Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLowe's Project Final Focused EIR 08-06-2006FINAL FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT State Clearinghouse Number: 2005-082031 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LOWE'S PROJECT PREPARED BY LAMPHIER -GREGORY JuNE2006 ~nylrnr~rna~+altC~ cA~~bo:~~5'ooglQ ~- ~T~.n5-oooZ DATi RECOMMENDS v ` Z Q , ZOO ~? DA'T'E APPROVED: Z OOCp 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 TxE DRAFT EIR ....................................................................................... 18-1 19. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ........................................................................................... 19-1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................19-1 List of Letters ..........................................................................................................................................................19-2 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 PURPOSE OF THE FINAL EIR 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 Ciry 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 issues. 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 1 7: 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 1 State of California, CUovernor's Office of Planning and Research, California F.~nvironmentalQuality Act ,Statutes and Guidelines, 1995, Section 15002(a). 2 Ibid, Section 15382. PAGE 1 7-2 LOWE'S PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 7: 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 . xydrology • 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 fora 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 Ciry 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 Ciry 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 1 7: PREFACE of overriding considerations of social, economic or other benefit can be made and supported with substantial evidence.3 s 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 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 ~ '- "~~'~'~ ~ Peninsula Corridor point Powers Board ITPBI 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, 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 lacin a commercial deed restriction on the ro er 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.' 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 Citv of South San Francisco the City is responsible for the maintenance and repair of storm drain tnterce tors located to Ci streets and on Ci ro erties• however storm drain interceptors placed within brivate develot~ments are the responsibility of the private property ' BASMAA, 1999. z University of Massachusetts Amherst, 2003. s Rinker Materials Corporation, 2005. a 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 ultimatelydrain 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 anyl to runoff rates into Colma Creek resulting from the proposed Project. o - 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 Storm Drain Analysis. The applicant shall conduct a hydraulic analysis of the proposed storm drain system c_v ~'~~ "~~;~~~ ~'~° ~~ ~~~~'~"~'~ "'''°~'~~° ~'~~ . to determine andchanges 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 caaacity to accommodate the increased flows into the gibe 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 LOWE'S PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR 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. 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 Ciry of South San Francisco and the San Mateo County Flood Control District prior to tentative map approval. 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 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. Mitigation Measure 7-4b 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 PAGE 18-4 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 I Terrab Ph 3 A Terrat Ph 3 7 I Terra! Ph 3 ~ Sister EIR NOT TO SCALE N Lowes Project Site ~altrain ~----------------~ station ~ ` ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 27 Q ' j ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 1 ' ~ 0 ~ 30 ' r Figure 11-16 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Project Trip Generation I AM Peak Hour 20 '~ 5 4 ~ 2 5 60 '~ 56 4 ~7 ~ 13 18 ~ L 17 4 ~ X15 ~ 10 2 '~ 1 4 ,` 3 2 CHAPTER 18: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 18-8 LOWERS PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR Terrat Ph 3 E Terrat Ph 3 i Terra. Ph 3 I Sister NOT TO SCALE N .owes project iite :altrain ' ______________ .- -. tation ~ • ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 67 Q ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ , ' o '° t , ' ~ 62 ~ • ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Figure 11-17 Project Trip Generation PM Peak Hour 20 ~ 20 4 ~5 5 103 '~ 111 '~ 15 ~ 15 50 ~ L 60 4 ~ ,` 37 3 ~ 27 s t 10 ~ ,` 10 f 15 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 PREFACE, 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 in 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-1, 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-1 in the right-hand margin of the letter, and the corresponding response immediately following LETTER A is coded as RESPONSE A-1). 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 PACE 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 Arnold Schwarzencggcr Governor May 8, 200b STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Stcvc Carlson City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue, P.Q. Box 7I l South San Francisco, CA 94080 Subject: Lowe's Froject SCH#: 2005082031 Dear Sceve Carlson: ~EOf r r s .a.,~~' Sean Walsh Aircctor Letter A The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Dra$ $IR to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clcaringltouse bas listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on May S, 2006, and the comments from the A _ 1 responding agency (ies} is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is sot in order; please notify the State /`1 Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ttn-digit State Clearirtglrause number in future correspondence so [hat we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c} of the California Public Resources Codc states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an urea of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by We agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments arc forwarded for use in preparing your fatal environmental document. Should you need mole information or elarifieatian of the enclosed cotntnents, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This ]cacr aeknowlcdgcs that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental doctuncnts, pursuant to the Califomin Environmental Quality Act. Plcasc contact the State Clearinghouse at {41 b) 445-OG 13 if you have any qucsrions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, ~' w• ~;, Terry oberts Duector, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BO}C 3044 SACRAMENTO, C`A'LIFORNIA 9tf812-3044 TEL {916) earl-0613 FAK (9zb) 328.3018 www.oPr.ca.gov State Clearinghouse Data Base SCN# 2005082031 Project Tltte Lowe's Project Lead Agency South San Francisco, City of Type EtFt Draft E}R Description The proposed project would Involve the demolition of three existing buildings and the construction of a 124,051 square foot Lowe's Name Improvement store, a 24,698 square foot Lowe's Garden Center, and a 65S-space surface parking lot. Lead agency Contact Name Steve Carlson Agency Clty of South San Frencisco Phone (8S0) 877-8535 ema11 Address 315 Maple Avenue P.O. Box 71 i City South San Francisco Fez State CA Lp 94080 Project Location County San Mateo City Region Cross Streets 600-790 Dubuque Avenue, north o/Grand Avenue Parcel No. 015.021-090 township Range Section Proximity to: Highways Airports Railways WAtorways Schools Land Use Planned Commercial Base ProJectlssues Air Quality: Cumulative Effects; DrdinagelAbsorption; Flood P1aiNFlooding; Landuse; Noise; PopulaGoNHousing Balance; Public Services; RecreatioNParks; Sewer Capacity; Solt Erosion/Compection/Grading; Solid Waste: ToxicJHazardous; TtaffrJCircuiatlon; Water Quality: Water Supply: Wetland/Riparian Rsviowing Resources Agency; Regional Water Duality Control Board, Region 2; Department of Parks and Agoncias Racraation; Native American Heritage Commission; Integrated Waste Management Board; Public utilities Commission; Department of Health Services; Office of Historic Preservation; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3: [,apartment of Water Resources; California iilghway Patrol; Caltrans, District 4; San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (safe Received 03/22/2006 Start of Roview 03/22/2006 End o/'Revlew OS/OS/2008 Nola: Blanks In data fields result from insufficient information 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-1: 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 DEPARTMENT April 5, 2006 . City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Lette B ~~~ APR - 0 7 ~Q~6 ~~~~~~~ SUBJECT: COMIIRENTS TQ DRAFT FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL.. IMPACT REPORT FOR LOWE'S PROJECT, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORIti~IA Dear City of South San Francisco: A Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIIt) was sent to San Mateo County Health Department Groundwater Pro#ection Program (GPP) 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 ofthe proposed redevelopment of the site in accordance with the June 11:2001 letter from GPP staff for this site. The completed 5oi1 and Groundwater Management and Contingency Plan {Plan) will be reviewed and commented on by GPF staff under separate cover. The following comments are based on statements in the E]R 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 samp]ed discretely at intervals of one per 20 cubic yards of impacted soils or some statistically derh~ed interval based on US EPA 5W 84b. Any detections above l 00 xnilLigrams per kilograms far total petroieurn hydrocarbons, any detections above non detect for other chemicals besides metals, and any detection above background concentrations for metals require further evaluation and discussion with GPP staff regarding potential health impacts of reusing the sail on-site. GPP staff requires all. contaminated.siGes under GPP oversight to be evaluated. based on potentiaE future residential land use unless a commercial deed restriction is voluntarily placed upon the property. The Regiona] Water Qualify Control Board (RWQCB) Basin Plan designates all groundwater in San Mateo County as a potential municipal drinking water source. Please note those statements when deciding which RWQCB Environmental Screening Level (ESL) to compare current concentrations ta. The ESLs already take into consideration naturally occurring elevated concentrations of arsenic and chromium above health based screening levels. Of note, cobalt was not identif.7ed as having naturally occurring concentration above health based screening levels in the ESLs. Once the Plan has been submitted and reviewed, ali of GPP staff s lime will be calculated to determine the applicant's cost associated with GPP staff's oversight of the above referenced site. After 6na1 payment has been made, the Plan approval letter will be sent to you and all other appropriate entities. PURI~IC HC.4I,TN ANU CIWIR(}NhIrNTAL PRO'~CCTI(}N DIVISION Ilaanl nl ti~~penixors: hark ('hurrh • Rase .Im~ohti l;lhsun • Rirhnrd S. [:orlon ^ Jerry lAll • AUiicnnc'!'IRtilcr • health Olrecinr: {;hartCnc tiilva 4r,51;~unly Crrtt~r • Rntlwuud Clty, (:A !NI1fi3 - raunr h.ip ;36:l.~i;1Q~i • tnu fi;~O.a7;i.3~tN~ • par 850.:5(i3.7l302 hlip://HVnvsmhruhh.nrg r r B-1 B-2 B-3 Low~e's Project, 600-700 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, CA Apri15, 2046 Page 2 l appreciate your Cooperation. Please call meat (650) 599-1679 if you have any questions. Sincerely, •' • ~C.5~,. .___ -_ Charles Ice Gregory J. Smith, P.G. Hazardous Materials Specialist Program Lead Groundwater Protection Program Groundwater Protection Program CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter B: San Mateo County Health Department, Groundwater Protection Division, April 5, 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 or r , o TOWN OF COLMA 1190 E1 Camino Rea! . Colma, Cal{fornia 94014 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Phone: (650) 985-2590 • FAX: (650) 985-2578 ~~ ~:.. 1~C]EI~'E~ ett r a~R , ~ ~~~s April 7, 2006 e PLANNING D~PB'. Nlr, 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 Lawe's development on Dubuque C-1 Avenue_ We do not foresee any negative environmental impacts to the Town of Colrna as a result of this project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kevin Guy, A1CP 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 of Colma Planning Department, Apri17, 2006 Response to Comment C-1: Comment noted. LC1WE'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 - - ~ ~~~ CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIA'ITON OF GOVERNMENTS - •- OF SAN MATEO COUNTY Arhertorc • Be1maM • B+isbane • Burltngome ~ Calma • Daly City - Eaii Palo Alto • Foster City •BaljMaon Ilay • Hillsborough • Men1a Park • b!!lfbrae Parlfica * ParJola Yaltey • Redtuoad Cih~ + Son Bruno • San Carlos • San Mateo • SanMaleo Coudty • Snulh San Francisco •Ji'aadside t~Aay 1, 2006 ~ - - ~~~~~~ r . • . ~fAY ~ a. 3 2Q06 eve Car{son Senior Planner e e . st City of South San Francisco ~,~~~ ~~• Planning Division. - P.O. Box 71 '! ~ - . South. "San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Steve: . . RE: CCAG Airport Land-Use Committee (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 P~king at 70Q-L~,ubuque Ave~___e.~,,:, ~= 6~roject Description ~~ ~ _~ ~~ ~~ ~_ The proposed projecYrv~uld involuhe demolitia~t~of tl~e existing~3,110 square-foot multi-tenant commer~crei~complex [~threE existin~~n-s ry concr~~ buildings at 600 and 7fJt} Dubuqus~~ve~_~e and th~con~~ruction ~~~ 12~4,U51 squaw-foci Lowe's Horne Impronem~r~t V1!'a~l~house::l`i~iietir~tg, a 24,69a:~gruare-foot Loiit€~~~Garden Center; and a 65b-space surface parking lot. The 12.8 acre site is zoned Planned Commercial and is located at 700 Dubuque Avenue in the East of 101 industrial area of South San Francisco. ALUC Staff Care~ments The text on page 9-7 of'the DFEIR includes one paragraph about noise impacts related to airports, nail 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 prajectsite. As I have mentioned many trines, via comments on other DEIRs for proposed projects in the East of 101 area of South San. Francisco, the project site may be subject 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. D-1 ~ ~ ~ yr it y - ~ F c tom[ r , ej~ ~' ~ ` ~ 555 COtlroTV CENTER, 5TH FLOOR, REDWOOD CITY. CA. 94063. 6501599-14D6. 6501594-99$0 (FRtv100341W.DOC) ALUC Staff Comments on a Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (DFEIR) for a Proposed Lowe's Home ImprovementVllarehouse Building, a Lowe's Garden Center, and Related Parking at 704 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 signlhcant Impact.° Although 1 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 single-event noise levels and-overflight frorn aircraft-departures-at San-Francisco International Airport." The text of tfte 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 anoise-semsiiive land use, this additional information will not change the conclusion butwill provide a more complete and accurate discussion of the existing noise environment on which io base the conclusion. if you have any questions, please contact me at 651)!363-4417. Sincere) , David .Carbone, ALUC Staff cc: CCAG Airpor< Land Use Committee (ALUC} members Richard Napier, CCAG Executive Director Nixon Larn, SFO P{arming Sandy liesnard, Aviation Environmental Planner, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics D-2 a lu cstafrcomleelssfiowesdfeim1ay06.doe CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter D: City/County Association of Governments, Airport Land Use Committee, May 1, 2006. Response to Comment D-1: 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 Ciry 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 Zess than signif2cant im~iact." LOWE'S PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-17 CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 19-18 LOWE'S PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR ~"`. ey: CAITriANS TAANSf'OPTAT'70 pLANNINO; 5l0 2Bt3 5580; flay-5-06 11 : t OAit; Page t ~ A'1'a of CAIIKINN1A-~11~Q{[,59 '171ANS70K7AT1 gnu lKUlswG ~,~r~ ~(irljll l>4f'LryvAK Ql~tsvr.,a.c~.rtiv IDEi"AR'I'li9F:NT OF'll'RANSP()RTA'#'lON Ili GRAND AVENUE '. O.13DX 23G6U PHOt1E (5 t t)) 266-5sos =A~{ (S10)28ti-0559 I' 1-Y [800) 735-2929 lvtay 5, Z~6 ~ tt r ee Mr. Steve Carlson City at South 5fln Francisco 3i5 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 940Ba Dear Mr. Catison: LOW>t;'S 1PRO,TECT -DRAFT EN'VIRQNMEN'1<'Al.1.ND'AC'I` REPpRT ~~?~•~ *~., •; ~`j~f rr~s y,,..r pvw.r! br rnurg,r ~iriuu! sMtal~Y4 sM-101-22.44 SCH~20()Sa82031 Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Departtricnt) in tltc enviranrt-ental review process for Lo+we's project. The fallowing cornrnents arc ba:;ed an the Uratt Envixonmental Impact Report (DP.IR}. As Iead agency, the City of South 3at~ Francisco is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to stata highways. The project's fair share contrihution, financing, scheduling, implernezltation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for al] proposed mitigation measnn:s. The projact's spa:ific trttfific mitigstion fee should be identified in both flit 1Ysffic Impact Study And the DB1K. Any r+egturetl roadway improvements should be completed prior to issuance of the CesRificate of Occupancy. Since an encroacbrnettt permit is requited for work in the State ltigltE of Way (RQW), and the Dcparttmens will not issue a permit until our concerns are adequately ;~iddresscd, we strongly recommend that the lend agcmy work with both the applicant and the Uepartmcnt to ensure that our concerns are resolved during the CEQA process, and in any case prior tv submittal of a permit application. Furthlt+r cQmtnents will be provided during the encroachment permit process; aer the end of this letter for more informat'son ttgatding encroachment penults. ~'-+gvel Demand Forecartfng i. The DEIR should include a discussion and graphics showing project trip distribution, Project only turning mo~cmznt volume6 should b+L shown. hdighwgy Qperali4ns i. Limiting project ©eeess w two driveways would reduce project-rotated congestion impacts to bubuque Avenue, the Dubuque Avenue/Grand Avenue intersection and to U5 141 Southbound Ramps at Grand Avenue. E-1 E-2 E-3 "Cutlrans trnprove~ moUifily arror.7 CaJ1lu-ala" ent By: CAL7RANS THANSpOHTATID PLANNING; 51p 2A6 556D; htRy-5-Df3 tt:i1AM; Page 2/4 Mr. Sic+-r Culcoo May 3.200h l+~se 2 2. }tevisc the analysis to account for the adjustrnem to passenger car equiv:,loncc {pct). >"rccway I rump capacity opcratiunb rtrflect pee while the analysis does nut. Page ! 1-21. 3. The impact of Base Case + Project queues at the Northbound leg of the Oyster Point Boulev~rdlpubuque Avenue intcraection extending beyond the US lUl RarnpslDubuque Avcnuc inter.;ection should be evaluated, and mitigation. recommended far significant impacts. Specifically, how will this affect Off--ramp traffic? Will vehicle queues extend onto the US l41 mainliitte? Were these intersections analyzed as independent frccbody interscctiona or were they analyzed as a coonlinated system? Since queuing coo}tl impact upstream intersections, they should be analyzed as a coordinated system. 'tables 11-7, -8, -9, and -1.4. 4. The impact of Base Cass + Project ~OZU queues at the US l0! Southbound RampslBayshure Boulevard intersection extending bactc onto the US lUl Mainline segment should be evaluated, aad tn{tigatian n=Commended for significant impacts. Pagel 1-27, Table 11-l0. 5. Mitigation. including f:-ir. share fees, should bo riccommrnderl fur projett-related Significant impacts at the US 101 Nottltbourtd On-ramp/oyster Point BoulevardlDubuque Avenue intersection. Pages 11-67, -6$, frnpact 11-2. 6. Midgatian, includins fair share fear, should be reeommended where pmjat trips exacerbate 95"' pcrertttile queuing impacts. This also applies where volumes da not increase by more than two percent since adding just one additional vehicle can result in significant itnpacts. 9S`h percentile queuing analysis should be included for a!l State intcrscctions. Pages ! l-55, and 31.74, -?5. 7. Since project queuing could potentially back up unto the Southbound US ]Ol Mainline from the Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenuo intersection, project impacts et this location should be evaluated in the DEIR, and mitigation recommended where significant impacts Could vault. Signal Operrrtioas 200th with Project The DFJR should be revised to include mitigation for quetung tit the 301 1Vorthbaund Ot'f-ramp at l~ubuquc Avenue, which extends to the gate area during the PlvJl peak. The Base Case + Project volmne of 2,Oll vehicles per hour at the Northbound aff-r~unp vvou[d require this improvetttent. The Synehr+o files show this impact occurring within 25 minutes during the PM peak. Sce the enclosuta for tecomtnended mitigation. • 2420 with'1?roject Mitigation, including fair share Fees. should be recommended for the project's contribution to impacts in the year 2020. [IydrpuTirs !. Provide runoff calculations for "before and after" project construction to show that existing drainage facilities tre adequate forgroject-related runoff. E-4 E-5 E-6 E-7 E-8 E-9 E-10 E-11 E-12 "CrtlrMnt imprw~rsmubilirq ocross Cafjrumia" 1~1t By: CALTAANS TRANSPORTATIO PLANNING; 51D 2B8 55BQ; 61ay-5-t18 11:11AM; Pege 314 M:. sicrt Csubrm May 5 ~ 2006 . YaRr 3 2. Jrxisang drainage patterns at the project site and in the vicinity should be maintained after E-1 3 pruje~t rumplrliun. 3. Please submit grading and drainage plans fpr review when they are available. I E-14 Cul~um~ Resources Cultural resources arc not addressed in the D•EIR. Any project-related ground disturbance in the State ROW should be preceded by an archs~eo]ngical record search at the Nnrthweai ?nformation E-15 Center before en cncroachmertt permit can be issued. This is required by CEQA and the California Aublic Resources Code Stc[lDn 5024,5, as regards State-owned hiAtorie resot:r>res. Erteroacl~nrsrrt Parnsi! . Work that encroaches onto the State ROW requiras an encroachment pctznit that is issued by the Depaztment. To apply, a completed encroachment permit application, environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans clearly indicating Str-te ROBV mwt be submitted to the E-1 6 addrtss below, Traffic-related mitigaliott measures should be incorporated into the cvnswctian plans during thG ancroachrnent permit pr4casF. Sec the website Sink below for more information. http:/Iwww.dot,ca.goo/hq/traffopsldcvelopsarv/penliits/ Sean Nozzari, District ~i`iiae Chief Office of Permits Califami8 DOT. District 4 p.o. Box z366o Oakland, CA 44623-t?b60 Please Etc! flee to dill or [:mail PStri~ya Maurice of my statt~ at (510) ti22-1b43 or nattticia mauricet_~dot.ea.eov with any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, TIMQTHY ABLE District Bra Chief lGR/CEQA c: Ms.'1'eny Roberts. State C'leati,rtghouse Enclosure "Calfrons Gnprovet-nobillrY aerars CartromEn" ent By: CALTRANS TRANSPdRTATIO PLANNING; 510 288 5580; Mey-S-OB 11:11AM; Page a/d CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter E: California Department of Transportation, District 4, May 5, 2006. Response to Comment E-1: 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 Avenue/U.S.101 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 L.C1WE'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 Ciry of South San Francisco for developments east of the U.S.101 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-S: 95th percentile queuing analysis has been provided for all intersections within the Oyster Point interchange and a separate set of Synchro/SIM traffic runs 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.101 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-10: 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-11: The proposed Lowe's project does not produce a significant impact to vehicle queuing on the U.S.101 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 runs (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.101 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 runs is to show the feasibility of clearing year 2020 cumulative traffic from the U.S.101 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 1.2-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 EIR MAY-66-2966 iB~39 f'Ut3LIC WORKS 1 659 36i 8220 P.61 ®epar~aent ~f Public Works BOARD OF SUPERVISbR3 MARK GIiURCH R(GiiAF(D 5. GORDON JERRY HILL ROSE JACOBS GIBBON ADRIENNE TISSIER NEIL R_ GULLEN T DIRECTDR tea/ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 555 COGhtTY GEHTER, 5~^ FLOOR • ftEOWDOD CITY • CAt_1FORMfa44083.78$S -PHONE (85D) 583.~iDD • FAX (BiDj ]61-B2ZD May 8, 20ti6 Mr. Steve Carlson City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.D. @ox 7l 1 South San Francisco, CA 94483 Letter F Dear Mr. Carlson: Subject: Notice of Availability, Draft environmental Ianpact Report (DEIR) for tlhe Prelposed Lowe'a Developmee><t Project, City of South San Francisco (AP1V 415-Q21-090) ThI; San Mateo County Department of Public Works, in its capacity as the AdrQ'e_nistrator of the San Mateo County Flood Control District (District), bas reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) forihe pmjcct and offers the following comments: The DEIR slates that the existing on-site storm drain system would be modified so that the pipe located in the southern corner of the property would be receiving nearly all site runoff, instead of the approximately half ofthe nanoff as is currently existing. Mitigation Measure 7-3a would require the applicant to conduct a Storm Drain Analysis to determine whether the existing municipal storm sewer systerrt has capacity to accommodate the increased flows. The District requests that the StDrm Drain Analysis also determine changes, if any, to outlets at Colma Creek_ The Storm 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. o 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 e~dsting a[rd future discharge rates must be submitted for review and approval. If it is determined that the future discharge rate exceeds the existing race, an on-site storm water detention system which would release surface runoff at a rate comparable to the existing flaw rate of the site must be designed and incorporated into the project. F-1 F-2 hIAY-08-2006 1B~40 PUBLIC WORKS 1 650 361 8220 P.132 IIl1r. Steve Carlson, City of South San Francisco, Planning Division SnbJect: Notliee of Availability, Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Pre~posed I..oVPB'S 1!?eyelopmetet Project, City of SouttTia Sorg 1~'raarcisco (APN 015-021-pg0) May 8, 2p06 Page 2 r The DEIR states that a storm drain interceptor properly designed per CASQA sizing recommendations would be installed before the connection to the municipal storm drain system as a means for treatment. It dons not, however, discuss who F-3 would be responsible for periodic cleaning and maintenance of this equipment. If you have any questions. please contact Mark Chow at (650) 599-1489, or myself at (650) 599-1417, Very truly yours, Ann M, St:limar,, P.E. Principal Civil Engineer Utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection AMS:MC G:1V5ER51tITIL17YlCatma Creek FCDiWORDIReview 6rttemal PmJcot1200516oD-7Up Dubuque Lom's -Modce otPrep. Raviaw.doe F-]49 {9Fi) cc: Brian C. Lee, F.E., Deputy Director, Engincsring and Resource Protection Division Mary Chow, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer, Utilities-Flood Control-Wa#ershed Protection TDTAL P. 02 CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter F: San Mateo County Public Works Department, May 8, 2006. Response to Comment F-1: 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 Storm Drain Analysis. The applicant shall conduct a hydraulic analysis of the proposed storm drain system ,~ . to determine andchanges 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 s stem. 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. Mitigation Measure 7-3b Revised Storm Drain Plan. 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. n i i c i. ~• ,.t ra,. ,-i i n n - r~i "~ ~ 1 ~ -- .. - - 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. Anew impact (Impact 7-4) specifically detailing the proposed increase in discharge to the southern municipal storm drainpipe is included below and in Chapter 18, as are mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. 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 signif2cant impact. Mitigation Measure 7-4a 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. Mitigation Measure 7-4b 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.' In general, interceptors are ' BASiv1AA, 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.' 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 Ci 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. z University of Massachusetts Amherst, 2003. s Rinker Materials Corporation, 2005. a EPA, 1999. LOWE'S PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-31 CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 19-32 LOWE'S PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR htaY-B-296 17:46 FRDht: ca-~ . May 6, 2006 Sieve Carlson Senior Planner Gity of South San Francisco Planning Division P.4. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 T0:98Q96639 P.1~3 ec:ro d o:_t:mcs=cam YtE.ror's~aca, Cw~m Josh Cisw6noc, Vice G1M~t1 MMStWiEi Fd1b a04 WCE Jlr H~A1NE7i }Er~t Ht~ AI1~IUe: L. l.tDYO Jan McLE~A! SOPHE3 rA717~KEll NeuuELJ. Se~+:oN E1tECUTNE O~oECTCII Letter G 1tE: Draft Environmental Inapuet Report, City of Sauth.San Francisco's Lowe'B Project, SC1:I No. 3rJt?S-t18~?03i Dear Mr. Carlson, We appreciate the opportunity to comment of the Draft Environmental Impact Report fAElli) for the proposed l.owe's Praiect in the City o£South San Francisco. The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (]PB) respectSully submits the following comments: #i. Chapter 1, 3.i Project ll.ocation grad Site Cauditions The DE1R mistakenly indicates that the property owner of the railroad tracks adjacent to the proposed project site is the Southern Pae'rfic Railroad. The JPB is, and hc~s been, the property owner of record for over a decade. The JPB was not contacted as the impacted property owner for this DE1R, nor for the DFl'R for the Horne Depot Development in South San Francisco #2. Chapter 4. Mitigation Measure q-Y. It can be anticipated that casual workers and employees of the Lowe's Development will use the Caltrain train station for transportation. Wanting access (sidewalks and paths) should be constructed between the station and Lawe's as part of TDM#l 9 so that people do not endanger themselves by walking along or crossing the train tracks. tx3. Chapter 6. Mitigation Measure 6-3h. if groundwater removed by dewatering systems is to be discharged into the storm drain system, JPB recommends that the impacts of this operation be considered in the Storm Drain Analysis proposed in this document (see comment #4}, #W. Hazardous Materials, Impact 6-3 There is a known hazazdous materials plume in the northeast quadrant of the proposed project site that has not been delineated anywhere in the DEIR. This hazardous materials plume should be located on the site plan and safety measures should be included to prevent the potential spread of this plume. Page 1 G-1 G-2 G-3 G-4 PE1dIN5l]LA CORRIDQR JOINT POWER5 i30ARD 1250 San Carlos Avenue - P.C?. Box 3008 Ban Carlos, CA 94070-1308 (85D)50a-B26B t'iFiY-8-2006 17:46 FRQ't: 70:58296639 t#5. Chapter 5. Miligation Measure ti-4. JPl3 recommends at least a 24 foot setback from the railroad's west property lh'e to serve as a fue break, an access for emerger_cy vehicles, and as a security prccautian in case of an incident on the railroad adjacent to the ILowe's property site. JPB has been contacted by the City's Fue Department in regards to their limited ability to respond to a firs or hazardous spill in the rail yard from railroad tank cars and about trespassers accessing the yard and tampering with the track or rail cars. The Lowe's development will also be storing quantities of combustible cotntnodities an its property site. A 24 foot setback would minimize the spread of potential hazards between the railroad and the project site, as woll as address the security and access ISStleS. The project design should include a structural analysis of the effect of the live and dead loads of the development on the adjacent railroad tracks. Appropriate mitigation measures should be made far any gzound movement caused by the loading conditions ofthe development. #b. Chapter 7. Mitigation Measure 7-3a. The proposed project will have significant impacts to the drainage in the area and contribute to flooding in the railroad corridor; This development drains to several culverts tl]si cross the railroad conidar that are over 50 years old and do not work wel! on the railroad property or off railroad property. The grading should be designed so that the surface drainage does net reach the railroad corridor. The cumulative impacts of the 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 require the reconstruction and increase in capacity of the aforementioned culverts. #7_ Chapter 10. Police Protection. Due to the proximity of the train station, there is a high probability that employees and +casual workers may be tempted to 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 1I. Mttlgation Measure 11-10. Csitrain Station and lvowe's South Driveway Caltrain has beta working with the City Staff for the past two years on the plans for a new South San Francisco Train Station. Caltrain has cooperated with the City to reorient the station platforms aml improve pedestrian access w assist the City with its goal to enhance the connectivity between the downtown area and the east side businesses. A shared driveway could be part of the new station's plans. The new station will expand its parking capacity by approximately 200 parking spaces which wil! be accessed from Dubuque Avenue. The traffic study in the DEIR did net account for the increase in vaffic the[ will be generated by the parking expansion of the South San Francisco Train Station. The cumulative effects of the Lawe's Development, the Horne Depot Development and the expansion of the Caltrain Station should be analyzed together and their cumulative effects mitigated appropriately. P.2r3 G-5 G-6 G-7 G-8 Page 2 i'F1Y-8-2006 17.47 FROM: T0:9t321b639 r .3~3 ~. Chapter 12. Uti]iiieB. The proposed project will require changes and upgrades to the water, fire, sewer, gas and possibly other utiliry litres. Most of [here lines transversely cxoss the railroad, are aver 50 years old and should be brought up to current standards. The JPB will be installing a 25kV ac (SOkV phase to phase) overhead ca#enary system on the tracks. This will require all telephone, cable, power and other service lines which are less than 25kV io be removed. Therefore, any overhead uti{ity ]ines which cross the tracks or tare within 10 feet of the JPH property line, which serve the Lowe's or Home Depot sites, should be relocated underground. For power lines above 2SkV, clearance requirements must be determined in accordance with appropriate electrical c]earartee standards and coordinated with the JPB's Electrification Program Manager. #ID, General -Sot Aside Property ffor the Fufure Electrification Substation The proposed Lowe's development will infringe on the parcel of land identified in JP9- Caltrain's draft EA/E1R as the preferred site for Electric Traction Substation ATF-l. The Tracrion Substation is required to supply power to the overhead contact System when the Caltrain line is electrified. It will tap into the 115kV utility network and transform the power down to 25kV for use by the electric trains. The preferred location is immediately adjacent to the Caltrain tracks and PG&E's 115kV transmission ]ines and is therefore critical to the Blectrificatton Project. All other alternate sites are impractical due to their distance from either the railroad tracks or the utiltty supply. This would introduce added expense, complexity, and site io the substation needed in this area. During feasibility discussions with FG&E about the substation location, it was detet7nined that the buildings and transformers contained within the proposed Caltrain substation would not be permitted to occupy the space directly under the transmission lines. Therefore, the parcels of land immediately adjacent to the Vansmission line easements would need to be acquired by the JPB to position the substation next to the lines to be tapped This puts the proposed Lowe's building and facilities in conflict with the planned substation site. While some flexibiiity does exist in the layout of the substation building and equipment, the overall size rcquircd is relativcly fixed. Approximately 32,000 square feet arc required to provide adequate space for the electrical equipment safety clearances. Since the Caltrain substation space requirements are relatively small tampered to the proposed Lawe's developmen5 we believe that both projects could be accommodated on the parcel. We recommend coordinating the designs and adjusting,the layouts of the facilities to Find a solution for both projects on the northeast corner of the proposed sate. 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-fi338. Sincerely, Marie Pang Environmental Manager Peninsula Corridor Jaint Powers Board G-9 G-10 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-1: 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 c~..~~.,..... n,.,.:r.,. Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board QPB) 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#1 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 stormwater 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-1 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 Ciry 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-10: 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 Ciry 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 LC1WE'S PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-39 CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES expense, complexity and size that may result from JPB ultimately locating such a facility elsewhere. PAGE 19-40 LOWE'S PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR