HomeMy WebLinkAboutHome Depot Focused Draft EIR
DRAFT
FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
State Clearinghouse Number: 2005-08-2032
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
PREPARED BY LAMPHIER - GREGORY
JAN UARY 2006
, . ~ l' r'. ""-
" yV: \
" ~.~~):~'I
~lf ..J
CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report ............................................................................................................1-1
1.2 EIR Review Process......................................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Content and Organization of the EIR........................................................................................................................... 1-2
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARy......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Proposed Project. ...... .................... .......... ............... ...... .................................. ........................ ...... ....... ............... ........ ...... 2-1
2.2 Impacts and 11itigation Measures .................................................................................................................................. 2-2
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Project Location and Site Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 Project Description ..................... .......................................... ............... ...... ........... ........... .................. ... .......... ..... ............ 3-1
3.3 Required Approvals....... .... .................... ............................ .... .......... .... .......... .............. ..... ....... .,. ................... ................... 3-6
4. AIR QUALITY ...... ............... ................... .................. ................... ................... ....................... 4-1
4.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................... ....................... 4-1
4.2 Regulatory Setting................................. ......................... ............................................................... ................... ................. 4-1
4.3 Air Quality Data ............................................................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.4 Impact Analysis........ ....................................................... .................................................................................. .... ............ 4-3
5. GEOLOGY AND SOILS...........................................................................................................5-1
5.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... ....................................... ............... ...... 5-1
5.2 Setting... ...... ...... ........... .......... .......... .... .......... ..... .......... .......... .... .......... .... .... ....... ... ....... ... .... ....... .......... ..... .......... .... ..... ..... 5-1
5.3 Impact Analysis.................................. .............. ....................................... ............................................ ............................ 5-11
6. HAzARDous MATERIALS..................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Introduction.......... .................... ........................................................................................................... ............................. 6-1
6.2 Setting. ....... ... .... ... .... ...... .... .......... .......... ............... .... .............. .......... .... ........... .... ............. .... ....... ........... .............. .... ..... ..... 6-2
6.3 Impact Analysis.............................................. ................................... ........................................ ........................................ 6- 9
7. HYDROLOGy....... ............... ................ ............................. ........................................ ............7-1
7.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................7-1
7.2 Setting....... ...... ...................................... ........... ............................................... ........ ..................... .......... ................... ..... ..... 7-1
7.3 Regulatory Setting............. ............................. .............. ...... ............. ............................... ....... ......................... ................... 7-5
7.4 Impact Analysis...............................................................................................................................................................7 -10
8. LAND USE ..........................................................................................................................8-1
8.1 Introduction....................................... ............................................... ........................................................... ..................... 8-1
8.2 Impact Analysis.... ...... .... ...... .... ....... ... .......... .... ........... .... .... .......... ........ ... ... .... ....... ......... ...... ......... .......... .... ........... .... ...... 8-2
9. NOISE ................................................................................................................................9-1
9.1 Introduction................ .......... .... ....................................... ....................... .......... .......... .......... ..................... ....................... 9-1
9.2 Setting....... ....... .... ....... ... ... ... .... ... ....... .... ...... .... ..... ........... ... ........ ...... .... .... ...... ..... ......... .... .... ... .... ...... .... ....... .... .... .... ... .... ... 9-4
9.3 Impact Analysis............ .................................. ............................... .................. .......................... ................... ..................... 9-5
10. PUBLIC SERVICES............. ................................... .......... ... ....................... ... ...... ............. ... 10-1
10.1 Setting....... ...................................... ............................................. ......................................................... ......................... 10-1
10.2 Impact Analysis.. ........................................................................ ............................................ ............ .......................... 10-2
11. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .............................................................................11-1
11.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 11-1
11.2 Setting ............................................................................................................................................................................ 11-2
11.3 Impact Analysis ..........................................................................................................................................................11-55
12. UTILITIES ........................................ .............................................. .................................. 12-1
12.1 Setting........................................................................................ ............................................................. ......... .............. 12-1
12.2 Impact Analysis ................................................. ............................... .......................... ................................... ............... 12-3
13. ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................ 13-1
13.1 Introduction................................................................................................. ..................... ..................................... ....... 13-1
13.2 Alternatives Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................13-1
13.3 Alternatives Evaluation................ ....................... .... .................................... ......................... .... ................. ................... 13-2
14. IMPACT OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 14-1
14.1 Significant & Unavoidable Impacts that Cannot be 11itigated to a Level of Less than Significant..................14-1
14.2 Impacts Determined not to be Significant................................................................................................................14-4
14.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes......................................................................................................14-5
14.4 Growth Inducing Impacts...........................................................................................................................................14-7
14.5 Cumulative Impacts .....................................................................................................................................................14-7
15. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 15-1
15.1 Report Preparers........................................................................................................................................................... 15-1
15.2 Bibliography............ ............. .......................... ........ ................................................... .................................................... 15-1
16. APPENDICES .................................................................................................................... 16-1
A: Notice of Preparation and Comments on Notice of Preparation............................................................................... A -1
B: Traffic Tables and Equations........................................................................................................................................... B-1
C: Air Quality Model Output, Emissions Procedures and Calculations ......................................................................... C-l
FIGURES
3-1 Project Location.. .... .... .... .... .... ........ ........... ..... ... .... ........ .... ........ .... .... ..... ........ .... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .....3-3
3-2 Project Site Plan ................................................................................................................................................................. 3-7
5-1A Geologic Map..................................... ....................... ................ ............. ........................ ............ ................. ...................... 5-5
5-1B Geologic Units and Symbols ...........................................................................................................................................5-7
7 -1 Existing Drainage Conditions ..........................................................................................................................................7-3
7 -2 FEMA Flood Zones Map .................................................................................................................................................7-7
7 -3 Post-Development Drainage Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 7 -13
11-1 Area Map...........................................................................................................................................................................11-3
11-2 Locations ofIntersections, Freeway Ramp, and Mainline Freeway Analysis ..........................................................11-7
11-3 Existing AM Peak Hour V olumes.................................................................................................................................11-9
11-4 Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes ...............................................................................................................................11-11
11-5 Existing Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control................................................................................................11-13
11-6 Year 2006 Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control.............................................................................................11-31
11-7 Year 2020 Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control.............................................................................................ll-33
11-8 2006 Base Case (Without Project) AM Peak Hour Volumes................................................................................... 11-41
11-9 2006 Base Case (Without Project) PM Peak Hour Volumes................................................................................... 11-43
11-10 Year 2020 Base Case (Without Project) AM Peak Hour Volumes .........................................................................11-51
11-11 Year 2020 Base Case (Without Project) PM Peak Hour V olumes..........................................................................11-53
11-12 2006 Base Case + Project AM Peak Hour Volumes................................................................................................11-59
11-13 2006 Base Case + Project PM Peak Hour Volumes ................................................................................................11-61
11-14 Year 2020 (With Project) AM Peak Hour Volumes.................................................................................................11-63
11-15 Year 2020 (With Project) PM Peak Hour Volumes .................................................................................................11-65
TABLES
2-1 Summary of Project Impacts and 11itigation Measures ...............................................................................................2-2
4-1 Air Quality Data Summary for San Francisco and Redwood City, 2000-2004.........................................................4-3
4-2 Predicted 8-Hour Worst Case Carbon Monoxide Levels.............................................................................................4-9
4-3 Daily Regional Air Pollutant Emissions .......................................................................................................................4-10
7 -1 Existing and Proposed Drainage Conditions for the 10-Year Design Storm ......................................................... 7 -11
7 -2 Potential Pollutants from Industrial Activities.............................................................................................................7-16
7 -3 Impervious vs. Pervious Surface Areas......................................................................................................................... 7 -18
9-1 Definition of Acoustical Terms .........................................................................................................................................9-2
9-2 Typical Sound Levels Measured in the Environment and Industry.............................................................................. 9-3
11-1 Intersection Level of Service AM Peak Hour ............................................................................................................11-16
11-2 Intersection Level of service PM Peak Hour .............................................................................................................11-17
11-3 Freeway Operation AM Peak Hour ............................................................................................................................11-19
11-4 Freeway Operation PM Peak Hour.............................................................................................................................11-20
11-5 Existing, Year 2010 Base Case and Base Case + Project Freeway Ramp Operation AM/PM Peak Hour.......11-22
11-6 Existing, Year 2020 Base Case and Base Case + Project Freeway Ramp Operation AM/PM Peak Hour.......11-23
11-7 Vehicle Queuing with Oyster Point Interchange, 50th Percentile, AM Peak Hour...............................................11-25
11-8 Vehicle Queuing with Oyster Point Interchange, 50th Percentile, PM Peak Hour ...............................................11-26
11-9 Vehicle Queuing with Oyster Point Interchange, 95th Percentile, AM Peak Hour...............................................11-27
11-10 Vehicle Queuing with Oyster Point Interchange, 95th Percentile, PM Peak Hour ..............................................11-28
11-11 Trip Generation of Approved East of 101 Area Development Expected to be Occupied by 2006 ...............11-36
11-12A Lowe's Site Trip Generation ...................................................................................................................................11-37
11-12B Lowe's Site Net Change in Trip Generation .........................................................................................................11-37
11-13 Remaining Terra Bay Phase 2 Trip Generation........................................................................................................11-38
11-14 Traffic Distribution, Office/Research and Development......................................................................................11-40
11-15A Home Depot Trip Generation................................................................................................................................11-57
11-15B Home Depot Net Change in Near Term Horizon Trip Generation................................................................. 11-57
11-15C Home Depot Net Change in Year 2020 Trip Generation ..................................................................................11-57
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REpORT
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, requires EIRs to be
prepared for all Projects which may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIR is an
informational document, the purposes of which, according to CEQA Guidelines, are "... to
identify the significant effects of a Project on the environment, to identify alternatives to a
Project, and to indicate the manner in which such significant effects can be mitigated or
avoided." The information contained in this Focused EIR is intended to be objective and
impartial, and to enable the reader to arrive at an independent judgment regarding the
significance of the impacts resulting from the proposed Home Depot Project.
1.2 EIR REVIEW PROCESS
This EIR is intended to enable City decision makers, public agencies and interested citizens to
evaluate the broad environmental issues associated with the overall character and concept of the
proposed Project. In accordance with California law, the EIR on the Project must be certified
before any action on the Project can be taken by the South San Francisco City Council. During
the review period for this Draft EIR, interested individuals, organizations and agencies may offer
their comments on its evaluation of Project impacts and alternatives. The comments received
during this public review period will be compiled and presented together with responses to these
comments. The Draft EIR and the Final EIR (including the response to comments) together will
constitute the EIR for the Project. The South San Francisco City Council will review the EIR
documents, and will determine whether or not the EIR provides a full and adequate appraisal of
the Project and its alternatives.
In reviewing the Draft EIR, readers should focus on the sufficiency of the document in
identifying and analyzing the possible environmental impacts associated with property
acquisition, as well as the potential future environmental impacts associated with the Home
Depot Project. Readers are also encouraged to review and comment on ways in which significant
impacts associated with this Project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful
when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide
better ways to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts. Reviewers should explain the
basis for their comments and, whenever possible, should submit data or references in support of
their comments.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED ErR
PAGE 1-1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The 45 day review period for the Draft EIR is from January 31, 2006 to March 17, 2006.
Comments should be submitted in writing during this review period to:
Steve Carlson, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, Ca. 94083
Please contact Steve Carlson at 650-877-8535 if you have any questions. After reviewing the
Draft EIR and the Final EIR, and following action to certify the EIR as adequate and complete,
the South San Francisco City Council will be in a position to approve the Project as currendy
proposed, revise the Project prior to approval, or reject the Project. This determination will be
based upon information presented on the entirety of the Project, its impacts and probable
consequences, and the possible alternatives and mitigation measures available.
1.3 CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THE EIR
Following this brief description of the Home Depot Project Focused EIR, the document's
ensuing chapters include the following:
. Chapter 2: Executive Summary
. Chapter 3: Project Description
. Chapter 4: Air Quality
. Chapter 5: Geology and Soils
. Chapter 6: Hazardous Materials
. Chapter 7: Hydrology
. Chapter 8: Land Use
. Chapter 9: Noise
. Chapter 10: Public Services
. Chapter 11: Transportation and Circulation
. Chapter 12: Utilities
. Chapter 13: Alternatives
. Chapter 14: Impact Overview
. Chapter 15: References
. Chapter 16: Appendices
In Chapters 4 through 12 existing conditions are discussed in the Setting, followed by an
evaluation of potentially significant impacts that may be associated with the Project.
PAGE 1-2
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 PROPOSED PROJECT
The Project consists of the demolition of an existing 156,637 square foot Levitz Furniture
building and the construction of a 101,272 square foot Home Depot home improvement
warehouse, an adjoining 24,522 square foot Garden Center, and a two-level parking structure
providing 426 parking spaces on a 7.62 acre parcel.
2.2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The analyses in Chapters 4 through 12 of this document provide a description of the existing
setting, potential impacts of Project implementation, and recommended mitigation measures to
reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts that could occur as a result of Project
implementation. The following table lists a summary statement of each impact and
corresponding mitigation measures, as well as the level of significance after mitigation.
Significant impacts require the implementation of mitigation measures, or alternatives, or a
finding by the Lead Agency that the measures are infeasible for specific reasons. For some of
the significant impacts, mitigation measures may not be effective in reducing the impacts to a
less than significant level. These impacts are designated significant and unavoidable.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
PAGE 2-1
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE 2-1
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact 4-1: Implementation of TCMs.
Determining consistency with the Clean Air Plan
involves assessing whether Transportation Control
Measures (TCMs) are implemented. The
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines identifies seven
TCMs (TCM numbers 1,9,12, 15, 17, 19 and 20)
that Cities and Counties are identified among the
implementing agencies. At the Project level, the
City along with the Project applicant will be
required to implement the following TCMs:
TCM#l Support Voluntary Employer-
Based Trip Reduction Programs
TCM#9 Improve Bicycle Access and
Facilities
TCM#12 Improve Arterial Traffic
Management
TCM#19 Pedestrian Travel
The Project does not include specific measures that
are consistent with applicable TCMs identified in
the Clean Air Plan. This is a potentially
significant impact.
PAGE 2-2
Mitigation Measure 4-1: Transportation Demand
Management Program. The Project will be required
to develop a Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) plan since it would generate more than 100
new vehicle trips per day (approximately 185 new
trips during the AM peak hour and 350 new trips
during the PM peak hour, per Table 11-15B), which is
a significant impact (Impact 11-1). The TDM plan
shall include the following components so that the
Project would reasonably implement applicable
TCMs:
1. TDM#l - Support shuttle service to
BART and Caltrain. There are currendy
shuttles that serve employers in the area.
The Project shall become a sponsoring
employer so that shuttles will serve the site,
providing employees an alternative mode of
commuting.
2. TDM#9 - Provide bicycle amenities so that
employees and customers can bicycle to the
Project. Such amenities shall include safe
on site bicycle access and convenient storage
(bike racks). Amenities for employees shall
include secure bicycle parking, lockers, and
shower facilities.
3. TDM#12 - The Applicant and City shall
improve traffic operations at intersections
serving the Project that are predicted to
operate at congested levels. Such
improvements shall include lane striping,
signal timing adjustments, and additional
turn lane capacity.
4. TDM#19 - The Project may include
sidewalks with shade trees that provide safe
and convenient access to the Project and
any shuttle or future bus stops that serves
the Project (see TCM#l above).
The Final TDM Plan shall be subject to the review
and approval by the San Mateo City/County
Association of Governments (C/CAG) and the City's
Chief Planner.
Less than
significant
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
Potential Environmental Impacts
Impact 4-2: Construction Dust. Construction
activity involves a high potential for the emission
of air pollutants. Construction activities would
generate exhaust emissions from vehicles and
equipment and fugitive particulate matter emissions
that would adversely affect local air quality. This
would be a potentially significant impact.
Construction activities would temporarily affect
local air quality, causing a temporary increase in
particulate dust and other pollutants. Dust
emission during periods of construction would
increase particulate concentrations at neighboring
properties. This impact is potentiallY significant, but
normally mitigatible.
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommended Mitigation Measures
With the implementation of appropriate TCMs,
impacts related to consistency with the Clean Air Plan
would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4-2: Dust Suppression
Procedures. The following measures shall be
included in construction contracts to control fugitive
dust emissions during construction.
· 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.
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Less than
significant
Impact 5-1: Seismic Ground Shaking. There is a
high probability that the proposed development
would be subjected to strong to violent ground
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
.
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.
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide thresholds of
significance for air quality impacts. The BAAQMD
significance thresholds for construction dust impacts
are based on the appropriateness of construction dust
controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible
control measures for construction emission of PMIO.
Prior to the issuance of any permit, the applicant shall
submit a construction plan that includes measures to
reduce air quality impacts and documentation that the
BAAQMD has issued a permit. The plan shall be
subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief
Building Official and City Engineer.
Implementation of construction controls will reduce
air pollutant emissions associated with construction
activities to a level less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 5-1a: Compliance with
Uniform Building Code and California Building
Code. Project development shall meet requirements
Less than
Significant
PAGE 2-3
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
shaking from an earthquake during its design life.
Strong seismic ground shaking is considered a
potentially significant impact.
PAGE 2-4
Recommended Mitigation Measures
of the California Building Code Vol. 1 and 2, 2001
Edition, including the California Building Standards,
2001 Edition, published by the International
Conference of Building Officials, and as modified by
the amendments, additions and deletions as adopted
by the City of South San Francisco, California.
Incorporation of seismic construction standards will
reduce the potential for catastrophic effects of ground
shaking, such as complete structural failure, but will
not completely eliminate the hazard of seismically
induced ground shaking.
Mitigation Measure 5-1b: Compliance with
recommendations of the Preliminary
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report
prepared by Twining Laboratories and with
Structural Design Plans as prepared by a
Registered Structural Engineer. Proper foundation
engineering and construction shall be performed in
accordance with the recommendations of a Registered
Geotechnical Engineer and a Registered Structural
Engineer.
The structural engineering design shall incorporate
seismic parameters as outlined in the Preliminary
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report and
from the California Building Code.
The City's Chief Building Official may require a Final
Geotechnical Engineering Report. The applicant's
plans shall be subject to the review and approval by
the City's Chief Building Official.
Mitigation Measure 5-1c: Obtain a Building
Permit and complete final design review. The
Project applicant shall obtain a Building Permit from
the City of South San Francisco Building Division.
Final Design Review of the proposed buildings and
structures shall be completed by a licensed structural
engineer for adherence to the seismic design criteria
for Planned Commercial and Planned Industrial sites
in the East of 101 Area of die City of South San
Francisco. In accordance with the East of 101 Area
Plan Geotechnical Safety Element, the proposed
buildings and structures shall be designed to be
resistant to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable
seismic events, and allow egress of occupants in the
event of damage following a strong earthquake.
Conformity with these mitigation measures will
reduce the Project's impact related to seismic ground
shaking to a level less than signifzeant.
Resulting
Level of
Significance
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Potential Environmental Impacts
Impact 5-2: Liquefaction, Dynamic
Densification, and Differential Settlement. The
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering
Investigation by Twining Laboratories concluded
that site soils are not likely to be subject to the
affects of liquefaction such as sand boils and
bearing capacity loss. Dynamic densification of dry
surface soils is anticipated to result in up to 0.33
inches of seismically induced settlement. The
dynamic densification may result in differential
settlements of 0.167 inches over a distance of 50
feet. The anticipated dynamic densification and
differential settlement, which could result in
moderate structural damage without mitigation, is
considered a potentially significant impact.
Impact 5-3: Unstable Soils. Potentially
compressible soils are present near the anticipated
depths of the foundations for the proposed
building. Loose soils will be generated as a result
of the removal of existing improvements. Fill soils
of unknown quality are present in the proposed
building and parking areas. Near surface soils have
a high potential for expansion and contraction
during seasonal moisture fluctuations. The near
surface soils are also corrosive in nature and may
affect concrete and steel placed in contact with
them. Groundwater is present at shallow depths,
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 5-2a: Compliance with
recommendations of the Preliminary
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report
prepared by Twining Laboratories and with
Structural Design Plans as prepared by a
Registered Structural Engineer. The foundation
shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
the recommendations of the Registered Geotechnical
Engineer and a Registered Structural Engineer. All
buildings and structures shall be designed to minimize
the affects of the anticipated seismic settlements.
The report and recommendations shall be subject to
the review and approval of the City's Chief Building
Official.
Mitigation Measure 5-2b: Obtain a Building
Permit and complete final construction design
review. The Project applicant shall obtain a Building
Permit from the City of South San Francisco Building
Division. Final Construction Design Review of the
proposed buildings and structures shall be completed
by a licensed Structural Engineer for adherence to the
seismic design criteria for Planned Commercial and
Planned Industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the
City of South San Francisco. According to the East of
101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element,
buildings shall be designed to be resistant to
catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic
events, and allow egress of occupants in the event of
damage following a strong earthquake.
All plans shall be subject to the review and approval
of the City of South San Francisco Chief Building
Official.
Conformity with these mitigation measures will
reduce the Project's impact related to seismic ground
shaking to a level less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 5-3: Compliance with
recommendations of the Preliminary
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report
prepared by Twining Laboratories. The
Geotechnical consultant recommended remedial
grading during site construction activities to provide
foundation support for the proposed structure,
dewatering for deeper excavations, and repair and
maintenance for the existing slope. As recommended
in the Preliminary Report, additional subsurface
investigation shall be performed as necessary to fully
delineate any areas of potentially unstable soils, such
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
PAGE 2-5
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
less than 10 feet below ground surface, and could
impact excavations such as utility trenches. The
slope at the southeastern property boundary may
be destabilized during site grading activities. This
is a potentially significant impact.
Impact 5-4: Expansive Soils. According to the
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering
Investigation, potentially expansive clay soils were
encountered. Expansive clay soils may shrink and
swell, resulting in damaged foundations, concrete
slabs, pavements and other improvements. This is
a potentially significant impact.
PAGE 2-6
Recommended Mitigation Measures
as under the eXlstmg building, which were not
investigated during the Preliminary Investigation The
Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review all project
plans and shall make supplemental recommendations
as necessary to stabilize potentially unstable soils. All
site preparation and grading, foundations, pavement
section construction and subsurface draining
measures shall be performed under the observations
and testing of the Project Geotechnical Engineer or
his/her representative.
In accordance with the East of 101 Area Plan, any
new slopes greater than 5 feet in height, either cut in
native soils or rock, or created by placing fill material,
shall be designed by a Geotechnical Engineer and
have an appropriate factor of safety under seismic
loading.
All site preparation and grading shall be performed in
accordance with recommendation of the Project
Geotechnical Engineer and a Grading Plan reviewed
and approved by City of South San Francisco Building
Official.
Implementation of the above mitigation measures will
reduce the impact of unstable or potentially unstable
soils to a level less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 5-4: Design and Construction
in Accordance with Geotechnical Investigation.
The Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering
Investigation recommended mitigation measures for
expansive clay soils. The Supplemental Geotechnical
Investigation shall identify the measures to be used to
prevent damage to site improvements by expansive
soils and the project plans shall incorporate the
recommendations. Potential measures for control of
expansive clay soils may include the following:
a) Replacing clayey soils underlying foundations and
concrete slabs with select non-expansive structural fill.
Recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer for
the depth of fill and specifications for the fill material
shall be implemented.
b) Treating site soils with lime to reduce the
expansion potential and increase the strength. Testing
shall be performed by the Geotechnical Engineer to
establish the required concentration of lime in the soil
to reduce soil expansion to an acceptable level.
c) Grade around structures to assure positive drainage
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Less than
Significant
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Potential Environmental Impacts
Impact 5-5: Soil Erosion. The Project would
involve mass grading in a sensitive area near the
San Francisco Bay. Demolition of existing
structures and pavements would expose underlying
soil to the elements. Excavation of soil for
construction of new buildings and pavement
sections would also be performed and temporary
stockpiles of new soil will be created. Soils
exposed during site grading would be subject to
erosion during storm events. Soils exposed on the
existing slope located at the eastern edge of the site
are also subject to soil erosion and show evidence
of erosion. Grading will disturb site soils that may
potentially lead to impacts to the San Francisco
Bay. This would be a potentially significant
impact during and following site construction
activities.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommended Mitigation Measures
away from structures.
d) Implement recommendations of the Geotechnical
Engineer to prevent or minimize the potential for
structural damage from expansive clay soils.
All grading and improvement plans shall be subject to
the review and approval of the City of South San
Francisco Building Official.
Implementation of the above mitigation measure will
reduce the impact of potentially expansive soils to a
level less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 5-5a: Erosion Control Plan.
Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit, the
applicant shall prepare and submit an Erosion Control
Plan to the City in conjunction with the Grading
Permit Application. The Erosion Control Plan shall
include winterization, dust control, erosion control
and pollution control measures conforming to the
ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and
Sediment Control Measures. The Erosion Control
Plan shall describe the "Best Management Practices"
(BMPs) to be used during and following construction
to control pollution resulting from both storm and
construction water runoff. The Plan shall include but
not be limited to, locations of vehicle and equipment
staging, portable restrooms, mobilization areas, and
planned access routes.
Recommended soil stabilization techniques include
placement of straw wattles, silt fences, berms, and
gravel construction entrance areas or other control to
prevent tracking sediment onto city streets and into
storm drains.
Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit the
applicant's Erosion Control Plan shall be subject to
the review and approval of the City of South San
Francisco Storm Water Coordinator and City
Engineer.
The City of South San Francisco Department of
Public Works staff and/or representatives shall be
required to inspect the site during grading and
construction to ensure compliance with the SSFMC
Grading Ordinance and approved plans, and require
that the project applicant immediately correct any
violations.
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Less than
Significant
PAGE 2-7
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 5-5b: Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP). In accordance with the
Clean Water Act and the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB), the Applicant shall flle a
SWPPP prior to the start of construction. The
SWPPP shall include specific Best Management
Practices to reduce and/or eliminate soil erosion. This
is required to obtain coverage under the General
Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated
with Construction Activity (Construction General
Permit, 99-08-DWQ).
Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit the
applicant's SWPPP shall be subject to the review and
approval of the City of South San Francisco Storm
Water Coordinator and the City Engineer.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would
reduce the project's impact to a level of less than
significant.
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact 6-1: Routine transportation, use or
disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed
Home Depot complex, including parking,
warehousing, delivery, and shopping facilities is
designed for commercial retail use. Retail sales
items includes many potentially hazardous
products, including paints, thinners, solvents,
preservatives, and large potentially flammable
items, such as lumber. These items will be
routinely delivered to the facility, transported to
and from the site by consumers (generally in small
quantities), and when not sold or warehoused must
be transported from the site for disposal or return
to the manufacturer. Transport will be
concentrated along Dubuque Avenue and onto the
Bayshore Freeway. The risk of accidental upset
and environmental contamination from routine
transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous
and potentially hazardous materials to the public
and environment is a potentially significant
impact.
PAGE 2-8
Mitigation Measure 6-1a: Hazardous Materials
Business Plan Program. In accordance with State
law and local regulations, businesses occupying the
development must complete a Hazardous Materials
Business Plan (HMBP) for the safe storage and use of
chemicals. The HMBP must include the type and
quantity of hazardous materials, a site map showing
storage locations of hazardous materials and where
they may be used and transported from, risks of using
these materials, material safety data sheets for each
material, a spill prevention plan, an emergency
response plan, employee training consistent with
OSHA guidelines, and emergency contact
information. Businesses qualify for the program if
they store a hazardous material equal to or greater
than the minimum reportable quantities. These
quantities are 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for
solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and
pressure) for compressed gases.
Retail establishments, such as Home Depot, are
required by State law to report non-retail chemical
storage of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials
may include paints, solvents, batteries, aerosol cans,
compresses gas cylinders, asbestos containing
materials, silica gels, lubricating oils, and fuels used to
power generators and other mechanical equipment, as
well as any other chemicals considered hazardous by
the San Mateo County Environmental Health
Less than
Significant
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
Potential Environmental Impacts
Impact 6-2: Accidental Hazardous Materials
Release. Mitigations for accidental release of
hazardous materials during construction are
included in Mitigation Measure 7-2a,
implementation of a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP), presented in the
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Department, California State Department of Toxic
Substances Control, and other applicable regulators.
Home Depot is also responsible for reporting "off
spec" materials. These are materials that were not
sold and are not able to be returned to the
manufacturer. Home Depot is responsible for the
safe disposal of these materials, which shall be
additionally reported and included in the Hazardous
Materials Business Plan.
Businesses occupymg and/or operating at the
proposed development must submit an HMBP prior
to the start of operations, and must review and update
the entire HMBP at least once every two years, or
within 30 days of any significant change. Some of
these changes include updating the emergency contact
information, major increases or decreases in
hazardous materials storage and/or changes in
location of hazardous materials. Plans shall be
submitted to the San Mateo County Environmental
Health Department's Business Plan Program. The
San Mateo County Environmental Health
Department (SMCEHD) is required to inspect the
business annually to make sure that the HMBP is
complete and accurate.
Prior to the final inspection the applicant shall
provide a copy of the County approved HMBP to the
City of South San Francisco Fire Marshall.
Mitigation Measure 6-1b: Compliance with US
Department of Transportation, State of California
and local laws, ordinances, and procedures for
transportation of hazardous materials and
hazardous wastes. All transportation of hazardous
materials and hazardous waste to and from the site
will be in accordance with Tide 49 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, US Department of
Transportation (DOT), State of California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and local
laws, ordinances and procedures including placards,
signs and other identifying information.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will
reduce the Project's impact to a level less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure 6-2a: Demolition Plan and
Permitting. Prior to demolition of any buildings or
structures the applicant shall obtain a Demolition
Permit from the City of South San Francisco Building
Division. The Demolition Plan shall include measures
ensuring safe demolition of existing buildings and
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Less than
Significant
PAGE 2-9
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
hydrology section of this Draft Environmental
Impact Report. This mitigation includes
implementation of Best Management Practices for
preventing the discharge of construction-related
pollutants such as diesel fuel, hydraulic oil, paint,
concrete, etc. to the environment. However, these
measures provide no mitigation for the accidental
release of hazardous materials during demolition of
the existing facilities. Hazardous materials that
may be present at the site include asbestos
containing building materials and possible lead
based paint. Demolition presents a primary hazard
to workers through inhalation of dust, dermal
absorption, and ingestion of hazardous materials.
Following the completion of construction;
warehousing, transport, and vending operations at
the proposed facilities are expected to represent a
continuing threat to the environment through
accidental release of potentially hazardous
materials. The greatest risk is likely from a spill
into the storm drain system. These hazards are a
potentially significant impact.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
structures. The Plan shall include measures to control
asbestos dust and incorporate site surveys for the
presence of potentially hazardous building materials.
The Demolition Plan shall address both on-site
worker protection and off-site resident and worker
protection from both chemical and physical hazards.
All contaminated building materials are required to be
tested for contaminant concentrations and are
required to be disposed of at licensed landfill facilities.
Prior to building demolition, hazardous building
materials such as peeling, chipping and friable lead
based paint and asbestos containing building materials
are required be removed in accordance with all State
and local laws, regulations, and guidelines. The
Demolition Plan shall include a program of air
monitoring for dust particulates and attached
contaminants. Dust control and suspension of work
during dry windy days shall be addressed in the plan.
Prior to obtaining a Demolition Permit from the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
and the City of South San Francisco, an asbestos
demolition survey shall be conducted in accordance
with the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 11,
Rule 2.
For the impact of flaking and peeling lead based paint,
the requirements of Title 8, California Code of
Regulations, Section 1532.1 (f8 CCR 1532.1) must be
followed. These requirements include but are not
limited to the following:
. Loose and peeling lead-containing paint
should be removed pnor to building
demolition. Workers conducting removal
of lead paint must recelve training ill
accordance with T8 CCR 1532.1.
. Lead-containing paint removal shall be
designed by a DHS certified lead designer,
project monitor or supervisor.
. Preparation of a written Lead Compliance
Plan that meets the requirements of the
lead construction standard by any
contractor that impacts leads coatings.
. Workers conducting removal of lead paint
must be certified by DHS in accordance
with T8 CCR 1532.1.
. Workers that may be exposed above the
Action Level must have blood lead levels
Resulting
Level of
Significance
PAGE 2-10 HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
Potential Environmental Impacts
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommended Mitigation Measures
tested prior to commencement oflead work
and at least quarterly thereafter for the
duration of the Project. Workers that are
terminated from the Project should have
their blood lead levels tested within 24
hours of termination.
. A written exposure assessment must be
prepared in accordance with T8 CCR
1532.1.
. Any amount of lead waste generated,
including painted building components,
must be characterized for proper disposal in
accordance with Title 22, Section 66261.24.
Prior to the issuance of the Demolition Permit by the
City of South San Francisco, the applicant shall
provide a copy of the BAAQMD Permit and
Compliance Plan to the City of South San Francisco
Building Official.
Mitigation Measure 6-2b: California Accidental
Release Prevention Program (CalARP). The
applicant shall check State and Federal lists of
regulated substances for chemicals that pose a major
threat to public health and safety of the environment
because they are highly toxic, flammable, and/or
explosive. The list is available from the San Mateo
County Environmental Health Department
(SMCEHD). Businesses are responsible for
determining which list to use in consultation with
SMCEHD.
Should the applicant's business qualify for the
program, as determined in consultation with
SMCEHD, the applicant must complete a CalARP
registration form listing all regulated substances and
submit it to SMCEHD. Following registration, they
shall submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP). RMPs
are designed to handle accidental releases and ensure
that businesses have the proper information to
provide to emergency response teams if an accidental
release occurs. All businesses that store or handle
more than a threshold quantity (fQ) of a regulated
substance must develop a RMP and follow it.
Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public
health and the environment if a regulated substance is
released near schools, residential areas, hospitals and
childcare facilities. RMPs must include procedures for:
keeping employees and customers safe; handling
Resulting
Level of
Significance
PAGE2-11
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
Impact 6-3: Potential Interference with
Emergency Response Plan. The proposed
development is not expected to physically interfere
with implementation of an adopted emergency
response or evacuation plan. While traffic will be
increased along Dubuque A venue it IS not
anticipated to reduce response times. Discussion
of specific traffic and transportation impacts
resulting from the proposed Project are also
discussed in the Traffic and Transportation Section
of this DEIR. Demand for fire protection and
emergency medical services will increase slighrly at
the site since the proposed facility is designed to
accommodate more visitors and workers than the
former Levitz Furniture facility. In addition,
Project construction could result in a reduction of
response times, due to large construction
equipment and reduced access to the site and
surrounding areas. Discussion of specific traffic
and transportation impacts resulting from the
proposed development are also discussed in the
Traffic and Transportation Section of this DEIR.
Interference with the local Emergency Response
Plan would be a potentially signifu:ant impact.
PAGE 2-12
Recommended Mitigation Measures
regulated substances; training staff; maintaining
equipment; checking that substances are stored safely;
and responding to an accidental release.
Prior to Final Building inspection, the applicant shall
provide a copy of the Risk Management Plan to the
City of South San Francisco Fire Marshall.
Mitigation Measure 6-2c: Employee Training.
The applicant shall develop and implement an
Employee Training Plan covering spill prevention,
cleanup, and notification procedures in accordance
with OSHA and CAL OSHA. The operation of the
store will require having sufficient cleanup materials
such as spill kits, absorbent rags, and sand available to
staff for containing and cleaning up spills and leaks, as
well as procedures for proper disposal of
contaminated materials.
Prior to the Final Inspection the applicant shall
provide a copy of the Employee Training Plan to the
City of South San Francisco Fire Marshall. The Plan
shall be subject to the review and approval of the Fire
Marshall.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will
reduce the impact of accidental releases of hazardous
materials to a level less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 6-3: Fire Department Review.
Prior to the issuance of the Building Permit, the City
of South San Francisco Fire Department is required
to review construction plans for roadway
modifications and shall establish temporary alternative
emergency routes necessary for the duration of the
Project construction. The applicant shall design the
aisleways and driveways to meet the SSFMC and
Uniform Building Code requirements for emergency
access.
The on-site circulation system shall be subject to the
reVIew and approval by the City of South San
Francisco Chief Planner in consultation with the City
Engineer and Fire Marshall.
Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce
the impact of development to any emergencyuresponse or evacuation plan to a level less than
significant.
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Less than
Significant
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Potential Environmental Impacts
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact 7-1: Increases in Peak Runoff.
According to preliminary calculations by Questa
Engineering, the proposed Project will
approximately double the to-year peak storm water
flows to the on-site drop inlet along Dubuque
A venue and will increase 10-year peak discharge to
the Bay by approximately 43%. No analysis of
definitive information has been presented to verify
that the existing storm drain system can carry the
design flows under proposed Project conditions.
This is a potentially significant impact.
Impact 7-2: Lack of Hydraulic Sizing
Calculations for Hydrodynamic Storm Water
Separator and Lack of Alternative Methods for
Storm Water Treatment. Hydrodynamic storm
water separator devices must be properly sized to
maximize pollutant removal and meet water quality
requirements. The Project applicant has not
provided hydraulic sizing calculations or
specifications for any of the storm drain treatment
system. No other methods of storm water
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
Mitigation Measure 7-1a: Storm Drain Analysis.
The applicant shall conduct a Storm Drain Analysis
including a hydraulic analysis of the proposed storm
drain system from the Project site to the Oyster Cove
outlet to establish whether the existing storm drain
pipe has capacity to accommodate the increased flows
resulting from the proposed Project. The analysis shall
include Rational Method calculations of pre- and
post-development 10-year peak flows and shall take
into account drainpipe slope and elevations, drainpipe
size(s), and system head losses. The Storm Drain
Analysis shall be subject to the review and approval
by the City of South San Francisco City Engineer. If
the existing storm drain cannot accommodate the
Project flows, Mitigation 7-1b shall be implemented.
Mitigation Measure 7-1h: Revised Storm Drain
Plan. If the Storm Drain Analysis described in
Mitigation Measure 7-1a shows that the existing storm
drain has inadequate capacity for the Project flows,
the applicant shall submit a Revised Storm Drain
Plan. The revised plan shall include drawings of the
new proposed system and calculations of the new
system capacity. Methods such as on-site storm water
detention, storm drain line upgrades, and an
inf1ltration area shall be incorporated into the Project
design. Mitigation Measure 7-2b requires
incorporation of a vegetated swale and inf1ltration
area for treatment of storm water runoff from parking
lot areas.
Prior to the approval of the Final Map, changes to the
Project Drainage Plan shall be subject to the review
and approval by the City of South San Francisco
Storm Water Coordinator and the City Engineer.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will
reduce the impact of changes in peak runoff to a level
less than significant.
Mitigation Measure '-2a: Hydrodynamic Storm
Water Separator Shall Be Designed in
Accordance with CASQA Sizing
Recommendations. The hydrodynamic storm water
separator shall be designed in accordance with
CASQA sizing recommendations for in-line Vortex
Separator BMPs.
Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit, the
applicant shall provide final calculations, sizing
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
PAGE 2-13
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
treatment such as vegetated swales have been
identified. This presents a potentially significant
impact.
Impact '-3: Soil Erosion. Project grading and
other construction activities will disturb site soils,
potentially leading to impacts to the San Francisco
Bay. This represents a potentially significant
impact.
PAGE 2-14
Recommended Mitigation Measures
criteria, and maintenance responsibility provisions
that shall be subject to the review and approval by the
City of South San Francisco City Engineer and Storm
Water Coordinator.
Mitigation Measure '-2b: Additional Stonn Water
Treatment Control Methods Shall be
Incorporated into the Project. The Storm Drain
Plan shall incorporate the following design measures:
. A vegetated/grass swale along the perimeter of
the parking lot
. A notched curb along the parking lot perimeter
to direct flow from the parking area into the
swale
. A catch basin at the end of the swale shall direct
runoff into an inflltration area
. All maintenance yard/service areas shall be
covered.
The Storm Drain Plan shall be subject to the review
and approval of the City of South San Francisco City
Engineer and Storm Water Coordinator.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will
reduce the impact of non-point source pollution to a
level less than significant.
Mitigation Measure '-3a: Preparation and
Implementation of Project SWPPP. Pursuant to
NPDES requirements, the Project applicant shall
develop a SWPPP to protect water quality during and
after construction. The Project SWPPP shall include,
but is not limited, to the following mitigation
measures for the construction period:
1) Erosion control! soil stabilization techniques such
as straw mulching, erosion control blankets, erosion
control matting, and hydro-seeding shall be utilized in
accordance with the regulations outlined 1n the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment
Control Measures. Silt fences used in combination
with fiber rolls shall be installed down slope of all
graded slopes. Fiber rolls shall be installed in the flow
path of graded areas receiving concentrated flows and
around storm drain inlets.
2) "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) for
preventing the discharge of other construction-related
National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System
(NPDES) pollutants beside sediment (i.e. paint,
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Less than
Significant
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
Potential Environmental Impacts
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommended Mitigation Measures
concrete, etc) to downstream waters.
3) After construction IS completed, all drainage
facilities shall be inspected for accumulated sediment,
and these drainage structures shall be cleared of debris
and sediment.
Long-term mitigation measures to be included in the
Project SWPPP shall include, but are not limited to,
the following:
4) Description of potential sources of erosion and
sediment at the Project site. Industrial activities and
significant materials and chemicals that could be used
at the proposed Project site should be described. This
will include a thorough assessment of existing and
potential pollutant sources.
5) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the
Project site based on identified industrial activities and
potential pollutant sources. Emphasis shall be placed
on source control BMPs, with treatment controls used
as needed.
6) Development of a monitoring and implementation
plan. Maintenance requirements and frequency shall
be carefully described including vector control,
clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or oudet
structures, vegetation/landscape maintenance,
replacement of media ftlters, regular sweeping of
parking lots and other paced areas, etc. Wastes
removed from BMPs may be hazardous, therefore,
maintenance costs should be budgeted to include
disposal at a proper site. Parking lot areas shall be
cleared of debris that may enter the storm drain
system on a daily basis.
7) The monitoring and maintenance program shall be
conducted at the frequency determined by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and
City of South San Francisco Storm Water
Coordinator. Monitoring and maintenance shall be
recorded and submitted annually to the SWRCB. The
SWPPP shall be adjusted, as necessary, to address any
inadequacies of the BMPs.
8) The applicant shall prepare informational literature
and guidance on industrial and commercial BMPs to
minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed
development. This information shall be distributed to
all employees at the Project site. At a minimum, the
information shall cover: a) proper disposal of
commercial cleaning chemicals; b) proper use of
Resulting
Level of
Significance
PAGE 2-15
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and appropriate
disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and
d) prohibition of any washing and dumping of
materials and chemicals into storm drains.
Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit the
applicant shall provide a SWPPP to the City Engineer
and the Storm water Coordinator. The SWPP shall be
subject tot the review and approval by the City of
South San Francisco City Engineer and Storm Water
Coordinator.
Mitigation Measure 7-3b: Erosion Control Plan.
The applicant shall complete an Erosion Control Plan
to be submitted to the City of South San Francisco in
conjunction with the Grading Permit Application.
The Erosion Control Plan shall include controls for
winterization, dust, erosion, and pollution in
accordance with the ABAG Manual of Standards for
Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. The Plan
shall also describe the BMPs to be used during and
following construction to control pollution resulting
from both storm and construction water runoff. The
Plan shall include locations of vehicle and equipment
staging, portable restrooms, mobilization areas, and
planned access routes.
Grading activities are required to be inspected by the
applicant's contractor to ensure compliance with the
approved grading plans. The City of South San
Francisco Public Works Construction Inspector will
inspect the SWPPP measures to ensure on-going
compliance with the approved SWPPP.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will
reduce the construction and post-development
impacts associated with erosion and siltation to a level
less than significant.
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact 9-1: Construction Related Noise.
Project construction would result in temporary
short-term noise increases due to the operation of
heavy equipment. This would be a potentially
significant impact associated with Project
development. Construction noise sources range
from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet for most types
of construction equipment, and slightly higher
levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain
types of earthmoving and impact equipment.
PAGE 2-16
Mitigation Measure 9-1: Noise Abatement. While
there are no existing noise-sensitive receptors in the
immediate Project vicinity that would be affected by
Project-generated construction noise, neighboring
businesses would be subjected to high noise levels
during site preparation and construction. The site is
subject to high ambient noise levels of 75 dB CNEL
produced by freeway traffic on US Highway 101,
trains at the adjacent railroad and aircraft overflights
from SFIA. Noise controls installed on construction
equipment can reduce noise levels for many types of
equipment to levels in the range of 80dBA to 85dBA
Less than
Significant
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Potential Environmental Impacts
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommended Mitigation Measures
measured at a distance of 25 feet. Construction noise
levels are required to comply with the SSFMC
Chapter 8.32 Noise Regulations that sets a maximum
limit of 90dBA. With implementation of noise control
measures construction noise impacts will be reduced
to a level less than significant.
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact 11-1: Trip Generation Exceeds 100
Trips During Peak Hours. The proposed Project
would generate 100 net new trips more than
existing site uses during the AM and PM peak
hours (:t 185 more trips during the AM peak hour
and :t350 more trips during the PM peak hour than
the existing Levitz furniture operation). The San
Mateo City/County Association of Governments
(C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for the
implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion
Management Program ("C/CAG Guidelines")
specifies that local jurisdictions must ensure that
the developer and/or tenants will mitigate all new
peak hour trips (including the first 1 00 trips)
Projected to be generated by the development.
This would be a significant impact.
Impact 11-2: Year 2006 Intersection Level of
Service Impacts. Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that
all but one analyzed intersection would maintain
acceptable operation during AM and PM peak hour
conditions with the proposed Project. At the
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp
intersection, PM peak hour Project traffic would
degrade operation from LOS E to LOS F and
increase volumes by more than two percent (4.3%).
This would be a significant impact.
Impact 11-5: Year 2006 Vehicle Queuing
Impacts. Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the
proposed Project would result in significant
queuing impacts during the PM peak traffic hour in
2006 at the 50th Percentile Queue.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Mitigation Measure 11-1: Transportation Demand
Management Program. The Project sponsors shall
implement a Transportation Demand Management
(fDM) plan consistent with the City of South San
Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120
Transportation Demand Management and acceptable
to San Mateo City County Association of
Governments (C/CAG). The IDM plan is required
to be on-going for the life of the development. The
C/CAG guidelines specify the number of trips that
may be credited for each IDM measure.
Appendix B Table 5 outlines TDM plan measures
that can generate trip credits to offset the :t 185 net
new AM peak hour trips and :t350 net new PM peak
hour trips generated by the Project. Since the
majority of vehicles associated with Home Depot will
be retail customers and not employees (and not
influenced by typical IDM measures), the Project
applicant and C/CAG will need to meet and develop
a program agreeable to the City, C/CAG and Home
Depot.
Implementation of a IDM plan will reduce the
Project's impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 11-2: None. There are no
physical improvements considered feasible at this
intersection by City of South San Francisco
Engineering Division to improve operation to Base
Case Conditions or better.
The impact would remalIl significant and
unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure 11-5A: 50th Percentile Queue
1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister
Boulevard/ Oyster
Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
Proposed restriping of the westbound
Cities
Point
Less than
Significant
Significant and
Unavoidable
Significant and
Unavoidable
PAGE 2-17
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
50th Percentile Queue
PM PEAK HOUR
1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister
Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point
Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
intersection.
The Oyster Point westbound
approach through lanes would
receive more than a two percent
increase in traffic (5%) with
unacceptable Base Case queuing.
2) Oyster Point
Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue/V.S.I0l Northbound
On-Ramp
The Dubuque Avenue northbound
approach left turn/through lanes
would receive more than a two
percent increase in traffic (19.5%)
with unacceptable Base Case
queumg in the left turn lane.
Acceptable Base Case queuing in
the combined left/through lane
would also be increased beyond the
available storage with the addition
of Project traffic.
95th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the Project would
result in significant queuing impacts during the AM
and PM peak traffic hour in 2006 at the 95th
Percentile Queue.
AM PEAK HOUR
1) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-
Ramp.
The Dubuque Avenue northbound
approach left turn lane would receive
more than a two percent increase in
traffic (9.6%) with unacceptable Base
Case queuing.
PM PEAK HOUR
2) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities
Boulevard/Oyster Point
Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
intersection.
PAGE 2-18
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Oyster Point Boulevard approach (as
required of the Bay West Cove
development) to provide one left turn lane,
two through lanes and one right turn lane
will reduce westbound through quelling
demand to 195 feet, less than the available
255 feet of storage. Therefore, this impact
will be reduced to a level less-than-
significant level.
2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue/V.S.I0l Northbound On-Ramp
There are no physical improvements
considered feasible at this intersection by
City of South San Francisco Engineering
Division staff to reduce queuing to the Base
Case conditions.
The impact would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Mitigation 11-5B: 95th Percentile Queue
1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister
Boulevard/ Oyster
Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
Proposed restriping of the westbound
Oyster Point Boulevard approach (as
required of the Bay West Cove
development) to provide one left turn lane,
two through lanes and one right turn lane
would reduce westbound through queuing
demand to 225 feet, less than the available
255 feet of storage. In addition, the 95th
percentile queuing in the westbound left
turn lane would be reduced to 80 feet,
which is the planned available storage
length. This impact would be reduced to a
less-than-significant level.
Cities
Point
2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue/U.S.I0l Northbound On-Ramp
There are no physical improvements
considered feasible at this intersection by
City of South San Francisco staff to reduce
queuing to Base Case conditions.
Impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Resulting
Level of
Significance
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
Potential Environmental Impacts
The Oyster Point westbound approach
through lanes would receive more than a
two percent increase in traffic (5%) with
unacceptable Base Case queuing. Also,
acceptable Base Case queuing in the
westbound approach left turn lane would
be increased beyond the available storage
with the addition of project traffic.
3) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue/V.S.tOt Northbound On-
Ramp
The Dubuque A venue northbound
approach left turn and through/left turn
lanes would receive more than a two
percent increase in traffic (t9.5%) with
unacceptable Base Case queuing in both
lanes.
These would be significant impacts.
Impact 11-6: Year 2020 Intersection Level of
Service Impacts. Tables 11-t and 11-2 show that
all but three analyzed intersections would maintain
acceptable operation during AM or PM peak hour
conditions with the proposed Project. At the
Bayshore/U.S.tOt Southbound Hook
Ramps/Terrabay access intersection, PM peak
hour operation would remain LOS F, but volumes
would increase by less than two percent (1.1%). At
the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue/U.S.tOt Northbound On-Ramp
intersection, AM peak hour operation would
remain LOS F, but volumes would increase less
than two percent. However, during the PM peak
hour operation would also remain LOS F, but
volumes would increase by more than two percent
(2.t %), resulting in a significant impact at this
location. Project traffic would also produce a
significant impact during the PM peak hour at the
Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities
Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard intersection. Operation would remain
LOS F and volumes would increase by more than
two percent (2.6%).
These would be significant impacts.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 11-6
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities
Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard
Provide a proportionate share
contribution to the same mitigations
required of the Terrabay Phase III
development.
Re-stripe the northbound Airport
Boulevard approach to provide a
second left turn lane.
Reconfigure the eastbound Sister Cities
Boulevard approach to provide two
left turn lanes, an exclusive through
lane and a shared through/right turn
lane. Improvements to the eastbound
approach should also provide
adjustments to the north curb line of
Sister Cities Boulevard, if needed, to
allow safe turn movements, which will
be conducted by Project drivers.
Resultant Operation
PM Peak Hour LOS D-51.8 seconds
vehicle delay
The impact would be reduced to a less-than-
significant level.
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Significant and
Unavoidable
PAGE 2-19
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
Impact 11-9: Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing
Impacts. Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the
proposed project would result in significant 50th
percentile queuing impacts at two intersections
during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in
2020. Tables 11-9 and 11-tO show that the
proposed project would result in significant 95th
percentile queuing impacts at three intersections
during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in
2020.
50th Percentile Queue
AM PEAK HOUR
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue/V.S.tOt Northbound On-
Ramp
. The Dubuque Avenue northbound
approach left turn lane would
receive a :t4.4% increase in traffic
with unacceptable Base Case
queuing.
PM PEAK HOUR
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister
Boulevard/ Oyster
Boulevard/Airport
intersection.
Cities
Point
Boulevard
. The Oyster Point Boulevard
westbound approach through lanes
would receive a :t 4% increase in
traffic with unacceptable Base Case
queuing.
. The Oyster Point Boulevard
westbound approach left turn lane
would receive a :t4.1% increase in
traffic with unaccePtable Base Case
PAGE 2-20
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue/V.S.I0t Northbound On-Ramp
. There are no physical improvements
considered feasible at this intersection
by City of South San Francisco
Engineering Division staff to improve
operation to the Base Case conditions
or better.
The impact would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure 11-9A: 50th Percentile Queue
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities
Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard (same improvements as for level of
service)
. Provide two left turn lanes on the
eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard
approach.
. Stripe a second left turn lane on the
northbound Airport Boulevard
approach.
These measures will not reduce unacceptable
westbound through and left turn lane queuing to
acceptable levels.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue/V.S.tOt Northbound On-Ramp
. There are no physical improvements
considered feasible at this intersection
by City of South San Francisco
Engineering Division staff to reduce
Project queuing impacts to the Base
Case conditions.
Impacts would remain signifICant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure 11-9B: 95th Percentile Queue
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities
Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard (same improvements as for level of
service)
. Reconfigure the eastbound Sister
Cities Boulevard approach to provide
two left turn lanes, an exclusive
through lane and a combined
through/right turn lane.
. Stripe a second left turn lane on the
northbound Airport Boulevard
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Significant and
Unavoidable
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Potential Environmental Impacts
queumg.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue/U.S.IOl Northbound On-
Ramp
. The Dubuque Avenue northbound
approach left tum/ through lanes
would receive a :!: 6.2% increase in
traffic with unacceptable Base Case
queuing.
95th Percentile Queue
AM PEAK HOUR
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue/V.S.IOl Northbound On-
Ramp
. The Dubuque Avenue northbound
approach left turn lane and
combined through/left turn lanes
would receive a 7.2% increase in
traffic with unacceptable Base Case
queuing.
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister
Boulevard/ Oyster
Boulevard/Airport
intersection.
Cities
Point
Boulevard
. The Bayshore Boulevard
southbound approach left turn lane
would receive a 4.1 % increase in
traffic with unacceptable Base Case
queuing. In addition, the Oyster
Point Boulevard westbound
approach left turn lane would have
a demand increased beyond the
available storage with the addition
of project traffic.
PM PEAK HOUR
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister
Boulevard/ Oyster
Boulevard/Airport
intersection.
Cities
Point
Boulevard
. The Oyster Point Boulevard
westbound approach through lanes
would receive a :!: 4% increase in
traffic with unacceptable Base Case
quewng.
. The Oyster Point Boulevard
westbound aooroach left turn lane
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommended Mitigation Measures
approach.
These measures would not reduce unacceptable
westbound through and left turn lane queuing to
acceptable levels.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue/U.S.I01 Northbound On-Ramp
. There are no physical improvements
considered feasible at this intersection
by City of South San Francisco staff to
reduce project queuing impacts to
Base Case conditions.
Bayshore Boulevard/U .S.lOl
Ramps/Terrabay Access
Southbound
. Provide a fair share contribution
toward lengthening the Bayshore
Boulevard southbound approach left
turn lane (from 350 to 550 feet) in
conjunction with Terrabay providing
an additional lane on the eastbound
intersection approach. The impact at
this intersection would be reduced to a
less-than-significant level.
Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Resulting
Level of
Significance
PAGE 2-21
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
would receive a :t 4.1 % increase in
traffic with unacceptable Base Case
queumg.
. The Bayshore Boulevard
southbound approach left turn lane
would receive a :t8.1 % increase in
traffic with unacceptable Base Case
queumg.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue/V.S.tOt Northbound On-
Ramp
. The Dubuque A venue northbound
approach left turn and combined
through/left turn lanes would
receive a :t 6.2% increase in traffic
with unacceptable Base Case
queumg.
Bayshore Boulevard/U .S. tOt
Southbound Ramps/Terrabay North
Access
. The off-ramp lanes would receive a
2.1 % increase in traffic with
unacceptable Base Case queuing.
These would be significant impacts.
Impact 11-tO: Project Access Impacts. The
proposed Project would have three driveway
connections to Dubuque Avenue. The north and
central driveway connections would be in the same
locations as driveways now sel'VlIlg Levitz
furniture. The Home Depot southerly driveway
would be in the same location as Levitz's most
southerly driveway. The existing Levitz fourth
driveway connection to Dubuque Avenue just
north of the Levitz southerly driveway would be
eliminated. Speeds along Dubuque Avenue
adjacent to the Project site range from 35 to 45
miles per hour.
The north Home Depot driveway would be 30 feet
wide, allowing one inbound and outbound lane.
The existing :t150-foot-Iong left turn lane on the
southbound Dubuque Avenue approach to this
intersection would be maintained. It would
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 11-tO:
Left Turn Lane
. Revise the Project site plan layout in the vicinity
of the central driveway in order to widen
Dubuque Avenue sufficiendy to provide a
southbound left turn lane at least 75 and
preferably 100 feet long.
Sight Lines
. Provide low height landscaping along the site's
entire Dubuque Avenue frontage that will allow
permanent sight lines of at least 360 feet in
both directions from each Project driveway.
. The City of South San Francisco shall post
speed limit signs of 30 to 35 miles per hour
along Dubuque Avenue in the vicinity of Home
Depot for both travel directions.
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Less than
Significant
I Intersection Channelization Design Guide, Transportation Research Board Report 279, November 1985-see Appendix
B.
2 American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials.
PAGE 2-22
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Potential Environmental Impacts
provide storage for about SIX to seven autos.
Dubuque Avenue has two northbound through
lanes and one southbound through lane at this
location. However, on-street parking IS now
allowed adjacent to the Home Depot site between
the north and central driveways. If this parking is
occupied, northbound flow is limited to a single
lane.
The central Home Depot driveway would be 30
feet wide, also allowing one wide inbound and
outbound lane. No left turn lane is proposed on
the southbound Dubuque Avenue approach to this
intersection. Dubuque Avenue is 26 feet wide just
south of this driveway and widens to 38 feet just
north of this driveway.
The southerly Home Depot driveway would be 57
feet wide, allowing adequate room for truck turn
movements. No left turn lane is proposed on the
southbound Dubuque Avenue approach to the
intersection. Dubuque A venue is 26 feet wide in
the vicinity of this driveway.
Turn Lane Storage Requirement
Evaluation has been conducted to determine
whether the existing 150-foot left turn lane on the
southbound approach to the northerly Home
Depot driveway would provide adequate storage
for expected demand. Based upon two separate
methodologies, by 2020 the 95th percentile queue
would not be expected to exceed three to four
vehicles. The existing turn pocket, with room for
SIX to seven vehicles, would provide adequate
storage for this demand.
Methodology #1
Estimation of Maximum Queue Lengths at Unsignalized
Intersections, by John T. Gard, ITE Journal,
November 2001-see Appendix B.
95th percentile queue = AM Peak: 3 car lengths
PM Peak: 3 car lengths
Methodology #2
Number of vehicles, on average, arriving each two
minutes.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommended Mitigation Measures
.
Prohibit left turns out of the northerly Home
Depot driveway.
The City of South San Francisco shall prohibit
on-street parking along the Project's entire
Dubuque Avenue frontage.
If needed, consider provision of "all way stop"
control at the Project's central driveway
intersection.
.
.
These measures would reduce the Project's impact to
a level that is less than significant.
Resulting
Level of
Significance
PAGE 2-23
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential Environmental Impacts
95th percentile queue = AM Peak: 2 car lengths
PM Peak: 4 car lengths
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Turn Lane Warrants
The Home Depot southerly driveway would never
have volume levels warranting the provision of a
left turn lane. However, by 2020 PM, peak hour
volumes at the central Home Depot driveway
would be exceeding warrant criteria 1 for the
provision of a southbound left turn lane. AM peak
volumes in 2020 would also be approaching
warrant criteria levels.
This would be a significant impact.
Sight Lines at Project Driveway
Connections to Dubuque Avenue
Vehicle speeds along Dubuque Avenue adjacent to
the Project site range from 35 to 45 miles per hour.
Minimum stopping sight distances for travel speeds
of 40 and 45 miles per hour are 305 and 360 feet,
respectively, based upon guidelines in A Poliry on
Geometric Design of Highwf!Ys and Street, 2004.2 Both
the central and northerly Home Depot driveways
will connect to Dubuque Avenue on the inside of a
curve. This will require that direct line of site
between drivers on Dubuque A venue and vehicles
exiting the Project site at both driveways extend
through landscaping along the site frontage. This
presents the possibility that landscaping may
interfere with required sight lines. Adequate sight
lines do not exist to allow for cars to safely turn left
from the northern driveway. In addition, if on-
street parking between the Project's central and
northerly driveway IS occupied, these parked
vehicles may also interfere with minimum required
sight lines.
This would be a significant impact.
Impact 11-11: On Site Circulation. The Project
Site Plan by Greenberg Farrow shows all internal
parking aisles will be 25 feet wide and serve 90-
degree parking. This meets City code criteria and
good traffic engineering practice. The central
driveway is channelized well into the site and
should operate acceptably with customer traffic.
PAGE 2-24
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 11-11
. Revise the parking lot layout to provide at least
three and preferably fow: car lengths
channelization and storage for inbound vehicles
at the north Project driveway (15 to 100 feet)
before the first internal intersection. Two
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Less than
Significant
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Potential Environmental Impacts
The southerly driveway will be used primarily by
delivery trucks and a truck maneuvering area to
back into unloading docks is provided just internal
to the site. This area should also function
acceptably assuming it is marked as a truck
unloading/ employee parking area only.
The site plan also shows, however, two internal
locations which, as designed, will produce
significant safety and operational concerns.
Location one is just internal to the parking lot at
the northerly Project driveway (which is Projected
to be the busiest site driveway). Inbound drivers
have only one and a half car lengths of
channelization between Dubuque Avenue and the
first internal parking aisle intersection before being
confronted with a decision to make a left or right
turn. Flow into parking aisles leading towards the
entrance to the store is offset to the left and right.
This will lead to driver confusion and delay even
before taking into account outbound traffic
maneuvering from the various parking aisles to get
onto Dubuque Avenue. An inbound driver that
needs to stop immediately upon entering the site
could result in the next inbound vehicle extending
onto Dubuque Avenue. This first internal
intersection would be very difficult to adequately
stop sign control and would result in significant
safety and operational concerns.
Location two is in the northern section of the
parking garage where the ramp serving the second
level parking comes to ground level parallel to
another parking aisle 20 feet to the west. A third
parking aisle also joins into this area. As with
location one above, providing sign control for safe
vehicle movements in this northern area will be
difficult.
These would be significant impacts.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommended Mitigation Measures
.
inbound lanes at least 75 feet long would be
preferable. Design the first internal intersection
such that diagonal movements to access
another parking aisle are not possible.
Provide a striping/ signing plan acceptable to
the City of South San Francisco Chief Planner
and City Engineer to acceptably control
vehicular movements at the parking
aisle/second floor ramp intersection area on
the ground floor in the northern part of the
parking garage.
Implementation of these measures will reduce the
impacts to a levelless-than-significant.
Resulting
Level of
Significance
PAGE 2-25
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 2-26
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CONDITIONS
The Project site is part of the City of South San Francisco's East of 101 Planning Area. The area
consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land, and is bounded by San Francisco Bay on the east side,
Highway 101 and railway lines on the west, the City of Brisbane on the north, and San Francisco
International Airport on the south. The area is mosdy developed and has a mix of land uses,
including industry, warehousing, retail, offices, hotels, marinas, and bioscience research and
development facilities.
The Project site is a 7.62 acre parcel located at 900 Dubuque Avenue in the northwest portion of
the East of 101 area, and is bounded on the west and north by Dubuque Avenue and Highway
101, on the south by single story office buildings and services, and to the east by Southern
Pacific Railroad line rights-of-way. The Project site's location is shown in Figure 3-1. The site
is currendy developed with a 156,637 square foot building occupied by Levitz SL San Francisco,
which operates a furniture store and warehouse. There is an abandoned railroad spur which once
served the warehouse portion of the Levitz located at the rear of the building, which will be
removed prior to site construction. The site is relatively level and slopes away from the building
entrance towards the northeast corner of the site. Site vegetation consists of native, mature trees
and overgrown bushes and shrubs. A number of eucalyptus trees, varying in size from 10" to
36" in diameter, and redwood trees, varying in size from 1 0" to 30" in diameter, as well as a 24"
diameter cypress tree are dispersed throughout the site. Most natural features are gone because
of the existing commercial use.
3.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project would involve the demolition of an existing 156,637 square foot Levitz
Furniture building and the construction of a 101,272 square foot Home Depot home
improvement warehouse, an adjoining 24,522 square foot Garden Center, and a two-level
parking structure providing 426 parking spaces. Located on a 7.62 acre parcel, the building lot
coverage would be 38.0%.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 3-1
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Goals and Objectives
As part of its application, the applicant provided the City of South San Francisco with the
following list of Proposed Project Goals and Objectives:
. To satisfy the home improvement market needs of both do-it-yourself customers and local
contractors in South San Francisco and the surrounding area by offering Home Depot's
complete range of home improvement services and products;
. To construct the proposed store on a site that is of sufficient size to provide adequate
parking and loading spaces to meet projected customer demand and operational needs;
. To construct the proposed store with convenient freeway and roadway access, with
reasonable access characteristics to provide safe and efficient customer, contractor, and
delivery vehicle ingress and egress;
. To provide a source of significant new sales tax revenue to South San Francisco;
. To provide new retail employment opportunities to residents of South San Francisco and
surrounding areas; and
. To comply with the objectives of the General Plan, the City Planning Code and all applicable
codes, plans, and ordinances of South San Francisco.
In regards to the last objective, the project would be successful in meeting several goals and
policies outlined in the City of South San Francisco General Plan, and more specifically, the
East of 101 Area Plan. According to General Plan Policy 3.5-G-4, the East of 101 Area Plan is
the guide for detailed implementation of General Plan policies in the East of 101 Area. A more
detailed analysis of the Project's consistency with the General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan
are included in Chapter 8: Land Use. However, a few of the notable policies of the East of 101
Area Plan it would meet include:
Policy LU-2: the Project would enhance property values, and increase property tax revenues, in
the area, and generate a significant new source of sales tax revenue.
Policy LU-24: the Project would provide a new retail use not only for local residents, but for
employees of the East of 101 Area.
Policy DE-3: the Project would include streetscape improvements to Dubuque Avenue, which
the City has recognized as having special visual importance
PAGE 3-2
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
o
I
t
2000
I
Feet
Figure 3-1
Project Site Location
~
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory I
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 3-4
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Demolition
Following approximately 4-8 weeks of environmental remediation work, demolition of the
existing Levitz Building would begin. While the applicant has yet to extensively consult with or
hire a demolition contractor, it is expected that demolition activities would last approximately 4
weeks.
Construction
Building construction would be of the tilt-up variety and would immediately follow the
completion of demolition activities. Site grading and building pad activities are estimated to take
about 6-8 weeks, and would involve 1,200 cu yards of cut and 1,200 cu yards of fill, with a total
import of 11,400 cu yards and total export of 4,500 cu yards. This would be followed by
building and site work, which would be completed in approximately 40 weeks.
Building Characteristics and Architecture
The Project perimeter wall would be 28'-0" high, with a cornice and an accentuated entrance
area at 38'-0" high. Architectural features, such as decorative pilasters at the Garden Center,
accent cornice and earth toned paint color would be added to the elevations to create depth and
attempt to reduce the building to pedestrian scale. Roof top mechanical equipment would be
screened by the raised building parapet walls. The transformer, emergency generator, and pallet
storage would be located in a 6' tall masonry enclosure located at the rear of the store, which
would not be visible from the street.
Parking Structure
The parking structure would be 29'-6" tall at its highest point, with ivy planted along the
columns facing Dubuque Avenue, Interstate 101, and the Gateway Business Park to the east so
as to soften the look.
Landscaping
The Project would include extensive landscaping designed to conform with East of 101 Area
Plan Policy DE-55 and to exceed landscape development standards outlined in Section
13.30.100 of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, and would include landscape
islands, planters, and berms along Dubuque Avenue to buffer the parking lot from the street.
The Project Site Plan is shown in Figure 3-2.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
PAGE 3-5
3.3 REQUIRED APPROVALS
The EIR will be used to provide decision makers and the general public with relevant
environmental information to use in considering approval of the Project. The following
approvals would be required:
1. Use Permit
2. Type C Sign Permit
3. Planned Unit Development Permit
4. Design Review
5. Transportation Demand Management Plan
6. Demolition Permit
7. Building Permits
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
PAGE 3-6
z
o
i=
a..
~
u
en
w
o
t)
w
....,
o
c::
a.
('t:l
c::
~
a..
<{
:I:
U
.llt
~ !i z
0
~
Gi
-'
I.J..I
j.....
+
@
-'
w
Gj
-'
~
U
I.J..I
Cl
CI
z
i:
D::
0:
3, . ;
~~a. '~'1~~1~~''.~~:~~' \i:.
::j~l!t .1'.11 ,..,.. 01"1 ~.~
(~~ ~ \\ 3..::....:m ~3
~~
. .-- r h
.Y. ..
. ~..
0:::
jj]
o
w
en
::J
U
~
t
~
o
I
I-
U
w
a
0::
a.
I-
o
D..
W
o
w
:!:
o
:r:
I!
wi li!l
!iIiJ Ii
~ ~ i.l~~1If
~ ~ i I~IIl",1!
I ~ D oal!
(;l ~~i I
~ Et'"
IEll
.. ",Ii!
.,
~v
ll.!
I '"
I-l:;lo.lo. '"
o UlUl -
fu ~~~ U~I '"
", ::>
I
QeN~ I;t !~ ill
~ ~ ...
I!! II..;
~ I~ ~!~ r
i ID
~a~ ~~ '"
EI \
I \
...
~
c. j I .,.:,,, ~.:;:.:;-;r.');
c.u.. ~..t1 till 'lI'D tel:.'!J(I"....llp;, l"rt:Q h1:U.u~d
t....~.~.'.~.~...8. . ~.~. "!'flt.:;: ,~':~~1'r. ~lJ'~ ~'~.:-:~r:.;" III
..... .. I!" r,il'.l .._r.IJ..~.1 '.t.. J I.. i t
Hi Iii!
~
W
.....I
<{
U
en
o
~
b
z
I~~i
=lli
i 1~8~
",=~l5ti
=e"'j"
IS ~!;i~
~ !;Ii~
~ =;ill
!I;ii
"
~ ;
U
i;
.II
.!;[
i.
Ii
: 'L~
'"
! ~
... 'lmlo!!
.-. ~r.Bl
"
.1
I'
I
... 'Wi\.\:!
,.......-...
i l-.d.........
~
I
!
...~
'..lmoS
1,","__
-"'-..-..- ..__.._.---~
JOdIO &WOH :lSS . !i~!l~rpa!aJdI:"I
~ ~
wa.
0:: w
::J l-
t!) -
-en
u. I-
U
w
a
0::
a.
:=
g
III
U.
III
.D
C
III
l!!
t!)
~
='
bJ
CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY
4
AIR QUALITY
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This section examines the degree to which the proposed Project may result in significant adverse
changes to air quality. Both short-term construction emissions occurring from activities such as
site grading, as well as long-term effects related to the ongoing operation of the proposed
Project are discussed. The analysis contained herein focuses on air pollution from two
perspectives: daily emissions and pollutant concentrations. "Emissions" refers to the actual
quantity of pollutant, measured in pounds per day. "Concentrations" refers to the amount of
pollutant material per volumetric unit of air. Concentrations are measured in parts per million
(pPM) or micrograms per cubic meter (f-Lg/m3).
South San Francisco enjoys generally good air quality due largely to the presence of the San
Bruno Gap, a break in the Santa Cruz Mountains that allows onshore winds with cool Pacific air
to flow easily into San Francisco Bay and quickly disperse air pollutants. As a result, winds are
usually from the west. There are periods in fall and winter where winds tend to flow from
easterly or southerly directions.
Within South San Francisco, certain areas of the city are more likely to result in elevated air
pollutant exposure for residents and workers. These areas include the U.S. Highway 101,
Interstate 280, and EI Camino Real corridors, which experience relatively high pollutant
concentrations due to heavy traffic volumes, particularly during peak periods. Winds blowing
out of the south and southeast expose the city to emissions from the San Francisco International
Airport and the industrial areas that are east of US Highway 101.
4.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Air quality management responsibilities exist at local, State and federal levels of government. Air
quality management planning programs developed during the past decade have generally been in
response to requirements established by the federal Clean Air Act. However, the enactment of
the California Clean Air Act of 1988 has produced additional changes in the structure and
administration of air quality management programs in the State. South San Francisco is located
within the nine county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Air quality in the basin is monitored
by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which operates a regional
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 4-1
CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY
network of air pollution monitoring stations to determine if the national and State standards for
criteria air pollutants and emission limits of toxic air contaminants are being achieved.
Under the federal Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) classifies air
basins or portion thereof as in "attainment" or "nonattainment". Where there is insufficient
monitoring data to classify an area, but that area likely is in attainment, EP A uses the
classification "unclassified". These classifications are based on whether or not the basin meets
national ambient air quality standards. Likewise, a basin is classified under the California Clean
Air Act with respect to the achievement of State ambient air quality standards.
Areas that do not violate ambient air quality standards are considered to have attained the
standard. Violations of ambient air quality standards are based on air pollutant monitoring data
and are judged for each air pollutant. The Bay Area as a whole does not meet State or federal
ambient air quality standards for ground level ozone (03) and State standards for respirable
particulate matter (PMlO)'
The EP A has designated the region as moderate nonattainment for ground level 03' The region
has developed and updated plans to achieve this standard. Recently, the EP A recognized that
the region has not violated the 1-hour 03 standard over the last three years (2000-2003) and has
proposed to redesignate the Bay Area as a maintenance area. Since then, the EP A revoked the
1-hour ozone standard (in June 2005). However, EPA has recently classified the region as
marginally nonattainment for the newer more stringent 8-hour 03 standard. EP A requires the
region to adopt a plan that will bring it into attainment with that standard by 2007. The most
recent monitoring data (2002-2004) indicate that the Bay Area may be in attainment of this new
8-hour standard. The Bay Area has met the CO standards for over a decade and is classified
attainment maintenance by the EP A. The EP A grades the region unclassified for all other air
pollutants, which include PMlO and PM2.S'
At the State level, the region is considered serious nonattainment for ground level 03 and non-
attainment for PMlO. California ambient air quality standards are more stringent than the
national ambient air quality standards. The region is required to adopt plans on a triennial basis
that show progress towards meeting the State 03 standard. The area is considered attainment or
unclassified for all other pollutants.
In 1991, the Bay Area 1991 Clean Air Plan was developed to address the State requirements of
the California Clean Air Act. The Plan has been updated three times, in 1994, 1997 and 2000,
with the continued goal of improving air quality through tighter industry controls, cleaner fuels,
and combustion in cars and trucks, and increased commute alternatives. An update to the plan
is expected later this year.
4.3 AIR QUALITY DATA
The BAAQMD monitors air quality at several locations within the San Francisco Air Basin,
although none are located in South San Francisco. The monitoring sites closest to the Project
PAGE 4-2
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY
site are located in San Francisco and Redwood City. Table 4-1 summarizes exceedances of the
state and federal standards at these two sites over the last five years. The table shows that most
of the ambient air quality standards are met in the Project area with the exception of the state
standard for PMIO and ozone.
TABLE 4-1
Air Quality Data Summary for San Francisco and Redwood City, 2000-2004
Monitoring Days Exceedinq Standard
Pollutant Standard Station 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0
NAAQS 1-hr Redwood City 0 0 0 0 0
BA AREA 3 1 2 1 0
San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0
03 NAAQS 8-hr Redwood City 0 0 0 0 0
BA AREA 4 7 7 7 0
San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0
CAAQS 1-hr Redwood City 0 1 0 1 1
BA AREA 12 15 16 19 7
San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0
NAAQS 24-hr Redwood City 0 0 0 0 0
BA AREA 0 0 0 0 0
PM,o
San Francisco 2 7 2 1 1
CAAQS 24-hr Redwood City 1 4 1 0 1
BA AREA 7 10 6 6 7
San Francisco 0 4 0 0
PM2.5 NAAQS 24-hr Redwood City 0 0 0 0
BA AREA 1 5 5 0 1
All Other San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0
(CO. N02. All Other Redwood City 0 0 0 0 0
Lead. S02) BA AREA 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2005.
4.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a Project's environmental impacts are based on CEQA
Guidelines thresholds:
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 4-3
CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY
1. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan? The criteria is further defined as follows:
- If the Project shows an estimated population greater than assumed in the Clean Air
Plan (as defined in ABAG Projections), then it would be inconsistent with air quality
planning, and would be deemed to have a significant air quality impact.
- If the Project shows a growth rate in vehicle miles traveled (VMl) higher than the
population growth rate, it would be considered to be hindering progress toward
achieving a substantial reduction in the rate of increase in passenger vehicle trips and
miles traveled. Therefore, it would be considered inconsistent with regional air quality
planning, and deemed to have a significant air quality impact.
- The consistency of the Project with Clean Air Plan Transportation Control Measures
(fCMs) must also be considered in evaluating air quality effects associated with
implementation of the Project. If the Project does not demonstrate reasonable efforts
to implement the TCMs identified in the Clean Air Plan, then it would be considered
to be inconsistent with the CAP and deemed to have a significant air quality impact.
2. Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or Projected air quality violation?
3. Would the Project 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 qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
4. Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
5. Would the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
CONFliCT WITH AIR QUALITY PLAN PROJECTIONS
The amount of development associated with the proposed Project is consistent with the
intensity of development for the Project site foreseen in the South San Francisco General Plan,
which was published in 1999. This Project falls within the East of 101 Area, which is actually an
aggregation of four sub-areas in the General Plan Land Use Element and encompasses all the
land within City limits east of Highway 101. This Project is zoned "Planned Commercial" under
this planning sub-area. The city's General Plan designations, and future land use types and
intensities, would have been taken into account during preparation of the BAAQMD's most
recent Clean Air Plan, released in 2000. The Project would therefore be consistent with, and
have no impact on, the Clean Air Plan. Furthermore, commercial Projects of this type tend to
serve the needs of communities and not create additional population or vehicle travel.
PAGE 4-4
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY
Clean Air Plan Transportation Control Measures
Impact 4-1 Implementation of TCMs. Determining consistency with the Clean Air
Plan also involves assessing whether Transportation Control Measures
(fCMs) are implemented. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines identifies
seven TCMs (fCM numbers 1, 9, 12, 15, 17, 19 and 20) that Cities and
Counties are identified among the implementing agencies. At the Project
level, the City along with the Project applicant would be required to
implement the following TCMs:
TCM#l
Support Voluntary Employer-Based Trip Reduction
Programs
TCM#9
Improve Bicycle Access and Facilities
TCM#12
Improve Arterial Traffic Management
TCM#19
Pedestrian Travel
The Project does not include specific measures that are consistent with
applicable TCMs identified in the Clean Air Plan. This is a potentially
significant impact. Under the General Plan policies, the Project would be
required to implement a Transportation Demand Management (fDM) plan
to reduce Project trips. This would in turn reduce air pollutant emissions. If
appropriate TCMs are included in the TDP plan, then the Project would be
consistent with the Clean Air Plan TCMs and the impact would be less-than-
significant.
Mitigation
Measure 4-1
Traffic Demand Management. The Project will be required to develop a
Transportation Demand Management (fDM) plan since it would generate
more than 100 new vehicle trips per day (approximately 185 new trips during
the AM peak hour and 350 new trips during the PM peak hour, per Table 11-
15B), which is a significant impact (Impact 11-1). The TDM plan shall
include the following components so that the Project would reasonably
implement applicable TCMs:
1. TDM#l - Support shuttle service to BART and Caltrain. There are
currently shuttles that serve employers in the area. The Project shall
become a sponsoring employer so that shuttles would serve the site,
providing employees an alternative mode of commuting.
2. TDM#9 - Provide bicycle amenities so that employees and customers
can bicycle to the Project. Such amenities shall include safe onsite bicycle
access and convenient storage (bike racks). Amenities for employees
shall include secure bicycle parking, lockers, and shower facilities.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 4-5
CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY
3. TDM#12 - The Applicant and City shall work to improve traffic
operations at intersections serving the Project that are predicted to
operate at congested levels. Such improvements shall include lane
striping, signal timing adjustments, and additional turn lane capacity.
4. TDM#19 - The Project shall include sidewalks with shade trees that
provide safe and convenient access to the Project and any shutde or
future bus stops that serve the Project (see TDM#l above).
The final TDM Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the San Mateo City/County
Association of Governments (C/CAG) and the City's Chief Planner.
With the implementation of appropriate TCMs, impacts related to consistency with the Clean
Air Plan would be reduced to a less than significant level.
AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Impact 4-2
Construction Dust. Construction activity involves a high potential for the
emission of air pollutants. Construction activities would generate exhaust
emissions from vehicles/equipment and fugitive particulate matter emissions
that would affect local air quality. This would be a potentially significant
impact.
Construction activities would temporarily affect local air quality, causing a
temporary increase in particulate dust and other pollutants. Dust emission
during periods of construction would increase particulate concentrations at
neighboring properties. This impact is potentially significant, but normally
mitigatible.
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines' provide thresholds of significance for au:
quality impacts. The BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction
dust impacts are based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls.
The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction
emissions of PMlO. If the appropriate construction controls are to be
implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would
be considered less than significant.
Another source of construction impacts would be exhaust emissions from
construction vehicles. Diesel particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, an
ozone precursor pollutant, are the two primary pollutants that are of concern
from construction exhaust. Diesel particulate matter can lead to localized
1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 (Revised 1999).
PAGE 4-6
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY
impacts; however, sensitive receptors are not located near the Project site.
Emissions of nitrogen oxides can contribute to higher ozone levels at
downwind areas in the Bay Area. The BAAQMD calculates region-wide
construction exhaust emissions of ozone precursor pollutants (nitrogen
oxides and reactive organic gases) in air quality planning efforts to attain and
maintain ambient air quality standards. Therefore, quantitative analyses of
these construction emissions are not recommended by the BAAQMD unless
the lead agency believes there would be unusually large or intensive activities.
The BAAQMD does recommend that lead agencies consider mitigation
measures to reduce construction exhaust emissions.
Mitigation
Measure 4-2
Dust Suppression Procedures and measures to reduce exhaust. The
following is a list of feasible control measures that the BAAQMD
recommends for construction emissions of PMlO at Project sites greater than
4 acres. In addition, the BAAQMD recommends construction Projects
include measures to reduce exhaust emissions. The following measures will
utilized to the extent possible.
1. Sprinkle water on all active construction areas at least twice daily, and
more often when conditions warrant.
2. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose materials, or require all
trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
3. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on
all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction
sites.
4. Sweep all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at
construction sites on a daily basis.
5. Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public
streets.
6. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction
areas.
7. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to
exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
8. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 4-7
CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY
9. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff
to public roadways.
10. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
11. The applicant shall be required to ensure that removal or disturbance of
any materials contains asbestos, lead paint or other hazardous pollutants
during renovation and demolition activities, will be conducted in
accordance with BAAQMD rules and regulations.
12. The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible
to avoid the need for independendy powered equipment (e.g.,
compressors) .
13. Diesel equipment standing idle for more than two minutes shall be
turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil,
aggregate or other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could
keep their engines running continuously as long as they were on site.
14. Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions.
Prior to the issuance of any permit, the applicant shall submit a construction plan that includes
measures to reduce air quality impacts and documentation that the BAAQMD has issued a
permit. The plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief Building Official
and City Engineer.
Implementation of construction controls will reduce air pollutant emtsstons associated with
construction activities to a level less than significant.
Violate Air Quality Standards
Carbon monoxide emissions from traffic generated by the Project would be the pollutant of
greatest concern at the local level. The intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and Dubuque
Avenue would be affected by the Project and include a combination of high traffic volumes and
congestion. Congested intersections with a large volume of traffic have the greatest potential to
cause high localized concentrations of carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide concentrations
would be the highest at this interchange. There are 1- and 8-hour standards for carbon
monoxide. The 8-hour standard is the most stringent and is always exceeded if the l-hour
standard is exceeded. Therefore, this analysis evaluated impacts against the 8-hour standard.
Carbon monoxide concentrations were modeled using screening methods recommended by the
BAAQMD that are based on the Caline4 Line-Source dispersion model. This method uses
traffic volumes, emissions, meteorology, and the roadway/receptor geometry. For this
assessment, meteorological conditions most conducive for high carbon monoxide
concentrations in the Bay Area, peak-hour traffic conditions (i.e., evening period), slow traffic
PAGE 4-8
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY
speeds and emission factors generated by the California Air Resources Board emission factor
model (i.e., EMF AC2002) were used as input to the model. Modeled concentrations were added
to background levels to predict total carbon monoxide concentrations. The contribution from
US Highway 101 traffic was included in this assessment since the intersection is only about 200
feet from the nearest freeway lanes. The screening method is designed to be a conservative
method of determining whether or not a Project may cause exceedances of the carbon
monoxide air quality standard. If the screening method predicts significant levels, than a more-
refIned analysis may be conducted that would more accurately predict carbon monoxide levels,
which would likely be lower.
As shown in Table 4-2, the screening analysis indicates that existing 8-hour Carbon Monoxide
Levels are currently below California Ambient Air Quality Standards. Predicted 8-hour Carbon
Monoxide Levels with the Project in place under near-term (2006) and future Project conditions
(in 2020) are predicted to remain below California ambient air quality standards. As a result, the
impact on local air quality resulting from the Project is considered to be less-than-signijicant.
TABLE 4-2
PREDICTED 8-HOUR WORST CASE CARBON MONOXIDE LEVELS (IN PPM)
2006 2020
2005 Base Conditions Base Conditions
DescriDtion Existinq with Proiect with Proiect
Oyster Point Boulevard and Contribution from:
Dubuque Avenue w/adjacent I ntersection- 3.6 PPM 4.3 PPM 1.6 PPM
freeway Freeway (S 101)- 1.2 PPM 0.9 PPM 0.3 PPM
Background- 2.8 PPM 2.8 PPM 2.5 PPM
Total: 7.6 PPM 8.0PPM 4.4 PPM
Significance Thresholds 9.0 PPM for 8-hour exposure
(CAAQS)
CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE IMPACTS
The Project would generate new emissions through new regional vehicle trips. The BAAQMD
has developed criteria to determine if a development Project could result in potentially
significant regional emissions. The District recommends the use of the URBEMIS2002 model
to quantify the emissions associated with new Projects.
Based on Crane Transportation Group's estimate of 4,690 daily two way trips to and from the
Project site, URBEMIS2002 Model calculations were performed in order to determine whether
the Project would exceed air emissions thresholds for ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and
NO,) or PMlO. Emissions thresholds are 80 pounds per day for ROG, NOx' or PM1o' The
threshold for CO is 550 pounds per day, but it only applies to stationary sources (e.g., power
plants); and therefore, does not apply to this Project. Calculated emissions are shown in Table
4-3. Model output is contained in Appendix C along with the results of the screening level CO
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 4-9
CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY
modeling calculations. The Project's emissions for ROG, NOx, and PMlO are calculated to be
below the significance threshold. This would be a less than significant impact.
TABLE 4-3
DAILY REGIONAL AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY)
Reactive Organic Nitrogen Particulate Matter
Description Gases (ROG) Oxides (NOx) (PMlO)
Area Sources (e.g., water and
space heating) 0.2 1.2 <0.1
Motor vehicle sources 35.0 41.9 36.7
Total 35.2 lbs 43.1 lbs 36.7 lbs
BAAQMD Significance Thresholds 80 Ibs 80 Ibs 80 Ibs
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population
groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These
land uses include residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, retirement homes,
convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics.
The closest sensitive receptors would be homes opposite the freeway over 300 feet west of the
proposed Project site, and two childcare facilities on Gateway Boulevard, about 400 yards
southeast of the Project site. However, the homes are located upwind from the Project site, and
are separated from the site by u.s. 101. The childcare facilities, while located downwind from
the Project site, are separated from the site by several large buildings, and are located a far
enough distance away that any materials or operational emissions that might be generated on the
project site would not represent a significant air quality impact.
Project construction activities would lead to the emission of construction dust and exhaust, the
impact of which would be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of
Mitigation Measure 4-2. Project operational air quality impacts would be less than
significant.
ODORS
During construction the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would
create odors. These odors would be temporary and not likely to be noticeable much beyond the
Project site's boundaries. The potential for diesel odor impacts is therefore less than
significant. Operational activities from these types of land uses do not produce objectionable
odors that normally extend beyond their site boundaries; therefore, less than significant.
PAGE 4-10
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
5
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The following section describes the Geology, Soils and Seismicity of the Project area. The
information presented below was drawn from several sources of data including: (1) Preliminary
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the proposed Project site completed by The
Twinning Laboratories, Inc. Ganuary 11,2005); (2) Geotechnical Feasibility Study, 900 Dubuque
Avenue, South San Francisco prepared by Treadwell and Rollo (August 8, 2002); (3) Review of
USGS Open File Reports (OFR) of the area, including a map of the bedrock geology (USGS
OFR 98-354, 1998), Quaternary Geologic Map, including liquefaction susceptibility (USGS OFR
97-715, 1997), and Landslide Map (USGS OFR 97-745 C); (4) Review of Official California
Geological Survey (formerly the California Division of Mines and Geology- CDMG) Maps,
including the South San Francisco Quadrangle Alquist-Priolo (A-P) Earthquake Fault Zone Map
(1982), and the Fault Activity Map of California (1994); (5) Review of government websites,
including the Association of Bay Area Government's (ABAG) web site (www.abag.gov) for a
summary of hazards ranging from liquefaction to seismic landsliding; and (6) Review of the East
of 101 Area Plan of the City of South San Francisco, as well as all other applicable ordinances
and regulations.
5.2 SETTING
Regional Seismicity
The site lies in the tectonically active Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province of northern
California, on the east side of the San Francisco Peninsula. Development of the northwest
trending ridges and valleys in the vicinity, including the Santa Cruz Mountains, and San
Francisco Bay, are controlled by active tectonism along the boundary between the North
American and Pacific Tectonic Plates, the San Andreas Fault System. Area faults have
predominantly right-lateral strike-slip (horizontal) movement, with lesser dip-slip (vertical)
components of displacement. Horizontal and vertical movement is distributed on the various
fault strands within a fault zone. Throughout geologic time the fault strands experiencing active
deformation change in response to regional shifts in stress and strain from plate motions.
Within 15 miles of the Project site there are three major active faults that display large right-
lateral strike-slip offsets, the San Andreas fault, the San Gregorio fault, and the Hayward fault.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 5-1
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The nearest active fault zones to the site are the San Andreas fault, located 3.4 miles to the
southwest, the San Gregorio Fault (Seal Cove fault), located approximately 12 miles to the
southwest, and the Hayward Fault, located approximately 15.5 miles to the northeast. The
nearest potentially active fault (showing evidence of Quaternary movement, or movement within
the past 1.6 million years) is the San Bruno fault, located approximately 1.4 miles southwest of
the site. The nearest geologic fault (not mapped as active or potentially active) is the Hillside
fault, mapped as crossing the subject property just to the north of the current Levitz Furniture
building location.
Seismicity of the Project region has resulted in several major earthquakes during the historic
period, including the 1868 Hayward Earthquake, the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, and most
recendy, the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake (CDMG, 2000). Small, non-damaging earthquakes
occur frequendy in the Project vicinity. Larger potentially damaging earthquakes are expected to
occur periodically, and are considered likely during the design life of the Project site. The
Working Group on Earthquake Probabilities of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and other
scientists conclude that there is a 62% probability of at least one magnitude 6.7 or greater quake,
capable of causing widespread damage, striking the San Francisco Bay region before 2032.1
Regional Geology
The site is located at the edge of the San Francisco Bay, a submerged valley in the Central Coast
Ranges of California. This area is characterized by northwest trending mountain ranges and
valleys oriented sub-parallel to faults of the San Andreas Fault System. In the San Francisco Bay
Area, Tertiary strata commonly rest in angular unconformity on rocks of the Franciscan
complex, which is composed of weakly to strongly metamorphosed greywacke (sandstone),
argillite, limestone, basalt, serpentinite, and chert. The rocks of the Franciscan complex are
ancient Jurassic oceanic crust and deep marine (pelagic) deposits accreted onto the edge of the
North American Continent and metamorphosed as a result of accretion and partial subduction.
These deposits have been overlain by Late Jurassic to Late Cretaceous sedimentary deposits.
Deposits of these rocks may be found outcropping along San Bruno Mountain in the Project
vicinity. Little metamorphosed, high-pressure, low-temperature metamorphic minerals are
common in the Franciscan complex, but there are also high grade metamorphic blocks in
sheared but relatively un-metamorphosed argillite matrix which reflect the complicated history
of the Franciscan.
These rocks have been offset by movement along the San Andreas Fault System, which traverses
the Santa Cruz Mountains prior to heading offshore in northwestern San Mateo County, on the
other side of the Peninsula. Several northwest trending structurally controlled valleys dissect the
San Francisco Peninsula, including the valley of Colma Creek, which contains the Project site.
During the Quaternary Period of rising and falling sea level in response to patterns of global
glaciation these valleys have been incised and then backfilled with sediment to form the suite of
WGCEP, 2002.
PAGE 5-2
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
alluvial deposits that can be found today, including the Pleistocene Colma Formation. Along the
bay margin, deposits of Holocene "Bay Mud" and marsh soils deposited during the past 11,000
years can be found. Marine terrace deposits consisting of sand, gravel and colluvial clay and
slope debris and ravine fill materials consisting of gravelly clay, sandy clay, clayey gravel and
similar soils occur in the area. Man-placed artificial fill over the old marsh deposits and Bay Mud
are also present.
Site Geology and Soils
According to the USGS Map Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7.5' Quadrangle and
parts of the Hunter's Point 7.5' Quadrangle, San Francisco Bay Area, California (USGS Open-file
Report 98-354, 1998) the site is underlain by the Pleistocene Colma Formation.2 The Colma
Formation is described as friable, well-sorted, fine to medium-grained sand containing a few
beds of sandy silt, clay, and gravel throughout most of the area, but also as sandy clay and silty
sand in the Project vicinity. The site is likely underlain at depth by Franciscan Rocks similar to
those exposed in nearby Mount San Bruno. Sandstone bedrock typical of the Franciscan
Complex was penetrated in two boreholes at the site. Figure 5-1 presents a Geologic Map of
the site and vicinity based on the 1998 USGS map of the area.
A site geologic map was not completed for the geotechnical investigation, but a number of
boreholes and cone penetration tests completed for the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
(Twining Laboratories, 2005) indicate subsurface conditions.3 Boreholes were not drilled inside
the existing Levitz Furniture warehouse, but only around the perimeter and in parking lot areas.
The boreholes typically encountered 1.5 to 3 inches of asphalt overlying zero to ten inches of
aggregate base or aggregate subbase fill. Underlying the pavement section, fill soils consisting of
sandy lean clay and sand extend from one to several feet below ground surface (BGS).
Underlying native soils consist of a combination of sand, silty sand, clayey sand and sandy lean
clay to depths of 10 to 43.5 feet, the deepest depth of drilling.3 Sandy soils were typically
medium dense at shallow depths, becoming dense to very dense at depths below 10 to 15 feet
BGS. Sandy lean clays were typically stiff to very stiff. The native materials encountered are
typical of sediments present in the Pleistocene Colma Formation.
Groundwater
Groundwater was penetrated in each of the nine boreholes completed at the site by Twining
Laboratories (2005) at depths ranging from approximately 8.5 to 11.5 feet below ground surface
during the subsurface investigation of November 15, 16 and 17, 2004. Groundwater levels at
the site fluctuate during the year and are typically highest during the winter and spring rainy
2
USGS, 1998
Twining Laboratories, Inc., 2005
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 5-3
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
season, therefore shallower groundwater levels may be encountered during construction
activities.
Landsliding and Slope Stability
Slope steepness is generally the dominant factor governing slope stability, depending upon soil
and bedrock conditions. Steep slopes greater than 50 percent are especially prone to landslides in
areas of weak soil and/or bedrock. The Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
(2005) indicated that the slope located between the site and the adjacent railroad tracks is
potentially unstable due to surface erosion and cavities that have formed locally under the
parking lot at the edge of slope. The slope steepness varies from 20 percent to 50 percent with
slope heights varying from nil to as much as 10 feet in vertical height. No large-scale slope
instabilities were noted in the geotechnical investigation.
Expansive Soils
Expansive soils experience volumetric changes (shrink and swell) seasonally due to changes in
soil moisture content. The shrink/swell cycles can cause damage to foundations, concrete slabs-
on-grade, and pavement sections. Testing of site soils for Expansion Index and Atterberg
Limits was performed on several soil samples. Samples of soil from the boreholes at the site
tested for expansion index were found to have a variable expansion potential ranging from low
to high (Twining Laboratories, 2005). However, only two samples were tested for expansion
index.
Primary Seismic Hazards
Primary seismic hazards are direct affects of an earthquake such as surface fault rupture.
Surface Fault Rupture
A number of active and potentially active faults are present in the region. According to criteria
of the California Geological Survey, active faults are faults that have experienced surface rupture
within the last 11,000 years (Holocene Period). The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Act of 1972 initiated a program of mapping active and potentially active (surface rupture within
the last 1.6 million years) faults. According to the Act, zones around active faults are delineated
and development Projects within the Earthquake Fault Zones must include investigations to
establish the location and age of any fault ruptures occurring on the property. The Act primarily
covers structures for human occupancy, which includes commercial structures. Active and
potentially active faults on the San Francisco Peninsula have undergone extensive investigation
in the past. The California Geological Survey (formerly the California Division of Mines and
Geology) has established Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ) boundaries for active faults in the
region. According to the Earthquake Fault Zone Map for the San Francisco South Quadrangle
PAGE 5-4
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
. j'
l' !i
! ~ l"' Fa- "f'I?3 Fr-Ft:'"
II
II _
_...Jl..-;::::::..~-
.:::""==;- 'f
-::::~-=:::~~l
11
';!>
~
-CITY u__ &0'
~~-
-
- 1:[ -,--
-C-.-r~~ _/
.......- _f},...-
~ I (
4(
c.f
..-
.....
.....
A
Magnetic declinatlon is 165 degret::s east of north
Reference: Bonilla, 1998, Geologic Map of the
South San Francisco 7.5' Quadrangle and Part of the
Hunters Point7S Quadrangle, US Geological
SOOm
I
Date:
08/03/05
JF
WH
250073Ge...
Q eMI
U~ST ~ _ & W=';;,';;;7:~;
...- -- -- ---
5-1
Appr'd:
Dwg. No.
l i
PO Box 70356 1220 Brickyard Cove Road Point Richmond, CA 94807
Geologic Map
Home Depot EIR
900 Dubuque Avenue
South San Francisco, CA
FIGURE
Drawn:
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOilS
PAGE 5-6
This page intentionally left blank.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Explanation of Geologic Units and Symbols
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
QUATERNARY
H...,k'Cdle
Qaf Artifidal fill
<-lay. silt, sand. rock fragments, organic matter, and man. made debris.
Qaftf AJtificial fill over tidal flat
l1ay. silt. sand. I\.lck fragments, organic matter, and man-made debris,
placed over tidal Oat~.
Qats Artifil..-1al fill. Native Amcncan shc1lmolmd.
Oalk silty to sandy SI."'IiI containing shell fragments and rare intact
sheik
QI Land...lidc d",'P\'lSit.'l
C4,."lmp('sition and stru~ depend on the get"'lloj;{ic fonnati\"lf1 inv\"'Ilvoo
and t}pe of landslide.
Qal Alluvium
Mostly sund and:-rilt but h--.cally contains clay. gravel, or b..:mlders;
generaJJy gray ro brown.
Qb Beach Deposits
PrOO'')lIlinantly ,veil sorted mcdiwll-grnined k10SC;: gray s3Iul; k'lCally
Cl-'Ilsists of sand. gmrd and cobbles.
Qm Bay mud
S....--ft lm(~q (0 finn (dry) day and silt; k)cally contains shell
fragments, plant remains. and thin beds of sand.
P1eisrtx--en.e
Qt Marine ten"ace deposits
Predominantly mable well sorted fine-grai.ned yellowish-('onmge to
gray sand; includes alluvial gmvd and \,.'\.)lluvial ~lay.
Qsr Slope debris and r.mne fill
Sk'llY silty to sandy clay; 1",'lIlly silry w claycy sand or grovcl;
yellowish-orange to medimn gray, unstratified or poorly stratified.
Where it overlies the Merced or lA:>lma Formation it is commonly a
silty ro clayey sand, or gravel.
Qc Cl.."'tbna Formation
In oorthwest and central parts of area, friable well SI.-"lrted fine to
mediwn sand containing a few beds of sandy silt, day, and grovel.
In ~"lUthcast part of area, mostly sandy clay and silty sand;
yellowish orange to gray.
Qu Sedimentary deposits, 1Ulditl'en:ntiated
IT F:mlt rocks
Zone of gouge, br..."ia, fractured and sheared rock alOlll! the San
.r\ndreas fault. Gradational contact with sWTounding rlc'lCks. Limits
f"-"'torly kno\\ll. Age extends into Hlc"'tk-..cene
TERTIARY AND QlIATERNARY
P1eistc,..--ene and PlirlCene
QTl11 Merced Formation
Friable to fino sand, silt. and clay; minor amolmts of gravel.
lignit.e. and volcanic ash, medium gray to yeUo'\\ish orange,
-+-
-+-
--t--
--.--
D
D
D
D
D
Bedding
CRETACEOUS AND JURASSIC
FmJ1~iscan C.omplex. and assl,)ciated rocks
KJs Si.Uldstone and shale
Inrerbedded sand'h'ne and shale. hard where fresh and intact. ",'ft
where weathered or ~heared. Comm~)nly medimn dark gra)' where fresh,
0live gray t.o yeUowish bl\"'t\\n where m(lderately weathered. and yello'\\ish
orange to yellowish gray where highly wC"dthered,
KJsk Sandstone and s.hale
Sandstone RCl1Crally C\."lntaining mNe than two percent Pl.)ta.,,,ium fcll,l'Par.
KJrn Metank1rphic rocks
Hard to finn, fine-to co~rained schistose. gnciSSl."'tSe, or
gramuose metamorphic ro.:ks~ dark gray. dark greenish gray. (If
dark bluish groy.
sp Serpentine
Hard t~^l soft. generally greenish gray. cl.)ntains small b.,xlie:s of grabbro
and diai>:Jl;e.
KJu Sheared rocks
Small h,) large fragments l)fhard rOl,:k in matrix of sheared fllck.
Matrix. generally lc'CIherent and finn. blIl soft in places. e.-.pe...'"ially
where weathered, Ddrk gray \'onere fresh. yellowish bmwn where
weathered. Derived moiOt.ly from shale and sandstone of FranciSl.".Ul
(~mplex and serpentine.
Omtact, certain
Contact, approximately located
Approximate bedding
Contact, concealed
s
H orizonta! bedding
O:>ntact, gradational or inferred
Fault, certain
Fault, approximately "".-ated
Fault, concealed
.mnt_.
Fault, concealed, queried
-+-
Vertical bedding
Fault, inferred
,.,....,.....,
Top oflandslide s...--arp
+
Fault attitude
Shear planes
Striations or grooves on faults
1800s shoreline and stream channel
Anticline, certain
Anticline, approximately located
S;ncline, approximately located
Monocline, approximately located
Date: 08/03/05 Q eMf Geologic Map Legend FIGURE
Drawn: JF U~ST~ _ &W::;'i':,;,~,~::; Home Depot EIR 5-1
-- - - --
Appr'd: WH 900 Dubuque Avenue
po_ Box 70356 1220 Brickyard Cove Road Point Richmond. CA 94807 South San Francisco, CA
Dwg. No. 250073Ge...
Foliation
Foreset beds
Joint
....
Vertical joint
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOilS
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 5-8
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
(1982), the proposed development is not located within an EFZ.4 The nearest EFZ is for the
San Andreas Fault, located slighrly more than 3 miles southwest of the site.
An inactive pre-Quaternary fault, the Hillside fault (see Figure 1), is mapped as crossing the
subject property on Geologic maps of the area.s Based on the age of the fault being greater than
1.6 million years old (California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map No.6,
1994), the State of California Geological Survey (CGS) does not consider the Hillside fault active
or potentially active and does not require special studies to document the location of the fault on
the Project site.
Secondary Seismic Hazards
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1991 established a program of mapping of areas subject to
the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failure and other
seismic hazards caused by earthquakes. These seismically induced hazards are known as
secondary seismic hazards. According to the California Geological Survey, the San Francisco
South Quadrangle is currenrly in the process of being mapped. Other sources of information
provide details on the potential for secondary seismic hazards in the area.
Ground Shaking
The San Francisco Bay Area is a seismically active region. The Project site and region will likely
be subjected to strong to violent seismically induced ground shaking within the design life of the
development. The site is located in an area of active regional seismicity near active seismic
sources.
According to a recent study completed by the Working Group on California Earthquake
Probabilities (WGCEP), which assesses the probability of earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay
Area, there is a 62 percent probability that an earthquake of Richter Magnitude 6.7 or greater will
occur in the region between 2003 and 2032. 6
The intensity of ground shaking will vary with the distance and magnitude of the earthquake
causing the ground shaking. The maximum intensity ground shaking expected to occur at the
site would be a modified Mercalli intensity level of IX (violent) in response to an earthquake of
equivalent magnitude to the 1906 earthquake (7.9) on the San Andreas fault. An earthquake of
magnitude 6.8 on the Hayward fault would be expected to produce strong ground shaking
equivalent to Mercalli intensity level VIe
CDMG, 1982
USGS, 1998
WGCEP,2002.
Association of Bay Area Governments, www.abag.ca.gov , 2005.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 5-9
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Peak ground accelerations for the site with a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in a 50-
year period (design basis ground motion) were determined by The Twining Laboratories (2005)
using the FRISKSP computer program and the active and potentially active faults listed in the
California Fault Parameters database. Four alternative methods were used to predict the design
basis site accelerations with an average resultant value of 0.67 of the acceleration due to gravity
(g).8
Seismically Induced Liquefaction and Dynamic Densification
Liquefaction and dynamic densification are conditions that can result from seismically induced
ground shaking. Liquefaction is the temporary transformation of saturated, cohesionless soil
into a viscous liquid as a result of ground shaking. Dynamic densification (seismic settlement)
occurs in dry cohesionless soil during seismic shaking and can result in ground surface
settlement during earthquakes.
Liquefaction and dynamic densification analyses were conducted as part of the Geotechnical
Investigation. Analysis was performed using the LIQUEFY2 computer software. Soil
properties as determined in subsurface investigations and laboratory testing were used in the
analysis. A design basis earthquake acceleration of 0.67 g and a design earthquake magnitude of
7.9 were used in the analysis. The design earthquake was based on the magnitude of the 1906
San Francisco Earthquake that occurred on the San Andreas fault. A groundwater depth of 8.5
feet, based on groundwater levels in boreholes completed in November 2004, was used in the
analysis. The analysis indicated that liquefaction would not occur, but dynamic densification of
approximately 0.33 inches could occur during the design level earthquake. Based on the results
of settlement analysis, Twining concluded that a differential seismic settlement of 0.167 inches
could occur across the proposed building pad.9
Seismically Induced Landslides
Seismically induced slope failure lS another secondary selsnuc hazard. During earthquake
induced ground shaking, landslides and debris flows can form on unstable slopes. The only
slopes present on the site are located along the eastern side between the parking loti existing
building and the railroad tracks. This slope shows evidence of erosion and cavitation under
adjacent existing pavements caused by poor drainage conditions. The Geotechnical
Investigation Report did not discuss the potential for seismically induced landslides. However,
based on the types of soil present, and existing conditions of the slopes, the hazard of seismically
induced landsliding is considered low.
Twining Laboratories Inc., 2005.
Twining Laboratories Inc., 2005.
PAGE 5-10
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
5.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to CEQA Guidelines, exposure of people or structures to major geological hazards is
considered a significant adverse impact. The potential geologic, soils, and seismic effects of the
proposed Project can be considered from two points of view: (1) construction impacts; and, (2)
geologic hazards to people or structures. The basic criterion applied to the analysis of
construction impacts is whether construction of the Project will create unstable geologic
conditions that would last beyond the short-term construction period. The analysis of geological
hazards is based on the degree to which the site geology could produce hazards to people or
structures from earthquakes, ground shaking, ground movement, fault rupture, or other geologic
hazards, features or events.
According to CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would have a significant environmental
impact if it were to result in:
1. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury or death involving 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;
2. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury or death involving strong seismic ground shaking;
3. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury or death involving seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction and seismic-induced landslides;
4. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides;
5. Development located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable (or that would
become unstable as a result of the Project) and which could potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse;
6. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury or death involving volcanic hazards;
7. Development located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life and
property;
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
PAGE 5-11
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
8. The loss of topsoil or development in an area of erodible soils.
9. Development in areas where soils are incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater;
10. The loss of Mineral Resources important to the State of California or the local
economy;
11. The alteration or destruction of a unique geological feature.
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Surface Fault Rupture
According to the latest available maps, the site is not contained within an Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone boundary. Published geologic maps of the area show the Hillside fault
as crossing the subject property, but this fault is not considered active or potentially active, with
an estimated age of most recent movement greater than 1.6 million years ago. The potential
impact of surface fault rupture is considered less than significant.
Exposure to Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
Impact 5-1
Seismic Ground Shaking. There is a high probability that the proposed
development would be subjected to strong to violent ground shaking from an
earthquake during its design life. Strong to violent seismic ground shaking is
considered a potentially significant impact..
Mitigation
Measure 5-1a
Compliance with California Building Code. Project development shall
meet requirements of the California Building Code VoL 1 and 2, 2001
Edition, including the California Building Standards, 2001 Edition, published
by the International Conference of Building Officials, and as modified by the
amendments, additions and deletions as adopted by the City of South San
Francisco, California. Incorporation of seismic construction standards will
reduce the potential for catastrophic effects of ground shaking, such as
complete structural failure, but will not completely eliminate the hazard of
seismically induced ground shaking.
P AG E 5-12
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Mitigation
Measure 5-1b
Mitigation
Measure 5-1c
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Compliance with recommendations of the Preliminary Geotechnical
Engineering Investigation report prepared by Twining Laboratories
and with Structural Design Plans as prepared by a Registered
Structural Engineer. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall
be performed in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered
Geotechnical Engineer and a Registered Structural Engineer. The structural
engineering design shall incorporate seismic parameters as outlined in the
preliminary geotechnical engineering investigation report and from the
California Building Code as summarized below. The City's Chief Building
Official may require a Final Geotechnical Engineering Report. The
applicant's plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of
South San Francisco Building Official.
Seismic Zone 4
Soil Prof11e Type SD
Seismic Source Type B
Seismic Zone Factor 0.40
Near Source Acceleration Factor, Na 1.16
Near Source Velocity Factor, Nv 1.53
Seismic Acceleration Coefficient, Ca Ca = 0.51
Seismic Velocity Coefficient, Cv Cv = 0.98
Obtain a building permit and complete final design review. The Project
applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San
Francisco Building Division. Final Design Review of planned buildings and
structures shall be completed by a licensed structural engineer for adherence
to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in
the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the
East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be
subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will
allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong
earthquake.
Conformity with these mitigation measures would reduce the Project's impact related to seismic
ground shaking to a level of less than significant.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 5-13
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Seismically Induced Ground Failure, including Liquefaction, Densification,
Differential Settlement, and Landslides
Impact 5-2.
Mitigation
Measure 5-2a
Mitigation
Measure 5-2b
Liquefaction, Dynamic Densification and Differential Settlement. The
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation by Twining Laboratories
concluded that site soils are not likely to be subject to the affects of liquefaction
such as sand boils and bearing capacity loss. Dynamic densification of dry
surface soils is anticipated to result in up to 0.33 inches of seismically induced
setdement. The dynamic densification may result in differential setdements of
0.167 inches over a distance of 50 feet. The anticipated dynamic densification
and differential setdement, which could result in moderate structural damage
without mitigation, is considered a potentially significant impact.
Compliance with recommendations of the Preliminary Geotechnical
Engineering Investigation report prepared by Twining Laboratories
and with Structural Design Plans as prepared by a Registered
Structural Engineer. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall
be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Registered
Geotechnical Engineer and a Registered Structural Engineer. Structures shall
be designed to minimize the affects of the anticipated seismic setdements.
The report and recommendations shall be subject to the review and approval
of the City's Chief Building Official.
Obtain a building permit and complete final design review. The Project
applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San
Francisco Building Division. Final Design Review of planned buildings and
structures shall be completed by a licensed structural engineer for adherence
to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in
the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the
East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be
subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will
allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong
earthquake.
All plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Chief
Building Official.
Conformity with these mitigation measures would reduce the Project's impact related to seismic
ground shaking to a level of less than significant.
P AG E 5-14
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Seismically Induced Landslides
No landslides are mapped across the property and most of the site is gently sloping. The slope
adjacent to the railroad tracks is not expected to fail in the event of earthquake induced ground
shaking. The impact of seismically induced landslides is considered a less than significant
impact.
UNSTABLE GEOLOGIC MATERIALS
Development located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or could become
unstable as a result of the Project.
Impact 5-3
Mitigation
Measure 5-3
Unstable Soils. Potentially compressible soils are present near the anticipated
depths of the foundations for the proposed building. Loose soils will be
generated as a result of the removal of existing improvements. Fill soils of
unknown quality are present in the proposed building and parking areas. Near
surface soils have a high potential for expansion and contraction during seasonal
moisture fluctuations. The near surface soils are also corrosive in nature and
may affect concrete and steel placed in contact with them. Groundwater is
present at shallow depths, less than 10 feet below ground surface, and could
impact excavations such as utility trenches. The slope at the southeastern
property boundary may be destabilized during site grading activities. This is a
potentially significant impact.
Compliance with recommendations of the Preliminary Geotechnical
Engineering Investigation report prepared by Twining Laboratories.
The Geotechnical consultant recommended remedial grading during site
construction activities to provide foundation support for the proposed
structure, dewatering for deeper excavations, and repair and maintenance for
the existing slope. As recommended in the Preliminary report, additional
subsurface investigation shall be performed as necessary to fully delineate any
areas of potentially unstable soils, such as under the existing building, which
were not investigated during the Preliminary Investigation. All site
preparation and grading shall be performed in accordance with
recommendations of the Project Geotechnical Engineer and a Grading Plan
reviewed and approved by City of South San Francisco Building Official.
The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review all Plans for the Project and
shall make supplemental recommendations as necessary to stabilize
potentially unstable soils. All site preparation and grading, foundations,
pavement section construction and subsurface drainage measures shall be
performed under the observations and testing of the Project Geotechnical
Engineer or his/her representative.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 5-15
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOilS
In accordance with the East of 101 Area Plan, any new slopes greater than 5
feet in height, either cut in native soils or rock, or created by placing fill
material, shall be designed by a geotechnical engineer and have an
appropriate factor of safety under seismic loading.
All site preparation and grading shall be performed in accordance with the
recommendations of the Project Geotechnical Engineer and Grading Plan
reviewed and approved by the City of South San Francisco.
Implementation of the above mitigation measures will reduce the impact of unstable or
potentially unstable soils to less than significant.
VOLCANIC HAZARDS
No active volcanic areas are located in the San Francisco Bay or Northern California region that
could potentially impact the Project site. No Impact.
Impact 5-4
EXPANSIVE SOILS
Mitigation
Measure 5-4
PAGE 5-16
Expansive Soils. According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering
Investigation, potentially expansive clay soils were encountered. Expansive clay
soils may shrink and swell, resulting in damaged foundations, concrete slabs,
pavements and other improvements. This is a potentially significant impact.
Design and Construction in Accordance with Geotechnical
Investigation. The Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
recommended mitigation measures for expansive clay soils. The
supplemental geotechnical investigation shall identify the measures to be
used to prevent damage to site improvements by expansive soils and Project
plans shall incorporate the recommendations, and Potential measures for
control of expansive clay soils include the following:
a) Replacing clayey soils underlying foundations and concrete slabs with
select non-expansive structural fill. Recommendations of the Geotechnical
Engineer for the depth of fill and specifications for the fill material shall be
implemented.
b) Treating site soils with lime to reduce the expansion potential and increase
the strength. Testing shall be performed by the Geotechnical Engineer to
establish the required concentration of lime in the soil to reduce soil
expansion to an acceptable level.f
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
c) Grade around structures to assure positive drainage away from structures.
d) Implement recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer to prevent or
minimize the potential for structural damage from expansive clay soils.
All grading and improvement plans shall be subject to the review and
approval of the City of South San Francisco Building Official.
Implementation of the above mitigation measures will reduce the impact of potentially expansive
soils to less than significant.
SOIL EROSION
Impact 5-5
Mitigation
Measure 5-5a
Soil Erosion. The Project would involve mass grading in a sensitive area near
the San Francisco Bay. Demolition of existing structures and pavements would
expose underlying soil to the elements. Excavation of soil for construction of
new buildings and pavement sections would also be performed and temporary
stockpiles of loose soil will be created. Soils exposed during site grading would
be subject to erosion during storm events. Soils exposed on the existing slope
located at the eastern edge of the site are also subject to soil erosion and shows
evidence of erosion. Grading would disturb site soils potentially leading to
impacts to the San Francisco Bay. This would be a potentially significant
impact during and following site construction activities.
Erosion Control Plan. Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit, the
applicant shall prepare and submit an Erosion Control Plan to the City in
conjunction with the Grading Permit Application. The Erosion Control Plan
shall include winterization, dust control, erosion control and pollution
control measures conforming to the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion
and Sediment Control Measures. The Erosion Control Plan shall describe
the "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) to be used during and following
construction to control pollution resulting from both storm and construction
water runoff. The Plan shall include but not be limited to, locations of
vehicle and equipment staging, portable restrooms, mobilization areas, and
planned access routes.
Recommended soil stabilization techniques include placement of straw
watdes, silt fences, berms, and gravel construction entrance areas or other
control to prevent tracking sediment onto city streets and into storm drains.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
P AG E 5-1 7
CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit the applicant's Erosion Control
Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of South San
Francisco Storm Water Coordinator and City Engineer.
The City of South San Francisco Department of Public Works staff and/or
representatives shall be required to inspect the site during grading and
construction to ensure compliance with the SSFMC Grading Ordinance and
approved plans, and require that the project applicant immediately correct
any violations.
Mitigation
Measure 5-5b
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. In accordance with the Clean
Water Act and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the
Applicant shall ftle a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior
to the start of construction. The SWPPP shall include specific best
management practices to reduce soil erosion. This is required to obtain
coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water
Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 99-08-
DWQ).
Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit the applicant's SWPPP shall be
subject to the review and approval of the City of South San Francisco Storm
Water Coordinator and the City Engineer.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the Project's impact to a level of less
than significant.
SEPTIC SYSTEMS
A sewer system is present in the area and septic systems are not required at the site. No impact.
Loss OF MINERAL RESOURCES
No mineral resources important to the State of California would be impacted by the Project. No
Impact.
UNIQUE GEOLOGICAL FEATURE
No unique geologic features will be impacted by the proposed Project. No Impact.
PAGE 5-18
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
6
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
A hazardous material is a substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity,
concentration, or physicaL chemical or infectious characteristics, may either 1) cause, or
significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or
incapacitating reversible illness; or 2) pose a substantial present or potential hazards to human
health and safety, or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed
of or otherwise managed. Hazardous waste (a subset of hazardous material) refers to hazardous
material that is to be abandoned, discarded or recycled.
The following section describes the history of hazardous materials at the site, and the threat to
future occupants and the surrounding environment resulting from the proposed development.
The information presented below was drawn from several sources of data including appendices:
(1) Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments for the property completed by ATC Associates Inc.
(March 12, 1999 and December 4, 2001); (2) Report of Geophysical Survey and Limited
Subsurface Investigation, Addendum to Initial Phase 1 Report (September 27, 2001); (3)
Environmental Site Assessment for the property completed by Environ International
Corporation Oanuary 6, 2005); (4) Environmental Data Resources Incorporated Radius Map
with Geocheck database search (September 05, 2001 and October 06, 2004); (5) Report on
Asbestos Survey completed on the existing Levitz Furniture Building (May 7, 1999); (6) Review
of Historical Topographic Maps Online (http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/histopo/); (J) Review of
the East of 101 Area Plan of the City of South San Francisco, as well as all other applicable
ordinances and regulations; (8) Development Plan Sheets prepared for Home Depot, U.S.A.,
Inc. by Greenberg Farrow Architects; (9) Review of the San Mateo County Environmental
Health Department web site, (http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/smc/ department/home.html); (10)
personal communication with San Mateo County and City of South San Francisco officials; and
(11) a site visit by Questa Engineering Staff on July 14,2005.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 6-1
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
6.2 SETTING
A history of the site was documented from the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments (ESA)
prepared by Environ International Corporation (2005), as well as independent review of historic
maps. More recent information was obtained from personal communication with county and
city officials, planning documentation, and a site visit on July 14,2005. One of the earliest maps
of the area is the 1896 topographic quadrangle map of the site. This map shows a road along
the present alignment of the Bayshore Freeway, but no buildings in the vicinity of the current
property. The railroad is shown to terminate approximately 1000 feet southwest of the site. A
1915 topographic map of the area shows the site vicinity developed, with six streets shown west
of the current location of the Highway 101 freeway, in a similar alignment to current streets. A
crossroad is shown to extend to the railroad line northeast of the property, while the railroad
alignment is shown in the current configuration. According to the Phase 1 ESA completed for
the property, Pacific Car & Equipment occupied the site from 1911 until at least 1925. Mutual
Engineering Company and National Advertising Company later occupied the property. These
businesses were apparendy involved in the perfume and cosmetics industry from the late 1920's
until the 1950's. Building department records of the City of South San Francisco document
demolition of a building associated with the France Laboratory, Inc., and partial demolition of
another building associated with Empire Advertising in 1956. Following demolition, new
warehouse and office buildings were constructed on the property for Sperry Hutchinson &
Company, whom occupied the property until Levitz became the occupant in 1971. Since 1971,
Levitz Furniture has used the property as a furniture warehouse and showroom. Existing
buildings on the property include the original 1957 structure and a newer structure constructed
between 1968 and 1977 adjoined to the older structure.
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Overview
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) for the Levitz Furniture Store at 900 Dubuque
Avenue were completed to disclose any visible or invisible environmental hazards to the buyer,
and by inference and liability to future occupants and visitors to the property. These hazards
would result from the history of hazardous materials and environmental contaminants on the
property, as well as from nearby properties. The Phase 1 ESA is intended to identify these
hazards to the buyer, as well as provide recommendations for future work or mitigations to
remediate or further investigate the presence of any potential environmental hazards to the
property buyer and future occupants. The Phase 1 ESA reports included a literature review,
records review, site reconnaissance, and interviews with knowledgeable parties.
The Phase 1 ESA completed by Environ International Corporation Inc. (Environ) in 2005
summarized the results of previous investigations. This report indicated primary hazards
resulting from (1) two former underground fuel storage tanks, and (2) possible hazardous
building materials, including asbestos containing material and possible lead based paint. The
Phase 1 ESA indicated the property is not included in an environmental database and that the
PAGE 6-2
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD) does not have any flies on
the property!. The report did identify several nearby sites with potential soil and groundwater
contamination, but due to distance, direction, or regulatory status these sites were not
considered likely to have adversely impacted the subject property or to represent a continuing
environmental hazard to the proposed development.
Underground Storage Tanks
According to the Phase 1 ESA completed by ATC and dated December 4, 2001, two partially
buried fuel oil tanks constructed of steel were located in the area underneath the northeast
portion of the present day Levitz Furniture showroom. These tanks are shown on Sanborn
Maps of the property from 1925 and 1950, but not on a map dated 1956. The maps seem to
indicate that the tanks were removed between 1950 and 1956, although no record of the removal
or abandonment in place of these tanks was found. In 2001, a geophysical survey and
subsurface investigation was completed to identify any remains from these tanks, including any
soil contamination. The investigation report by A TC in 2001 concluded that two ground
penetrating radar survey anomalies of 4 feet by 7 feet and 4 feet by 12 feet in area were likely
concrete slabs remaining from these tanks. Soil samples collected from these locations at depths
of approximately four feet were analyzed for TPH-gas, BTEX, MTBE, as well as characteristics
of fuel oil. According to the report no TPH-gas, BTEX, or MTBE was found in the samples,
but 1.9 mg/kg of unidentifiable hydrocarbons was detected. Further analysis by the
chromatogram identified the hydrocarbon as relatively heavy, close to the motor oil range, but
dissimilar. This could be residue of fuel formerly stored in tanks at the site, or could be from
some other source. According to A TC, the low concentration of the hydrocarbon "may be due
to non anthropogenic sources and does not appear to be of significant concern for the
property." The Phase 1 Investigation by ATC associates dated December 4, 2001 recommended
no further action.
Chemicals Of Concern
Chemicals of concern are specific chemicals or classes of hazardous materials known to have
been used, or which have been detected, at the site and which could possibly pose an
environmental hazard. These chemicals or materials were identified in the Phase 1 ESA for the
site, and were checked during the site reconnaissance, as well as through calls to agencies
involved with the site. Sources of these chemicals are directly related to past uses of the site,
especially substances associated with furniture warehousing and selling. Chemicals have also
been concentrated in building materials. The particular building materials used at a site are a
product of both the age of the structure, as well as the designed use. As mentioned in the
previous section, chemicals identified with the partially buried tanks at the site are hydrocarbons
! SMCEHD, August 2, 2005
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 6-3
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
and records indicate the tanks were used to store fuel oils. The hazard from these chemicals was
not considered to pose a significant hazard based on testing results.
Another class of chemicals is associated with cleaning agents and other materials used to
maintain the property. These chemicals include ammonia, sodium hypochlorite (bleach),
oxidizers, abrasives, and other substances that pose a defInite threat to the environment, but
which are so common as to be mainly ignored unless they are spilled or catch on fire. Cleaning
agents at Levitz Furniture were apparently stored in a janitorial closet. Records of the Phase 1
ESA and site reconnaissance indicate no significant staining on the concrete flooring in this area
and no continuing chemical waste storage on the premises.
Solid waste from the Levitz Furniture facility was disposed of in a dumpster located on the
north side of the building and east of the loading dock. No significant staining or continuing
waste storage was noted in this area.
A particularly hazardous class of chemicals that are a known carcinogen are polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). These chemicals are associated with electrical transformers where a
considerable volume may be stored. According to the 2001 Phase 1 ESA, two transformers
mounted on concrete pads were observed on the property, including one transformer located at
the north end of the existing parking area. According to the Phase 1 ESA, these transformers
are maintained by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (pG&E) and were not labeled with regard
to PCB content; no significant staining was observed on the transformer or adjacent concrete
pad that would indicate leaking. Results were used to conclude that the transformers were not
an immediate concern or hazard. However, A TC concluded that the transformers should be
considered contaminated by PCB and protected from damage. Any future removal or
modifications of these transformers would need to be competed by PG&E. Another source of
potential PCB contamination are fluorescent light fixtures manufactured prior to about 1979.
These were observed inside the warehouse facility.
As the site was not specifically used for the storage or use of hazardous materials, the presence
of these materials is incidental. However, such incidental use of chemicals is not limited to the
inside of the building and to storage containers, but is also associated with the actual building
materials. The building materials of particular concern are asbestos containing building materials
and lead based paint.
An asbestos survey on the property was completed by ATC in 1999. According to the survey
report, minor asbestos was discovered in drywall and associated joint compound, as well as two
types of vinyl floor tile and sheet flooring mastic. Based on these results A TC recommended
that prior to demolition or renovation any untested materials be tested per local, state, and
federal regulations. Lead based paint was not analyzed for, but according to ATC may be
present since structures date to the 1950s, an era when lead based paint was still used
extensively.
According to the Phase 1 ESA, other hazards such as radon, explosives, ermSSlon of air
contaminants from the existing facility, and accumulation of contaminated wastewater
PAGE 6-4
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
discharges were not considered significant. A septic system or wells are not known to be present
on the property.
The San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD) does not include the
property in either the Hazardous Materials Inventory or Site Remediation Database. The
Hazardous Material Inventory is a database with f1les on sites that use or generate hazardous
waste, or have underground storage tanks. The Site Remediation Database is a database of sites
that are being remediated for soil contamination, groundwater contamination, or disposal of
hazardous materials from the site.
Off-Site Sources Of Contamination
The property proposed for development was not included on any of the lists cited below.
However, several nearby sites are contained in environmental databases, and were therefore
considered as potential off-site sources of contamination to the property. The Phase 1 ESA
included an investigation of these site records and the threat to the subject property. The most
recent database search by Environmental Data Resources (EDR) dated October 6, 2004,
revealed several nearby sites of concern that are located less than one-eighth of a mile from the
proposed development. The threat to the proposed development from these sites is from
contamination migrating onto the subject property. The result would be contamination that is
likely to impact the proposed development. Contaminants could migrate through a variety of
media, including air, soil and groundwater. The most transient contaminant is air pollution.
Since the site is not in close proximity to a major factory emitter, or other source, small-scale
emissions from nearby businesses may be considered insignificant compared to regional
pollution from sources such as the adjacent Bayshore Freeway. Less transient are soil and
groundwater contamination. The mobility of contamination within the soil depends in large part
upon the solubility of the contaminant in water and the rate of groundwater flow through the
soil. Groundwater flow is much less rapid than surface flow. However, where groundwater is
shallow and a source of contamination penetrates into the aquifer then contamination may travel
a considerable distance. The greatest threat to the property is from sites located immediately up-
slope or up gradient from the site; soil and groundwater contamination could most easily flow
downhill onto the property from these sites.
Using these basic criteria the list of sites that could potentially contaminate the subject property
can be reduced. In the Phase 1 ESA, only sites within one-quarter mile and up gradient of the
site were considered to pose a significant potential risk to the proposed development. Based on
these criteria the Phase 1 ESA narrowed down the list of area properties potentially impacting
the site. These are discussed below.
The EDR report included a records search of more than thirty different federal, state and local
databases. Only the databases containing sites most likely to impact the proposed development
are mentioned here. The fIrst database searched was the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS). CERCLIS sites are
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 6-5
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
contained in the EP A's Superfund database system that contains a National Priority List (NPL),
as well as 30,000 other sites that may be contaminated with hazardous substances and that are
potentially eligible for federal cleanup funds. Sites where no further remedial action is planned
(NFRAP) are called CERC-NFRAP sites. There are two CERC-NFRAP facilities listed within
1/8 mile of the property, however, since no further action was recommended at these sites it can
be assumed that these sites do not pose a continuing threat to the subject property.
Aside from the CERC-NFRAP sites, the EDR report identified three other nearby properties
that meet primary criteria for causing potential contamination to the subject property. These
sites are less than one-eighth mile from the site, at equal or higher elevation, and are contained in
both the leaking underground storage tank database (LUST) and CORTESE list, a California
State database of sites with suspected or known contamination. These sites are a UNOCAL
Service Station at 901 Airport Boulevard, the Shell Oil Company Service Station site at 899
Airport Boulevard, and the Oyster Point Inter Area on Oyster Point Boulevard. Two of the
sites are located on Airport Boulevard and across the Bayshore Freeway from the site. It is
unlikely that contamination would have penetrated underneath the freeway at this location. The
other site, located along Oyster Point Boulevard, is shown to drain toward the northeast and is
therefore considered unlikely to drain across the railroad tracks that separate the property from
the proposed development site. The Phase 1 ESA concluded that due to distance, direction, or
regulatory status these sites were not considered likely to have spread contamination onto the
property or to represent a continuing threat.
Current Contamination Levels and Health Risks
Contaminant levels may be assessed from the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments.
Environmental sampling and analytical testing at the site is limited to testing for hydrocarbons
from samples collected at the locations of the former storage tanks at approximately four feet
below the ground surface (BGS). These results indicate only a very low level (1.9 mg/kg) of an
unidentified hydrocarbon similar to motor oil. Based on the Phase 1 reports there is no
evidence for any significant subsurface soil or groundwater contamination. Other contamination
identified as impacting the site is primarily from building materials, as well as from existing
transformers and other utilities. Health risk from these potential contaminants is limited by the
storage condition of these materials. However, the proposed development plan will require
demolition of the site at which time chemicals could become mobile unless necessary
precautions and action plans are put into place. Following demolition and removal of any
contaminated materials from the site the risk to future visitors is likely limited. Exposure to
future chemicals on the site is likely to be a greater concern than from any residual
contamination from the former facility. No health based risk assessment has been undertaken
for the site, likely since the site is not in any environmental database or recorded in San Mateo
County Environmental Health Department Database. No further investigation was
recommended in the Phase 1 ESA for the property, but consideration in regard to specific
details of the proposed development was not considered. The level of contamination is expected
to remain unchanged in the subsurface provided that sediment and debris control measures are
PAGE 6-6
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
maintained around catch basins and other entry pathways into the subsurface. Hazardous
materials will be removed from the site during and following demolition. Following removal of
the concrete slab prior to new grading, local staining of soil and contamination not previously
detected may also be found. Based on results of the Phase 1 ESA, the extent of any
contamination is likely to be very low. Risk of exposure to future occupants will also be very
low since most of the site will be paved and the subsurface will remain undeveloped. The
greatest risk of exposure from any residual contamination would be to workers during site
grading and construction. These hazards are in addition to the normal hazards associated with
any large construction projects. The proposed development does not include development of
underlying groundwater or use of site soils, except where local soils will be graded and used as
engineered fill, and later where some of these soils could potentially be recycled for use as
landscape fill.
Regulatory Setting
Regulation of toxic and hazardous substances is locally administered through the San Mateo
County Environmental Health Department. The department administers several programs to
regulate and monitor the use of hazardous materials, including the hazardous materials business
plan program, hazardous waste generator program, California accidental release program,
underground storage tank program, groundwater protection program, and the stormwater
pollution prevention program. These programs, which are mandated by State and Federal
Laws, are aimed at protecting public health and the environment. The Hazardous Materials
Business plan is used to keep track of the use of hazardous materials by businesses in accordance
with both state and federal laws. The Hazardous Waste Generator Program was started in 1984
when the State of California DTSC authorized the Health Department to inspect and regulate
non-permitted hazardous waste generators in San Mateo County based on the Hazardous Waste
Control Law found in the California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5 and
regulations found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5.
The groundwater protection program is funded wholly or in part, by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A), under Cooperative Agreement L-009450-1-0 to the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and by Contract 8-014-550 to the County of
San Mateo. In conjunction with these laws the underground storage tank program was created
to regulate the chief source of underground contamination, leaking underground storage tanks
(LUS1). At the federal level, the chief regulator is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EP A), Region IX for Northern California. At the State level, the Department of Toxic
Substances and Control (DTSC) is chiefly responsible for regulation, handling, use, and disposal
of toxic materials. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) regulates discharge of
potentially hazardous materials to waterways and aquifers, as well as stormwater protection
through the general permit, which must be obtained for any grading projects exceeding one acre,
including the proposed project. The local branch of the Water Board is the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB). The Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) has also established environmental screening guidelines for commercial
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 6-7
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
developments (RWQCB, 2003). According to the publication, the environmental screerung
levels (ESL's) are to be used as Tier 1 guidelines:
"Use of the ESLs and this document in general is intended to be entirely optional on the part of
the regulated facility and subject to the approval of the case manager in the overseeing regulatory
agency. The presence of a chemical at concentrations in excess of an ESL does not necessarily
indicate that adverse impacts to human health or the environment are occurring; this simply
indicates that a potential for adverse risk may exist and that additional evaluation is warranted.
ESLs presented for chemicals that are known to be highly biodegradable in the environment may
in particular be overly conservative for use as final cleanup levels (e.g., many petroleum-related
compounds). Use of the ESLs as cleanup levels should be evaluated in view of the overall site
investigation results and the cost/benefit of performing a more site-specific risk assessment."
Regulatory agencies maintain a database of sites with these sources of contamination, as well as
potential sources of contamination, such as underground fuel tanks. Databases with
information on hazardous materials sites include the Federal Superfund list started through the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Conservation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980
and the USEP A, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS), HAZNET, the leaking underground storage tank information
system (LUST), the Cortese list, and many others. These databases were searched for the Phase
1 ESA. Air pollution is regulated through the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD).
These programs and regulations are primarily intended to tn11:1gate for environmental
contamination including hazards to wildlife, provide protection for natural resources, and limit
public exposure to harmful chemicals. Specific programs intended to protect workers from
exposure to hazardous materials and from accidental upset are covered under the Occupational
Health and Safety Administration at both the Federal Level (OSHA) and the state level (CAL-
OSHA).
Transportation of hazardous materials on the highways is regulated primarily through the
Federal Department of Transportation (DOT) and the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans). This includes a system of placards, labels, and shipping papers required to identify
the hazards of shipping each class of hazardous materials. Existing federal and state laws address
risks associated with the transport of hazardous materials. These laws include regulations
outlined in the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act administered by the DOT. Caltrans is
mandated to implement the regulations established by the DOT, which is published as the
Federal Code of Regulations, Tide 49, commonly referred to as 49 CFR. The California Highway
Patrol (CHP) enforces these regulations. Regulations of hazardous materials and wastes include
the manufacture of packaging and transport containers; packing and repacking; labeling; marking
or placarding; handling; spill reporting; routing of transports; training of transport personnel;
and registration of higWy hazardous material transport.
PAGE 6-8
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
6.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a Project's environmental impacts are based upon
CEQA Guidelines:
1) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
2) Would the Project 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?
3) Would the Project produce hazardous etn1SS10nS or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
4) Would the Project 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?
5) Would the Project be 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?
6) 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?
7) Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
8) Would the Project 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?
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
PAGE 6-9
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
HAzARDOUS MATERIALS USE, TRANSPORT
Impact 6-1
Mitigation
Measure 6-1a
PAGE 6-10
Routine transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials. The
proposed Home Depot complex, including parking, warehousing, delivery, and
shopping facilities is designed for commercial retail. Retail sales items includes
many potentially hazardous products, including paints, thinners, solvents,
preservatives, propane gas (for both sale and use in forklifts), and large
potentially flammable items, such as lumber. These items will be routinely
delivered to the facility, transported to and from the site by consumers (generally
in small quantities), and when not sold or warehoused must be transported from
the site for disposal or return to the manufacturer. Transport will be
concentrated along Dubuque Avenue and onto the Bayshore Freeway. The risk
of accidental upset and environmental contamination from routine transport,
storage, use, and disposal of hazardous and potentially hazardous materials to the
public and environment is a potentially significant impact.
Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program. In accordance with State
law and local regulations, businesses occupying the development must
complete a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) for the safe storage
and use of chemicals. The HMBP must include the type and quantity of
hazardous materials, a site map showing storage locations of hazardous
materials and where they may be used and transported from, risks of using
these materials, material safety data sheets for each material, a spill
prevention plan, an emergency response plan, employee training consistent
with OSHA guidelines, and emergency contact information. Businesses
qualify for the program if they store a hazardous material equal to or greater
than the minimum reportable quantities. These quantities are 55 gallons for
liquids, 500 pounds for solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature
and pressure) for compressed gases.
Retail establishments, such as the Home Deport, are normally required by
law to report non-retail chemical storage of hazardous materials. Hazardous
materials may include paints, solvents, batteries, aerosol cans, compressed gas
cylinders, asbestos containing materials, silica gels, lubricating oils, and fuels
used to power generators and other mechanical equipment, as well as any
other chemicals considered hazardous by the San Mateo County
Environmental Health Department, Department of Toxic Substances
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
Mitigation
Measure 6-1b
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Control, and other applicable regulators. Home Depot is also responsible for
reporting "off spec" materials. These are materials that were not sold and
are not able to be returned to the manufacturer. Home Depot is responsible
for the safe disposal of these materials, which shall be additionally reported
and included in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan.
Businesses occupying and/or operating at the proposed development must
submit a HMBP prior to the start of operations, and must review and update
the entire HMBP at least once every two years, or within 30 days of any
significant change. Some of these changes are new emergency contact
information, major increases or decreases in hazardous materials storage,
and/ or changes in location of hazardous materials. Plans shall be submitted
to the San Mateo County Environmental Health Business Plan Program.
The San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD) shall
inspect the business annually to verify that the HMBP is complete and
accurate.
Prior to the final inspection the applicant shall provide a copy of the County
approved HMBP to the City of South San Francisco Fire Marshall.
Compliance with US Department of Transportation, State of California
and local laws, ordinances and procedures for transportation of
hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. All transportation of
hazardous materials and hazardous waste to and from the site will be in
accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US
Department of Transportation (DOT), State of California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans), and local laws, ordinances and procedures
including placards, signs and other identifying information.
Implementation of the above nutigation measures would reduce the impact of routine
transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials to a level of less than significant.
Impact 6-2
Accidental Hazardous Materials Release. Mitigations for accidental
release of hazardous materials during construction are included in Mitigation
Measure 7 -2a, implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP), presented in the hydrology section of this environmental impact
report. This mitigation includes implementation of Best Management
Practices for preventing the discharge of construction-related pollutants such
as diesel fuel, hydraulic oil, paint, concrete, etc. to the environment.
However, these measures provide no mitigation for the accidental release of
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 6-11
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mitigation
Measure 6-2a
PAGE 6-12
hazardous materials during demolition of the existing facilities. Hazardous
materials to be encountered include asbestos containing building materials
and possible lead based paint. Demolition presents a primary hazard to
workers through inhalation of dust, dermal absorption, and ingestion of
hazardous materials. Following the completion of construction; warehousing,
transport, and vending operations at the proposed facilities are expected to
represent a continuing threat to the environment through accidental release
of potentially hazardous materials. The greatest risk is likely from a spill into
the storm drain system. These hazards are a potentially significant
impact.
Demolition Plan and Permitting. Prior to demolition of any buildings or
structures the applicant shall obtain a Demolition Permit from the City of
South San Francisco Building Division. The Demolition Plan shall include
measures ensuring safe demolition of existing buildings and structures. The
Plan shall include measures to control asbestos dust control and incorporate
site surveys for the presence of potentially hazardous building materials. The
Demolition Plan shall address both on-site worker protection and off-site
resident and worker protection from both chemical and physical hazards. All
contaminated building materials are required to be tested for contaminant
concentrations and are required to be disposed of at appropriate licensed
landfill facilities. Prior to building demolition, hazardous building materials
such as peeling, chipping and friable lead based paint and asbestos containing
building materials are required to be removed in accordance with all
applicable guidelines, laws, and ordinances. The Demolition Plan shall
include a program of air monitoring for dust particulates and attached
contaminants. Dust control and suspension of work during dry windy days
shall be addressed in the plan. Prior to obtaining a demolition permit from
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), an asbestos
demolition survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of
BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2.
For the impact of flaking and peeling lead based paint, the requirements of
Tide 8, California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1 (1'8 CCR 1532.1)
must be followed. These requirements include but are not limited to the
following:
· Loose and peeling lead-containing paint should be removed prior to
building demolition. Workers conducting removal of lead paint must
receive training in accordance with T8 CCR 1532.1.
· Lead-containing paint removal shall be designed by a DHS certified
lead project designer, project monitor or supervisor.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
. Preparation of a written Lead Compliance Plan that meets the
requirements of the lead construction standard by any contractor that
impacts leads coatings.
. Workers conducting removal oflead paint must be certified by DHS
in accordance with T8 CCR 1532.1.
. Workers that may be exposed above the Action Level must have
blood lead levels tested prior to commencement of lead work and at least
quarterly thereafter for the duration of the project. Workers that are
terminated from the project should have their blood lead levels tested
within 24 hours of termination.
. A written exposure assessment must be prepared in accordance with
T8 CCR 1532.1.
. Any amount of lead waste generated, including painted building
components, must be characterized for proper disposal in accordance
with Tide 22, Section 66261.24.
Prior to the issuance of the Demolition Permit by the City of South San
Francisco, the applicant shall provide a copy of the BAAQMD Permit and
Compliance Plan to the City of South San Francisco Building Official.
Mitigation
Measure 6-2b
California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP). The
applicant shall check State and Federal lists of regulated substances for
chemicals that pose a major threat to public health and safety or the
environment because they are highly toxic, flammable or eXplosive. This list
is available from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department
(SMCEHD). Businesses are responsible for determining which list to use in
consultation with SMCEHD.
Should the applicant's business qualify for the program, as determined in
consultation with SMCEHD, the applicant must complete a CalARP
registration form listing all regulated substances and submit it to the
SMCEHD. Following registration of the regulated substances they shall
submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP). RMPs are designed to handle
accidental releases and ensure that businesses have the proper information to
provide to emergency response teams if an accidental release occurs. All
businesses that store or handle more than a threshold quantity (TQ) of a
regulated substance must develop and implement a Risk Management Plan.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 6-13
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public health and the
environment if a regulated substance is released near schools, residential
areas, hospitals and childcare facilities. RMPs must include procedures for:
keeping employees and customers safe; handling regulated substances;
training staff; maintaining equipment; checking that substances are stored
safely; and responding to an accidental release.
Prior to Final Building inspection, the applicant shall provide a copy of the
Risk Management Plan to the City of South San Francisco Fire Marshall.
Mitigation
Measure 6-2c
Employee Training. The applicant shall develop and implement an
Employee Training Plan covering spill prevention, cleanup, and notification
procedures in accordance with OSHA and CAL OSHA. The operation of
the store will require having sufficient cleanup materials such as spill kits,
absorbent rags, sand, etc. available to staff for containing and cleaning up
spills and leaks, as well as procedures for proper disposal of contaminated
materials.
Prior to the Final Inspection the applicant shall provide a copy of the
Employee Training Plan to the City of South San Francisco Fire Marshall.
The Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Fire Marshall.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact of accidental releases of
hazardous materials to a level of less than significant.
~ARDousMATE~SNEARSCHOOLS
The nearest registered school or daycare facility is the Martin School located at 35 School
Avenue, approximately 0.4 miles from the site. There are also two day care centers located on
Gateway Blvd, approximately 500 yards from the site. This distance of greater than one-quarter
mile from these sites and the relative isolation of the site between Highway 101 and the railroad
tracks results in the potential impact to schools from hazardous emissions or accidental upset to
be considered less than significant.
PAGE 6-14
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HAzARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
According to the most recent Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment completed for the
property and dated January 6, 2005, the site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. There is no reported evidence of hazardous
materials at the site and the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department reports the
site is not on record as a hazardous waste site. No impact to the project.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
Impact 6-3
Mitigation
Measure 6-3
Potential Interference with Emergency Response Plan. The proposed
development is not expected to physically interfere with implementation of an
adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. While traffic will be increased
along Dubuque Avenue it is not anticipated to reduce response times.
Discussion of specific traffic and transportation impacts resulting from the
proposed Project are also discussed in the Traffic and Transportation Section of
this DEIR. Demand for fire protection and emergency medical services will also
increase at the site since the proposed facility is designed to accommodate more
visitors and workers than the former Levitz Furniture facility. In addition,
Project construction could result in a reduction of response times, due to large
construction equipment and reduced access to the ~ite and surrounding areas.
Discussion of specific traffic and transportation impacts resulting from the
proposed development are also discussed in the Traffic and Transportation
Section of this DEIR. Interference with the local Emergency Response Plan
would be a potentially significant impact.
Fire Department Review. Prior to issuance of the Building Permit, the City
of South San Francisco Fire Department is required to review construction
plans for roadway modifications and shall establish temporary alternative
emergency routes necessary for the duration of the Project construction. The
applicant shall design the aisleways and driveways to meet the SSFMC and
Uniform Building Code requirements for emergency access.
The on-site circulation system shall be subject to the review and approval by
the City of South San Francisco Chief Planner in consultation with the City
Engineer and Fire Marshall.
Implementation of this tnlt1gation measure will reduce the impact of development to any
emergency response or evacuation plan to a level of less than significant.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 6-15
CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Airport Land Use Plan
While the proposed Project would be located within the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use
Plan for the San Francisco International Airport, it would have a less than significant impact
in terms of the Plan's policies.
Private Airstrip
The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and would thereby not
result in a safety hazard for people working or residing in the area. As such, the Project will
have no impact.
Wildland Fires and Wetlands
The Project site is not located adjacent to any residences, and is not within the vicinity of a
wedands. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on the safety of people or structures in
regards to potential loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
PAGE 6-16
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
7
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7.1 INTRODUCTION
This section presents an evaluation of potential Project impacts to hydrology and water quality.
The discussion is based on the review of several reports and documents as well as site visits
conducted on July 12 and July 25, 2005 by Questa Engineering, and correspondence with the
City of South San Francisco and San Mateo County Public Works Department. The various
reports and documents reviewed include: (1) Project Description; (2) Conceptual Plans prepared
by Greenberg Farrow Architecture Engineering Development (Apri129, 2005); (3) ALTA Land
Tide Survey prepared by Lars Andersen and Associates (March 9, 2005); (4) Preliminary
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared by The Twining Laboratories, Inc. (January 11,
2005); and (5) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Levitz Furniture Store, prepared by
ENVIRON International Corporation (January 6, 2005).
7.2 SETTING
CLIMATE AND TOPOGRAPHY
The Project site is located in a relatively flat to gendy sloping industrial area east of Highway 101
in the City of South San Francisco. The San Francisco Bay is located approximately 2,000 feet
northeast of the site. The regional climate is typical of the San Francisco Bay Area and is
characterized by dry, mild summers and moist, cool winters. About 80 percent of the total
annual precipitation occurs during the months of November through March with an average
annual precipitation of 20 inches. Average monthly temperatures range from a high of 74
degrees Fahrenheit in the summer to a low of 42 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter.1
The Project site and surrounding area is largely developed with light industrial, research, retail,
warehousing, office, and hotel land uses. Approximately 89 percent of the 7.62-acre Project site
is currendy covered in impervious surfaces. A 156,637 square foot warehouse-type building is
situated at the southern end of the property, with paved parking and loading areas occupying
most of the remainder of the site. Railroad tracks parallel the eastern boundary of the property.
The site ground surface is generally level and slopes gendy (approximately one percent) to the
Western Regional Climate Center, 2005
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 7-1
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
northeast towards the railroad tracks; a slope is present at the eastern edge of the property
adjacent to the tracks. Ground elevations range from approximately 17 feet above Mean Sea
Level (MSL) at the northeast comer of the property to 24 feet above MSL in the southwest
comer of the property.
SURFACE HYDROLOGY
The Project site is located on the fringe of the San Francisco Bay, approximately 2,000 feet from
Bay waters. Neighboring properties are generally located south of the Project site, and drain
southward to Colma Creek, an urbanized flood control channel that discharges into the San
Francisco Bay just north of the San Francisco International Airport. However, unlike other
properties in the vicinity, the Project site is not included in the Colma Creek watershed; instead,
storm drains near the northern boundary of the site carry storm water eastward to the Bay at
Oyster Cove.
Storm water runoff from the site begins as overland sheet flow across the roof of the building
and the paved parking lot. The overall drainage system is shown on Figure 7-1. One storm
drain drop inlet currendy exists on the Project site; it is located inside the parking lot near the
east entrance to the property from Dubuque Avenue and collects approximately one-half of the
Project site runoff. According to the Utilities Plan for the City of South San Francisco, the size
of the storm drain line is unknown, however the Conceptual Utilities Plan by Greenberg Farrow
and the ALTA Survey by Lars Andersen and Associates indicate that the pipe is 24 inches in
diameter at the drop inlet.
The other half of the storm water runoff from the Project site runs as sheet flow and in a
shallow pavement ditch towards the southeast corner of the property, where it drains off of the
pavement through small drainage pipes in the curb onto the adjacent slope and ultimately into
the soil and gravel beside the railroad tracks. Here the runoff ponds and, during larger storms,
flows north towards a drop inlet that is currendy clogged with soil, gravel, and debris. This drop
inlet was originally intended to connect via a separate trunk line to the Oyster Cove storm drain
line. However, it is unknown how much water flows into the municipal system through this
clogged inlet. It appears that most of the storm runoff ponds and inf1ltrates into the soil beside
the railroad tracks and never reaches the Oyster Cove drain pipe; a gully with long green grasses
has formed along the toe of slope adjacent to the railroad tracks.
GROUNDWATER
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) defines state groundwater basins based
on geologic and hydrogeologic conditions. According to the DWR, the Project site is located
within the Westside Groundwater Basin. The Westside Groundwater Basin consists of bedrock
and unconsolidated materials. Unconsolidated materials overlying the basin represent the
primary water-bearing strata and are comprised of dune sands, the Colma Formation, and the
Merced Formation. While groundwater quality in the basin is generally in compliance with
PAGE 7-2
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
~
1-1-
zW
......J
CI-
Q..::J
~C
W
l-
V)
>-
C
1
w
z
::;
z
~
c
::;:
a:
o
I-
1Il
~
Cl
z
i=
1Il
X
W
(
W
0::
:::)
C)
u:
~
I
f'...
<(
U
.... ~
", 0 8
VI c.. VI
Z Q) 'U
00;
- Q) "-
t- E ~
- 0 I'll
C)C:cV1
Z Z 0 -5
- 0 u g
t- 0 .~ VI
,,, U ~
~wc:~
><w C) ~ ai
.Au..>
...... c: <(
Z rtS Q.I
~~i
C ::J :]
00
VlO
o
C'\
c:
rtS
a..
VI
Q)
.~
.....
::>
o
u
VI
'U
c:
rtS
....
LL.
c:
rtS
Vl
.c
.....
::J
o
Vl
......
o
>
.....
U
Q)
.c
.....
'0
co
&.
(-'""; OJ
'.,.J~
Z~
~(\1
Nt
'"'"" Ol:
~~
I ~ ~ ~
-~
~,
..f~ ~
............, (I")
o
r""". ,....
........,J )(
o
:zOO
~~
~~ ~ g
H.~
~~i()
~~ f' -g
q
'.c:
(': 0
~o:
P"y -
-l:
~
E
o
....
......
"0
Q)
.....
c..
rtS
"0
rtS
Q)
....
::J
0'1
u.
~
'0
~
'0
.....
I
......
I-
0
a..
w
0
W
LO :E
0 0
0 :I:
C\I 0::: ~ u.
-
CO <( (JJ
- Cf) (JJ
CO
0
C i:i z
S ~ \.. m
a.
l!! a. ~
III 00(
C C
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
PAGE 7-4
This page intentionally left blank
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
drinking water quality standards, some wells in the basin have experienced nitrate-nitrogen
concentration in excess of the primary maximum contaminant levels.2
The preparation of the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the proposed
Project included nine exploratory boreholes drilled on November 15, 16, and 17, 2004. Five of
the boreholes were drilled around the perimeter of the existing building to depths of 211/2 to
431/2 feet below ground surface (bgs) and four borings were drilled in the parking lot to depths
of approximately 10 feet bgs. Groundwater at the Project site was encountered at depths
ranging between 81/2 and 111/2 feet bgs.3
FLOODING
The Project site is located outside of the 100-year flood hazard zone of Colma Creek as
delineated by the current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM). Figure 7-2 shows the location of the 100-year flood hazard zone in relation
to the Project site and the San Francisco Bay.
7.3 REGULATORY SETTING
The proposed Project must be constructed in accordance with several regulatory programs, laws,
and regulations that aim to protect surface water resources. In some cases, Federal laws are
administered and enforced by state and local government. In other cases, state and local
regulations in California are stricter than those imposed by Federal law. This section summarizes
relevant regulatory programs, laws, and regulations with respect to hydrology and water quality
and how they relate to the proposed Project.
FEDERAL LAws AND REGULATIONS
CLEAN WATER ACT
The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted by Congress in 1972 and amended several times since
inception. It is the primary federal law regulating water quality in the United States, and forms
the basis for several state and local laws throughout the country. Its objective is to reduce or
eliminate water pollution in the nation's rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters. The CW A
prescribed the basic federal laws for regulating discharges of pollutants as well as set minimum
water quality standards for all waters of the United States. Several mechanisms are employed to
control domestic, industrial, and agricultural pollution under the CW A. At the Federal level, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) administers the CW A. At the state and regional
level, the CWA is administered and enforced by the State Water Resources Control Board
2
Department of Water Resources, 2004.
Twining Laboratories, Inc., 2005.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 7-5
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
(SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). The State of California
has developed a number of water quality laws, rules, and regulations, in part to assist in the
implementation of the CW A and related Federally mandated water quality requirements. In
many cases, the Federal requirements set minimum standards and policies and the laws, rules,
and regulations adopted by the State and Regional Boards exceed them.
STATE LAws AND REGULATIONS
PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act established the SWRCB and the RWQCB as the
principal state agencies having primary responsibility for coordinating and controlling water
quality in California. The Porter-Cologne Act established the responsibility of the RWQCB for
adopting, implementing, and enforcing water quality control plans (Basin Plans), which set forth
the water quality standards of the state (i.e. beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater)
and the objectives or criteria necessary to protect those beneficial uses. The NPDES permits
must be consistent with the Basin Plans.
NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
The CW A has nationally regulated the discharge of pollutants to the waters of the U.S. from any
point source since 1972. In 1987, amendments to the CWA added section 402(P), which
established a framework for regulating non-point source (NPS) storm water discharges under
the NationaI Pollutant Elimination System (NPDES). The Phase I NPDES storm water
program regulates storm water discharges from industrial facilities, large and medium-sized
municipal separate storm sewer systems (those serving more than 100,000 persons), and
construction sites that disturb five or more acres of land. Under the program, the Project
applicant will be required to comply with two NPDES permit requirements.
The NPDES General Construction Permit Requirements apply to clearing, grading, and
disturbances to the ground such as excavation. The Project applicant is required to submit a
Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resource Control Board's (SWRCB) Division of
Water Quality. The NOI includes general information on the types of construction activities that
will occur on the site. The applicant will also be required to submit a site-specific plan called the
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activities. The SWPPP will
include a description of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the discharge of
pollutants from the site during construction. It is the responsibility of the property owner to
obtain coverage under the permit prior to site construction.
The NPDES General Industrial Permit Requirements apply to the discharge of storm water
associated with industrial sites. The permit requires the implementation of management
measures that will achieve the performance standard of best available technology (BAT)
economically achievable and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). Under the
PAGE 7-6
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
w
a::
~
Co:)
u:
C\I
I
I'-
C3
-
o 0
(/)0-0
W Q) .~
o g
Z Q) ~
o E LL
No c:
:cb1.l
C 0 ~
O. <.J -
rn ::]
0'0 ~
...Jc-
CO Q)
LL L.. ::]
U. c:
Q)
<C c ~
:E8lQ)
W.c5-
LL-::]
:J.o
o ::]
(/)0
o
o
0)
,
,
'\
~
"C
~
r--
I-
o
0-
W
Cl
w
~
o
J:
u.
en
en
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
PAGE 7-8
This page intentionally left blank
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
statute, operators of new facilities must implement industrial BMPs in the Project SWPPP and
perform monitoring of storm water discharges and unauthorized non-storm water discharges.
An annual report must be submitted to the RWQCB each July 1. Operators of new facilities
must file an NOI at least 14 days prior to the beginning of operations.
LOCAL PROGRAMS AND REGULATIONS
SAN MATEO COUNTYWIDE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM
To comply with the CWA, San Mateo County and the 20 cities and town in the County formed
the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP). STOPPP
holds a joint municipal NPDES permit from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The permit
includes a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to creeks, San Francisco
Bay, and the ocean to the maximum extent possible.
SAN FRANCISCO BAY WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN (BASIN PLAN)
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is responsible for the development, adoption, and
implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay region. The Basin
Plan is the master policy document that contains descriptions of the legal, technical, and
programmatic bases of water quality regulation in the San Francisco Bay Region. The Basin Plan
identifies beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater within its region and specifies water
quality objectives to maintain the continued beneficial uses of these waters. The proposed
Project is required to adhere to all water quality objectives identified in the Basin Plan.
Beneficial Uses of Surface Waters and Groundwaters
The Basin Plan deftnes beneficial uses for surface waters and groundwater in its corresponding
jurisdiction. The beneficial uses of surface waters in the south San Francisco Bay include wildlife
habitat, estuarine habitat, preservation of rare and endangered species, fish migration, shellfish
harvesting, commercial and sport fishing, water contact and non-contact recreation, navigation,
and industrial service supply. The beneficial uses of groundwater in the Westside Groundwater
Basin (also referred to as the Merced Valley North Groundwater Basin) include municipal and
domestic supply, industrial process supply, industrial service supply, and agricultural supply.4
EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN
The East of 101 Area Plan provides detailed planning policies that are consistent with policies of
the adopted South San Francisco General Plan. With respect to hydrology and water quality, the
plan aims to reduce flooding by evaluating specific development proposals to determine
drainage and flood protection requirements, and to prevent the degradation of water quality by
4
San Francisco Bay RWQCB, 1995.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 7-9
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
minimizing erosion and sedimentation, and requiring that Projects comply with NPDES permit
requirements.s
7.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a Project's impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines
thresholds:
1) Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
2) Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
3) Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
4) Would the Project 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?
5) Would the Project 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?
6) Would the Project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
7) Would the Project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
8) Would the Project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
9) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
10) Would the Project cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
City of South San Francisco, East if 101 Area Plan, 1994.
PAGE 7-10
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed Project involves the demolition of the existing on-site building and the complete
removal of the existing parking lot in order to construct a new building and two-story parking
lot structure. The site soils will be re-graded to accommodate the new structures, and a new
subterranean storm drain system will be installed that will convey all storm water runoff from
the site to the existing drop inlet located near the east entrance to the property from Dubuque
Avenue. Potential hydrological and water quality impacts are primarily related to: (1) the
exposure of soils during the construction period and (2) increased flows to the existing
municipal storm drain sewer contributed by the proposed Project storm drain system. Pre- and
post-development drainage conditions for the Project site are shown in Figure 7-3.
CHANGES IN PEAK RUNOFF
Under current conditions, approximately 50 percent of the storm water runoff from the Project
site is directed into the drop inlet at the east entrance to the property, while the remaining runoff
drains off-site beside the railroad tracks. The proposed Project drainage plan would instead
direct all storm water runoff to the existing on-site drop inlet.
Using the Rational Method as presented in the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and
Sediment Control Measures (1981), Questa Engineering performed preliminary calculations to
analyze the impacts of the proposed Project on peak runoff. Peak flows for the 10-year design
storm were calculated for the drop inlet on the Project site and the outlet at Oyster Cove.
Results are presented in Table 7-1.
7 .
p
Drainage area Flow %
Drainage area (acres) Peak flow (cfs) (acres) Peak flow (cfs) Flow increase (cfs) Increase
3.43 5.4 7.1 10.7 5.3 98%
7.98 18.7 11.65 26.7 8 43%
p p
o
M
* Assumes 3.67 acres drains to the railroad tracks and ponds/infiltrates; cfs- cubic feet per second
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
PAGE 7-11
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
Impact 7-1
Mitigation
Measure 7-1a
Mitigation
Measure 7-1b
Increases in Peak Runoff. According to preliminary calculations by
Questa Engineering, the proposed Project will approximately double the 10-
year peak storm water flows to the on-site drop inlet along Dubuque Avenue
and will increase 10-year peak discharge to the Bay by approximately 43%.
No analysis of defInitive information has been presented to verify that the
existing storm drain system can carry the design flows under proposed
Project conditions. This is a potentially significant impact.
Storm Drain Analysis. The applicant shall conduct a hydraulic analysis of
the proposed storm drain system from the Project site to the Oyster Cove
outlet to establish whether the existing storm drain pipe has capacity to
accommodate the increased flows resulting from the proposed Project. The
analysis shall include Rational Method calculations of pre- and post-
development 10-year peak flows and shall take into account drainpipe slope
and elevations, drainpipe size(s), and system head losses. The Storm Drain
Analysis shall be subject to the review and approval by the City of South San
Francisco City Engineer. If the analysis cannot determine that the existing
storm drain can contain the additional flows from the proposed Project,
Mitigation 7-1 b shall be implemented.
Revised Storm Drain Plan. If the Storm Drain Analysis described in
Mitigation Measure 7 -la cannot show that the existing storm drain has
capacity for Project flows, the applicant shall submit a Revised Storm Drain
Plan for the Project. The revised plan shall include drawings of the new
proposed system and shall include calculations of the new system capacity.
Methods such as on-site storm water detention, storm drain line upgrades,
and an infiltration area shall be incorporated into the Project design.
Mitigation Measure 7 -2b requires incorporation of vegetated swale and
infiltration area for treatment of storm water runoff from parking lot areas.
Prior to the approval of the Final Map, changes to the Project Drainage Plan
shall be subject to the review and approval by the City of South San
Francisco Storm Water Coordinator and the City Engineer.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the impact of changes in peak runoff
to a level of less than significant.
PAGE 7-12
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
w
0:::
:)
C)
u:
C")
I
I'--
(i9
>-
~
I..L.
<(
u
~ .
en 0 0
.- o.~
Z Z Q) 'u
W QO ~
:E'-E~
D..Co~
o Z :::c V'l
...J 0 0 -5
W 0 u::J 0
III
> 'v V'l
WWc:cJ
CC)~E
I<(LLCli
.-ZC~
en _ ~ Cli
O<(..c:&
D.. I:t: ~ ::J
C:J..c
o ::J
V)Cl
o
o
O'l
~
15
I-
g
&
~
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
PAGE 7-14
This page intentionally left blank.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
INCREASE IN NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION (NPS) IN RECEIVING WATERS
Non-point source pollutants (NPS) are washed by rainwater from roofs, landscape areas, and
streets and parking areas into the drainage network. Typical industrial NPS pollutants for various
industrial activities are listed in Table 7-2. Development of the proposed Project would
contribute to the levels of NPS pollutants and litter entering the San Francisco Bay by
redirecting site runoff directly into the storm drain network. Under existing conditions, one half
of the Project site runoff drains to grassy swales adjacent to the railroad tracks. This drain,
though clogged, provides water quality benefits. The regarding and redirecting of storm water
reduces these benefits. An increase in NPS pollutants could have adverse effects on wildlife,
vegetation, and human health. NPS pollutants could also infiltrate into groundwater and degrade
the quality of potential groundwater drinking sources.
Under the NPDES storm water permit, the proposed Project is required to provide permanent
treatment for site runoff. To meet this requirement, the proposed Project includes a network of
roof drains, parking lot trench drains, and curbside catch basins that are connected by
subterranean pipes to the existing storm sewer located near the east entrance to the site on
Dubuque Avenue. As a means of treatment, a vault based hydrodynamic storm water separator
is proposed to be placed directly before the connection to the storm sewer.
A hydrodynamic storm water separator is a cylindrical gravity separator into which a tangential
flow stream is introduced in order to generate a swirling flow pattern. Settleable solids in the
stream are removed by the centrifugal force of the water swirling through the system.
Hydrodynamic storm water separators work well for removing heavy particulates and oils, but
are less effective at removing nutrients and other dissolved pollutants. Field monitoring results
suggest that Total Suspended Solids (fSS) removal rates for various separator models range
from 40 to 80 percent.6.7 Site constraints, including availability of soils of suitable depth, level
surface, and stability, can restrict the effective performance of the separator unit. Appropriate
sizing of the unit relative to impervious drainage area is also important.8 It also should be noted
that these types of structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) require periodic cleaning and
maintenance. Vendors suggest different sizes for their separator models depending on treatment
requirements and site specifics. The Project applicant has neither indicated a particular model to
be used, nor provided site-specific hydraulic sizing calculations for the proposed hydrodynamic
storm water separator.
6 University of Massachuserts Amherst, 2003.
7 Rinker Materials Corporation, 2005.
8 EPA, 1999.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 7-15
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
7
p
p
M
<J)
<I.l
U
<J) ~
....
~ <J) <J)
";l ..0
u ;:l
'>< 'Q C/) <I.l
<J) ~ <J)
.... <J) 0 OJJ <<l <<l <J)
d .... <J) f-t ~ ;@ ~ <I.l
5 'Q :Q
<I.l ";l "'C 0 <I.l
~ 'E .... .... U
<I.l ~ <I.l ~ U 'p
;:l ~ :a o(j <<l <J)
<I.l Z <J) S ~ <I.l
<<l ~ p.,
C/) u .... <I.l
.~ <<l Cl 0
0
1I:: I
eP d
0 <I.l
~
0
Vehicle & Equipment Fueling
Vehicle & Equipment Washing
Vehicle & Equipment
Maintenance & Repair
Outdoor Loading & nloading
of Materials
Outdoor Container Storage of
Liquids
Outdoor Process Equipment
Operations & Maintenance
Outdoor Storage of Ray
Materials, Products, &
Biproducts
Waste Handling & Disposal
Contaminated or Erodible
Surface Areas
Building & Grounds
Maintenance
Building Repair, Remodeling,
& Construction
Parking/Storage Area
Maintenance
Source: California Stormwater Quality Association, 2003, California Stormwater BMP Handbook, Industrial & Commercial,
PAGE 7-16
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Impact 7-2
Mitigation
Measure 7-2a
Mitigation
Measure 7-2b
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
Lack of Hydraulic Sizing Calculations for Hydrodynamic Storm Water
Separator and Lack of Alternative Methods for Storm Water
Treatment. Hydrodynamic storm water separator devices must be properly
sized to maximize pollutant removal and meet water quality requirements.
The Project applicant has not provided hydraulic sizing calculations or
specifications for any of the storm drain treatment system. No other
methods of storm water treatment such as vegetated swales have been
identified. This presents a potentially significant impact.
Hydrodynamic Storm Water Separator Shall Be Designed in
Accordance with CASQA Sizing Recommendations. The hydrodynamic
storm water separator shall be designed in accordance with CASQA sizing
recommendations for in-line Vortex Separator BMPs.
Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit, the applicant shall provide final
calculations, sizing criteria, and maintenance responsibility provisions shall be
subject to the review and approval of the City of South San Francisco City
Engineer and Storm Water Coordinator.
Additional Storm Water Treatment Control Methods Shall be
Incorporated into the Project. The Project shall incorporate the following
design measures into the storm drain system:
. A vegetated/grass swale along the perimeter of the parking lot
. A notched curb along the parking lot perimeter to direct flow from
the parking area into the swale
. A catch basin at the end of the swale shall direct runoff into an
infiltration area
. All maintenance yard/ service areas shall be covered
The Drain Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of
South San Francisco City Engineer and Storm Water Coordinator.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the impact of non-point source
pollution to a level of less than significant.
DECREASE IN GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
Approximately 89 percent of the Project site is currendy covered in impervious surfaces.
Redevelopment of the site would result in an approximate 4 percent increase in impervious
surface areas. This slight increase in impervious area would not likely have a negative effect on
groundwater recharge. Pre- and post-development impervious surfaces versus pervious surfaces
are presented in Table 7-3. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 7-17
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
INCREASED EROSION OR SILTATION TO RECEIVING WATERS
Construction of the proposed Project would involve the demolition of existing structures and
pavement areas and grading activities. Existing structures and pavement that currendy help to
stabilize site soils would be removed during Project construction. Site grading is expected to
involve a total export of 4,500 cubic yards and a total import of 11,400 cubic yards of material.9
Construction operations associated with the Project would present a threat of soil erosion from
soil disturbance by subjecting unprotected bare soil areas to the erosional forces of runoff during
construction.
7
MP .P
P P
Impervious Surface Area 6.78 89%
Pervious Area 0.84 11%
P
Impervious Surface Area 7.08 93%
Pervious Area 0.53 7%
Sources: (1) ALTAI ACSM Land Tide Survey by Lars Andersen & Associates, 2005. (2) Conceptual Landscaping Plan
by Greenberg Farrow, 2005.
Impact 7-3
Soil Erosion. Project grading and other construction activities will disturb
site soils, potentially leading to impacts to the San Francisco Bay. This
represents a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation
Measure 7-3a
Preparation and Implementation of Project SWPPP. Pursuant to
NPDES requirements, the Project applicant shall develop a SWPPP to
protect water quality during and after construction. The Project SWPPP shall
9 Shaw, 2005.
P AG E 7-18
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
include, but is not limited, to the following mitigation measures for the
construction period:
1) Erosion control! soil stabilization techniques such as straw mulching,
erosion control blankets, erosion control matting, and hydro-seeding
shall be utilized in accordance with the regulations oudined in the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABA G) Manual of Standards for
Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. Silt fences used in
combination with fiber rolls shall be installed down slope of all graded
slopes. Fiber rolls, shall be installed in the flow path of graded areas
receiving concentrated flows and around storm drain inlets.
2) "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) for preventing the discharge of
other construction-related National Pollution Discharge and Elimination
System (NPDES) pollutants beside sediment (i.e. paint, concrete, etc) to
downstream waters.
3) After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be inspected
for accumulated sediment, and these drainage structures shall be cleared
of debris and sediment.
Long-term mitigation measures to be included in the Project SWPPP shall
include, but are not limited to, the following:
4) Description of potential sources of erosion and sediment at the Project
site. Industrial activities and significant materials and chemicals that could
be used at the proposed Project site should be described. This will
include a thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources.
5) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the Project site based on
identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources. Emphasis
shall be placed on source control BMPs, with treatment controls used as
needed.
6) Development of a monitoring and implementation plan. Maintenance
requirements and frequency shall be carefully described including vector
control, clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or oudet structures,
vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters, regular
sweeping of parking lots and other paced areas, etc. Wastes removed
from BMPs may be hazardous, therefore, maintenance costs should be
budgeted to include disposal at a proper site. Parking lot areas shall be
cleared of debris that may enter the storm drain system on a daily basis.
7) The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the
frequency agreed upon by the Regional Water Quality Control Board
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
PAGE 7-19
CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY
(RWQCB) and City of South San Francisco Storm Water Coordinator.
Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and submitted annually to
the SWRCB. The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as necessary, to address any
inadequacies of the BMPs.
8) The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on
industrial and commercial BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions
from the proposed development. This information shall be distributed to
all employees at the Project site. At a minimum, the information shall
cover: a) proper disposal of commercial cleaning chemicals; b) proper use
of landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and appropriate disposal of
hazardous materials and chemicals; and d) prohibition of any washing
and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains.
Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit the applicant shall provide a
SWPPP to the City Engineer and the Storm water Coordinator. The SWPP
shall be subject tot the review and approval by the City of South San
Francisco City Engineer and Storm Water Coordinator.
Mitigation
Measure 7-3b
Erosion Control Plan. The applicant shall complete an Erosion Control
Plan to be submitted to the City of South San Francisco in conjunction with
the Grading Permit Application. The Erosion Control Plan shall include
controls for winterization, dust, erosion, and pollution in accordance with the
ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures.
The Plan shall also describe the BMPs to be used during and following
construction to control pollution resulting from both storm and construction
water runoff. The Plan shall include locations of vehicle and equipment
staging, portable restrooms, mobilization areas, and planned access routes.
Grading activities are required to be inspected by the applicant's contractor
to ensure compliance with the approved grading plans. The City of South
San Francisco Public Works Construction Inspector will inspect the SWPPP
measures to ensure on-going compliance with the approved SWPPP.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the construction and post-development
impacts associated with erosion and siltation to a level of less than significant
PAGE 7-20
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
8
LAND USE
8.1 INTRODUCTION
South San Francisco is largely comprised of single-use areas, with industry in the eastern and
southeastern portions of the City (in the East of 101 Area), single family homes to the north and
west, commercial uses along a few transportation corridors, and multiple family housing
clustered in those same corridors and on hillsides.! While the City was an important center for
the steel and shipbuilding industries through the 1920s and World War II, which in turn led to
significant residential development and helped spur a six-fold increase in population between
1940 and 1959, South San Francisco has been making a slow industrial transformation over the
past 35-40 years, with steel production and heavy industries largely replaced by warehousing,
research, development, and biotechnology. Both South San Francisco's identity and land use
designations and policies are now strongly tied to its unofficial tide of "Biotechnology Capital of
the World".
Included within South San Francisco are 14 planning sub-areas. This project falls within the
East of 1 01 Area, which is actually an aggregation of four sub-areas in the General Plan Land
Use Element and encompasses all the land within City limits east of Highway 101. Adopted in
1994, the East of 101 Area Plan was prepared to maximize the potential of undeveloped or
underused properties in the City's traditional industrial east of U.S. 101 area. Consisting of
approximately 1700 acres of land, the East of 101 Area is comprised of eight land use categories:
Planned Commercial, Planned Industrial, Gateway Specific Plan Area, Light Industrial, Coastal
Commercial, Airport-Related, Open Space, and Transportation Corridors, with the largest
portion of land zoned as Planned Industrial.
This project is zoned Planned Commercial, and is consistent with the category's desire to
"accommodate destination uses such as warehouse style retail specialty stores",2 as well as the
Area Plan's desire for retail uses to be located along the perimeter of the East of 101 Area to
serve visiting shoppers, business people, and recreational users, with the majority along the
western portions of the area, so as to provide a transition between the industrial uses of the east
and the remaining portions of the City west of Highway 1 01.
Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999.
Brady and Associates, East ofl0l Area Plan, 1994
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 8-1
CHAPTER 8: LAND USE
8.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a project's environmental impacts are based on CEQA
Guidelines thresholds:
1. Would the Project physically divide an established community?
2. Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the Project?
3. Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
DIVIDING ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY
The proposed Project would have no impact related to the division of an established
community. The geography and surroundings of the project site foster a feeling of isolation
from the surrounding community, as it is surrounded on the north and west by Dubuque
Avenue and Highway 101, on the east by railroad rights-of-way, and on the south by office
buildings. There are not any residential communities east of Highway 101 (as mandated by
Policy LU-13 of the East of 101 Area Plan), and the highway serves as a buffer and shield in
preventing the project site, and the access points along Dubuque Avenue, from dividing the
established communities to the north and west.
CONFLICT WITH PLANS AND POLICIES
The Project site is currendy zoned Planned Commercial (P-C) and is part of the "East of 101"
Planning Sub-Area as defined by the City of South San Francisco General Plan. The site's
General Plan designation is Business Commercial. This designation accommodates business and
professional offices, visitor service establishments, and retail, and is intended for the emerging
commercial and hotel district that include and surround the project site along South Airport,
Gateway, and Oyster Point boulevards.
The proposed Project is consistent with the following General Plan policies:
Policy 3.5-G-1 Provide appropriate settings for a diverse range of non-residential uses.
Policy 3.5-1-3 Do not permit any residential uses in the East of 101 area.
PAGE 8-2 HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
CHAPTER 8: LAND USE
The proposed Project is consistent with the following East of 101 Area Plan policies:
Policy LU-4a Uses allowed in the Planned Commercial category shall typically include
hotels and motels, retail uses, office development, restaurants, administrative
services, day care centers, business and professional services, convenience
sales, financial services, personal and repair services, marinas, and
shoreline-oriented recreation.
Policy LU-13 No residential development shall occur in the East of 101 Area.
Policy LU-24 Retail and personal services shall be encouraged throughout the area to
serve the employees of the East of 101 Area.
Policy PF-2 Low flow plumbing fixtures and drought tolerant landscaping shall be
installed as part of all new developments in the area.
Policy DE-3 As an edge to the East of 101 Area, Dubuque Avenue should have
streetscape improvements to emphasize its visual importance.
Policy DE-13 New construction projects shall be required to supply and install street trees
and landscaping to meet the City's specifications for their frontages.
Streetscape planting, irrigation and hardscape should be designed
for minimum maintenance by City staff.
Selection and spacing of street trees shall be approved by the City
Landscape Architect and the Director of Parks, Recreation and
Community Services.
Medians should be cobbled and grouted or landscaped with low
maintenance plants with automatic irrigation.
Policy DE-17
In all land use categories except Light Industrial, loading docks should and
service areas should be located at the rear or side of the development, and
should be separated from automobile parking areas.
Policy DE-21
Developments should include a landscaped buffer zone along property lines
that is appropriate to the land use category, as shown in Figure A and
specified in Section D of the Design Element.
Policy DE-24
Perimeter landscaping should be provided in the landscaped buffers required
in Policy DE-21 , at a minimum rate of one tree for each 200 square feet of
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 8-3
CHAPTER 8: LAND USE
buffer area. Buffer areas should be planted with low-growing flowering
ground cover or shrubs.
Policy DE-28 Plant species chosen for the area should include low maintenance plants and
plants adaptive to the extremes of climate in the area. In addition, plant
species and planting design should complement the development's design.
Policy DE-29 Lighting on the exteriors of buildings should be incorporated into the overall
building and landscape design. Security and entry lights should align with,
be centered on, or otherwise coordinate with the building elements.
Policy DE-34 All activities and stored materials in loading, service, storage and trash
disposal areas should be screened from views from public streets, trails,
adjacent properties, and overhead views from adjacent properties, by
planting, berms and/or decorative walls. The screening should be integrated
into the design of structures or the site landscaping, so it does not appear as
an appendage added to the outside of the structure. This policy applies to all
types of outdoor storage areas containing materials, supplies, or equipment,
including autos, trucks and trailers.
Policy DE-38 The form and location of structures, the use of building colors and materials
and the selection of landscape materials and street furniture shall consider
the overall context of the Project and promote the development of a sense of
identity for the East of 101 area.
Policy DE-39 All sides of buildings that are visible from a public street or area should be
detailed and treated with relief elements and changes in plane.
Policy DE-52 Rooftop mechanical equipment should be screened from view by integral
architectural elements such as pitched roofs, ornamental parapets, mansards
or low towers.
Policy DE-53 Mechanical equipment shall be painted to match the color of the roof where it
is located.
Policy DE-55 The following additional design policies apply in the 101 Frontage Area:
Street Trees: Street trees should be planted within at least 30 feet of
each other. Dubuque Avenue should be specifically targeted for
streetscape improvements due to its visual accessibility from
Highway 101.
PAGE 8-4
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 8: LAND USE
Landscape Buffer: Landscape buffers along Dubuque Avenue should
be at least 20 feet wide, and along other streets should be 10 feet
wide. On side and rear property lines, they should be six feet wide.
Blank Walls: Blank building walls should be no more than 30 feet
long. Longer lengths of wall should conform with Policy DE-38.
Development along Dubuque Avenue should pay particular attention
to visual integrity of their development as seen from Highway 101.
Parkinq Lot Trees: Cars should not be parked more than twelve in a
row without a planting island that contains at least one tree.
Parkinq Lot Shrubs: Medians and bulbs inside the perimeters of a
parking lot shall be planted. A minimum of five percent of the total
parking lot area required to be landscaped shall be planted with
shrubs.
Policy NO-2
Office and retail developments in the East of 101 Area shall be designed so
that the calculated hourly average noise levels during the daytime does not
exceed an Leq of 45 dBA, an instantaneous maximum noise levels do not
exceed 60 dBA.
The proposed Project would be consistent with and would not conflict with the above
applicable City of South San Francisco General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan land use policies,
thereby constituting no adverse impact.
CONFLICT WITH CONSERVATION PLAN
Construction at the Project site would require removing fourteen (14) trees. Seven (7) of the
trees on the site are considered "protected" trees under Section 13.30.020(f)(1) of the City of
South San Francisco Municipal Code relating to tree preservation (free Ordinance). A
"protected" tree is any tree with a circumference of 48" or more when measured 54" above
natural grade; a tree or stand of trees so designated based upon findings that it is unique and of
importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, historical significance; or, a
stand of trees whereby each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. "Protected" trees
must be replaced with either three 24" box trees each or two 36" box trees each. The proposed
Landscaping Plan would meet this criteria by providing 162 total trees, including replacing the 7
"protected" trees with two 36" box trees each. As such, the project will have a less than
significant impact.
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 8-5
CHAPTER 8: LAND USE
PAGE 8-6
This page intentionally left blank.
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
9
NOISE
9.1 INTRODUCTION
Noise may be defIned as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing
or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound could be caused by its Pitch or its loudness.
Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (frequency) of
the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than
sounds with a lower pitch. uudness is intensity of sound waves combined with the reception
characteristics of the ear. Intensity may be compared with the height of an ocean wave in that it
is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave.
In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, there are several noise measurement scales
which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement
which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the
lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels
are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents a ten-fold increase in
acoustic energy, while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more
intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and
its intensity. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of
loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities. Technical terms are defIned in Table 9-1.
There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A-
weighted sound level or dBA. This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which
the human ear is most sensitive. Representative outdoor and indoor noise levels in units of dBA
are shown in Table 9-2. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a
method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the
variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an
average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events.
This energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called Leq' The most common averaging period
is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration.
The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can
accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various
computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways
and airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends upon the distance the receptor is
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
PAGE 9-1
CHAPTER 9: NOISE
M
M
Decibel. dB A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the
base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference
pressure, which is 20 micropascals (20 micronewtons per square meter).
Frequency, HZ The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below
atmospheric pressure.
A-Weighted Sound Level. dB The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter
using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the
very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner
similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with
subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this report are A-weighted,
unless reported otherwise.
Lot, L to, Lso, L90 The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1 %, 10%, 50%, and 90% of
the time during the measurement period.
Equivalent Noise Level, Leq The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.
Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after
addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and after
addition of 10 decibels to sound levels measured in the night between 10:00
PM and 7:00 am.
Day/Night Noise Level. Ldn The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after
addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 PM and
7:00 am.
Lmax, Lmin The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during the measurement
period.
Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing
level of environmental noise at a given location.
Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a
given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its
amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or
informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.
Source: ILLINGWORTH & RODKIN, INC.! Acoustical Engineers
PAGE 9-2
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 9: NOISE
p
M
M
140
Civil Defense Siren (100') 130
Jet Takeoff (200') 120 Pain Threshold
110 Rock Music Concert
Diesel Pile Driver (100') 100 Very Loud
90 Boiler Room
Freight Cars (50') Printing Press Plant
Pneumatic Drill (50') 80
Freeway (100') In Kitchen With Garbage Disposal
Vacuum Cleaner (10') 70 Running Moderately Loud
60 Data Processing Center
Light Traffic (100') 50 Department Store
Large Transformer (200')
40 Private Business Office Quiet
Soft Whisper (5') 30 Quiet Bedroom
20 Recording Studio
10 Threshold of Hearing
0
Source: ILLINGWORTH & RODKIN, INC.lAcoustical Engineers
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
PAGE 9-3
CHAPTER 9: NOISE
from the noise source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within about plus
or minus 1 to 2 dBA.
9.2 SETTING
In South San Francisco, the Noise Element of the City's General Plan (1999) contains land use
criteria for noise impacted areas. These criteria define the desirable maximum noise exposure of
various land uses, in addition to certain conditionally acceptable levels contingent upon the
implementation of noise reduction measures. These criteria indicate that noise levels of less than
70 dBA (CNEL)t are acceptable noise levels for commercial land uses.2
The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Noise Regulations, Section 8.32.030)
specifies the maximum permissible sound levels for residential, commercial and industrial land
uses. The Project site is zoned "P-C, Planned Commercial," and the noise level standard for this
zone is 65 dBA between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., and 60 dBA between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. (L50).3
Shorter periods of noise levels higher than these limits are allowed, but only for specified periods
of time. Specifically, the standard + 5 dB for more than 15 minutes, the standard + 10 dB for
more than 5 minutes, and the standard + 15 dB for more than one minute in any hour are used.
The standard + 20 dB cannot be exceeded for any period of time. However, where the existing
ambient noise level already exceeds the above noise limits, the ambient noise level becomes the
standard.
The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Section 8.32.050) restricts
construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also limits
noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the property
line.
As the East of 101 Area is exposed to noise from a variety of sources, including aircraft, surface
transportation, and various industrial uses, the East of 101 Area Plan calls for office and retail
The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit used to quantify sound intensity. Since the human ear is not equally
sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions in a
process called "A-weighting" written as "dBA".
CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise
intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be
added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL).
Dyett and Bhatia, Ciry of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 280, Table 9.2-1.
The noise limit that cannot be exceeded for more than 30 minutes in any hour (50 percent of any given hour).
PAGE 9-4
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
CHAPTER 9: NOISE
developments to be designed so that calculated hourly average noise levels during daytime does
not exceed an Leq of 45 dBA, and instantaneous maximum noise levels do not exceed 60 dBA.
In order to meet this, interior noise reduction for retail uses adjacent to Highway 101 between
Coma Creek and Oyster Point Boulevard must meet or exceed 32 dBA.4
9.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measunng a Project's environmental impacts are based upon
CEQA Guidelines thresholds:
1. Would the Project expose persons to, or generate noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
2. Would the Project expose persons to, or generate excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
3. Would the Project lead to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?
4. Would the Project lead to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?
5. 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?
6. 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?
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
VIOLATION OF LOCAL NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS
As noted in Section 9.2, the Noise Element of the City's General Plan (1999) contains land use
criteria for noise impacted areas, which indicate that noise levels of less than 70 dBA (CNEL/
are acceptable noise levels for commercial land uses.6
4 Brady and Associates, East ofl0l Area Plan, 1994, p. 157, Table 14
The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit used to quantify sound intensity. Since the human ear is not equally
sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions in a
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 9-5
CHAPTER 9: NOISE
The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Noise Regulations) specifies the
maximum permissible sound levels for residential, commercial and industrial land uses. The
Project site is zoned "P-C, Planned Commercial," and the noise level standard for this zone is 65
dBA between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., and 60 dBA between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. (Lso).7 Shorter
periods of noise levels higher than these limits are allowed, but only for specified periods of
time. Specifically, the standard + 5 dB for more than 15 minutes, the standard + 10 dB for more
than 5 minutes, and the standard + 15 dB for more than one minute in any hour are used. The
standard + 20 dB cannot be exceeded for any period of time. However, where the existing
ambient noise level already exceeds the above noise limits, the ambient noise level becomes the
standard. The noise ordinance also restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also limits noise generation of any individual piece of
equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the property line.
PERMANENT NOISE INCREASES
Traffic. Implementation of the proposed Project would increase traffic noise levels along local
streets due to Project generated traffic. In general, a doubling of traffic volumes would result in a
3-dBA noise increase in a traffic dominated noise environment, and a 3-dBA noise increase is
barely perceptible to most people. As shown in Tables ll-l1A, ll-l1B and 11-11C of the
Transportation and Circulation chapter of this EIR, Project related daily traffic trips would
increase to an estimated 4,690 daily trips under the proposed Project, which would lead to a
noticeable increase in traffic noise levels at the Project site and its vicinity.
However, due to the prevalence of commercial, office, and industrial land uses in the area, as
well as the isolated geography of the site, noise thresholds vis-a.-vis the Project and neighboring
land uses are higher there than they would be if more sensitive land uses were present near the
Project site. Due to these factors, the impact of traffic noise produced by the Project would be
considered less than significant.
Mechanical Equipment. Implementation of the proposed Project could increase ambient noise
levels in the Project vicinity due to the operation of more powerful rooftop mechanical equipment
process called "A-weighting" written as "dBA".
CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise
intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be
added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL).
Dyett and Bhatia, Ci(y of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 280, Table 9.2-1.
The noise limit that cannot be exceeded for more than 30 minutes in any hour (50 percent of any given hour).
PAGE 9-6
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 9: NOISE
than currendy function at the Project site. However, the equipment would be screened by the
raised building parapet walls. The impact of the HV AC system would be considered less than
significant provided that the noise level produced by it conforms to the City of South San
Francisco Noise Ordinance.
Vibration. It is not expected that future land uses at the Project site would generate excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. Therefore, it is expected that the Project would
have no impact related to excessive groundborne vibration or excessive groundborne noise.
NOISE, GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION
Temporary Noise Increase. During site preparation and construction at the Project site,
operation of heavy equipment could result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the Project site.
Impact 9-1
Mitigation
Measure 9-1
AIRPORTS
Construction Related Noise. Project construction would result in
temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy
equipment. This would be a potentially significant impact associated with
Project development. Construction noise sources range from about 82 to 90
dBA at 25 feet for most types of construction equipment, and slighdy higher
levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of earthmoving and
impact equipment.
Noise Abatement. While there are no existing noise-sensitive receptors in
the Project vicinity that would be affected by Project-generated construction
noise, neighboring businesses would be subjected to high noise levels during
site preparation and construction. If noise controls are installed on
construction equipment, noise levels could be reduced to 80 to 85 dBA at 25
feet, depending on the type of equipment. Assuming construction noise
levels comply with the 90-dBA noise limit specified in the City Noise
Ordinance, construction related noise impacts could be reduced to a level of
less than significant.
The City of South San Francisco Noise Element (1999) contains existing and future (2006) airport
noise contours associated with San Francisco International Airport, located south of the site. These
contours indicate the Project site is located outside the 65-dBA (CNEL) existing and future airport
noise contours. Projected contours for road, railroad, and other locally-generated noise are also
included in the Noise Element. These contours indicate that the Project site is located in an area
where noise levels generated by major road and railroad noise sources will continue to be between
70 and 75 dBA (CNEL). Based on the City's land use criteria, the proposed Project's commercial
land use would be largely compatible with future noise level Projections in the Project vicinity of
less than 65 to 70 dBA (CNEL), thereby representing a less than significant impact.
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 9-7
CHAPTER 9: NOISE
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 9-8
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
10
PUBLIC SERVICES
10.1 SETTING
FIRE PROTECTION
The South San Francisco Fire Department provides a full emergency medical services program,
with certified paramedics on its fIre engines and two full time Advanced Support ambulances.
The 85-member department staffs three engine companies, two quints (combination fire engine
and fire truck) and two ambulances. Minimum on duty staffing is 20 persons.t
Many areas of open space within the city pose a substantial risk of fire hazard to surrounding
areas.2 Beyond the topographic, climatic, and land use conditions that create fire hazard, two
factors contribute to fire risk in individual locations:
1. Vegetation. Accumulations of vegetation serve as fuel for wildland fires; large
concentrations of fuel, particularly where fires can spread from ground level to the tops
of trees, can create conditions where wildland fires spread rapidly. Vegetation on both
public and privately owned land in South San Francisco is generally poorly maintained
and overgrown.
2. Infrastructure. Public infrastructure, particularly site access and water supply, affect the
City's ability to respond to fIre. Poor access and inadequate local water supply can
increase the loss of life and property in a fire.
Eight fire hazard management units are identified in areas of the city that need vegetation
management or other measures to reduce wildland fIre risk and increase the potential for
successful fire suppression.3 Each management unit is designated as high, medium or low
priority in recognition of the relative need for risk management. The project site is not located
in any of these fire hazard management units, and access to the site is adequate via Dubuque
Avenue.
City of South San Francisco, Fire Department web site.
Dyett and Bhatia, Ciry of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 264.
Ibid.
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 10-1
CHAPTER 10: PUBLIC SERVICES
POLICE PROTECTION
The South San Francisco Police Department's jurisdictional area includes the entire city. The
Department currendy has a total of 80 sworn officers. The current ratio of officers is 1.2 per
1,000 residents. The Department is generally able to respond to high priority calls within two to
three minutes. These times are within the Department's response time goals. The Department
typically works a four-beat system, but the watch supervisor has the discretion to deploy his
personnel as he sees fit to accomplish daily goals and objectives. Each beat is typically staffed by
a one officer unit with between six and nine other officers consisting of traffic, K-9, training,
float, and supervisory units available for backup and overlap.
SCHOOLS
The South San Francisco Unified School District operates all public schools serving South San
Francisco, the Serramonte area of Daly City, and a small area of San Bruno, and is the largest
school district in San Mateo County. The District operates ten elementary schools, three middle
schools and two high schools. The District does not expect that school facility capacities will be
met or exceeded during the General Plan horizon. Although projected residential development,
and state directed class size reduction efforts have added new students, an aging population and
a trend toward smaller families in the city will reduce the student population. Some schools
have been closed, since they are no longer needed, and additional schools may need to be closed
in coming years for the same reason.
PARKS
The City of South San Francisco operates 21 recreational facilities through its Recreation and
Community Services Department.4 These include 9 parks (3 community parks and 6
neighborhood parks), a gymnasium, athletic field, and a variety of play lots and areas.
10.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measunng a Project's environmental impacts are based upon
CEQA Guidelines thresholds:
· Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the following public services:
4 City of South San Francisco, Recreation and Community Services web site
PAGE 10-2
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
CHAPTER 10: PUBLIC SERVICES
- Fire Protection
- Police Protection
- Schools
- Parks
- Other Public Facilities
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
FIRE PROTECTION
The Project site is not located in any of the city's fire hazard management unit areas, and access
to the site via Dubuque Avenue is adequate. The Project's design would be required to comply
with the city Fire Marshall's code requirements regarding on site access for emergency vehicles.
Therefore, the Project would have no impact on the city's fire protection services.
POLICE PROTECTION
Though the Project would bring more people to the city, it is expected that the proposed
commercial retail land use would lead to a less than significant increase in service calls to the
Police Department. It is not expected that the Project would lead to an increase in Police
Department service call response times.
SCHOOLS
The proposed Project would not involve the construction of residences which would increase
student enrollments in the South San Francisco Unified School District. It is possible that the
Project might lead some future employees of Home Depot to move their families to the city to
live. However, such an influx of new residents would be so small that it would have a less than
significant impact on the South San Francisco Unified School District.
PARKS
The proposed project would not place a significant demand on the City's public parks. Though
some users of the project site might use the City's parks, this use would be considered less than
significant.
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 10-3
CHAPTER 10: PUBLIC SERVICES
PAGE 10-4
This page intentionally left blank.
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
11
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
11.1 INTRODUCTION
This section presents the analysis of traffic and circulation impacts from development of the
Home Depot Project. It first describes the existing transportation network in the City of South
San Francisco in the immediate area of the Project as well as year 2006 (projected Home Depot
opening) and year 2020 Base Case circulation conditions without Home Depot. Potential
circulation impacts due to Home Depot on this network are then detailed in contrast to the
current Levitz furniture store as well as in contrast to potential office/research & development
activities that potentially would occur by 2020. Finally, the site measures are proposed to
mitigate any Home Depot circulation and traffic impacts. Where relevant, parts of this section
draw on the 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R&D Project Draft and Final EIRs
(Morehouse Associates and Dowling Associates, September 2004 and February 2005), the
249 East Grand Draft EIR Circulation Analysis (Lamphier-Gregory and Crane Transportation
Group, June 2005) and the 2005 Terrabay EIR traffic analyses by Crane Transportation Group.
For the analysis of the currendy proposed Home Depot Project, local transportation system
conditions are described for the following scenarios:
. Existing (spring 2005)
. Year 2006 Base Case (anticipated future traffic conditions with the current Levitz
operation on the Project site)
. Year 2006 Base Case with the currendy proposed Home Depot replacing Levitz
operation
. Year 2020 Base Case (anticipated future traffic conditions with office/research &
development on the Project site)
. Year 2020 Base Case with the currendy proposed Home Depot replacing
office/ research & development
For year 2006 and 2020 future year scenarios, this analysis assumes the following condition
based on current development timing or specific Project development proposals for the Home
Depot site:
. Roadway and intersection geometrics are assumed to remain the same from 2005 to
2020 for analysis purposes unless specifically stated otherwise in the text. All specific
future roadway improvements needed as mitigation are presented after each impact.
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-1
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
11.2 SETTING
LOCAL CIRCULATION SYSTEM
The network of freeways, arterial streets, and local streets serving the Project area is illustrated
on Figure 11-1 and described below.
u.s. Highway 101 (U.S.101) is the principal freeway providing access to the Project area.
U.S.101 has eight travel lanes through South San Francisco with auxiliary lanes provided
between some interchanges. Access to U.S.101 in the Project area is provided by the Oyster
Point Boulevard interchange and by select on- and off-ramps connecting to Bayshore Boulevard
(to the north) and Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue (to the south). The Oyster Point
interchange provides on-ramp connections to both north- and southbound U.S.101, as well as a
northbound off-ramp. The northbound off-ramp and southbound on-ramp connect to a
common signalized intersection with Dubuque Avenue on the east side of the freeway, just
south of the Dubuque Avenue connection to Oyster Point Boulevard. The northbound on-ramp
extends north as the fourth leg of the signalized Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue
intersection. Southbound U.S.101 traffic accesses the Project area via a stop sign controlled off-
ramp connecting to Bayshore Boulevard along the Home Depot site frontage (soon to be
signalized). Northbound Bayshore Boulevard traffic is stop sign controlled at this location as is
off-ramp traffic. A northbound U.S.101 off-ramp to northbound Bayshore Boulevard is
provided just north of the Project area. U-turns are prohibited on northbound Bayshore
Boulevard well into the City of Brisbane. A new southbound on-ramp connecting to Bayshore
Boulevard at the existing off-ramp intersection is under construction and will be open by mid
2005. There are auxiliary lanes on northbound U.S.101 both north and south of Oyster Point
Boulevard and on southbound U.S.101 south of Oyster Point Boulevard. U.S.101 carries an
average daily traffic (ADl) volume of 226,000 vehicles south of Oyster Point Boulevard and
212,000 vehicles north of Oyster Point Boulevard.
Sister Cities Boulevard is a four-lane divided arterial roadway extending westerly from its
signalized intersection with Bayshore Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/ Airport Boulevard on
the east to its signalized intersection with Hillside Boulevard Extension/Hillside Boulevard on
the west.
Bayshore Boulevard is primarily a four-lane arterial roadway extending north from South San
Francisco into the cities of Brisbane and San Francisco on the west side of U.S.101. South of
Oyster Point Boulevard it continues through South San Francisco as Airport Boulevard and
South Airport Boulevard. Adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Home Depot site, Bayshore
Boulevard has two travel lanes in each direction, narrowing to single travel lanes near its
intersection with the U.S.101 southbound off-ramp (scissors ramp). Improvements are
underway to make Bayshore Boulevard a four-lane roadway adjacent to the Home Depot site.
Airport Boulevard/South Airport Boulevard is a north-south arterial roadway located
parallel to and west of U.S.101. The roadway is four lanes wide in the Project area.
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
PAGE 11-2 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
I
I
Q.
~
0
0::
C)
z
I 0
i=
c(
I-
( 0::
0
Q.
C/)
z
I c(
0::
t I-
W
I z
I ~
0
Q) ~
- :z:
~ < Ii
r=. 0
15 Z
z
~
iXi
I-
~I-
IIIUIII
Q~I-
1110-
:E~CI)
OA.
%
";'c.
"I"'" ns
"I""'::E
CD ns
... CD
~ ...
.~<(
LL
I
,
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 11-4
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Oyster Point Boulevard is a major arterial roadway extending east from the Bayshore
Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection across the U.S.101 freeway
and Caltrain railroad tracks into the East of 101 employment area. The freeway overpass has
eight travel lanes and a narrow raised median.
Dubuque A venue is a frontage road running along the east side of U.S.1 01 from Oyster Point
Boulevard south to Grand Avenue. It has two travel lanes along its entire length except adjacent
to the majority of the Home Depot site frontage (where two northbound and one southbound
travel lanes are provided) and from Oyster Point Boulevard to its intersection with the freeway
northbound off-ramp/southbound on-ramp (where up to eight lanes and a narrow raised
median are provided). It has signalized intersections with Grand Avenue, the freeway ramps,
and Oyster Point Boulevard. Adjacent to the Project site, a :t150-foot-Iong left turn is provided
on the southbound approach to the site's northerly driveway. No turn lanes are provided on the
approaches to the other three driveways now serving Levitz operations on the Project site.
STUDY INTERSECTIONS
In order to evaluate the impacts of the proposed Home Depot Project, the AM and/or PM peak
hour operations of nine existing or future intersections in South San Francisco have been
studied-see Figure 11-2.
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INTERSECTIONS
Signalized
. Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard Airport
Boulevard
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 northbound on-ramp
. Dubuque A venue/U.S. 1 01 northbound off-ramp /U.S.1 01 southbound on-ramp
. Bayshore Boulevard/Southbound U.S.101 freeway on- and off-hook
ramps/Proposed Terrabay North Access (to be signalized)
. Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard
. Grand Avenue/Dubuque Avenue
Side Street Stop Sign Controlled
. Dubuque Avenue/Project site north driveway
. Dubuque Avenue/Project site central driveway
. Dubuque Avenue/Project site south driveway
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-5
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Both AM and PM peak period (7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:15 PM) turn counts were conducted
for this study at all existing analysis intersections north of the Project site within South San
Francisco in February 2005. The recendy completed southbound-to-eastbound flyover off-ramp
from the U.S.101 freeway to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection was in
full operation. In addition, AM and PM peak period counts were conducted at the two Grand
Avenue intersections to be evaluated in June 2005.
Existing AM peak hour counts are presented in Figure 11-3, while existing PM peak hour
counts are presented in Figure 11-4. Figure 11-5 shows existing lane striping at each analyzed
intersection.
EXISTING CIRCULATION SYSTEM OPERATING CONDITIONS
Intersection Operation
Analysis Methodology
Signalized Intersections. Intersections, rather than roadway segments between intersections,
are almost always the capacity controlling locations for any circulation system. Signalized
intersection operation is graded based upon two different scales. The first scale employs a
grading system called Level of Service (LOS) which ranges from Level A, indicating uncongested
flow and minimum delay to drivers, down to Level F, indicating significant congestion and delay
on most or all intersection approaches. The Level of Service scale is also associated with a
control delay tabulation (year 2000 Transportation Research Board [TRB] Highwqy Capacity
Manual [HCM] operations method) at each intersection. The control delay designation allows a
more detailed examination of the impacts of a particular Project. Greater detail regarding the
LOS/control delay relationship is provided in Appendix B Table 1.
Unsignalized Intersections. Unsignalized intersection operation is also typically graded using
the Level of Service A through F scale. LOS ratings for all-way stop intersections are
determined using a methodology oudined in the year 2000 TRB Highwqy Capacity ManuaL Under
this methodology, all-way stop intersections receive one LOS designation reflecting operation of
the entire intersection. Average control delay values are also calculated. Intersections with side
streets only stop sign controlled (two-way stop control) are also evaluated using the LOS and
average control delay scales using a methodology oudined in the year 2000 TRB Highwqy Capacity
ManuaL However, unlike signalized or all-way stop analysis where the LOS and control delay
designations only pertain to the entire intersection, in side street stop sign control analysis LOS
and delay designations are computed for only the stop sign controlled approaches or individual
turn and through movements. Appendix B Table 2 provides greater detail about un signalized
analysis methodologies.
PAGE 11-6
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
l< z
Gl
......
....OOUl
O,c,c a.
.... t: ~ E
Cl)0l'Gl'G
;:)Zala:
"
.... C
0.... I!
....U1C)Gl
~~.s~
(I) 1/1
C C
.- 0
C~
.- ns
ns (,)
:l!iO
>o-...J
;.;
(1)>0-
(1)-
... ns
LL C
<(
c.
E
CO
0:: 1/1
~.-
ca 1/1
~~
(I) ca
CI) I:
...<(
NLL~
I I: CO
'r""O~
'r"";::CI)
(I) (,) ~
:; CI) LL
C)I/I
.- G; CI)
LL.,I:
1:=
- I:
.... .-
o CO
I/I:!
1:"
o I:
;:: CO
CO
(,)
o
.J
------------
-----
--------
'0
g 0
.8 ~~Cii-
5Rl>caCl)
"':e g, llJ :;:,
~OU:.E'O
--------
1/1
C
Q.O
E~
ns ns
o::g
>o-...J
ns 1/1
~ .-
(I) 1/1
(I)~
... ns
LL C
<(
----------
--
-----
1/1
C
0
C~ D.
0 ns :J
~ (,)
(,) 0 0
(I)...J a:::
l!! 1/1 C)
(I) .- Z
... 1/1
.E~ 0
ns ~
C ~
'0 <(
'0 t: ~ a:::
t: '" III
5eQ, 2(5~ !Xl 'C 0
:g2e J::J:: CI,) Q) D.
!i ~ e ~ (/)
:i ~~ >- tn
0.. t: U ro
c51~o Cl,)IllO Z
... e: c(
.le <C
.!(? a:::
CI) (/) l-
e:
0 W
U1_ :.;:; Z
'0 >.C>' 0
t: l'G0- Q) c(
5eQ, ,g._ C (/) a::: a:::
l'GUO ....
.Qoe t:: CD t/) Q) iiJ 0
:5~m Gl I!!'iij -
'" "':e e: 0 ~
c5l~o I-.!l~ II c.
"Cl'G Q)
II) Gl - C 0
~ ~Mc( . Q)
0-0 a.GlO E
....-'!: OUlN 0
.l!!1Il ...l'GO :r:
.~ D..,cN
CI) D..-
....
"C
C'-
:lOO,
OD..e
,g;l'G
.c.......
t:UlC
o >'0
ZO~
Gl
-g~
s!la.
,gC'E
,c:ll'G
t:,g...
O::lll:::
ZOO
~
in
c:
~
"
C
:l GI
01.0.
,goe
;-;l'G
:l >. I.
0l'G:::
Cl)lDO
PAfEJ
PAfEJ jJ ~!'V
"
C
:l GI
.800.
;-;~
:l >. I.
o l'G C
Cl)lDO
III
II)
.l!!
a
....
.l!!
.r!.!
CI)
Gla.
::I E
C'l'G
....::1...
::I,g C
o ::I C
Cl)OO
---------
--
-------
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 11-8
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
9 t. 0
945 7 1 ~ 5
.Jtl.f"O
~t,.
10 45 0
~
95 370 395
.J t l.
745
t f" 300
t t
190 8065
I ~
lXl
~
0
.t:
~
<tl 7010
lXl
145 290 610 t. 15 t
~ 200
.Jtl. f" 90
Sister Cities Blvd
75 J
1045-+
45 "')
~
iXi
1::
:q:
* Home
Depot
Project
Site
~
'<(
~
:::3
-g
Cl
Grand Ave
200 J
145 -+
70 "')
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
NOTTOSCALE
A
N
t.2
Existing
Levitz
Furniture
Operation
Figure 11-3
Existing
AM Peak Hour Volumes
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 11-10
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
NOTTOSCALE
745 A
t .. 455
t t N
235 9060
~
en
1:::
~
en
l!!
o
~
~
(ll
lX:l
6280
t
t
7735
t.. 35
340 375 485 .- 730
.J t L. .. 185
Sister Cities Blvd
75 J
335 -+
35 "')
:q:
O t..O
1655 4 5 .- 5
.JtL...O
~t,.
50900
~
~
<(
~
::;,
-g
Q
Existing
Levitz
Furniture
Operation
I
Grand Ave
165 425 145
.J t L.
190 J
75 -+
145 "')
I ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 11-4
Existing
PM Peak Hour Volumes
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 11-12
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
~
.J~~~~
J
-.
-.
~
Sister Cities Blvd
~
co
1::
o
e-
~
* Home
Depot
Project
Site
Grand Ave
NOT TO 5 (Al E
A
N
CD) = Signal
C = Stop Sign
~ = Free Right Turn
~
~
Existing
Levitz
Furniture
Operation
Figure 11-5
Existi ng
Lane Geometries and Intersection Control
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 11-14
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Level of Service Standards
The City of South San Francisco considers Level of Service D (LOS D) to be the poorest
acceptable operation for signalized and all-way-stop intersections and LOS E to be the poorest
acceptable operation for unsignalized city street intersection turn movements. The City has no
standards for stop sign controlled turn movements from private driveways.
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
All intersection analysis within the Oyster Point interchange has been conducted using the
Synchro software program, which evaluates the coordinated operation of a system of
intersections. Intersection operating results (levels of service) are typically a litde poorer with
Synchro analysis than would be the case if each intersection were evaluated on a "stand alone"
basis. The two intersections along Grand Avenue have been evaluated as individual "stand
alone" locations as the Dubuque Avenue/Grand Avenue intersection is traffic activated and not
coordinated with operation at Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard.
Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that all intersections analyzed for this study are currendy operating at
acceptable levels of service during both the AM and PM commute peak traffic hours. All
operations are either LOS A, B or C.
Freeway Operation
Analysis Methodology
Freeway segments have been evaluated based on the Year 2000 Highwt!) Capacity Manual as
specified by the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Planning level
lane capacities have been determined based on a theoretical maximum of 2,350 vehicles per lane
per hour along sections with no auxiliary lanes. Based upon a 2005 count of the U.S.101
freeway by Crane Transportation Group at the Oyster Point interchange (where peak hour
factor and truck percentages were obtained), the capacity of a four-lane one-way segment of
U.S.101 during peak commute hours in South San Francisco is considered to be 8,880 vehicles
per hour (2,220 vehicles per lane per hour), with LOS E for volumes between 7,900 and 8,880
vehicles, LOS D for volumes between 6,340 and 7,899 vehicles, and LOS C for volumes below
6,340 vehicles. The hourly capacity of a segment with four lanes plus a 1,500-foot auxiliary lane
is considered to be 9,750 vehicles, while the capacity of a segment with four lanes plus a 2,000-
foot auxiliary lane is considered to be 10,170 vehicles.
San Mateo CMP Standards for Regional 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 boarder, the LOS standard has been set as E in order to be consistent with the
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-15
z
o
~
-'
:::l
U
0.::
o
o
z
<(
z
o
f=
<(
t-
o.::
o
0..
Vl
Z
<(
0.::
~
~
~
0.::
w
t-
o..
<(
I
U
..-l
~
..-l
~
.c
~
E-t
~~
UU
~~
~~
~O
en~
~Q~
O~~
~enO
~~:t
~O~
~~<
Z~~
O~~
~O::?J
~~<
U~
~Q
en
~~
~~
~O
~:t
~E-<
rJlU
~~ ~
~ 0 <")
~ g: 6
oQ:l+
N
o
N
~
0\ 00
g ~
~ 6
o
o
<")
U
1'--;"1'.....
~\Ci~
6~~
~
.....
.....
~
'"
r-:
~
<
z
<
z
~
rJl
~ ~
<")
~ 6
~
~ "1;
..... .....
00 "1'
~ 6
U"l"1'U"l
~'9~
ci<~
06
\Ci
N
U
r-
o
.....
~
~
.....
\Ci
~
<
z
<
z
~E-<
rJlU
~~ d
~ 0 N
~ g: u
1.OQ:l+
o
o
N
~
>< ~
rJl
~ ~
~ ;Z
~
Q:l
o .....
r-: cxi
N N
U U
I'--;
.....
.....
~
U"l"1'U"l
~\Cio\
u~~
~
o
0\
~
<
z
<
z
~
'" <")
tri .."f
N N
U U
0:"1'0\
;;:;...000
u~~
~
.....
.....
~
~
<
z
<
z
<
z
"
z
... .....
t; 0\
>< ~
~
s:
0\
<<'i
.....
~
'6 .....
cxi 0\
N N
U U
~___c.
. "1' '"
"1' . .
N"'OO
u~~
~
<
z
<
z
<
z
~ 8 ~ ~ ~ rn
o..~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~
~ :i ~ ]] ~ ~.;:
<..!. ~ --g ~ ~ b; 0
o < ~~~ 8 811 ~]! ~
~ ~ ~,~o ~ ~.._ ~I~v ~
Z g' 'u. ~ ~ VJ rJl ~ l:1 Ie a.i Ei 0
~ ~VJ v~ a.i>o ~
........ v .......... Ur' ><:r: .......
o Q ....>8 0 o<.sv < <;l
~ ~~~~..... ~ ~t~ "O"O~ ~
z ~ .-0 a .~ ~ u:i ~ ~ E-< "0 a; ~ ~ c:: ~
o 2. ~ .e .~ ~ e:i 2. 2. ~ :;s .... (5 z ] d ]
... a.i.~ ~ ~ "0 ~ ':- e: .-0 .-0 ~ ':- (j ~ ~ c:: ~ c::
~~01~'~!~'J'1! i~~8~8
rJl v9p...pav>vJ vVJv~v ~vvc::vc::
~ &. g .... ~ C) ~ C).f C) ~ C) ';;;- C) ~ ~ ~ &.~ &.~
~ ::lpa ~o~ ....~p~ e.~ g.~ djO::l::l E-::l E-
E-<z ~ ~ ~~ ~.9 ~q ~ g ~ g ~.~. ~ ~ B ~ B
...QOOZ~~~S~pa~pa~~ QQ~Q~
t;-
~
'E
"0
"0
v
:::l
g
c::
o
U
.~
'"
0..
B
VJ
u3 u5
"0"0
.; c:: c::
"0 0 0
g a:l a:l
U '" '"
~ .9 .9
. 9 t;- t;-
t:>-. OJ OJ
,,$"0"0
~oo
-ij~
g g g
c:: U U
8~~
~ ~ ~
<.s ~ ~
l:J <.sl i v
> ::l
<.sl v v ~
U U ~
~'E'E ~
'J:: v v v
~ 00 en ::t
~1l1lg'
~1l~~~
~~..!:!..!:!Q
"o..!:! 8-13 B
>"O....N~
'\jaJ'?~~
~~ ~ So 8
~ So ~ ';;l 8:
~C/3~:5<.s
gS6:E
....
o
"0
o
'J:l
v
0..
v
.~
~
~~
~~
.~ ~
o~
c:: .::t
'" '"i ~
v~...
.g~~~
c::...::: ~ ~
.g li ~ \.'J
U ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~.~
.... <; ~ ~
~ ~~ ~
..s .~ ~ ~
.. ~. ll: 1!l
..!:!(l'~. >:::
.0 ~N
<.s G'>" "
l:l ~ 0.. 1!l
o..~ 'i:; r~
g<'w~ v
....:r: \:l ?:..
o c:;:, ~ """.
zc:;:,~~
1I~~1
<t3~~
Z ~ 0(j
t-o:::
~LU
00
0.:: w
Cl.. :g
t- U
o 0
~u...
o t
w <(
~ 0.::
00
I
\0
~
I
~
~
w
~
Cl..
z
o
f=
<(
...J
::;)
U
~
o
Cl
Z
<(
Z
o
~
I-
~
o
e..
Vl
Z
<(
~
I-
.....
.....
~
w
l-
e..
<(
:J:
U
N
...!.t
.-l
~
-
~
~
E-t
~f-l
UU
I-l~
~~
~O
00=
~
~Q=
O~p
~OOO
~~:t
~~~
Z~~
Of-l~
I-lO~
f-l~~
U~
~Q
00
=~
~~
f-lO
~:t
~f-l
enu
tJ ~ ~
~OL1(
~ g: Q
0=+
N
o
N
~
~
<
Z
,....
a
,....
~
a
..,f
,....
~
'DNa
~r--:~
J-<J
""
r--:
,....
J
""
'D
N
~
00
""
N
~
<
Z
~
en
tJ ~
""
~ 0
~
'Doo<<'l
~\Ci~
J-<J
l1'1
tri
,....
J
<
Z
'6
0\
0-
I
~
'6
<"i
,....
~
N
""
N
~
00
l1'1
N
I
~
<
Z
~f-l
enu
tJ~:
~ ~ d;
~~
'-'1=+
o
~
~
>0 ~
~ ~
,....
~ ~
~
'D <<'l
\Ci:ciN
<<'l I ,....
O<~
N
N
,....
~
<Xl
,....
<<'l
J
a
tri
,....
~
<<'l
..".:
00
I
~
<
Z
i
<
Z
N
<"i
1
~
00
..".:
,....
~
<
Z
~ C'4"1 T""4a'
tril1'1
<<'l I ,....
o<~
"1:
,....
,....
~
<<'l
r--:
N
J
<
Z
<
Z
t.:l
Z ~
- '6
t:; 0\
>< -<
~
N'
0\
<"i
,....
~
~ ~
~ '"
r<')~lt1
;;:;""':00
J-<-<
""
0\
00
-<
00
N
<<'l
J
~
c5
<<'l
J
<
Z
<
Z
<
Z
~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ rn en
1;;5 <:5' 00 ij ~ ~
~ ;:) ___ "0"0 < ij-<
~ ~ ] ~ 7 7 ~ =~ '0
o < ~~~ 8 8~~ ~]~ g
~ g. .~ j 0 ~ ~ j ~ j ~ ~ S
::l 00~ C/J C/J0 ':'CLiEl 0
,.... ~ ~C/J,.... ,....~o ~~~ :r:
a Q ~~8 a ae~ < ~ ~
;;5 ~~~~~ ;;5 ;;50] "O]~ ~
Z . "0 \:3.'~ t: C/J . . r-< ~ ~ OJ 0 = c: =
o 2. ~ ~ ~~ ~,o;:) 2. 2. ~ ~ ~ l5 z '0 ~ '0
- CLi \:3.~~~. ~~~c~~~ S2.~~~~~
t~~j~9-a~]s~l~"O~a ~~~8~8
~ 9- 0 "0 ~ C/J.~ - ~~ ~~
eno p.. 0> o.!.. 0C/J 0 0 ~oo 0
~::l~ .!.~;;::::~:i~;::';'~___~_......~::l. ::l.
M cr ~.... 0....... 0::::. 0 '" 0 '" 0 '{;;" ~ '=i cr C/J cr C/J
~::l ~O~"""~P~~~~~"~O::l::l~::l~
f-l ,.0 I '" '" S '" I '" ~ '" ~ '" li,.o,.o 0",.0 0"
Z ::l c: r~ ~'o ~~ ~ ~ ~..... ::l::l......::l......
_QOoZ~p..~$~ ~ ~~ QQ~Q~
~
~
o
.~
"0
"0
o
::=
o
~
c:
o
u
.~
'"
0...
S
C/J
00 rA
"0"0
vi c: c:
"0 0 0
g ~ ~
u '" '"
1i .S .S
.sss
s~~
0--
"0 e g
'0 <;:: c:
~ .... 0
1:: 8 u
8~~
~l:ll:l
o<l ~ ~
~ o<l o<l 0
~ L L a
I u u 0
~ 'f'f ~
.~ 0 0 0
t:. '" '" ::l
0............ cr
'" 0 0 ::l
~'O~~~
~~~~Q
'0 ~ g.~ s
>"Ot;ll-8
"0 0 I "0:1 o<l
~~ ~.~ e
e ~ I '" 0...
~U)~~g.
8 2: ~ e
~
o
"0
o
'0
o
0...
o
.~
]
......
c; ~
4=4 ""
......~
.~ ~
Q)~
'O~
c: .'"
'" -~ ~
o 1;' '"
.g~~~
c:~ ~e
.g ~ ~ \)
u ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~.~
~ ~..::; I::!
~ ~ '" t:
.s .~ ~ ~
Qj~~~
:a \j ~~
] ~J: ~
0...-<::> .'" I':
o....;;o~ \j
o<l~ I::! '.
'O~~~
z~~~
II C"-j ",.~
'" ~ so
< I::! ~ ..
Z ~ ~(j
"
.....
I
.....
.....
UJ
lJ
<(
c..
I-
~~
Ow
~ Cl
c.. w
I- Vl
2 a
UJ 0
Ou..
w I-
~ L.l..
o ~
IO
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
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 a CMP-designated roadway system facility, or would significandy affect (by using
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 not occur if traffic originating
outside the County were excluded from the determination of conformance.
Existing Freeway Operation
Existing levels of service on the freeway segments in South San Francisco were based upon
Crane Transportation Group's 2005 AM and PM peak period counts of the U.S.101 freeway at
the Oyster Point interchange and from Caltrans' February and August 2004 counts of the
U.S.101 freeway in South San Francisco. Year 2005 interchange ramp counts were used to
derive volumes for freeway segments lacking current counts. Figure 11-2 shows the freeway
mainline segments analyzed for this study.
Tables 11-3 and 11-4 show existing freeway level of service results based on the 2004/2005
traffic counts when compared to the standard capacity of a four-lane segment or segments with
auxiliary lanes. Results are summarized below.
AM PEAK HOUR
Southbound LOS E
LOSD
North of the Bayshore Boulevard Southbound off-ramp
South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
Northbound LOS D
LOSD
South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
PAGE 11-18
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Table 11-3
FREEWAY OPERATION
HOME DEPOT
AM PEAK HOUR
YEAR 2006
EXISTING BASE CASE BASE CASE + HOME DEPOT
VOL LOS VOL LOS PROJECT PERCENT TOTAL LOS
INCREMENT INCREASE VOL
SOUTHBOUND
North of SB Off-Ramp to 8350 E 9040 F 19 +0.2% 9059 F
Bayshore Blvd.! Oyster (A)
Point Blvd.
(San Mateo OriJ!ins Onlv) (181) (181) (A)
Between Oyster Point SB 7970 D 8400 D 20 +0.2% 8420 D
On-Ramp and
Grand/Miller SB Off-Ramp
(San Mateo OriJdns Onlv) (168) (A) (168) (A)
NORTHBOUND
Between Grand Ave. On- 8195 D 8840 D 19 +0.2% 8859 D
Ramp and Oyster Point
Off-Ramp
(San Mateo OriJ!ins OnM (6276) (C) (6290) (C)
North of Oyster Point On- 8065 D 8320 D 25 +0.3% 8345 D
Ramp (5907) (C) (5925)
(San Mateo OriJ!.ins Onlv) (C)
Year 2000 Highw'!J Capacity Manual AnalYsis Methodolo.!!J!
Compiled l!J: Crane Transportation Group
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-19
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Table 11-4
FREEWAY OPERATION
HOME DEPOT
PM PEAK HOUR
YEAR 2006
EXISTING BASE CASE BASE CASE + HOME DEPOT
VOL LOS VOL LOS PROJECT PERCENT TOTAL LOS
INCREMENT INCREASE VOL
SOUTHBOUND
North of SB Off-Ramp to 6965 D 7210 D 28 +0.4% 7238 D
Bayshore Blvd./Oyster
Point Blvd.
(San Mateo OriJ!ins Only) (288) (A) (290) (A)
Between Oyster Point SB 7990 D 8505 D 39 +0.5% 8544 D
On-Ramp and
Grand/Miller SB Off-Ramp
(San Mateo Origins OnlY) (A)
(340) (A) (342)
NORTHBOUND
Between Grand Ave. On- 8280 D 8710 D 34 +0.4% 8744 D
Ramp and Oyster Point
Off-Ramp
I (San Mateo OriJ!ins Only) (7491) (D) (7520) (D)
North of Oyster Point On- 9060 E 9720 E 48 +0.5% 9768 F
Ramp (8359) (D)
I (San Mateo OriJ!.ins Only) (D) (8400)
Year 2000 Highwqy Capacity Manual AnalYsis Methodology
Compiled i?Y: Crane Transportation Group
PAGE 11-20
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
PM PEAK HOUR
Southbound LOS D
LOSD
North of the Bayshore Boulevard Southbound off-ramp
South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
Northbound LOS D
LOSE
South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
The San Mateo Counry Congestion Management Program 2003 Monitoring Report (Fehr and Peers,
July 29, 2003), identified AM peak period LOS D operations in 2003 for U.S.101 between the
San Francisco County Line and 1-380 based on travel time surveys. The 2001 LOS for this
segment was measured at E and the 1999 LOS was F. This indicates that traffic congestion has
lessened somewhat over the past several years, most likely due to employment reductions in San
Francisco and the Peninsula.
Freeway Ramp Operation
Analysis Methodology
Freeway ramps have been evaluated based upon the methodology contained in the year 2000
Highwqy Capaciry Manual, where ramp capacities have been set at 2,100 vehicles per hour for
diamond (slip) ramps and 1,900 vehicles per hour for any ramps with sharp curves (such as the
southbound buttonhook ramps connecting to Bayshore Boulevard). These capacities reflect
LOS E operation, the same service level which is acceptable for freeway operation.
Existing Freeway Ramp Operation
Figure 11-2 shows the various freeway ramps analyzed for this study. Tables 11-5 and 11-6
shows that the ramps at the Oyster Point interchange currendy are operating under capacity
during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours.
VEHICLE QUEUING
Analysis Methodology
The Synchro software program has determined estimates of vehicle queuing on the approaches
to all intersections within the Oyster Point interchange during each peak traffic hour.
Projections are provided for each turn and through lane for the 50th and 95th percentile queues.
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-21
z
o
~
:J
U
0::
U
o
z
<(
z
o
f=
~
0::
o
a...
Vl
Z
~
f-
.....
.....
0::
w
I-
a...
<(
I
U
1.1')
...!.4
..-4
4J
-
~
~
f-l
U
~
o
~
~
+
~
en
~
~
en
<
~Z~
QOp
~""""O
~~:t
~~::l
~~~
Q~~
~~i
~~~
en '-'
<~Q
U~Z
~~<
~~~
~~<
Q
~
Q
N
~
~
c5
Z
""""
f-l
en
""""
:><
~
=:
fool ~~ ....'>:< ....... .......
U 0_ ....'>:< ....'>:<
~ .......U d) d) d) d) d) d) d) d) d) d)
"0"0 "0"0 "0"0 "0"0 "0"0
0 =:< :52 :52 :52 :52 :52
=: ~~
~ ~u
+
~ ~
CI'l
~ s:
~ 00
~ ~ 0\00 U')6 ~~ ~
~ 00 00\
g U')'" r-('.I "'r- ",00 00U')
\0 !:Q "'~ "'~ OOe .......~ "'e
0 0
~ :>
=:
~ =:
>< ~~ ....... ....... .......
....... .......
.......u d) d) d) d) d) d) d) d) d) d)
"0"0 "0"0 "0"0 "0"0 "0"0
~ ~~ :52 :52 :52 :52 :52
3 ~u
~ ~
CI'l
~ s:
~
~ 00 U')O 0 U')6' 6'
U')'" 0",
g ..r....... r-('.I 0", ~U') "'U')
"'~ "'~ ooc .......~ "'c
0
:>
=:
~~ ....'>:< ....'>:< ....'>:< ....'>:<
0_
.......u d) d) ~ d) d) d) d) d) d)
"0"0 "0"0 "0"0 "0"0
~~ :52 z :52 :52 :52
t.:l
z ~u
-
fool ~
CI'l
-
~ s:
~ trl 6
~ Otrl e 0('.1 Otrl 0.......
~ o U') ~ ..r", r-..r "'r-
...:l "'~ Z r-C 00!;s O\c
0
:>
s:
~ '* ~
- 0 0 0;:::'- 0 Os
~ 0 0 00 0 00
0\ 0\ .......0 ....... .......'"
....... ....... ('.I'" ('.I ('.IE::!...
~
0 S S 0 S
.... 0 8 .... 0
.... ..l;:j
~ ~ ~ ~ 0...
~ !~ 0... ~ ld)
~ J .@ ~
~ OJ ~ OJ
.... o 1:) ,p.. o ~ ~ ~
0 I=i 0 I=i ....
.... ..t:l 01 o ~ ::l o ::l
en i=Q ~ i=Q.? i=Q.g .g
;:i i=Q ~ 530
Vli=Q Vli=Q ZO ZO
~
d)
..t:l
....
u
d)
0:;::
d)
....
0
....
S?
c
....
I=i
d)
u
....
d)
0...
0
2
"0
a
S?
s
....
5
u
....
d)
0...
~
<B
....
::l
0
,.Cl
~
>,
,.Cl
"0
d) I- 0:::
00
~ U
d) w L.U
....
u 0 0
.S 0:: w
d) Cl.. Vl
,.Cl I- :J
~ U
0 0
a...
0 w L.L.
..t:l 0 I-
00 u..
00 w <(
d) ~ 0::
j 00
0 I
:>
....
u
d)
'[
p..
+
d)
00
~
U
d)
00
~
i=Q
"0
a
CI) J!3
~ 5
U",;
d) :>
00 ';3
~ Z'
ell....
.s El
00 ....
.~ d)
~ gf 0...
~ <Ii ~ ~
o .... ~ ~
..t:l I=i 0... ,
..od d) 0 I=i
oj ~.... 0
&';3 g j
~ ~.~ I
p......d) 0
II El ~ 2
[tl 8~-s
.. gf"O ~ .~
g~aJ:le-
..t:l ~ t 0....0
~o...~g<~
d).S ~ '0 c:J
;.~'u Z II
~~l:EIIS
II g<g~~
+1:u..odz~
u
ct!:B6:~
~
~
'-'
l::
.<>
~
<>
~
l:!
N
N
N
I
.....
.....
"
l::
l:!
\j
~
~
~
w
~
Cl..
z
o
~
....J
:J
U
0.:
U
o
z
<(
z
o
i=
~
0.:
o
a..
V)
Z
<(
0.:
I-
.....
.....
0.:
LU
I-
a..
<(
I
U
\0
...!.4
...-l
J/
..c
~
~
f-4
U
~
C
~
~
+
~
00
~
~
00
-<
~Z~
oO;:J
N~O
~~:t
~~~
~~~
O~
Q ~~
~~i
~;a~
00..........'-"
<<Q
U~~
~~~
-<~
~~
o
N
o
N
~
,.,
~
Z
~
f-4
00
~
~
~
=:
b ~~ ....""' ....""' ....-;:;- ....""' ....'0:;'
O-
r;; ........U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4J ~ ~ ~ 4J
"'C"'C "'C"'C "'C"'C "'20
0 ffi~ 82 82 8~ 82
=: ::>-
l:l. ~u
+
r;tl 0
rJ)
~ €
r;tl
r;tl )1 ",f: ~ ",<<=) .......6 ~
~ r-tr) "" \D ....... r- tr).......
9 .......0 \Do N '" ON ..............
0 j:Q \Dc \Dc .......~ NC OO~
N 0
0
N >
~ =:
>- ~~ ....""' ...""'
0_ ....""' ....-;:;- ....'0:;'
........U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4J 4J ~ ~ 4J
=:-< "'C"'C "'C"'C "'C > >"'C "'20
r;tl 82 82 8~ 02
rJ) r;tl~ ::>-
~ ~u
r;tl 0
~ €
j:Q r;tl
)1 (() N ""G:; ""N G'
:::J:tr) r-tr) N\D r- tr) "''1"
0 \DO \Do N'" ON 0.......
...:l C \Dc .......~ NC OO~
0
>
=:
~~ ....""' ....""' ....""' ....""'
........U ~ ~ < ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"'C"'C "'C"'C "'C "'C "'C "'C
ffi~ 82 Z :52 :52 :52
~
z ~u
-
E-- 0
rJ)
-
>< €
r;tl
r;tl G:; 6'
)1 o(() ;;:;- 0G:;
< ~N 0.......
0 o tr) r-'1" \Dr-
""~ Z r-"" oo~ "'c
...:l C
0
>
€
~ ::!- ::!-
- 0 0 06- 0 o~
~ 0 0 00 0 00
'" '" .......'" ....... .......0
....... ....... NN N N\D
~ E:L
0 S S 0 S
... 8 8 ... 0
~ I u. u. I ~
!~ 0. l~
~ .s
~ OJ ~ 0 ~ OJ
..... o ~ ,p.., o ~ d ~
~ c: 0 c: ....
~ 01- o ~ ;:l o ;:l
CJ5 j:Q ~ (:Of (:O.g ...c
~ (:0 o:l (:0 ;:l
rJ)(:O rJ)(:O ZO ZCl rJ)Cl
~
~
~
...
u
~
~
....
0
...
~
8-
...
c:
0
B
0
0.
0
~
"'C
~
~
s
...
5
u
....
~
0.
~
..8
...
;:l
0
...c
o:l
:>-.
...c
"'C
~ M
'"
o:l N
0
.... I
U .....
.S .....
0 LU
...c (J
"'C <(
"3 0...
0
~
'"
'"
0
j
~
...
u
0
'0'
....
p..,
+
0
'"
o:l
U
0
'"
o:l
(:0
"'C
~ <Ii
o ...
~ 5
U",;
~ >
~ 'g.
(:0 ~
bC~
.g u
'" ....
.~ 0
. r;tl E 0...
~ . '" E
'" '"
o ... o:l
~c:o. d
~~B 0
o.~ c: 0
0. 0 j
:::s CT'..... ~
o '" I
....
p.., ~ 0 0 ~
II u ~ ~ \)
€lj8~-S ~ I-
.<> U
~ gf"'C ~ .~ ~ LU Or:::
o~~J:lt' <> 6' L.IJ
~ ~ t) 0.'0 ~ 0.: 0
~o.o:lg<~ 0... LU
O.S g '0 l3 ~ l- V)
h 0 :J
;.E"u Z II " a.. U
~ LU 0
<~lEIIS ~ 0 u...
II g<.a<f5 \j I-
LU
:tt:u..l4ZE:L ~ ~ u.
<(
u ~ 0 0.:
C-fl E~::!- I 0
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Queuing Standards
The City of South San Francisco standard is that the 50th percentile vehicle queue must be
accommodated within available storage, while the Caltrans standard is that the 95th percentile
vehicle queue must be accommodated within the available storage.
Existing Queuing Conditions
It should be noted that existing observed queuing between intersections within the Oyster Point
Boulevard interchange should be improved with the opening of the new southbound freeway
on-ramp from Bayshore Boulevard. This will eliminate southbound Brisbane/San Francisco
traffic on Bayshore Boulevard traveling through the entire Oyster Point interchange to access
the southbound on-ramp from Dubuque Avenue. The elimination of these vehicles should free
up additional green time within the interchange to provide greater accommodation of other
movements.
Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that during the AM and PM peak hours, the 50th percentile queues
within the Oyster Point interchange are not exceeding available storage. However, Tables 11-9
and 11-10 show that 95th percentile queues are exceeding available storage on several approaches
to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue intersection during both the AM and PM peak
hours and on one approach to the Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point
Boulevard/ Airport Boulevard intersection. Field observations confirm that the theoretically
predicted queuing intermittendy exceeds available storage on certain approaches for certain
movements.
EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE
Local Bus Routes
The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service to South San Francisco.
There is currendy no SamTrans service running adjacent to the Project site on Dubuque Avenue
nor east of the U.S.101 freeway. Local area bus service west of the freeway is as follows.
Route 34: Tanforan Shopping Center-Geneva operates along Bayshore
Boulevard and Airport Boulevard between Brisbane and the San Bruno BART
station in the study area. This route operates during midday only on weekdays
with headways of about two hours.
Route 130: Daly City/Colma BART-South San Francisco operates along Linden
Avenue and Grand Avenqe in the study area. It connects central South San
Francisco with the Colma BART station and Daly City. 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.
PAGE 11-24
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
z
o
f=
<(
...J
:J
U
Cl!
o
o
z
<(
z
o
~
Cl!
o
Q..
V")
Z
<(
Cl!
~
~
e,:,
~
oW:
~P
~~
f-IP
ZO
~~
f-I...:t
zu
~~
o::t
~ ~ ~
~ ~ 5
l' f-I e,:, ::t
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
E ~ ~
~f-I
e,:,Z
z~
~u
P~
~~
P~
o::t
~~
u'-'
~
::t
~
..
.....
.....
Cl!
L.U
I-
Q..
<(
:c
U
~t
CIl ~~ ('.l """ ('.l
~ ('.l 0\ \0 tr) \0 0 0 0\ """ ...... 0 tr) \0 tr) ...... 0\ 00 00 '"
~o """ 00 00 """ ('.l """ tr) '" \0 0 ...... ('.l '" 0\ ...... ...... tr) tr) 0 \0
;l ('.l \0 ...... ...... '" ...... ('.l ('.l ('.l ...... """ r-- ...... ...... tr) ...... ...... ('.l \0 '" '" ......
~~ CIl~
<~
;l~ ~+
O'~
~~ -
~z ~
~e 3 ('.l """ 0 '" \0 \0 tr) ...... 0\ r-- ...... r-- ...... \0 0\ '" 00 ('.l ...... 00 00 00
~ ~ 00 ('.l \0 \0 """ ('.l 0 tr) ('.l '" 00 '" tr) ('.l 0 0\ 0 00 """ \0 0\ tr) tr) 0 r--
>- ...... ...... ...... ...... ('.l ('.l ...... """ ...... ...... """ '" '" ......
~
~t
CIl ~~ < < < < < 0 \0 '" '"
~ tr) 0 '" '" 0 0 0 0\ \0 0 r-- ...... \0 '"
~o r-- '" """ """ z z z Z \0 0\ 00 0 ...... tr) z """ '" ...... 00 00 0\ \0 \0 0 \0
;l ...... ('.l ...... ......
~~ CIl~
<~
;l~ ~+
O'~
~~ -
~z ~
~e 3
~ """ 0\ 0 0 < < < < 00 0 ('.l r-- \0 < """ """ 0\ '" r-- r-- r-- r--
~ r-- ('.l """ """ z z z z """ 00 00 0 ('.l r-- Z ('.l 0 r-- \0 r-- 00 0\ 0\ 0 '"
('.l ('.l
~
~
t.:)CIlf:;' ~
z~~ 0
....;l~ < < < < < < < < ~ 00 """ ('.l ('.l ~ < 0\ 0 ...... 0
~~~ ~ tr) 0 r-- tr) '" \0 0\ tr) tr) 0 '"
z z z z z z z z :;: '" ...... tr) ...... Z r-- ...... ...... """ """ ...... '" '" ......
....;lZ
~O'e. .........
E-t
CIl Z
CIl ....
~ 0
~~ u ~
u ~
~~ < tr)
0 tr) 0 0 ~ 0 tr) 0 0 ~ tr)tr)o 0 otr) tr) tr) tr) tr) tr) tr) 0 0 0 tr) tr)
E-t ('.l
tr) r-- 0 0 0 """ 0 """ tr)('.l\o ...... ootr) tr) ......... tr) tr) '" tr) ...... 0 0 tr) tr)
o~ '" """ \0 \0 '" 0\ '" tr) CIl '" \0 '" ('.l ('.l ('.l ('.l ...... ('.l ('.l r-- r-- ('.l ('.l
~ ~ tr)
E-tZ r--
CIle. .........
~ CIl ~
CIl ~ ~ ;l
~ E-t .... 0'
E-t
~ ~ .... ;l CIl
U ~ ~
.... ~ ;l ~
.... ~ ..d E-t ~ 0 1:
0 ] Z E-t .........
....
~ ......... ~ CIl E-t ~ ~
<t: <t: U .... Z ....
CIl CIl ~ 0
......... ~ ~ ......... ......... .... ....
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ......... .........
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <t: <t: ~
~ ~ ~ "% 1: ~~1 ~~ ~ ~ 1: ~ 8 ;l ~ <l.l 10
0 0 0 ~ .,s ~ i
:I: .... :I: ::l ::l :I: .... ~ .... ......... .... 0'
0 !..!. !..!. 0 .... ~ ~ <t:~ ..d 8 ..d ..d ....
<t: .... ...... ...... <t: .... ..d <t:<t:~ ] E-t <t: ] <t: <t: ] ;l ..d 8
CIl .,s 0 0 CIl ~ .,s 1 CIl ~ ~ .,s ~ ~ ~ os ]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ CIl .... .... .,s
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;l !..!. !..!.
~ ~ ~ ~ ...... ...... ~ ~
~ C/) z ~ z z C/) C/) ~ ~C/)C/) C/) ~ ~ z z z 0 a a C/) C/)
LI"l
N
I
.....
.....
L.U
<.J
<(
0..
~
j
....
<l.l
e-~
.... ~
~\j
~ .~
s ~
<l.l ~
"0 '"
"Of}.
~ ~
~N
'p '"
'0 ~
os r~
g<v
U ~
::::::l ~
-:r::: ~
* '-"l
I-
U
UJ
:')
Cl!
0..
I-
a
Q..
L.U
0 I"
L.U
~
a "
I ,.
z
o
~
...J
:J
U
CI::
o
Cl
z
00(
z
o
~
CI::
o
Q.,
V'l
Z
00(
CI::
I--
..
....
....
CI::
w
l:;:
00(
:::c
U
~
~
~
O~
=0
~~
f-IO
Za
~~
f-I~
~8
o:I:
~~ ~
~ ~ 0
:!: f-I ~ :I:
i ~~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
:I: ~ ~
t: ~ ~
~f-I
~z
Z~
~u
0=
~~
o~
a:I:
~~
u'-'
~
:I:
~
~t
rJl ~~ "i' "i' "i' "i' 0 "i' C'l
~ <<') 0- ll"l \Q ....... r-- <<') r-- C'l 0 0 ....... \Q ll"l C'l \Q \Q
~o \Q \Q ~ \Q 0 0 0 "i' "i' \Q \Q ll"l ....... r-- ....... \Q 00 C'l \Q \Q ....... C'l
::;l <<') <<') "i' C'l <<') 00 "i' C'l <<') \Q ....... \Q ....... <<') ....... ....... ll"l \Q r-- C'l C'l ....... .......
~f:;' rJl~
<t:l.
::;l~ =::l+
o~
~~ -
~z ~
~e 3 <<') 0- ....... \Q "i' <<') \Q 00 ....... 00 ll"l "i' 0 ....... "i' \Q 0- <<') <<') 00 00 ~ <<')
~ ~ \Q ll"l <<') ~ r-- "i' 0 00 0- <<') <<') "i' ll"l C'l 0 \Q 00 0- "i' 00 r-- r-- r-- \Q
>- <<') <<') "i' ....... <<') C'l <<') \Q ....... \Q <<') ll"l ll"l ....... .......
~
=::l
~t
rJl ~~ <Ii <Ii <Ii <Ii ....... C'l 0 <Ii ll"l 00 ....... ....... <<')
~ ll"l C'l \Q \Q <<') <<') ll"l ....... r-- r-- ....... C'l
~~ 0- "i' r-- r-- Z Z Z Z ll"l r-- "i' ....... \Q 00 Z 0 0 0 0- ....... <<') ll"l ll"l C'l ll"l
::;l ....... ....... <<') ....... ....... ....... C'l <<')
~~ ~t:l.
::;l~ =::l+
o~
~~ I---
~z ~
~e 3
~ <<') ....... ....... ....... <Ii <Ii <Ii <Ii C'l \Q ....... r-- <<') C'l <Ii "i' r-- ....... 0 "i' ll"l C'l C'l \Q r--
....... r-- r-- 00
>- ~ 0- "i' r-- r-- Z Z Z Z "i' "i' ....... 00 <<') C'l Z 0- "i' r-- ....... ....... C'l ll"l ll"l ....... C'l
~
~ rJlf:;' t
Z ~~ 0
.... ::;l~ <Ii <Ii <Ii <Ii <Ii <Ii <Ii <Ii ~ "i' ll"l 0 ....... <Ii "i' ll"l \Q
f-l 0 ll"l ....... 0 <<') ll"l C'l r-- C'l ll"l \Q ....... r-- 00 0- <<')
rJl ~~ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z =< ll"l ....... ....... ....... <<') ....... Z 0- \Q ....... ....... ....... <<') <<') <<') ....... .......
.... ::;lz
~ Oe .........
f-l
rJl Z
rJl
~ ....
0
~f:;' U t:l.
U ~
~~ < ll"l
0 ll"l 0 0 ~ 0 ll"l 0 ~ ~ ll"l 0 0 ll"l ll"l ll"l ll"l ll"l ll"l ll"l 0 0 0 ll"l ll"l
f-l ll"l 0 C'l
ll"l r-- 0 0 0 "i' 0 ll"l C'l \Q ....... 00 ll"l ll"l ......... ll"l ll"l <<') ll"l ....... 0 0 ll"l ll"l
o~ <<') "i' \Q \Q <<') 0- <<') ll"l rJl <<') \Q <<') C'l C'l C'l C'l ....... C'l C'l r-- r-- C'l C'l
~ ll"l
f-lZ r--
rJle .........
rJl ~
rJl ~ ~ ::;l
t:l. f-l .... 0
f-l
~ ~ .... ::;l rJl
U =::l t:l.
~ ::;l ~
.... ~ 1 f-l ~ Q 1
0 Z f-l .........
.... ::l
=::l ......... ~ rJl ~ .... ~ ~
....
rJl <t: <t: U rJl -; S
......... <l) <l) ......... ......... 0
~ i i ~ ~ ~ ......... .........
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <t: <t:
~ 1 ~ 1 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ -; t:l. ~ 1 ~ ~ ::;l <l) ~ ~ ~
0 ... ... 0 0 i ~ i 0 i ~
:I: 8 ~ ~ :I: 8 ..... :I: 1 ~ ~ i ......... 1 ::l
<t: ...l:I 8 <t: 0 <t: <t: 8 <t: <t: ::;l 0
rJl <t: -ti ...... ...... rJl -ti 1 rJl <t: .s ~ ~ .s
~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ -ti ~ ~ ~ ~ -ti ~ ~ =::l ... ...
I:Q ~ ~ I:Q I:Q I:Q ~ ~ ~ ~ I:Q I:Q I:Q I:Q I:Q I:Q ::;l ~ ~
I:Q I:Q I:Q I:Q I:Q I:Q ...... ...... I:Q I:Q
=::l rJl Z =::l Z Z CI) CI) =::l ~ CI) CI) CI) ~ ~ ~ z z Z Q 0 0 CI) CI)
I-~
u-
w w
6' Cl
CI:: w
0.. V'l
I- :J
o U
Q., 0
wu"
o I-
u..
w 00(
~ CI::
00
I
<U
d
~
...
<l)
0-
~
~
"C
d
~
S
<l)
"C
"C
~
'"
<l) 1..0
'+:3 N
'0 I
~ ....
g. ....
u w
~ ~
* 0..
z
o
i=
00(
...J
::>
u
0::
o
CI
Z
00(
Z
o
i=
~
0::
o
e..
V'l
Z
00(
0::
t-
~
~
~'"'
U~
~O
~~
E-cO
ZO
Jo-o4~
E-c~
~8
o::C
~~ ~
~ ~ 5
~ E-c ~ ::c
i ~~ ~
~~~[f
E ~ ~
~E-c
~z
z~
Jo-o4U
o~
~~
o~
o::C
~~
u"-'
Jo-o4
::c
~
..
..-
0::
UJ
f-
e..
00(
J:
U
~t
CIl ~~ 0 00 C'l 0 "1- ~ ~
~ lJ') \0 t<') 0- t<') 00 C'lt<') 0- ....... \0 00 00 0- ....... ....... 0-
;:l ~o "1- 0- 00 00 "1- ....... .......lJ') t<') lJ') 00 00 00 r-- 0 00 ....... ....... \0 00 \0 lJ') "1-
t<') ....... C'l C'l C'l "1- t<') ....... ....... ....... \0 ....... t<') t<') r-- \0 \0 t<')
~E= CIl~
-<~
;:l~ lXl+
(jI~
~~ -
~z ~
~~ B
~ 00 "1- C'l ....... ....... C'l 0 lJ') ....... ....... 0- ....... r-- 0 lJ') 0 "1- ....... 0 ~ ~ ....... 0
....... 00 \0 r-- lJ') t<') ....... C'l 00 lJ') C'l "1- r-- t<') 0 \0 00 ....... 0- ....... t<') lJ') 00
>< ~ t<') ....... C'l C'l C'l t<') t<') ....... ....... ....... "1- ....... C'l t<') \0 \0 \0 t<')
~
lXl
~t
CIl ~~ lJ') ~ ~ ~ ~ ....... ....... 0 ~ lJ') ....... t<') C'l r-- r-- "1-
~ t<') C'l C'l ....... "1- C'l 0- r--
~~ 0- \0 00 00 z z z z ....... t<') C'l C'l t<') 0- Z 0- C'l t<') r-- 00 lJ') ....... ....... lJ') lJ')
;:l ....... ....... ....... ....... t<') ....... ....... "1- "1- "1- .......
~E= ~~
;:l~ lXl+
(jI~
~~ -
~z ~
~~ CIl
~
~ 0 C'l r-- r-- ~ ~ ~ ~ "1- 0 00 \0 t<') lJ') ~ C'l \0 t<') 0 0- 0- lJ') lJ') \0
>< ~ 00 \0 r-- r-- Z Z Z 0- C'l C'l C'l "1- ....... \0 C'l C'l \0 \0 t<') 0- 0- lJ') 0
....... ....... ....... ....... t<') ....... ....... "1- t<') t<') .......
~
lXl
~ CIl~ t;
Z ~~ 0
..... ;:l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t<') ~ "1- lJ') \0 \0 0- 00
E-t ....... ....... r-- "1- "1- ....... C'l 00 ....... "1- 0- 0 \0 \0 lJ') .......
CIl ~~ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z < 00 C'l 0- C'l C'l "1- Z ....... C'l C'l 00 00 t<') ....... ....... lJ')
..... ;:lz
>< (jIe .........
~ E-t
CIl Z
CIl .....
~ 0
~p u ~
u ~
~~ -< lJ')
0 lJ') 0 0 I 0 lJ') 0 0 ~ lJ') 0 0 lJ') lJ') lJ') lJ') lJ') lJ') lJ') 0 0 0 lJ') lJ')
lJ') r-- 0 0 0 "1- 0 "1- E-t lJ') C'l \0 ....... 0 lJ') lJ') C'l lJ') lJ') t<') lJ') ....... 0 0 lJ') lJ')
o~ t<') "1- \0 \0 t<') 0- t<') lJ') CIl lJ') t<') \0 t<') 00 C'l C'l ......... C'l C'l ....... C'l C'l r-- r-- C'l C'l
>< lJ')
E-tZ r--
0
CIl~ ......... ~
CIl
CIl ~ ~ ;:l
~ E-t ..... (jI
E-t
~ ~ ..... ;:l CIl
U lXl ~
.... ~ ;:l ~
.... ~ ,.J:i ~ ~ Q ~
0 1{ E-t .........
.... ::l
lXl ......... ~ CIl ~ .... ~ 8
~ ~ u .....
CIl CIl 1 0 .s
......... ~ IlJ ......... ......... ..... ....
~ i j ~ ~ ~ 0 ......... .........
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 1 ~ ~ 1 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ 8 ;:l ~ IlJ 1
0 0 0 ~ ..s (jI i j
:I: .... .... :I: :I: 0 i ~ .... ......... ....
8 !..!.. !..!.. 8 .... .... ,.J:i i
~ ,.J:i 8 ~ 8 ,.J:i ~ .s ~ 8 ,.J:i ~ ~ ;:l 0
~ ...... ...... ~ ~ l ]
CIl .s 0 0 CIl ~ .s ] .s CIl ~ .s 1 ~ ~ .s ~ ~ lXl .... .... .s
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;:l !..!.. !..!..
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ...... ...... ~ ~
lXl C/) Z lXl Z Z C/) C/) lXl ~ C/) C/) C/) ~ ~ ~ z z Z Q 0 0 C/) C/)
I"-.
N
I
..-
..-
UJ
lJ
00(
0...
~
j
....
IlJ
0...
~
os
"0
~
8
IlJ
"0
"0
~
f-
~ c-
oLi
0:: c
0... u
f- <.J
2 c
UJ c
o L.l
UJ I-
~ ~
o c
J: C
en
IlJ
'p
'0
os
0...
os
u
~
*
z
o
~
...J
::::l
U
CI::
o
Cl
Z
<(
Z
o
~
CI::
o
Q.,
V'l
Z
<(
CI::
f-
~
~
5~
=:::J
~~
f-I::J
za
Joooo4~
f-I~
zu
Joooo4Joooo4
o::C
~ ~ =:
~ ~ 5
o f-I" ::c
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
Joooo4........ ~
::c ~ ~
t= d ~
~f-I
"z
z~
Joooo4u
::J=:
~~
::J~
a::C
~~
u'-'
Joooo4
::c
~
.....
.....
CI::
UJ
I-
Q.,
<(
J:
U
~t
fJl ~fg ""'" ""'" N ""'" 00 N N tr) \0
~ ....... r-- 0 ....... \0 0 ""'" '" \0 '" ....... '" \0 C\ tr)
~g \0 C\ r-- C\ C\ 0 r-- tr) tr) \0 tr) r-- 0 00 N r-- 0 ""'" 0 '" '" C\N
;:J tr) ""'" \0 \0 ....... tr) C\ ""'" '" ""'" r-- ....... tr) ....... '" ....... ....... 00 00 ....... ""'" ""'" '" .......
~R ~~
;:J~ r:Q+
O'~
~\.I.o f---
~z ~
~c fJl
~ ....... '" N 0 tr) ....... C\ 0 \0 tr) '" r-- N '" \0 tr) r-- 00 tr) \0 N N r-- '"
~ \0 C\ tr) r-- C\ 0 \0 '" tr) \0 ""'" tr) r-- 0 ....... \0 0 0 '" '" r-- '"
>< ~ tr) ""'" \0 \0 ....... tr) C\ ""'" '" ""'" r-- ....... tr) N '" ....... ....... r-- 00 ....... '" '" N .......
~
r:Q
~t
fJl ~fg ....... ""'" ""'" << << << << N N r-- tr) ....... << 0 0 00 \0 .......""'" 00 00 0
~ ~o tr) ""'" '" '" 0 ....... C\ C\ \0 C\ C\ ....... 0 r-- ~tr) '" '" '" ""'"
;:J N 00 ....... ....... z z z z ....... ....... ....... ....... 00 '" z ....... ....... N ""'" ....... ....... ""'" .......
~R fJl=:
<~
;:J~ r:Q+
O'~
~\.I.o -
~z ~
~e fJl
~
~ 0 '" \0 \0 << << << << \0 00 \0 \0 C\ ....... << '" '" tr) r-- tr) '" C\ C\ 00 N
>< ~ tr) 00 N N Z Z Z Z 00 r-- \0 r-- ""'" ....... Z \0 r-- N N ""'" ""'" N N '" r--
N ....... ....... ....... ....... '" ....... ....... '" '" ....... .......
~
~ fJl~ t;
Z ~~ 0
- ;:J~ << << << << ~ << << << ~ 0 ""'" ""'" tr) << N r-- tr) ....... N
~ =: '" N 0 tr) tr) C\ .......
~\.I.o Z Z Z Z Z Z Z C\ ....... \0 r-- tr) 0 Z \0 0 00 00 0 tr) C\ C\ \0 ""'"
fJl :< N ....... ....... N ....... ....... N N '"
>< ;:Jz
O'c .........
~ ~
fJl Z
fJl -
~ 0
~R u ~
u =:
~~ < tr)
0 tr) 0 0 ~ 0 tr) 0 0 ~ tr) 0 0 tr) tr) tr) tr) tr) tr) tr) 0 0 0 tr) tr)
~ tr) 0 N
tr) r-- 0 0 0 ""'" 0 ""'" tr) N \0 ....... 00 tr) tr) ......... tr) tr) '" tr) ....... 0 0 tr) tr)
0\.1.0 '" ""'" \0 \0 '" C\ '" tr) fJl '" \0 '" N N N N ....... N N r-- r-- N N
~ >< tr)
~z r--
0
fJle .........
=: fJl ~
fJl ~ ~ ;:J
~ ~ - 0'
~
~ ~ - ;:J fJl
U r:Q ~
..... =: ;:J
.... ~ ..d ~ ~ Cl 1
<:) :w z ~ .........
....
r:Q ......... ~ fJl ~ ~ 0
<:t: <:t: U - ~ .... ....
fJl fJl 1 ~ -S
......... ~ ~ ......... .........
~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 0 ......... .........
=: ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ <:t: <:t: ~
~ 1 1 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 .s ;:J ~ ~ 1
0 0 0 ..... =: 0' ~ ~
:I:: .... .... :I:: :I:: ~ ..... ......... .....
8 ~ ~ 0 , , 0 ..d ..d ,
~ .... 8 <:t: ~ <:t: .s ]: <:t: 8 ..d <:t: ~ ] ;:J 8
<:t: ...... ...... <:t: t; ]:
fJl -S 0 0 fJl ~ -S -S fJl ~ ~ ~ -S ~ ~ r:Q .... .... -S
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >< ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;:J ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ...... ...... ~ ~
r:Q fJl Z r:Q Z Z fJl (f) r:Q ~ (f) (f) (f) 0 ~ ~ ~ Z Z Z Cl 0 0 (f) (f)
1-0::::
u-
UJ UJ
6' Cl
CI:: UJ
0.. V'l
I- ::::l
o U
Q., 0
UJu...
o l-
Ll..
UJ <(
~ CI::
00
I
II.i
.B
....
~
0..
~
t'l
"1:l
~
S
~
"1:l
"1:l
~
<J>
~ CO
'p
'0 N
I
t'l .....
g< .....
u UJ
~ ~
* 0..
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Route 132: Airport/Linden-Arroyo/EI Camino operates along Hillside Avenue,
Linden Avenue and Grand Avenue connecting to the South San Francisco
BART station. It operates on 30-minute peak period headways and 60-minute
non-peak headways on weekdays and 60-minute headways on Saturdays.
Route 292: San Francisco-SF Airport-Hillsdale Shopping Center operates along
Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard. It operates with 20- to 30-minute
peak headways and 25- to 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 30- to
60- minute headways on Saturdays and Sundays.
Route 397 (297): San Francisco-Palo Alto (Stanford Shopping Center) operates
along Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard. Buses operate on one-hour
headways each direction between about 1 :00 AM and 5:00 AM, seven days per
week.
Caltrain
Caltrain provides train service between Gilroy, San Jose and San Francisco. There is a 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. This station
is within walking distance of the Project site.
Caltrain/BART Shuttles
Van shutdes are provided between the South San Francisco Caltrain station and employment
centers east of U.S.101 during commute hours. Separate shutdes provide service to/from the
Colma BART station.
The Gateway Area/Genentech Shutde (BART and Caltrain) provides service on Gateway
Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard, Forbes Boulevard, Grandview Drive and East Grand
Avenue. There are 15 morning trips and 15 afternoon trips on the BART shutde, and six
morning trips and five afternoon trips on the Caltrain shutde.
The Utah-Grand Shutde (BART and Caltrain) serves over 20 employers ill the
Utah/Grand/Litdefield area. It provides service on Harbor Way, East Grand Avenue, Cabot
Court, Grandview Avenue, Litdefield Avenue, Haskin Way and Utah Avenue. There are six
trips in the morning and six trips in the afternoon on the BART shutde, with seven morning and
seven afternoon trips on the Caltrain shutde.
Shutde service is fixed-route, fixed-schedule and is provided on weekdays during the commute
periods. The shutdes are free to riders. The operating costs are borne by the Joint Powers
Board OPB), SamTrans, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the City/County
Association of Governments (75 percent) and sponsoring employers (25 percent). There are no
shutde stops along Dubuque Avenue other than at the Caltrain station.
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-29
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE
A sidewalk is in place along the east side of Dubuque Avenue in the Project vicinity. However,
there are no bicycle lanes striped or posted along Dubuque Avenue in the Project area.
PLANNED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
The City of South San Francisco is currendy completing construction on the final ramp
improvement project at the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange. The "hook ramps" project is
replacing the existing "scissors" off-ramp from southbound U.S.1 01 to Bayshore Boulevard with
a more conventional hook ramp terminating at a signalized intersection. A new on-ramp is
being constructed from Bayshore Boulevard to southbound U.S.101 from the same intersection.
The hook ramps will significandy improve access to and from southern Brisbane, and will divert
additional traffic from Bayshore Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue
within the Oyster Point interchange.
Additionally, intersection improvements are committed by the approved Bay West Cove
development project for the intersections of Bayshore Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard
(change the existing second westbound left turn lane to a through lane and re-striping the
westbound through/right lane to a right turn lane), Veterans Road and Oyster Point Boulevard
(widen southbound Veterans Road to add a right turn lane and re-stripe the optional
through/left lane to an optional right/through/left lane), and Gateway Boulevard and East
Grand Avenue (re-stripe the existing northbound Gateway Boulevard shared through/right turn
lane to a right turn lane and re-stripe the existing eastbound Grand Avenue approach to provide
a separate right turn lane).
Based upon direction from the South San Francisco Public Works Department, only Bayshore
Hook Ramps intersection improvements and signalization were assumed in place at study
intersections by 2006. Figure 11-6 presents year 2006 Base Case intersection geometrics and
control, while Figure 11-7 presents year 2020 Base Case intersection geometrics and control.
PAGE 11-30
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
.J~~~~
J
---.
---.
T
Sister Cities Blvd
~
10
t
o
e-
q:
* Home
Depot
Project
Site
Grand Ave
Home De ot EIR
NOT TO SCALE
A
N
CD) = Signal
C = Stop Sign
~ = Free Right Turn
~
Existing
Use
or
Home
Depot
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 11-6
Year 2006
Lane Geometries and Intersection Control
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 11-32
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
Terrabay
Ph 3 Access
Terrabay
Ph 3 Access
Terrabay
Ph 3 Access
~
Cii
t:
o
e.
q:
* Home
Depot
Project
Site
.A-
+-
+-
Grand Ave
CD) = Signal
C = Stop Sign
~ = Free Right Turn
~
NOT TO SCALE
A
N
Existing
Use
or
Home
Depot
Figure 11-7
Year 2020
Lane Geometries and Intersection Control
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 11-34
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
BASE CASE (WITHOUT PROJECT) TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
The following discussion presents anticipated impacts on the local transportation system due to
non-Project Base Case growth in traffic expected in the site vicinity by the years 2006 and 2020.
Year 2006 Base Case Traffic Conditions
Traffic Volumes
Approved Development Trip Generation
South San Francisco
Trip generation was estimated for approved industrial/office/R&D developments in the Project
area (see Table 11-11). Information on approved developments was obtained from City of
South San Francisco staff. In addition, traffic from Lowe's home improvement store recendy
proposed along Dubuque Avenue just south of the Oyster Point interchange was also included
in the analysis at direction of South San Francisco staff (see Table 11-12). It should be noted
that 2006 Base Case development did not include construction of the approved 665,000-square-
foot office/10,000-square-foot retail development on the Terrabay Phase 3 site. However, trip
generation Projections were developed for remaining Terrabay Phase 2 residential development
at that time of the new traffic counts: 12 townhouse units and 61 high-rise condo units (see
Table 11-13).
Traffic generation rates for approved office/R&D /hotel development are based on the analysis
conducted for the Drqft 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 recendy
approved development in the East of 101 area is required to implement transportation demand
management (fDM) 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 additional 9.s percent compared to existing traffic generation rates.
Brisbane
Traffic generated by development expected to be completed in Brisbane by the year 2006 was
projected using a two percent per year growth rate in traffic accessing South San Francisco via
Bayshore Boulevard, as provided by the City of Brisbane.
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
PAGE 11-35
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Table 11-11
TRIP GENERATION OF APPROVED DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EAST OF 101 AREA
EXPECTED TO BE BUILT AND OCCUPIED BY 2006
(See References for the list of studies
providing traffic Projections for each Project)
RESULTANT PEAK HOUR TRIPS
PROTECT SIZE AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
1. 333 Oyster Point Blvd.
o fficeIR&D 315,444 SQ.FT. 445 426
(replacing light industrial) (-94,990 SQ.FT.) (- 46) (- 52)
Net 399 374
2. Britannia East Grand
Office/R&D 783,530 SQ.FT. 1,207 1,201
Retail 8,000 SQ.FT.
Child Care 8,000 SQ.FT.
Fitness Center 5,000 SQ.FT.
(replacing light industrial) (-354,880 SQ.FT). ( - 170) ( - 191)
Net 1,037 1,010
3. Genentech Building 5
33 R&D and 37 garage 125,000 SQ.FT. 61 131
4. Genentech Building 31 150,972 SQ.FT.
Office/R&D 234 225
5. 180 Oyster Point
Office 105,000 SQ.FT. 100 90
6. 200 Oyster Point 155,000 SO.FT.
Office 147 133
7.345 East Grand
R&D 210,560 SQ.FT. 124 115
(replacing warehouse uses) ( - 31) -i=...15)
Net 93 Net 70
8. 285 East Grand Ave./
349 Allerton Ave. 122 111
Office/R&D
(replacing existing site uses) .G.l.8) i=..2.8).
Net 84 Net 83
Source: Crane Transportation Group
PAGE 11-36
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED ErR
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Table 11-12A
LOWE'S SITE TRIP GENERATION
DAILY AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
2-WAYTRIPS INBOUND OUTBOUND INBOUND OUTBOUND
USE SIZE RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL
Lowe's 148,749 29.8 4434 .65 97 .55 82 1.15 171 1.30 193
SQ.Ff.
West Marine 6,590 44.3 292 .72 5 .48 3 1.8 12 1.8 12
Bldg.-North SQ.Ff.
Area
Subtotal 4726 102 85 183 205
+ 25% Safety Factor 1182 26 21 46 51
+ Existing West Marine - NA* 2 0 14 12
Store (No Change)
GRAND TOTAL 5908** 130 106 243 268
* NA = Not surveyed for daily trip generation.
** Does not include existing West Marine store.
Trip Rate Source: Lowe's: Trip Generation, 7th Edition fry the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003; Specialty retail: Traffic Generators, San Diego
Association of Governments, 2002; Existing West Marine Store, Crane Transportation Group, June 2005.
Compiled fry: Crane Transportation Group
Table 11-12B
LOWE'S SITE NET CHANGE IN TRIP GENERATION
LOWE'S & WEST MARINE BUILDING MINUS EXISTING SITE USES
AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
USE INBOUND OUTBOUND INBOUND OUTBOUND
Lowe's and West Marine Bldg. 130 106 243 268
Existing Site Uses (including West Marine Bldg.) - 42 - 37 -108 - 86
Net Change in Site Trip Generation +88 +69 +135 +182
Source: Crane Transportation Group
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-37
z
o
~
....J
::>
u
C<:
o
o
z
<(
z
o
i=
~
C<:
o
0..
V'l
Z
~
I-
..
.....
.....
C<:
LU
Ii:
<(
I
U
~
I
.-4
.-4
QJ
:0
tIS
~
~
Z
~
~
~
o
~
~
o
3
~.-.
Z~g
OON
f::t;l~
~~o
~~~
zz~
~zre
~~~
~~~
1'-'
N
~
en
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
c:l ...:l C'l
0 C'l 0
Z >- .... ....
en ;:J
~ 0
;a =
f-4 ~
f-4 ;:J ~ l'- l'-
l:l::: 0 ~ ~
;:J
0
:r:
llId ...:l
~ 0 'i' C'l \D
c:l C'l C'l
~ Z >-
:s ;:J
~ 0
= ~
z ~ Uj Uj
- r<") r<")
c:l ...:l
0 'i' <"l l'-
Z >- C'l C'l
;:J
en 0
~ =
- f-4 ~
l:l::: ;:J
f-4 0 ~ l'- l'-
l:l::: r<") r<")
;:J
0
:r:
~ ...:l
c:l ~ .... 'i' Uj
~ z
~ ;:J
0
=
z ~
- ~ l'- l'-
~ ~
en
f-4
-
Z C'l ....
;:J .... \D
=1:1:
Vl
Vl ~
v :~
El
0 ~
1 0
~ "0
I=i
en 0 0
;:J f-4 U f-4
f-CI::
~LU
00
C<: LU
c... V'l
f- ::>
o u
0.. 0
LUu...
o f-
u.
LU <(
~ C<:
00
I
8
~
,.;-
~
.~
~
~
;:
.<>
~
t
~
h
~
.'!l
.~
~
.=;
'"
~
~
;:'
:~
~~
~
~\j
;: ;:
.c::. .~
..::: '::!
~ 'I::
~ ~
\j ~
.~r:;
h ~
'. ~
~\j
;:s:
~~
.'!l'"1:!
~1
.~ ~
r:;d
co
M
I
.....
.....
LU
(,J
<(
c...
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Regional Traffic Growth on U.S.101 Freeway
North and southbound AM and PM peak hour traffic on the U.S.101 freeway not associated
with any on- or off-ramp in South San Francisco was Projected to grow at a straight line rate of
one percent per year from 2005 to 2006.
Approved/Proposed Development Trip Distribution
The estimated distribution of approved office/R&D /hotel development traffic was based upon
employee surveys conducted for the East of 101 Area Plan Environmental Impact Report
(Brady and Associates and Barton Aschman Associates, January 1994). The inbound and
outbound traffic generation from each development was distributed according to the
percentages shown in Table 11-14. New Terrabay Phase 2 residential trip distribution was based
upon surveyed AM and PM peak hour trip distribution patterns at both entrances to the existing
Terrabay Phase 1 + 2 development. Resultant AM and PM peak hour year 2006 Base Case
volumes are presented in Figures 11-8 and 11-9.
Year 2006 Base Case Intersection Level of Service
Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that by 2006 all analyzed intersections would be expected to operate
acceptably during the AM and PM peak traffic hours with one exception. The Oyster Point
Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 northbound on-ramp intersection would be operating at
LOS E conditions during the PM peak traffic hour.
Year 2006 Base Case Freeway Operation
Table 11-3 shows that during the AM peak traffic hour, traffic on all analyzed freeway segments
would be operating at minimum acceptable levels of service (LOS D or E), with the exception of
southbound flow north of the Oyster Point interchange, where operation would be LOS F.
Table 11-4 shows that during the PM peak traffic hour, traffic on all analyzed freeway segments
would be operating at minimum acceptable levels of service (LOS D or E).
Year 2006 Base Case Freeway Ramp Operation
Table 11-5 shows that AM and PM peak hour volumes on all five analyzed freeway ramps at the
Oyster Point interchange would be under capacity in the year 2006.
Year 2006 Base Case Vehicle Queuing: 50th Percentile Queue
Table 11-6 shows that year 2006 Base Case volumes would be producing 50th percentile vehicle
queues longer than available storage during the AM and/or PM peak hours on select approaches
of both the Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard Airport
Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp
intersections.
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-39
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Table 11-14
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
OFFICE/RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
THSAN
FRANCISCO
DEVELOPMENT
Year 2005
US 101 North/San Francisco
US 101 South
South San Francisco (central area)
Daly City/Colma via Sister Cities Blvd.
Daly City / Colma via Guadalupe Parkway
Brisbane
Airport area via South Airport Blvd.
Local east of US 101
TOTAL
29
48
3
8
o
7
3
2
100%
Year 2020+
US 101 North/San Francisco
US 101 South
South San Francisco (central area)
Daly City/Colma via Sister Cities Blvd.
Daly City / Colma via Guadalupe Parkway
Daly City/Colma and South San Francisco (central area)
via Railroad A venue Extension
Brisbane
Airport area via South Airport Blvd.
San Bruno/south via San Mateo Avenue
Local east of US 101
TOTAL
29
48
2
1
o
8
7
2
1
2
100%
Source: Ciry of South San Francisco, Drqft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, South San Francisco General Plan
Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 200 1.
PAGE 11-40
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
t. 20 NOTTOSCALE
500 330 A
+ ~ of 320
t ,. N
225 45
-g
ii'i
~
o
..c::
~
III
!Xl
t. 20
155 340 325 +- 230
.J + ~ of 90
Sister Cities Blvd
120 J
1100 -+
135 -.
105375 746
.J+~
220 J
206 -+
70 -.
-g
ii'i
"5
~
144 t. 0
625 I 1 +- 5
.J...~f'"0
~t,.
30850
~
* Home
Depot
Project
Site
~
'<(
~
:::>
.Q
:::>
C
L 50
..... 570
Grand Ave
215
+
t.2
Existing
Levitz
Furniture
Operation
Figure 11-8
Year 2006 Base Case
AM Peak Hour Volumes
I ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
215
+
t ,.
113 0
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 11-42
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
t.. 30 NOTTOSCALE
440 350 A
t l. ,480
t ,. N
280 170
t.. 185
350 395 175 ~ 860
.J t l. , 210
Sister Cities Blvd
85 J
365 -
60 ")
187 430 235
.Jtl.
198 J
90 -
145 ")
~
!Xi
~
o
.c:
~
(ll
co
6945
t
8060
t
~
!Xi
t::
o
,e-
o<(
1450 115 5 ;"05
.Jtl.,o
555 J ~ t ,.
o - 105 200 0
95") ~
* Home
Depot
Project
Site
Grand Ave
203
t
Existing
Levitz
Furniture
Operation
I ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 11-9
Year 2006 Base Case
PM Peak Hour Volumes
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 11-44
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
AM PEAK HOUR
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection
The northbound right turn approach lanes would have storage demands (per lane) about
3 car lengths greater than available storage.
PM PEAK HOUR
. Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard Airport
Boulevard Intersection
The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would have a storage
demand (per lane) about 1 car length longer than available storage.
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection
The northbound turn lane would have a storage demand about 2 car lengths greater than
available storage.
Year 2006 Base Case Vehide Queuing: 95th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that year 2006 Base Case volumes would be producing 95th
percentile vehicle queues longer than available storage during the AM and/or PM peak hours on
select approaches of both the Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point
Boulevard/Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque A venue/U .S.l 01
Northbound On-Ramp intersections.
AM PEAK HOUR
. Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard Intersection
The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound approach left turn would have a demand 2 car
lengths longer than available storage.
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection
The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach right turn lanes would have storage
demands (per lane) 9 car lengths greater than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue
northbound approach left turn lane would have a storage demand 1 car length greater
than available storage. In addition, the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach
through lanes would have a storage demand (per lane) 3 car lengths greater than available
storage.
PM PEAK HOUR
. Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard Intersection
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-45
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would have a storage
demand (per lane) 3 car lengths greater than available storage. The Sister Cities
Boulevard eastbound approach left turn lane would have a demand 2 car lengths greater
than available storage.
· Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection
The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane would have a storage demand
8 car lengths greater than available storage, while the northbound through/left turn lane
would have a storage demand 4 car lengths greater than available storage.
Year 2020 Base Case Traffic Conditions
Traffic Volumes
The year 2020 Base Case (without Project) conditions include traffic generated by approved
development in the study area, traffic generated by Projects which are completed or under
construction and not yet fully occupied, traffic generated by proposed Projects, and traffic
generated by potential development of vacant or under-utilized land in the study area.
Appendix B Tables 3 and 4 present new development in South San Francisco and Brisbane
expected by 2020.
Evaluation of year 2020 + conditions is based upon traffic Projections from the Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment
and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001, with Project description and
improvement updates based upon a series of EIRs and traffic studies conducted over the past
four years (see References). The proposed Project in the 2001 DSEIR 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 EIR chapter as the East 01'0' Transportation Improvements Plan (lIP).
Preliminary year 2020 Base Case volumes were obtained using AM and PM peak hour
Projections from the City's East of 101 traffic model developed as part of the year 2001
Transportation Demand Management DSEIR. Year 2020 Projections developed in 2001 were
then adjusted to reflect the most recent changes in specific development proposals. Specific
Projects include:
· 333 Oyster Point Boulevard (South San Francisco)
· Lowe's Home Improvement store along Dubuque Avenue replacing office/R&D use
(South San Francisco)
· Baylands Phases I and II (Brisbane)
A traffic study was prepared for the City of Brisbane in 2004 evaluating the circulation impacts
of a revised plan for the Baylands Phase I and II developments. It was determined that South
PAGE 11-46
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
San Francisco's East of 101 model had included a land use scenario for the entire Baylands
Project somewhat more intense than the current Phase I proposal, but somewhat less than the
current Phase I + potential Phase II plan. Since Brisbane Planning staff indicated that all of
Phase I would likely be built and occupied by 2020, but that it was unknown how much, if any,
of Phase II would be constructed by that horizon, South San Francisco staff concluded that the
Baylands development proposal within the East of 101 model presented a conservative estimate
of the likely development potential of this property by 2020. Because the Brisbane model is
three years more current than the East of 101 model, Brisbane year 2020 (with Baylands Phase I
and II development) Projections for Bayshore Boulevard near the Brisbane/South San Francisco
border were used as guidance to adjust future Projections along Bayshore Boulevard.
Year 2020 Base Case traffic Projections also include development of the proposed retail/movie
theater, office and residential development on the Terrabay Phase III site. Resultant AM and
PM peak hour year 2020 Base Case volumes are presented in Figures 11-10 and 11-11.
Year 2020 Base Case Intersection Level of Service
Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that by 2020 all analyzed intersections would be expected to operate
acceptably during the AM and PM peak traffic hours, with four exceptions.
AM PEAK HOUR
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.I0l Northbound On-Ramp:
LOS F operation
PM PEAK HOUR
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.I0l Northbound On-Ramp:
LOS F operation
. Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard: LOS F operation
. Bayshore Boulevard/U .S.101 Southbound Hook Ramps /Mandalay Terrace:
LOS F operation
Year 2020 Base Case Freeway Ramp Operation
Table 11-6 shows that AM and PM peak hour volumes on all five analyzed freeway ramps at the
Oyster Point interchange would be well under capacity in the year 2020 with three exceptions.
During the AM peak hour volumes on the northbound off-ramp to Dubuque Avenue would be
above theoretical capacity limits, while during the PM peak hour volumes on the northbound
on-ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard and on the southbound on-ramp from Dubuque Avenue
would also be above theoretical capacity limits.
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-47
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Year 2020 Base Case Vehicle Queuing: 50th Percentile Queue
Table 11-7 and 11-8 show that year 2020 Base Case volumes would be producing 50th percentile
vehicle queues longer than available storage during the AM and PM peak hours on select
approaches of both the Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point
Boulevard/Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.l01
Northbound On-Ramp intersections.
AM PEAK HOUR
· Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard Intersection
The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would have a storage demand 7 car
lengths greater than the available storage.
· Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection
The northbound left and right turn approach lanes would both have storage demands
greater than available storage distance (1 car length longer for the left turn lane; 12 car
lengths longer than available storage (per lane) for the right turn lanes).
The eastbound through lanes would have a storage demand (per lane) 6 car lengths
greater than the available storage.
PM PEAK HOUR
· Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard Intersection
The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would have a demand 14 car lengths
greater than the available storage.
The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would have a storage
demand (per lane) 15 car lengths greater than the available storage. The westbound
approach left turn lane would also have a storage demand 3 car lengths greater than the
available storage.
The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach right turn lane would have a demand 14
car lengths greater than the available storage.
· Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection
The Dubuque A venue northbound approach left and combined through/left turn lanes
would have storage demands about 17 and 14 car lengths greater than the available
storage.
The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach left turn lanes would have a storage
demands (per lane) 16 car lengths greater than the available storage.
PAGE 11-48
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
. Bayshore Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay Entrance
The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach left turn lane would have a storage
demand 1 car length greater than the available storage.
Year 2020 Base Case Vehicle Queuing: 95th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that year 2020 Base Case volumes would be producing 95th
percentile vehicle queues longer than available storage during the AM and PM peak hours on the
intersection approaches presented below.
AM PEAK HOUR
. Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard Intersection
The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand 14 car lengths
longer than available storage. The Bayshore Boulevard southbound left turn lanes would
have a demand (per lane) one car length longer than available storage.
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection
The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound through lanes would have a demand (per lane)
10 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn
lane would have a demand 7 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque
A venue northbound through/left turn lane would have a demand 3 car lengths longer
than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound right turn lanes would have a
demand 17 car lengths longer than available storage.
. Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp/Southbound On-Ramp
Intersection
The Dubuque Avenue southbound through lane would have a demand 5 car lengths
longer than available storage.
PM PEAK HOUR
. Bayshore Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay North Access
Intersection
The Bayshore Boulevard southbound left turn lane would have a demand 9 car lengths
longer than available storage. The off-ramp left turn lanes would have a demand (per
lane) 3 car lengths longer than available storage. The Bayshore Boulevard northbound
through lanes would have a demand (per lane) one car length longer than available
storage.
. Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard Intersection
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-49
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand 16 car lengths
longer than available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound left turn lane
would have a demand 3 car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point
Boulevard westbound through lanes would have a demand (per lane) 12 car lengths
longer than available storage. The Bayshore Boulevard southbound right turn lane
would have a demand 18 car lengths longer than available storage.
· Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection
The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand 17 car
lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane
would have a demand 26 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque
Avenue northbound through/left turn lane would have a demand of 22 car lengths
longer than available storage.
· Dubuque Avenue/U.S.l0l Northbound Off-Ramp/Southbound On-Ramp
Intersection
The Dubuque Avenue southbound right turn lanes would have a demand (per lane) one
car length longer than available storage.
PAGE 11-50
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
36 791 398
.J ~ ~
Terrabay
Ph 3 Access
,
17
51 -+
14 -.
I
39 1292
Terrabay .J
Ph 3 Access 22 J
61 -.
10 1343
Terrabay .J ~
Ph 3 Access 77-'
229 446 745
.J~~
Sister Cities Blvd
60 ~
322 J
1457 -+
100 -.
I
I
,
I
,
)
1604151621
.J~~
530 J
408 -+
90 -.
725 317 1 ~ 10
.J~~f"0
~t,.
84 124 0
~
-L 20
.- 98
f" 526
t ,.
341 218
~ t
119 537 ~
~ 5
iii l:i:
~
o
.t::
~
III
co
-L 154
.- 429
f" 107
~
iii
1::
o
:q;
~
<(
Q)
:;,
:;,
..Q
:;,
Q
I ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
* Home
Depot
Project
Site
L 67
.- 905
Grand Ave
516
~
NOT TO SCALE
A
N
Office
and R&D
Operation
Figure 11-10
Year 2020 Base Case (Without Project)
AM Peak Hour Volumes
501
~
t ,.
2025
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 11-52
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
I
58 531 440
~ ~ ~
Terrabay
Ph 3 Access 59
228 -...
112 "')
49 1473
Terrabay ~
Ph 3 Access 83 J
232 "')
23 1682
Terrabay ~ t
Ph 3 Access 275 "')
I
924 576 457
~ ~ ~
Sister Cities Blvd
90 ~
269 J
523 -...
65 "')
,
,
I
560 505 539
~ ~ ~
I
455 J
123 -...
100 "')
-L 35
+- 141
.. 879
t ~
541 384
~ t
309 842 Is
~ 5
as 0:
~
o
.c:
~
III
!Xl
-L 600
+-1174
.. 245
~
as
t:::
192 -L 5
1803 5 +- 3
~~~..1
~ t ~
340 364 0
~
<(
* Home
Depot
Project
Site
~
<:(
Q)
:;)
:;)
.Q
:;)
a
Grand Ave
370
~
t ~
573 2
NOTTOSCALE
A
N
Office
and R&D
Operation
I ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 11-11
Year 2020 Base Case (Without Project)
PM Peak Hour Volumes
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This page intentionally left blank.
PACE 11-54
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
11.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a Project's impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines
thresholds:
Project impacts would be significant if they result in any of the following conditions:
1) The Project would exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the local roadway system.
2) Signalized intersection operation would change from LOS A, B, C or D to LOS E or F
and volumes would be increased by at least 2 percent.
3) Movements or approaches at unsignalized intersections would change from LOS A, B,
C, D or E to LOS F and volumes would be increased by at least 2 percent.
4) Project traffic would increase Base Case volumes at an unsignalized intersection to meet
peak hour signal warrant criteria levels.
5) The proposed Project would increase traffic entering an intersection by two percent or
more with a signalized or all-way stop operation already at a Base Case LOS E or F, or
when the intersection is side street stop sign controlled and already operating at LOS F.
6) The proposed Project would increase traffic entering an unsignalized intersection by two
percent or more with Base Case traffic levels already exceeding signal warrant criteria
levels.
7) The proposed Project would increase acceptable Base Case 50th percentile vehicle
queuing between intersections to unacceptable levels or if Base Case 50th percentile
queuing between intersections was already at unacceptable lengths, the Project would
increase queuing volumes by two percent or more (City of South San Francisco criteria).
8) The proposed Project would increase acceptable Base Case 95th percentile vehicle
queuing between intersections to unacceptable levels or if Base Case 95th percentile
queuing between intersections was already at unacceptable lengths, the Project would
increase queuing volumes by two percent or more (Caltrans criteria).
9) Project traffic would degrade operation of the U .S.l 01 freeway or a freeway ramp from
LOS E to LOS F with at least a 1 percent increase in volume, or would increase volumes
by more than one percent on a freeway segment or a freeway ramp with Base Case
LOS F operation.
10) The Project worsens traffic, pedestrian or bicycle safety.
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-55
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
11) If on-site circulation would be confusing to drivers and result in excessive traffic flow
through various parts of the Project site.
12) If, in the opinion of the registered traffic engineer conducting the EIR analysis, a
significant safety concern would be created.
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Home Depot trip generation was developed using trip rates for "Home Improvement
Superstores" contained in the traffic engineering profession's standard source of trip rate data,
Tnp Generation 7th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. In consultation
with City staff, average trip rates were then increased by 25 percent in order to provide a safety
factor for impact analysis. Table 11-15A presents gross trip rates that would be expected due to
a Home Depot store. The net increase in traffic from the Project site for the near term horizon
was then determined by subtracting the minor level of trip generation associated with the
existing Levitz furniture operation from that of the proposed Home Depot. As shown in
Table 11-15B, the net increase in traffic from the Project site with Home Depot replacing Levitz
furniture uses would be expected to be about 100 net new inbound and 85 net new outbound
trips during the AM peak traffic hour, with about 160 net new inbound and 185 net new
outbound trips during the PM peak traffic hour.
For the year 2020 long term horizon, the Project site has been Projected in the East of 101
traffic model to contain high-rise office or research and development activities. These uses,
assumed in place for the 2020 Base Case analysis, would have a higher level of trip generation
than the existing Levitz furniture activities. As shown in Table 11-15C, the net increase in
traffic from the Project site with Home Depot replacing office/R&D uses would be expected to
be about 70 net fewer inbound and 55 net new outbound trips during the AM peak traffic hour,
with about 135 net new inbound and 45 net new outbound trips during the PM peak traffic
hour.
PAGE 11-56
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Table 11-15A
HOME DEPOT TRIP GENERATION
DAILY AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
2-WAY TRIPS INBOUND OUTBOUND INBOUND OUTBOUND
USE SIZE RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL
Home 125,794 29.8 3750 .65 82 .55 69 1.15 145 1.30 164
Depot SQ.FT. (40)
+ 25% Safety Factor 940 21 17 36 41
TOTAL 4690 103 86 181 205
Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation, 7th Edition !?J the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003.
Compiled!?J: Crane Transportation Group
Table 11-15B
HOME DEPOT SITE NET CHANGE IN NEAR TERM HORIZON
TRIP GENERATION-HOME DEPOT MINUS EXISTING SITE USE
(LEVITZ FURNITURE)
AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
USE INBOUND OUTBOUND INBOUND OUTBOUND
Home Depot 103 86 181 205
Existing Site Use (-4) (-2) (-20) (-19)
Net Change in Site Trip 99 84 161 186
Generation
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Table 11-15C
HOME DEPOT SITE NET CHANGE IN YEAR 2020
TRIP GENERATION-HOME DEPOT MINUS OFFICEjR&D USES
AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
USE INBOUND OUTBOUND INBOUND OUTBOUND
Home Depot 103 86 181 205
OfficejR&D (-173) (-32) (-46) (-161)
Net Change in Site Trip (-70) +54 +135 +44
Generation
Source: Crane Transportation Group
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-57
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Distribution patterns of existing Levitz traffic were based upon existing AM and PM peak
period turn movement counts at Project driveways, while distribution patterns of office/R&D
traffic Projected to be generated by the Project site by 2020 were obtained from the City's East
of 101 traffic model. Distribution patterns for Home Depot traffic were developed by Crane
Transportation Group in consultation with City staff based upon the Projected service area of
the store (San Francisco/Brisbane to the north, the U.S.l0l corridor to Burlingame to the south
and South San Francisco on the east and west), knowledge of existing nearby Home Depot
operations (San Mateo and Colma) and attractive access routes based upon roadway/freeway
congestion during commute periods. Overall, Home Depot traffic was Projected to distribute in
the following patterns.
HOME DEPOT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
IN OUT IN OUT
U.S.l0l Freeway & 30% 30% 27% 31%
Bayshore Blvd. North
U.S.l0l Freeway South 20% 20% 21% 23%
West of U.S.101 Freeway 40% 40% 39% 42%
Sister Cities/Grand Avenue
East of U.S.l 01 Freeway 10% 10% 13% 4%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100%
Resultant weekday year 2006 Base Case Home Depot AM and PM peak hour volumes are
presented in Figures 11-12 and 11-13, respectively, while year 2020 Base Case + Home Depot
AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Figures 11-14 and 11-15, respectively. Only
minor levels of PM peak hour Home Depot traffic were projected to be captured from Base
Case (background) traffic on the streets within the Oyster Point interchange or on the U.S. 101
freeway. No passby or diverted linked trip capture was projected during the AM peak hour.
PAGE 11-58
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
508 330 t. 20
~ .. 339 NOT TO SC ALE
L. A
t
227 N
t. 22
155 340 352
.J ~ L. +- 247
Sister Cities Blvd .. 93
120 J
1122 -+
135 ..
I
I
105375 748
.J ~ L.
220 J
214 -+
70 ..
-g
iii
~
o
..c::
~
<tl
en
625 204 1 t. 0
.J ~ L. ;:- 05
~t,.
50 135 0
~
-g
iii
t:::
~
* Home
Depot
Project
Site
~
'<(
~
::s
.Q
::s
Cl
Grand Ave
220
~
I ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 11-12
Year 2006 Base Case + Project
AM Peak Hour Volumes
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 11-60
.
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
456 350 t. 30
+ '-. .. 508
t r--
284 170
~
iii
I ~
0
..c::
~
<Il
co
350 395 219 t. 189
~ + '-. +- 903
.. 220
I Sister Cities Blvd
85 J
403 -+
I 60 ,
I
~
co
t:::
:q:
,
I
I
I
187 430 237
~ + '-.
198 J
99 -+
145 ")
1448 219 5 t. 0
~ + '-. ;- 05
555 J ~ t r--
o -+ 146316 0
129, ~
* Home
Depot
Project
Site
~
<:(
~
=:3
.Q
=:3
Q
Grand Ave
NOT TO SCALE
A
N
218
+
I ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 11-13
Year 2006 Base Case + Project
PM Peak Hour Volumes
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 11-62
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED ErR
I
36 787 398
.J ~ l..
Terrabay
Ph 3 Access 17
51 -+
14 ..
39 1263
Terrabay .J
Ph 3 Access 22 J
61 ..
10 1314
Terrabay .J t
Ph 3 Access 77..
229446 716
.J~l..
Sister Cities Blvd
60 ~
322 J
1473 -+
100 ..
I
(
I
I
I
I
1604151621
.J ~ l..
530 J
404 -+
90 ..
~ 20
+- 98
.. 501
t ~
342 218
~ t
119 538 as
~ 5
iii i:i:
~
o
.c:
~
<ll
en
~ 155
+- 445
.. 110
~
iii
1:::
o
q:
725 315 1 :... 10
.J~l....o
~t~
90 163 0
~
* Home
Depot
Project
Site
~
'<(
Q)
:;,
:;,
-g
o
Grand Ave
NOT TO SCALE
A
N
502
~
~
'<(
Q)
:;,
:;,
.Q
510 2 .5
~ l..
I ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 11-14
Year 2020 Base Case + Project
AM Peak Hour Volumes
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 11-64
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED ErR
t. 35
58 546 440 +- 141
.J ~ ~ .. 901
Terrabay t
Ph 3 Access 59 ,.
228 -+ 384
112 . 543
49 1510
Terrabay .J t
Ph 3 Access 83 j ~
232. 309 844 Ii>
~ 5
23 1719 co G:
.J t ~
0
Terrabay .c:
Ph 3 Access 275. ~
<tl
co
924 576 494 t. 602
.J~~ +-1221
Sister Cities Blvd .. 255
I 90 ~
269 j
561 -+
65 .
,
I
I
560 505 541
.J~~
I
)
455 j
130 -+
100 .
~
co
t
o
.~
<(
1801 290 5 :-53
.J~~..1
~ t ,.
310 432 0
~
* Home
Depot
Project
Site
~
<(
~
::.
-g
a
Grand Ave
NOT TO S( ALE
A
N
376
~
I ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 11-15
Year 2020 Base Case + Project
PM Peak Hour Volumes
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 11-66
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
BASE CASE + PROJECT INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS AND CONTROL
Figure 11-6 presents year 2006 Base Case and Base Case + Project intersection geometrics and
control, while Figure 11-7 presents year 2020 Base Case and Base Case + Project intersection
geometrics and control. As shown, Base Case + Project intersection geometrics and control are
projected to remain the same as Base Case conditions for both horizon years, including the three
project access driveways.
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS
YEAR 2006
Impact 11-1
Project Trip Generation Will Exceed 100 Trips During the AM and PM
Peak Hours
The proposed Project would generate more than 100 net new trips than existing site uses during
the AM and PM peak hours (::!: 185 more trips during the AM peak hour and ::!:350 more trips
during the PM peak hour than the existing Levitz furniture operation). The San Mateo
City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for the implementation
of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program ("C/CAG Guidelines") specifies 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.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 11-1
The Project sponsors shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (fDM) 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 ongoing for the occupied life of the development. The C/CAG
guidelines specify the number of trips that may be credited for each TDM measure.
Appendix B Table 5 oudines TDM programs that can generate trip credits to offset the::!: 185
net new AM peak hour trips and ::!:350 net new PM peak hour trips generated by the Project.
Since the majority of vehicles associated with Home Depot will be retail customers and not
employees (and not influenced by typical TDM measures), the Project applicant and C/CAG
will need to meet and develop a program agreeable to both parties.
Implementation of a TDM plan will reduce the Project's impact to a less-than-significant level.
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-67
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 11-2 Year 2006 Intersection Level of Service Impacts
Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that all but one analyzed intersection would maintain acceptable
operation during AM and PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project. At the Oyster
Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.l0l Northbound On-Ramp intersection, PM peak hour
Project traffic would degrade operation from LOS E to LOS F and increase volumes by more
than two percent (4.3%).
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 11-2
There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by city of South San
Francisco staff to improve operation to Base Case Conditions or better.
The impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 11-3 Year 2006 Freeway Mainline Impacts
Tables 11-3 and 11-4 show that the proposed Project would not result in any U.S.l0l freeway
segment changing AM or PM Peak hour Base Case operation to an unacceptable LOS F with
one exception. During the PM peak hour, northbound U.S.l0l north of the Oyster Point
interchange would have Base Case LOS E operation changed to LOS F operation with the
addition of traffic from Home Depot (::!:50 vehicles). However, the increment would be less
than a one percent increase in northbound traffic (a 0.5 percent increase) and would be a less-
than-significant impact.
For those freeway segments Projected to have Base Case LOS F operation, the proposed Project
would result in a less-than-significant increase in traffic.
AM PEAK HOUR
Southbound U.S.l0l (north of the Oyster Point interchange): The Project would result
in Base Case freeway volumes being increased by 0.2%.
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 11-3
No mitigation required.
PAGE 11-68
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED ErR
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 11-4 Year 2006 Freeway Ramp Impacts
Table 11-5 shows that the proposed Project would not result in any freeway ramp having AM or
PM peak hour Base Case volumes increased above capacity limits.
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation 11-4
No mitigation required.
Impact 11-5 Year 2006 Vehicle Queuing Impacts
50th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed project would result in significant 50th percentile
queuing impacts at two intersections during the PM peak traffic hour in 2006. All intersection
approach lanes shown in Tables 11-7 and 11-8 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that
indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of project traffic that are not
listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance
criteria level.
PM PEAK HOUR
1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard intersection.
The Oyster Point westbound approach through lanes would receive more than a two
percent increase in traffic (5%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp
The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn/through lanes would receive more
than a two percent increase in traffic (12.8%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing in
the left turn lane. Acceptable Base Case queuing in the combined left/through lane
would also be increased beyond the available storage with the addition of Project traffic.
These would be significant impacts.
Mitigation 11-5A: 50th Percentile Queue
1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard
Proposed restriping of the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach (as required of
the Bay West Cove development) to provide one left turn lane, two through lanes and
one right turn lane would reduce westbound through queuing demand to 195 feet, less
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
PAGE 11-69
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
than the available 255 feet of storage. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-
significant level.
2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.l0l Northbound On-Ramp
There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of
South San Francisco staff to reduce queuing to Base Case conditions.
The impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
95th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed project would result in significant 95th percentile
queuing impacts at two intersections during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2006. All
intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-9 and 11-10 with unacceptable Base Case
queuing that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of project traffic
that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the
significance criteria level.
AM PEAK HOUR
1) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp.
The Dubuque A venue northbound approach left turn lane would receive more than a
two percent increase in traffic (9.6%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
PM PEAK HOUR
2) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard intersection.
The Oyster Point westbound approach through lanes would receive more than a two
percent increase in traffic (5%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Also, acceptable
Base Case queuing in the westbound approach left turn lane would be increased beyond
the available storage with the addition of project traffic.
3) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.l0l Northbound On-Ramp
The Dubuque A venue northbound approach left turn and through/left turn lanes would
receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (19.5%) with unacceptable Base Case
queuing in both lanes.
These would be significant impacts.
Mitigation 11-5B: 95th Percentile Queue
1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard
Proposed restriping of the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach (as required of
the Bay West Cove development) to provide one left turn lane, two through lanes and
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
PAGE 11-70 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
one right turn lane would reduce westbound through queuing demand to 225 feet, less
than the available 255 feet of storage. In addition, the 95th percentile queuing in the
westbound left turn lane would be reduced to 80 feet, which is the planned available
storage length. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp
There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of
South San Francisco staff to reduce queuing to Base Case conditions.
This impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
YEAR 2020
Impact 11-6 Year 2020 Intersection Level of Service Impacts
Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that all but three analyzed intersections would maintain acceptable
operation during AM or PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project. At the
Bayshore/U.S.l0l Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay access intersection, PM peak hour
operation would remain LOS F, but volumes would increase by less than two percent (1.1%).
At the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection,
AM peak hour operation would remain LOS F, but volumes would increase less than two
percent (0.6%). However, during the PM peak hour operation would also remain LOS F, but
volumes would increase by more than two percent (2.1 %), resulting in a significant impact at this
location. Project traffic would also produce a significant impact during the PM peak hour at the
Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/ Airport Boulevard
intersection. Operation would remain LOS F and volumes would increase by more than two
percent (2.6%).
These would be significant impacts.
Mitigation Measure 11-6
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
Provide a fair share contribution to the same mitigations required of the
Terrabay Phase 3 development.
Restripe the northbound Airport Boulevard approach to provide a second left
turn lane.
Reconftgure the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach to provide two left
turn lanes, an exclusive through lane and a shared through/right turn lane.
Improvements to the eastbound approach should also provide adjustments to
the north curb line of Sister Cities Boulevard, if needed, to allow safe turn
movements, which will be conducted by Project drivers.
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
PAGE 11-71
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Resultant Operation
PM Peak Hour LOS D-51.8 seconds vehicle delay
The impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.I0l Northbound On-Ramp
· There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City
of South San Francisco staff to improve operation to Base Case conditions or better.
This impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 11-7 Year 2020 Freeway Mainline Impacts
Tables 11-3 and 11-4 show that the proposed project would not result in any U.S.l0l freeway
segment near the Oyster Point interchange receiving a significant impact by 2006. No segment
would receive more than a five-tenths of one percent traffic increase due to the project.
Therefore, since background traffic on the U.S.l0l freeway will increase from 2006 to 2020, and
the percent project traffic contributions to overall volumes will decrease, no freeway segment
will receive a significant impact due to project traffic in 2020.
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 11-7
No mitigation required.
Impact 11-8 Year 2020 Freeway Ramp Impacts
Table 11-6 shows that the proposed Project would not result in any freeway ramp having AM or
PM peak hour Base Case volumes increased above capacity limits. For those freeway ramps
Projected to have Base Case LOS F operation, the proposed Home Depot (in comparison to
office/R&D uses Projected for the site) would result in either a net decrease or no measurable
change in traffic.
AM PEAK HOUR
· U.S.l0l Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue would have volumes decreased
from about 2,075 down to about 2,010 vehicles per hour and operation would
improve from an unacceptable LOS F to an acceptable LOS E.
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
PAGE 11-72 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
PM PEAK HOUR
. U.S.l0l Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard would have volumes
remaining about 2,965 vehicles per hour. Operation would remain LOS F.
. U.S.l0l Southbound On-Ramp from Dubuque Avenue would have volumes
decreased from about 2,145 down to about 2,115 vehicles per hour. Operation
would remain LOS F.
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 11-8
No mitigation required.
Impact 11-9 Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts
50th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed project would result in significant 50th percentile
queuing impacts at two intersections during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All
intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-7 and 11-8 with unacceptable Base Case queuing
that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of project traffic that are not
listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance
criteria level.
AM PEAK HOUR
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.l0l Northbound On-Ramp
. The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane would receive a 14.4%
increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
PM PEAK HOUR
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard intersection.
. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would receive a
1 4% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would receive a
14.1 % increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.l0l Northbound On-Ramp
. The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn/through lanes would receive a
1 6.2% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
These would be significant impacts.
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-73
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Mitigation Measure 11-9A: 50th Percentile Queue
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard (same improvements as for level of service)
· Provide two left turn lanes on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach.
· Stripe a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard approach.
These measures would not reduce unacceptable westbound through and left turn lane queuing
to acceptable levels.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp
· There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City
of South San Francisco staff to reduce Project queuing impacts to Base Case
conditions.
Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
95th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed project would result in significant 95th percentile
queuing impacts at three intersections during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All
intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-9 and 11-10 with unacceptable Base Case
queuing that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of project traffic
that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the
significance criteria level.
AM PEAK HOUR
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp
· The Dubuque A venue northbound approach left turn lane and combined
through/left turn lanes would receive a 7.2% increase in traffic with unacceptable
Base Case queuing.
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard intersection.
· The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach left turn lane would receive a 4.1 %
increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. In addition, the Oyster
Point Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would have a demand increased
beyond the available storage with the addition of project traffic.
PM PEAK HOUR
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard intersection.
PAGE 11-74
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would receive a
:t 4% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would receive a
:t4.1 % increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
. The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach left turn lane would receive a :t8.1 %
increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.l0l Northbound On-Ramp
. The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and combined through/left
turn lanes would receive a :t 6.2% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case
queumg.
Bayshore Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps/Terrabay North Access
. The off-ramp lanes would receive a 2.1 % increase in traffic with unacceptable Base
Case queuing.
These would be significant impacts.
Mitigation Measure 11-9B: 95th Percentile Queue
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard (same improvements as for level of service)
. Reconftgure the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach to provide two left turn
lanes, an exclusive through lane and a combined through/right turn lane.
. Stripe a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard approach.
These measures would not reduce unacceptable westbound through and left turn lane queuing
to acceptable levels.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.l0l Northbound On-Ramp
. There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City
of South San Francisco staff to reduce project queuing impacts to Base Case
conditions.
Bayshore Boulevard/U.S.l0l Southbound Ramps/Terrabay Access
. Provide a fair share contribution toward lengthening the Bayshore Boulevard
southbound approach left turn lane (from 350 to 550 feet) in conjunction with
Terrabay providing an additional lane on the eastbound intersection approach. The
impact at this intersection would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-75
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 11-10 Project Access Impacts
The proposed Project would have three driveway connections to Dubuque Avenue. The north
and central driveway connections would be in the same locations as driveways now serving
Levitz furniture. The Home Depot southerly driveway would be in the same location as Levitz's
most southerly driveway. The existing Levitz fourth driveway connection to Dubuque Avenue
just north of the Levitz southerly driveway would be eliminated. Speeds along Dubuque Avenue
adjacent to the Project site range from 35 to 45 miles per hour northbound and 30 to 35 miles
per hour southbound.
The north Home Depot driveway would be 30 feet wide, allowing one inbound and outbound
lane. The existing ::!:150-foot-Iong left turn lane on the southbound Dubuque Avenue approach
to this intersection would be maintained. It would provide storage for about six to seven autos.
Dubuque Avenue has two northbound through lanes and one southbound through lane at this
location. However, on-street parking is now allowed adjacent to the Home Depot site between
the north and central driveways. If this parking is occupied, northbound flow is limited to a
single lane.
The central Home Depot driveway would be 30 feet wide, also allowing one wide inbound and
outbound lane. No left turn lane is proposed on the southbound Dubuque Avenue approach to
this intersection. Dubuque Avenue is 26 feet wide just south of this driveway and widens to 38
feet just north of this driveway.
The southerly Home Depot driveway would be 57 feet wide, allowing adequate room for truck
turn movements. No left turn lane is proposed on the southbound Dubuque Avenue approach
to the intersection. Dubuque Avenue is 26 feet wide in the vicinity of this driveway.
Turn Lane Storage Requirement
Evaluation has been conducted to determine whether the existing 150-foot left turn lane on the
southbound approach to the northerly Home Depot driveway would provide adequate storage
for expected demand. Based upon two separate methodologies, by 2020 the 95th percentile
queue would not be expected to exceed three to four vehicles. The existing turn pocket, with
room for six to seven vehicles, would provide adequate storage for this demand.
Methodology #1
Estimation 0/ Maximum Queue Lengths at Unsignalized Intersections, by John T. Gard, ITE Journal,
November 2001-see Appendix B Table 6.
95th percentile queue =
AM Peak: 3 car lengths
PM Peak: 3 car lengths
PAGE 11-76
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Methodology #2
Number of vehicles, on average, arriving each two minutes.
95th percentile queue =
AM Peak: 2 car lengths
PM Peak: 4 car lengths
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Turn Lane Warrants
The Home Depot southerly driveway would never have volume levels warranting the provision
of a left turn lane. However, by 2020 PM, peak hour volumes at the central Home Depot
driveway would be exceeding warrant criteria 1 for the provision of a southbound left turn lane.
AM peak volumes in 2020 would also be approaching warrant criteria levels.
This would be a significant impact.
Sight Lines at Project Driveway Connections to Dubuque Avenue
Vehicle speeds along Dubuque Avenue adjacent to the project site range from 35 to 45 miles per
hour northbound and 30 to 35 miles per hour southbound. Minimum stopping sight distances
for travel speeds of 40 and 45 miles per hour are 305 and 360 feet, respectively, based upon
guidelines in A Polir:y on Geometric Design of Highwqys and Street, 2004.2 Both the central and
northerly Home Depot driveways will connect to Dubuque Avenue on the inside of a curve.
This will require that direct line of site between drivers on Dubuque Avenue and vehicles exiting
the project site at both driveways extend through landscaping along the site frontage. This
presents the possibility that landscaping may interfere with required sight lines. Adequate sight
lines do not exist to allow for cars to safely turn left from the northern driveway. In addition, if
on-street parking between the project's central and northerly driveway is occupied, these parked
vehicles may also interfere with minimum required sight lines.
This would be a significant impact.
1 Intersection Channelization Design Guide, Transportation Research Board Report 279, November 1985-see Appendix
B.
2 American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials.
HOME DEPOT PROjECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-77
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Mitigation Measure 11-10
Left Turn Lane
· Revise the Project site plan layout in the vicinity of the central driveway in order to widen
Dubuque Avenue sufficiently to provide a southbound left turn lane at least 75 and
preferably 100 feet long.
Sight Lines
· Provide low height landscaping along the site's entire Dubuque Avenue frontage that will
allow permanent sight lines of at least 360 feet in both directions from each Project
driveway.
· The City of South San Francisco shall post speed limit signs of 30 to 35 miles per hour
along Dubuque Avenue in the vicinity of Home Depot for both travel directions.
· Prohibit left turns out of the northerly Home Depot driveway.
· The City of South San Francisco shall prohibit on-street parking along the Project's entire
Dubuque Avenue frontage.
· If needed, consider provision of "all way stop" control at the Project's central driveway
intersection.
These measures would reduce the Project's impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact 11-11 On-Site Circulation
The Project Site Plan by Greenberg Farrow shows all internal parking aisles will be 25 feet wide
and serve 90-degree parking. This meets City code criteria and good traffic engineering practice.
The central driveway is channelized well into the site and should operate acceptably with
customer traffic. The southerly driveway will be used primarily by delivery trucks and a truck
maneuvering area to back into unloading docks is provided just internal to the site. This area
should also function acceptably assuming it is marked as a truck unloading/employee parking
area only.
The site plan also shows, however, two internal locations which, as designed, will produce
significant safety and operational concerns.
Location one is just internal to the parking lot at the northerly Project driveway (which is
Projected to be the busiest site driveway). Inbound drivers have only one and a half car lengths
of channelization between Dubuque Avenue and the first internal parking aisle intersection
before being confronted with a decision to make a left or right turn. Flow into parking aisles
leading towards the entrance to the store is offset to the left and right. This will lead to driver
confusion and delay even before taking into account outbound traffic maneuvering from the
various parking aisles to get onto Dubuque A venue. An inbound driver that needs to stop
PAGE 11-78
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
immediately upon entering the site could result in the next inbound vehicle extending onto
Dubuque Avenue. This first internal intersection would be very difficult to adequately stop sign
control and would result in significant safety and operational concerns.
Location two is in the northern section of the parking garage where the ramp serving the second
level parking comes to ground level parallel to another parking aisle 20 feet to the west. A third
parking aisle also joins into this area. As with location one above, providing sign control for safe
vehicle movements in this northern area will be difficult.
These would be significant impacts.
Mitigation Measure 11-11
. Revise the parking lot layout to provide at least three and preferably four car lengths
channelization and storage for inbound vehicles at the north Project driveway (75 to 100
feet) before the first internal intersection. Two inbound lanes at least 75 feet long would be
preferable. Design the first internal intersection such that diagonal movements to access
another parking aisle are not possible.
. Provide a striping/ signing plan acceptable to the City Engineer to acceptably control
vehicular movements at the parking aisle/ second floor ramp intersection area on the
ground floor in the northern part of the parking garage.
Implementation of these measures will reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 11-79
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 11-80
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
12
UTI LITI ES
12.1 SETTING
WATER SUPPLY
South San Francisco has two water suppliers. The California Water Service Company, Bayshore
District (CWSC) serves that portion of the city east of Interstate 280, which represents the
majority of the city's area, including the project site. According to its web site, the CWSC uses
eight water wells to pump 1.5 million gallons of groundwater per day for its 16,600 customers in
South San Francisco.! The CWSC also serves 36,100 users in San Carlos and San Mateo, with
no restrictions on water allocation among these communities. To meet the needs of its users in
the Bayshore District and beyond, the CWSC buys water from the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC). The company's current contract with the SFPUC entitles the city to 42.3
million gallons per day (mgd) per year.
Water use in South San Francisco has increased steadily over the past few decades at a rate faster
than increases in the number of users, resulting in a per capita increase in water consumption.
Water use has rebounded significantly from the levels of the late 1980s and early 1990s, when an
extended period of drought and resulting conservation measures brought water use levels down
considerably.
According to the General Plan, while residential users comprised approximately 90% of the
water accounts in South San Francisco between 1986 and 1996, less than half of the total
consumption could be attributed to these users. On the other hand, industrial users comprised
only 0.46% of the water accounts but used 11 % of the total water, at an average of 3.6 million
gallons per user per year. Part of the reason for the high industrial water usage in the city is the
predominance of biotechnology firms in the city. Pharmaceutical manufacturing requires
extremely pure water, and large quantities of water are used to achieve necessary water purity
levels. Commercial users accounted for approximately 10% of total accounts, but used
approximately 37% of the total water, for an average of 528,132 gallons per user per year.2
! California Water Service Company website
2 Dyett and Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 193, Table 5.3-2
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 12-1
CHAPTER 12: UTILITIES
The CWSC bases its future water use projections on estimates of both the number of future
water users and the amount of water each type of user will consume. The five year average
growth in the number of accounts is the basis for the utility's projections of the number of water
users through 2020. Water use projections for 2020 range from 5.9 million gallons per day (mgd)
to 9.1 mgd. Assuming the SFPUC contract allocation is not modified during the remaining
contract period, the CWSC has adequate supply to meet even the highest projected demand.3
However, while the CWSC has adequate water supply to meet the increased water demand that
would be created by the allowed development in the East of 101 Area Plan, this increase would
be more than that estimated by the CWSC for the Bayshore District, and would use
approximately 24 percent of the district's surplus supply, based on 2010 projection with similar
assumptions.4
Water lines in the East of 101 Area would generally be adequate to serve new development
allowed under the East of 101 Area Plan.s The water distribution system in the area was
designed and constructed to meet industrial water demands. It consists of a network of 12-inch
lines in relatively good condition, adequate to serve the 2,500 gallons per minute fire flow
requirement and use demands for the land uses planned for the area.
WASTEWATER
The South San Francisco/San Bruno Sewage Treatment Plant was constructed in the early 1970s
and is jointly operated by the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno. The sewage of both
cities is treated there, as is wastewater from Colma and the Serramonte portion of Daly City.
The Westborough Water District coordinates sewage treatment for the Westborough portion of
South San Francisco under contract with Daly City. As of 1995, the average dry weather flow
was 8.33 million gallons per day (MGD), and had increased on average 0.5 MGD per year since
1991.
Since 1998 the plant has undergone an expansion in order to accommodate wastewater flows
from future development in the city, and work has been undertaken to upgrade the city's trunk
sewers, including along East Grand Avenue. The plant expansion has increased the dry weather
flow capacity to 13 MGD. These improvements to the wastewater infrastructure have all taken
into account, and will satisfy, increased demand on the system resulting from future
development in the city, including the proposed Project. 6
4
Dyett and Bhatia, p. 194.
Brady and Associates, East ofl0l Area Plan, 1994, p. 97
Brady and Associates, p. 98.
Raul Dacanay, Assistant Engineer, City of South San Francisco, personal communication, May 4, 2005.
6
PAGE 12-2
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
CHAPTER 12: UTILITIES
STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES
The existing drainage system in the East of 101 Area is generally designed and constructed for
industrial development, which has a high ratio of impervious surfaces. However, Impact 7-1 in
the Hydrology section notes that the Project would lead to increases in peak runoff and peak
discharge to the Bay. To account for this increase, Mitigation Measure 7-1a and 7-1b have been
proposed, requiring a Storm Drain Analysis and Revised Storm Drain Plan.
SOLID WASTE
Solid waste is collected from South San Francisco homes and businesses and then processed at
the Scavenger Company's materials recovery facility and transfer station. Materials that cannot
be recycled or composted are transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, near Half Moon
Bay. Browning-Ferris Industries, owner of the landfill, has a permit for forward expansion of
the Corinda Los Trancos Canyon at Ox Mountain. When the permit expires in 2016, either
Corinda Los Trancos will be expanded further or Apanolio Canyon will be opened for fill.
The Scavenger Company's facility is permitted to receive a daily maximum of 1,250 tons per day
of wastes and recyclable materials. This facility gives the Company increased capability to
recover valuable materials from wastes, reducing the amount of waste being sent to the landfill.
South San Francisco recycles both household and industrial solid waste and sewage sludge.
With an expected buildout population of 67,000 residents in South San Francisco, the city will
generate approximately 38,000 tons of solid waste each year, based on the assumed generation
rates used by San Mateo County.
12.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a Project's environmental impacts are based upon
CEQA Guidelines:
. Would the Project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
. Would the Project require substantial expansion or alteration of the City's water or
wastewater treatment and collection facilities?
. Would the Project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities
or expansion of existing facilities?
. Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 12-3
CHAPTER 12: UTILITIES
· Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
· Would the Project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the Project's solid waste disposal needs?
· Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
The proposed Project's wastewater discharge would not exceed the wastewater treatment
requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY
The proposed Project would not lead to an increase in demand for potable water that could not
be fulfilled by the California Water Service Company, as stated in the South San Francisco
General Plan.
The wastewater treatment plant that serves the city and the trunk sewer system that would serve
the Project site have recently been, or are in the process of being expanded and upgraded. This
work will ensure adequate wastewater collection and treatment service over the city's buildout
horizon.
Because the eXlstlng drainage system in the East of 101 Area is generally designed and
constructed for industrial development, it is capable of accommodating large amounts of storm
water from the large amount of impervious surfaces in the area. Thus, any redevelopment of
existing development, including on the Project site, will generally not increase runoff.
The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on utility service and
infrastructure in the City of South San Francisco and East of 101 Area.
LANDFILL CAPACITY
Given the large amount of space still available at Ox Mountain, and the option of opening
Apanolio Canyon after Ox Mountain is no longer available, the proposed Project would have a
less than significant impact on solid waste service capacity.
PAGE 12-4
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
13
ALTERNATIVES
13.1 INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, 1970, as amended, Section 15126.6) requires
an EIR to include a discussion of a reasonable range of alternatives to the preferred option.
CEQA also requires that the EIR explain why specific project alternatives that were considered
at one time in developing the project proposal were rejected in favor of the preferred option.
The selection of alternatives is to be guided by the provision of reasonable choices and the
promotion of informed decision making and informed public participation. An EIR need not
evaluate alternatives that would have effects that cannot be determined, or for which
implementation would be remote and speculative.
CEQA also requires that the EIR specifically address a "no project" alternative within this
discussion and that an "environmentally superior" alternative be identified (Section 15126.6 [eD.
Where the "no project" alternative is also identified as the "environmentally superior"
alternative, another alternative which would represent the "environmentally superior" in the
absence of the "no project" alternative should then be identified.
The preferred option is the proposed Project, as fully described in Chapter 3 of this EIR
(project Description). The environmental consequences associated with this preferred option
are fully addressed in Chapters 4 through 12 of this EIR. In addition to the proposed Project,
this EIR includes a discussion of the following alternatives:
. No Project Alternative, which would leave the Project site in its current state, and
. 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative
13.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
No PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Under the No Project Alternative, the Project site would remain as it is today, an existing
commercial building occupied by Levitz Furniture and used to warehouse and sell furniture.
This alternative would maintain the site's Planned Commercial General Plan use designation, but
the retail use would not be as intense or economically beneficial (sales tax revenue) to the City,
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-1
CHAPTER 13: ALTERNATIVES
an issue which is addressed in numerous General Plan goals and policies. It would also prevent
the establishment of the large amount of landscaping being proposed for the site by the Project
applicant.
The No Project Alternative would not result in the environmental impacts described in this EIR
document, particularly those identified as significant and unavoidable. Table 11-15B shows that
there would be approximately 185 fewer AM Peak Hour trips and 350 fewer PM Peak Hour
trips than the proposed Project, resulting in lower air pollutant vehicle emissions and traffic
levels of service. The No Project site would also not introduce several of the hazardous
materials that would be stored and used on site as part of the Project, and would maintain the
seven protected trees that will be need to be replaced. As such, it would be environmentally
supenor.
0.50 FLOOR AREA RATIO ALTERNATIVE
Under this alternative, the Project's Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would be reduced from the
currently proposed 0.38 FAR for the 125,794 square foot Project, to a square footage of 62,897
square feet, corresponding to a FAR of 0.19. As the applicant has indicated it would not be
economically feasible for a Home Depot to occupy such a small building based on its standard
store size and business model (the average Home Depot store is about 110,000 square feet), the
alternative would have to be an alternate retail store.
This reduced development intensity would produce fewer vehicle trips and less air pollutant
emissions. Fewer vehicle trips would result in better freeway Levels of Service and better Levels
of Service on street intersections near the Project site, but would still not completely mitigate the
significant impacts detailed in the Transportation and Circulation Chapter.
This alternative would still provide extensive landscaping on the site (City design standards
would mandate this), and would also require a smaller amount of vehicle parking facilities.
However, it would effectively prohibit the Project Applicant from occupying the site, and most
alternate retail uses, especially at 50% of the Proposed Floor Area Ratio of the proposed project,
would not generate as much sales tax revenue as the proposed Project.
13.3 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
Consideration of the alternatives to the proposed Home Depot Project reveals that the
environmentally superior alternative would be the No Project Alternative, since it would result in
no new environmental impacts. However, should the site retain its existing use as a Levitz
Furniture warehouse and retail store, it would not meet the goals, policies, or visions of the
City's General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan as well as the proposed Project would.
However, in the absence of the No Project Alternative, the 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative
would be designated as environmentally superior. Implementation of this reduced intensity
alternative would lead to milder (environmentally superior) environmental impacts, but would
PAGE 13-2
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 1 3 : ALTERNATIVES
likely be economically unfeasible for the Project Applicant. The applicant has a standard
template for most of its stores, which includes a minimum warehouse size to be economically
viable and carry their full line of products, and reducing to a 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative
would likely make the project unfeasible. The applicant would be required to seek an alternate
site in the City of South San Francisco or another economically feasible location. The applicant
currently has two stores in Colma and another in San Mateo, and was recently approved for a
store in the City of San Francisco.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-3
This page intentionally left blank.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED ErR
PAGE 13-4
14
IMPACT OVERVIEW
14.1 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS THAT
CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
The following Project related impacts have been identified as significant and unavoidable:
Impact 11-2
Year 2006 Freeway Level of Service. Tables 1 and 2 show that all but one
analyzed intersection would maintain acceptable operation during AM and
PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project. At the Oyster Point
Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection,
PM peak hour Project traffic would degrade operation from LOS E to
LOS F and increase volumes by more than two percent (4.3%). There are no
physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by city of
South San Francisco staff to improve operation to Base Case Conditions or
better.
This impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 11-5
Year 2006 Vehicle Queuing Impacts.
50th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed Project would result in
significant 50th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the
PM peak traffic hour in 2006. All intersection approach lanes shown in
Tables 11-7 and 11-8 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an
increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic that are
not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two
percent, the significance criteria level.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 14-1
PM PEAK HOUR
2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-
Ramp
The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn/through lanes would
receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (12.8%) with unacceptable
Base Case queuing in the left turn lane. Acceptable Base Case queuing in the
combined left/through lane would also be increased beyond the available
storage with the addition of Project traffic.
95th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed Project would result in
significant 95th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the
AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2006. All intersection approach lanes
shown in Tables 11-9 and 11-10 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that
indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project
traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more
than two percent, the significance criteria level.
PM PEAK HOUR
3) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-
Ramp
The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and through/left turn
lanes would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (19.5%) with
unacceptable Base Case queuing in both lanes.
This impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 11-6
Year 2020 Intersection Level of Service Impacts. Tables 11-1 and 11-2
show that all but three analyzed intersections would maintain acceptable
operation during AM or PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project.
At the Bayshore/U.S.10l Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay access
intersection, PM peak hour operation would remain LOS F, but volumes
would increase by less than two percent (1.1 %). At the Oyster Point
Boulevard/Dubuque A venue/U .S.l 01 N orthbound On-Ramp intersection,
AM peak hour operation would remain LOS F, but volumes would increase
less than two percent. However, during the PM peak hour operation would
also remain LOS F, but volumes would increase by more than two percent
(2.1 %), resulting in a significant impact at this location. Project traffic would
also produce a significant impact during the PM peak hour at the Bayshore
Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 14-2
CHAPTER 14: IMPACT OVERVIEW
Boulevard intersection. Operation would remain LOS F and volumes would
increase by more than two percent (2.6%).
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-
Ramp
. There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection
by City of South San Francisco staff to improve operation to Base Case
conditions or better.
This impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 11-9
Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts.
50th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed Project would result in
significant 50th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the
AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All intersection approach lanes
shown in Tables 11-7 and 11-8 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that
indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project
traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more
than two percent, the significance criteria level.
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister
Boulevard/ Airport Boulevard
service)
Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point
(same improvements as for level of
. Provide two left turn lanes on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard
approach.
. Stripe a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard
approach.
These measures would not reduce unacceptable westbound through and left
turn lane queuing to acceptable levels.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-
Ramp
. There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection
by City of South San Francisco staff to reduce Project queuing impacts to
Base Case conditions.
95th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed Project would result in
significant 95th percentile queuing impacts at three intersections during the
AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All intersection approach lanes
shown in Tables 11-9 and 11-10 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 14-3
CHAPTER 14: IMPACT OVERVIEW
indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project
traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more
than two percent, the significance criteria level.
Bayshore Boulevard/Sister
Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
service)
· Reconfigure the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach to provide two
left turn lanes, an exclusive through lane and a combined through/right turn
lane.
· Stripe a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard
approach.
These measures would not reduce unacceptable westbound through and left
turn lane queuing to acceptable levels.
Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point
(same improvements as for level of
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-
Ramp
· There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this
intersection by City of South San Francisco staff to reduce Project queuing
impacts to Base Case conditions.
This impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
14;2 IMPACTS DETERMINED NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
As indicated in the DEIR Analysis, there would be no significant Project-related environmental
impacts associated with the following topic areas:
. Air Quality
. Geology and Soils
. Hazardous Materials
. Hydrology
. Land Use
. Noise
. Public Services
. Utilities
PAGE 14-4
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 14: IMPACT OVERVIEW
14.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGES
An EIR must identify any significant irreversible environmental changes that could be caused by
the proposed Project. These may include current or future uses of non-renewable resources, and
secondary or growth-inducing impacts that commit future generations to similar uses.
Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current
consumption is justified. The CEQA Guidelines describe three distinct categories of significant
irreversible changes: 1) changes in land use which would commit future generations to specific
uses; 2) irreversible changes from environmental actions; and 3) consumption of non-renewable
resources.
Changes in Land Use Which Would Commit Future Generations
The Project would commit future generations to new development at the Project site. The
property would be converted from a furniture showroom and warehouse use to a retail home
improvement store land use.
Irreversible Changes from Environmental Actions
Impact 11-2
Year 2006 Freeway Level of Service. Tables 1 and 2 show that all but one
analyzed intersection would maintain acceptable operation during AM and
PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project. At the Oyster Point
Boulevard/Dubuque A venue/U.S. 1 01 Northbound On-Ramp intersection,
PM peak hour Project traffic would degrade operation from LOS E to
LOS F and increase volumes by more than two percent (4.3%). There are no
physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by city of
South San Francisco staff to improve operation to Base Case Conditions or
better. These would be significant impacts.
Impact 11-5
Year 2006 Vehide Queuing Impacts.
50th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed Project would result in
significant 50th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the
PM peak traffic hour in 2006. All intersection approach lanes shown in
Tables 11-7 and 11-8 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an
increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic that are
not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two
percent, the significance criteria level.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 14-5
CHAPTER 14: IMPACT OVERVIEW
Impact 11-6
Impact 11-9
PAGE 14-6
95th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed Project would result in
significant 95th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the
AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2006. All intersection approach lanes
shown in Tables 11-9 and 11-10 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that
indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project
traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more
than two percent, the significance criteria level.
These would be significant impacts.
Year 2020 Intersection Level of Service Impacts. Tables 11-1 and 11-2
show that all but three analyzed intersections would maintain acceptable
operation during AM or PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project.
At the Bayshore/U.S.l0l Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay access
intersection, PM peak hour operation would remain LOS F, but volumes
would increase by less than two percent (1.1 %). At the Oyster Point
Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.l0l Northbound On-Ramp intersection,
AM peak hour operation would remain LOS F, but volumes would increase
less than two percent. However, during the PM peak hour operation would
also remain LOS F, but volumes would increase by more than two percent
(2.1 %), resulting in a significant impact at this location. Project traffic would
also produce a significant impact during the PM peak hour at the Bayshore
Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard intersection. Operation would remain LOS F and volumes would
increase by more than two percent (2.6%). This would be a significant
impact.
Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts.
50th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed Project would result in
significant 50th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the
AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All intersection approach lanes
shown in Tables 11-7 and 11-8 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that
indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project
traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more
than two percent, the significance criteria level.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 14: IMPACT OVERVIEW
95th Percentile Queue
Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed Project would result in
significant 95th percentile queuing impacts at three intersections during the
AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All intersection approach lanes
shown in Tables 11-9 and 11-10 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that
indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project
traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more
than two percent, the significance criteria level.
These would be significant impacts.
Consumption of Nonrenewable Resources
Consumption of nonrenewable resources includes increased energy consumption, conversion of
agricultural lands, and lost access to mining reserves. No agricultural lands would be converted
and no access to mining reserves would be lost with implementation of the Project. The Project
would result in the consumption of some nonrenewable resources during construction and
operation, such as electricity and construction materials.
14.4 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
The proposed Project would not be expected to result in a direct increase in the local
population, since it would not result in the construction of any new housing units. The proposed
Project would not require any major increases in the capacity of local infrastructure which might
later be used to support new housing development, and would not result in the extension of
infrastructure into areas which might ultimately support new housing.
14.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
As defined in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, a cumulative impact consists of an impact
which is created as a result of the combination of the Project evaluated in the EIR together with
other Projects causing related impacts. "Cumulative impacts" refer to two or more individual
effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other
environmental impacts. The cumulative impact from several Projects is the change in the
environment which results from the incremental impact of the Project when added to other
closely related past, present, and reasonable foreseeable probable future Projects. Cumulative
impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant Projects taking place over
a period of time.
As the discussions in Chapter 4 (Air Quality) and Chapter 11 (Transportation) indicate, the
development of the Project site as proposed would contribute to a permanent cumulative
increase in regional emissions of air pollutants and to reduced freeway Levels of Service.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 14-7
CHAPTER 14: IMPACT OVERVIEW
As noted on Page 4-9 of the Air Quality chapter, the URBEMIS2002 Model was used to
quantify the emissions associated with the Project, and to determine if it could result in
potentially significant regional emissions. Based on the estimate of 4,690 daily two way trips
(Table 11-15A), the Project's emissions for ROG, NOX, and PM10 were found to be below the
significance threshold. So, while new vehicle trips would result in new regional emissions, the
Project's emissions would represent a less than significant impact.
Chapter 11 discusses the Project's impact on reduced freeway Levels of Service in the years 2006
(page 11-69, Impact 11-3) and 2020 (page 11-72, Impact 11-7). As discussed in Chapter 11,
Tables 11-3 and 11-4 show that the proposed Project would not result in any U.S.10l freeway
segment changing AM or PM Peak hour Base Case operation to an unacceptable LOS F with
one exception, and that would be a less than significant increase. As background traffic on the
U.S.10l freeway will increase from 2006 to 2020, and the percent Project traffic contributions to
overall volumes decreases, no freeway segment will receive a significant impact due to Project
traffic in 2020. As such, the Project's cumulative impact on freeway Levels of Service will be
less than significant.
PAGE 14-8
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
15
REFERENCES
15.1 REpORT PREPARERS
Lamphier - Gregory
1944 Embarcadero
Oakland, Ca. 94606
510-535-6690
Joan Lamphier, President
David Levitan, Planner
15.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Association of Bay Area Governments, http://www.abag.com (Seismic and Other Hazards
Analysis Pages), 2005.
Association of Bay Area Governments, Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control
Measures, June 1981.
ATC Associates Inc., March 12, 1999, Environmental Site Assessment, Levitz Furniture, Located at
900 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, California
A TC Associates Inc., May 7, 1999, Asbestos S urory for the Levitz Building Located at 900 Dubuque
Avenue, South San Francisco, California
ATC Associates Inc., September 27, 2001, Geopf?ysical Surory and Limited Subsuiface Investigation,
Levitz Furniture Store, 900 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, California
ATC Associates Inc., September 27, 2001, Report Addendum to Geopf?ysical Surory and Limited
Subsuiface Investigation, Levitz Furniture Store, 900 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, California
ATC Associates Inc., December 4, 2001, Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment of Levitz Furniture
Store, 900 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, California
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Annual Bqy Area Air Qualiry Summaries, 2001-
2003.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 1 5-1
CHAPTER 15: REFERENCES
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Permit Handbook, 2005.
http://www.baaqmd.gov/pmt/handbook/default.htm
Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). Start at the Source,
Design Guidance Manual for S tormwater Quality Protection, 1999.
Bonilla, M.G., Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7.5' Quadrangle and Part of the
Hunters Point 7.5' Quadrangle, San Francisco Bqy Area, California: A digital database, USGS Open-f1le
Report 98-354, 1998.
Brady and Associates, East of101 Area Plan, adopted July 1994.
California Division of Mines and Geology, Earthquake Fault Zone Map of the South San Francisco
Quadrangle, 1982.
California Division of Mines and Geology, Fault Activity Map of California and A4Jacent Areas,
1994.
California Division of Mines and Geology with U.S. Geological Survey, Probabilistic Seismic
HazardAssessment for the State of California, 2002.
California Geological Survey, Fault Evaluation Reports Prepared Under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Act, CGS CD 2002-01, 2002.
California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), New Development and Redevelopment
Handbook, 2003.
California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), California Stormwater BMP Handbook,
Industrial and Commercial, January 2003.
California Water Service Company, http://www.calwater.com. Customer Se17Jice Section, Find
Your District, 2005
City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Municipal Code: Tree Preseroation, adopted June
28, 2000.
Crane Transportation Group, Trciffic Impact Report: 285 East Grand Avenue and 349 Allerton
Avenue, November, 2001.
Crane Transportation Group, Trciffic Impact Report: 345 East GrandAvenue, November, 2001.
PAGE 15-2
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 15: REFERENCES
Department of Water Resources (DWR), California's Groundwater- Bulletin 118. Updated 2004,
1975.
Dyett & Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October 1999.
Dyett & Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, p.4-2, 4-
10,4-15, 1997.
Environ International Corporation, Results of Phase I Site Assessment, Levitz Furniture Store, 900
Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, California, January 6, 2005
Environmental Data Resources Incorporated, Sanborn Map Report, February 18, 1999
Environmental Data Resources Incorporated, Radius Map with Geocheck database, March 01,
1999
Environmental Data Resources Incorporated, Radius Map with Geocheck database, September
05,2001
Environmental Data Resources Incorporated, Radius Map with Geocheck database, October 06,
2004
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, City of South San Francisco,
California, September 1981
Fehr & Peers/Lamphier-Gregory, Genentech Building 31 Drrift Initial Stutfy/Mitigated Negative
Declaration, February 2005.
Fehr & Peers, Genentech Site Access - Buildings 33 & 37, Evaluation of Building 33 and Mid Campus
Parking Garage (Building 37), December 2003.
Greenberg Farrow Architects, Development Plan Sheets for The Home Depot U.SA., Inc., 900
Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, California, April 29, 2005
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard Office Projects Drqft
Traffic AnalYsis Report, October 2001.
Hygeia Laboratories, PIM AnalYsis of Bulk Samples (Asbestos Testing Results to ATC Associates
Inc.), May 06, 1999
Knudsen, K.L., Noleer, J.S., Sowers, J.M., Lettis, W.R., Quaternary Geology and IJquefaction
Susceptibility, San Francisco, California 1:100,000 Quadrangle: A Digital Database,
USGS Open-File Report 97-715, 1997.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 15-3
CHAPTER 15: REFERENCES
Morehouse Associates, 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R&D Project Drcift EIR, September 2004.
Morehouse Associates, 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R&D Prqject Final EIR, February 2005.
Morehouse Associates, Britannia East Grand Prqject (Fuller 0 'Brien Properry) Recirculation Drcift
EIR, February 2002.
Rinker Materials Corporation. Brief on Tier I Results: Hydrotfynamic Devices Technology Acceptance
and Reciprociry Partnership (TARP) Program. Online. Last updated May 11, 2005. Available:
http://www.rinker.com/Stormceptor/downloadslTier1 resultsHvdroDevices. pdf
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, ScreeningJor Environmental Concerns
at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, 2003
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Qualiry Control Plan (Basin
Plan)Jor the San Francisco Bqy Basin, 1995
Treadwell and Rollo, Geotechnical Feasibiliry Stutfy, 900 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco,
August 8, 2002
Twining Laboratories, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Home Depot,
SS29070, 900 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, California, January 11,2005
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet
Hydrotfynamic Separators, EP A 832-FOO-017, September 1999
United States Geological Survey (USGS), Preliminary Geologic Map rif the San Francisco South 7.5'
Quadrangle and parts rif the Hunters Point 7.5' Quadrangle, San Francisco Bqy Area, California, USGS
Open-file Report 98-354, 1998.
University of Massachusetts Amherst, Stormwater Technology: Stormceptor Fact Sheet No.4,
February 2003
Wentworth, C.M., Graham, S.E., Pike, R.J., Beukelman, G.S., Ramsey, D.W., Barron,
A.D., San Francisco Bqy Region Landslide Folio Part C - Summary Distribution rif Slides and Earthflows in
the San Francisco Bqy Region, California, USGS Open File Report 97-745 C, 1997.
Western Regional Climate Center, 2005. Period rifMonthfy Climate SummaryJorSan Francisco
WSO AP, California (047769). Period rifRecord: 7/1/1948 to 12/31/2004. Online. 20 June. 2005.
Available: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAlN.pI?ca[foa+ sfo
Working Group On California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), Earthquake Probabilities
in the San Francisco Bqy Region: 2002-2031, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-214, 2003
PAGE 15-4
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
CHAPTER 15: REFERENCES
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
Castain, Don, Per telephone conversation between Joseph Farrow, Staff Geologist at Questa
Engineering and Don Castain, City of South San Francisco Building Inspector, 27 June 2005.
Munar, Kelvin. Per telephone conversation between Kelly White, Environmental Scientist at
Questa Engineering and Kelvin Munar, City of South San Francisco Public Works Department,
21 June 2005.
Nakashima, Stevan, Per telephone conversation between Kelly White, Environmental Scientist
at Questa Engineering and Stevan Nakashima, Consulting Civil Engineer, 15 June 2005.
Powell, Michelle, Per telephone conservation between Joseph Farrow, Staff Geologist at
Questa Engineering and Michelle Powell, San Mateo County Environmental Health
Department, August 2, 2005
Rudhel, Cathy. Per telephone conversation between Anna Rensi, Assistant Environmental
Engineer at Questa Engineering, and Cathy Rudhel, City of South San Francisco Water Quality
Control. August 1,2005
Shaw, Caroline, Per email
Diligence Coordinator, to
Engineering, August 2, 2005
correspondence from Caroline Shaw, Greenberg Farrow Due
Anna Rensi, Assistant Environmental Engineer at Questa
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
PAGE 15-5
CHAPTER 15: REFERENCES
PAGE 15-6
This page intentionally left blank.
HOME DEPOT PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED E I R
16
ApPENDICES
APPENDIXA NOTICE OF PREPARATION
RESPONSES TO NOTICE OF PREPARATION
APPENDIX B TRAFFIC TABLES AND EQUATIONS
APPENDIX C AIR QUALITY MODEL OUTPUT, EMISSIONS
PROCEDURES, AND CALCULATIONS
PAGE 16-1
ApPENDIX A
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
RESPONSES TO NOTICE OF PREPARATION
PAGE A-1
..
Oct OB 20058:02RI1 CITY OF SSF PLRtftlil'1G nI"vI 650":'829-6639
p.2
..-
D&PNmENT OF ECClNCMIC
AND CCttMIMTY DEVELOPMENT
pLANNING DIVISION
(150) 177....
FI\X (tll5O) I2HI3I
August S. 200S
CMtified Mail # 700] 11400001 0464 5703
St8tc Qe8riDpome, Oftic., ofPlarming zmd RaJearch
1400 Tenth StmetIP.O. Box 3044
SlICDlJY1tWo. CA 95812-3044
SubjeCt: Nodce of PreparatloD, Home Depot PnJect. ~gJ '~d
lbporI, CI1y-or Soutll Sill J1J:mdlco
Lead Aleacy:
CoDIuItI8I Firm;
Agenr;yN~: City of South ~ Prancisco . Fiml Name: . Lamp~eMiregory
P' . Dimon .
StIeM Address: 315 MapIDA~ Stred .Addns8: 1944 Embarcldcro
SOuth Sm FraDciBco, CA n.1rllDld. CA 94606
94080' ,
Mailing' P.O. Box 711
Address: South SaD - . CA 94083
CoDtsct: sum Ce:dson Cc;mtact: loaD , .An,phier
'!'be purpose of this ~otice of P:cparation (NOp) i.IJ to comply With the CaJUOmia
E.nvircmmmtIl QIWity Act (CBQA) and 10 iDfoJm III int=stcd parties that ~ City of
South San ~ int'-'Pd8 10 prep8IC an BDviImmcmtal Impact Report (BIR.) fbr tho
Home Depot Project.. Tbis notice is to request COJ:DDieDtB md guidance on the scope ad
the oonUmt ofb eo.virom:nc:m81 irafi.....1I1ion to be included in the Dmft B1R. .Ail iDitial .
ass~ oCmviromnental ~ potentially affected is ~(""'M_
. r~...;. .'
Rap~"'le agaaclca~'iIiou1d~~cmt OIl tho seDge and COJIte:pt of the ~
information gnnsmc 10 their statutoIY tC8pOD8ibi1itica in coonection with the proposed .
project, and will need to UBCl tbG prcpmxl- ER in their. pcmrlUiDg awl Ipp[DYIla.
"
31&MAPLEAVENUE · Poo.iac711 . IlCUTHUN I'fMNQI8CO.CA.1MOI8
"
. .
"-.
Oct OS 2005 8:02AM CITY OF SSF PLAHNING OIVI 650-829-6839
p.3
:
.
- .
Subject: Notice of'P~~~I:...i.1Iaa ~PIojcct Bm~......-"'.I Impact llIpod.
P1om:.TlIc"City afSout1i SmlnDcieco . ..
hp2
RESPONSE TO NO'
. .
Due 10 the time limits ~1IiM by State law, your 'W1iUal te8p011Se must be scmt at the earliest
possible date but lUll "*r IIuIII 30 Up after receipt of ~ notice. PlDlUJe seDd )'our RlIDOnse to
Steve CarlBon" at the ~~ shown above.
SCOPING MEETING
CBQA ~ a LeadApncyto Call It least one scoping meeting far.. proposed project that may "
a:fIectbigbwayaOl otbar faciDties lIDdarthe jurisdicticmoftheDc:partmcrnt ofTl'ansportltiaD BD4fOr'
a project ofstatewide,.rcgional. or area-widc Bi.,nfiClW'.e The Lead A.gr:my sbIll call tim.scopimg
.Jb.eetiDg as SODl188 po881"b1e, but ut ....01.. 311"" atb:rrecaiviDg 'aIDquest for dlemceDDgfi'om
the Dcpattmcm DfTraosportation (Sccticm21 083.9 of the Public R.csourccs Code). 'lboI.ead..AgeDcy
sha11 providenDticc of the scopingmeetina to all of the fbDowmg: myCOUDtyarcitythatbordm on
acouctyor ~withinwhich tbeprojeat is locatedi myraponaib1e agency, IIDfpubli~agrmoythat
has ~ by liw with.rcspoct to tbcpmject; 8Dd 8Ilyorpni~...iio:li or individual who bas filed a
writtcnrequest fot1he.uotice. . "
'I'he project locaiiau aiu1 "~OD ~ ~Aril)'ed bebw.
PROJECl LOCATION AND BODNDARlES
RqimuIl LtH:iItlDR
The Ci1f of,South SanFnmcisco is loCated on the west &bore orb Sm Frimcisco Bay, in IlO!tbmn
8m Mateo County. The citY is built upcm the Bay plaiD aDd the JlD11han :fbothiDJ 9ftbe Coastal
~ South San Pnmci~ is &l1ndegicaJly located ~DUUor tmDaportation coaidors IIDd hubs, .
including US 101, .In1cntates 1-280 and 1-380. BART and CaJtraiJ%, the UDicm Pacific R8ilroac1 .
(formafly owned by 1:ba Soutbtm Pacific Railroad) main line. BDd tl>> ~ Fnmcisco Jut.emational .
Airport. Si8l1Bil1 is a distinctive city1JlT1dmRrlr The regicmallocation oftha cityis sbowninFigure 1.
Pnljut LtH:iItltRIlllUl BtIInullll'in
ThePm,iect site is a 7.62aaeparce11ocated at 900 DobuqueAvenuo, and is bomidcd'OJ1 th! west BOd
11Ortb. byDubuqu Avei1u.e and Highway 101..on the south by siDgl~ story office buildings-and
services, ~ to the last by SouthemPaci1ic R.ailIOad linoJights-of-way. IUs in tbeDDItbwcstpDItion
of tho Bast orto1 Area, which CODBista ofthD IOUgbly 1.700 acres ofland in the City of South San
Fl'IIDCisco cast ofBishway 101.
PROJECT DESCRlITION
. 'Ib.e proposed .Project would involve 1he demolition. of an m.dng 156.637 square foot Levitz
PumitIm: building snd the CODBIruction at a 101(1.72 Iq1I.In ibot Home Depot home improvc:mc:nt
wBRibouso, an lKljoiDing 24.522 square fbot GatdcID Ceater, aDd a two-1=Val parting ItruQtme
providing 426 paddDJ spaces. The prpject will require: a Use PCa:mit., '!)po C Sip. Pc:rmit. PlaDnod
UnitDtwelopmelJt Pem1it. DemolitiDn Peamit. aodBuilding PCCDi1B.
2
Oc~ 06 2005 8:02AM CITY OF SSFPL~"~ING DIYI 650-829-6639
SubJact: l-rotico ~ iIDmc Depot'Project Em.-"''''#< >1.1 Inpct RapoIt
Prr.im: TbD.City arSculh.s.ilPtaNco. .
"'3
G
..
...
., EB
. Ap.1
REGIONAL LOCATION
p."
Oc~ 06 2005 8:03AM CIT~ OF SSF PLR"~ING DIYI 650~82~-6639
p.S
..
sm:ueet: No1iceofPrDptmkD,BlllIIlaDc:patPrpjcd:!my';'..,.._.t..1 I:IIpct bport
Fiv:m: Tho-qty of South Sa FDDCiaoo
P8p4
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFF.EcrED
The em.viIomnC:ma1 factamcbeckedbelowwou1dbcpo~y~bytbisprojcct, imolviQg
at least one impaat ~ is a "Po1eatiaI1y SiSDifiCllll Impact".u fnmcmd by tho ~jtd.
C .Acsthl!ltiCl [J . . .~ III Air - ...
IJ BioloRic:a1 R.esOmces [J CuJIura1 ReIomccs III Geolo - ..
IBJ Hazards & Hazardous iii HydrologylWatcr [J !..aDd UaOlP1at1niDs
M!lt.m..1R -' ..
C Mineral Resoarcel Ii] NoiJe [J p . . - .
181 Public Services C bnatioJ1 III . - -
. '.
iii UtilitiealSarvice [] )llmdRt"Ql' F~. ,of .
S' .-
D~TERMlNATION
On the basil of this iDifia1 cnJuation:
CJ 11bid 1bat the proposed project COULD 'NOT haVe a sipn... c&ct On 1hc
~ and a NEGATIVJ& DECJ:.ARA.TION wm be loIL~~
[J 1 fiDel that IIlt1:Iough tho pzoposed project could have.8 "'lP"intun1t cifcct 011 the
c:avim:mm:uttlH:m wi11lJOt]x, a IIigoi1icaut cJJi:Q in. this CIllO bccauae:reviliana in tbDp.rojecthave
.beaD. macJe by or. aped to by the project ~ it. MlTJGATED NEGATIVE
DECLAlU.TION will bo prcpaMdlfiad thit1hc plOpoledpaojectMAYhavcalligpi6amt affilct
em tbe ClWinmmc:at, mian ENVDI.ONMENTAL lMPACT REPOllT is requimd.
IBJ I .find 1bat tho ~ project MAY have a -pateatia11y IisoUicam impact"' or
"pob!ntiany si,gaificmtllDleu mitiptl!ldu impact on the envUuWbem.'but atlfut QDOeffeot 1) has
been ~ lIDBlJzedinBD cutier dlV'!l'lnll'lDt plDBWlDtto 8I'PlicaJH lepllltlmdlld( 8Dd 2)..
been ac1dresscd by ~ measures buc4 on the earJjar IID81}m lIS dc&cribod on attlChN
. sbeet&. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BEPORT isi1:quiRd. butitmnstBDa1yzcouIytlu:
=fTcctB thar~ to 'be a.dcImsed.
o I'find that .a1tboui;h tho proposed project could have.. sigoificant; afmot Dil tho
enviroDmeDt. ~Ie in potclIltially lripficam eff'ects (a) have hoeD. 8IIIlyzed adeqwalyiD BD
~ EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARA110N punwmt 10 applicable stIodmJa. IIIJ.d (b) bwe
Peen avoided or mitiptod punuut 10 tbat 1lIrli.. EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
inclndm8 mrisioDl'or mitiptionDle8BDral tb&t are impOled upon the propolCld project. DDthiDg
~J~. ,~~.~~
" .
Oc~ OS 2005 8103RM CITY OF SSF PL~""I"G ~IVI 65D-829-SS~g
Q.
"'
:E:
~
c:
'0
'&::"
. '.,
"
0, .:
II
II .
I
'P'"I
o
'P'"I
Ul
;::)
8
II)
.-
U
-c:
to
at
c:
~
J::
......
::::J
~
p.6
. ,
.
~
<<
Ul
I .
.\
.~ ;.....: : .. ''';, .: '.
~.' . J .
'."
I '
I ".
. I
;;
".
..
9I'A.'r'I!l OI!' r.AUI'01INl&-tm1IIIO:89 'l'RANBPOllTA.TIOK AXDHl1IlAn.G Ammcy
ARJlOUlRr.RWAlIft.lRflOZIL c..:...-
'.
DEPAB'I'MENT OF TBANSPOBTATlON
III GRAND AVENUE '
P. O. BOX 23680
oAKLAmJ. CA 946!3-0(S60
PHONE (510) 286-65G6
PAX(&lO)28&M69
'1".l'"Y (BOO) 'lS5-28S9
.'ECEIY ED
SEP12_
-
ntz7RR'~
..".,-,a ~.
IUJIIIIG
August 26, 2005
.SMI0141S
. SM-IOl-22.64
SCB 2OO5Os2032
........ .0:.-" .. .....
............... ~.....-~
" .... . ... _'_''''-\10._ ....rrte............ , _ ..t _." .&...~ ....._ ... _ _. - .. .,-- ........ "II- ."'\".,,-....--.. .
Mr. Steve Cadaon
City of South San Fnmcmco
315 Maple Averiuc
South San Fraodsco, CA 94083 ,
[)ear Mr. Carlson:
B..~~~7'.N~..rPreparadOD .
... ...... _. ." .:..... .... : "n..'''' :..... 00:......4" ".a:, " oo. . .... ...' ..,.. , ~
8nk'" " fOr iDc1n~~ Jhe ci.1ifODiiii~~ ..... ~ -' or'" '. .:.~ h " . 't' Uitbi;
1b. JOU:. .. ~~,g . I ..r. . '._ .. L . ,.' ~ '1.
environiDental'reView' pi0ce8S '(or tbC abovc:.ret'=nced p:Ofect. We ba:ve reviewea die
Notice of PIepara1iOD' for d1e Home Depot Pn)ject di'aft . viroDmentBllmpact Report and.
bave 1be following cain~tsto offer: ..
Our primary c:onc~ Wi1h the projeCt. is. the potmltiaUy .pifiClIIlt i1Dpact ~t may have to
traffic volume ad congestion. We reco~ a traffic . t anaIyais be'.ID~iD:ed. The
traffic iJnpact aoalyais Ibould iDclueJe, bUt nOt be limited the following: .
1. information 'on tIul'~~~s .b:am.c' ~ in ~I ot trip ~011, distribution,
. and assignment. ne a'm1lIJlP1ions and ~etbodolpgies used in compiliDg this
information should be addressed. I
2. A vera,ge Daily Traffic (ADT).and AM and PM peak. ~our volumes on all significantly
affected stn:ets aDd highways,. inclw:liJlg.erosst08lk aDd controlling inteneCtioaa.
. ..--.. .. . .
i ~~ti~uhi~~i~~~~9DI roi::'i).~,.2)~~~~
!. 3)' cuiimlative,' and' 4) . ctUnu1ativ'ff)ius project -f(lf! the"futeiiCcdoiiSlnii"fuSdway
I
. i' ..~gmCD~, in~! ptQj~ ~~. :. !..~'. ~. '. t. .
'"
. e'CII
. ~=7:,:-::r:,..,' .
'.. .,.... .'. ... .' . ".~.. . ", '.' t .. ..... I. . <0 p-
. . ~ ..' ......::'...:... -!~~ ....~:.~.::<~.i..:!.::./.,~..:~;. " ~~ ...,.... .'
BESS-Saa-asg I^I.O 9tn~Wlnd ::asS: :t.o A.U::J
.1.;..;......':'.;... .~~~.
wuaO=L sooa.LD das
Mr. i':tm'(l Cnrlaoll
AUglISl26. 2005
Page 2.
4. Calculation of cumulative traffic volumes should consider all traffic-generating
developments. hoth existing and future, that would affect lhe Slate highway racilities
being evaluated.
5. r.,'Iitigation measures should consider highway and mm-highway improvements and
service:".. Special attcntion should be given to the development of alternate solutions to
circulation problems that do not rely on increased highway construction.
6. AU mitigation measures proposed should be fully discussed. including financing,
scheduling, in."Iplemcntation responsibilities, and lead agency monitoring.
We encourage the City of Soutb'San Francisco t'o coordinate prepamtjon of the study with'
our office, and we would appreciate the opportunity to review the scope of work. Please see
the Department's "Guide for rhe Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies" at the. following
website for more infonTlution:
http://Vv'W\v .dot.ca. ~ov IhQ/traff.9'p-~/develoDserv loocrationuls vs tcms/reoortr.Jt j 5 guide. pdf
We look forward to reviewing the traffic impact analysis ~nd draft Environmental Impact
Report for this project. Please send two copies to:
Alice Jackson
Office of Transit and Community Planning
Department of Transportation, District 4
P.O. Box 23660
Oakland, CA 94623-0660
Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please
call Alice Jackson of my staff at (510) 286-5988.
Shlcerely,
~&..~ In
TlMOTHY c. SABLE
District Branch Chief
IGRlCEQA
c: Scott Morgan (State Clearinghouse)
.Calrmmr impraues mubflit). Ul'rU;U californht.
.p'd
6ESS-6ZB-OSS IAIa SNrMN~'d ~ss ~o ALI~
W~GO:L 5002 LO das
RECEIVED
SEP 0.72005
PLANNING
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MARK CHURCH
RICHARD S. GORDON
JERRY HILL
ROSE JACOBS GIBSON
ADRIENNE llSSIER
NEIL R. CULLEN
DIRECTOR
.'
Department of Public Works
555 COUNTY CENTER. 5'" FLOOR' REDWOOD CITY' CAUFORNIA 94063-1685 . PHONE (650) 363-4100 . FAX (650) 361.8220
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
September 2, 2005
Mr. Steve Carlson
CitY of So~ S~ Franoi~co .
planning'DiVision'
P.O:B'ox 711-'" :
South San Francisco, CA 94083
'. .
LJ COpy
Dear Mr. Carlson:
Subject:
Notice of Preparation, Home Depot Project, Environmental Impact
Report, City of Sonth San Francisco (APN 015-021-110)
We received your letter dated August 5, 2005 on August 8,2005, regarding the subject
project. The letter was addressed to Walt-Callahan with the County of San Mateo who
has retired. Future correspondence oftbis nature whereby the City of South San
Francis~o is requesting comments from the San Mateo County Flood Control District
(District) should be addressed to:
Ann Stil1m'an
County of San Mateo
555 County Center, 5th Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
The San Mateo County Department ~fPublic Works, in its capacity as the Administrator
of the District, has reviewed the Notice of Preparation ofEnviromnental Impact Report
(ElR) for the project and offers the following comments: .
. Our records show that the proposed project site is located outside of the Colma
Creek Flood Control Zone (Zone). Before we can comment on the Em, we
request that you provide us.with additional information as to how the storm water
in the project site is currently directed.. Is the storm water runoff from the site
currentlYbeirig directed. toward Calma Creek? ", '.'
. :.. .'
I':'. :.
Mr. Steve Carlson, City of South San Francisco, Planning Division
Subject: Notice of Preparation, Home Depot Project, Environmental Impact
Report, City of South San Francisco (APN 015-021-110)
September 2, 2005
Page 2
· Since the Home Depot project site is located outside of the Zone boundaries and
properties outside of the Z9ne boundaries do not contribute financially to the
Zone's revenue and maintenance of the District's facilities, storm water runoff
. from this site must not be directed into the District's flood can1rol channel.
If you have any questions, please contact Mark Chow at (650) 599-1489, or myself at
(650) 599-1417. . .
Very truly yours,
Ann M StillmRn, P :E.
Principal Civil Engineer
Utilities-Flood Control- W atermed Protection
AMS:MC:sdd .
P:\USERS\ADMIN\P&S\utility Services\200S\900 DubuquO'UllDIIl Depot- Notice of Prep. ~1lW.doc
O:\USBRS\trm..rrY\Colma CrceIc PCD\WORD\Rcvfaw Emmal Pmject\200S\900 Dubuque Home: Depot- Notice ofPrqJ.
Review.doc .
F-149 (9R)
00: Mark Ch~w;P.B., SeniOr Civil Engineer, Utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection
.' .......
Rue 30 2005 ..: OBPH C J TV OF SSFPLRttN"i.ttG D 1'1 I' , S50 -829 ';'8839
p.2
. .".
" ":, .. - ~" .
..
. ..
". ...
.. ~ . ..
, ,
" ,
,
, '.
... ." . .. .. ..: .' .
" .', ;C' .:C A:' G" . ,', " . .,.:.:,...:,', :.',., ':'
'Cm/~~i1ONoP~'>': ,~..';.' :'., .
" " o,SANMATBOCOlINTY . ::..' , .', . ,
, . .. . .'. .'~ . .". .' ,. 0.'
. ....,
, , ,
o . o. 0
, '
. '.
~ . . . . .. . . 0- " .
, . ' ..: ' .,..':,. ,.' . : .., '. "..' '... ,." ...' , " " '. "'.
, ' ...-...;."............... .........~ .p.i,a;r. ,..,...,. .~~.aP-"..' ra;;. .""'hri~"'" .'
. .' ,.....,..,."J"......_f(::Il".....,....cn....J{....~......a.o-....S.JIhIicIIIII.Jr'IIlIlIIfIWI" ' .'
, . . .A'-......22 21)05 ' '. ' , "..... .." r'.', '" ' ..' .:
.' .",,!~'. ..' .' '. . "
" .",..,' '.' ;' , " R teE I V'f D " " '
'.M~tla~n~ ~n,ior~~nner ,':.. ',: ',..,' ,: '. .':':,.. ',' :'", .... ...., '. ~" ,
.City o.fSoUtb San Franc1sc9 ' . ~AUG 2 ,3:208S' ,:,: "
",,"nl,ng DMiion . " . , ,
'. 'P.O.SOx7.1'j.. ,.,.. " ",~' ...: : "
.. South San Francisco. CA 94083 . , .. ' ' , ,
.. ... ........ .. .. '. 0
"Dear' 'Mike' :':.. ".:....'
~ ... ~ . .
" "0 I 0". ..' .
: RE: ~ CeAG A1iWrt Land Use Comm~' (ALUC)'St8tf COmmentS.on a Noticie of
": Pieparatiql'! .(NOp) 1D.~repare I' Draft EnvIronrrierltllllmpacl ~port (DEIR) .
, '. '" for a ~ropo8ed Hqme Depot. Home.lmprovement Wal;8houle, Bulding B~d . .
. . 'Re1a~ Parking Structlire at 900 Dubuque Avenue, ' .. '.
:' ~a~k y'OU for ~ ~poit~hlty.to ~VJeW ind ~e~~ 9f1 'the ,'.~refere~ ~8~~ " '.
The following are' AlUO com . rel8ted nl of 'the . . "
, 0 ".' .
':' , :Th~ ~raO~ 101:,2 iiar8-foOt ou.e:bUilding,
an'I;1djolning 24,~' . t parting abuctul'8,
,that .u~ replace lUng 15 ' building I!t 900 ' '.
Du~ Ave., it"- led' th ,AIrport ) boundary for San,"
,FnmclS~ IntB ." , ~rt., ~. t~ "pmJect d iltquire forTnal' ':
review.by 1118 A. . Use ' , on (C} The tl'oJse, . of. the DEIR.
should no1e..hOwever. "~tBlthough. th. propos8($ p'ro)ecl is ~t a nOi8Hensltlve-land use,. '.
, :,..the pJ:Oje(:t aile rri;W:be IUbJed to,pOl8ritial!y.high 8lngie-evem nalli IeV8I8 and overftlght "
.' ',.{rOm .Jrc:raff'.paltlng on the Sh~ Des.rture route fI:om Runwaya'28 at ~rby Sin
. . Francl5cb International AIrport. .,.' .' ':. " .
'" .: .:. ":' , . " : ' " .' .. ':: ,. ,,' . . . . ~' . : , '. '
..~S~7Z-::0~.~ti~n:t:.7~~~:a!.~~n.
.000000tt"~~nBI ALUC Statr : ' ". : . :
o .. .: 0 0 0.... ... ." "0. 0 ". .. 0 0" . -J .
'cc; ,', 'beAS' ~rt Land Use' ~m'" (AlL!e) membGrs' ' ...'..r . ,
. '., Richard Naplei'. CCAG Execl.ItMt DIreCtor'." '. '. '. . .
, . Nixon u.rn,.~Fo,pl8rtnlng .' ':. ',..'. " ... '., . .
. '. Sindy' Hesnard, AViation ErMr.onmental Plannii'. Clltrln& Division of AeronauticS .
'. . :..' '.: ~," ,.., , . " c.t"\.",,,~~.
. '. ~""""'.dDII '.' ", '. .'. , .~~.
.:>. . A lrptJ rt~an 4 V'se' C;o'l,fhtitie e.. ,
.5~5~~5tH~~.::~~65~1~.65W~
. "
"
"
....
..':::'':'...':-.' ... ,:;. ~-:.-..,:/~,~:~:.;:.,. .".:..~,.;..~ .."
. . ~.'
. . ..'
Aue 30 20054: OSPI1 'c I TV OFS'SF :PL#ffnlrtG,: jJJ,tf' S'StJ':::'S'29;'SS'31J', p. 3
.y..., "':;:.
.- ~
;' I: TOwN OF CDLMA '
" ...: ' PlANNING,DEPAJUMEHT
. .
t. . ...;: .
1190' a Cari1Ino ~ .,Cdma, caIII'omla 94014
PhOne:: (650) 9&2590. FAx: (~) 985-2578'
,August 22, 2005
Mr. Steve carison
SOUth San FrancIsco Planning DivIsion
P.O. BaK 711
South San FrandS(X), CA 94083
, R E' CE I VI' D
AU' 2 i_
" PI,....
-, III,
'RE: Home Depot ~ Envtronniental Iinpact Report
:Dear Mr. cartson:
1barik you {or' the opportunitY to ,'review and cci1VI'M!nt on ~ Notice of Preparation.
S1stet Ctles Boulevard, in conjunc:tIon WIth other arterial sb eets" proVides an important
, link frolTlSouth 'San FrandSco to, H1ghWay, 280. We are,' requesting thit YoU. document
"the trafftc wlunies and the, ~t'and future Peak, Hour levels, ofSeMce at the'
folJowl~ two Intersections in the ElMrorlInent!I Impact Report: ' "
. HIllside Boulevard atLawndaIe Boulevard .'
. t.awnclDle Bouteva'rd at MiSSIon Road '
Thank you for your oonsIderatlon. .
, J.
CIty Planner
, '
'Qe.,'(\~ ~~
~.~l'\
~."~\a.,
,~,:">;..,:.:,.'",,
<~:: ':~'-""t ,".
.~. .."
,:' ':', . ':'. ~ /,:,~,-::: t.,';1',/;~~:,~~~~~~~~f~~f~~~~~~~~.~~:~;:i:{:(':': ,;/:; :);~,-~' ,:~':~::' : ',: " "
, '
, ,
.'
ApPENDIX B
TRAFFIC TABLES AND EQUATIONS
PAGE B-1
Appendix B
Table 1
LEVEL OF SERVICE
CONTROL DELAY RELATIONSHIP
FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service
Control Delay Per Vehicle (in seconds)
A
10
B
> 10 - 20
C
> 20 - 35
D
> 35 - 55
E
> 55 - 80
F
> 80
Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move up time to fIrst in line at the intersection,
stopped delay as fIrst car in queue, and final acceleration delay.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board
Appendix B
Table 2
LEVEL OF SERVICE
CONTROL DELAY RELATIONSHIP FOR
ALL-WAY STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service
Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (in seconds)
A
0-10
B
> 10 - 15
C
> 15 - 25
D
> 25 - 35
E
> 35 - 50
F
> 50
Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move up time to fIrst in line at the intersection,
stopped delay as fIrst car in queue, and fmal acceleration delay.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transponation Research Board
Appendix B
Table 3
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
PROPOSED/POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
AND TRIP GENERATION
EAST OF 101 FREEWAY (2000-2020)
Gateway NE Potential 315,710 SF Office 0,95 300 0,86 271
Existin -140,760 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -67 0,54 -76
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 Marina Potential 3,250 SF Commercial 0,93 3 3.39 II
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 Way Potential 400,000 SF Office 0,95 380 0,86 344
Potential 23,750 SF Commercial 0.93 23 3.39 81
Potential 135 Rooms Hotel 0.27 36 0,19 26
Existin -197,880 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -95 0.54 -107
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 2069 0.86 1874
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 737,900 SF Office 0,95 701 0,86 634
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
SUBTOTALS Proposed 0 0
Potential 6341 6215
Existin -944 -1063
I TOTAL I 5397 5152
Note: Trip generation rates for proposed and potential projects were reduced by 19% to reflect a 45% alternative mode usage as
presented in the East of 101 Area Plan (April 2001),
Sources: City of South San Francisco, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, South San Francisco General Plan
Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001.
Appendix B
Table 4
BRISBANE
PROPOSED/POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
AND TRIP GENERATION
(2000-2020)
I, Sierra Point 123
2,454
836
39
2, Southeast Bayshore 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, OwUBuckeye Canyons N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0
7, Quarry 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 I 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 Bayshore 228,000 SF Trade Comm, 0,98 224 1.24 283
11. Northeast Bayshore N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0
12, Baylands Retail 0,77 1,540 3,34 6,680
Office 1.40 700 1.32 660
R&D/Educ, 1.07 738 0,94 649
Restaurant 3,32 250 4,78 359
Hotel 0,67 1,340 0,76 1,520
SUBTOTAL 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.
(I) 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 traffic 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.
AM PEAK HOUR
Appendix B Table 5
MENU OF POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION DEMAND
MANAGEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES AND
C/CAG GUIDELINES TRIP CREDITS
NUMBER OF TRIPS RECOMMENDED TOTAL TRIP
TDM MEASURE CREDITED OUANTITY CREDITS
Bicycle lockers and racks 1/3 per bike locker/rack 18 (I per 50 parking 6
spaces)
Showers and changing 2 trips per facility Install 3 shower/locker 6
rooms facilities (I per building)
Operation of a shuttle I trip per round trip shuttle seat; 2 Implement Guaranteed 160
service to rail stations trips per seat with Guaranteed Ride Ride Home, Implement
Home program, 5 trips will be new shuttles or fund
credited if shuttle stops at a expansion of existing
childcare facility en route to/from shuttles to provide 80
the worksite, additional round trio seats,
Charge employees for I trip for each parking spot 0
parking charged at $20 per month
Subsidize transit tickets for I trip per transit pass subsidized at Subsidizes 79 monthly 79
employees $20 per month, I additional trip if transit passes (10% of 790
subsidy increased to $75 for employees)
parents using transit to take a child
to childcare en route to work.
Preferential parking for car 2 trips per reserved parking spot 26 carpool parking places 115
and vanpoolers for carpools; 7 trips per parking (3% of 882 total); 9
spot for vanpools. vanpool parking places
(1 % of 882)
Implement a vanpool 7 trips per vanpool, 10 trips with Implement Guaranteed 20
program Guaranteed Ride Home program Ride Home. Implement 2
vanpools,
Operate commute I trip per features, plus I trip per Install information kiosks 3
assistance center hour staffed in each of 3 buildings with
links to transit and
rideshare information
Installation of high band I trip per connection Coordinated with tenants to 40
width connections to install connections for 5%
employees' homes of 90 employees
Install a video conference 20 trips per center Install one video 20
center conference center
Provision of on-site I trip per on-site feature 0
amenities
Coordinate TDM programs 5 trips Coordinate with nearby 5
with existing buildings
developments/ emolovers
Provision of childcare I trip for every 2 childcare slots; 0
services as part of the increasing to I trip for each slot if
development multiple age groups are selected
(infants=0-2 yrs, preschool=3-4
VIS, school age=5-13 vrs).
Combine 10 elements 5 trips 5
TOTAL 459
Source: City of South San Francisco
\C
~
:c
=
E--
=
.~
"0
=
~
Cl.
Cl.
-<
00.
Z
o
.....
E--
U
~
00.
~
~
E--
Z
.....
Q
~
N
.....
~
~
~
.....
00.
Z
~
E--
-<
00.
~
~
~
~
01
~
~
.....
E--
Z
~
U
~
~
=--
=
E--
lI'l
<:l'\
~
Z
~
~
~
Q
o
E--
00.
Z
o
.....
E--
-<
~
01
~
z
o
.....
E--
~
01
~
o
E=
Q
z
o
u
r/J.
E-<
*
tn
r--
0;
o
+
----
-
o
>
0..
~
'-'
:::
-
r--
\0
-
-
+
~
'<t
~
~
,
II
~
;::l
~
;::l
o
~
t'd
:;E
~
::c:
p..
~
p..
~ >
g 8
'0: -^
::>~
..c:::C:..c:
g e: g
0* 0
a::c: a
0.. p.. 0..
<><
o
o
-
~
~
~
-
.....
~
~
<Il
'"'
o
.~
:;E
+
'0
>
c- ti::
o :::
> 0
ti:: U
::: -....
o ~
8 'c:
*
M
- M
+ 8
'i:l 0
~ '0 ~
0..>0
r/J.ti::+
* :::
\0 0
O\uc-
g; * 0
0'0>
o > 0..
+ ~
~<;-'
fa~:::
...:l'<t-
* _ 0
M-O
C'!80
-0+
, 0 00
~Otn
~+~
~'O+
II> II
~ ~
~ < ~
;::l -.... ;::l
o~o
~ ~ ~
t'd '<t t'd
:;E~:;E
r/J.
E-<
*
~
-
~
+
----
~
fa
...:l
'-' ----
* -
0\ 0
\0 >
d 13
+ 8
r/J. '-'
E-< *
'i:l * M
~ \0 0
~ 00 \0
0.. 00 0
r/J. 0
* - 0
r-- + 8
o ____ 'i:l 0
M _ ~ .
M 0 ~ 0
o > 0.. +
o 0.. r/J. 'i:l
+ 0..* ~
< - ~
r/J. '-' 0 0..
E-< ..s~r/J.
* 000*
M oo+~
- 'c:~ M_
M 0
~ c-o
,~ + 0 +
'<tC-~>M
~~~13C'!
'" 0.. 0\ 0 \0
+ 0..-, u~
...... ,-,'
II ........ II * II
~ :::::-' ~ 00 ~
;::l ~ ;::l ~ ;::l
~tn~O~
;::l \0 ;::l 0
0000
~ 8 ~ 8
t'do t'do
:;Eo:;Eo
-
o
~
-
~ ~
::c: ::c:
p.. p..
~ ~
p.. p..
> >
o 0
\0 \0
^
~ ~
g g
'0 '0
::> ::>
..c: ..c:
(,) (,)
t'd t'd
o 0
'"' '"'
0.. 0..
~~
o 0
o 0
- -
~
g
'0
~
~
~
-
.....
~
~
.b
<Il
S
:::
~
e
.a
~
'1::
.....
~
~
<Il
'"'
o
:::
~
<Il
E-<
...:l
'"'
c.8
-r/J.
OE-<
>*
ti::r--
:::tn
0-
U .
,-,M
* '
0\
\O~
tnO
~~
0*
+0\
____0
- -
o .
>~
0..'
~~
'E'~
- '"'
~c.8
~-
'0
M>
+ti::
\0 :::
- 0
o;u
~*
-;'r--
II ~
~o
;::l0
~o
;::l .
oc;
. 0\ .
~O~<Il
t'd 0\ t'd::c:
:;E~:;EE-<
+
'i:l
~
..c:
<Il 'I::
Q)~
~
.b ;::l
<Il 0
'"'..El
0.....
.S ~
:;E.2
Cd
~ '"'
0..9
..c: (,)
'"'~
8.~
<Il 0
.209
.~ ~
..c: t'd
~ ~
::> 0..
II II
::c:~
p..""""
>p..
*
* *
..d
'~
-
u
i:E
~
o
u
~
;9
Q)
'~
o
;9
o
o
"'0
~
~
~
,9
-
u
o
00
....
o
.s
-
u
o
:g-
oo
o
;9
.....
o
o
]
<Il
~
o
-
;s
<Il
t'd
'i:l
g
I.l=:
~
~
<Il
:::
o
.....
"t;S
g.
~
s
'....
<Il
<Il
~
~
'"'
~
oS
:::
.....
'i:l
~
'i:l
;::l
-
(,)
:::
.....
<Il
~
~
'1::
t'd
::>
"E
~
:::
~
.g
.S
~
..c:
E-<
00
i:l
a
o
>
S
cC
.~
o
:"S!
o
-
-
<::s
~
lO::
~
.Q
'i:j
<::s
~
U
S
~
...s::
,~
~
o
;9
o
-
....
~
, 0
=~ t)
ai:l ~
~ a :
o 0 0
~ ~ '~
o _ 0
;E' ~ ;9
f;l;E' s
~~ ~ t)
~;9 ~ ~
~ '!;: u ~"
~? ~u ~
e:, ~ .~ s ~.s
~;.= _~$-Je
0_ Cllt:lS-
'tS ~ 5h 0Il..d 'Eb
~ 8 '1jJ ,S I:> 't:
!:l~ u'tSc..::C
..8;9 Si:E~~
~!Il ~8]]
8.~ ~Eg~
>...0 ';t."'O-~
..0 "'0 _,~ ~ "'0
:g:9 "0 g. tl ~
,....> ,~ 0 u .... ..d
...... ... u 0 00
:e;:; .; ~ '~ s
o a > 0 t::
E!;3 ~ 1a ~ ~
..2'0 ..d-OC3
~ ~ '~'Eb ,- :E
.... ;::l 8 0
u ~ 0 0 '.... >
S- -!:l-.....
~~ ~'ti~0
I-< 'c..... 0 0
- >.,-:., (ij 0 c.. OIl
~]..d>....oo.s
!:lo~>.O",o~
0..d0~~28
..d II l5.. ;3 ~ I:>
II _ c.. ~ c.. c..
1~ ~"'O II II II
;> ~ ,~ ~ ~Il ';t.1
o ,.Q 001 1a 0 F-<
~uf;lF-<~OO~
....
o
t:
~
50
I
o
~
o
~
'~
:ci
OIl
't:
~
~
;9
..d
u
~
8
c..
~
.. ....
.......
o
o
~
lo..
<:u
~
~
<:u
;..
~
-..:
~
E
~
~
~
.......
~
lo..
c3
&..;
Ii::
...s::
~
.s
"':l
Ii::
~
....
.....
\,J
<:u
t:
~
.:;
~
<:u
~
~
Ii::
.~
"':l
:S
.....
~
"':l
l
<:u
~
<:u
~
<:u
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Ii::
~
....
.....
~
~
....
.....
~
Appendix B
Table 7
500
2 LANE ROAD
40 MPH
700
LEFT TURN TREATMENT
WARRANTED (40 mph)
600
5% % LEFT TURNS
I
a..
2::
Q)
E
:J
(5
~ 400
c:
'Vi
o
Q.
Q.
o
300 400
Advancing Volume (VPH)
600
700
WARRANT FOR PROVISION OF LEFT TURN LANES
Intersection Channelization Guide
Highway Research Program, Report #279. TRB, November 1985
ApPENDIX C
AIR QUALITY MODEL OUTPUT, EMISSIONS
PROCEDURES, AND CALCULATIONS
PAGE C-1
CO ANALYSIS PROCEDURE FOR TRAFFIC INCREASES
Traffic: From traffic report. Only weekday PM traffic was used, since highest CO
concentrations occur during the early morning or evening.
Emission Factors:
Modeled using EMF AC2002 for San Mateo County
Used worst-case speed 5 mph for all street intersection links, which results in high emission rates. Speeds
of25 mph were used for freeway (US Highway 101) operations. EMFAC2002 rates for 2005 used to
model existing; rates for 2006 and 2020 for project conditions
Reference CO Concentration at edge of roadway (worst case):
14.0 for Primary at grade 4-lane road
3.7 for Secondary at grade 4-lane Road
2.0 for depressed 8-lane freeway at 200 feet
Background 8-hour CO concentration: 2.8 ppm for existing/near term and 2.5 ppm for future.
Screening Method & Assumptions
Use BAAQMD CO Hot Spots Manual calculation method to estimate roadside CO concentrations. The
I-hr average CO concentration is estimated using BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Table 12 values. The
BAAQMD max. I-hr CO values are based on worst-case met conditions and converted to an 8-hour
average. The screening calculations that compute the max I-hour CO concentration contribution from
each roadway (in ppm) is based on the following equation:
Ci = (Cri X Vi X Efi) / 100,000
Where, Cri = CO reference conc. in ppm
Vi = hourly traffic volume
EFi = CO emission factor in gNMT
This yields a I-hour CO concentration based on worst-case meteorology that is then converted to a 8-hour
concentration using a persistence factor of 0.7 (recommended by BAAQMD) and then added to the
existing background 8-hour concentration (3.5 ppm), The resulting concentration is then compared to
NAAQS and CAAQS. Calculations attached.
Regional Emissions Calculations
Regional emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS 2002 model (version 7,5) obtained from the
California Air Resources Board website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/sojt.htm
URBEMIS 2002 is a computer program that can is used to estimate emissions associated with land
development projects in California such as residential neighborhoods, shopping centers, and office
buildings, The model calculates emissions from traffic generation, area sources (such as gas appliances,
wood stoves, fireplaces, and landscape maintenance equipment) and construction projects, The model
includes land use types for different types of retail use, Inputs to the model are as follows:
Project Type Size:
Trip Rate:
Project Year:
Season:
Temperature:
Home improvement store
Adjusted for project traffic projections
2006
Summer
850F
All other inputs were default inputs used for analysis conducted in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
Emissions were predicted for area sources and operational motor vehicle sources.
Area Source Emissions
The model predicts area source emissions from the different land uses. These include emissions from
natural gas usage and landscape equipment.
Traffic Emissions
The model predicts vehicle trips and associated vehicle miles traveled based on the land use types. The
trip generation from these land use types is adjusted for project-specific forecasts,
URBEMIS2002 OUTPUT FOR SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HOME DEPOT
I)a'1~: 1
URnEH'Ir: 2002 Fr,>t: \<l.indo'~e:
Lb.t1
fi l~ Nww~:
t'ro]~?<;t Na.~c:
Pro,~ct Lo~ation:
On"'1h".lad, Mott.....r: V:l'th.1Cl.~ EIn'iS;!i!:ion:s
C:\PH:00li'lm Fi1.t'~$\UftfH::MlS 2002 ~~(:.t
s. San ~'.t"anc~i.z1;o H..;..rr..; DG))Qt
San FrahCl$C~ B~' Ar~a
naw~d. qn EMFAC2001 V~::810f! :2.2
Wl ndow:l\ P r.:)J(~,ct:~2r.::\~>)SF H,:>nl(>.f:.eput;. 11 rb
~~UMMARY RRH)f{T
{l:>O\1w:;h;lD;.)y - S-WrilNJ.:J
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ES'l'IMJ\TES
TOTll.LS (lh9/day, unmitigated)
RO(,
0.17
NOx
1 ,))
CO
1.07
S02
0.00
1"1110
0,00
OPERATIONAL (\~HICLE) EMISSION ESTIY~TES
ROG
TOTALS (lh9/ddy,unmitiqated) 3S.02
NO"
41.93
CO
424.63
:02
0.40
Pin')
36.153
Sfm (n MEA AND Oi'ERATlONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NO"
1'01',",5 (lb.(d.y,untnitiq"t"d) 35.19 43,15
CO
425,70
S02
0,40
PM1()
3<1,69
URBEMIS2002 Output, Page 1
Pag*:
URBKMIS 2002 fot' j,~.in(h>.~t;
7.5.0
Ei ll~ Name':
Froject Name:
project Location:
On <~Road Motor V.ehicl'!'
~:\rtogt~ filos\URBiXlS 200Z rOt winqowG\r=Qjq~tc2kZ\SQeF H?m~P~pot.UtP
s. Satl F:rancisi;:c- Home Do~lKlt
san Francisco Bay Area
Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 V~tS10n 2.2
DETAIL REl?ORT
{Pounds/Day - SUu!{lI~r-}
AREA SOIJl\CX EMISSION ES'rlXA'l'ES
Source
Natll ral GilS
'Wood Ctov~s
FH"p1ac..~ ~
1.and",capiw"
C<>ni':um~r ?:rdet;s
TOTALS ~ Ibs/ctHY, Ulml.i t i\1Ht ed}
( Summ~[
ROG
0.09
No 3umm~r emis~ion$
N{; sumer em.i!lslol'l.S:
Pounds pqr Day~ Unmitlgatedi
NOx CO 302
1,22 0.49
I'MI0
0.00
0.08 0),01 O,~8
() .\:'10
0.1'1 1,22 1.0")
0.')0
\) .l)l)
0,00
0,00
URBEMIS2002 Output, Page 2
Page:
mlXITIGATED OPEPATIONAL EMISSIONS
ROC'; WJ>: CO Z02 PMIO
Hom~ 1 mp r OV(!!men t supen;:to 35-.02 4L93 424.63 () .40 3(, ~}e
'rOTAL EMl ~3S10NS ( lbo/d,wl .15,02 41.9.1 424.0 0.40 5;.~S
D<;>~s hot lncluuB <:ottectlon tOt p.assby tU.pa.
b<>~!i$ fjC,t Illt:lnd'i.! do.)ble Goufltin\} adjU$tI~~fjt for intenvd tcip~_
OP"E;AAif10NAt. (Vl:'fhl.cle) f:M.l:3S10N f:S'l'lll.A'!'f;S
Analysis Y~,a,r: 200~ T~ro.peraturl? (F): 8b
Se:d:s:.)n: S\IDml.er
IMFJ\l~ V'i'!-t:S:l<"fl: .tMFAC'2002 (9/Z()::'J2}
Surrroary of Land Uses:
UnJt 1)lH~~ 1'rip Rnte
Si7-f: 1'ot(,d Trip:)
Home .1nlptOVemlint supersto 37.213 t 1:ip$ ,I 1000 sq. ft.
125.19 4,689.60
Vehicle Assumptions:
f'l{~et MJ.x:
Vehicle Ty}.'l-e
Light Auto
Ligl\t TrUCk
tAight 't,r'liC}::
M{'l:d Truck
Li t,;"':HO'.avy
Li tl?' Hedvy
M.,.d-H~avv
ll"avy~ Heavy
Line Haul >
Urban8u-:;;:
Motorcycle
SChool Bua
MOLor Home
>( 3,750 Ibs:
3,751- 5t 750
5.151- B.50'O
8,501-10,000
10,001'14, [Jon
14,001-33,000
33,001>60,000
60,000 lho
Perc.-ent '1)-1,e
55,~0
15.10
15.90
7.00
1.10
0.30
1.00
0,90
0.00
0,10
1. 70
0.10
1.20
N,.)n C.at,~ly~ t
2,20
4,00
1. 90
1.40
0,00
0,00
10~ 00
0.00
0,00
0,00
82,40
0,00
0.00
Cata1y.t
91.30
93.40
96.90
95,70
81. 80
6~, ')0
20.00
11.10
0.00
~).OO
17,60
'),00
91. 70
Diesel
0.50
2.60
1.20
2.90
13.20
33,30
70.00
88.90
100.QO
100.00
0,00
100,00
8,30
l't.uvel Conditi,)n~,;
urban Ttip Length (mih::::o;)
ltural Trip 1..~n9th (miles)
1'( ip Speed::! Imph)
\ of TIips ~ Rcsid~ntial
Horo.-
Work
11.8
15.0
30.0
27 "
Resid9ntial
Horne.<<
Shop
4.6
10,0
30.0
21.2
Corrdn~tcial
Hc.me<<
Other
6.J
1(),O
30.0
51,$
Comm.u te
11.8
15,0
30.0
Non<<Work
5.0
10..0
30.0
Customer
5.0
10.0
30.0
\ or Trips - CO-nto<ltcial (by land use)
Home J.mprovcrneht super~tof'e
2.0
1.0
97,0
URBEMIS2002 Output, Page 3
Page: 4
Chanq';-I;; m-ad~ to thQ dofa:ul't valuG'$ t-C>t L.and 1]$Q Ttip l)~tc.;-ntaqQG'
Changes mad~ t.o t.he default values for Area
Chanq~s made to the default valu~s to! Operations
'1'h~ pass by trip!:5 opt.ion swit.ch eh(ingil'!d from on to off.
1'h~ oper..'tJ\~'n,"J em.ieston year cth'\ngedfrO!l'l. 2004 t.eo 2006.
The ttav~l mode ~nvit~)t1.m:"nt settings changed 'ft:om both tv: non<<!o!llidential
URBEMIS2002 Output, Page 4
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HOME DEPOT FEIR
PM Peak Hour
Assumes worst case of all intersections based on total volume, LOS and project traffic contribu1i(
CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS
Traffic Volume
2006 Base 2006 Base + 2020 Base +
Intersection Exist Case Project Project
Link: Oyster PointlDubuque Ave
Oyster Point Blvd,. 3035 3760 3769 5678
Dubuque Ave 2300 2320 2538 3583
Freeway - NB US 10 1 @200ft in Cut. 7735 8060 8060 10000
Freeway - SB US 1 01 @200ft in CuI. 6280 6945 6945 10000
.
Indicates primary roadway (due to higher volume)
Emission Factors (EMFAC2002 -San Mateo Cty)
LOS E or F (5mph)
LOS E or F (5mph)
LOS E or F (25mph - freeway)
LOS E or F (25mph - freeway)
2005/06
2020
2005/06
2025
11.343 glmi
2.840 glmi
6.088 glmi
1.677 glmi
Background CO Levels -
RedwoodCity/San Francisco 3yrs
I-Hour
5
8-Hour
2,8
I-Hour CO Contribution
2006 Base + 2020 Base +
Exist 2006 Base Case Project Project
4.1 5.1 5.1 1.9
1.0 1.0 1.1 0.4
0.9 1.0 1.0 0,3
0.8 0.3 0,3 0.1
Dispersion Factors
Primary
2Ln
4Ln
8 LN (depr) - 200ft
8 LN (depr) - 500ft
Secondary
2Ln
4Ln
6Ln
Edge
14.0
11.9
2.0
0.7
3,7
3,3
2.8
I CO 8m.mug Cal,ulatiou Work,heet