~ ~ 1£L) ,/~ Iii9Z)SLl H iroawr •S ) ~ ~ (ez cz 1 1 t44t) £oL 1 ~ w ~ ~ I! '''~ ~ e w ~s, ~ ~`~ y~~.., ire sn,wYM !(. ~`~d ~' 5~ ~Y ~,ds ~ '~; wweorc nsav of~.~~"~ M ~' dry :~~ < ~ N ~ ~ r ~~: ~., / r,. N ~'~~~~ O W ~ a Of t ~ ip t`N'1 O R r c ~ ~ rruaHVrp ~ i tLl) 6Z -f w O (9L9)6£1~ ~ n NN ~ a O t M i?, g ~_ t N N ~ ~ ' y , .A a ,,n 1 1 t9~) sL ..r ~ n g tOLI) 9B -~ ° ~ w -~ n ` (99) 08Z i v tv W M N J I r j ~ ~ ~-- (ZSS) LB> a ' H ~ i (£L) oL ~ tO9U 4B --+ ~ ° ~ `~ ~ s = f~1 V N ~ N .... m ~--- t04) 8£ 1 ` ~ teal Lst ~ 1rOaYlY ~ i (S8t) 04Z -~' o t06) Ltl ~ a ~ Appx-55 .,. U a7 .~ 1 W v M_ W ~ ~ a y~ Q S ye F W tl a a 0 r s d ri b s s tl 0 2 O W M V 3 r O 111 f a • K ~ j ~ .r- {46) sl H arorrry (BZ9) Zt9't ~ ~ t r {LS4) 9t4 --- ~ n N eo toss) LLZ -~. ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ 4 v N ~ ; ,r {sot) z£ 1 1 ~ ,w N arwr~Y {£9) LS 1 W ~ 0 i ~1 ~norrrp ` icz) sz J' ~ „l c°yo (Z4Z't) L8Z ~ ° ~ ~ ~p: ~_ x N ~ J1 •nY MoarrnY Q ~ tact, ae -ti ' o N ~ M s a e f a m y d. ~ ~ ~ ~ {44L) OHf J ~ ~ F ~- {849) 484 `~ ~ t r 0 N N $ 4. ~ N t- i6S) LOZ rn o l ~ l88) Z6L iroArry r `~ v v (£ot) 9Lt "1~ ~ m N Appx-56 Figure 3-10 SITE PLAN See Figure 3, Site Plan, Page 7 City of South San Francisco, August, 2002 Appx-57 East Jamie Court Project Initial Study 0 U a~ .~ v +~ H Q W C 'L^ V W .N L U c~ ,L^ V W M w+ V L ~+ ~-+ U d O L a 0 N O N L L w+ t4 C r' O ~- ._ ~ ~ M V d ~ L V1 L ~~ ii ~ V N r+ t4 ~~ O N N Q a9 C 3 0 0 Appx-58 ai Q ca 'L^ V W M~ W 3 a~ w c~ 0 w m L w+ w V .^ 0 L a t w 0 N O N L L 0 ~+ w N ~ ~ O M V L ~ L ii ~ 0 V .~ a H a w N d a+ t0 V O N N Q 3 0 Appx-59 Q C cC ,Ln V W L 0 L 2 M~ W N d L .~+ U N L r.., w+ V ...~ L a t .r 0 N O N L L w -~ M ~ ~ O ~ ~, M V d ~ L ~ a~ .r LL = V a~ .~ a H Q W V N d r+ .~ O N N Q 3 O O Appx-60 Q C t4 ,L^ V W Q _~ w+ •_+ J co O +. V L w+ ~+ V ..~ 0 L a w 0 N O N L L N O w cC r '~ ~ ~ O ~ ~, M V ~ ~ L N ~ L ~ ~ U a~ .~ 0 a W Appx-61 a> Q c C~ ui a~ Q c 0 m Q r~ 0 m L ~F+ ~+ V .~ L .~ ~_+ N O N L L 0 ~+ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ;~,, M V ~ ~ L to ~ L ~w ii __ 0 U a~ .~ a H a w N d .r+ R ~~ O N N a a! 3 0 Appx-62 Q ,L^ V W __ ++ V L ~+ •+ V .~ L a t 0 N O N i L 0 N O c4 r to = ~ O ~ ~, M V d ~ L V1 ~ L ~~ ii ~ 0 U a~ .~ v N d W V N GJ ~+ R .~ O N N Q 3 0 0 Appx-63 a 0 L a 'm Q 0 a~ ca c m ... L Q. L Q r Q ~V V L r C r+ V .~ O L a t ~_ 0 N O N L L N O r cC yr G ti ~ ~ O M V ~~ L ~ L .~ 0 U .~ v H Q W V N d w t4 .~ O N H a 3 0 0 Appx-64 m Q a~ t v ~_ 00 co 3 m c~ C7 o~ m 0 L Q ~ ~ T M V a~ ~ L N ~ L ~_ +~+ V a~ .~ a H 0 w V N d r+ R .~ O N N a 3 0 Appx-65