HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 Terrabay Phase III November
TERRABAY PHASE III
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 1997082077
City of South San Francisco
November 2005
Prepared by:
PLACEMAKERS
in association with
Crane Transportation Group
Don Ba1lanti
Rosen Goldberg & Der
+
TERRABA Y PHASE III
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Purpose of the Final Environmental Impact Report 1-1
1.2 Environmental Review Process 1-1
1.3 Report Organization 1-2
2. COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES 2-1
State Agencies
A.1 Governor's Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse) 2-2
A.2 Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2-5
Local Agencies
B.1 Town ofColma 2-19
B.2 Pacific Gas & Electric 2-21
B.3 San Francisco International Airport 2-25
B.4 City/County Association of Governments of
San Mateo County (CCAG) 2-30
B.5 County of San Mateo 2-33
Public and Citizens Groups
C.1 Lois Robin 2-36
C.2 Lou Hanhan 2-38
C.3 San Bruno Mountain Watch 2-40
City of South San Francisco Public Meeting Notes
D.l Special Joint Meeting South San Francisco Council-
Planning Commission 2-42
D.2 Planning Commission Public Hearing on DEIR 2-44
3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3-1
T errabqy Phase JJI Fi1la1 S IIfplemenfa/ Environmental Impact Report 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
This Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) has been prepared in
the form of an addendum to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(DSEIR) for the proposed Tertabay Phase III Project.
During the public review period (August 31,2005 to October 14, 2005), written
comments were made on the DSEIR. These written comments and responses to the
comments can be found in Chapter 2 of this FSEIR The minutes from the Special Joint
Meeting of the South San Francisco City Council and Planning Commission held on
October 5, 2005 and the Planning Commission public hearing on October 6, 2005 are
also included along with responses. Changes to the text of the DSEIR can be found in
Chapter 3, with new text shown in underlining and deleted text shown by stril.[eout.
This document together ~th the DSEIR will constitute the FSEIR, if the South San
Francisco City Council certifies the FSEIR as complete and adequate under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
According to CEQA, as the Lead Agency, the City of South San Francisco is required to
consult with public agencies having jurisdiction over the proposed Project, and to
provide the general public and Project applicant with an opportunity to comment on the
DSEIR. This FSEIR has been prepared to respond to comments received on the
DSEIR and to clarify any errors, omissions or misinterpretations of the analysis or
findings in the DSEIR.
The DSEIR was made available for a 45-day public review on August 31, 2005 and
distributed to local and State responsible and trustee agencies. The general public was
Termbay Phase JJJ Final S KjJplemelllal Environmelllal Impact Report
1-1
1. Introduction
advised of the availability of the DSEIR through public notice by mail to property
owners Qocated within 300 feet of the project site) and interested citizens. 1bis FSEIR
will be presented to the Planning Commission at a public hearing for their review and
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will hold a public hearing on the
FSEIR at which time the City Council may take action regarding the certification of the
FSEIR as full disclosure of potential impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives.
Certification of the EIR does not constitute approval of the Project.
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This FSEIR consists of the following chapters:
. Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter includes a discussion of the use and
organization of the FSEIR.
. Chapter 2: Comments and Responses. 1bis chapter contains reproductions of
letters received from the public on the DSEIR and the names of individuals and
agencies commenting on the DSEIR. The comments are numbered in the margins
of the comment letters and responses are keyed to the comment numbers. Where
revisions to the DSEIR text are appropriate, these are summarized and the actual
text changes are shown in Chapter 3.
. Chapter 3: Revisions to the DSEIR. Text changes, corrections or clarifications
based on comments received on the DSEIR are contained in this chapter, including
language that has been added or deleted from the DSEIR. Underlined text
represents language that has been added to the DSEIR; text 3trikeout has been
deleted from the DSEIR. Errata are also shown in this chapter.
Terrabqy Phase III Final SNjJplementa/ Environmental Impact Report
1-2
COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES
This chapter includes a reproduction of each letter received during the public review
period that addressed the DSEIR. Comments on the DSEIR were received from state,
and local agencies and the public as follows:
Comment Number
State ~ncies
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
(State Clearinghouse)
Department of Transportation (Calttans)
Local Aa'encies
Town of Colma
Pacific Gas & Electric
San Francisco International Airport
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County
County of San Mateo
Public and Citizens Groups
Lois Robin
Lou Hanhan
San Bruno Mountain Watch
City of South San Francisco Public Meetinll Minutes
Special Joint Meeting City Council and Planning Commission
Planning Commission on Public Hearing on DSEIR
A1.l
A2.1-2.10
Bt.1
B2.1-2.5
B3.l-3.4
B4.1-4.3
B5.l
Ct.l
C2.l
C3.1-3.2
Dt.l-1.2
D2.1-2.8
T errabqy Phart III Final SNjJJ>/ebltlllal EnvirolUJltlllal ImptxJ Report
2-1
..
.'
'. ...... '.-".
. " ,- "'.--:-"-~"
. '. ~.
LEITER Al
.....:.~.....~i.1.
. .
.' .
. .
~... . ."
..: .
. .
.. . .'
. ,-' .
. "
" 'J.
~ ,': . .
. . . .
. . .
.. . .
.'" .
.' . . . ...... ....S{A Ti~C~L; FOR~ ;A. ", .... ... '. '.' .. ...... (~) '"
'. ,". GoV&ri;~i~ 'office:~r. J'lil"..~ng.lU1P. 'Rnesrch.:: .' '.' . ...... ..-..,. . ·
.. . . . . .. :'lJ4t.l91&.~ng~~~?~~Jlci ~lSfDi~U!l~ t... ..'?;f:. .' '.
'. .,'
. . :.
'.
I. .... .... .-
. .....
- - ,". ',.'
: . .' . .'
'.. .
. ~. .'.
-. .... .
:;.":.,: -
. . .
'. ,
", -:'. ~ .. . .:.
::' '.:.. . . The_Stattqc.arlJigho~-atibniiue~;ihO-.abovc'-ni1UCd SpPpi~'BIR.tO i~ieCteds1ate~~ fpr -'- .
. .: . > _:. .'. ...... _~w.,--ontbc.i:nclOie(fDoe\mHmtDCtai1s R.CpOtipl~u~DDte.tbattJ,1e.CI~ bas 1;;BtCd tbe..ltate .
__ - . ". _' .-,. :..' . . :-ag~~a.tbAt~e~'etfy..docim;~t. ne~'poriodcloaed.oit.~DerJ4.-2QqS,~d.~'~~h..
_:':__- :. _. :',.': '. '. -_'. _ . :. . ftom....i;.- _.;......~. .: .' (" "':18'- .f...~' -"'101' _;a' .If ."L:;' coinmcJlt hic""'~c '11' . not.- -.m. . _;..a~ .le...... _~A... -. .
_ _' _.' UII;.L~ag~ 1qJ . """,,J_- gu,.. lAID .... r.-e.-.. . UlWOl, P. ~~""I. -'
_. .-' -'. : .' _ "_ _ tbe-~ ClcaribgbpUs~'~~latd.Y' -PJeaSeromrtD tbepioi.~'!l..tCu,.~State-C1e.,inSbOUse.mi.rriber.ii1-' - - '. :
'_:. :., .;.: -: :. . .~:~~~..~.~~~~~~.tt~:~y,::: ~:-<:,.;. -':.-- :-----... :~~.....->.--_':.:..:-: >:~ ". ~::--. . -:' -- >.~ . A1.l i
_ . "fiei:ie::DPte~1Section.21.:t04(~)'of-thO'91,1ifO~?ublic~~esCode.'~tba,t.,..'-:,."~".. -.
'. .' c' ...... ..., . .......... .... ..... · ....,~~ ",.iIlor~~~obl!l~i.;i~~~..~~;..;,~~:' .... ........' . .
:.~~.~:,~.~....;(\.~..~ ~..:"
. '. ...., .....<~~~..;<...;>:;(<.~..:.:.....
.~. _,' , ':.:-.':. 'I1ie8c.coiDmcntauefotwl;ded.for-use__in~aiiugyolD'~.en'virori~tc.o~' Shotild-younecd :'.'-,-'
,_. : _ . . _ '.' mOre in!ormafio1i or c1ari.flcatiim of"the.' enclosed conimentI. we recotDlDOad that yoli cOlltact tb~ -, '., -' .
.' '.-'. . ,. .' _:.' . __ _ ::~~:~8ie~~y-_.~eCtl~ >:.<..:::":",:",- _.-::._"~ ':;' ..~..:<.:.:.::.....:~...<.:.: __:':. .>.> -- ........ '.-.- "'; .i .'::.. ,-'--. .
_ . :". . - -This i~ ackDo'Wledgca tba~ yOl1ha~e_ c~ -with~Stiite '~8C-tnieW 'tll~:fOl" ~.. ..
. ". CI11vit'o~t.r~. ~ to the-"qaJifO~Bnv~ta1Quality ~ct:_,~.~t the,:Sta~ '. '.
" _ . .:... -" ~~~e:.~~. ~~~:~4~~1,~_:~~J~ave..!PIY: ~~_~, ~~g ~'-~~~tvf-~~~.~~~ '.' -. -
.' :.- , "'.:.-' _ .. ~___"'. ..:..' ~~~;..-'- _: ..' .' " _ :.- ....: _.:.:. :~.:- :':.'.:,~;--~-:.; . < :>::-' ":. .:-. - :~" ::_' .,-.":_::. C-.' .- -":. / ".~ -">'i .--: :-....-:..::. .. '.' -:. -" . - -- - .'-'.'
. .:' .
. '.' .
. ..' ....: :" "'....
.:.-::~.:- :,-,--",,<"~~..-:._.-.--,:/.:'::---
'. . extyRO' :.............:..:: .:'.' '.:;', ':. ........;
D~ ,.~~~~'..O-:..;.--:,.:: ;'::..
," "
'" .;
. '" " .
. '. . .'~
~. . " ,'.
-', .>., ~ '. ;~.:' ',' :. .... ..:;:{...... . ~
.-. ;Encl0sUie8.. .. '- - ,-.' :. .
'. . .C(:: R.C8ourc;Il8Aiency_._ ;"
-... \.
... ..
. -
....,,: ....:.~
".1' .. .
.' ..
,..' .
. .
, " . ....
e.d
i~~~" P.o}~~'~~ ~~-~ .~I5BU-sO~.
_. '_ '1'ZL.(.~16)~~. :r~{9~e).aa.ao~ ~.opr,ca.ID'l '.' ,'.
Be99-6~8-0S9 I^IO ~~I~~~;d ~ss ~O Ali~ W~0~:6 SOO~ 1~ ~oo
"'..' ,. ..~"" '. .:.:....<.......:..-.:... .':.,>,::,,':';".~'D~C;Um8ni D~iali&'rt&pD.rt ..:...... ......
. . . . . :.~tate e,... "hi~hC).. .~~'.D.8ta Bas. ...... .'.
. J'
'" . ".' <I
.... : ".' ,', ,- ",
..' .,
. . . .~. :". .' . . .
'?'i.:,=:ES~~~c~~'i-:'~'.::.~,6i')__;: '.: ..... - . .
.... .' ':':'o'.!:': ..:/ :.....::~. .:'.81.'(: ~.~~~~~.el.R.:'>:' :":::~:; 'y::~.:>:.<:~>.:.:.:-'::-:':.'::.'-\'.,.<.::::.'::- ::::. '.:.. .',::-- ...:...... :.'> .... ~ ...... ,: .
:." :....:.: ':. .... '.::' Pftcifi;fJ~n' ...D..~BJo:P iiT.iiX~d-Uie PrQleci thBlWocild.i~ude , 22.;..tOc1~.ideiiti~1 tOwer.8nci ~ i~. StorY." .
.. :'; .,,; . ". .' . . .... ':'.: :.. ..' : '.:. ....; 1'BSIc\.8nllal b~lldi~s. 's' .11~tOo/ '~.toW~r 'BOd.~ Jridudtn;" t8ataufari""'~:m~ltIplex:Cin8ma
....>.::::...:..\.:;:...::. < ...:........'..::::....:~W!.d.~ty~:Tbis~~I~e~ti~.~:1~I:idaOc;t~81::Pti~ai:d.:.T"~ai..'...:.:>....:-. '.:':--- .':::::>;' ::.... .:.,: ~
. .'
:." '"," . .......,'
," :,'
',. .. " ","'.
. .
'.
.. : .
.... .,: .....<: sc~rv: So~'$8nFrencI.oa, ...... .:.... ..:......:.. S.,.:C(i.....,.Zlp 9408.0.. ..... . :' . .'
.' ~ . . ,.- ." .': '. ...... .-
" .
. ;..
" ...
. . . .
:. ...:~:/... ...-:. ....hrceiNO:.:.:007.s50~tOO~007~50-1~OI.OO7.6S0.j20,.00,7.,650-14O'.007.65-150' , .:. .... ...... . -.....
.'
. ~. .....
. .... . ':.... ~',
.'
. '. '. :.... . ..' . 'l.and UN ..... V~c3nt LanCVre~bay S~tflc Plan DlsttictJB~ln_ Co.nmertC8t.. ..
. . . '.' . . .' ':.. '. .' '.:.' '" . .. ~ :'. . .' , .
" '.' '. . '.' ..'
. .
'. ~ .
." :
. '.
., . '~~ri.~'::. .~~dcNi8:u~I:A1j.Q~ai~N~~-e:.P\J_blic~~..s~~~ty;..T~~~lai~.;:.~~ulatl~e' :':. . ....
..' .,: :'. .....:.. ~~..........;....:.<: :::.:.....-.;:.:..... ....:::..<.:.....:..... '...'. .:.....:.":::..., :'. :.::., . ..c...'... .. .';
.' ....... " .
. . . RtiW'!.wlng ~..CX:;rcea"~~ncy: 'o~.of. ~~ ..~d~Ga~",R~g1on.3: Department 'of. ParKa Ind ~~~;.
,. 'A"'nr:I~', OffIce of Hlatorlc.P,..~oli:.san..F~BCr8co Bay COR.~.V8tion.anct.bewioPmenJ Commission; .. . ..
":'. ':;.' .c/ ' ".;', ...." >'.. '. -/:DepartmemofWate,.-R.~....~.,:O'wia.io~df~8utlc;8;-,caI~ornia,Hlghway'P:atrOl; ~:;':::: -"'-
.' .. . .... .. .' . " .. .'. . . ~. ;..' .... . . ."~ ." .. . . = :..- ..~. ". .' '. . # . . . . .' '.. ~.'"
.... ." "'" ..,:.," './ .: .Caltrans: Qi8trict4::0~rtm.nt!.1f..,eaJ1i,.SenilC8l:.Native'~n H8iltage:COmn'iis.lOn; P\miic. .: .
. '. . .. . ~tflltl8a Com",lsslon: Regionai W_ QualltY'C0nir9I Board, Reglon 2 . . '. ;'.' . . '.. ;. . ".
. . ": .. . ...... .. . . ... ~. .
;". '-< :~.. .ived: - O8I3D12O~. ,:;' ".::. Sta~of.,..~htW ': 08t31f2005. .,. End. of R',~" 1 O/1~OO~":
'.' .' . ..... '. ...: '-" ,.:..... ........ ....: ,.': ." ': ...,.... . ...... .'
.' ." ....
.'
. .' .
..' '. ,
"
: "':: ..:....
.. . :: .
.' .....: '..
'... .;.- #'. .~:
. ," "
tr.d
.: :N0t8: ~n~ i~'~~'f18td~.~~~'~m 1."~~~~:irito.~~n"provldeCl bY~e8.d aoBnCy:
SEss-saa-ass I^IO 9~I~~~'d ~ss ~o AiI~ w~oa:6 sooa la ~oo
2. Co_en! Letters and Responses
RESPONSE TO LETTER A1:
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE)
Response to Comment noted, no response necessary.
Comment A1.1
Terrabqy Phase lIJ Final S spplementaJ Environmental Impact &porl
2-4
1~/14/2ee5 14:16
5182865559
CAL TRANS
PAGE e2
LEITER A2
!I'l'Att 01' (!AI 'tOD.... MJ!Il~ 'l'LUfDrWl'j.'I'IOIf ANn IM'~~ ,,.~v
AIDIOLD !I~~C2. ,. .....
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
111 GRAND AVENUE
P. O. BOX 28810
OAKLAND. CA N828-oe1O
PHONE (1510) 286-a506
fAX (610) 886-&5C1t
TTY (800) 7S5-2S28
".,.,.,. JIOfI/6'/
.. "'t. e/IIt:itllfl
October 14, 200s
Ms. Allison Knapp WolllUll
Soutb S811 Francisco PlaDDins Division
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco. CA 94083
Dear Ms. Wollam:
SMI012S9
SM-tOt-23.39
sca 199708207
Terraba, Phase In Draft SuppleaaeDUl EDwiI"oBIDentallmplld Report - Draft
EavJroJDDeD.tallmpad Report (DEIR)
Thank you for continuing 10 include the California Department ot Transpop;tation
(Department) in the euvironmemal review process for the above-referenced project. We
have teviewed the Draft EnvirolUDCl1t81lmpact Report aDd have che following comments
to offer: .
. In Table S.2 under Traff'IC Circuladon: The mentioned volume pcrceutlles, bOth in
text and figure forms, are not correlated to each other aud should be coneeted.
. Pages 2-7 and 2-8, RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT, parapapbs 3 and 4. indicate tbat
21 of the 88 flab in the north low-rise building and aU 15 unit. in a separate
residential building would be ioc:ome restricted fOl' moderate income households and
low income households respectivcl)', should Phlle B be constnIcted wiCb a second
180-unit residential tower. If Phase B cOllsttuCtion doCs not include a laO-UBit
residential tower, these 21 and IS units wiD be available at market rate and only 67 of
the 88 flats would be priced 8Jld available for moderate income households. Phase B
of the project. as shown in Table 2.1-1 II incomplcle and only shows the COBstruction
of a 295,500 sq. ft. office building without any indication of a secoad lBO-unit
residential tower and only lists 103 dwelling units in Phase A as below market rate
residential units. Please correct. .
. For the pmposcs of clMity, the tJ'affic: report should include a paraaraph that clearly
defines the difference between "approved' versus 'proposed' Terrabay Phase UI
Projects.
. Por consistency and ccnnparison purposes between Fi.uteI 3.1-4 amd 3.1.-3. Existing
AM Peak Hour Traffic Vol1lJ'deS sbould provide existing traffic volwnes for Lawndale
Lane illtersectious at Mil8iOll Street &. Hillside Boulevard.
"CaIfroM bynIUf' moblUt, ... Oal~,.,..
1 I
it
A2.1
A2.2
A2.3
A2A
10.'~lAM CITY OF SSF ~LH""l"b U1Vl
Oct 20 2005 ...
18/14/2805 14:16 5182865559 CALTRANS
O..,U-OLoIJ "'''''...,....
PAGE 83
Mt. A1UIIIl K:awpp Wou.
october 13, 2005
Pate 2
· On page 3.1-16 and Tables 3.1-7 and 3.1-8. the vehicle queuing standard should bo "
based. on a 95'" percentile queue and not on a 50th percentile queue. As lucll, the
traffic analysis should "be reevaluated and adcltesled in the report. If the 95"
percentile queue is used. most study intersections will have sipificant impacts that
need to be addressed and miti&ated.
· Pale 3.1-25. Table 3.1-J4. Trip Generation, Ten.bay Phae m Appoved Use. the trip
generation of the 66S,000~. ft. Office BuiJding was. based DO the 2000 Addendum
Land UIe Program on the TClTabay Phase In Site as lID addendum to tho 1998/99
Terrabay Supplemental Enviromnental Impact Report menliOllod OIl page 1-2.
Shouldn't the 10,000 square feet of retail use. as described in the footnote, be 1.soo
sq. (1. as shown in Table 1.2 on pa,e 1-27 Please verify.
· Pages 3.1-21.3.1-28, 3.1-32 and 3.1-33.1he figure. arc labeled for Peat Hour Base
Case Volumes for Years ZOlO and 2020 without Proposed Terrabay Pbase m Project.
II would be clearer if these flaun:s did not include the traffic volwnc generated by the
approved Terrab.y Pbue m develotJmCnl of 665,000 sq. ft. office spaces. .
· On page 3.1-44. Pr.ojcct Impacts It Mitigation Measures, althoulh mitigation
measures have been addrelled, the ~ort should state who will implement and funcl
these measures. Will the project sponsors contribute a fair-share for sa)' facility
improvements'?
· In Section 4.6, EnvirobIDenwly Superior Alternative, clarify why the Hotel Tower
Altemative is superior to the Two Residential Tower Akemad.ve jf the latcF &eIlerates
less traffic rrips as indicated in Table 4.7 when amlpued 10 Table 4.3.
· Please identify whether or not the project will have significant impacts based on the
Cumulative Conditions.
Should you require further. information or have any questions relarding this letter. please
caJl Alice Jackson of my staff at ('10) 286-S988.
c: Scott Morgan (State Clearinghouae)
"Co"'*MIntprevtI ~."... o.~.
. - -
A2.5
A2.6
A2.7
A2.8
A2.9
A2.10
Response to
Comment A2.1
Response to
Comment A2.2
2. Comment Letters and R8sponses .
RESPONSE TO LETTER A2:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS)
Comment noted. The percent increase in traffic due to the Project at the Dubuque
Avenue/Oyster Point Boulevard intersection reported for year 2010 PM peak. hour
conditions should be 1.2 percent rather than the reported 1.4 percent. All other percent
traffic increases due to the Project and presented in Table S.2 have been checked and
are correct as reported. The change from 1.2 to 1.4 percent at Dubuque Avenue/Oyster
Point Boulevard results in no change in findings or conclusions.
The following change is made to Impact 3.1.2 on page S-3 and page 3.1-44 Impact 3.1.2:
"Impact 3.1.2
Year 2010 Intersection Levelof5ervice Impacts (5)
All but two analyzed intersections would maintain acceptable operation during AM
and PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project. At the Oyster Point
Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.l01 Northbound On-Ramp intersection,
AM peak hour operation would improve with a ::t25 second decrease in average
vehicle delay, although operation would remain LOS F (due to the proposed Project
producing less traffic during this period than the approved 2000 Office Project).
While PM peak hour operation would remain LOS F, the overall volume level
would be increased by less than two percent (1.~ 2 percent) due to the proposed
Project. 1bis would be less than significant. However, during the PM peak. hour,
project traffic would degrade operation at the Bayshore Boulevard/Sister
Cities/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection from an acceptable
LOS C to an unacceptable LOS F. 1bis would be a significant impact."
The Project's Phase B is proposed as an office tower. As a potential development
option if market conditions do not support the construction of the office tower, a 180-
unit residential tower would be proposed. 1bis is evaluated as the Two Residential
Towers alternative. Table 2.1-1 is correct. To provide clarity, the following change is
made to the first complete paragraph on page 2-8 of the DSEIR:
"A 15-unit residential building on as many as four levels over retail would be
unrestricted and available to be sold or rented at market rates. Fifteen resident
parking spaces would be constructed and four guest valet or shared parking spaces
will be available. The 15 market rate units would be income restricted for low
income households (50 -80 percent of median) should Phase B be constructed with
a second 180-unit residential tower which is evaluated as the Two Residential
Towers alternative."
T errabqy Phase III Final S upplemenla/ Environmental Impact &pori
2-7
Response to
Comment AZ.3
Response to
Comment AZ.4
Response to
Comment AZ.5
2. Comment Letters and Responses
Comment noted. The following change is made to the first paragraph on page 3.1-1 of
the DSEIR:
"This section presents the analysis of circulation and parking impacts from
development of the Terrabay Phase III Project. It first describes the existing
transportation network in the City of South San Francisco in the immediate area of
the Project, the potential circulation impacts due to the proposed Terrabay
Phase III Project (which includes 357.500 square feet of retail space. 351 dwelling
units. 70.000 square feet of service area and 295.500 square feet of office space as
presented in Table 2.1-1 of the DSEIR) on this network in contrast to the currently
approved Terrabay Phase III development (2000 Addendum) (which contains
657.500 square feet of office space and 7.500 square feet of retail space as presented
in Table 1.2 of the DSEIR). and measures required to mitigate the proposed
Terrabay Phase III circulation and parking 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 Administrative Draft EIR Circulation Analysis
(Lamphier-Gregory and Crane Transportation Group, June 2005) and the 1998/99
SEIR traffic analyses. Both the 1998 SEIR and the current Terrabay analysis have
been prepared by the Crane Transportation Group."
The Lawndale Lane/Mission Street and Hillside Boulevard/Lawndale Lane
intersections in Colma were not evaluated for AM peak hour conditions because the
proposed Project would be expected to contribute less than 25 new vehicles to the
Hillside Boulevard/Lawndale Lane intersection and less than 15 new vehicles to the
Lawndale Lane/Mission Street intersection during this time period. These volume
increases would result in less than significant impacts. Project volume increases would
be much greater during the PM peak hour, the time period which has been analyzed.
Comment noted. A 95th percentile vehicle queue evaluation has been conducted for the
intersections within the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange. Locations exceeding
available storage lengths with Base Case AM and/or PM peak hour queues in years 2010
and 2020 are identified. Approaches or turn lanes receiving significant 95th percentile
impacts due to the proposed Project are identified. Based upon the Crane
Transportation Group's evaluation, there would be no additional intersections receiving
a significant queuing impact using the 95th percentile criteria for the year 2010 horizon.
Both the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue and Bayshore Boulevard/Sister
Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/ Airport Boulevard intersections would be
expected to receive significant unavoidable impacts using either the 50th or 95th
percentile queue criteria in 2010.
Terrabqy Phase lJJ Final S IIJ>pkmental Environmental ImpIKt Report
2-8
2. Comment Letters and &sponses
For the year 2020 horizon, one new intersection would receive a significant impact if
using 95th rather than 50th percentile queue evaluation. Both the Oyster Point
Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue and the Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities
Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersections would be receiving
significant unavoidable impacts in 2020 using either the 50th or 95th percentile queue
evaluation criteria. The Bayshore Boulevard/Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay
access intersection would also be expected to receive a significant impact during PM
peak hour conditions if using the 95th percentile criteria. The approaches with the
potential significant Project impacts would be the southbound off-ramp, where vehicle
queues would extend about four car lengths longer than available storage and the
Bayshore Boulevard northbound through lanes, where vehicle queues would extend
about one car length longer than available storage. Base Case conditions would have
acceptable storage on both approaches. The Bayshore Boulevard southbound left turn
lane would have a demand about nine car lengths longer than the turn pocket's 350-foot
length. However, the Project would not produce a significant impact to this movement,
as it would result in a reduction of southbound left turns.
As discussed with Caltrans staff (Katie Yim, Senior Traffic Engineer, District 4,
Division of operations, August 17, 2005) signal timing adjustments and activation at the
Bayshore Boulevard/Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay access intersection could be
set up such that off-ramp queues would be cleared and not back up to the freeway
mainline. Also, in order to reduce the 95th percentile northbound Bayshore Boulevard
approach queues to acceptable levels and to provide acceptable storage for southbound
left turns, the existing 350-foot southbound left turn lane would need to be lengthened
to 550 feet in conjunction with the adjusted signal timing. Based upon discussion with
Brian Kangas Foulk, the applicant's civil engineer, lengthening this amount is feasible.
The lengthening of the left turn lane by 200 feet would not result in adverse impacts to
biological and archeological resources as confirmed by Jim Martin, biologist with
Environmental Collaborative, and Miley Holman, archaeologist with Holman &
Associates. Therefore, at this location the 95th percentile queues could be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level, whereas this would not be possible at the Oyster Point
Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue and Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster
Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersections (identified in the DSEIR) receiving
significant queuing impacts in 2020.
Change the sixth bullet on page 3.1-35 of the DSEIR:
· "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 volwnes by two percent or more (City of South San
Francisco criteria)."
TerralJqy Phase III Final SlIjJplemental Environmental Impact &pot1
2-9
2. Commt1lt Letters and Responses
Add the following after bullet six on page 3.1-35 of the DSEIR:
. 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)"
Change the following on page 3.1-29 of the DSEIR:
''Year 2010 Base Case Vehicle Queuing"
Terrabqy Phase III Final S IIfJPkmental Environmental Impact &port
2-10
2. Comment Letters and Responses
Add Table 3.1-7A following Table 3.1-7 on page 3.1-18 of the DSEIR:
TABLE 3.1-7A: VEHICLE OUEUING WITHIN OYSTER POINT
INTERCHANGE (95TH PERCENTILE AVERAGE
VEHICLE OUEUE). AM PEAK HOUR
Year 2010 Queues Year 2020 Queues
Existine- (in feet) (in feet)
Storage Oueues ~ Base Case Base Base case
(in feet) (in feet) YR + Project ~ + Project
Bayshore/SB 101 Ramps
SB left turn ~ ill JQQ 222 345
NB through ill ~ 2Q 1M 196
WB off-ratI\P left turn QQQ ill m. 254 ~
WB off-ram.p left/rig}lt QQQ 11Q m ~ 289
Bayshore/ Central Project Access
NB left turn lQQ ill Q3. ill 43
NB through ~ 27 45 15 1].
SB right turn JQQ ~ 19 Q 12
SB through ill ill 211 W- ID
Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/ AiqJOrt
EB left turn ~ .81 177 227 lli ill
SB left turn ill ill 1Q2 170 206 ill
SB through QYQ 21 46 127 11 180
SB right turn UQ 2.4 Q 64 26 86
WB left turn .8Q 2.4 ~ 1Q 2J. 88
WB through ill 11 .8.8. ill II 178
WB right turn ill ~ 182 12 149 Q
Oyster Point/DubuqJle
EB left turn .llilli 12.4 122. ill 181 188
EB through 22i ~ .1l1 2ll ill 612
EB right turn ill ill .1Q1 lli 121 119
NB left turn ill M ill 3M ill 361
NB left/through ill B2 ~ 2M ill .lBQ
NB right turn 21Q ~ ill ill ill 1M
Dubuque/lOt Ramps
Off-ratI\P left turn 1QQ 122. 12Q ill m 644
Off-ram.p left/through 1QQ !Y1i 12Q ill m 644
SB right turn ill .5. .5.2 .5.2 ~ .5.1
SB through ill .5.1 2.4Q 2lQ ill l12.
* All stofl!ZC and ~eues are per lane.
Source: Crane Tran&portation Grou.p
Termbqy Phase III Pinal S II/Jp/emental Environmental I111jxKt Report
2-11
2. Comment Letters and R8sponses
Table 3.1-8A is added following Table 3.1-8 on page 3.1-19 of the DSEIR:
TABLE 3.t-SA: VEHICLE QUEUING WITHIN QYSTER POINT
INTERCHANGE (95TH PERCENTILE AVERAGE
VEHICLE QUEUE). PM PEAK HOUR
y ear 20tO Queues Year 2020 Queues
Existing (in feet) (in feet)
Storaee Queues ~ Base Case Base Base Case
(in fee() (in feet) YR + project YR + Project
Bay-shore/SB tOt Ramps
SB left turn W m ~ 121 561
NB through ill 12ll ~ 462 497
WB off-ranw left turn ~ tia ill 400 670
WB off-r:unp left/right 200 tia ~ 400 691
Bayshore / Central Project Access
NB left turn ~ 111 ill 103 196
NB through 215. 1m 12 12Q. 50
SB cight turn 2QQ. 1 1 2 Q
SB through ill 277 222 192 94
Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/ .AU;port
EB left turn ~ 2l ~ m 224 . 473
SB left turn ~ Wl .ill ~ 142 ~
SB through ~ W 111 22.8. liB. ~
SB right turn Wl 174 ill 510 316 764
WB left turn ~ 22 ill 95 180 153
WB through ill 2Q.5. 1Q2 ill ~ 571
WB right turn ill. NA ~ .2i 15 103
Oyster Point/Dubuque
EB left turn llilli ill ~ 192 426 182
EB through ill ill ill 11 ill 124
EB cight turn ill m. ill ~ ~ 176
NB left turn ill 2M ~ .21l 638 586
NB left/through ill 2Q2 .ill. 2.@ ill ill
NB right turn Wl 2Q ril. QQ 88 75
Dubuque/tOt Ramps
Off-ramp left turn 100 ~ ~ ill ~ ill
Off-ram.p left/through 100 ~ 222 ill ~ 432
SB right turn lli ~ ill m 431 395
SB through ill 11 llQ Uli 228 226
* All stora~ and queues are per lane.
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Termbqy Phase III Final SIIjJplemental Environmental Impact Report
2-12
2. Comment Letters and Responses
Add the following text after the second bullet on page 3.1-30 of the DSEIR:
''Tables 3.1-7A and 3.1-8A show that year 2010 Base Case volumes would be
producing 95th percentile vehicle queues longer than available storage during the
AM and PM peak hours on the approaches presented below.
AM Peak Hour
. Bayshore Boulevard/ AtJProved Project Main Access. The Bayshore Boulevard
northbound approach left turn lane would have a demand three car lengths
longer than available storage.
. Bqyshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/ Air;port Boulevard
Intersection. The eastbound left turn lane would have a demand three car lengths
longer than available storage.
. Oyster Point Boulevard/ DubuCJue Avenue Intersection. The Oyster Point Boulevard
eastbound through lanes would have a demand 11 car lengths longer than
available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a
demand 12 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue
northbound left/through lane would have a demand nine car lengths longer
than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound right turn lanes
would have a demand 23 car lengths longer than available storage.
. DubufJue Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound Otf-RamtJ/ Southbound Off-Ramp. The
northbound off-ramp left turn lanes would have a demand four car lengths
longer than available storage
PM Peak Hour
. Bayshore Boulevard/ S "ter Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/ Air;port Boulevard
Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a
demand five car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point
Boulevard westbound left turn lanes would have a demand four car lengths
longer than available storage.
. Ovster Point Boulevard/ DubufJue Avenue Intersection. The Oyster Point Boulevard
eastbound left turn lane would have a demand seven car lengths longer than
available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a
demand 17 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue
northbound left/through lane would have a demand 14 car lengths longer than
available storage."
Temzbqy Phase III Final SlIfJPkmental Environmental Impact Report
2-13
2. Comment Letters and &sponses
Add the following text after the fourth bullet on page 3.1-34 of the DSEIR:
"Tables 3.t-7A and 3.t-8A 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 approaches presented below.
AM Peak Hour
. Bqyshore Boulevard/Approved Proiect Main Access. The Bayshore Boulevard
northbound left turn lane would have a demand six car lengths longer than
available storage.
. Bqyshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a
demand nine car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point
Boulevard westbound left turn lane would have a demand one car length longer
than available storage.
. Oyster Point Boulevard/ Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The Oyster Point Boulevard
eastbound through lanes would have a demand 14 car lengths longer than
available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a
demand 13 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue
northbound left turn lane would have a demand nine car lengths longer than
available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound tight turn lanes would
have a demand 21 car lengths longer than available storage.
. Dubuq.ue Avenue/ U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp/Southbound On-RamP Intersection.
The northbound off-ramp left turn lanes would have a demand five car lengths
longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue southbound through lane
would have a demand of five car lengths longer than available storage.
PM Peak Hour
. Bqyshore Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Proiect North Access
Intersection. The Bayshore Boulevard southbound left turn lane would have a
demand five car lengths longer than available storage.
. Bqyshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Owter Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a
demand seven car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point
Boulevard westbound left turn lane would have a demand four car lengths
longer than available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound through
lanes would have a demand three car lengths longer than available storage.
. Oyster Point Boulevard/ Dubuq.ue Avenue Intersection. The Oyster Point Boulevard
eastbound left turn lane would have a demand 11 car lengths longer than
available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound right turn lane would
have a demand one car length longer than available storage. The Dubuque
Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a demand of 20 car lengths
Terrabqy Phase JII Final S IIfJPkmental Enviro1ll1lental Impaa &port
2-14
2. Comment Letters and RBsponses
longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left/through
lane would have a demand of 17 car lengths longer than available storage.
. Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ral1{tJ/ Southbound On-Ramp Intersection.
The Dubuque Avenue southbound right turn lanes would have a demand of
seven car lengths longer than available storage."
Change the following on page 3.1-46 of the DSEIR:
~CJmpact 3.1.5~ Year 2010 Vehicle Queuing Impacts - 5(;b Percentile (Sll)"
Add the following after the last paragraph under Impact 3.1.5 on page 3.1-46 DSEIR:
~CJmpact 3.1.5b Year 2010 Vehicle Oueuin~ ImDacts - 95th Percentile (SU)"
The proposed Project would result in unacceptable vehicle queuing at several
locations expected to have acceptable Base Case queuing by 2010 In addition.
Project traffic would aggravate vehicle queues at several locations expected to have
unacceptable Base Case queuing.
AM Peak Hour
. B<fYshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
Interseaion. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would receive a
16% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
PM Peak Hour
. Bc~yshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/ Qyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
Interseaion. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would receive a
133% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
The Bayshore Boulevard southbound right turn lane Base Case vehicle queue
would be extended from + 125 feet up to 510 feet (with 310 feet of storage).
The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound through lanes Base Case vehicle queue
would be extended from + 100 feet up to 475 feet (with 255 feet of storage).
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Interseaion. Dubuque Avenue northbound
left turn and through/left turn lanes would receive a 9.7% increase in traffic
with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
Change the following on page 3.1-46 of the DSEIR:
"Mitigation Measure 3.1.51!"
. Barshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard
approach to accommodate 13 vehicles (50th percentile queue). At 25 feet per
Terralx!J Phase III Fi1fil1 S1tj>p/emenfal Environmental Impact &Pori
2-15
2. Comment utters and &sponses
vehicle, this would equal an additional 325 feet of storage for the 50th percentile
queue. Alternatively, as recommended to provide acceptable level of service,
provide a second eastbound approach left tum lane. Make both lanes at least
150 feet long (to accommodate the 50th percentile queue). The City ffl&y ahe desire
to adtl aecl:ifioftall~ te aeeOffiffie6ftte tfte 95th pef'Cefl.t:ile qaetJe ftfie seffle
yehiele eeederafi6ft in tfte ffim. laftes. The other proposed measure to improve level
of service (striping a second northbound left turn lane) would help decrease
westbound through lane storage demands, but not to the available storage distance
on the freeway overpass. (SU)
Add the following after last bullet under Mitigation Measure 3.1.5 of the DSEIR:
~~itigation Measure 3.1.5b
. Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/ Aiq>ort
Boulevard. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard
approach to accommodate 20 vehicles (95th percentile queue). At 25 feet per
vehicle. this would equal an additional 450 feet of storage for the 95th percentile
queue. Alternatively. as recommended to provide acceptable level of service.
provide a second eastbound approach left turn lane. Make both lanes at least
250 feet long (to accommodate the 95th percentile queue). However. it would
be impossible to lengthen the southbound right turn lane by 200 feet. Also the
other proposed measure to improve level of service (striping a second
northbound left turn lane) would help decrease westbound through lane storage
demands. but not to the available storage distance on the freeway overpass.
-<Sill
. 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 on the northbound
approach to acceptable lengths. (SU).
Change the following on page 3.1-49 of the DSEIR:
~qmpact 3.1.9;1 Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts - 5~ Percentile (SU)"
Add the following after the last paragraph of Impact 3.1.9 on page 3.1-49 of the DSEIR:
~qmDact 3.1.9b Year 2020 Vehicle Oueuing ImDacts - 9.5tb Percentile (SU)"
The proposed Project would result in unacceptable vehicle queuing at several
locations expected to have acceptable Base Case queuing by 2020. In addition.
Project traffic would aggravate vehicle queues at several locations expected to have
unacceptable Base Case queuing.
AM Peak Hour
. Bcryshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/ Qyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn land would receive a
Terrabqy Phase III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact &port
2-16
2. Comment Letters and Rtsponses
9.1 % increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Bayshore
Boulevard southbound left turn lane Base Case vehicle queue would be
extended from + 205 feet up to 350 feet (with 325 feet of storage).
PM Peak Hour
. Bavshore Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabav Access Intersection.
The southbound off-ramp lanes Base Case vehicle queue would be extended
from +400 feet up to 670 to 690 feet (with 600 feet of storage). The Bayshore
Boulevard northbound through lane Base Case vehicle queue would extend
from + 465 feet up to 500 feet (with 475 feet of storage.)
. Bqyshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/ Ovster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
Intersection. The eastbound left turn lane on Sister Cities Boulevard would receive a
105% increase with unacc~table Base Case queuing. The Bayshore Boulevard
southbound left turn lane Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from
+145 feet up to 355 feet (with 325 feet of storage). The Bayshore Boulevard
southbound right turn lane Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from
+315 up to 765 feet (with 310 feet of storage).The westbound through lanes on
Oyster Point Boulevard would receive a 4.8% increase with unacceptable Base
Case queuing.
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The northbound
approach left turn and through/left turn lanes on Dubuque Avenue would
receive a 7.6% increase with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
Change the following on page 3.1-50 of the DSEIR:
&~itigation Measure 3.1.9B,"
. Add the following after last bullet under Mitigation Measure 3.1.9 on page 3.1-50 of the
DSEIR:
&~itiption Measure 3.1.9b
. Bayshore Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay Access.
Adjust sequel timing to prevent unacceptable queue lengths on the U.S. 101
southbound off-ramps intersection approach and lengthen the southbound off-
ramp lanes by 200 feet. (J.. TS)
. Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard. Provide two left turn lanes on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard
approach. Make each lane turn at least 250 feet long to accommodate the 95th
percentile queue. In addition. lengthen the southbound Bayshore Boulevard left
turn lane by 25 feet. However. it would be impossible to lengthen the
southbound Bayshore Boulevard right turn lane from 310 up to 765 feet. Also.
the other proposed measure to improve level of service (a second northbound
left turn lane) would decrease westbound through lane storage demands. but
not to the available storage distance on the freeway oveq>ass. (SU).
TerrabtrJ Phase III Final SlIfJPlemental Environmental Impact Report
2-17
Response to
Comment Al.6
Response to
Comment Al.?
Response to
Comment Al.S
Response to
Comment Al.9
Response to
Comment Al.l0
2. Comment Letters and RB.rponses
. 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
acceptable conditions. (SU)
That is correct. The Table 3.1-14 footnote has been changed to show 7,500 square feet
of office-serving retail space.
Traffic from the approved Terrabay Phase III office development was included as part
of all ''Base Case" traffic conditions because the proposed Project could be built
without any additional CEQA analysis. Ultimate operating conditions with inclusion of
"proposed" rather than "approved" project traffic would be the same regardless of
whether "approved" project traffic was included in the Base Case analysis.
All listed Project traffic/parking mitigations will be fully implemented and funded by the
Project applicant.
Determination of which alternative is the Environmentally Superior alternative is based
on all environmental topics. The Two Residential Towers alternative would result in
somewhat fewer vehicular trips than the Hotel Tower alternative. However, the Hotel
Tower alternative was determined to be the Environmentally Superior alternative as it
would result in a significant reduction on public services and utilities impacts.
Project impacts to cumulative (year 2020) traffic conditions are presented on
pages 3.1-47 to 3.1-50 of the DSEIR.
Terrabqy Phase III Final S IIj>plemental Environmental Impact Report
2-18
Oct 20 2005 10:31AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING nIVI 650-829-6639
p.6
LEITER B 1
Phone: eeD-985-2590
Fax 650-985-2578
TOWN OF COlMA PLANNING OEPARTMENT
1190 EI Camino Real, Calma, CA 94014
September 13, 2005
Ms. Allison Knapp
City or South San FrancJsoo
Planning DIvision
315 Maple Avenue
P.O. Box711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
SUBJECT:
Terrabay Phase IfI Draft Supplemental EIR
Dear Ms. Knapp:
The Town of Calma has no com~ent on the above referenced subject.
Please update your files to show Ms. Andrea J. Ouse, AICP, City Planner as the contact for the B 1.1
Town of Calma.
Thank you.
Sincerely.
Response to
Comment B1.1
2. Comment Letters and RBsponses
RESPONSE TO LETTER B1: TOWN OF COLMA
Comment noted, no response necessary.
Terrabqy Phase III Final S tpplementol Environmental 1111JxKI &port
2-20
Oct 20 2005 10:31AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 650-829-6639
p.8
LETTER B2
rJ
PeiNe 6Bs and
Electric Company-
land SIMt8$
Corpor8t8 Real Esllt.
111 Almad", Soul.v.rd. Roam 814
San Jose, CA 95115.0005
MliIin, Addms
P.O. Box 15005
Sin Jose, CA 95115.0005
September 16, 2005
Allison Knapp
Ci~ofSouiliSanFranci~
Planning Division
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Re: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Tara~y ill Project, Environmental Impact Report
Sister Cities Blvd & Bayshore Blvd., South San Francisco
RECEIVED
SEP 2 0 2.
PlANNfHG
Ms. Knapp:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report for the Tarabay ill Project, Environmental Impact Report at Sister Cities
Blvd. and Bayshore Blvd. in South San Francisco.
PG&E owns and operates .gas.and electric distribution facilities which are adjacent to the
proposed project. To promote the. safe and reliable maintenance:and opeJ:'3tion of utility
facilities, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has mandated specific
clearance requirements between utility facilities and surrounding objects or construction
activities. To ensure compliance with these standards, project proponents should
coordinate with POkE early in the development of their project plans. Any proposed
development plans should provide for unrestricted utility access and prevent easement
encroachments that might impair the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of
PG&E's facilities
B2.1
Developers will be responsible for the costs associated with the relocation of existing
PG&E facilities to accommodate their proposed development. Because facilities
relocation's require long lead times and are not always feasible, developers should be
encouraged to consult with PG&E as .early in their planning stages as possible.
Relocations ofPG&E's electric transmission and substation facilities (50:000 volts and
above) could also require formal approval from the California Public Utilities
Commission. If required, this approval pll~ceSS could take up to two years to. cpmplete.
Prop~nents with ~evelopment pl~ .~~ch coUld aff~ct.suchel~c..~ssion
facilities should be ref~ to :pG~E f~r additiopal.infonna~on:an4.~ssi$1apce.in .the
development of their project s~h~u1es. . .
We would also like to note that -continued development consistent with your General
Plans will have a cumulative impact on. PG&E's gas and electric systems and may require. B2.2
on-site and off-site additions and improvements to the facilities which supply these
services. Because utility facilities are operated as an integrated system, the presence of an
Oct 20 2005 10:31AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 650-829-6639
existing gas or electric transmission or distribution facility does not necessarily mean the
facility has capacity to connect new loads.
Expansion of distribution and transmission lines and related facilities is a necessary
consequence of growth and development. In addition to adding ~w distribution feeders,
the range of electric system improvements needed to accommodate growth may include
upgrading existing substation and transmission line equipmen4 expanding existing
substations to their ultimate buildout capacity, and building new substations and
interconnecting transmission lines. Comparable upgrades or additions needed to
accommodate additional load on the gas system could include facilities such as regulator
stations, ododzer stations, valve lots, distribution and transmission lines.
We would like to recommend that environmental docJ,JII1ents for pro~sed development
projects include adequate ~aluationof cumulative i.J:npac~ to utility systems, the utility
facilities needed to serVe those developments and any potential environmental issues
associated with exumding utility service to the propo~ project This will assure the
project's compliance with CEQA and reduce potential delays to the project schedule.
We also encourage the City -to include information about the issue of electric and
magnetic fields (EMF) in the Environmental Impact Report. It is PG&E's policy to share
information and educate people about the issue of EMF.
Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) exist wherever there is elec:tricity--in appliances,
homes, schools and offices, and in power lines. There is no scientific consensus on the
actual health effects of EMF exposure, but it is an issue of public concern. If you have
questions about EMF, please call your local PG&E office. A package of infonnation
which includes materials from the California Department of Health Services and other
groups will be sent to you upon your request.
PG&E remains committed to working with the City to provide timely, reliable and cost
effective gas and electric service to South San Francisco. Please contact CrystaJe, Service
Planning Supervisor, at 650.598.7279 if you have any questions regarding our comments.
We would also appreciate being copied on future correspondence regarding-this subject as
this project develops.
The California Constitution vests in the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
exclusive power and sole authority with respect to the regulation of privately owned or
investor owned public utilities such as PG&E. This exclusive power extends to all
aspects of the location, design, construction, maintenance and operation of public utility
facilities. Nevertheless, the CPUC has provisions for regulated utilities to work closely
with local governments and give due consideration to their concerns. PO&E must
balance our commitment to provide due consideration to local concerns wi1h our
obligation to provide the public with a safe, reliable, cost-effective energy supply in
compliance with the rules and tariffs of the CPUC.
p.9
B2.3
B2.4
B2.5
Oct 20 2005 lO:31AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING nIVI 650-829-8839
p.l0
Should you have any questions please call me at 408.282.7106.
Sincerely,
~ J. ?'&
Thomas J. Zlatunich
Land Agent
cc: Crystale
It I
Response to
Comment B2.1
Response to
Comment B2.2
Response to
Comment B2.3
Response to
CommentB2.4
Response to
Comment B2.5
2. Comment Letters and fusponses
RESPONSE TO LETTER B2: PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
Comment noted. The Project applicant would coordinate with PG&E in the installation
of applicable utilities and facilities to serve the Project.
Comment noted. The Project applicant would coordinate with PG&E to determine if
the expansion of existing gas or electric lines and related facilities to serve the Project is
necessary.
Significant impacts to gas and electric facilities were not identified in the Notice of
Preparation/Initial Study (included in Appendix A of the DSEIR), therefore, gas and
electric facilities are not evaluated in the DSEIR.
Comment noted, no response necessary.
Comment noted, no response necessary.
Terrabqy Phase JJJ Final S IIjJplemental Environmental Impact Report
2-24
Oct 25 2005 7:06AM
CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI
650-825-6635 p.~
IBTIER"
AIRPORT
San Francisco International Airport
October 14,2005
p. O. 1101< 8097
San Francisco,CA 94128
lei 65G,S2tSOOO
Fax650.821.S005
www.t1ysfo.com
Ms. Allison Knapp
Terrabay Project Planner
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
RECE'VED
OCT , It Z005
PLANNING
COMIIIUSION Subject: Comments on Terrabay Phase III - Draft Supplemental EIR (EIR04-
CITY AND COUNTY 0002)
Of SAN FRANCI5CO
GAVIN NEWSOlll
MAYOR
lA.IIIY M.loZZOLA
PillS/DINT
MICHAel S. 5TRUNSKY
\fICE PillS/OINT
LINDA 5. CRAYTON
CARYllTO
ElfANOR JOHNS
JOH" l. NARTI"
AJIIPORTOlllEcrO/l
Dear Ms. Knapp:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Terrabay Phase m Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR). As noted in the Airport's
comment letter, dated June 7, 2005, responding to the Notice of Preparation for this
project, San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is concerned with potential
aviation related noise impacts ~~ proposed future residents of this phase of the
Terrabay project. Mter reviewing the DSEIR, SFO remains concerned that the issues
are still not adequately addressed in the document.
The development of 336 new residential units in close proximity to High way 101 and
within two miles of SPa will locate new residents in an area that the DSEIR
indicates will have noise impacts. The DSEIR noise analysis indicates that sources
from ain::raft noise create less than significant impacts. However, according to noise
complaint records kept by the Airport's Noise Abatement Office, the new residents
of the Terrabay neighborhoods represent some of the most vocal South San Francisco
noise complainants, including resident complaints about sleep disturbance caused by
multiple latc night and early moming transpacific wide-body aircraft. The proposed
project location is subject to flights using the Shoreline charted visual departure
procedure and overflown on a daily basis, at altitudes ranging from 1,000 to 2,500
MSL using climb power settings while executing a right turn over the East of 101
area of South San Francisco. The climb power settings result in an increased noise
signature for the departing ain::raft. The DSEIR should more fully analyze and
disclose the noise impacts arising from the development's proximity to the Airport.
B3.1
On page 3.3-5, the last sentence on that page states, "However, Staff did note that
under certain wind conditions, there are some aircraft that might fly directly over the
sIte when using the Shoreline departure route." In fact, depending on weather
conditions, the Shoreline from Runway 28 and PORTE procedures from Runway 1
comprise approximately 26 to 28 percent of total SPO departures. In addition,
B3.2
Oct 25 2005 7:06AM
CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 650-829-6639
p.3
Ms. Allison Knapp
October 14, 2005
Page 2
aircraft using the Skyline departure route originating from Oakland International
Airport also directly overtly the proposed project site.
DSEIR Impact 3.3.3 and Mitigation Measure 3.3.3 indicate that Project residential
development would be exposed to noise levels that exceed City of South San
Francisco N oisc Element, and recommend that" acoustical Studies be prepared to
ensure compliance to State and City noise standards. The impact and mitigation
discussion does not note wheiher this. mitigation measure was adopted for the earlier B3.3
Terrabay Phases that have been built, and what acoustiCal measures were
implemented in the design and construction of those residential units. An analysis of
those earlier acoustical improvements should be considered in the next acoustical
study, taking into consideration the closer proximity to Highway 101, and the
historical noise complaint and overflight information from the Airport's Noise
Abatement Office.
The DSEIR should also require a mitigation measure for real estate disclosure. The
City of South San Francisco is a signatory to the 1992 Memorandum of Agreement
between the Airport and neighboring cities who have received Noise Insulation
FWlds. To date, South San Francisco has received approximately $55 Million in
noise insulation grant funds. In return, signatory cities of this MOU, including South
San Francisco, agreed to support and promote actions to protect new purchasers of
homes near the Airport, including adoption of an ordinance requiring that any realtor B3.4
or person offering a home for sale to advise prospective purchaser of (a) the distance
of the home from the outer perimeter of the Airport, and (b) the nature and scale of
activity of the Airport. Therefore, DSEIR Impact 3.3.2 should be changed from "the
City could consider adding a requirement... "to tithe City ...shall... add a
requirement that disclosure documents be provided during sale of the units and that
a disclosure statement be included in residential deeds. The disclosure would
identify the proximity of San Francisco International Airport and the presence of
aircraft flyovers. " This mitigation measure would be consistent with the 1992 MOD,
and should be added as Mitigation Measure 3.3.2.
If you bave any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to call Nixon
Lam, Senior Environmental Planner, at (650) 821-5347. Thank you.
V(trWYfil[
lohn ~
Airport Director
c: Andy Richards, FAA ADO
Joe Rodriguez, FAA ADO
Dave Carbone, San Mateo CountyALUC
Rich Newm8I4 ALUC
Response to
Comment B3.1
Response to
Comment B3.2
Response to
Comment B3.3
2. Comment Letters and Responses
RESPONSE TO LETTER B3:
SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
The DSEIR analyzes impacts according to adopted thresholds of significance. For
aircraft noise, the DSEIR uses thresholds promulgated by the City of South San
Francisco and State of California. No significant impacts were identified based on these
thresholds of significance as they are not exceeded at the site.
Mitigation measures, however, are required to address roadway noise since it does
exceed applicable standards at the site. This requirement for roadway noise mitigation
will necessitate use of sound rated windows in many units in order to meet an indoor
noise goal of a CNEL of 45 dBA. Therefore, in addition to reducing roadway noise, the
installation of sound rated windows would further reduce aircraft noise levels (beyond
that required by City or State standards) in many units.
To more fully disclose the effect of aircraft noise on the site the following is added after
the fourth paragraph on page 3.3-4 of the DSEIR:
"According to noise complaint records kept by the Airport's Noise Abatement
office. residents of the existing Terrabay neighborhoods represent some of the most
vocal South San Francisco noise complainants. including resident complaints about
sleep disturbance caused by multiple late night and early morning transpacific wide-
body aircraft. The proposed Project is subject to flights using the shoreline charted
basis. visual departure procedure and is overflown on a daily basis. at altitudes
rangjt\g from 1.000 to 2.500 mean sea level using climb power settings while
executing a right turn over the east of U.S. 101 area of South San Francisco."
Comment noted. Add the following after the last sentence of the last paragraph on
page 3.3-5 of the DSEIR:
"D~ending on weather conditions. the Shoreline departure procedures from
Runwa,y 28 and PORTE procedures from Runway 1 comprise approximately 26 to
28 percent of total SFO departures. Also. aircraft using the Sqline departure route
originating from Oakland International Airport (OAKj directly overfly the
proposed Project site. However. the CNEL 65 contour from OAK does not extend
to the Project site."
Comment noted. The City required the preparation of design level acoustical studies for
Terrabay Phases I and II. The recommendations of the studies were incorporated into
the project design as part of the building permit process.
Termbqy Phase III Final SlijJp/ementa/ Environmental Impact Report
2-27
2. Comment Letters and Responses
Change the third paragraph under Impact 3.3.3 on page 3.3-8 of the DSEIR as follows:
"Much of the proposed residential development would be located behind the
proposed commercial development and the noise level would be reduced due to the
acoustical shielding provided by the intervening buildings (15 to 20 dBA). This
shielding would reduce the future noise exposure at the market rate townhomes and.
the below market rate units to a CNEL of e;. 2Q dBA to 70 dBA depending on the
location of intervening building attenuation; According to the city's Noise Element
this land use would be considered noise impacted since it is exposed to a CNEL
greater than 65 dBA."
Change Mitigation Measure 3.3.3 on page 3.3-9 of the DSEIR as follows:
"Acousdcal studies sbaD be prepared to ensure Project is incompliance with
State and City of South San Francisco noise standards.
The State of California Noise Insulation Standards requite that new multi-family
residential projects exposed to an CNEL greater than 60 dBA have an acoustical
study prepared which identifies what measures will be employed to meet an interior
CNEL of 45 dBA or less. As with Phases I and II. for Phase III. the City requires
the study to be incorporated into Project desigp prior to issuance of a building
permit In its General Plan Noise Element (implementing policy 9-1-4), the City of
South San Francisco extends this indoor requirement to all new homes, schools,
hospitals and churches. Typically, the requited measures include sound-rated
windows, exterior doors and special exterior wall construction. The acoustical
studies sftetHEl will be prepared during the architectural design of the Project ~
requited by the City.
In addition to interior noise, the acoustical studies shall also address noise in
outdoor use areas. The goal should be to reduce traffic noise levels to a CNEL of
65 dBA or less in outdoor use areas as per Noise Element policy 9-1-6 without the
use of visible sound walls where practical and where site conditions permit.
Acoustical studies shall also be prepared for the new commercial developments.
The interior noise level standard ~ shall be developed as part of the study and
be based on the noise sensitivity of the particular commercial use. Completion of
the requited acoustical studies and the incorporation of the requited noise reduction
measures will reduce the impact for the residential and commercial development to
a less than significant level.
Terrabqy Phase III Final SlIjJpkmental Environmental Impatt Report
2-28
Response to
Comment B3.4
2. Commtnl utters and Responses
Comment noted. The Terrabay development Phases I and II include Conditions,
Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) includes an airport disclosure statement. The same
disclosure would be required in the Phase III CC&Rs.
Change the paragraph under Impact 3.3.2 on page 3.3-8 of the DSEIR as follows:
''The Project site is not within the 65 dBA CNEL noise impact area nor is it
within the Airport Influence Area as identified by the County ALUC.
However, in certain situations, depending on aircraft type, aircraft weight and
wind conditions, some aircraft may fly direcdy over the site. Therefore, the City
Eettia ESRsiae:r aaaiftg a re~effieRt tftat 8iselssMe aSe1iffiERts BE I'roviaEa
~g sale sf tftE aaits liRa tftat a 8iselostlfe stat:emeRt Be iaelaeea ia resieeRtisl
deeas. shall require the following language in the Conditions. Covenants and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) for Terrabay Phase III:
Ait;port Disclosure: San Francisco International Ait;port. which is the fifth
largest airport by volume in the United States and the seventh largest by volume
in the world. is located approximately three (3) miles to the southeast of the
Project. The City has required that residences be des\gp.ed to reduce noise and
vibration levels within the residences resulting from airport operations and air
traffic. Dq>ending upon the cost and effectiveness of these des\gp.s. different
methods or des\gp.s which may be more or less effective ma.y be used as
construction of the Project progtesses. The noise and vibration may increase or
decrease depending upon current weather conditions and air traffic patterns.
Some owners may find the noise and vibration to be offensive. Each deed to a
condominium shall include a covenant (acceptable to the City Attorney of the
City of South San FranciscQ) requiring that the gtantee be furnished with a copy
of a disclosure statement (acceptable to the City of South San Francisco) to be
recorded with the deed which warns the gtantee of the noise and vibration
impacts associated with airport operations. The covenant shall also require the
disclosure statement to be signed (signature to be acknowledged by a notat;y
public) by purchaser of a condominium before or concurrendy with close of
escrow for the sale of the condominium. In addition. California Civil Code
Section 1353(a) requires that the following disclosure be made in this
declaration:
Notice of Ait;port in Vicinity: TIlls property is presendy located in the
vicinity of an airport. within what is known as an airport irifluence area. For
that reason. the property may be suhject to some of the annoyances or
inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for
example: noise. vibration. odors). Individual sensitivities to those
annoyances can vat;y from person to person. You may wish to consider
what air,port annoyances. if any. are associated with the property before you
complete your purchase and determine whether they are accq>table to you.
The disclosure would identify the proximity of San Francisco International
Airport and the presence of aircraft flyovers. The language is the same language
that is in the Terrabay Phase I and II CC&Rs."
Temzbqy Phase III Final S upplementa/ Enviro/lfflenta/ Impact Report
2-29
Oct 20 2005 10:32AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 650-829-6639
p.12
"-
. 'CCAG .'-
CrrY/COUNIY AsSOCIA nON OF GoVBRNMENT$.
. OF SAN MAno.CoUNTY
. LEITER B4 .
.4t1wnor1o B.o,., . ~ . ~ . c.~Q . DtIly.OI} . &I. pllltJ .41~ . FfNItfr a.,. · H6IfUaon Bqy 0 HU,.""". I"';" iwk · Mia",.
PtIqflctl ~1'orttJI. y.oq. ~ ae.O&.Jlnao os. c.rr.. .s.nMtIIfto ",!-MIIIID ~ .$oudi Sa J'NmdM>> . W~
October 14,2005
IL\ND DELIVE~D
~s. Allison.Knapp .
Terrabay Project Planner .
City of South San FranciscO Planning Division
p.,O:aox 711 .
South ~an Francisc~), CA 94083 .
-.\.;. .
Dear Ms. Knapp:
. .
RE: Comin~nts on Terrabay Phase DI ,... Draft Supplemental EIR (DSEIR) (EIR04-0~)
. -. "'
. Aireraft On sed to aircraft
overflight fro n e Shoreline
. .Departw'e ro . mO' ~ on the SkY arture roule. The
Airpol1/Communi~ RoUndtable, ofwbich the City of So~ San Francisco is a foUnding and
cUlTent.m.ember, worked long and hard with the FAA and the Airport to establish this route as
a noise abatement cle))arture. procedure to provide some aircraft noise relief for thousands of B4.1
residents living WIder 1he Gap nepartUre, a route that atl'ects PQrUons of San Bruno, South .
San Francisco, Daly City, 8nd Pacifa; 1he Shoreline Departure route was established to fly
over non':'~sidentia1 mas. When this -route was created, thCre was no residential development,
existing or ~po8ed, 'in. the vic~ity .of San Bruno Mountain in South San.Francisco. The text
in the DSEIR should be reviSed to. more J~lly aDalyie and. disclose the noise impacts fivm this
overflight activjty and identify appropriate and suffi~ient mitigation actions. .
· A~ustieal St1l~ylI.terior N oi~ Level ~ The .tCXt of the DSEIR'should clearly state, as a
mitigation measure, that an acoustic study shall be conducted to identify aircraft noise levels.
and specify the appropria~ level ~f acoUstic 1reat,ment to be included in the .construction of .
the.residentiallDlits to ~cbieve an interior noise level of not more than 4s dB CNEL. based on B4.2
aircraft noise events. . This standard is consistent with .the State of California. City of South
San Francisco, and the Airport Land Use Commission (CCAG) interior noise level standards .
for residential development, based on aircraft noise events..' . ,
Airport Land Use COitIHtittee..
ss.s CoUNTYCBNTER, 5l1lFi.ooR. REOWOODCrrv, CA. 94063 0 6SOIS99-14()6,. ~S94-9980
(F,RMOO341 W.DOC) ..
Oct 20 2005 10:32AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 650-829-6639
p.13
Letter to Allison Knapp, Terrabay Projed Planner, City of South San Francisco PlaDaing
DivlsioD, Re: Comments of Terrabay Phase m - Draft Supplemental EIR (EIR04-0002)
Odober 14,2005
Page 2 of2
· Real Estate Disclosure - Based on the close proximity of the project site to the Airport and
the exposure of the site to frequent aircraft overflights and related noise impacts, as described
above, it is only common sense to reQuire .sufficient-and appropriate disclosure of the
proximity of the Airport and the prcsenc~ of the frequent aircraft flyovers and related noise
impacts, as part of the real estate transaction process. History has shown us in this county and
across the country that there can never be enough disclosure when it comes to real estate
transactions near airports.
The comments above are intended to reinforCe the comments submitted by Mr. Martin. .Thc.CCAG
Airport Land Use Committee (ALVe) would have submitted similar comments, Juld the project been
located within the formal project review boundary for San Francisco International Airport.
B4.3
If you have any questions, please contact Dave Carbone, ALUC staff, at 650/363-4417.
S~(~r
Richard Newman, Chair
CCAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC)
cc: CCAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUe) Members
Richard Napier, CCAG Executive Director
10lm Martin, Airport Director,.San Francisco International Airport
Ivar Satero, Nixon Lam, SFO Planning
Mike McCarron, SFO Bureau of Community Affairs
Andy Richards. Manager, FAA ADO, Burlingame
Joe Rodriguez, FAA ADO, BW'lingame
mCWlll&JlCOltlIettemIbayphase3cllCir.doc:
2. Comment Letters and Respon.reI
RESPONSE TO LETTER B4:
CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF
SAN MATEO COUNTY (CCAG)
Response to See Response to Comments B3.1 and B3.2.
Comment B4.1
Response to See Response to Comment B3.3.
Comment B4.2
Response to See Response to Comment B3.4.
Comment B4.3
T errabt!J Phase III Fi11al S II/Jpkmental Environmental Impact Report
2-32
Oct 20 2005 10:31AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 650-829-6639
p.2
LElTER BS
l.)1 _S.l.t.
/.4. i- _ ',;,
"-., ;.'"
,;... L ....,-- -.'y
~. ~ ~;;-<-~ .-<1 -' j
::>'. -t):~ J,,".'
'....' - ..' C,]
: \:/\.,~:~,:, .
L_ _._~__
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MARK CHURCH
RICHMO S. GORDON
JERRY HILL
ROSE JACOBS GIBSON
ADRIENNE llSSIER
NEIL R. CULLEN
DIRECTOR
Department of Public Works
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
555 COUNTY CENTER. S"'FLOOR. REDWOOD CITY. CALlFORNlA94083-111115. PHONE (650) 383-4100. FA)( (650) 361-8220
September 28, 2005
Ms. Allison Knapp
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
315 Maple Avenue
City Hall Annex
South San Francisco, CA 94083
IfECE'VED
OCT 0 3 ZOOS
PLANNING
Dear Ms. Knapp:
Subject:
Notice of Avallability of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report - Terrabay Phase ill, South San Francisco
Thank you for providing us with the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
for the subject project. The San Mateo County Department of Public Works, in its
capacity as the Administrator of the San Mateo County Flood Control District (District),
has reviewed the document. We have also obtained drainage system maps from the City
of South San Francisco showing the storm water facility in Bayshore Boulevard. The
maps show that drainage facilities tying into the Bayshore Boulevard system will direct
storm runoff to an area outside of the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone. Therefore, the
District will not be commenting further on this project.
BS.l
Please note that correspondence for future projects whereby the City of South San
Francisco is requesting comments from the San Mateo County Flood Control District
(District) should be addressed to:
Ann Stillman
County of San Mateo
Department of Public Works
. 555 County Center, 5th Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
Oct 20 2005 10:31AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 6~U-~2~-aa~~
p.;;,
Ms. Allison Knapp, City of South San Francisco, Planning Division
Subject: Notlee of Availability of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report - Terrabay Phase m, Soutll San Francisco
September 28, 2005
Page 2
If you have any questions, please contact Mark Chow at (650) 599-1489, or myself at
(650) 599-1417.
Very truly yours,
Ann M. Stillman, P .E.
Principal Civil Engineer
Utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection
AMS:MC:mmy
P:\USERS\ADMlN\tJti1ity\Colma Cnek FCD\IuppIm.Bnvil'OlmllllllBl~ICtRpt\2005\TenabayPl.se3-DSElR.Roview.doc
G:\USERS\UTIUTY'lCoIma Creek fCD\WORD\1leview ExIanaI Projec:L\200S,Tcmbay Phue 3 . DSEJR. Rcview.doc
File No: F-149 (9H)
co: Mark Chow, P .E., Senior Civil Engineer, 'Utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection
2. Comment Letters and fusponses
RESPONSE TO LETTER B5: COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
Response to Commented noted, no response necessary.
Comment B5.1
T errubqy Phase IJJ Final S IIfJPlemental Environmental Impa.f Rcporl
2-35
Oct 20 2005 10:31AM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI
10/13/2B85 e&:B4 8314&41184 LOIS ROBIN
650-829-6639
p.?
PAGE 01
LETTER Cl
Lois Robin
4701 NovaDr.
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
Attention: AlJison, Plannng Department
Re~ EIR for Terra Bay
r was among the many people who. urged that the shell mounds on San
Bruno Mountain be retained as a park OT preserve. This h89 been done. 1 am
grateful. The karma on the Mountain is still good.
I cringe at the thought of the development of a mall adjacent to this
protected property, distracting from the importance of tb.e. site and leading to
an erosion of respect for this bistorical and Itonored place.
The world is too full of malls. They bave ceased 10 bring nurtur8[)(:e and
value to our midst. They bring about a sameness nom one end of America to Cl.t
the other.
Located by the Bay, and adjacent to 8 protected Native American site, tbe
land has a special prominence and value beyond the short range commercial.
With a garden or even a musewn or arboretum-cr any nwnber of other
cultural or natUral possibilities-the site under consideration could add to
the life and culture ofdte community.
The historical site-sight needs enhan~eot from the sitcs-sights
sUtrounding it The uses under consideration do not accomplish that
Yours truly,
~~~Jf~
Lois Robin
Response to
Comment Ct.l
2. Comment Letters and R8sponses
RESPONSE TO LETTER Cl: LOIS ROBIN
Commented noted. The Project includes a buffer zone that would separate the
residential, retail and office buildings from the 25.6-acre Preservation Parcel. The buffer
zone would be restricted to access driveways and landscaping. Figure 2.1-1 has been
corrected to include the buffer zone in the area designated as Project Site.
TefTrlbtfy Phase III Final S IIjJpkmental Environmental Impact Report
2-37
LEITER C2
"
~
LOU BANlL4N
1 Mandalay Place #701
So.San Francisco, CA 94080
415-730-7242
RECEIVED
OCT 2 02185
PLANNING
October 12. 200S
City H.O An"ex
315 Maple Ave
South San Francisco
AttII: AI.tI" lIItllJ1P
--"'-- -. ._- -. ... -- -..---'--.. ---.. ~.~
Dear MI, KMpp:
I would lib to express my excitement and enthu8lasm in the projected developments for
Mondolay Te11'ace. I am a homeowner Q/ TM Peninsula MandtJIay mu:l I welcome the
planJ to develop'and expand (JUt' conummity.
It is my hope thot ner,t)"e will see the beneJlts tltls new dewlopmem will ooer to "ot
only oW' community #nit the S1I17'OII1'Idlng commrmitie8 as welL In Q quickly chmrgi"g
eco1J01fly it is comforting to brow thLr development will create many new Job openillgl. it C
wUl provide mo,e OWIilable howing tmd existing retail businesses will ]1I"Ci8per from th, 2.1
public inte,est this dnelopmerrl wtU generate. A'9' which way)'Ou look at It - the
approval 01Id expansion of Mandtzlay Terraee is Q positive one.
Q'the,e is anything 1 can do to aulstyou in a "faster" city approwd. please do not
hesr'tate to call me. 1 am conjldent a project approval II forthcoming. Hopefidly. It will
be S~r t er so that an ~ tlIfItIlIIII DflilM tIIId IIItIrIn Is ,,<< wat_
.....">-. :.~~:.,. :~-;~";'::-'-':"'f'--?1"".:.... . -.....
~. .
l..d
SE99-6Z8-0S9 I^Ia 9WIWW~'d ~ss ~o AII~ W~lZ:6 sooz lZ ~oo
Response to
Comment C2.1
2. Comment utters and &sponses
RESPONSE TO LETTER C2: LOU HANHAN
Comment noted, no response necessary.
TerrabtrJ Phase IJJ Final SlIjJplemental Environmental Impad &port
2-39
LEITER C3
San Bruno Mountain Wate" . PO Box 53 . Brisbane, CA 9400.5
.anhrunoemountamwatcb.ollt . www.mountainwawb.ortt
. teL I lax. 415-461-6631
17 October 2005
Allison Knapp Wollam
City of South San Francisco
Planning Departm.ent
315 Maple Avenue
City Hall Annex
South San Francisco, CA 94-083
RECEIVED
Ocr 2"_
PlANNING
Dear Ms. Knapp Wollam,
Please accept this brief comment in consideration ~f the DSEI R for Terrabay Phase 3.
It Is perhaps more applicable to the coming discussion over ((BeRs for the project, but it
a.lso refers to an important mitigation.
Prntncol.. for Pbmtlng. WflIMing. and MAintpnancp -- A major lesson of almost every
wildland/buffer/firescape planting and weed control project on the Mountain has been
that failure is very likely when suitable installation protocols are not specified (i.e. planting
methods, timing, plant choice), and especially when maintenance is not planned for at
le.a..s1: ten years' duration. Whichever.entity is responsible for maintaining the plantlngs in
the interface betw~en develo.pment and open. space and for controlling invasive species
should have an ongoing responSibill~ to meet or exceed tt1~.level of performance Myers
h~s met on the .Preservation. Parcef. <C&RS or other mechanis":ls Shoul~. have effective
enforcement provisions. Our goal will be to enlist locar residents in all phases of Terrabay
in an ongoing education and site stewardship program; hopefully there will be no need for
such rules and enforcement.
C3.1
-l
Mitigation measure 3.4.5 (p.S-12), regarding the need for a fire protection buffer,
states that a 2.5 foot swath is to be kept free of "hazardous fire growth." We suggest that a
regular mowing regimen (perhaps twice a year), timed in accordance with the flight
seasons of the rare species, should satisfy the mitigation goal. and we strongly urge that
the area not be broadly treated with herbicides to eliminate vegetation altogether.
C3.2
Thank you,
Q\.O~
. "hilip Batchelder
zod
se99-BZB-OS9 I^IO 9~I~~Y'd ~ss ~o A1IJ
WYOZ:6 sooz lZ ~QO
Response to
Comment C3.1
Response to
Comment C3.2
2. Comment Letters tJ1Jd fusponses
RESPONSE TO LETTER C3:
SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN WATCH
Comment noted. The CC&Rs for Phase III shall include the same language with respect
to the fire buffer and Habitat Conservation Plan requirements as for Phases I and II. In
particular, weed whacking (mowing) is required at a minimum at the start of the fire
season for weed and exotics control. The maintenance program also requires the
selective use of herbicide treatment on individual invasive plants. Broad application of
herbicides is not permitted. Additionally, there is an approved exotics control plan for
the leftover pockets of undeveloped and open space lands on the Project site that
prescribes the same treatment.
See Response to Comment C3.2.
Terrabqy Phase ill Final Supplemental Envif'O/U1lental Impact Report
2-41
Uc't. ~u ~uu:;) .lu:;.:,~"n lo.lIT Ul"" ;);)1"" rL.nnn.Ll1v U.Ly.L
g,....u ,- u~... ..........~
LETIER Dl
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
SSF City Couneil- PJamaiDg Commission
Oetobet- 5, 200S
In the matter of
Lowe"s Home Improvement Ca:Iter. 600-790 Dubuque Ave
Home Depot. 900 Dubuque Avenue
Termba}' Phase m .
What criteria were used in selecting Lamphier & Gn:gory to do the ElR.?
What distancelmileage will the EJR caver?
Will Sister Cities Blvd, Hillside. Spiuce, Orand Ave and additional streots be included in this
report?
Is noise, light and air pollution included in this report?
When: is the 'unavoidable cumulative' exp~cd traffic and customers expected 10 come :from?
How will city deal with the Grand Ave on/off IampS and Oyster Pt onIaff ramps with this
additional traffic?
How will1:Iaftic fi'om. Bast Grand businesses be affectedladdressed?
How will traffic be addressed with the proposed Meyers Phase m?
Wbat impact would Lowes and/or Home Depot have on our own Grand Ave Hardware or South
Cit). Lumbar'!
What is the expected revenue to the cit}- and what is that time frame .'!
Lowes?
Home Depot
What t}-pe ofa1temative energy is beiDg planned f01" these new businesses?
What is the cost to this city? (EIR. Consults. Staff Time, etc)
r. ... .
D1.1
D1.2
Response to
Comment Dl.l
Response to
Comment Dl.2
2. Comment Letters and fusponses
RESPONSE TO LETTER Dl:
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CITY COUNCIL-PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
The Project's traffic impacts are presented in Chapter 3, Section 3.1 Traffic and
Circulation of the DSEIR.
The Project applicant pays for the costs associated with preparation of the SEIR
including staff and consultant time.
Temzbqy Phase III Final S IIJIPklllental EllvironIIIenta/ Impa.1 Report
2-43
~()Xl:~ S~'~'~<1
c;- ....~,'~. "- l. ~
;;.., ....
f-, .UJ
- .....;.:,..,n;::~o()
U mr~;~~):v~'?"~:"" ~:
<<< "'-,"": "":: .<,,~;;~~
?~~~:'~1y$r
~~.:",;;-;.7
04iI~~R;~~
MINUTES
October 6;. 2005
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION
CALL TO ORDER! PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
-
7:30 D.m.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Sim, Vice
Chairperson Zemke and Chairperson Teglia
ABSENT:
Commissioner Romero
STAFF PRESENT:
Planning Division:
Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner
Steve Carlson, Senior Planner
Allison Knapp, Consultant Planner
Bertha Aguilar, Admin. Asst. II
Peter Spoerl, Assistant City Attorney
Dennis Chuck, Senior Civil Engineer
Brian Niswonger, Assistant Fire Marshall
City Attorney:
Engineering Division:
Fire Prevention:
CHAIR COMMENTS
AGENDA REVIEW
No Changes
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
Sue Kantor and Jack Kantor spoke in regards to 942 Unden Avenue. She noted that they have been trying to get
their application before the Planning Commission for a year. She noted that they were having issues in renting the
building and made minor repairs to the property. She noted that although they had interested renters after the
repairs none wanted to go through Planning due to rezoning. Mr. Kantor noted that the zoning has been changed
several of times and when Peninsula Battery was approved to go into the location they could not because the
driveway was too narrow. He noted that when they finally were able to get a company to go into the building that
was similar to the previous use they were told by the City that the building was deemed abandoned because more
than one year had gone by without a use in there. Mr. Kantor pointed out that they are seeking a one year
extension as explained in the abandonment clause.
Chairperson Teglia noted that there was a non-conforming use and they are seeking a non-conforming use. He
directed staff to look at resolving the issue. He stated that staff would get back to Mr. & Ms. Kantor in one week.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approval of special joint City Council and Planning Commission minutes of
April 20, 2005 and Planning Commission regular meeting minutes of May 19, 2005
Approved
2. BKF - Dan Schaefer! applicant
Gateway Center Lie! owner
601-651 Gateway Blvd.
P05-0109: PMOS-0003
Approved
Tentative Parcel map to resubdivide an existing 14.11 acre parcel into two lots: Parcell - 7.93 acres and Parcel 2
- 6.18 acres, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 19 and the State Map Act.
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2005
3. Appeal of Chief Planner Determination
Gibbs, Adele L/Owner
George Corey I Applicant
344 Victory Ave
P05-0142: AP05-0001
Continued to November 3, 3005
(Continue to November 3, 2006)
Appeal of the Chief Planner's Determination to require a use permit for 344 Victory Avenue in accordance with
SSFMC 20.90.020.
Motion Sim I Second Honan to approve the Consent Calendar with necessary modifications to the minutes of
April 20, 2005. Approved by unanimous voice vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
4. Terrabay Phase III Terraces
Myers Development - Applicant I Owner
San Bruno Mountain
P04-0117:EIR04-0002
No Action Necessary
Public Hearina to allow comments on the Draft Environmental ImDact ReDOrt fEIR04-0002J
Project Description: Construction of a mixed-use development on 21 acres of land at the comer of Sister
Cities Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard in South San Francisco. The proposal indudes 351 residential units in
high-rise (180 units), townhome and loft configuration, a 295,000 sq. ft. office! or 300 room hotel! or an
optional180 unit condominium and 357,500 sq. ft. retail. The 25.61 Preservation Parcel is north of the project site
and was conveyed to San Mateo County on August 11, 2004. The Preservation Parcel is induded in San Bruno
Mountain County Park and is designated as permanent open space. The Preservation Parcel is not a part of the
project.
Public Hearing opened.
Consultant Planner Knapp presented the staff report.
Del Schembari gave the following comments on the EIR:
. Address light pollution and impact on wildlife (ie how lights have affected the wildlife in Yosemite)
. Look at the grading and improve from how it was handled in the Point.
. Revegitate the habitat with native plant species.
. Green material used in development
D2.1
D2.2
D2.3
D2.4
D2.5
Commissioner Prouty asked that the comments by Ms. Kamala Wolf presented at the Study Session is induded
into the comments and Response to Comments for the EIR.
Public Hearing dosed.
Commission comments on the EIR:
. Address light
. Address Impact on community with regards to traffic.
. Explore having controlled bum because it Is necessary for the habitat. Consultant Planner Knapp
noted that a bum got out of hand in Brisbane and plans were made to do another controlled bum.
She noted that CDF then Informed the City that they were no longer in the business of controlled
bums.
D2.61
D2.7
D2.8
Consultant Planner Knapp noted that the public review period ends on October 14, 2005.
c:\t:>OCL<I'I<tl'\.ts &1M SettL""0S\P<ri.cU:l JefftY!:j\Lce&ll settL""0s\ n.....'PoY&lY!:j1 iM:ey...et FLLes\OL~\1.o-06-05 RoPC MLl'\.L<tes,cloc
P&lge :2 of 3
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2005
5. Jon Bergschneider/applicant
Slough BTC, LLC/owner
333 Oyster Point Blvd.
P03-0138: UPM05-0002 & EIR03-0001 (Previously certified)
Approved
Use Permit Modification of the approved development plan to construct a three building, 315,444 sf offlce/R&D
campus by repladng the approved 6-level parking garage with subterranean parking and adjusting the location
of Building Bat 333 Oyster Point Boulevard, in the P-I Planned Industrial Zone District.
Principal Planner Kalkin presented the staff report.
6. Jesus Ontiveros/applicant
Ruth L. Bushman/owner
435 EI Camino Real
P05-0124: DR05-0070 & UP05-0025
Use Permit allowing a drive-thru window addition to an existing restaurant situated at 435 EI Camino Real in
the Retail Commercial Zoning District (C-1), in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.22 and 20.81.
Design Review of an addition to an existing restaurant induding a drive-thru window, revised parking lot and
upgraded landscaping, situated at 435 EI Camino Real, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.85.
ADMINISTRAnVE BUSINESS
ITEMS FROM STAFF
None
ITEMS FROM COMMISSION
None
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
None
ADJOURNMENT
10:00 P.M.
Thomas C. Sparks
Secretary to the Planning Commission
City of South San Francisco
Marc C. Teglia, Chairperson
Planning Commission
City of South San Francisco
TCS/bla
c:\t:>ocL<.....el'\.ts &1M settL""0s\P<ri.cU:lJeffeY!:j\LoC&ll settL""0S\ n.....'PoY&lY!:jIiM:eY...et FLLes\OL~\1.0-0"-05 Rope MLl'\.L<tes.cloc
P&lge 3 of 3
Response to
Comment D2.1
Response to
Comment D2.2
Response to
Comment D2.3
Response to
Comment D2.4
Response to
Comment D2.5
Response to
Comment D2.6
Response to
Comment D2.7
Response to
Comment D2.8
2. Comment Letters and Responses
RESPONSE TO LETTER D2:
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
Wildlife would acclimate to the night lighting generated by retail signage. Additionally,
the Project site includes open space area that separates the developed portion of the
Project from the HCP area.
Project grading and site improvements would be undertaken according to City
standards. Final maps will be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of any
grading permits.
The Project landscape plan would include native plant species and drought tolerant
plants. See also Response to Comment C3.1.
It is unknown if the Project developer intends to use Green Building techniques and
materials in Project construction. The City does not require their use.
See Response to Comments D1.1 and D1.2.
Project lighting is addressed in Chapter 3, Section 3.5 Aesthetics of the DSEIR.
The Project's traffic impacts are presented in Chapter 3, Section 3.1 Traffic and
Circulation of the DSEIR
The City has been working with the California Department of Forestry (CDF), local fire
agencies, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
California Highway Patrol, Mountain Watch and the Trustees for San Bruno Mountain
in efforts to conduct a control bum for species preservation on Terrabay lands. CDF
has indicated a reluctance to conduct control bums largely due to the unfortunate
experience with the Brisbane control bum. In the meantime chemical, mechanical and
grazing activities continue to be used to preserve habitat and reduce fire loads on San
Bruno Mountain.
Terrab'!Y Phase III Final Stpplemental Environmental [ntpact Repotf
2-47
This page intentionally left blank
REVISIONS TO THE
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The following text identifies changes made to the DSEIR, as addressed in Chapter 2 of
this Response to Comments document. The new text is shown with underlining and
deleted text is shown with 3tfil(e61:1t.
Change Impact 3.1.2 on page S-3 and page 3.1-44 Impact 3.1.2 as follows:
&~mpact 3.1.2
Year 2010 Intersection Level of Service Impacts (5)
All but two analyzed intersections would maintain acceptable operation during AM
and PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project. At the Oyster Point
Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/D.S.IOl Northbound On-Ramp intersection,
AM peak. hour operation would improve with a :t25 second decrease in average
vehicle delay, althougb operation would remain LOS F (due to the proposed Project
producing less traffic during this period than the approved 2000 Office Project).
While PM peak hour operation would remain LOS F, the overall volume level
would be increased by less than two percent (1.4% 2 percent) due to the proposed
Project. This would be less than significant. However, during the PM peak hour,
project traffic would degrade operation at the Bayshore Boulevard/Sister
Cities/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection from an acceptable
LOS C to an unacceptable LOS F. This would be a significant impact."
Change Figure 2.1-1 as shown on the following page.
T ~ Phase III Final SlIfJPk",ental Environmental Impact Report
3-1
~ Project Site
B Terrabay
~ Preservation Parcel dedicated to
County of San Mateo/San Bruno Mountain
County and State Park - August 11, 2004
&
o 1000 2000
-
-
Salle In Feet
Source: P1acemakers
+
Fi gure 2.1-1
Project Vidnity Map
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Change the first complete paragraph on page 2-8 as follows:
"A 15-unit residential building on as many as four levels over retail would be
unrestricted and available to be sold or rented at market rates. Fifteen resident
parking spaces would be constructed and four guest valet or shared parking spaces
will be available. The 15 market rate units would be income restricted for low
income households (50 -80 percent of median) should Phase B be constructed with
a second 180-unit residential tower which is evaluated as the Two Residential
Towers alternative."
Change the first paragraph on page 3.1-1 as follows:
"This section presents the analysis of circulation and parking impacts from
development of the Terrabay Phase III Project. It first describes the existing
transportation network in the City of South San Francisco in the immediate area of
the Project, the potential circulation impacts due to the proposed Terrabay
Phase III Project (which includes 357.500 square feet of retail space. 351 dwelling
units. 70.000 square feet of service area and 295.500 square feet of office space as
presented in Table 2.1-1 of the DSEIR) on this network in contrast to the currendy
approved Terrabay Phase III development (2000 Addendum) (which contains
657.500 square feet of office space and 7.500 square feet of retail space as presented
in Table 1.2 of the DSEIR), and measures required to mitigate the proposed
Terrabay Phase III circulation and parking impacts. Where relevant, parts of this
section draw on the 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R&D project Draft and
Final ElRs (]Morehouse Associates and Dowling Associates, September 2004 and
February 2005), the 249 East Grand Administrative Draft EIR Circulation Analysis
(Lamphier-Gregory and Crane Transportation Group, June 2005) and the 1998/99
SEIR traffic analyses. Both the 1998 SEIR and the current Terrabay analysis have
been prepared by the Crane Transportation Group."
Table 3.1-7A is added following Table 3.1-7 on page 3.1-18, as shown on the following
page.
TemJbqy Phase III Final S IIJ1Pkmental E"viro"mental Impact Report
3-3
3. Revisions to the Draft ElR
TABLE 3.1-7A: VEHICLE QUEUING WITHIN OYSTER POINT
INTERCHANGE (95TH PERCENTILE AVERAGE
VEHICLE QUEUE). AM PEAK HOUR
Year 2010 Queues Year 2020 Queues
Existing' (in feet) (in feet)
Storage Queues Base Base Case Base Base case
(in feet) (in feet) ~ + Project ~ + Project
Bayshore/SB 101lhmps
SB left turn }5Q 157 ~ 292 ID
NB through ill 47 2Q 106 196
WB off-ram.p left turn QOO 110 233 254 283
WB off-ram.p left/right 600 110 237 ~ 289
Bayshore / Central Project Access
NB left turn 200 ill 63 ill 1}
NB through .212 27 15- 15 18
SB right turn 3.QQ 15- 19 Q 12
SB through ill ill ill ID 253
Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/ Ail;port
EB left turn 52 81 177 227 265 1:12
SB left turn ~ ill 1QQ 170 206 ill
SB through Q@ 97 46 127 74 180
SB ri,ght turn ill! 24 Q 64 26 ~
WB left turn 80 24 64 76 93 88
WB through 255 41 88 162 78 178
WB right turn 255 NA 1.82 12 149 Q
Oyster Point/Dubuque
EB left turn :zu.m 12.4 169 101 181 11lli
EB through ~ 282 5M 5.Q1 .5.21 612
EB tight turn ~ 21.6. 1Q1 134 ill 119
NB left turn 135 84 437 364 ill 361
NB left/through 255 .82 ~ 2M 478 ,28Q
NB right turn 21Q 306 m ill ill 1M
Dubuque/lot Ramps
Off-ramp left turn 700 169 790 ill 822 644
Off-ram.p left / through 700 168 12Q ill 822 Q11
SB right turn m ~ .5.Q 52 .ll 51
SB through ~ 51 240 ~ 385 W
* All storage and queues are per lane.
SOllfce: Crane Transportation Group
Terrab'!Y Phase III Final S MJ1pkmenta/ Environmental Impact &port
3-4
3. &visions to the Draft EIR
Table 3.1-8A is added following Table 3.1-8 on page 3.1-19:
TABLE 3.t-SA: VEHICLE QUEUING WITHIN OYSTER POINT
INTERCHANGE (95TH PERCENTILE AVERAGE
VEHICLE QUEUE). PM PEAK HOUR
y ear 2010 Queues Year 2020 Queues
Existing (in feet) (in feet)
Storage Queues Base Base Case Base Base Case
(in fee() (jn feet) ~ + project ~ + Project
Bayshore/SB 101 Ramps
SB left turn J5Q 233 ill 463 5Q1
NB through ill 12Q 258 462 121
WB off-ramp left turn QQQ 148 ill 400 Q1Q
WB off-ramp left/right 600 148 ~ 100 691
Bayshore/ Central Project Access
NB left turn 300 ill 132 103 196
NB through ~ 103 12 160 ,2Q
SB right turn 300 1 1 2 Q
SB through ill 277 222 m 94
Bayshore / Sister Cities / Oyster Point/ Airport
EB left turn 5.5 22 18Q 182 2M 473
SB left turn ill 210 156 2illl 142 354
SB through Q@ 164 171 298 318 ~
SB right turn .ill! 174 124 .llQ ,ill 1M
WB left turn 1ill 52 176 95 180 153
WB through 255 205 102 474 no 571
WB right turn 2i2 NA 52 55 15 103
Oyster Point/Dubuque
EB left turn lli.lli .1Y2 330 192 426 382
EB through ill 107 114 71 142 124
EB right turn 255 285 m 59 265 176
NB left turn ill 281 .5.5.Q 541 638 586
NB left/through 255- JQ2 5.8.1 .5Q2 672 624
NB tight turn 210 .5Q 67 60 88 75
Dubuque/l0l Ramps
Off-ramp left turn 100 95 229 ill 11a 432
Off-ramp left/through 100 95 229 ill 118 ill
SB right turn 255- Q2 ill 221 431 395
SB through 255 41 140 ill 228 22Q
* All storage and queues are per lane.
Source: Crane Transportation Group
TemJbf!Y Phase m Final S gpplemental Environmental Impact Repott
3-5
3. &visions to the Drq/i EIR
Change the following on page 3.1-29:
"Year 2010 Base Case Vehicle Queuing"
Add the following text after the second bullet on page 3.1-30:
"Tables 3.t-7A and 3.t-SA show that year 2010 Base Case volumes would be
producing 95th percentile vehicle queues long.er than available storage during the
AM and PM peak hours on the approaches presented below.
AM Peak Hour
. Bqyshore Boulevard/Approved Pro;ect Main Access. The Bayshore Boulevard
northbound approach left turn lane would have a demand three car lengths
longer than available storage.
. Bqyshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
Intersection. The eastbound left turn lane would have a demand three car lengths
longer than available storage.
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The Oyster Point Boulevard
eastbound through lanes would have a demand 11 car lengths longer than
available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a
demand 12 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue
northbound left/through lane would have a demand nine car lengths longer
than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound right turn lanes
would have a demand 23 car lengths longer than available storage.
. Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp/Southbound O_ff-Ramp. The
northbound off-ramp left turn lanes would have a demand four car lengths
longer than available storage
PM Peak Hour
. Btf.vshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a
demand five car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point
Boulevard westbound left turn lanes would have a demand four car lengths
longer than available storage. '
. Oyster Point Boulevard/ Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The Oyster Point Boulevard
eastbound left turn lane would have a demand seven car lengths longer than
available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a
demand 17 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue
northbound left/through lane would have a demand 14 car lengths longer than
available storage."
Terrabqy Phase III FjffIJ/ Supplemental Environntental Impact &Pori
3-6
3. Revisions to the DrdJt EIR
Add the following text after the fourth bullet on page 3.1-34:
"Tables 3.t-7A and 3.t-SA 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 approaches presented below.
AM Peak Hour
. Bq:vshore Boulevard/ AflProved Proiect Main Access. The Bayshore Boulevard
northbound left turn lane would have a demand six car lengths longer than
available storage.
. Bq)'shore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a
demand nine car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point
Boulevard westbound left turn lane would have a demand one car length longer
than available storage.
. Qvster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The Oyster Point Boulevard
eastbound through lanes would have a demand 14 car lengths longer than
available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a
demand 13 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue
northbound left turn lane would have a demand nine car lengths longer than
available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound right turn lanes would
have a demand 21 car lengths longer than available storage.
. Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound O~ff-Ramp/ Southbound On-Ramp Intersection.
The northbound off-ramp left turn lanes would have a demand five car lengths
longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue southbound through lane
would have a demand of five car lengths longer than available storage.
PM Peak Hour
. Bq)'shore Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Hook Ram.t>s/Project North Access
Intersection. The Bayshore Boulevard southbound left turn lane would have a
demand five car lengths longer than available storage.
. Bq)'shore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a
demand seven car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point
Boulevard westbound left turn lane would have a demand four car lengths
longer than available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound through
lanes would have a demand three car lengths longer than available storage.
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The Oyster Point Boulevard
eastbound left turn lane would have a demand 11 car lengths longer than
available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound right turn lane would
have a demand one car length longer than available storage. The Dubuque
Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a demand of 20 car lengths
Term~ Phase III Fifll1l Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
3-7
3. &visions to the Draft EIR
longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left/through
lane would have a demand of 17 car lengths longer than available storage.
. Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound O~ff-Ramp/ Southbound On-Ramp Intersection.
The Dubuque Avenue southbound right turn lanes would have a demand of
seven car lengths longer than available storage."
Change the sixth bullet on page 3.1-35:
. "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)."
Add the following after bullet six on page 3.1-35:
. "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)"
Change the following on page 3.1-46:
"Impact 3.1.511 Year 2010 Vehicle Queuing Impacts - 5(;h Percentile (SU)"
Add the following after the last paragraph under Impact 3.1.5 on page 3.1-46:
~CJmDact 3.1.5b Year 2010 Vehicle Oueuing Impacts - 95th Percentile (SU)"
The proposed Project would result in unacceptable vehicle queuing at several
locations expected to have acceptable Base Case queuing by 2010 In addition.
Project traffic would aggravate vehicle queues at several locations expected to have
unacceptable Base Case queuing.
AM Peak Hour
. Bq,'Yshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would receive a
16% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
PM Peak Hour
. Bqyshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would receive a
133% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
The Barshore Boulevard southbound right turn lane Base Case vehicle queue
would be extended from + 125 feet up to 510 feet (with 310 feet of storage).
Temz~ Phase III Final Stippkmental Environnm,taJ Impact &port
3-8
3. Revisions to the DTrfft ElR
The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound through lanes Base Case vehicle queue
would be extended from + 100 feet up to 475 feet (with 255 feet of storage).
. Qvster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. Dubuque Avenue northbound
left turn and through/left turn lanes would receive a 9.7% increase in traffic
with unacct;ptable Base Case queuing.
Change the following on page 3.1-46:
"Mitigation Measure 3.1.5~"
. Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard
approach to accommodate 13 vehicles (50th percentile queue). At 25 feet per
vehicle, this would equal an additional 325 feet of storage for the 50th percentile
queue. Alternatively, as recommended to provide acceptable level of service,
provide a second eastbound approach left turn lane. Make both lanes at least
150 feet long (to accommodate the 50th percentile queue). The City may 110136 desire
to add asditioftlllleagth to lleeOffiftlOaate the 95th pereefttik qtletle lI:fiS some
... ehicle deeelerlltiOft ifi the tum llUles. The other proposed measure to improve level
of service (striping a second northbound left turn lane) would help decrease
westbound through lane storage demands, but not to the available storage distance
on the freeway overpass. (SU)
Add the following after last bullet under Mitigation Measure 3.1.5:
&Uitigation Measure 3.1.5b
. Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard
approach to accommodate 20 vehicles (95th percentile queue). At 25 feet per
vehicle. this would equal an additional 450 feet of storage for the 95th percentile
queue. Alternatively. as recommended to provide acceptable level of service.
provide a second eastbound approach left turn lane. Make both lanes at least
250 feet long (to accommodate the 95th percentile queue). However. it would
be impossible to lengthen the southbound right turn lane by 200 feet. Also the
other proposed measure to improve level of service (striping a second
northbound left turn lane) would help decrease westbound through lane storage
demands. but not to the available storage distance on the freeway overpass.
.(S!l).
. 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 on the northbound
approach to acceptable lengths. (SU).
Tma/;qy Phase ill Final Stpplemental Environmental Intpact Report
3-9
3. Revisions to the Draft ElR
Add the following after last bullet under Mitigation Measure 3.1.5:
"Mitigation Measure 3.1.5b
. Barshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard
approach to accommodate 20 vehicles (95th percentile queue). At 25 feet per
vehicle. this would equal an additional 450 feet of storage for the 95th percentile
queue. Alternatively. as recommended to provide acceptable level of service.
provide a second eastbound approach left turn lane. Make both lanes at least
250 feet long (to accommodate the 95th percentile queue). However. it would
be impossible to lengthen the southbound right turn lane by 200 feet. Also the
other proposed measure to improve level of service (striping a second
northbound left turn lane) would help decrease westbound through lane storage
demands. but not to the available storage distance on the freeway overpass.
.(SID
. 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 on the northbound
approach to acct:ptable lengths. (SU).
Change the following on page 3.1-49:
"Impact 3.1.91l Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts - 5(;b Percentile (SU)"
Add the following after the last paragraph of Impact 3.1.9 on page 3.1-49:
&&fmpact 3.1.9b Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing ImDacts - 95th Percentile (SU)"
The proposed Project would result in unacceptable vehicle queuing at several
locations expected to have acct:ptable Base Case queuing by 2020. In addition.
Project traffic would aggravate vehicle queues at several locations expected to have
unacceptable Base Case queuing.
AM Peak Hour
. B~shorc Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn land would receive a
9.1 % increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuin,g. Bayshore
Boulevard southbound left turn lane Base Case vehicle queue would be
extended from + 205 feet up to 350 feet (with 325 feet of storage).
PM Peak Hour
. B~shorc Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Hook Ram:ps/Terrab~Access Intersection.
The southbound off-ramp lanes Base Case vehicle queue would be extended
from +400 feet up to 670 to 690 feet (with 600 feet of storage). The Bayshore
Te~ Phase III FifftJ/ S <<ppkmenJal EnvironmenJal Impact Report
3-10
3. Revisions to the Draft ElR
Boulevard northbound through lane Base Case vehicle queue would extend
from + 465 feet up to 500 feet (with 475 feet of storage.)
. Bqyshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
Intersection. The eastbound left turn lane on Sister Cities Boulevard would receive a
105% increase with unacceptable Base Case queuing. The Bayshore Boulevard
southbound left turn lane Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from
+145 feet up to 355 feet (with 325 feet of storage). The Bay-shore Boulevard
southbound right turn lane Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from
+315 up to 765 feet (with 310 feet of storage).The westbound through lanes on
Oyster Point Boulevard would receive a 4.8% increase with unacceptable Base
Case queuing.
. _ Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The northbound
approach left turn and through/left turn lanes on Dubuque Avenue would
receive a 7.6% increase with unacceptable Base Case queuing.
Change the following on page 3.1-50:
&~itigation Measure 3.1.911"
Add the following after last bullet under Mitigation Measure 3.1.9 on page 3.1-50:
&~itiKation Measure 3.1.9b
. Bayshore Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay Access.
Adjust sequel timing to prevent unacceptable queue lengths on the U.S. 101
southbound off-ramps intersection approach and lengthen the south bound
off-ramp lanes by 200 feet. (L TS)
. Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard. Provide two left lanes on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard
approach. Make each lane turn at least 250 feet long to accommodate the 95th
percentile queue. In addition. lengthen the southbound Bayshore Boulevard left
turn lane by 25 feet. However. it would be impossible to lengthen the
southbound Bayshore Boulevard right turn lane from 310 up to 765 feet. Also.
the other proposed measure to improve level of service (a second northbound
left turn lane) would decrease westbound thro~h lane storage demands. but
not to the available storage distance on the freeway overpass. (SU).
. 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
acceptable conditions. (SU)
Terrabf!Y Phase III FifltJ! Stppkmental Environmental Inrpact &pori
3-11
3. &visions to the Dr'!ft EIR
The following is added after the fourth paragraph on page 3.3-4:
"According to noise complaint records kept by the Airport's Noise Abatement
office. residents of the existing Terrabay neighborhoods represent some of the most
vocal South San Francisco noise complainants. including resident complaints about
sleep disturbance caused by multiple late night and early morning transpacific wide-
body aircraft. The proposed Project is subject to flights using the shoreline charted
basis. visual departure procedure and is overflown on a daily basis. at altitudes
ranging from 1.000 to 2.500 mean sea level using climb power settings while
executing a right turn over the east of U.S. 101 area of South San Francisco."
Add the following after the last sentence of the last paragraph on page 3.3-5:
''Depending on weather conditions. the Shoreline departure procedures from
Runway 28 and PORTE procedures from Runway 1 comprise approximately 26 to
28 percent of total SFO departures. Also, aircraft using the Skyline departure route
originating from Oakland International Airport (OAK) directly overfly the
proposed Project site. However. the CNEL 65 contour from OAK does not extend
to the Project site."
Change the third paragraph under Impact 3.3.3 on page 3.3-8 :
"Much of the proposed residential development would be located behind the
proposed commercial development and the noise level would be reduced due to the
acoustical shielding provided by the intervening buildings (15 to 20 dBA). This
shielding would reduce the future noise exposure at the market rate townhomes and
the below market rate units to a CNEL of ~ 50 dBA to 70 dBA depending on the
location of intervening building attenuation. According to the city's Noise Element
this land use would be considered noise impacted since it is exposed to a CNEL
greater than 65 dBA."
Change Mitigation Measure 3.3.3 on page 3.3-9:
&~coustical studies shaD be prepared to ensure Project is in compliance with
State and City of South San Francisco noise standards.
The State of California Noise Insulation Standards require that new multi-family
residential projects exposed to an CNEL greater than 60 dBA have an acoustical
study prepared which identifies what measures will be employed to meet an interior
CNEL of 45 dBA or less. As with Phases I and II. for Phase III. the City requires
the study to be incorporated into Project design prior to issuance of a building
permit. In its General Plan Noise Element (implementing policy 9-1-4), the City of
Terrab'fY Phase III Final StijJp/emenlal E"vironme"taI Impad Report
3-12
3. fuvisions to the Draft ElR
South San Francisco extends this indoor requirement to all new homes, schools,
hospitals and churches. Typically, the required measures include sound-rated
windows, exterior doors and special exterior wall construction. The acoustical
studies ~ will be prepared during the architectural design of the Project ~
required by the Ci~.
In addition to interior noise, the acoustical studies shall also address noise in
outdoor use areas. The goal should be to reduce traffic noise levels to a CNEL of
65 dBA or less in outdoor use areas as per Noise Element policy 9-1-6 without the
use of visible sound walls where practical and where site conditions permit.
Acoustical studies shall also be prepared for the new commercial developments.
The interior noise level s~andard ~ shall be developed as part of the study and
be based on the noise sensitivity of the particular commercial use. Completion of
the required acoustical studies and the incorporation of the required noise reduction
measures will reduce the impact for the residential and commercial development to
a less than significant level."
Change the paragraph under Impact 3.3.2 on page 3.3-8:
"The Project site is not within the 65 dBA CNEL noise impact area nor is it within
the Airport Influence Area as identified by the County ALUC. However, in certain
situations, depending on aircraft type, aircraft weight and wind conditions, some
aircraft may fly directly over the site. Therefore, the City could eoasider adding a
reqt1:ifemeflt that di~dostl:fe doe1:lffieaf3 be pro tided dl:lf.iag sale of the tnits ll1le that
a diselo:mre sffitemeat be iftdudee in rt:sieeatial deees. shall require the following
language in the Conditions. Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for Terrabay
Phase III:
Airport Disclosure: San Francisco International Airport. which is the fifth
largest airport by volume in the United States and the seventh largest by volume
in the world. is located approximately three (3) miles to the southeast of the
Project. The Ci~ has required that residences be desigPed to reduce noise and
vibration levels within the residences resultin,g from airport operations and air
traffic. Depending upon the cost and effectiveness of these designs. different
methods or designs which may be more or less effective may be used as
construction of the Project progresses. The noise and vibration may increase or
decrease depending upon current weather conditions and air traffic patterns.
Some owners may find the noise and vibration to be offensive. Each deed to a
condominium shall include a covenant (acceptable to the Ci~ Attorney of the
City of South San Francisco) requiring that the grantee be furnished with a copy
of a disclosure statement (acceptable to the Ci~ of South San Francisco) to be
recorded with the deed which warns the grantee of the noise and vibration
impacts associated with airport operations. The covenant shall also require the
TemW'!Y Phase III Final S tijJpamen/al Environmental Impact &port
3-13
3. &visions to the Droft EIR
disclosure statement to be signed (signature to be acknowledged by a notary
public) by purchaser of a condominium before or concurrendy with close of
escrow for the sale of the condominium. In addition. California Civil Code
Section 1353(a) requires that the following disclosure be made in this
declaration:
Notice of Airport in Vicinity: lbis property is presendy located in the
vicinity of an airport. within what is known as an airport influence area. For
that reason. the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or
inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for
example: noise. vibration. odors). Individual sensitivities to those
annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider
what airport annoyances. if any. are associated with the property before you
complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you.
The disclosure would identify the proximity of San Francisco International Airport
and the presence of aircraft flyovers. The language is the same language that is in
the Terrabay Phase I and II CC&Rs."
In addition to changes made to the DSEIR as a result of public comments, staff
initiated changes were also made to the DSEIR and are presented below.
Change Mitigation Measures 3.3.2 on page S-10 and 3.3-8:
"No mitigation required. Although no mitigation measure is required. the City will
require an airport disclosure in the CC&Rs for Phase III of Terra bay. The language
will be the same language that is in the Terrabay Phase I and II CC&Rs."
Change last paragraph under Impact 3.4.6 on page 3.3-12:
"The Project applicant would be required to pay the State mandated school impact
fees llPpliellble for prior to issuance of City building permits. With payment of
school impact fees, impacts on schools would be less than significant."
Change Mitigation Measure 3.4.6 on pages S-12 and 3.4-12:
With payment of State mandated school impact fees. no additional mitigation would
be Nefte-required.
T ermb'!Y Phase III Final S KPpk",enlal E"vironmental Impact Report
3-14