HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal EIR Lowe's Project
FINAL
FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
State Clearinghouse Number: 2005-082031
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
LOWE'S PROJECT
PREPARED BY LAMPHIER - GREGORY
JUNE 2006
CONTENTS
Page
17 . PREFACE.................................................................................................................... ........ 1-1
Purpose of the Final Environmental Impact Report..........................................................................................1-1
Organization of the Final EIR ...............................................................................................................................1-2
Scope of the EIR ... ........ ....... ................ ........ ........... ............. ... .................................................................................1-2
Public Review Process .. ........ ............ ... ........ .......... ................. .................. .............. ......................................... ........1- 3
18. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR....................................................................................... 18-1
19. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES......................... .................... .............................................. 19-1
Introd uction ................................................................................................................................ ............................ 19-1
Lis t 0 f Letters............................................................................................................................ .............................. 1 9-2
A. State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research ........................................................19-3
B. San Mateo County Health Department, Groundwater Protection Program ......................................19-7
C. Town of Colma Planning Department ................................................................................................. 19-11
D. City/County Association of Governments, Airport Land Use Committee .................................... 19-15
E. California Department of Transportation, District 4 .......................................................................... 19-19
F. San Mateo County Public Works Department...................................................................................... 19-27
G. Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) .............................................................................. 19-33
17
PREFACE
17.1 PURPOSEOFTHEFINALEIR
This Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provides responses to comments submitted by
government agencies, organizations and individuals on the Draft EIR for the Lowe's Project.
The EIR has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as
amended (commencing with Section 21000 of the California Public Resources Code), and the
CEQA Guidelines. The Lead Agency for the Project, as defined by CEQA, is the City of South
San Francisco.
In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this
Final EIR consists of the responses to comments and revisions of those portions of the Draft
EIR which have been modified in response to comments received during the public review
period on the Draft EIR. This Final EIR includes copies of all written comments received within
the 45-day public review period following publication of the Draft EIR, and provides responses
to those comments. In some cases, the responses have also resulted in revisions to the Draft
EIR, and all such changes are reflected in this document. As required by CEQA, this document
addresses those comments received during the public review period that raise environmental
lssues.
The EIR (which is comprised of the Draft EIR and the Final EIR) is intended to be certified as
a complete and thorough record of the environmental impacts of the proposed Project by the
City of South San Francisco. Certification of the EIR as adequate and complete must take place
prior to any formal City action on the proposed Project itself, and EIR certification does not
equate to approval of the Project.
The EIR is meant to provide an objective, impartial source of information to be used by the lead
and responsible agencies, as well as the public, in their consideration of the Project. The basic
purposes of CEQA are to:
. inform governmental decision makers and the public about the environmental effects of
proposed activities;
. involve the public in the decision making process;
. identify ways that damage to the environment can be avoided or significantly reduced; and
LOWE'S PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 17-1
CHAPTER 17: PREFACE
. prevent environmental damage by requiring changes in the project through the use of
alternatives or mitigation measures.!
The analysis in the EIR concentrates on those aspects of the Project that are likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the environment. The EIR identifies reasonable and feasible
measures to mitigate (i.e., reduce or avoid) these effects. The CEQA Guidelines define
"significant effect on the environment" as "a substantial, or potentially substantial adverse
change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project ...."2 The
determination of significance of potential environmental effects is based, in part, on the
discussion of environmental effects which are normally considered to be significant found in
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
This EIR does not address those environmental factors and effects that have already been
determined to be "less than significant", except as necessary to establish a background for the
Project. The social or economic issues associated with the proposed Project are not evaluated in
the EIR, as these are not considered "environmental" effects. Such an analysis is beyond the
scope of this environmental review document.
17.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL EIR
The Final EIR consists of the following major sections:
. Preface - outlines the objectives of the EIR and important preliminary information,
. Revisions to the Draft EIR - contains revisions to the Draft EIR text,
. Comments and Responses - contains letters of comment on the Draft EIR along with
responses to these comments. In response to some comments, the text of the Draft EIR
has been modified, with changes indicated as described in the previous paragraph.
This EIR has been prepared for the City of South San Francisco (the Lead Agency) by
Lamphier-Gregory. The information in the EIR was compiled from a variety of sources,
including published studies, applicable maps and independent field investigations. Unless
otherwise noted, all background documents are available for inspection at the City of South San
Francisco Planning Department.
17.3 SCOPE OF THE FINAL EIR
An initial evaluation of the proposed Project by City staff indicated that the development of the
project site area as proposed might have several potentially significant environmental impacts
State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and
Guidelines, 1995, Section 15002(a).
2 Ibid, Section 15382.
PAGE 17-2
LOWE'S PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 17: PREFACE
(see Executive Summary Chapter of the Draft EIR). The potentially significant project related
impacts identified relate to those areas that are listed below:
. Air Quality
. Geology and Soils
. Hazardous Materials
. Hydrology
. Land Use
. Noise
. Public Services
. Transportation and Circulation and
. Utilities
Each of these topic areas is addressed in the DEIR in its respective chapter.
17.4 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
The Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR was released on August 5, 2005. It is included in
Appendix A of the Draft EIR, along with responses to comments on the Notice of Preparation.
The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day period. During this time, the public and responsible
agencies and organizations submitted comments on the sufficiency or adequacy of the EIR in
evaluating the environmental effects of the proposed project.
Responses to written comments received on the Draft EIR have been prepared, and are
presented in this document. The Draft EIR, with the responses to comments received on the
Draft EIR during the public review period, comprise the Final EIR. The Final EIR will be
presented to the City Council of the City of South San Francisco for review and certification, in
accordance with Section 15080 of the CEQA Guidelines. However, certification of the EIR
does not constitute approval of the proposed Project. This action only indicates that the record
of potential environmental impacts and the available means of reducing or avoiding these
impacts provided in the EIR is adequate and complete.
Upon certification of the EIR, the City Council will make a separate decision on the approval,
denial or modification of the Project as proposed. Certification of the EIR as adequate and
complete does not imply that the proposed Project has to be approved. In accordance with the
requirements of CEQA, where there remain significant environmental effects that cannot be
reduced to a level of "less than significant", the Project may be approved only where a statement
LOWE'S PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 17-3
CHAPTER 17: PREFACE
of overriding considerations of social, economlC or other benefit can be made and supported
with substantial evidence.3
3 California Public Resources Code Section 21080(e) ".. . substantial evidence includes fact, a reasonable assumption
predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact. Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation,
unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or
economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment."
PAGE 17-4
LOWE'S PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
18
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
In response to comments received on the Draft EIR during the 45-day public review period, the
following revisions in the text of the Draft EIR have been made. Additions are illustrated as
underlined text, while deletions are illustrated as :3trikethrough text:
On DEIR page 3-1, the following text has been revised as follows:
"The Project site is located at 700 Dubuque Avenue in the northwest portion of the East
of 101 area, and is bounded on the west by Dubuque Avenue and Highway 101, on the
north by single story office buildings and services, to the east by Southern Pacific
Railroad Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board OPB) line rights-of-way, and to the
south by office buildings and a large surface parking lot."
On DEIR page 4-6, the following underlined text in Mitigation Measure 4-1 has been added as
follows:
"4. TDM#19 - The Project shall include sidewalks with shade trees that provide safe
and convenient access to the Project, the Caltrain station, and any shuttle or future bus
stops that serve the project (see TDM#1 above)."
On page 6-19, Mitigation Measure 6-3b has been revised as follows to indicate the Groundwater
Protection Division's responsibility for reviewing the Soil and Groundwater Management
Contingency Plan:
Mitigation
Measure 6-3b
Implementation of a Soil and Groundwater Management and
Contingency Plan
The plan shall be in accordance with recommendations of the Environmental
Consultant, and shall be reviewed and approved by the San Mateo County
Environmental Health Department Groundwater Protection Program and
City of South San Francisco Building Department to provide a basis for
handling and disposal of contaminated or hazardous materials encountered
during the site grading and construction process.
LOWE'S PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 18-1
CHAPTER 18: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
On DEIR page 6-21, the following text has been deleted as follows:
5) General sampling and testing plan for excavated soils to determine suitability for reuse or
acceptability for disposal at a state licensed landfill facility. At a minimum analytical
testing shall be performed on a minimum of one composite sample per 500 cubic yards
of soil disturbed, excavated or graded at the site. Testing shall include CAM 17 metals,
asbestos, volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, TPH as
gasoline, TPH as diesel, and TPH as motor oil. Testing results shall be compared to the
RWQCB Environmental Screening Levels for Commercial Sites to determine suitability
to remain on site as engineered fill. Any soils determined to exceed the ESLs shall be
deemed as unsuitable for use as engineered fill. Exceptions may be made for metals
such as arsenic, chromium, cobalt, and others that fall within the normal background
range of metals in soils of the San Francisco Bay area.
On DEIR page 6-21, the following text has been added as follows:
6) Restrictions limiting future excavation or development of the subsurface by owners,
tenants or visitors to the proposed development, and prohibition of groundwater
development. This will include placing a commercial deed restriction on the property if
deemed necessary.
On DEIR page 7-13, the following underlined text has been added as follows:
A storm drain interceptor (also known as an oil/water or oil/grit separator) is a device designed
to remove debris and other contaminants from the drainage stream based on physical
differences between the contaminant and water. Lighter materials such as oils tend to float to
the surface, while denser materials such as sediments tend to sink.1 In general, interceptors are
best suited to removing oils and heavy particulates; they are less effective at removing nutrients
and other dissolved pollutants. Field monitoring suggests that Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
removal rates for various separator models range from 40 to 80 percent.2,3 Site constraints,
including availability of soils of suitable depth, level surface, and stability, can restrict the
effective performance of the interceptor unit. Appropriate sizing of the unit relative to
impervious drainage area is also important.4 It also should be noted that these types of structural
Best Management Practices (BMPs) require periodic cleaning and maintenance.
In the City of South San Francisco. the City is responsible for the maintenance and repair of
storm drain interceptors located in City streets and on City properties: however. storm drain
interceptors placed within private developments are the responsibility of the private property
1 BASMAA, 1999.
2 University of Massachusetts Amherst, 2003.
3 Rinker Materials Corporation, 2005.
4 EPA, 1999.
PAGE 18-2
LOWE'S PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 18: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
owner. In this case. the property owner will be responsible for proper maintenance of the
interceptor located on the Project site.
On DEIR page 7-16, the following text has been added as follows:
The San Mateo County Flood Control District requires that storm waters from developments
that ultimately drain into the District's flood control channel not exceed the existing discharge
rate prior to development. Using the Rational Method as presented in the ABAG Manual of
Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures (1981), Questa Engineering performed
preliminary calculations to analyze the impacts of the proposed Project on peak runoff. Peak
flows for the 10-year design storm were calculated for the Project site at the point of connection
to the southern and northeastern municipal drainpipes. Results are presented in Table 7-2.
On DEIR page 7-17, Impact 7-3 has been revised as follows:
Impact 7-3
Increase in Overall Peak Runoff. The San Mateo County Flood Control
District requires that storm water discharge from the Project site draining
into the Colma Creek flood control channel not exceed existing pre-
development discharge rates. The applicant has not provided a hydraulic
analysis or any other definitive information to determine changes (if any) to
runoff rates into Colma Creek resulting from the proposed Project.
According to preliminary calculations by Questa Engineering, the proposed
Project will increase 10 year peak discharge to the southern municipal storm
sewer drainpipe by approximately 72%. No analysis or definitiT.T
information has been presented to T. eriEr that the existing municipal pipe can
carry the design flo7/s under proposed Project conditions. This is a
potentially significant impact.
On DEIR page 7-17, Mitigation Measures 7-3a and 7-3b have been revised as follows:
Mitigation
Measure 7 -3a
LOWE'S PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
Storm Drain Analysis. The applicant shall conduct a hydraulic analysis of
the proposed storm drain system for the Project site to establish whether the
existing municipal storm sewer drainpipe located near the southem property
boundary has capacity to accommodate the increased flows resulting from
the proposed Project. to determine any changes resulting from the Project to
storm water discharge rates into Colma Creek. The analysis shall include
Rational Method calculations of pre- and post-development 10-year peak
flows and shall take into account drainpipe slope and elevations, drainpipe
size(s), and system head losses within the Project site storm drain system.
The analysis shall also include calculations to establish whether the existing
municipal storm sewer drainpipe located near the southern property
boundary has capacity to accommodate the increased flows into the pipe
resulting from the proposed Project. The Storm Drain Analysis shall be
subject to review and approval by the City of South San Francisco and the
PAGE 18-3
CHAPTER 18: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
Mitigation
Measure 7-3b
San Mateo County Flood Control District. If it is determined that Project
storm water discharge rates exceed existing pre-development rates at the
outlet to Colma Creek, then Mitigation 7 -3b shall be implemented.
Revised Storm Drain Plan. If thc hydraulic analysis dcscribcd in Mitigation
Measurc 7 3a cannot show that thc cxisting southern storm scwer drainpipe
has capacity fDr Projcct flows, The applicant shall submit a Revised Storm
Drain Plan for the Project that includes an on-site storm water detention
system designed to release surface runoff from the site a rate comparable to
the existing discharge rate. The revised plan shall include drawings of the
new proposed system and calculations of the new system capacity. Any
drainage changes shall be reviewed and approved by the City of South San
Francisco and the San Mateo County Flood Control District prior to
tentative map approval.
Prior to thc approval of thc Final Map, changcs to thc Projcct Drainage Plan
shall bc subjcct to thc wvicw and appro-;al by thc City of South San
Francisco Storm 'Watcr Coordinator and thc City Engineer.
New Impact 7-4 has been added to the end of Chapter 7 as follows:
Impact 7-4
Increase in Peak Discharge to the Southern Municipal Drainpipe.
According to preliminary calculations by Questa Engineering, the proposed
Project will increase 10-year peak discharge to the southern municipal storm
drainpipe by approximately 72%. No analysis or definitive information has
been presented to verify that the existing municipal pipe can carry the design
flows under proposed Project conditions. This is a potentially significant
impact.
New Mitigation Measures 7 -4a and 7 -4b have been added to the end of Chapter 7 as follows:
Mitigation
Measure 7-4a
Mitigation
Measure 7 -4b
PAGE 18-4
Storm Drain Analysis. The applicant shall conduct a hydraulic analysis of
the proposed storm drain system as described in Mitigation Measure 7 -3a. If
the analysis determines that the existing municipal pipe cannot contain the
additional flows from the proposed Project, then Mitigation 7 -4b shall be
implemented.
Revised Storm Drain Plan. The applicant shall submit a Revised Storm
Drain Plan for the Project. Methods such as on-site storm water detention
or storm drain line upgrades may be considered. Alternatively, some greater
LOWE'S PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 18: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
portion of site run-off may be routed to the existing northeast municipal
storm drainpipe. The revised plan shall include drawings of the new
proposed system and shall include calculations of the new system capacity.
In accordance with San Mateo Flood Control District requirements, storm
water runoff draining from the new proposed system into the Colma Creek
flood control channel shall not exceed existing flows. Any drainage changes
shall be reviewed and approved by the City of South San Francisco and the
San Mateo County Flood Control District prior to tentative map approval.
On DEIR page 9-7, the following underlined text has been added as follows:
"The City of South San Francisco Noise Element (1999) contains existing and future
(2006) airport noise contours associated with flight operations at San Francisco
International Airport, located south of the site. Although the Project site is subject to
single event noise levels resulting from overflight of commercial aircraft departing on the
Shoreline Departure route from Runways 28 at San Francisco International Airport.
these contours indicate the Project site is located outside the 65-dBA (CNEL) existing
and future airport noise contours. Projected contours for road, railroad, and other
locally-generated noise are also included in the Noise Element. These contours indicate
that the Project site is located in an area where noise levels generated by major road and
railroad noise sources will continue to be between 70 and 75 dBA (CNEL). Based on the
City's land use criteria, the proposed Project's commercial land use would be largely
compatible with future noise level projections in the Project vicinity of less than 65 to 70
dBA (CNEL), thereby representing a less than significant impact."
In response to Comment E-2 from the California Department of Transportation, graphics
showing Project-Only trip distribution volumes for the AM and PM peak hours (Figures 11-16
and 11-17) have been included at the back of this chapter.
LowE's PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 18-5
This page intentionally left blank.
LOWE'S PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 18-6
Oyster Point Blvd , 6
(-5) -+ ~ t ~
61"') 29 18 8
Mil r
Grand Ave
67
J
~ t
24 55
+
~
co
t
o
e-
<i:
33 "')
~/
<{
!1;
j ~
~~*Lowes
_ Project
Site
,-.J
, .. .... ~ Caltrain
~_ ::-...' ~tation
\-6 ~
.- (-10)
9
~
7 -+
~
3
10... Lowes EIR
r
I ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
"'
NOTTOSCALE
A
N
r "'
20 -L5
~ ,2
-
~
5
60 -L56
~ ,7
-
~
Q) 13
:>.
18 ~ -L 17
~ g ,15
:;,-
.Q ~
:;,
a 10
2 -L1
~ ,3
~
2
'- ~
,----------------~
, ,
. I
I ~ I
. 27 <( I
I I ~ I
I t 0- I
I .2 t I
I 8 I
I 30 I
, .
~---------------_#
.J
"'
Figure 11-16
Project Trip Generation
AM Peak Hour
...
.J
CHAPTER 18: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EJR
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 18-8
LOWE'S PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
-L (-6)
+- (-4)
Oyster Point Blvd . 15
~
m
1:::
o
e-
~
J
~ t
62 139
90 3. ~ t ,.
... 74 50 5
(-10) J
62 -.
(~
r =-' * Lowes
_ Project
Site
Mill r
,,-.J
, ~ ':':"', Caltrain
'. .....~' ~tation
\.... 15 ~
.- (-10)
16
~
Grand Ave
22-
,.
9
'-- Lowes EIR
r
I ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
""
NOT TO SCALE
A
N
r "'"
20 -L 20
~ .5
-
,.
5
103 -L111
~ '15
-
,.
Q) 15
:.
50 ~ -L 60
~ g . 37
..Q ,.
::J
a 27
8 -L1O
~ .10
~
q:
Q)
::J
0_
~ t
a
62
~---------------_#
J
"'"
Figure 11-17
Project Trip Generation
PM Peak Hour
....
.J
CHAPTER 18: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 18-10
LOWE'S PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
19
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
19.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter contains comments on the Draft EIR for the Lowe's Project. Letters received
during the 45-day public review period are listed in Section 19.2. Each letter is marked to
identify distinct comments on the Draft EIR. Responses to these comments are provided
following each letter. Throughout the responses to comments, where a specific comment has
been addressed previously, a reference to the response in which the comment is discussed may
be provided in order to reduce repetition.
As noted in the PREP ACE, in several instances responding to a comment received on the
Draft EIR has resulted in a revision to the text of the Draft EIR. In other cases, the information
provided in the responses is deemed adequate in itself, and modification of the Draft EIR text
was not necessary.
Responses presented 10 this document focus only on those comments which bear a direct
relationship to the Draft EIR and raise environmental issues, as required under CEQA. While
other comments that are not directly related to the Draft EIR or do not raise environmental
issues are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers, it is beyond the scope of
the Final EIR to provide responses to Project merits.
The letters received on the Draft EIR are listed below. Each letter has been marked to identify
each specific comment in the right-hand margin (i.e., A-l, B-2, etc.). Following each letter, the
response to each identified comment in that letter is presented sequentially (for example, the
first comment on the Draft EIR identified in LETTER A is identified as A-l in the right-hand
margin of the letter, and the corresponding response immediately following LETTER A is
coded as RESPONSE A-l). In order to avoid repetition, where individual comments focus on
the same issues raised in a previous comment or comments, the response to those comments
may make reference to a previous response or responses.
LOWE'S PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 19-1
CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
19.2 LIST OF LETTERS
The following comment letters were received by the City of South San Francisco during the
Focused EIR's public review period:
A. State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, May 8, 2006.
B. San Mateo County Health Department, Groundwater Protection Division, April 5, 2006.
C. Town of Colma Planning Department, April 7, 2006.
D. City/County Association of Governments, Airport Land Use Committee, May 1, 2006.
E. California Department of Transportation, District 4, May 5, 2006.
F. San Mateo County Public Works Department, May 8, 2006.
G. Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain), May 8, 2006.
PAGE 19-2
LOWE'S PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
f).-:..
. .
.
S TAT E OF C A L I FOR N I A
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
~lltr~
(A~\
.)...~ ~
';f~r1I'm~'~
Amold SchwDrzeneggcr
Governor
Selin Wolsh
Dil'tctor
MOlY 8, 2006
Steve Carlson
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue,
P.O. Box .711
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Letter A
Subject: Lowe's Projecr
SCH#: 2005082031
DeOJ' Steve Car1.9on;
The State Clenringhouse !ubmined the above:: named Draft ElR to selected state agencies for review. On the
enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse bas listed the stlte llgencies thar .
reviewed your docUInOlt. The review period closed on May 5. 2006, and the comments from the
responding ,agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment pnckage is nol in orde1; please notify the Stlte
Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in furore
correspondence so that we may respond promptly.
A-1
Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code sbtc:s that:
"A responsible or other public agency shan only mnke subsmntive COlllIlleI1ts rcg3rding those
activitie::s involved in a project which nre within nn nren of expettise of the agency or which are
required to be carried out or approved by the ngency. Those comments sh3I1 be supponed by
specific docwnentation."
These comments nre fOlWllrded for use in preparing your fmal environmentll document. Should you n~ed
more information or clnrificntion of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the
commenting agency directly.
This lener ncknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for dr.1ft
environmental docwncnts, purSuant to the Californin Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State
Clcaringhouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have Bny questions rcg3fding the environmentJl review process.
Sincerely,
~~:.~. ~
....
~,: .
-', . Terry oberts
Director, State Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, C..<\LIFORNlA 911812.3044
TEL (91G) 446-0613 FAX (916) 325.3018 www.opr.ca.gov
State Clearinghouse Data Base
SCHtI 2005082031
Project Title Lowe's Project
Lead Agency South San Francisco, City of
Type EIR Draft E:IR
Description The proposed project would Involve the demolition of three exi,ting buildings and the construction of a
124,051 square foot Lowe's home Improvement store, a 24,698 square foot Lowe's Garden Center,
and a G55-space surface parking lot.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Steve Carlson
Agency City of South San Francisco
Phone (650) 877-8535
emall
Address
Fax
City
Project Location
County San Mateo
City
RGg;on
CroS5 Streets 600-790 Dubuque Avenu9, north of Gmnd Avenue
Parcel No. 015-021-090
Township Range SGction
315 Maple Avenue
P.O. Box 711
South 5Bn Francisco
Stato CA ZIp 94080
Base
Proximity to;
HIghways
Alrpot1s
RaIlways
Waf$1WiiIYs
Schools
Land Use
Planned Commercial
Project Issues
Air Quality; Cumulative Effects: Drainage/Absorption; Flood Plain/FloodIng; Landuse: Noise;
Population/Housing Balance; Public Services; RecreaUon/Parks; Sewer Capacity; Soli
Erosion/CompactionfGrading; Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous: Traffic/CirculatIon; Water Quality; Water
Supply; Wetland/Riparian
R9l1iow;ng
Agoncies
Resources Agency; Regional Waler Quality Control Board, Region 2; Department of Par1<s and
Recreation; Native American Herilage Commission; Integrated Waste Management Board: Public
Utilities Commission; Department of Health Services; Office of Historic Preservation; Department of
Fish and Game, RegIon 3; Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol; Callrans,
District 4; San Francisco Gay Conservstlon and Oevelopment Commission
Data ReceIved 03122/2006
Staff of Roviow 03/22/2006
End of R&vlew 05/05/2006
Note: Blanks In data fields result from insufficienllnformation provided by lead agency.
CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Letter A: State of California Governor's Office of Planning & Research, May 8, 2006.
Response to Comment A-l: Comment noted. One comment letter from the California
Department of Transportation, District 4 (Letter E) was received on this project.
LOWE'S PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 19-5
CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 19-6
LOWE'S PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
. HEALTH DEPARnlENT
City of South S.an Francisco
Planillng Division
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Lette'.-B.'
~CEIVED
. APR- 0 7.2006
. PLANNING DEPT.
AprilS, 2006
SUBJECT: COMMENTS TO DRAFT FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR LO\VE'S PROJECT, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
CALIFORl'i""lA
Dear City of Soutb San Francisco:
A Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was sent to San Mateo County Health
Department Groundwater Protection Program (OPP) for the Lowe's project at 600-700 Dubuque
Avenue in South San Francisco, California. GPP staff reviewed the EIR after receiving
notification from the City of South San Francisco of the proposed redevelopment of the site in
accordance with the June II, 2001 letter from opp staff for this site.
The completed Soil and Groundwater Management and Contingency Plan (plan) will be
reviewed and commented on by GPP staff under separate cover. The following comments are
based on statements in the EIR regarding the recommended mitigation measures for the Plan.
San Mateo County has its own soil reuse policy which states any soils which may have
chemicals of concern need to be sampled discretely at intervals of one per 20 cubie yards of
impacted soils or some statistically derived interval based on US EP A SW 846. Any detections
above 100 milligrams per kilograms for total petroleum hydrocarbons, any detections above non
detect for other chemicals besides metals, and any detection above background concentrations
for metals require further evaluation ond discussion wi th GPP staff regarding potential health
impacts of reusing the soil on-site.
B-1
GPP staff requiTes aU contaminated.sites. under GPP oversight to be evaluated based on potential
future residential land use unless a comme....cial deed restriction is voluntarily placed upon the
property. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Basin Plan designates all
groundwater in San Mateo County as a potential municipal drinking water source. Please note
these statements when deciding which RWQCB Environmental Screening Level (ESL) to
compare current concentrations to. The ESLs already take into consideration naturally occuning
elevated concenlTations of arsenic and chromium above health based screening levels. Of note,
cobalt was not identified as having naturally occurring concentration above health based
screening levels in the ESLs.
B-2
Once the Plan has been submitted and reviewed, allofGPP staffs time will be calculated to
detennine the applicant's cost associated with GPP staff's oversight of the above referenced site.
After final payment has been made. the Plan approval letter will be sent to you and all other
appropriate entities.
B-3
PUBLIC HEALTII ANI> ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECnON DIVISION
1I08rll 01 !oilll)C'"h'Qr~: Mark (~hurrh . RlL'i1: .Iatllbll t~lhsnn . R.II'hurd H. I:onlon . Jerry lIiII · Alhir.nnr.l'IRskr . lIcAllh I)lrr.rll)fl f;IJartc~ne Silva
4fir. C:nunly Cent!'r. Ht'lil'illluJ 1:1Iy. 1:1\ !HnH.1.1'1I",~I; Hrm,:l6:1.-l30ii · Tnl> {jnl).{i7:~.nOH. P." 6S0.:JII:1.7!102
"lllj:/^,'ww.smhi'l1l1".llr~
Lowe's Project. 600-700 Dubuque Avenue. South San Francisco, CA
April 5, 2006
Page 2
I appreciate your cooperation.
Charles Ice
Hazardous Materials Specialist
Groundwater Protection Program
Please call me at (650) 599-1679 if you have any questions.
/?
/~~
Gregory J. Smlth,P.G.
Program Lead
Groundwater Protection Program
Sincerely,
~&c5U
CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Letter B: San Mateo County Health Department, Groundwater Protection Division,
AprilS, 2006.
Response to Comment B-1: Comment noted. Mitigation Measure 6-3b has been revised as
follows to indicate the Groundwater Protection Division's responsibility for reviewing the Soil
and Groundwater Management Contingency Plan:
Mitigation
Measure 6-3b
Implementation of a Soil and Groundwater Management and
Contingency Plan
The plan shall be in accordance with recommendations of the Environmental
Consultant, and shall be reviewed and approved by the San Mateo County
Environmental Health Department Groundwater Protection Program and
City of South San Francisco Building Department to provide a basis for
handling and disposal of contaminated or hazardous materials encountered
during the site grading and construction process.
Response to Comment B-2: Comment noted. Cobalt has been removed from the proposed
fifth component of the Soil and Groundwater Management Contingency Plan, as shown
indicated in Chapter 18. In addition, the potential inclusion of a commercial deed restriction has
been added to the sixth component of the proposed Soil and Groundwater Management
Contingency Plan, as indicated below and in Chapter 18:
6) Restrictions limiting future excavation or development of the subsurface by owners,
tenants or visitors to the proposed development, and prohibition of groundwater
development. This will include placing a commercial deed restriction on the property if
deemed necessary.
Response to Comment B-3: Comment noted.
LOWE'S PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 19-9
CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 19-10
LOWE'S PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
TOWN OF COlMA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1190 EI Camino Real- Colma, California 94014
Phone: (650) 985-2590. FAX: (650) 985-2578
April 7, 2006
Letter C
RECEIVED
APR 1 2 2006
PLANNING DEPT.
Mr. Steve Carlson, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco Planning Division
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
RE: Proposed Lowe's Development - DEIR
state Clearinghouse No.: 2005-08-2031
Dear Mr. Carlson:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Recirculation Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Lowe's development on Dubuque C-1
Avenue. We do not foresee any negative environmental Impacts to the Town of Calma
as a result of this project.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
~
Kevin Guy, Alep
Senior Planner
CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 19-12
LOWE'S PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Letter C: Town ofColma Planning Department, April 7, 2006
Response to Comment C-l: Comment noted.
LOWE'S PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 19-13
CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 19-14
LOWE'S PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
CCAG
Cl'rY/COUNTYAsSocrATION OF GoVERNMENTS
OF SAN MATEO COUNTY
Athena" . Be/MOil' . Brl.sbime. B~ltngome ~ Colm~ . Doly City . East MoAT/" . Fosler City. Hal/Moon Bay' Hilbbol'Ough. MOllo Park. Millb.:ae
Pacifica. Partala Valley . ReJwood Ci/J 'Sail Bruna. Slut Carlas ~ Son Mateo' SO" MQ/w Coun!!, . $ou/h Son FTTlnci.rco .Woodside
ryIay 1, 2006
Lette r D
RECEIVED
. MAY '0 3 2006
Steve Carlson, Senior Planner
-City of South San f=ranclsco
_ Planning Division
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco. CA 94083
_ P~ANNlNG DEPT.
Dear Steve:
RE: - CCAGAirport Land Use Committee (ALUG) S~aff. Comments on a Draft -
Focused Environmental Impact Report (DFEIR) for a Proposed Lowe's
Home Improvement Warehouse Building, a ~owe's Garden Center, and
Related P~king at7QR-R-ubuque A\l~~.e '-"~? :['~~1}
. ...~ ~ ~~ - _ .~W t~
Project DescriptIon ~ -. ~'f; . - _ -~ If - ~
The proposed proje'~uld involl.e demolitiOJ,f tJ exislln 3,110 square-fool
multi-tenant comm~rc lii_"~ .ornplex i\hrepex~stln~~n-s!bry coner :;.._ . buildings at 600
and 700 DUbuqu~;we!je and th~~o~tructlon ~~ 1 t4,051 squ~-fo.gt Lowe's
Home Improvement \Nlf.ahouse"t}\lU_. a 24,69Bi~uare~foot Lo~;.Garden Center;
and a 655~space surface parking lot. The 12.8 acre site is zoned Planned Commercial
and is located at700 Dubuque Avenue in the East of 101 industrial area of South San
Francisco. -
ALUC Staff Comments
- .
The text on page 9-7 of the DFEIR includes one paragraph about noise impacts
related to airports, rail and roads. - The text correctly notes that the project site is
located outside of the 65 dB CNEL existing and future aircraft noise contours for San
Francisco International Airport. However, no mention is made about single-event
noise levels or potential commercial aircraft overflight of the projectsite. As I have . 0-1
mentioned many times, via comments on other DEIRs for proposed projects in the
East of 101 area of South San_ Francisco, the project site may be .subj~ct to potentially
high single-event noise levels and overflight from commercial aircraft-departing on the
Shoreline Departure route from Runways 28 at San Francisco International Airport.
"
.,!;~
i::~
l r.;
o'."\- ~,;;,...
-iJ
l tRl' (~~ l~t
..
.ff~
W" ~
!7i ~
.,t-itl tl. .,1
-trt. Y ff 1 .
l/ ~5 e- \,J II f'"
N(j}2.-~
;:;" ~-: .IE'
%J ;?" s~.
.;< .. .
J tfllll
ffj, "!i. ," ( :a.; Gf.,t
;..<,;..!' ~r ~:. ~r .:.0":
555 COUNTY CENTER, 5-rn flOOR, REDWOOD CIlY. CA !14063 · 650/599-]406. 650i594-9980
(FRM00341W.DOC)
ALUC Staff Comments on a Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (DFEIR)
for a Proposed lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Building, a Lowe's
Garden Center, and Related Parking at 700 Dubuque Avenue'
May 1, 2006
Page 2 of 2
The DFEIR makes the following conclusion: "Based on the City's land use criteria, the
proposed project's commercial land use would be largely compatible with future noise
level projections in the project vicinity of less than 65 to 70 dBA (CNEL); thereby
representing a less than significant Impact." . Although I agree with the conclusion, it
is not based on the full scope of the noise environment.at the subject site. In the
interest of full disclosure, I would request that the text at the bottom of page 9-7 of the
DFEIR be amended to indicate "the project site may be subject to potentially high 0-2
single-eve'nt noise levels and. overflight fremaircraftdepiuturesatSanFranclsco
International Airport." The text of the conclusion should be revised to recognize the
potential single-event noise and overflight impacts from departing aircraft as
contributors to the existing noise environment. However, since the proposed use is
not a noise-sensitive land use, this additional information will not change the
conclusion but will provide a more complete and accurate discussion of the existing
noise environment on which to base the conclusion. .
If you have any questions, please contact me at 650/363-4417.
Si"27LJ (! ~
David =-. Carbone,ALUC Staff
cc: CCAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) members
Richard Napier, CCAG Executive Director
Nixon Lam, SFO Planning
Sandy Hesnard, Aviation Environmental Planner, Caltrans Division of
Aeronautics
aluCSI"ffcomleelssflowesdfelrmay06.doc
CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Letter D: City/County Association of Governments, Airport Land Use Committee, May
1, 2006.
Response to Comment D-l: This comment correctly points out that those using the project
site could be subject to single-event noise levels resulting from overflight of commercial aircraft
departing on the Shoreline Departure route from Runways 28 at San Francisco International
Airport (SFO). However, as discussed in the City of South San Francisco General Plan, Section
9.2 - Single Event Flyover Noise, "Noise contours are based on average noise levels. Single
event noises such as aircraft flyovers need to occur frequently and at very high volumes in order
to bring average noise levels to 65 dB CNEL." The City of South San Francisco uses the
ALUC's 1995 SFO Land Use Plan to establish this 65 dB CNEL contour as the noise impact
boundary for SFO. According to ALUC standards, commercial and industrial uses would be
acceptable within the 65 dB CNEL FAA-approved contour without any noise insulation
mitigation measures.
Response to Comment D-2: In response to this comment, the text of the last paragraph on
DFEIR page 9-7 has been modified to read as follows:
"The City of South San Francisco Noise Element (1999) contains existing and future
(2006) airport noise contours associated with flight operations at San Francisco
International Airport, located south of the site. Although the Project site is subject to
single event noise levels resulting from overflight of commercial aircraft departing on the
Shoreline Departure route from Runways 28 at San Francisco International Airport,
these contours indicate the Project site is located outside the 65-dBA (CNEL) existing
and future airport noise contours. Projected contours for road, railroad, and other
locally-generated noise are also included in the Noise Element. These contours indicate
that the Project site is located in an area where noise levels generated by major road and
railroad noise sources will continue to be between 70 and 75 dBA (CNEL). Based on the
City's land use criteria, the proposed Project's commercial land use would be largely
compatible with future noise level projections in the Project vicinity of less than 65 to 70
dBA (CNEL), thereby representing a less than significant impact."
LOWE'S PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EJR
PAGE 19-17
CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 19-18
LowE's PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
': By: CALTflANS TflANSPOATATTO PLANNING; 510 2BB 55BOj
~ay-5.06 11:10AMj
Page 1
iTA'I1!OI' Cl\IJIOIIl'/lA-IlII!lINllSS 'llIAN90MTATlDl::l "Nil IKIl.1SI!oIG AnF.St:Y
AJlNt)lI)~Mf\I;AI\~n(;rJl G.wofl!!!!:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT A/tION
IlJ ORAND ^ VENUE
~. O. UOX 23660
OAKLAND. CA. 94623.0660
PHONE (510) 286-550.5
:AX (~JO)'286-:555~
I'TY (BOO) 735-1!n9
-
Fifes y,.", puwtrl
IJ~ m~YI.r r:Jfir.i<lIt!
May 5,2006
Letter E
SMI01414
SM-I01-22.44
SCH#200S082031
Mr. Steve Ca.rhon
City of' South San Francisco
315 Maple A venue
South San Frant;iscu, CA 940BO
Dear Mr. Carlson:
LOW~'S PROJECT - DRAFT ENVlRONMEN1'AI.lMPACT REPORT
ThUllk you for jncluding 1M California Department of Tnmsportalion (Departm~nt) in the
environmental review process for Lowe"s project. The fonawing comments arc. ba5ed on the
Draft Environmental Impact Repon (DEIR).
As lead ugency. the City of Sou'lh SaIl Frundsco is responsible for all project mitigation,
including. any needed improvements lo state highways. The project's fll;r share conlrihution,
fjnancing~ scheduling, implementation Te~ponsjbiJlties lInd lead agency monitoring should be
fully discussed for aU proposed mitigation measuI"Cs. The project's specific truffie mitigation fee
should be identified in bolh the Traffic Impact Study and the DElR.. Any required roadway
improvements should be completed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Since an
encroachment permit is required for work in the Stale Right of Way (ROW). and the Dcp3I'lmen'
will not issue a permit unlU our concerns are adequalely add~ssed, we :llwngly fCcommend &hat
the }cDd agency work with both the applicant and tl\e tJcplUtment to ensure 1hal our concerns are
resolved during the CEQA procel\$. and in any CIlSC prior to submittal of .a permit application.
Further comment!> will be provided during: the encroachment permit precess; liee the end of this
letter for more informalion ~gatding encroachment penuj[S.
E-1
1"rali~1 Demdnd FOff!ClUling
1. The DEIR Ilhould include l! discussion Bnd graphics Iihowing project trip dislliblltion. Project
only turning movement volumcl5i should be shown.
E-2
High way OperaJions
1. Limiting project access 00 two driveways would reduce project.rclatcd congestion impacts to
Dubuque Avenue, the Dubuque Avenue'OrlUld Avenue intersection and to US J01
Southbound Rwnps at Grund A venue.
E-3
"Culml'" rlnp~~u ",lIlIilily dcnUI C:dJjforllla"
ant By: CAlTRANS TAANSPORTATIO PLANNINGj 510 286 5560j
M.. SICY1: C:ubllD
MIY }. ZOOIl
J'lo Bf: Z
May-5-0B 11 :11Al.1j
rage 2/4
2. Revise [be analysis to account for the adjustment to passenger CllJ' equivahmco (pee). Freeway
rllmp capacity oper3tionl:S reflCGt pee while the analY6is does not. Page 11-21.
3. The impact of Base CJlse + Projecl queues 1\1 the NClrlnbound leg of rhe Oy~tcr Point
BoulevurdIDubuque Avenue intcf,3C!;\ion c~tetlding beyond the lJS 10"1 RampslDubuque
Avenue inlen;ection should be evaluated, and mitigation recommended for significant
impacts. Specifically, how wili this affect Off-ramp traffic? wm vehicle queues extend onto
the US 101 mninUne'1 Were Ihese intersections analyzed as independent frccbody
inlcrSCl:tions or wcte they analyud as a co<mJinated system? Since queuing could impa~t
upstream intersections. they should be analyzed as a coordinated ~ysletn. T~bles 11-7, -8, -9,
and -10.
4. The impllct of Base Case + Project 2020 queues I'lt the US ]01 Southbound RampsIBllyshure
Boulevard intef'Se(;tion extending back onto the US 101 Mainline segment should be
evalualed, aDd m1 ligalion recommeJ1ded for significant impacts. Page 11.21. Table 11.10.
5. Mitigation. including fair. ~hare fees, should be ICcommt:m,b:a) fur project-related significant
impacts :1l tho US 101 Nonhbound On-rilffip/OY!lter Point BoulevardlDubuque Avenue
in,ersection,'Pagcs 11..67, .68, rmpact 11-2.
6. Mitigation. including fair ~hare fees. should be recommended. where project trips exacerbate
9511'1 percentile qlleuing impacl5. This alsQ applies where volumes do nol increase by more
thlln two percent since adding just one additionRl vehicle enn resull in significant jmpac~s.
95111 percentile queuing analysis should be \llc\Uded for 011 State intersections. Pages II-55,
and) 1-74, -75.
7. Since project queuing could potentially back III' cnto the Southbound US 101 Mainline from
the Grand Avenue/Airport B'oulcvanUMiJ1cr Avenue intersection, project impacts at this
locotion should be evwuuted in the DEIR. and mitigation recommended where significant
impnclS could result.
Signal OpuoJions
2006 with Project
The DEIR should be revised to include mitigation for queuing at the ]01 Northbound Off-ramp
at Dubuque Avenue, which extends to the gore area during th~ PM peak. The Base Case +
Project yoluml!: of 2,011 vehicles per hour at the Northbound Off-ramp would require this
improvement. The Synchro flles snow this impact occurring within 25 minutes during the PM
pca~. See the enclo&Ul'C for recommended mitigation.
2020 with 'Proiect
Mitiglition, including fair share fees, should be recommended for the projecl's cuntribution to
impacts in the year 2020.
llydroulu5
1. Provide runoff calculations for "before nnd after" project construcl;on tQ $how that eAisting
drainage facilities arc: adequate for project-related runoff.
"Carrrclnf irnpTOWf mubllill' OL'WD C/J/(Jilmja~
E-4
E-5
E-6
E-7
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-11
E-12
: It By: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIO PLANNING; 510 286 5560j
M,. Slat C:.Qbrm
MayS, 'l~
l'i1&t3
May-Sooa 11;11AM;
Page 3/4
2. Existing drainage patterns at the project site and in the vicinity should be maintained after
projecl cumpleliul1.
3. Pleuse submit grading and drainllge plans for review when they an: available.
Cu"uml Rtsources
Cultural resDurces arc nOlllddrcsscd in the D,ElR. Any p~jcct.~Jal~d ground dlsturolUlcc in the
Slale ROW should he preceded by lln an;hucological record :;earcn at the Northwest lnformation
Center before an encroachment permit can be issued. This is required by CEQA and the
California Public Resources Code Section ~024,~, as regards Slllte-owned hhuoric resDurces.
ElfC7'otJchFIJent Per"';' ,
Work that encroaches onto the StDte ROW requires on encrol1chment permit thut is iasued by the
Department. To apply, a completed encroachment permit application, environmental
documentation. and five (5) sets of plans clearly indicating State ROW mu:;t be s,ubmiued to she
address below. Traffic-related mitigation measures should b~ incorpOJ'aled into thr: f;onsuuction
pluns dunng the encroachment permit proceS5. See the webs.ite link. below foT more informalloo.
http://www.dot.ca.govlhqltraffopsldcvclopscrv/pcnnits/
Sean Nozzari. District Oftlce Chief
Office of Permits
CaJifomin DOT. District 4
P.O. Box 23660
Oilkland, CA 94623-0660
Please feel free lo call or em ail PatriciaMauriceofmy&tllft.at (510) 622-1644 or
natricia [email protected]:!ov with any questions regarding this letter.
et::;,~.~
TIMOTHY . ABLE
Districl BrD Chief
lGRlCEQA
c; Ms. Terry RODeI1s, State Clearinghouse
Enclosure
"Calll'OllS fmprove; rrw>bi/lry t1cr(llS CaJIIGrrd/J"
E-13
E-14
E-15
E-16
,ent By: CAlTftAN5 TRAWSPORTATIO PLANNING; 5'0 286 5560;
May-S-0611:11AM;
Page 4/4
CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Letter E: California Department of Transportation, District 4, May 5,2006.
Response to Comment E-l: Comment noted.
Response to Comment E-2: Graphics with project-only turn movements have been prepared
and provided to Caltrans. These graphics (Figures 11-16 and 11-17) have also been included in
Chapter 2 of this FEIR).
Response to Comment E-3: It is unclear how limiting project access to two driveways along
Dubuque Avenue (rather than the proposed four driveways) would limit project traffic impacts
to locations just south of the site. Even if access were limited to two driveways at the south end
of the site, about the same amount of project traffic would be expected to travel through the
Oyster Point interchange as with the proposed four access driveways.
Response to Comment E-4: Adjustments to ramp volumes to reflect truck-to-auto passenger
car equivalents (pce) are detailed in a footnote to the ramp analysis table. Volumes presented in
the table do not contain the pce adjustments so that they match to volumes on all of the figures.
Resultant determination of over or under capacity operation reflect the pce adjustments. The
proposed Lowe's project does not produce a significant impact to queuing on the northbound
off-ramp connection to Dubuque Avenue.
Response to Comment E-5: The intersections within the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
were evaluated as a coordinated system with the exception of the Dubuque A venue/U .S.l 01
Northbound Off-Ramp/Southbound On-Ramp intersection. This intersection is currently not
part of the coordinated system of interchange intersections and has not been coordinated for
future analysis for the following reason. Coordination of the Dubuque/Ramps intersection with
the remaining intersections within the Oyster Point interchange (based upon Synchro and SIM
traffic analysis) results in poorer operation than by leaving this one location uncoordinated (in a
manner the same as existing operation). Year 2020 AM and PM peak hour cumulative condition
Synchro and SIM traffic model runs have been forwarded to Caltrans with both coordinated and
uncoordinated operation of this intersection with the objective of clearing traffic from the
freeway off-ramps such that backups to the freeway mainline are reduced or eliminated. Year
2020 uncoordinated operation of the Dubuque/Ramps intersection is the only operational
procedure to clear the freeway ramps.
It is agreed that a second off-ramp lane is required at the Dubuque/Ramps intersection to
provide acceptable reduction of off-ramp queues for projected year 2020 cumulative volumes.
Response to Comment E-6: Synchro 95th percentile vehicle queuing results have been
presented in the Lowe's DEIR for the Bayshore/U.S.101 Southbound Ramps intersection. The
Lowe's project does not produce a significant impact at this location; therefore, no mitigations
are proposed. As previously detailed, a set of year 2020 cumulative Synchro and SIM traffic
modeling runs have been sent to Caltrans showing that it would be possible to provide signal
timing adjustments (in conjunction with recommended improvements) to preclude 95th
LOWE'S PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 19-23
CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
percentile southbound off-ramp queues from backing up to the U.S.101 freeway mainline during
either the AM or PM commute peak traffic hours at this location.
Response to Comment E-7: The Lowe's development will be contributing an off-site traffic
impact mitigation fee to go towards improvement needs previously identified by the City of
South San Francisco for developments east of the U.S.l0l freeway. In addition, it is agreed that
a second off-ramp lane is needed for the northbound off-ramp at Dubuque Avenue and that
Lowe's should contribute a fair share contribution towards this measure (as should the Home
Depot and Terrabay Phase 3 projects).
Response to Comment E-8: 95th percentile queuing analysis has been provided for all
intersections within the Oyster Point interchange and a separate set of Synchro/SIM traffic tuns
has been provided to Caltrans showing year 2020 cumulative operation with signal timing
adjustments to preclude off-ramp traffic (northbound at Dubuque Avenue and southbound at
Bayshore Boulevard) from backing up to the freeway mainline. It is agreed that the Lowe's
project (as well as Home Depot and Terrabay Phase 3) should provide a fair share contribution
towards a second off-ramp lane at the Dubuque/Ramps intersection (in addition to the other
improvements needs identified in the Terrabay Phase 3 and Home Depot EIRs).
Response to Comment E-9: Operating conditions at the Airport/Miller/U.S.l0l Southbound
Off-Ramps intersection, including 95th percentile vehicle queuing, have recently been evaluated
in the 249 East Grand EIR. Year 2020 cumulative volumes evaluated in this EIR included full
development of the Lowe's, Home Depot and Terrabay Phase 3 developments Synchro analysis
results were previously sent to Caltrans and showed no queuing problems.
Response to Comment E-l0: There is no unacceptable off-ramp queuing projected for the
2006 horizon (at either the northbound off-ramp connection to Dubuque Avenue or the
southbound off-ramp connection to Bayshore Boulevard).
Response to Comment E-ll: The proposed Lowe's project does not produce a significant
impact to vehicle queuing on the U.S.l0l northbound off-ramp to Dubuque Avenue. During
the AM peak hour, the time of peak off-ramp traffic, Lowe's would result in lower levels of off-
ramp traffic than either existing volumes or office/R&D activities that would potentially be on
the site by 2020. Therefore, no mitigations have been proposed.
A special set of year 2020 cumulative condition Synchro and SIM traffic simulation tuns (with
Lowe's, Home Depot and Terrabay Phase 3 all in operation) has been completed and forwarded
to Caltrans. They include a second northbound off-ramp lane connection to the U.S.1 01
mainline (as recommended by Caltrans) as well as all other improvements determined as being
needed (or feasible) at the Oyster Point interchange as part of the Terrabay Phase 3 EIR traffic
analysis. The purpose of the tuns is to show the feasibility of clearing year 2020 cumulative
traffic from the U.S.l0l northbound off-ramp to Dubuque Avenue and southbound off-ramp
PAGE 19-24
LOWE'S PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
to Bayshore Boulevard such that the 95th percentile queues during both the AM and PM peak
hours don't back up to the freeway mainline.
The cost of the second northbound off-ramp lane to Dubuque Avenue should be borne by the
three local developments (Home Depot, Lowe's, and Terrabay), proportionate to the traffic
associated with each project.
Response to Comment E-12: As noted in the new Impact 7-4 (included in Chapter 18),
according to preliminary calculations by Questa Engineering, the proposed Project will increase
10-year peak discharge to the southern municipal storm drainpipe by approximately 72%, which
represents a potentially significant impact. As such, Mitigation Measures 7 -4a and 7 -4b have
been included to mitigate this impact to a less than significant level.
Response to Comment E-13: Comment noted. The applicant is working with the City of San
Francisco Public Works Department and the San Mateo County Flood Control District to
determine the proper drainage patterns for the project site. However, as indicated in the DEIR,
under current conditions, approximately 53 percent of the storm water runoff from the Project
site is directed into a municipal storm drain pipe that runs along the southern boundary of the
property, while the other 47 percent drains into a municipal pipe located in the northeast corner
of the property. The proposed Project drainage plan would direct nearly all site runoff to the
southern pipe; only a l.2-acre area in the northeast corner of the site would continue to drain to
the northeastern pipe.
Response to Comment E-14: Comment noted. Grading and drainage plans will be submitted
when completed.
Response to Comment E-15: Comment noted.
Response to Comment E-16: Comment noted.
LOWE'S PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 19-25
CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 19-26
LOWE'S PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED ErR
MfW-OO-2a05 18:39
PUIlL 1 C WrnKS
1 65a 3&1 8220
P.01
I Department of Public Works
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
BOARD OF SUPERVlSOFfS
MAAK CHURCH
RICHARD S. GORDON
JERRY HILL
ROSE JACOBS 01850N
ADRIENNE TISSlER
NEIL R. CULLEN
D1REC10R
555 COUNTY CENTER. 5'" FLOOR' REDWOOD CITY' l:1IL1FORNIA940BJ-1865 . PHONE (6511~ 383~100' FAY. (85D) 381.8220
May 8, 2006
Mr. Steve Carlson
City of South 81m Francisco
Planning Division
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco. CA 94083
Lette r F
Dcar Mr. Carlson;
Subject:
Notice of Availability, Drllft Environmental Impad Report (DEIR)
for the Proposed LoweY! Development Projed, City of South San
Francisc:o (APN 015-011-090)
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 Draft
Environmental Impact Report (OEIR) for1he project and offers the following comments:
. The DEIR states that the existing on-site stann drain system would be modified
so that the pipe located in the southern comer of the property would be receiving
nearly aU site runoff, inslead of the approximately half of !be runoff as is
currently existing. Mitigation Measure 7-3a would require the applicant to
conduct a Stonn Drain Analysis to determine whether the existing municipal
storm sewer system has capacity to accommodate the increased flows. The
District requests that the Stann Drain Analysis also determine changes, if any I to
outlet.g at Colma Creek. The Stann Drain Analysis and changes to the Project
Drainage Plan shall be subject to the District's review and approval in addition to
the City of South San Francisco. '
F-1
. The District requires that the storm waters from developments which ultimately
drain into the District's flood control channel to not exceed the existing discharge
rate prior to development. Drainage calculations showing existing and future
discharge rates must be submitted for review and approval. If it is determined
that the future discharge late exceeds the existing rate, an on-site storm water
detention system which would release surface runoff at a rate comparable to the
existing flow rate of the site must be de5igned and incolpora1ed into the project.
F-2
MAY-08-2005 1B: 40
PUBLI C WORKS
1 650 361 8220
P.02
Mr. Steve Carlson, City of South San Francisco, Planning Division
Subject: Notice of AvoUabilityt Draft Environmentallmpad Report (DEJR)
for the Proposed Lowe's Development Project, City of South SaD
Francisco (APN 015-021-090)
May 8. 2006
Page 2
. The DElR states that a storm drain interceptor properly designed per CASQA
sizing recommendations would be installed before the connection to the municipal
stonn drain system as a means for treatment. It does not, however, discuss who
would be responsible for periodic cleaning and maintenance of this equipment.
F-3
If you have any questions, pJease contact Mark Chow at (650) 599-J489, or myself at
(650) 599-J417.
Very truly yours,
Ann M. Stillman. P.E.
Principal Civil Engineer
Utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection
AMS:MC
G:\USERS\UTltll'{\Colma Oedt FCD\WORD\Re:vlew EJltcmal Pltlj~~l'\ZOOS\601).'lOO Dllbuque Lowe's - Nolltc of Prep.
Review.doc
F-149 (9H)
cc: Brian C. Lee, P.E.. Deputy Director, Engineering and Resource Protection Division
Mark Chow, P,E.. Senior Civil Engineer, Utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection
TOTAl.. P.02
CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Letter F: San Mateo County Public Works Department, May 8, 2006.
Response to Comment F-l: Comment noted. Mitigation Measures 7-3a and 7-3b have been
revised as indicated below, as well as in Chapter 18.
Mitigation
Measure 7 -3a
Mitigation
Measure 7-3b
Storm Drain Analysis. The applicant shall conduct a hydraulic analysis of
the proposed storm drain system for thc Projcct sitc to cstablish whcthcr thc
cxisting municipal storm sc,vcr drainpipe locatcd ncar thc southcrn propcrty
boundary has capacity to accommodatc thc incrcascd flow3 rcsulting from
thc proposcd Projcct. to determine any changes resulting from the Project to
storm water discharge rates into Colma Creek. The analysis shall include
Rational Method calculations of pre- and post-development 10-year peak
flows and shall take into account drainpipe slope and elevations, drainpipe
size(s), and system head losses within the Project site storm drain system.
The analysis shall also include calculations to establish whether the existing
municipal storm sewer drainpipe located near the southern property
boundary has capacity to accommodate the increased flows into the pipe
resulting from the proposed Project. The Storm Drain Analysis shall be
subject to review and approval by the City of South San Francisco and the
San Mateo County Flood Control District. If it is determined that Project
storm water discharge rates exceed existing pre-development rates at the
outlet to Colma Creek, then Mitigation 7-3b shall be implemented.
Revised Storm Drain Plan. If thc hydraulic analysis dcscribcd in Mitigation
:Mcasurc 7 3a cannot show that thc existing southcrn storm SCNcr drainpipe
has capacity for Projcct flows, The applicant shall submit a Revised Storm
Drain Plan for the Project that includes an on-site storm water detention
system designed to release surface runoff from the site a rate comparable to
the existing discharge rate. The revised plan shall include drawings of the
new proposed system and calculations of the new system capacity. Any
drainage changes shall be reviewed and approved by the City of South San
Francisco and the San Mateo County Flood Control District prior to
tentative map approval.
Prior to the approyv'al of the Final Map, changes to the Project Drainage Plan
shaH bc subjcct to the rcv iew and approval by the City of South San
Francisco Storm Watcr Coordinator and thc City Enginccr.
Response to Comment F-2: Comment noted. As indicated above, Mitigation Measures 7 -3a
and 7 -3b have been revised to account for increasing discharge rates and the need for an on-site
LOWE'S PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 19-29
CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
storm water detention system. A new impact (Impact 7-4) specifically detailing the proposed
increase in discharge to the southern municipal storm drainpipe is included below and 10
Chapter 18, as are mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 7-4
Mitigation
Measure 7 -4a
Mitigation
Measure 7 -4b
Increase in Peak Discharge to the Southern Municipal Drainpipe.
According to preliminary calculations by Questa Engineering, the proposed
Project will increase 10-year peak discharge to the southern municipal storm
drainpipe by approximately 72%. No analysis or definitive information has
been presented to verify that the existing municipal pipe can carry the design
flows under proposed Project conditions. This is a potentially significant
impact.
Storm Drain Analysis. The applicant shall conduct a hydraulic analysis of
the proposed storm drain system as described in Mitigation Measure 7 -3a. If
the analysis determines that the existing municipal pipe cannot contain the
additional flows from the proposed Project, then Mitigation 7 -4b shall be
implemented.
Revised Storm Drain Plan. The applicant shall submit a Revised Storm
Drain Plan for the Project. Methods such as on-site storm water detention
or storm drain line upgrades may be considered. Alternatively, some greater
portion of site run-off may be routed to the existing northeast municipal
storm drainpipe. The revised plan shall include drawings of the new
proposed system and shall include calculations of the new system capacity.
In accordance with San Mateo Flood Control District requirements, storm
water runoff draining from the new proposed system into the Colma Creek
flood control channel shall not exceed existing flows. Any drainage changes
shall be reviewed and approved by the City of South San Francisco and the
San Mateo County Flood Control District prior to tentative map approval.
Response to Comment F-3: In the City of South San Francisco, storm drain interceptors
located on a private development are the responsibility of the property owner. The following
text will be added to the discussion of the storm drain interceptor on DEIR page 7-13, outlining
the cleaning and maintenance responsibilities:
A storm drain interceptor (also known as an oil/water or oil/grit separator) is a device designed
to remove debris and other contaminants from the drainage stream based on physical
differences between the contaminant and water. Lighter materials such as oils tend to float to
the surface, while denser materials such as sediments tend to sink.1 In general, interceptors are
I BASMAA, 1999.
PAGE 19-30
LOWE'S PROJECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
best suited to removing oils and heavy particulates; they are less effective at removing nutrients
and other dissolved pollutants. Field monitoring suggests that Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
removal rates for various separator models range from 40 to 80 percent.2,3 Site constraints,
including availability of soils of suitable depth, level surface, and stability, can restrict the
effective performance of the interceptor unit. Appropriate sizing of the unit relative to
impervious drainage area is also important.4 It also should be noted that these types of structural
Best Management Practices (BMPs) require periodic cleaning and maintenance.
In the City of South San Francisco. the City is responsible for the maintenance and repair of
storm drain interceptors located in City streets and on City properties: however. storm drain
interceptors placed within private developments are the responsibility of the private property
owner. In this case. the property owner will be responsible for proper maintenance of the
interceptor located on the Project site.
2 University of Massachusetts Amherst, 2003,
3 Rinker Materials Corporation, 2005,
4 EPA, 1999,
LOWE'S PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 19-31
MAY-B-2006 17:46 FROM:
10:'38296639
P.2"3
1#5. Chapter 6. Mitigatio1l Measure 6-4.
JPB recommends at least a 24 foot setback from the railroad's west property line to serve as a
rue break. an access for emergency vehicles, and as a security precaution in case of an incident
on the railroad adjacent to the Lowe's property site;. JPB bas been contacted by the CitY'!i Fire
Department in regards to their limited ability to respond to a fir~ Dr hazardous spill in the rBiI
yard from railroad tank cars and about trespassers accessing the yard and tampming with the
track or rail cars. The Lowe's development will also be storing quantities of combustible
commodities on its property site. A 24 foot setback would minimize the spread ofpotentiol
hazards between tbe railroad and the project 8itc:, lIS 'M;U 8:1 address the security and access
issues.
The project design should include a structural analysis of the effect of the live and dead loads of
the development on tlte adjacent railroad tracks. Appropriate mitigation measures should be
made for my ground movement caused by the londing conditions of the development.
1#6. Chapter 7. Mitigation Mes!lure 7-3a.
The proposed project will have significan1 impacts to the drainage in the area and contribute to
flooding in the railroad corridor: This development drains to several culverts that cross the
railroad corridor that are over 50 years old and do not work weU on the railroad property or off
railroad property. The grading should be designed so that the SurfllCC drainage does not reach the
railroad corridor. The cumulative impacts ofthe drainage due to the proposed project and the
neighboring proposed Home Depot project should be analyzed together. The cumulative impacts
of both of these projects may requiIc the reconsllU"uon and inc:rcase in capacity of1be
aforementioned culverts.
#7. Chapter 10. Police Protection.
Due to the proximity of the t1ain station, there is a high probability that employees and casual
workers may be tempted 10 either cross the train tracks or walk along them as a shortcut to access
the lowe's Development. As a safety precaution, a high security fence should be built along the
west side of the property to discourage this unsafe behavior.
#8. Chapter 11. Mldgntlon Measure 11-10. Caltraln Station and Lowe's South Driveway
Caltrain has been working with the City Staff for the past two year5 on the plans for a new South
San Francisco Train Station. Caltrain has cooperated with the City to reorient the station
platfonns and improve pedestrian access to assist the City with its goal to enhance the
connectivity between the downtown area and the east side businesses. A shlU'cd driveway could
be part ofthe new station's plans.
The new station will expand its parking capacity by approximately 200 parking spaces which
will be accessed from Dubuque A venue. The traffic study in the DEIR did not account for the
increase in traffic thal win be generated by the parking expansion of the South San Francisco
Train Station. The cumulative effects of the Lowe's Development, the Home Depot
Development and the expnnsion of1he Cu.1train Station shoulcl be analyzed together and their
cumulative effects mitigated appropriately.
Page 2
G-5
G-6
G-7
G-8
MAY-B-2006 17:47 FROM:
TO: 98256639
P.3"':3
#9. Chapter 12. Utili.ies.
The proposed project will require changes and upgrades to the water, fire, sewer, gas and
possibly other utility lines. Most of these lines tran!Nersely cross the railroad, are over SO years
old and should be brought up to current standards.
The JPB will be instaHing a 25kV ae (5OkV phase to phase) o\lerhead catenary system on the
tracks. This will require all telephone, cable, power and o1her service lines which are lesll than
25kV to be removed. Therefore, any overhead utility Jines which cross the tracks or are within
10 feet of the JPB property line, which serve the Lowe's or Home Depot sites, should be
relocated underground. For power lines above 25kV . c1ear~e .-equirements must be
determined in accordance with appropriate l;lecmcaJ clearance standards and coordinated with
the JPB's Electrification Program Manager.
G-9
#10. Geoeral- Set Aside Property for the Future Electrification Substation
The prDposed Lowe's development will infringe on tbe parcel of land identified in JPB-
CaltmiD's draft EAJEIR as the preferred site for Electric Traction Substation ATF-l. The
Traction Substation is required to supply power to the overhead conta~ system when the Caltrain
line is electrified. It will tap into the 115kV utiliry network and transfonn the power down to
2SkV for use by the electric trains. The preferred location is immediately adjacent to the
Callram tracks and PG&E's 11 SkY transmission Jines and is therefore critj caIto the
ElectrificationProject. All other alternate sites are impractical due to their distance nom ei1her
the railroad tracks or the utility supply. This would introduce added expense, complexity, and
si2e to the substation needed in this area.
During feasibility discussions with PG&E about the substation location, it was detennined that
tbe buildings and transformers con1ained within the proposed Caltrain substation would not be
permitted to occupy 1he space directly under the transmission lines. Therefore, the parcels of
land immediately adjacent to the transmission line easements would need to be acquired by the
JPB to Jlosition the substation next 10 the lines to be tapped. This puts the proposed Lowe's
building and facilities ill conflict with the planned substation site.
G-10
While some flexibility does exist in the layout of the substation building and equipment, the
overall siz~ required is relatively fixed. Approxima1ely 32,000 square feet arc required to
provide adequa.te space for the electrical equipment safety clearances.
Since the Caltrain substation space requirements are relatively small compared to the proposed
Lowe's development, we believe that bolli projects could be acconunodated on the plD'Cr:1. We
recommend coordinating the designs and adjustingihe layouts ofthl: facilities to find a solution
for both projects on the northea.st corner of the proposed s1te.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR. If you have any questions
regarding these comments, please contact me at 650-508-6338.
Sincerely,
/?~?t -
Marie Pang f
Environmental Manager
Peninsula CorridDr Joint Powers Board
Page 3
CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 19-36
LOWE'S PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Letter G: Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain), May 8, 2006.
Response to Comment G-l: In response to this comment, the text of first sentence in the
second paragraph on DFEIR page 3-1 has been modified to read as follows:
"The Project site is located at 700 Dubuque Avenue in the northwest portion of the East
of 101 area, and is bounded on the west by Dubuque Avenue and Highway 101, on the
north by single story office buildings and services, to the east by Southern Pacific
Railroad Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board GPB) line rights-of-way, and to the
south by office buildings and a large surface parking lot."
In response to this comment, the City of South San Francisco has updated its property
ownership database to indicate the correct property owner, and the Peninsula Corridor Joint
Powers Board has been added to the City of South San Francisco's distribution list for future
information regarding the Project.
Response to Comment G-2: In response to this comment, the text of the third paragraph on
DFEIR page 4-6 has been modified to read as follows:
"4. TDM#19 - The Project shall include sidewalks with shade trees that
provide safe and convenient access to the Project, the Caltrain station,
and any shuttle or future bus stops that serve the project (see TDM#l
above)."
Response to Comment G-3: Comment noted. Any proposed dewatering will be addressed
during the construction process. Since no below grade structures are planned, dewatering will be
limited to that necessary during the construction process, such as in utility trenches and
foundation construction. As such, long-term dewatering of the site is not anticipated, and
therefore it was not felt necessary that it be addressed in the Storm Drain Analysis.
Response to Comment G-4: Comment noted. Environmental investigations conducted for
the Project site have not identified the referenced hazardous materials plume. However, any
contaminated soil plume would be delineated in the Soil and Groundwater Management and
Contingency Plan that will be prepared for the Project, which will provide methods to control
the excavation and off-haul of soils from any contaminant plume areas. Please see Mitigation
Measure 6-3b- Implementation of a Soil and Groundwater Management and
Contingency Plan.
Response to Comment G-5: Comment noted. The current Project plans currently include a
20 foot fire lane in the area abutting the JPB's western property line, which meets or exceeds any
local, state, or federal requirements.
Response to Comment G-6: The project site is currently developed; approximately 90 percent
of the site is covered in impervious surfaces. The proposed redevelopment of the site will not
increase the amount of impervious area on the site, and is not expected to increase stotmwater
LOWE'S PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 19-37
CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
runoff from the site. Instead, the project proposes to change drainage patterns by directing
nearly 95 percent of site runoff (which was previously distributed between two municipal
drainpipes) into only one of the existing drainpipes.
As stated in the revised Mitigation Measures 7-3 and 7-4 (included in Chapter 18 and Responses
to Comments F-l and F-2), the applicant must conduct a storm drain analysis to show that the
overall flows from the project will not exceed existing flows. The applicant must also show that
the existing southern storm drain (to which the project proposes to direct nearly 95 percent of
site runoff) is able to accommodate the proposed flows. If the analysis determines that the
existing storm drain infrastructure cannot handle the proposed flows, the applicant must either
(a) implement on-site storm water detention; (b) upgrade/replace storm drain lines; or (c) re-
distribute project runoff between the existing storm drains such that the lines are able to carry
the proposed flows (or maintain existing flow distribution). Any proposed drainage changes
must be approved by the City of South San Francisco and the San Mateo County Flood Control
District.
The combined effect of the proposed project along with other future City developments,
including the proposed neighboring Home Depot, may result in increased stormwater flows or
changes in drainage patterns such that stormwater flows could exceed existing drainage system
capacity. However, as with the proposed project, other future projects in the area would be
required to demonstrate that the downstream drainage systems would have adequate capacity to
accommodate the project's runoff. If the system does not have adequate capacity to
accommodate a particular project's runoff, the developer would be required to construct the
necessary improvements as determined by the City and/or the San Mateo County Flood Control
District. As a result, cumulative impacts associated with stormwater drainage would be less-
than-significant.
Response to Comment G-7: Development of the Project site as proposed could be expected
to result in some increase in pedestrian traffic in the vicinity of the site. However, it is the sole
responsibility of the owners of the Caltrain right-of-way to provide measures deemed necessary
to discourage pedestrians from either crossing or walking along train tracks, with or without the
development of the Project site as proposed. If the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
believes that the development of the Project site as proposed (in an area where development has
already taken place and where there is currently some pedestrian traffic) warrants the
construction of a high security fence to discourage pedestrians who might be tempted to either
cross or walk along the train tracks, it is the JPB's responsibility to construct such a fence within
the Caltrain right-of-way.
Response to Comment G-8: Comment noted. The City of South San Francisco agrees that a
shared driveway at the south end of the Lowe's site to be jointly utilized by Caltrain is a much
better traffic plan than allowing adjacent Lowe's and Caltrain driveways. In addition, the year
2020 Lowe's traffic analysis assumed full development of the Home Depot store (as well as the
rest of the East of 101 area), including an office/R&D development on the Caltrain site. This
development for the Caltrain site resulted in significantly more traffic than would be expected
PAGE 19-38
LOWE'S PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
from a Caltrain station with a parking lot expansion of approximately 200 spaces. As a
condition of approval, the City of South San Francisco will require the property owner to work
with Caltrans to develop a shared driveway design that is acceptable to the City of South San
Francisco City Engineer.
Response to Comment G-9: Opinion regarding the desirability to bring all utility lines that
serve the Project site and that transversely cross the railroad right-of-way up to current standards
is noted. Utility providers will ultimately determine the extent to which existing utility lines
serving the Project site may require upgrading.
Suggestion to "underground" any existing overhead utility lines which cross the tracks or are
within 10 feet of the JPB property line and serve the Project site is noted. The placement of
individual utility lines will ultimately be determined by the utility providers, in coordination with
JPB. This would include any clearance requirements for electrical power lines above 25kV,
which would need to be determined in consultation between the Pacific Gas and Electric
Company and the JPB's Electrification Program Manager.
Response to Comment G-l0: Opinion regarding the ability to accommodate the Project as
proposed and a future electrification substation within the Project site is noted, as is the
recommendation that the JPB and the Project Applicant coordinate designs to adjust the layouts
of facilities on the northeast corner of the project site.
The DFEIR evaluates the Project as currently proposed by the Project Applicant, and
accommodation of a future electrification substation on part of the Project site has not been
proposed as part of this Project. Although JPB might have identified a portion of the Project
site as a "preferred location" for a future electrification substation, this comment suggests that
the JPB may have made plans for a portion of the Project site (that it does not currently control)
without obtaining from the Project Applicant (who currently controls the site) any or all of the
property agreements/acquisitions necessary to enable construction of a future electrification
substation. Contrary to the suggestion made in this comment, given current property ownership,
it is plans for the future electrification substation that may be in conflict with the Project as
proposed, and not the other way around. The City of South San Francisco has identified two
alternative sites (in addition to the two identified by the JPB) that could house the future
electrification substation, which should be evaluated by the JPB.
In the event that the Project as currently proposed may be modified to accommodate a future
electrification substation (following all necessary coordination between the JPB and the Project
Applicant, and JPB acquisition of those portions of the Project site necessary to support a future
electrification substation and related transmission line easements), additional environmental
review of the resulting modified site plan may be necessary. However, there is no obligation on
the part of the Project Applicant to modify current plans for development of the Project site as
proposed to accommodate a JPB future electrification substation, despite JPB identification of a
portion of the Project site as the "preferred location" for such a facility, and despite any added
LOWE'S PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 19-39
CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
expense, complexity and Slze that may result from JPB ultimately locating such a facility
elsewhere.
PAGE 19-40
LOWE'S PROjECT
FINAL FOCUSED EIR