Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Lowe's Project Draft Focused EIR 08-06-2006
L DRAFT FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT State Clearinghouse Number: 2005-08-2031 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO L LOWERS PROJECT PREPARED BY LAMPHIER -GREGORY JANUARY 2006 ~- ~ritroranaWOlCeM~o~o~ CASE no• I~0~J _ bOq~O ~' ~~T~Z ~J~ -OOO Z `- DATE CiRCUtATED: , 24 5 F DATE REOOMMENDED: V ~ Z~ , 2 UO l~P GATE APPROVED: Z D DRAFT FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT State Clearinghouse Number: 2005-08-2031 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LOW E'S P RO) ECT PREPARED BY LAMPHIER -GREGORY JANUARY 2006 CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report ............................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 EIR Review Process ......................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Content and Organization of the EIR ........................................................................................................................... 1-2 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Proposed Project ............................................................................................................................................................. .2-1 2.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................................. . 2-1 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Project Location and Site Conditions ........................................................................................................................... . 3-1 3.2 Project Description ......................................................................................................................................................... . 3-1 3.3 Required Approvals ......................................................................................................................................................... . 3-2 4. AIR QUALITY ....................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... . 4-1 4.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................................................................ .4-1 4.3 Air Quality Data .............................................................................................................................................................. . 4-2 4.4 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................ . 4-3 5. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... . 5-1 5.2 Setting ................................................................................................................................................................................ .5-1 5.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................... 5-12 6. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ..................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... . 6-1 6.2 Setting ................................................................................................................................................................................ .6-2 6.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................... 6-13 7. HYDROLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... . 7-1 7.2 Setting ............................................................................................................................................................................... ..7-1 7.3 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................................................................... .. 7-5 7.4 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................... 7-10 H. LAND USE .......................................................................................................................... H-1 8.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... .. 8-1 8.2 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................... .. 8-2 9. NOISE ............................................................................................................................... . 9-1 9.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... .. 9-1 9.2 Setting ............................................................................................................................................................................... ..9-4 9.3 Impact Analysis ...........................................................................:................................................................................... .. 9-5 10. PUBLIC $ERVICES ......................................................... 10-1 .................................................... 10.1 Setting ............................................................................................................................................................................10-1 10.2 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................... ..10-2 11. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ....................................... 11-1 ..................................... 11 1 Introduction . . ................................................................................................................................................................ ..11-1 11.2 Setting .......................................................................................................................................................................... ..11-2 11.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................... 11-55 12. UTILITIES ........................................................................................................................ 12-1 12.1 Setting .......................................................................................................................................................................... ..12-1 12.2 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................... ..12-3 13. ALTERNATIVES .............................................................. 13-1 .................................................. 13.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................13-1 13.2 Alternatives Analysis .................................................................................................................................................. ..13-1 13.3 Altematives Evaluation .............................................................................................................................................. ..13-2 14. IMPACT OVERVIEW ................................................................ 14-1 .......................................... 14.1 Significant & Unavoidable Impacts that Cannot be Mitigated to a Level of Less than Significant ..................14-1 14.2 Impacts Deternuned not to be Significant ............................................................................................................... .14-1 14.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ..................................................................................................... .14-5 14.4 Growth Inducing Impacts .......................................................................................................................................... .14-7 14.5 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................................................... .14-7 15. REFERENCES ....................................................................... 15-1 ............................................ 15.1 Report Preparers .......................................................................................................................................................... .15-1 15.2 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................................. .15-1 16. APPENDICES 16 1 .................................................................................................................... - A: Notice of Preparation and Comments on Notice of Preparation ............................................................................. .. A-1 B: Traffic Tables ................................................................................................................................................................... .. B-1 C: Air Quality Model Output, Emissions Procedures and Calculations ....................................................................... .. C-1 FIGURES 3-1 Project Site and Vicinity ....................................................................................................................................................3-3 3-2 Project Site Plan ............................................................................................................................................................. ....3-5 5-1A Geologic Map ................................................................................................................................................................ ....5-5 5-1B Geologic Units and Symbols ....................................................................................................................................... .... 5-7 7-1 Colma Creek Flood Control Zones .................................................................................................................................7-3 7-2 FEMA Flood Zones Map ............................................................................................................................................. ....7-7 11-1 Project Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................................................................... ..11-3 11-2 Location of Intersection, Freeway Ramp, and Mainline Freeway Analysis ........................................................... ..11-7 11-3 Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes ............................................................................................................................... ..11-9 11-4 Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes ............................................................................................................................... 11-11 11-5 Existing Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control ................................................................................................ 11-13 11-6 Year 2006 Geometrics and Intersection Control ...................................................................................................... 11-31 11-7 Year 2020 Geometrics and Intersection Control ...................................................................................................... 11-33 11-8 Year 2006 Base Case (Without Project) AM Peak Hour Volumes ......................................................................... 11-39 11-9 Year 2006 Base Case (Without Project) PM Peak Hour Volumes .......................................................................... 11-41 11-10 Year 2020 Base Case (Without Project) AM Peak Hour Volumes ......................................................................... 11-51 11-11 Year 2020 Base Case (Without Project) PM Peak Hour Volumes .......................................................................... 11-53 11-12 Year 2006 Base Case + Project AM Peak Hour Volumes .......................................................................................11-59 11-11 Year 2006 Base Case + Project PM Peak Hour Volumes ........................................................................................11-61 11-14 Year 2020 Base Case + Project AM Peak Hour Volumes .......................................................................................11-63 11-15 Year 2020 Base Case + Project PM Peak Hour Volumes ........................................................................................11-65 TABLES 2-1 Executive Summary Table ................................................................................................................................................2-2 4-1 Air Quality Data Summary for San Francisco and Redwood Ciry, 2001-2003 ..................................................... ....4-3 4-2 Predicted 8-Hour Worse Carbon Monoxide Levels ................................................................................................. ....4-9 4-3 Daily Regional Air Pollutant Emissions ..................................................................................................................... ..4-10 5-1 Peak Ground Motions ................................................................................................................................................... ..5-10 7-1 Potential Pollutants from Industrial Activities ........................................................................................................... ..7-12 7-2 Existing and Proposed Drainage Conditions for the 10-Year Design Storm ....................................................... ..7-16 9-1 Definition of Acoustical Terms ..................................................................................................................................... ....9-2 9-2 Typical Sound Levels Measured in the Environment and Industry .......................................................................... .... 9-3 11-1 Intersection Level of Service AM Peak Hour ............................................................................................................ 11-16 11-2 Intersection Level of Service PM Peak Hour ............................................................................................................. 11-17 11-3 Freeway Operation AM Peak Hour ............................................................................................................................ 11-19 11-4 Freeway Operation PM Peak Hour ............................................................................................................................. 11-20 11-5 Existing, Year 2010 Base Case and Base Case + Project Freeway Ramp Operation, Peak Hour ........................ 11-22 11-6 Existing, Year 2020 Base Case and Base Case + Project Freeway Ramp Operation, Peak Hour ........................ 11-23 11-7 Vehicle Queuing Within Oyster Point Interchange, 50a' Percentile Queue, AM Peak Hour ................................ 11-24 11-8 Vehicle Queuing Within Oyster Point Interchange, 50~ Percentile Queue, PM Peak Hour ................................ 11-25 11-9 Vehicle Queuing Within Oyster Point Interchange, 95~ Percentile Queue, AM Peak Hour ................................ 11-26 11-10 Vehicle Queuing Within Oyster Point Interchange, 95~ Percentile Queue, PM Peak Hour .............................. 11-27 11-11 Trip Generation of Approved Development Within East of 101 Area Expected by Year 2006 ..................... 11-35 11-12A Home Depot Trip Generation .................................................................................................................................. 11-36 11-12B Net Change in Near Term Horizon Trip Generation, Home Depot Minus Existing Use (Levitz) ................ 11-36 11-12C Net Change in Year 2020 Trip Generation, Home Depot Minus Office/R&D Uses ...................................... 11-36 11-13 Terrabay Phase II Trip Generation (Remaining Residential Development, as of Feb 2005) ............................ 11-37 11-14 Traffic Distribution, Office/Research and Development ........................................................................................ 11-43 11-15A Lowe's Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................................. 11-58 11-15B Net Change in Trip Generation, Lowe's and West Marine Minus Existing Site Uses ...................................... 11-58 11-15C Net Change in Year 2020 Trip Generation, Lowe's and West Marine Minus Office/R&D ............................ 11-58 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, requires EIRs to be prepared for all projects which may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIR is an informational document, the purposes of which, according to CEQA Guidelines, are "...to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, to identify alternatives to a project, and to indicate the manner in which such significant effects can be mitigated or avoided." The information contained in this Focused EIR is intended to be objective and impartial, and to enable the reader to arrive at an independent judgment regarding the significance of the impacts resulting from the proposed Lowe's Project. 1.2 EIR REVIEW PROCESS This EIR is intended to enable City decision makers, public agencies and interested citizens to evaluate the broad environmental issues associated with the overall character and concept of the proposed Project. In accordance with California law, the EIR on the Project must be certified before any action on the Project can be taken by the South San Francisco City Council. During the review period for this Draft EIR, interested individuals, organizations and agencies may offer their comments on its evaluation of Project impacts and alternatives. The comments received during this public review period will be compiled and presented together with responses to these comments. The Draft EIR and the Final EIR (including the response to comments) together will constitute the EIR for the Project. The South San Francisco City Council will review the EIR documents, and will determine whether or not the EIR provides a full and adequate appraisal of the Project and its alternatives. In reviewing the Draft EIR, readers should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible environmental impacts associated with property acquisition, as well as the potential future environmental impacts associated with the Lowe's Project. Readers are also encouraged to review and comment on ways in which significant impacts associated with this Project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts. Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments and, whenever possible, should submit data or references in support of their comments. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 1-1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The 45 day review period for the Draft EIR is from January 31, 2006 to March 17, 2006. Comments should be submitted in writing during this review period to: Steve Carlson, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, Ca. 94083 Please contact Steve Carlson at 650-877-8535 if you have any questions. After reviewing the Draft EIR and the Final EIR, and following action to certify the EIR as adequate and complete, the South San Francisco City Council will be in a position to approve the Project as currently proposed, revise the Project prior to approval, or reject the Project. This determination will be based upon information presented on the entirety of the Project, its impacts and probable consequences, and the possible alternatives and mitigation measures available. 1.3 CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THE EIR Following this brief description of the Lowe's Project Focused EIR, the document's ensuing chapters include the following: • Chapter 2: Executive Summary • Chapter 3: Project Description • Chapter 4: Air Quality • Chapter 5: Geology and Soils • Chapter 6: Hazardous Materials • Chapter 7: Hydrology • Chapter 8: Land Use • Chapter 9: Noise • Chapter 10: Public Services • Chapter 11: Transportation and Circulation • Chapter 12: Utilities • Chapter 13: Alternatives • Chapter 14: Impact Overview • Chapter 15: References • Chapter 16: Appendices In Chapters 4 through 12 existing conditions are discussed in the Setting, followed by an evaluation of potentially significant impacts that may be associated with the Project. PAGE 1-2 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR z EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 PROPOSED PROJECT The Project consists of the demolition of three existing site 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 655-space surface parking lot. 2.2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The analyses in Chapters 4 through 12 of this document provide a description of the existing setting, potential impacts of Project implementation, and recommended mitigation measures to reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts that could occur as a result of Project implementation. The following table lists a summary statement of each impact and corresponding mitigation measures, as well as the level of significance after mitigation. Significant impacts require the implementation of mitigation measures, or alternatives, or a finding by the Lead Agency that the measures are infeasible for specific reasons. For some of the significant impacts, mitigation measures may not be effective in reducing the impacts to a less than significant level. These impacts are designated significant and unavoidable. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-1 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Air Quality Impact 4-1: Implementation of TCMs. Mitigation Measure 4-1: Transportation Demand Less than Determining consistency with the Clean Air Plan Management Program. The Project will be required significant involves assessing whether Transportation Control to develop a Transportation Demand Management Measures (TCMs) are implemented. The (TDM) plan since it would generate more than 100 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines identifies seven new vehicle trips per day (approximately 160 new TCMs (TCM numbers 1, 9, 12, 15, 17, 19 and 20) trips during the AM peak hour and 320 new trips that have Cities and Counties identified among the during the PM peak hour, per Table 11-15B), which is implementing agencies. At the Project level, the a significant impact (Impact 11-1). The TDM plan City along with the Project applicant would be shall include the following components so that the required to implement the following TCMs: Project would reasonably implement applicable TCMs: TCM #1 Support Voluntary Employer- Based Trip Reduction Programs 1. TDM#1 -Support shuttle service to BART. There aze currently shuttles that serve TCM#9 Improve Birycle Access and employers in the area. The Project shall Facilities become a sponsoring employer so that shuttles would serve the site, providing TCM#12 Improve Arterial Traffic employees an alternative mode of Management commuting. The Project site is adjacent to a Caltrain station. TCM#19 Pedestrian Travel 2. TDM#9 -Provide bicycle amenities so that The Project does not include specific measures that employees and customers could bicycle to aze consistent with applicable TCMs identified in the Project. Such amenities shall include the Clean Air Plan. This is a potentially safe onsite bicycle access and convenient significant impact. storage (bike racks). Amenities for employees shall include secure bicycle Under the General Plan policies, the project would parking, lockers, and shower facilities. be required to implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to reduce 3. TDM#12 -The Applicant and City shall Project trips. This would, in turn, reduce air work to improve traffic operations at pollutant emissions. If appropriate TCMs are intersections serving the Project that aze included in the TDP plan, then the Project would predicted to operate at congested levels. be consistent with the Clean Air Plan TCMs and Such improvements shall include lane the impact would be less-than-significant. striping, signal timing adjustments, and additional turn lane capacity. 4. TDM#19 - The Project shall include sidewalks with shade trees that provide safe and convenient access to the Project and any shuttle or future bus stops that serve the Project (see TDM#1 above). The Final TDM Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) and the City's Chief Planner. PAGE 2-2 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance With the implementation of appropriate TCMs, impacts related to consistency with the Clean Air Plan would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact 4-2: Construction Dust. Construction Mitigation Measure 4-2: Dust Suppression Less than activity involves a high potential for the emission Procedures. The following measures shall be significant of air pollutants. Construction activities would included in construction contracts to control fugitive generate exhaust emissions from vehicles and dust emissions during construction. equipment and fugitive particulate matter emissions that would affect local air quality. This would be a • Water all active construction areas at least potentially .rignificaut impact. twice daily. Construction activities would temporarily affect • Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, local air quality, causing a temporary increase in sand or other materials that can be blown particulate dust and other pollutants. Dust by the wind. emission during periods of construction would increase particulate concentrations at neighboring • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and properties. This impact is potentially significant, but other loose materials or require all trucks to normally mitigatible. maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide thresholds of significance for air quality impacts. The BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction dust impacts are based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emission of PM~o. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the applicant shall submit a construction plan that includes measures to reduce air quality impacts and documentation that the BAAQMD has issued a permit. The plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief Building Official and City Engineer. Implementation of construction controls will reduce air pollutant emissions associated with construction activities to a level less than signfficant. LC1WE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-3 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance .Geology and Sails ~` ~ ~~ Impact 5-1: Seismic Ground Shaking. There is a Mitigation Measure 5-1a: Compliance with Less than high probability that the proposed development Uniform Building Code and California Building Significant would be subjected ~o strong to violent ground Code. Project development shall meet requirements shaking from an eazthquake during its design life. of the California Building Code Vol. 1 and 2, 2001 Strong seismic ground shaking is considered a Edition, including the California Building Standazds, potentially significant impact. 2001 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, and as modified by the amendments, additions and deletions as adopted by the City of South San Francisco, California. Incorporation of seismic construction standards would reduce the potential for catastrophic effects of ground shaking, such as complete structural failure, but would not completely eliminate the hazard of seismically induced ground shaking. Mitigation Measure 5-lb: Compliance with recommendations of a Design Level Geotechnical Report. Proper foundation engineering and construction in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Registered Structural Engineer shall be included in the Project. At a minimum, the structural engineering design shall incorporate seismic parameters as outlined in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report and from the California Building Code. The City's Chief Building Official may require a Final Geotechnical Engineering Report. The applicant's plans shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief Building Official. Mitigation Measure 5-lc: Obtain a building permit and complete final design review. The Project applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Final Design Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by a licensed structural engineer for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. Confomuty with these mitigation measures would PAGE 2-4 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Impact 5-2. Liquefaction and Ground Surface Settlement. The Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study by Consolidated Engineering Laboratories concluded that potentially liquefiable soil is present within the upper 15 feet below ground surface on the northern and southern margins of the site. Liquefaction of soils could result in damage to site improvements. A detailed liquefaction analysis was performed and included Cone Penetration Test studies to identify zones of potentially liquefiable soil. The potential for liquefaction site soils is considered a potentially significant impact. Impact 5-3 Unstable Soils and Debris. Undocumented fill soils are present on most of the subject site to depths of approximately 5 to 10 feet below ground surface (BGS). Buried objects and reduce the Project's impact related to seismic ground shaking to a level of less than signifzcant. Mitigation Measure 5-2a: Compliance with recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering report and with Structural Design Plans as prepared by a Registered Structural Engineer. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Registered Structural Engineer. Structures shall be designed to minimize the affects of the anticipated seismic settlements. The City of South San Francisco Building Department shall perform review of the Structural Design Plans. The review shall be completed by a Registered Civil Engineer experienced in structural design or by a Registered Structural Engineer. The Geotechnical Engineer shall review the Structural Design Plans and provide approval for the Geotechnical elements of the plans. The design plans shall identify specific mitigation measures to reduce the liquefaction potential of surface soils. Mitigations measures may include excavation and replacement as engineered fill, reduced foundation loading, and ground improvement by methods such as stone columns or pressure grouting. Mitigation Measure 5-2b: Obtain a building permit and complete final design review. The Project applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Final Design Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by a licensed Structural Engineer for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact of seismic ground shaking to a less than signifzcant level. Mitigation Measure 5-3: Investigate unstable soils and debris. A detailed investigation of the undocumented fill soils shall be performed to determine the extent of potentially unstable soils and debris. Based on results of this study the Less than significant. Less than significant LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-5 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance debris were found during the site investigation. Fill soils of unknown quality aze present in the proposed building and parking areas. Fill soils may settle due to new building loads. The near surface soils aze also corrosive in nature and may affect concrete and steel placed in contact with them. Groundwater is present at shallow depths, approximately five feet below ground surface, and could impact excavations such as utility trenches. Groundwater will also limit the options to mitigate the undocumented fill. Older Bay Mud is present under portions of the site and may settle under design loading conditions resulting in differential settlement of structures. The presence of unstable soil and debris is a potentially significant impact. Impact 5-4: Soil Erosion. The Project would involve mass grading in a sensitive azea near the San Francisco Bay. During construction, grading would disturb soil and displace any topsoil that could potentially impact vicinity drainages, and would eventually impact Cohna Creek and the Bay. This would be a potentially signifzcant impact during and following site construction activities. Geotechnical Engineer shall determine appropriate measures to stabilize the unstable soils and debris present in undocumented fill at the site. Additional consolidation testing of older Bay Mud soils will be performed as part of the additional design level geotechnical investigation. Methods of soil stabilization may include excavation of unstable soil and debris, replacement with clean, engineered reinforced fill, construction of geo-piers to stabilize zones of unstable soil and debris, and other methods as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer. Implementation of the above mitigation measures will reduce the impact of unstable or potentially unstable soils to less than significant. Mitigation Measure 5-4a: Erosion Control Plan. Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit an Erosion Control Plan to the City in conjunction with the Grading Permit Application. The Erosion Control Plan shall include winterization, dust control, erosion control and pollution control measures conforming to the ABAG Manual of Standazds for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. The Erosion Control Plan shall describe the "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) to be used during and following construction to control pollution resulting from both storm and construction water runoff. The Plan shall include but not be limited to, locations of vehicle and equipment staging, portable restrooms, mobilization areas, and planned access routes. Recommended soil stabilization techniques include placement of straw wattles, silt fences, berms, and gravel construction entrance azeas or other control to prevent tracking sediment onto city streets and into storm drains. Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit the applicant's Erosion Control Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of South San Francisco Storm Water Coordinator and City Engineer. The City of South San Francisco Department of Public Works staff and/or representatives shall be required to inspect the site during grading and construction to ensure compliance with the SSFMC Grading Ordinance and approved plans, and require that the project applicant immediately correct any Less than Significant PAGE 2-6 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts ~ Recommended Mitigation Measures violations. Mitigation Measure 5-4b: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). In accordance with the Clean Water Act and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the Applicant shall file a SWPPP prior to the start of construction. The SWPPP shall include specific best management practices to reduce soil erosion. This is required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 99-O8-DWG. Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit the applicant's SWPPP shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of South San Francisco Storm Water Coordinator and the City Engineer. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the Project's impact to a level of less than significant. Resulting Level of Significance Hazardous Materials Impact 6-1: Routine transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed Lowe's complex, including pazking, warehousing, delivery, and shopping facilities, is designed for commercial retail. Retail sales items includes many potentially hazazdous products, including paints, thinners, solvents, preservatives, and large potentially flammable items, such as lumber. These items would be routinely delivered to the facility, transported to and from the site by consumers (generally in small quantities), and, when not sold or wazehoused, must be transported from the site for disposal or return to the manufacturer. Transport would be concentrated along Dubuque Avenue and onto the Bayshore Freeway. The risk of accidental upset and environmental contamination from routine transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous and potentially hazazdous materials to the public and environment is a potentially significant impact. Retail establishments, such as Lowe's Home Improvement Stores, aze normally required by law to report non-retail chemical storage of hazardous materials. Hazazdous materials may include paints, solvents, batteries, aerosol cans, compresses gas cylinders, asbestos containing materials, silica gels, lubricating oils, and fuels used to power generators Mitigation Measure 6-la: Hazardous Materials Less than Business Plan. In accordance with State law and Significant local regulations, businesses occupying the development must complete a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the safe storage and use of chemicals. The Business Plan must include the type and quantity of hazardous materials, a site map showing storage locations of hazardous materials and where they may be used and transported from, risks of using these materials (included in material safety data sheets for each material), a spill prevention plan, an emergency response plan, employee training consistent with OSHA guidelines, and emergency contact information. Businesses qualify for the program if they store a hazardous material equal to or greater than the minimum reportable quantities. These quantities are 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and pressure) for compressed gases. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-7 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance and other mechanical equipment, as well as any other chemicals considered hazardous by the San Mateo County Environmental Health Depaztment, Department of Tonic Substances Control, and other regulators. Lowe's is also responsible for reporting "off spec" materials. These are materials that were not sold and are not able to be returned to the manufacturer. Lowe's is responsible for the safe disposal of these materials, which shall be additionally reported and included in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan. Businesses occupying and/or operating at the proposed development must submit a business plan prior to the start of operations, and must review and update the entire Business Plan at least once every two years, or within 30 days of any significant change. Some of these changes are new emergency contact information, major increases or decreases in hazazdous materials storage and/or changes in location of hazazdous materials. Plans shall be submitted to the San Mateo County Environmental Health Business Plan Program. The San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD) shall inspect the business annually to make sure that the Business Plan is complete and accurate. Prior to the final inspection, the applicant shall provide a copy of the County approved HMBP to the City of South San Francisco Fire Marshall. Mitigation Measure 6-lb: Compliance with U.S. Department of Transportation, State of California and local laws, ordinances, and procedures for transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. All transportation of hazardous materials and hazazdous waste to and from the site would be in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and local laws, ordinances and procedures including placazds, signs and other identifying information. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact of routine transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials to a level of less than significant. Impact 6-2: Accidental Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure 6-2a: Demolition Plan and Less than Release. Mitigations for accidental release of Permitting. Prior to demolition of any buildings or Significant hazardous materials during construction are structures, the applicant shall prepare a Demolition included in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and obtain a Demolition Permit from the City of Plan (SWPPP) required for the Project under South San Francisco Building Division. The conditions of the Regional Water Quality Control Demolition Plan shall include measures ensuring safe PAGE 2-8 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Board Construction Stormwater Program. This is discussed in greater detail under the Hydrology Section of this environmental impact report. The required SWPPP includes implementation of best management practices for preventing the discharge of construction-related pollutants such as diesel fuel, hydraulic oil, paint, and concrete into the environment. However, the SWPPP is unlikely to address mitigation for the accidental release of hazardous materials during demolition of the existing facilities. Hazardous materials to be encountered include asbestos containing building materials, and possible lead based paint. Demolition presents a primary hazard to workers through inhalation of dust, dermal absorption, and ingestion of hazardous materials. Following the completion of construction; warehousing, transport, and vending operations at the proposed facilities aze expected to represent a continuing threat to the environment through accidental release of potentially hazardous materials. The greatest risk is likely from a spill into the storm drain system. These hazazds are a potentially significant impact. demolition of existing buildings and structures. The Plan shall include measures to control asbestos dust and incorporate site surveys for the presence of potentially hazardous building materials. The Demolition Plan shall address both on-site worker protection and off-site resident and worker protection from both chemical and physical hazards. All contaminated building materials are required to be tested for contaminant concentrations, and aze required to be disposed of at licensed landfill facilities. Prior to building demolition, hazazdous building materials such as peeling, chipping and friable lead based paint and asbestos containing building materials aze required be removed in accordance with all State and local laws, regulations, and guidelines. The Demolition Plan shall include a program of air monitoring for dust particulates and attached contaminants. Dust control and suspension of work during dry windy days shall be addressed in the Plan. Prior to obtaining a Demolition Permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and the City of South San Francisco, an asbestos demolition survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2. For the impact of flaking and peeling lead based paint, the requirements of Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1 (T8 CCR 1532.1) must be followed. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the following. • Loose and peeling lead-containing paint should be removed prior to building demolition. Workers conducting removal of lead paint must receive training in accordance with T8 CCR 1532.1. • Lead-containing paint removal shall be designed by aDHS-certified lead designer, project monitor or supervisor. • Preparation of a written Lead Compliance Plan that meets the requirements of the lead construction standazd by any contractor that impacts leads coatings. • Workers conducting removal of lead paint must be certified by DHS in accordance with T8 CCR 1532.1. • Workers that may be exposed above the LC1WE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-9 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Action Level must have blood lead levels tested prior to commencement of lead work and at least quarterly thereafter for the duration of the Project. Workers that are terminated from the Project should have their blood lead levels tested within 24 hours of termination. • A written exposure assessment must be prepared in accordance with T8 CCR 1532.1. • Any amount of lead waste generated, including painted building components, must be characterized for proper disposal in accordance with Title 22, Section 66261.24. Prior to the issuance of the Demolition Permit by the City of South San Francisco, the applicant shall provide a copy of the BAAQMD Permit and Compliance Plan to the City of South San Francisco Buflding Official. Mitigation Measure 6-2b: California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CaIARP). The applicant shall check the State and federal lists of regulated substances for chemicals that pose a major threat to public health and safety of the environment because they aze highly toxic, flammable, or explosive. The list is available from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Departrnent (SMCEHD). Businesses aze responsible for determining which list to use in consultation with SMCEHD. Should the applicant's business qualify for the program, as determined in consultation with SMCEHD, the applicant must complete a CaIARP registration form listing all regulated substances and submit it to SMCEHD. Following registration, the applicant shall submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP). RMPs aze designed to handle accidental releases and ensure that businesses have the proper information to provide to emergency response teams if an accidental release occurs. All businesses that store or handle more than a threshold quantity (TQ) of a regulated substance must develop a RMP and follow it. Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public health and the environment if a regulated substance is released neaz schools, residential azeas, hospitals and childcaze facilities. RMPs must include procedures for: PAGE 2-10 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Impact 6-3: Potential Exposure to Residual Site Contamination. According to the most recent Environmental Database Report, dated June 16, 2005, the property remains on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. This is despite receiving case closure from San Mateo County Environmental Health Department for former leaking underground storage tanks. Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessments, as well as sampling associated with the geotechnical investigation for the site, have assessed the extent of hazardous materials that is feasible, given the constraints of existing buildings and utilities. Sampling and testing has revealed residual contamination of soil and groundwater in the vicinity of the former leaking underground tanks that were located near the center of the northern quarter of the property. Levels of total petroleum hydrocarbons occurring as diesel, motor oil and gasoline were found to exceed Water Board Environmental Screening Levels (ESL) for keeping employees and customers safe; handling regulated substances; training staff; maintaining equipment; checking that substances are stored safely; and responding to an accidental release. Prior to Final Building inspection, the applicant shall provide a copy of the Risk Management Plan to the City of South San Francisco Fire Marshall. Mitigation Measure 6-2c: Employee Training. The applicant shall develop and implement an Employee Training Plan covering spill prevention, cleanup, and notification procedures in accordance with OSHA and CAL OSHA. The operation of the store will require having sufficient cleanup materials such as spill kits, absorbent rags, and sand available to staff for containing and cleaning up spills and leaks, as well as procedures for proper disposal of contaminated materials. Prior to the Final Inspection the applicant shall provide a copy of the Employee Training Plan to the City of South San Francisco Fire Marshall. The Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Fire Mazshall. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact of accidental releases of hazardous materials to a level of less than significant. Mitigation Measure 6-3a: San Mateo County Environmental Health Department Closure of Existing Facilities. Facilities registered in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan program, including 101 Trucking at 790 Dubuque Avenue, and US Air Conditioning at 700 Dubuque Avenue, shall submit a closure work plan in accordance with the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department Business Closure Policy prior to vacating the property. The closure plan must detail any necessary sampling and remediation. Closure would not be granted until businesses have demonstrated there is no need for further remediation, and shall include documentation of the removal of any hazardous chemicals. Mitigation Measure 6-3b: Preparation and Implementation of a Soil and Groundwater Management and Contingency Plan. A Soil and Groundwater Management and Contingency Plan shall be prepared. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department and City of South San Francisco Less than Significant LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-11 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance commercial sites in this area. Other contaminants Building Department to provide a basis for handling found to exceed the ESL were semi-volatile and disposal of contaminated or hazardous materials organic compounds in soil taken from a borehole encountered during the site grading and construction located neaz the northern edge of the long process. warehouse structure constructed next to the east edge of the property, and concentrations of the Specific mitigation measures designed to protect metals antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and human health and the environment would be cobalt exceeding the ESL in soil taken at a depth of provided in the Plan. At a minimum, the Plan shall 5 feet BGS near the southeast corner. include, but not be limited to, the following: Groundwater in the same area was also found to exceed the Solubility Threshold Limit 1) Documentation of the extent of previous Concentrations (STLC) for cadmium, copper, lead environmental investigation and and zinc. remediation at the site, including closure reports for the Underground Storage Tank Since it was not feasible to screen all areas, it is (UST) and contaminant concentrations. possible that similar contaminant concentrations could be encountered in other areas, especially 2) Requirements for site-specific Health and during site grading. Pockets of debris and fill may Safety Plans (HASP) to be prepared in remain, with elevated concentrations of metals, accordance with OSHA regulations by all semi-volatiles, hydrocarbons, or other contractors at the Project site. This contaminants. Encountering low levels of diesel, includes a HASP for all demolition, grading gasoline, and motor oil in soil and groundwater can and excavation on the site, as well as for be expected in the location of the former future subsurface maintenance work. The hydrocarbon plume on the north side of the HASP shall include appropriate training, property, as well as scattered metals and metal any required personal protective equipment, contaminated soil and groundwater, especially near and monitoring of contaminants to the south edge of the site. determine exposure. The HASP would be reviewed and approved by a Certified During site demolition and grading activities, Industrial Hygienist. The Plan shall also construction workers could be subjected to designate provisions to limit worker entry exposure to residual site contamination. This and exposure and shall show locations and represents a potentially signifzcant impact. type of protective fencing to prevent public exposure to any hazards during demolition, site grading and construction. 3) Description of protocols for the investigation and evaluation of previously unidentified hazazdous materials that could be encountered during Project development, including engineering controls that may be required to reduce exposure risks. Screening should delineate the vertical and horizontal extent of any contamination within the footprint of foundation or utility work. Excavated materials should then be segregated and stockpiled accordingly on plastic tarps to prevent the further spread of any contamination. Should testing reveal hazazdous waste levels, the excavated soil or groundwater would be shipped by a licensed hazardous material hauler to an approved disposal site under the proper manifesting documents. A report shall PAGE 2-12 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance document the volume, concentration and nature of contaminants in the off-hauled material. 4) Requirements for site-specific construction techniques that would minimize exposure to any subsurface contamination. This shall include treatment and disposal measures for any contaminated groundwater removed from excavations, trenches, and dewatering systems in accordance with local and Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines. Groundwater encountered in trenches and other excavations should be pumped or drained into a closed containment facility, unless otherwise proven to have concentrations of contaminants below the Environmental Screening Levels for commercial sites where groundwater is not to be developed. 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 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 ESL shall be deemed 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. 6) Restrictions limiting future excavation or development of the subsurface by owners, tenants or visitors to the proposed development, and prohibition of groundwater development. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-13 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact of potential exposure to residual site contamination to a level of less than sfgnificant. Impact 6-4: Potential Interference with Mitigation Measure 6-4: Fire Department Review. Less than Emergency Response Plan. The proposed Prior to the issuance of the Building Permit, the City Significant development is not expected to physically interfere of South San Francisco Fire Department is required with implementation of an adopted emergency to review construction plans for roadway response or evacuation plan. However, traffic may modifications and shall establish temporary alternative increase along Dubuque Avenue and could reduce emergency routes necessary for the duration of the response times. Discussion of specific traffic and Project construction. The applicant shall design the transportation impacts resulting from the proposed aisleways and driveways to meet the SSFMC and development are also discussed in the Traffic and Uniform Building Code requirements for emergency Transportation Section of this EIR. In addition, access. Project construction could result in a reduction of response times, due to large construction The on-site circulation system shall be subject to the equipment and reduced access to the site and review and approval by the City of South San surrounding areas. Demand for fue protection Francisco Chief Planner in consultation with the City and emergency medical services may also increase Engineer and Fire Marshall. at the site since the proposed facility is designed to accommodate more visitors than the existing Implementation of this mitigation measure would facilities. Such an increase in traffic must be reduce the impact of development to any emergency accommodated in the local Emergency Response response or evacuation plan to a level of less than Plan, and represents a potentially sfgnificant significant. impact. ~-Iy'drologv Impact 7-1 Lack of Hydraulic Sizing Mitigation Measure 7-1 Storm Drain Interceptor Less than Calculations for Storm Drain Interceptor. Shall Be Designed in Accordance with CASQA significant Storm drain interceptor devices must be properly Sizing Recommendations. The storm drain sized to maximize pollutant removal and meet interceptor shall be designed in accordance with water quality requirements. The Project applicant CASQA sizing recommendations for in-line separator has not provided hydraulic sizing calculations. This BMPs. Final calculations, sizing criteria, and presents a potentially Signif2cant impact. maintenance responsibility provisions shall be submitted and approved prior to issuing appropriate building permits. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 7-1 will reduce the impact of non-point source pollution to a level of less-than-signifzcant. Impact 7-2 Soil Etosion. Project grading and Mitigation Measure 7-2a: Preparation and Less than other construction activities will disturb site soils, Implementation of Project SWPPP. Pursuant to significant potentially leading to impacts to the San Francisco NPDES requirements, the Project applicant shall Bay. This represents a potentially significdnt develop a SWPPP to protect water quality during and after constmction. The Project SWPPP shall include, impact. but not be limited, to the following mitigation measures for the construction period: 1) Erosion control/soil stabilization techniques such as straw mulching, erosion control blankets, erosion control matting, and hydro-seeding, shall be utilized, in accordance with the regulations outlined in the PAGE 2-14 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. Silt fences used in combination with fiber rolls shall be installed down slope of all graded slopes. Fiber rolls shall be installed in the flow path of graded azeas receiving concentrated flows and around storm drain inlets. 2) BMPs for preventing the discharge of other construction-related NPDES pollutants beside sediment (i.e. paint, concrete, etc) to downstream waters. 3) After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be inspected for accumulated sediment, and these drainage structures shall be cleared of debris and sediment. Long-term mitigation measures to be included in the Project SWPPP shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 4) Description of potential sources of erosion and sediment at the Project site. Industrial activities and significant materials and chemicals that could be used at the proposed Project site shall be described. This shall include a thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources. 5) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the Project site based on identified industrial actinides and potential pollutant sources. Emphasis shall be placed on source control BMPs, with treatment controls used as needed. 6) Development of a monitoring and implementation plan. Maintenance requirements and frequency shall be cazefully described including vector control, clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures, vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters, regulaz sweeping of pazking lots and other paced azeas, etc. Wastes removed from BMPs may be hazardous, therefore, maintenance costs shall be budgeted to include disposal at a proper site. Pazking lot areas shall be cleared on a daily basis of debris that may enter the storm drain system. ~ The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the frequency agreed upon by the RWQCB and/or City of South San Francisco. Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and submitted annually to the SWRCB. The SWPPP shall LC1WE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-15 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance be adjusted, as necessary, to address any inadequacies of the BMPs. 8) The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on industrial and commercial BMPs to minimise pollutant contributions from the proposed development. This information shall be distributed to all employees at the Project site. At a minunum, the information shall cover: a) proper disposal of commercial cleaning chemicals; b) proper use of landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and appropriate disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and d) prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains. Mitigation Measure 7-2b: Erosion Control Plan. The applicant shall complete an Erosion Control Plan to be submitted to the City of South San Francisco in conjunction with the Grading Permit Application. The Erosion Control Plan shall include controls for winterization, dust, erosion, and pollution in accordance with the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. The Plan shall also describe the BMPs to be used during and following construction to control pollution resulting from both storm and constmction water runoff. The Plan shall include locations of vehicle and equipment staging, portable restrooms, mobilization areas, and planned access routes. Public works staff or representatives shall visit the site during grading and construction to ensure compliance with the grading ordinance and plans, and note any violations, which shall be corrected immediately. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the construction and post-development impacts associated with erosion and siltation to a level ofless-than-significant. Impact 7-3: Increases in Peak Runoff. Mitigation Measure 7-3a: Storm Drain Analysis. Less than According to preliminary calculations by Questa The applicant shall conduct a hydraulic analysis of the Significant Engineering, the proposed Project will increase 10- proposed storm drain system for the Project site to year peak discharge to the southern municipal establish whether the existing municipal storm sewer storm sewer drainpipe by approximately 72%. No drainpipe located near the southern property analysis or definitive information has been boundary has capacity to accommodate the increased presented to verify that the existing municipal pipe flows resulting from the proposed Project. The can carry the design flows under proposed Project analysis shall include Rational Method calculations of conditions. This is a potentially significant pre- and post-development 10-year peak flows and impact. shall take into account drainpipe slope and elevations, drainpipe size(s), and system head losses. The analysis shall be submitted to the City of South San Francisco for review. If the analysis cannot determine that the PAGE 2-16 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance existing municipal pipe can contain the additional flows from the proposed Project, Mitigation 7-3b shall be implemented. Mitigation Measure 7-3b: Revised Storm Drain Plan. If the hydraulic analysis described in Mitigation Measure 7-3a cannot show that the existing southern storm sewer drainpipe has capacity for Project flows, the applicant shall submit a Revised Storm Drain Plan for the Project. The revised plan shall include drawings of the new proposed system and shall include calculations of the new system capacity. Methods such as on-site storm water detention 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 sewer drainpipe. Prior to the approval of the Final Map, changes to the Project Drainage Plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the City of South San Francisco Storm Water Coordinator and the City Engineer. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the impact of changes in peak runoff to a level less than significant. Noise Impact 9-1: Construction Related Noise. Mitigation Measure 9-1: Noise Abatement. While Less than Project construction would result in temporary there aze no existing noise-sensitive receptors in the Significant short-term noise increases due to the operation of Project vicinity that would be affected by Project- heavy equipment. This would be a potentially generated construction noise, neighboring businesses rignificant impact associated with Project would be subjected to high noise levels during site development. Construction noise sources range preparation and construction. If noise controls are from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet for most types installed on construction equipment, noise levels of construction equipment, and slightly higher could be reduced to 80 to 85 dBA at 25 feet, levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain depending on the type of equipment. Assuming types of eazthmoving and impact equipment. construction noise levels comply with the 90-dBA noise limit specified in the City Noise Ordinance, construction related noise impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. T portauurt and Circulation Impact 11-1: Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Mitigation Measure 11-1: Transportation Demand Less than Trips During Peak Hours. The proposed project Management Program. The project sponsors shall Significant would generate 100 net new trips more than implement a Transportation Demand Management existing site uses during the AM and PM peak (TDM) program consistent with the City of South San hours (± 160 more trips during the AM peak hour Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120 and ±320 more trips during the PM peak hour than Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable the existing uses). The San Mateo City/County to C/CAG. These programs, once implemented, LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-1 7 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Sign~cance Association of Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for the implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program ("C/CAG Guidelines") specifies that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants would mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the fast 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development. This would be a significant impact. Impact 11-2: Year 2006 Intersection Level of Service Impacts. Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that all but one analyzed intersection would maintain acceptable operation during AM and PM peak hour conditions with the proposed project. At the Oyster Point Boulevazd/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection, PM peak hour project traffic would degrade operation from LOSE to LOS F and increase volumes by more than two percent (3.5%). This would be a significant impact. must be ongoing for the occupied life of the development. The C/CAG guidelines specify the number of trips that may be credited for each TDM measure. Appendix B Table 5 outlines TDM programs that can generate trip credits to offset the ± 160 net new AM peak hour trips and ±320 net new PM peak hour trips generated by the project. Since the majority of vehicles associated with Lowe's would be retail customers and not employees (and not influenced by typical TDM measures), the project applicant and C/CAG would need to meet and develop a program agreeable to both parties. Implementation of a TDM plan will reduce the Project's impact to ales-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 11-2: None. There aze no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by city of South San Francisco staff to improve operation to Base Case Conditions or better. The impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 11-5: Year 2006 Vehicle Queuing I Mitigation 11-5A: 50~ Percentile Queue Impacts. 50th Percentile Queue Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed project would result in significant 50th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the PM peak traffic hour in 2006. All intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-7 and 11-8 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an increase in vehicle storage demand with the addition of project traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance criteria level. PM PEAK HOUR 1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. The Oyster Point westbound approach through lanes would receive more than a two percent 1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Proposed restriping of the westbound Oyster Point Boulevazd approach (as required of the Bay West Cove development) to provide one left turn lane, two through lanes and one right turn lane would reduce westbound through queuing demand to 195 feet, less than the available 255 feet of storage. This impact would be reduced to ales-than-significant level. 2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On- Ramp There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco staff to reduce queuing to Base Case conditions. The impact would remain signiftcant and Significant and Unavoidable Significant and Unavoidable PAGE 2-18 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance increase in traffic (6.6%) with I unavoidable. unacceptable Base Case queuing. 2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (13.6%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing in the left turn lane. Acceptable Base Case queuing in the combined left/through lane would also be increased beyond the available storage with the addition of project traffic. The project would increase combined through/left turn movements by 16.7 percent. 95th Percentile Queue Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed project would result in significant 95th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2006. All intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-9 and 11-10 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of project traffic that aze not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance criteria level. AM PEAK HOUR 1) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (9.6%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing. PM PEAK HOUR 2) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Mitigation 11-5B: 95w Percentile Queue 1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Proposed restriping of the westbound Oyster Point Boulevazd approach (as required of the Bay West Cove development) to provide one left turn lane, two through lanes and one right turn lane would reduce westbound through queuing demand to 225 feet, less than the available 255 feet of storage. In addition, the 95th percentile queuing in the westbound left turn lane would be reduced to 80 feet, within the planned available storage length. This impact would be reduced to a less- than-significant level. 2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On- Ramp There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco staff to reduce queuing to Base Case conditions. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-19 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance intersection. The Oyster Point westbound approach through lanes would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (5%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Also, acceptable Base Case queuing in the westbound approach left tum lane would be increased beyond the available storage (by 1 caz length) with the addition of project traffic. 3) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and through/left turn lanes would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (19.5%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing in both lanes. These would be significant impacts. Impact 11-6: Year 2020 Intersection Level of Mitigation Measure 11-6 Less than Service Impacts. Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Significant all but three analyzed intersections would maintain Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport acceptable operation during AM or PM peak hour Boulevard conditions with the proposed project. At the Bayshore/U.S.101 Southbound Hook • Provide a fair share contribution to the same mitigations required of the Terrabay Ramps/Terrabay access intersection, PM peak Phase 3 development. hour operation would remain LOS F, but volumes . Restripe the northbound Airport Boulevard would increase by less than two percent (0.8%). At approach to provide a second left turn lane. the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque . Reconfigure the eastbound Sister Cities Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp Boulevazd approach to provide two left turn intersection, AM peak hour operation would lanes, an exclusive through lane and a remain LOS F, but volumes would increase less shared through/right turn lane. than two percent (0.2%). In addition, PM peak Improvements to the eastbound approach hour operation at this intersection would remain should also provide adjustments to the LOS F, but volumes would increase by less than north curb line of Sister Cities Boulevard, if two percent (1.5%). However, project traffic needed, to allow safe U-turn movements. would produce a significant impact during the PM Resultant Operation peak hour at the Bayshore Boulevazd/ Sister Cities PM Peak Hour LOS D-51.8 seconds Boulevazd/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport vehicle delay Boulevazd intersection. Operation would remain LOS F, but volumes would increase by more than The impact would be reduced to a less-than- two percent (2.4%). signifzcant level. This would be a signifzcant impact. PAGE 2-20 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Impact 11-9: Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Mitigation Measure 11-9A: 50~ Percentile Queue Significant and Impacts. Unavoidable Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities 50th Percentile Queue Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/ Airport Boulevard (same improvements Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed as for level of service) project would result in significant 50th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the • Provide a fair share contribution to AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All the same mitigations required of the intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-7 Terrabay Phase 3 development. and 11-8 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that o Provide two left turn lanes on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with approach. the addition of project traffic that are not listed o Stripe a second left turn lane on below would not have volumes increased by more the northbound Airport than two percent, the significance criteria level. Boulevard approach. AM PEAK HOUR Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque These measures would not reduce unacceptable ~,~,estbound through and left turn lane queuing to Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On- acceptable levels. Ramp • The Dubuque Avenue northbound Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque approach left turn lane would Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp receive a ±5.8% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case • There are no physical improvements queuing. considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco staff to PM PEAK HOUR reduce project queuing impacts to Base Case conditions. Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Mitigation Measure 11-9B: 95~ Percentile Queue intersection. • The Oyster Point Boulevard Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities westbound approach through lanes Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/ would receive a ± 5.0% increase in Airport Boulevard (same improvements traffic with unacceptable Base Case as for level of service) queuing. • Reconfigure the eastbound Sister • The Oyster Point Boulevard Cities Boulevard approach to provide westbound approach left turn lane two left turn lanes, an exclusive would receive a ±3.7% increase in through lane and a combined traffic with unacceptable Base Case through/right turn lane. queuing. • Stripe a second left turn lane on the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque northbound Airport Boulevard approach. Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On- Ramp These measures would not reduce unacceptable • The Dubuque Avenue northbound westbound through and left turn lane queuing to approach left tum and combined acceptable levels. through/left turn lanes would receive a ± 4.4% increase in traffic LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-21 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance with unacceptable Base Case Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque queuing. Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp • There are no physical improvements 95th Percentile Queue considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco staff to Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the ro osed P P reduce project queuing impacts to Base Case conditions. project would result in significant 95th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-9 Impacts would remain signif:cant and unavoidable. and 11-10 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of project traffic that aze not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance criteria level. AM PEAK HOUR Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On- Ramp • The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and combined through/left turn lanes would receive a 6.2% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. • The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach left turn lanes would receive an 8.8% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. In addition, the Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would have demand increased beyond the available storage with the addition of project traffic. PM PEAK HOUR Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. • The Ba shore Boulevazd PAGE 2-22 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance southbound approach left turn lane would receive a 5.3% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. • The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would receive a 5% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. • The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would receive a 3.7% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On- Ramp • The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and combined through/left turn lanes would receive a 4.4% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. These would be signiftcant impacts. Impact 11-10: Project Access Impacts. The Mitigation Measure 11-10: Less than proposed project would have four driveway Significant connections to Dubuque Avenue. Driveway would Left Turn Lane be in the same locations as driveways now serving existing site uses. For identification purposes, they • Revise the project site plan in the vicinity of have been labeled #1 to 4 starting with the north driveway #2 in order to widen Dubuque driveway. No left or right turn deceleration lanes Avenue sufficiently to provide a southbound are proposed on the approaches to any driveway. left tum lane at least 250 feet long. In addition, it is strongly recommended that Dubuque Speeds along Dubuque Avenue adjacent to the Avenue be widened to provide a continuous project site range from 35 to 45 miles per hour. turn lane along the entire site frontage. Driveway #1, near the north end of the site, would Sight Lines be 48 feet wide and would serve truck deliveries as well as an employee parking area in the back of the • Provide low height landscaping along the site's Lowe's store. This wide entrance would facilitate entire Dubuque Avenue frontage that would truck turn movements to/from Dubuque Avenue. allow permanent sight lines of at least 360 feet It would be channelized about 25 feet internal to in both directions from each project driveway. the site and would lead to a large open area that • The City of South San Francisco shall post would accommodate truck turning maneuvers speed limit signs of 30 to 35 miles per hour to/from the Lowe's unloading dock. alon Dubu ue Avenue in the vicini of the 1 Intersection ChanneliZation Design Guide, Transportation Research Board Report 279, November 1985-see Appendix B Table 6. z American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-23 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Driveway #2 would provide access to an east-west parking aisle running directly in front of Lowe's entrance. It would be 36 feet wide (with one inbound and one outbound lane) and would be channelized about 40 feet internal to the pazking lot on the south side of the entrance lane and about 25 feet on the north side of the exit lane. Driveway #3 would be located just north of the existing West Marine Building and would provide access to an east-west parking aisle serving the north-south rows of parking in front of the Lowe's store. It would be 25 feet wide (with one inbound and one outbound lane) and would be channelized about 30 feet internal to the pazking lot on the south side of the entrance lane and about 80 feet on the north side of the exit lane. Ninety-degree parking associated with the West Marine Building would begin on the south side of the entry lane 30 feet internal to the site. Driveway #4 would be adjacent to the south project boundary and just south of the West Marine building. It would be about 36 feet wide (with one inbound and one outbound lane) and would be channelized adjacent to both the entry and exit lanes about 65 feet internal to the site. It would lead to an east-west parking aisle that would serve the West Marine building as well as rows of north-south pazking serving Lowe's. The south edge of Driveway #4 would be located about IS to 20 feet north of the north edge of the driveway serving the Caltrain station. Tum Lane Warrants No project driveway would have northbound Dubuque Avenue right turn entering volumes meeting wazrant criteria levels for provision of right turn deceleration lanes in either 2006 or 2020. In addition, none of Lowe's four driveways would have volumes wazranting provision of southbound left turn lanes in 2006. However, by 2020, PM peak hour volumes at driveway #2 (serving the front of Lowe's store) would be exceeding warrant criteria levels for provision of a southbound left turn lane. In addition, year 2020 PM peak volumes would also be approaching wazrant criteria levels for provision of left turn lanes at driveways #1 and 3. This would be a significant impact. Sight Lines at Project Driveway Connections to Dubuque Avenue Vehicle speeds along Dubuque Avenue adjacent to the project site range from 35 to 45 miles per hour. Minimum stopping sight distances for travel speeds project site for both travel directions. Caltrain Station and Lowe's South Driveway The Caltrain station and Lowe's southerly driveways should be combined. If this isn't done with Lowe's initial development, the project site plan should take this ultimate single driveway connection into account that would be provided at the time the Caltrain station parcel is redeveloped into a higher intensity use. These measures would reduce the Project's impact to a less-than-significant level. PAGE 2-24 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance of 40 and 45 miles per hour are 305 and 360 feet, respectively, based upon guidelines in A Policy on Geometric Derign of Highmaya and Street, 2004.2 Dubuque Avenue has a straight alignment between driveways #2 and 4 and a very gradual curve between driveways #1 and 2. This gradual curve would require that direct line of site between drivers on Dubuque Avenue and vehicles exiting the project site at either driveway #1 or 2 extend through landscaping along the site frontage. This presents the possibility that landscaping may interfere with required sight lines. This would be a signiftcant impact. Relationship of Caltrain Station Driveway to Lowe's Southerly Driveway The project's southerly driveway (#4) connection to Dubuque Avenue would be located less than 20 feet north of the driveway serving the South San Francisco Caltrain station. While the existing moderate to low turn movements to/from the Caltrain station driveway in combination with the low projected turn movements to/from Lowe's southerly driveway would result in only a moderate neaz term safety concern, should the Caltrain property redevelop with a high intensity use, safety concerns would increase significantly This would be a signif cant impact. LC1WE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-25 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 2-26 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CONDITIONS The Project site is located within the City of South San Francisco's East of 101 Planning Area. The area consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land, and is bounded by San Francisco Bay on the east side, Highway 101 and railway lines on the west, the City of Brisbane on the north, and San Francisco International Airport on the south. The area is mostly developed and has a mix of land uses, including industry, warehousing, retail, offices, hotels, marinas, and bioscience research and development facilities. The Project site is 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 line rights-of--way, and to the south by office buildings and a large surface parking lot. The Project site's location is shown in Figure 3-1. The 12.8 acre site is currently developed with four buildings that total 241,737 square feet: three circa 1970 one-story concrete buildings which will be demolished as part of the Project (23,949, 65,330, and 139,280 square feet, respectively), and a fourth one-story concrete building, 13,178 square feet in size and occupied by West Marine, which will remain. The topography of the site is relatively flat with a general topographic gradient of south- southeast, while surrounding topography has a general topographic gradient to the southeast. Most natural features are no longer existent due to the existing commercial use. Landscaping largely consists of trees planted along parking lot medians and isolated trees and shrubs. 3.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Project would involve the demolition of three existing 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 655-space surface parking lot. 118 of the proposed parking spaces would be on a parcel at the north end of the parcel owned by PG&E, and would be leased by the applicant. Located on a 12.8 acre parcel, the building lot coverage would be 29.0%. Demolition Demolition activities would last approximately 30 days, and would remove most of the existing trees and landscaping on the site, but the proposed Project is to provide more landscaping than currently exists. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 3-1 CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Construction Rough grading activities would be expected to last approximately 6 weeks, and the applicant plans on grinding the existing buildings and pavement for reuse if possible. At this time, the applicant does not have any information regarding the disposal of any excess materials to be hauled away, but they would provide this information once a contractor is chosen. Utilities work would be expected to take approximately 6 weeks, and total construction time, including building, would be approximately 9-12 months. Building Characteristics and Architecture The Lowe's Home Improvement warehouse building is proposed on the northeast portion of the property, with the Garden Center just west of the warehouse, fronting Dubuque Avenue. The Project perimeter wall of the Garden Center would be 25'-0" high, that of the main building would be 30'-0" high, while the accentuated entrance areas to the store and Indoor Lumber Yard would be 33'-0" high. The top of the pitched roof at the main entrance would be approximately 49'0" high. Architectural features, such as split-face CMU blocks and foam-formed cornices at the Garden Center and building entrances, and earth toned paint colors, would be added to the elevations to create depth and variation. Rooftop mechanical equipment would be screened by the raised building parapet walls. Landscaping The Project would include extensive landscaping designed to conform with East of 101 Area Plan Policy DE-55 and to exceed landscape development standards outlined in Section 13.30.100 of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code. It would include landscape islands, planters, and berms along Dubuque Avenue to buffer the parking lot and building from the street. The Project Site Plan is shown in Figure 3-2. 3.3 REQUIRED APPROVALS The EIR will be used to provide decision makers and the general public with relevant environmental information to use in considering approval of the Project. The following approvals would be required: • Use Permit Type C Sign Permit • Planned Unit Development Permit • Design Review • Transportation Demand Management Plan • Development Agreement PAGE 3-2 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR r----~ i ~ ~ i l%~ -.... _.. ~ _1--. %~. _____... i , / ~/ ~~ ~~ ~ X \ ~ /~~~ -~_- J _ % --- 101 x iF J ~x Sg~~ ('~,` j j \`` I ~ T~" i ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ T 0~, x n `~, _ !, -~ OYSTER POINT BL O ~.~ P\PQ P v~PV X OQ -- - ~~x/ PRWECT SITE o r~~° ~a ~ ~x _ . x G~ GG ~~ x',.....~ gyp. x~ P k,,3= y~~ ~s~~' % :~~~E,..x ~, ~~~ / \Q• x GR,yN AVF 101 ~ ~5'~<_ ~ ~, ,~, a ~~±-.. - r, ~ ~ ~ `~ `~ y e~' Q ~, ~ ..- Fc,~ c~ JV ~ ti~ r `` T ~ 1' k ~ k h }^ _*_ .___y.._ w' lmJ ............ ....._ ..{.. ~k Q a - _ ~ +c ~' ~ ~ ~ J. m ~` o ;k.. \__.C~ /` k d " WALNUT ~~fE ~'~ a.~l ~ ? ~ RK~ CREEK i ~ A~ -~ ' /~ °~' OAKLAND sea ' TAN F~- "~ ~)~ ~s SAN 101 eeo RAMON ~' ~ ~,r h,, Pr~jeCt i ~ "~ SAN LOREN ..t + `~~ n HAYWARD "'} ~, ~ ~ t l~ :z'j ~ rte.. ' ~,~ ~+ 2B0 `} 9~ _ (If A boy FREMO 0 rr ~T~O • _ ~ . > ~+`kk ~ ~ _. l"f~ij,F'S^+f;` EDW~ 701 [ :~,J ¢ O j dC~C~1t `{sl niT~ 5_ Z~ O of eeo ', .• Z 380 ~. ; }~T ; ~ eo SAN (, y 1V JOSE D ~ 2000 Feet Figure 3-1 Project Site Location SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory This page intentionally left blank. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 3-4 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ c m ~ ~ m r~ w 2 N L•1PmJeds12S16- SSF Lowes Z O O n D r m r 0 m 4 AIR QUALITY 4.1 INTRODUCTION This section examines the degree to which the proposed Project may result in significant adverse changes to air quality. Both short-term construction emissions occurring from activities such as site grading, as well as long-term effects related to the ongoing operation of the proposed Project, are discussed. The analysis contained herein focuses on air pollution from two perspectives: daily emissions and pollutant concentrations. "Emissions" refers to the actual quantity of pollutant, measured in pounds per day. "Concentrations" refers to the amount of pollutant material per volumetric unit of air. Concentrations are measured in parts per million (PPM) or micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). South San Francisco enjoys generally good air quality due largely to the presence of the San Bruno Gap, a break in the Santa Cruz Mountains that allows onshore winds with cool Pacific air to flow easily into San Francisco Bay and quickly disperse air pollutants. As a result, winds are usually from the west. There are periods in fall and winter where winds tend to flow from easterly or southerly directions. Within South San Francisco, certain areas of the city are more likely to result in elevated air pollutant exposure for residents and workers. These areas include the U.S. Highway 101, Interstate 280, and El Camino Real corridors, which experience relatively high pollutant concentrations due to heavy traffic volumes, particularly during peak periods. Winds blowing out of the south and southeast expose the city to emissions from the San Francisco International Airport and the industrial areas that are east of U.S. Highway 101. 4.2 REGULATORY SETTING Air quality management responsibilities exist at local, State and federal levels of government. Air quality management planning programs developed during the past decade have generally been in response to requirements established by the federal Clean Air Act. However, the enactment of the California Clean Air Act of 1988 has produced additional changes in the structure and administration of air quality management programs in the State. South San Francisco is located within the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Air quality in the basin is monitored by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which operates a regional LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT EIR PAGE 4-1 CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY network of air pollution monitoring stations to determine if the national and State standards for criteria air pollutants and emission limits of toxic air contaminants are being achieved. Under the federal Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies air basins or portion thereof, as in "attainment" or "nonattainment". Where there is insufficient monitoring data to classify an area, but that area likely is "attainment", EPA identifies it as "unclassified". These classifications are based on whether or not the basin meets national ambient air quality standards. Likewise, a basin is classified under the California Clean Air Act with respect to the achievement of State ambient air quality standards. Areas that do not violate ambient air quality standards are considered to have attained the standard. Violations of ambient air quality standards are based on air pollutant monitoring data and are judged for each air pollutant. The Bay Area as a whole does not meet State or federal ambient air quality standards for ground level ozone (03) and State standards for respirable particulate matter (I'Mlo). Until recently, the EPA has designated the region as moderate nonattainment for the 1-hour ground level 03 standard. The region had developed and updated plans to achieve this standard. The EPA revoked this standard in June 2005. However, the region has not violated the 1-hour 03 standard over the last four years (2000-2004), and EPA was proposing to redesignate the Bay Area as a maintenance area. The 8-hour ozone standard has now replaced the 1-hour standard. EPA has recently classified the region as marginally nonattainment for the newer, more stringent 8-hour 03 standard. EPA requires the region to adopt a plan that will bring it into attainment with that standard by 2007. The Bay Area has met the Carbon Monoxide (CO) standards for over a decade, and is classified attainment maintenance by the EPA. The EPA grades the region unclassified for all other air pollutants, which include PMto and PM25 (particulate matter that is 2.5 micrometers or smaller in size). At the State level, the region is considered serious nonattainment for ground level 03 and non- attainment for PMIO. California ambient air quality standards are more stringent than the national ambient air quality standards. The region is required to adopt plans on a triennial basis that show progress towards meeting the State 03 standard. The state considers the area attainment or unclassified for all other pollutants. In 1991, the Bay Area 1991 Clean Air Plan was developed to address the State requirements of the California Clean Air Act. The Plan has been updated three times, in 1994, 1997 and 2000, with the continued goal of improving air quality through tighter industry controls, cleaner fuels, and combustion in cars and trucks, and increased commute alternatives. An update to the Plan is expected later this year. 4.3 AIR QUALITY DATA The BAAQMD monitors air quality at several locations within the San Francisco Air Basin, although none are located in South San Francisco. The monitoring sites closest to the Project PAGE 4-2 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT EIR CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY site are located in San Francisco and Redwood City. Table 4-1 summarizes exceedances of the State and federal standards at these two sites over the last five years. The table shows that most of the ambient air quality standards are met in the Project area, with the exception of the State standard for PM,o and ozone. TABLE -1 Air Quality Data Summary for San Francisco and Redwood City, 2000-2004 Monitoring Days Exceeding Standard Pollutant Standard Station 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0 NAAQS 1-hr Redwood City 0 0 0 0 0 BAY AREA 3 1 2 1 0 San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0 03 NAAQS 8-hr Redwood City 0 0 0 0 0 BAY AREA 4 7 7 7 0 San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0 CAAQS 1-hr Redwood City 0 1 0 1 1 BAY AREA 12 15 16 19 7 San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0 NAAQS 24-hr Redwood City 0 0 0 0 0 BAY AREA 0 0 0 0 0 PMio San Francisco 2 7 2 1 1 CAAQS 24-hr Redwood City 1 4 1 0 1 BAY AREA 7 10 6 6 7 San Francisco 0 -- 4 0 0 PMz.s NAAQS 24-hr Redwood City 0 -- 0 0 0 BAY AREA 1 5 5 0 1 All Other San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0 (C0, NOz, All Other Retlwood City 0 0 0 0 0 Lead, SOz) BAY AREA 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2005. 4.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a project's environmental impacts are based on CEQA Guidelines thresholds: LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT E I R PAS E 4-3 CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY 1. Would the Project conflict with, or obstruct implementation of, the applicable air quality plan? The criteria are further defined as follows: - If the Project shows an estimated population greater than assumed in the Clean Air Plan (as defined in Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections), then it would be inconsistent with air quality planning, and would be deemed to have a significant air quality impact. - If the Project shows a growth rate in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) higher than the population growth rate, it would be considered to be hindering progress toward achieving a substantial reduction in the rate of increase in passenger vehicle trips and miles traveled. Therefore, it would be considered inconsistent with regional air quality planning, and deemed to have a significant air quality impact. - The consistency of the Project with Clean Air Plan (CAP) Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) must also be considered in evaluating air quality effects associated with implementation of the Project. If the Project does not demonstrate reasonable efforts to implement the TCMs identified in the CAP, then it would be considered to be inconsistent with the CAP and deemed to have a significant air quality impact. 2. Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 3. Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds fox ozone precursors)? 4. Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 5. Would the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES CONFLICT WITH AIR QUALITY PLAN PROJECTIONS The amount of development associated with the proposed Project is consistent with the intensity of development for the Project site foreseen in the South San Francisco General Plan, which was published in 1999. This Project is within the East of 101 Area, which is actually an aggregation of four sub-areas in the General Plan Land Use Element and encompasses all the land within City limits east of Highway 101. This Project site is zoned "Planned Commercial" under this planning sub-area. The city's General Plan designations, and future land use types and intensities, would have been taken into account during preparation of the BAAQMD's most recent Clean Air Plan, released in 2000. The Project would, therefore, be consistent with, and have no im j~act on, the Clean Air Plan. PAGE 4-4 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT EIR CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY Clean Air Plan Transportation Control Measures Impact 4-1 Implementation of TCMs. Determining consistency with the Clean Air Plan also involves assessing whether Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are implemented. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines identifies seven TCMs (TCM numbers 1, 9, 12, 15, 17, 19 and 20) that have Cities and Counties identified among the implementing agencies. At the Project level, the City along with the Project applicant would be required to implement the following TCMs: TCM #1 Support Voluntary Employer-Based Trip Reduction Programs TCM#9 Improve Bicycle Access and Facilities TCM#12 Improve Arterial Traffic Management TCM#19 Pedestrian Travel The Project does not include specific measures that are consistent with applicable TCMs identified in the Clean Air Plan. This is a potentially significant impact. Under the General Plan policies, the Project would be required to implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to reduce project trips. This would in turn reduce air pollutant emissions. If appropriate TCMs are included in the TDP plan, then the Project would be consistent with the Clean Air Plan TCMs and the impact would be less-than- significant. Mitigation Measure 4-1 Traffic Demand Management. The Project will be required to develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, since it would generate more than 100 new vehicle trips per day (approximately 160 new trips during the AM peak hour and 320 new trips during the PM peak hour, per Table 11- 15B), which is a significant impact (Impact 11-1). The TDM plan shall include the following components so that the .Project would reasonably implement applicable TCMs: 1. TDM#1 -Support shuttle service to BART. There are currently shuttles that serve employers in the area. The Project could become a sponsoring employer so that shuttles would serve the site, providing employees an alternative mode of commuting. The Project site is adjacent to a Caltrain station. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT EIR PAGE 4-5 CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY 2. TDM#9 -Provide bicycle amenities so that employees and customers can bicycle to the Project. Such amenities shall include safe onsite bicycle access and convenient storage (bike racks). Amenities for employees shall include secure bicycle parking, lockers, and shower facilities. 3. TDM#12 -The Applicant and City shall work to improve traffic operations at intersections serving the Project that are predicted to operate at congested levels. Such improvements shall include lane striping, signal timing adjustments, and additional turn lane capacity. 4. TDM#19 -The Project shall include sidewalks with shade trees that provide safe and convenient access to the Project and any shuttle or future bus stops that serve the project (see TDM#1 above). The final TDM Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) and the City's Chief Planner. With the implementation of appropriate TCMs, impacts related to consistency with the Clean Air Plan would be reduced to a less than signif `scant level. AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Impact 4-2 Construction Dust. Construction activity involves a high potential for the emission of air pollutants. Construction activities would generate exhaust emissions from vehicles/equipment and fugitive particulate matter emissions that would affect local air quality. This would be a potentially significant impact. The Project would involve demolition of three buildings, site grading, and the construction of a new Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse building with garden center. Construction activities would temporarily affect local air quality, causing a temporary increase in particulate dust and other pollutants. Dust emission during periods of construction would increase particulate concentrations at neighboring properties. This impact is potentially significant, but normally mitigatible. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines' provide thresholds of significance for air quality impacts. The BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction dust impacts are based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emissions of PM,o. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less than significant. ~ Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 (Revised 1999). PAGE 4-6 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT EIR CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY Another source of construction impacts would be exhaust emissions from construction vehicles. Diesel particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, an ozone precursor pollutant, are the two primary pollutants that axe of concern from construction exhaust. Diesel particulate matter can lead to localized impacts; however, sensitive receptors are not located near the project site. Emissions of nitrogen oxides can contribute to higher ozone levels at downwind areas in the Bay Area. The BAAQMD calculates region-wide construction exhaust emissions of ozone precursor pollutants (nitrogen oxides and reactive organic gases) in air quality planning efforts to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards. Therefore, quantitative analyses of these construction emissions are not recommended by the BAAQMD unless the lead agency believes there would be unusually large or intensive activities. The BAAQMD does recommend that lead agencies consider mitigation measures to reduce construction exhaust emissions. Mitigation Measure 4-2 Dust Suppression Procedures and measures to reduce exhaust. The following is a list of feasible control measures that the BAAQMD recommends for construction emissions of PM,o at project sites greater than 4 acres. In addition, the BAAQMD recommends construction projects include measures to reduce exhaust emissions. The following measures will be utilized to the extent possible. 1. Sprinkle water on all active construction areas at least twice daily, and more often when conditions warrant. 2. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose materials, or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. 3. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. 4. Sweep all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites on a daily basis. 5. Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. 6. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas. 7. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT EIR PAGE 4-7 CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY 8. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. 9. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. 10. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 11. The applicant shall be required to ensure that removal or disturbance of any materials that contain asbestos, lead paint or other hazardous pollutants during renovation and demolition activities will be conducted in accordance with BAAQMD rules and regulations. 12. The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid the need for independently powered equipment (e.g., compressors). 13. Diesel equipment standing idle for more than two minutes shall be turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate or other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running continuously as long as they were on site. 14. Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions. Prior to the issuance of any permit by the City of South San Francisco, the applicant shall submit a construction plan that includes measures to reduce air quality impacts and documentation that the BAAQMD has issued a permit. The plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief Building Official and City Engineer. Implementation of construction controls will reduce air pollutant emissions associated with construction activities to a level less than significant. Violate Air Quality Standards -Local Carbon Monoxide Standards Carbon monoxide emissions from traffic generated by the Project would be the pollutant of greatest concern at the local level. The intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue and Dubuque Avenue would be affected by the Project due to a combination of high traffic volumes and congestion. Congested intersections with a large volume of traffic have the greatest potential to cause high localized concentrations of carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide concentrations would be the highest at this interchange. There are 1- and 8-hour standards for carbon monoxide. The 8-hour standard is the most stringent and is always exceeded if the 1-hour standard is exceeded. Therefore, this analysis evaluated impacts against the 8-hour standard. Carbon monoxide concentrations were modeled using screening methods recommended by the BAAQMD that are based on the Caline4 Line-Source dispersion model. This method uses PAGE 4-8 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT EIR CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY traffic volumes, emissions, meteorology, and the roadway/receptor geometry. For this assessment, meteorological conditions most conducive fox high carbon monoxide concentrations in the Bay Area, peak-hour traffic conditions (i.e., evening period), slow traffic speeds and emission factors generated by the California. Air Resources Board emission factor model (i.e., EMFAC2002) were used as input to the model. Modeled concentrations were added to background levels to predict total carbon monoxide concentrations. The contribution from U.S. Highway 101 traffic was included in this assessment, since the intersection is only about 200 feet from the nearest freeway lanes. The screening method is designed to be a conservative method of determining whether or not a project may cause exceedances of the carbon monoxide air quality standard. If the screening method predicts significant levels, then amore-refined analysis may be conducted that would more accurately predict carbon monoxide levels, which would likely be lower. As shown in Table 4-2, the screening analysis indicates that existing 8-hour Carbon Monoxide Levels are currently below California Ambient Air Quality Standards. Predicted 8-hour Carbon Monoxide Levels with the Project in place under near-term (2006) and future Project conditions (in 2020) are predicted to remain below California ambient air quality standards. As a result, the impact on local air quality resulting from the Project is considered to be Zess-than-significant. TABLE -2 PRFrllr'TFrI R_Hr111R (1RST CASF CA RR(lN Mf1N(1XInF I FVFI S fIN PPMI 2006 2020 2005 Base Conditions Base Conditions Descri lion Existin with Pro'ect with Pro'ect Oyster Point Boulevard and Contribution from: Dubuque Avenue w/adjacent Intersection- 3.6 PPM 4.3 PPM 1.6 PPM freeway Freeway (US 101)- 1.2 PPM 0.9 PPM 0.3 PPM Background- 2.8 PPM 2.8 PPM 2.5 PPM Total: 7.6 PPM 8.0 PPM .PPM Grand Ave and Dubuque Contribution from: Avenue w/adjacent freeway Intersection- 1.9 PPM 2.4 PPM 0.8 PPM Freeway (US 101)- 0.8 PPM 0.4 PPM 0.3 PPM Background- 2.8 PPM 2.8 PPM 2.5 PPM Total: 5.5 PPM 5.6 PPM 3.6 PPM Significance Thresholds 9.0 PPM for 8-hour exposure (CAAQS) LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT E I R PAGE 4-9 CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE IMPACTS The Project would generate new emissions through new regional vehicle trips. The BAAQMD has developed criteria to determine if a development project could result in potentially significant regional emissions. The District recommends the use of the URBEMIS2002 model to quantify the emissions associated with new projects. Based on Crane Transportation Group's estimate of 5,908 daily two-way trips to and from the Project site (including trips generated by the West Marine Building), URBEMIS2002 Model calculations were performed in order to determine whether the Project would exceed air emissions thresholds for ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and NO,~ or PMIo. Emissions thresholds are 80 pounds per day for ROG, NOX, or PMIo. The threshold for CO is 550 pounds per day, but it only applies to stationary sources (e.g., power plants); and, therefore, does not apply to this Project. Calculated emissions are shown in Table 4-3. Model output is contained in Appendix C, along with the results of the screening level CO modeling calculations. The Project's emissions for ROG, NOx, and PMIo are calculated to be below the BAAQMD's significance thresholds. This would be a less than significant impact. TABLE 4-3 DAILY REGIONAL AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY) Reactive Nitrogen Organic Gases Oxides Particulate Description (ROG) (NOx) Matter (PMIo) Area Sources (e.g., water and space heating) 0.3 1.5 <0.1 Motor vehicle sources 44.1 52.8 46.2 Total* 44.41bs 54.31bs 46.21bs BAAQMD Significance Threrholdr SOlbr 801br 801b.r * Includes emissions from West Marine. SENSITIVE RECEPTORS The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics. PAGE 4-10 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT EIR CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY The closest sensitive receptors would be homes opposite U.S. 101, over 300 feet west/northwest of the proposed Project site, and two childcare facilities on Gateway Boulevard, about 400 yards east of the Project site. However, the homes are located upwind from the Project site, and are separated from the site by U.S. 101. The childcare facilities, while located downwind from the Project site, are separated from the site by several large buildings, and axe located a far enough distance away that any emissions that might be generated on the Project site would not represent a significant air quality impact. Project construction activities would lead to the emission of construction dust and exhaust, the impact of which would be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measure 4-2. Project operational air quality impacts would be less than significant. ODORS During construction, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would create odors. These odors would be temporary, and not likely to be noticeable much beyond the Project site's boundaries. The potential for diesel odor impacts is, therefore, less than significant. Operational activities from these types of land uses proposed at the Project site do not produce objectionable odors that normally extend beyond their site boundaries; therefore, the odor impacts associated with Project operations would be considered less than significant. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT EIR PACE 4-11 This page intentionally left blank. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT EIR PAGE 4-12 5 GEOLOGY AN D SOI LS 5.1 INTRODUCTION The following section describes the Geology, Soils and Seismicity of the Project area. The information presented below was drawn from several sources of data including: (1) Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study for the proposed Project site completed by Consolidated Engineering Laboratories (August 30, 2005); (2) Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment for the proposed Project site completed by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. Quly 8, 2005); (3) Environmental Sampling, Testing and Evaluation of Soil, Consolidated Engineering Laboratories dated August 24, 2005 (Revised August 29, 2005); (4) Review of USGS Open File Reports (OFR) of the area, including a map of the bedrock geology (USGS OFR 98-354, 1998), Quaternary Geologic Map, including liquefaction susceptibility (USGS OFR 97-715, 1997), and Landslide Map (USGS OFR 97-745 C); (5) Review of Official California Geological Survey (formerly the California Division of Mines and Geology- CDMG) Maps, including the South San Francisco Quadrangle Alquist-Priolo (A-P) Earthquake Fault Zone Map (1982), and the Fault Activity Map of California (1994); (6) Review of government websites, including the Association of Bay Area Government's (ABAG) website (www.abag.gov) for a summary of hazards ranging from liquefaction to seismic landsliding; and (7) Review of the East of 101 Area Plan of the City of South San Francisco, as well as all other applicable ordinances and regulations. 5.2 SETTING Regional Seismicity The site lies in the tectonically active Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province of northern California, on the east side of the San Francisco Peninsula. Development of the northwest trending ridges and valleys in the vicinity, including the Santa Cruz Mountains, and San Francisco Bay, is controlled by active tectonism along the boundary between the North American and Pacific Tectonic Plates: the San Andreas Fault System. Area faults have predominantly right-lateral strike-slip (horizontal) movement, with lesser dip-slip (vertical) components of displacement. Horizontal and vertical movement is distributed on the various fault strands within a fault zone. Throughout geologic time the fault strands experiencing active deformation change in response to regional shifts in stress and strain from plate motions. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 5-1 CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS Within 15 miles of the Project site there axe three major active faults that display large right- lateral strike-slip offsets, the San Andreas fault, the San Gregorio fault, and the Hayward fault. The nearest active fault zones to the site are the San Andreas fault (located 3.4 miles to the southwest); the San Gregorio Fault (Seal Cove fault), located approximately 12 miles to the southwest; and the Hayward Fault (located approximately 15.5 miles to the northeast). The nearest potentially active fault (showing evidence of Quaternary movement, or movement within the past 1.6 million years) is the San Bruno fault, located approximately 1.4 miles southwest of the site. The nearest geologic fault (not mapped as active or potentially active) is the Hillside fault, mapped approximately 1,100 feet northeast of the site. Seismicity of the Project region has resulted in several major earthquakes during the historic period, including the 1868 Hayward Earthquake, the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, and most recently, the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake (CDMG, 2000). Small, non-damaging earthquakes occur frequently in the Project vicinity. Larger potentially damaging earthquakes are expected to occur periodically, and are considered likely during the design life of the Project site. The Working Group on Earthquake Probabilities of the U.S. Geological Survey (LTSGS) and other scientists conclude that there is a 62% probability of at least one magnitude 6.7 or greater quake, capable of causing widespread damage, striking the San Francisco Bay region before 2032.' Regional Geology The site is located at the edge of the San Francisco Bay, a submerged valley in the Central Coast Ranges of California. This area is characterized by northwest trending mountain ranges and valleys oriented sub-parallel to faults of the San Andreas Fault System. In the San Francisco Bay Area, Tertiary strata commonly rest in angular unconformity on rocks of the Franciscan complex, which is composed of weakly to strongly metamorphosed greywacke (sandstone), argillite, limestone, basalt, serpentinite, and chert. The rocks of the Franciscan complex are ancient Jurassic oceanic crust and deep marine (pelagic) deposits accreted onto the edge of the North American Continent and metamorphosed as a result of accretion and partial subduction. These deposits have been overlain by Late Jurassic to Late Cretaceous sedimentary deposits. Deposits of these rocks may be found outcropping along San Bruno Mountain in the Project vicinity. Little metamorphosed, high-pressure, low-temperature metamorphic minerals are common in the Franciscan complex, but there are also high grade metamorphic blocks in sheared but relatively un-metamorphosed argillite matrix which reflect the complicated history of the Franciscan. These rocks have been offset by movement along the San Andreas Fault System, which traverses the Santa Cruz Mountains prior to heading offshore in northwestern San Mateo County, on the other side of the Peninsula. Several northwest trending structurally controlled valleys dissect the San Francisco Peninsula, including the valley of Colma Creek, which contains the Project site. ' WGCEP, 2002. PAGE 5-2 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS During the Quaternary Period of rising and falling sea level in response to patterns of global glaciation, these valleys have been incised and then backfilled with sediment to form the suite of alluvial deposits that can be found today, including the Pleistocene Colma Formation. Along the bay margin, deposits of Holocene "Bay Mud" and marsh soils deposited during the past 11,000 years can be found. Marine terrace deposits consisting of sand, gravel and colluvial clay and slope debris and ravine fill materials consisting of gravelly clay, sandy clay, clayey gravel and similar soils occur in the area. Man-placed artificial fill over the old marsh deposits and Bay Mud are also present. Site Geology and Soils According to the USGS Map Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7.5'Quadrangle and parts of the Hunter's Point 7.5' Quadrangle, San Francisco Bay Area, California (iJSGS Open-file Report 98-354, 1998) the site is underlain by the Pleistocene Colma Formation, Quaternary alluvium, and artificial man-placed fill.Z The Colma Formation is described as friable, well- sorted, fine to medium-grained sand containing a few beds of sandy silt, clay, and gravel throughout most of the area, but also as sandy clay and silty sand in the Project vicinity. The alluvium consists mainly of sand and silt but locally contains clay, gravel or boulders. The artificial fill is composed of a variety of materials including clay, silt, sand, rock fragments, organic matter, and man-made debris. The site is likely underlain at depth by Franciscan Rocks similar to those exposed in nearby Mount San Bruno. Figure 5-1A presents a Geologic Map of the site and vicinity based on the 1998 USGS map of the area. A site geologic map was not completed for the preliminary geotechnical investigation, but a number of boreholes completed for the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Consolidated Engineering Laboratories, 2005) indicate subsurface conditions.3 Boreholes were not drilled inside the existing structures, but only around the perimeter and in parking lot areas. The boreholes typically encountered five (5) to eighteen (18) feet of undocumented fill of variable composition. The fill includes silty sand, sandy silt, sandy lean clay, gravel, and debris such as wood, metal, concrete, and possibly glass mill tailings (reported as non-native obsidian in cuttings). Underlying native soils consist of a combination of fine sand, sandy lean clay, lean to fat clay, and Bay Mud or other marsh soil deposits.3 Sandy soils were typically medium dense in the upper five feet below ground surface (BGS), becoming loose in some holes between eight and twelve feet BGS. Sandy lean clays were typically medium stiff to very stiff. Review of the logs of boreholes and CPT soundings suggest that the Pleistocene Colma Formation underlies at least part of the site and consists of very dense fine sand with silt. z USGS, 1998 s Consolidated Engineering Laboratories, 2005 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 5-3 CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS Groundwater Groundwater was typically encountered in the boreholes completed at the site by Consolidated Engineering Laboratories (2005) at depths five feet below ground surface during the subsurface investigation of July 22, 2005. Groundwater levels at the site fluctuate during the year and are typically highest during the winter and spring rainy season. Shallower groundwater levels may be encountered during construction activities. Landsliding and Slope Stability Slope steepness is generally the dominant factor governing slope stability, depending upon soil and bedrock conditions. Steep slopes greater than 50 percent are especially prone to landslides in areas of weak soil and/or bedrock. The Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations report (2005) did not address slope stability. The site has very gentle relief, with no significant slopes on the property that would be subject to slope instabilities. No landslides are shown on geologic and planning maps of the area as affecting the subject site. Expansive Soils Expansive soils experience volumetric changes (shrink and swell) seasonally due to changes in soil moisture content. The shrink/swell cycles can cause damage to foundations, concrete slabs- on-grade, and pavement sections. Based on Atterberg limits testing, soils in the upper five feet of the site can be generally considered to have a low expansion potential (Consolidated Engineering Laboratories, 2005). Settlement Due to Consolidation Consolidation is the densification of soil into a more dense state from adding an overlying load to the soil. Consolidation of soft and loose soil layers can cause settlement of the ground surface and damage buildings, structural improvements and utilities. The site is underlain by fill soils in the upper 5 to 10 feet below ground surface that could be susceptible to consolidation settlement. Older Bay Mud soils underlying the northern portion of the property are as thick as 25 feet and could be susceptible to consolidation settlement. Potentially Unstable Soils and Debris The site is typically underlain by five to ten feet of undocumented fill soils, with fill along the site margins as thick as 18 feet. Buried objects and debris including wood, metal, brick, concrete, and slag/mill tailings were detected during drilling. Low-density sands were also reported in portions of the fill. Primary Seismic Hazards Primary seismic hazards are direct affects of an earthquake such as surface fault rupture. PAGE 5-4 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR -_ f.` ~ i .-... _ '~- Cif `/ ~" ,~ ` `'~" / `"- ,~' _~ ,~ ~ , T ;, : .. m„ ! -~~ > -~~- ~~''"`cP~ PROPOSED LOWE'S SITE /~ ~ ~ ,,'. 1 - ~"~"~ ~~~ . ~ , ~ ~ ~~ . ~I ~ i ~ Y t _ , ~ ' ~, ..fir, 1,.. f ~~ ~,Y~..-=. -~-- . - ~ ~ ,.,~ ~ ~~ ~ ~i' ~ 1 .~ ~ r i , ~~ .~ ~ / r.. ..r.f' ~ _ ' I y~, `` ~- - y i r ~ ! ~tf ~ ii f ' i l ~ l ~ ~ ~ n ~ i ,_:~~. -i - . ~ _. ~ ~r ~.__ 11 ~ ~f fvlacnriic Jcdmwi„n i,. Ir _ , i~;er~~cs cda nl nnnh Reference: Bonilla, 1998, Geologic Map of the ~ QQQ ft ~ 5~~m South San Francisco 7.5' Quadrangle and Part of the Hunters Point 7 5' Quadrangle, US Geological 08/ 18/05 Date: ~=-~-~ ~.,~„~~mA„ra, ~ ° `~eSO~'°~' Geologic Map FIGURE Drawn, ~F UESTA ~.__,,` ~ Lowe's EIR 5 1 App~a wH 600-790 Dubuque Avenue - J Dwg. No. 250089Ge .. ~~° "" ~ ~ ;" °°~"`°°~~' ' ~°~~~" ~~" ".''"~;, South San Francisco, CA This page intentionall}~ left blank. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 5-6 Explanation of Geol t1t. ., I I ~.It V. \ ILl' H~.~loreuc lyaf ~\rtrli gal fill (la}. ah, :~md, n ck fingmenh, org:uuc nnnter, anJ mun m:xla debris. Q;tE1f :\nificial fill nvzr tiJ:J flat C1a}, sJ4 s:md, rock fragwcnts. org:vuc uraua.:unl mwt Windt Jrhns. placed over tiJ:J tl als. Ud \nilirial lilt Nati,e \menr;m slirllni,awJ. I }.vk silty to .:mdy .a+il contvning shill tragmrnts and ruz intact .hd I:. QI I,w.L.~liJedep.vt.; c'nml,osiuon :tn,l snvcmre Jzf~znd on thz ga,logic t:,nnation invah~ed :mil rypr of I:md.h Jc. ~ :\lhtcium Alndtl y .:mil :mJ .dlt but locally rautwnc day, fvvczl, or honklec; pznzrally gray to hnx,n. Qb Bradt [Xposiu 1'roJonww,J} wzll sortcJ mrJiwn gmiueJ law„< gay' awd: lordly eousias rf swtd, uravrl wul nibbles. Qrn Ba}~ Wind tioli unorsu ro hnu tJryt da}~ :tnd silt locrlly conhvt~+shzll fi:urments, plant rztn:nns, and thin hrJs of svx1. Plztstreenc ~wLlr ICll:ler Jeplr~lla IRrJonunw,ily friable w~dl .a,nnl hnc gaincvl yrllawish orutgr to gray nwul; mduJe,:Jluei;J gravel wrJ eollu,ial day. t;?sr tilope Jebris wul rariur fill Samy sihy n, .cmJy cla}': hrally' silt} to day-~' s;mJ or gmvd: }~rllowishzvwrgr to nrrdirw, grtq, una~trauhr or p k rly stratified. R"hzre it ovzrlirs the Mzrczd nr Colma Formation a i. a,mmonly a silty a+ da}ey sand, or gravel. Q` Colnta Fonnauon In nonhu cst :rod ecnu:J pwt. of wed, friable well .a,nrd tine tc mrJiunt smrJ ccNainirrg a tew heJ.c of.candy silt, clay, and gmvzl. In .amthea:~ Ixin of :uuh. m.aly swtd} day and sihy swrd; }zll<nvish or:tngz to gra}'. (ht tietGmenmry dzposits, tmJitfrrentiated ti PaiJt rocks Zone of gouge, hrreeia. GarttvrJ wrJ sheareJ rock :ilotrg tyre Swt :\udrcas (dolt. Grac4uiottal contact widt strrotmcGng n,eks. Limits poorly krmwu. Age extrnds ono Hch~cetre TERT L1Rl' :\ND QL-ATFRN: V21' Pkiwrcrne and %i,x:enc QTm Alzrccd Fommnon I~naMe to lino .v:mcl, sill.:utJ clap: minor amannt.; of gravel. lignitz, :rod ,olcanie air, ncecGnm gray to yellowish orvtgz. is Units and Symbols c RFTArecxs ANnlt~2ASSlc }=nura;ewt Ccwplrz mtJ av~riatnd n,ek. Fah Saudstonr;mdslwlc Interhzdded aattiL mnz and anilr. baud uhzrr hrsh :md intact, .a,ti ,clirrz ,~i;tJtercd or sheaved. t:'nmmonlp mediimi d:uk bra} where titi~h. olive gray to yellaHish brown u~hzre nr,klrrntrl} weathelcd.:md yellowish ormge io ydh,wish gcty „here lughl} weadiercJ. h-L;k tiwtdctonc wrJ sh:Je Sandstone uerx:ral,' eontaimng more than nco percent pntacium frldsp:u~, Hard a ttrnr, hnra ~oarsz-prainzd acluao~. gnawx~.z, or gr:uudosr mrtwnotphie nti~ks: .4vk grn}-. J:vk greenish gay.,+r dwk hlrush gray. sp Srt},rtrtinz I I;vd io.<oli, gcnrnJl} gea;trish gray; aout:ur4 small b•cfi~:; of gabbro :uid ,Gahace. I:Ju tihrared rocks Sm:JI io I:vgc Gagtnad> al IrvJ nkk to matnx al +hcvrd rocA. Alarm utnzrally coherent :mil tinn, hnt soh in placed, rep ti$Jly whac werJrrral. Dwk gray where titsh, yellowish hmwn cnc~rc wr:rthut~ai. Ikricrd mostly from shale and .dams+~tonz nt Frandscan Conq,lrs :u nl scrlw-trtnte. lJm AletwuorpWc n,rk, y 13eddirig Contact, certain -- Approximate bedding --- Contact, approximately located ~ Fleritontd bedclink .........- Contact. concedul + ~'rrticd bedding ----- Contact. gracLtUonal or inferrod ~ Fast amtude Fatilt, certain y Foliation --- Fmilt, approximately Ixated Porc~ct hcd> ---------- Fault. conceded y Joint ---~-- Fault. concealed, queried t `<'c;rtrcalloint ----- Fatilt, interred ^`^ Sltru pl:utc~ } r,-~-~~ Striations or groove, on faults Top of landslide ~carl• - 1800: shorcLttc :wJ .>trc;mi cha -~ .Anticline, eerlain --£-- .\nticline, approximately located --~-- Syncline, appn xiniately located --~r-- ~lonoclina. approximately Irkated Date., osrosro5 t~~„~~~-~~'-~~~- Geologic Map Legend Fl~uee ~UESTA ~w,„,,,,,,>,,,~„<<, Drawn: ~F ~__1z, Home Depot EIR 5-1 Apps: wH 900 Dubuque Avenue J 1 P~ aox,~~sa ia~oen~kva~oc:o~onoaa Po~~,a~~~mo~d"~A94ao' South San Francisco CA Dwg. No. 250073Ge... ' This page intentionall~° left blank. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 5-8 CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS Surface Fault Rupture A number of active and potentially active faults are present in the region. According to criteria of the California Geological Survey, active faults are faults that have experienced surface rupture within the last 11,000 years (Holocene Period). The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 initiated a program of mapping active and potentially active (surface rupture within the last 1.6 million years) faults. According to the Act, zones around active faults are delineated and development projects within the Earthquake Fault Zones must include investigations to establish the location and age of any fault ruptures occurring on the property. The Act primarily covers structures for human occupancy, which includes commercial structures. Active and potentially active faults on the San Francisco Peninsula have undergone extensive investigation in the past. The California Geological Survey (formerly the California Division of Mines and Geology) has established Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ) boundaries for active faults in the region. According to the Earthquake Fault Zone Map for the San Francisco South Quadrangle (1982), the proposed development is not located within an EFZ.4 The nearest EFZ is for the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 2.9 miles southwest of the site. The active Hayward fault is located approximately 15 miles to the east-northeast. An inactive pre-Quaternary fault, the Hillside fault (see Figure 1), is mapped approximately 1,100 feet to the north of the site.5 Based on the age of the fault being greater than 1.6 million years old (California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map No. 6, 1994), the State of California Geological Survey (CGS) does not consider the Hillside fault active or potentially active. Secondary Seismic Hazards The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1991 established a program of mapping of areas subject to the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failure and other seismic hazards caused by earthquakes. These seismically induced hazards are known as secondary seismic hazards. According to the California Geological Survey, the San Francisco South Quadrangle is currently in the process of being mapped. Other sources of information provide details on the potential for secondary seismic hazards in the area. Ground Shaking The San Francisco Bay Area is a seismically active region. The Project site and region will likely be subjected to strong to violent seismically induced ground shaking within the design life of the development. The site is located in an area of active regional seismicity near active seismic sources. a CDMG, 1982 s USGS, 1998 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 5-9 CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS According to a recent study completed by the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), which assesses the probability of earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Area, there is a 62 percent probability that an earthquake of Richter Magnitude 6.7 or greater will occur in the region between 2003 and 2032. ~ The intensity of ground shaking will vary with the distance and magnitude of the earthquake causing the ground shaking. The maximum intensity ground shaking expected to occur at the site would be a modified Mercalli intensity level of IX (violent) in response to an earthquake of equivalent magnitude to the 1906 earthquake (7.9) on the San Andreas fault. An earthquake of magnitude 6.8 on the Hayward fault would be expected to produce strong ground shaking equivalent to modified Mercalli intensity level VII.' Peak ground accelerations for the site with a 10-percent probability of being exceeded in a 50- year period (design basis ground motion) were determined using the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Mapping Ground Motion Page on the California Geological Survey web site (http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap/pshamap.asp). This page provides an interactive analysis and produces a set of conservative values to be used in seismic design. The following Table 1 presents preliminary values that should be verified by site-specific analysis. Table 1. Peak Ground Motions Ground Motion Firm Rock Soft Rock uvium Pga ~ .616 ', 0.616 .616 Sa 0.2 sec 1.377 1.377 ...1.377 Sa 1.0 sec ' .647 0.731 .844 Pga- Peak Ground Acceleration; Sa 0.2 sec- Spectral acceleration for 0.2-second (short) period; Sa 1.0 sec- Spectral acceleration for 1.0-second (long) period Site-specific Seismic Response Criteria for the site is presented in the Geotechnical Investigation report by Consolidated Engineering Laboratories. Seismically Induced Liquefaction, Dynamic Densification, and Ground Settlement Liquefaction and dynamic densification are conditions that can result from seismically induced ground shaking. Liquefaction is the temporary transformation of saturated, cohesionless soil into a viscous liquid as a result of ground shaking. Dynamic densification (seismic settlement) 6 WGCEP, 2002. ~ Assoaation of Bay Area Governments, www.abag.ca.gov , 2005. PAGE 5-10 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS occurs in dry cohesionless soil during seismic shaking and can result in ground surface settlement during earthquakes. Seismically induced ground settlement can also occur at sites with man-placed fill containing debris. The upper five feet of fill soils may be susceptible to dynamic densification. Potentially liquefiable soils were identified at the site in boreholes completed as part of the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering study. These soils consist of medium to coarse-grained clean sand, fine sand, and fine sand with silt that is very loose to medium dense. According to the Geotechnical study, the heterogeneous upper 15 feet of soils could suffer local liquefaction and may experience up to one inch of settlement during a major seismic event under the northern and southern portions of the site. The central portion is underlain by denser soils (Consolidated Engineering Laboratories, 2005). Seismicall~Induced Landslides Seismically induced slope failure is another secondary seismic hazard. During earthquake induced ground shaking, landslides and debris flows can form on unstable slopes. No slopes subject to potential slope failure due to seismically induced landslides are present at the subject property. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 5-11 CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS 5.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to CEQA Guidelines, exposure of people or structures to major geological hazards is considered a significant adverse impact. The potential geologic, soils, and seismic effects of the proposed Project can be considered from two points of view: (1) construction impacts; and, (2) geologic hazards to people or structures. The basic criterion applied to the analysis of construction impacts is whether construction of the project will create unstable geologic conditions that would last beyond the short-term construction period. The analysis of geological hazards is based on the degree to which the site geology could produce hazards to people or structures from earthquakes, ground shaking, ground movement, fault rupture, or other geologic hazards, features or events. According to CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in: 1. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; 2. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving strong seismic ground shaking; 3. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and seismic-induced landslides; 4. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides; 5. Development located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable (or that would become unstable as a result of the Project) and which could potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse; 6. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving volcanic hazards; PAGE 5-12 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS 7. Development located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life and property; 8. The loss of topsoil or development in an area of erodible soils. 9. Development in areas where soils are incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater; 10. The loss of Mineral Resources important to the State of California or the local economy; 11. The alteration or destruction of a unique geological feature. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Surface Fault Rupture According to the latest available maps, the site is not contained within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone boundary. Published geologic maps of the area show the Hillside fault as lying 1,100 feet north of the site, but this fault is not considered active or potentially active, with an estimated age of most recent movement greater than 1.6 million years ago. The potential impact of surface fault rupture is considered Zess than Significant. Exposure to Strong Seismic Ground Shaking Impact 5-1 Seismic Ground Shaking. There is a high probability that the proposed development would be subjected to strong to violent ground shaking from an earthquake during its design life. Strong to violent seismic ground shaking is considered a potentially significant impact.. Mitigation Measure 5-1a Compliance with California Building Code. Project development shall meet requirements of the California Building Code Vols. 1 and 2, 2001 Edition, including the California Building Standards, 2001 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, and as modified by the amendments, additions and deletions as adopted by the City of South San Francisco, California. Incorporation of seismic construction standards would reduce the potential for catastrophic effects of ground shaking, such as complete structural failure, but will not completely eliminate the hazard of seismically induced ground shaking. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 5-13 CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS Mitigation Measure 5-1b Mitigation Measure 5-1c Compliance with a design level Geotechnical Investigation report prepared by a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and with Structural Design Plans as prepared by a Registered Structural Engineer. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Registered Structural Engineer shall be included in the Project. At a minimum, the structural engineering design shall incorporate seismic parameters as outlined in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report and from the California Building Code as summarized below. Seismic Zone 4 Soil Profile Type SD Seismic Source Type A Seismic Zone Factor 0.40 Near Source Acceleration Factor, Na 1.22 Near Source Velocity Factor, Nv 1.63 The City's Chief Building Official may require a Final Geotechnical Engineering Report. The applicant's plans shall be subject to the review and approval by the Ciry's Chief Building Official. Obtain a building permit and complete hnal design review. The Project applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Final Design Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by a licensed structural engineer for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the Ciry of South San Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. Conformity with these mitigation measures would reduce the impact of strong seismic ground shaking to a level of less than signif `scant. PAGE 5-14 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS Seismically Induced Ground Failure, including Liquefaction and Ground Surface Settlement Impact 5-2. Liquefaction and Ground Surface Settlement. The Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study by Consolidated Engineering Laboratories concluded that potentially liquefiable soil is present within the upper 15 feet below ground surface on the northern and southern margins of the site. Liquefaction of soils could result in damage to site improvements. A detailed liquefaction analysis was performed and included Cone Penetration Test studies to identify zones of potentially liquefiable soil. The potential for liquefaction site soils is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 5-2a Compliance with recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering report and with Structural Design Plans as prepared by a Registered Structural Engineer. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Registered Structural Engineer. Structures shall be designed to minimize the affects of the anticipated seismic settlements. The City of South San Francisco Building Department shall perform review of the Structural Design Plans. The review shall be completed by a Registered Civil Engineer experienced in structural design or by a Registered Structural Engineer. The Geotechnical Engineer shall review the Structural Design Plans and provide approval for the Geotechnical elements of the plans. The design plans shall identify specific mitigation measures to reduce the liquefaction potential of surface soils. Mitigations measures may include excavation and replacement as engineered fill, reduced foundation loading, and ground improvement by methods such as stone columns or pressure grouting. Mitigation Measure 5-2b Obtain a building permit and complete final design review. The Project applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Final Design Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by a licensed Structural Engineer for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 5-15 CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact of seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level. UNSTABLE SOIL MATERIALS Development located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or could become unstable as a result of the Project. Impact 5-3 Unstable Soils and Debris. Undocumented fill soils are present on most of the subject site to depths of approximately 5 to 10 feet below ground surface (BGS). Buried objects and debris were found during the site investigation. Fill soils of unknown quality are present in the proposed building and parking areas. Fill soils may settle due to new building loads. The near surface soils are also corrosive in nature and may affect concrete and steel placed in contact with them. Groundwater is present at shallow depths, approximately five feet below ground surface, and could impact excavations such as utility trenches. Groundwater will also limit the options to mitigate the undocumented fill. Older Bay Mud is present under portions of the site and may settle under design loading conditions resulting in differential settlement of structures. The presence of unstable soil and debris is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 5-3 Investigate unstable soils and debris. A detailed investigation of the undocumented fill soils shall be performed to determine the extent of potentially unstable soils and debris. Based on results of this study the Geotechnical Engineer shall determine appropriate measures to stabilize the unstable soils and debris present in undocumented fill at the site. Additional consolidation testing of older Bay Mud soils will be performed as part of the additional design level geotechnical investigation. Methods of soil stabilization may include excavation of unstable soil and debris, replacement with clean, engineered reinforced fill, construction of geo-piers to stabilize zones of unstable soil and debris, and other methods as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer. Implementation of the above mitigation measures will reduce the impact of unstable or potentially unstable soils to less than significant. VOLCANIC HAZARDS No active volcaxuc areas are located in the San Francisco Bay or Northern California region that could potentially impact the Project site. No Impact. PAGE 5-16 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS EXPANSIVE SOILS According to results of the Geotechnical Investigation by Consolidated Engineering Laboratories, potentially expansive soils were not encountered in the upper five feet of soils. Expansive soils may be present at depths below five feet, but are not considered a hazard to construction. The presence of expansive soils is considered a Zess than significant impact. SOIL EROSION Impact 5-4 Soil Erosion. The Project would involve mass grading in a sensitive area near the San Francisco Bay. Demolition of existing structures and pavements would expose underlying soil to the elements. Some site soils may also be contaminated. Excavation of soil for construction of new buildings and pavement sections would also be performed and temporary stockpiles of loose soil will be created. Soils exposed during site grading would be subject to erosion during storm events. Grading would disturb site soils potentially leading to impacts to the San Francisco Bay. This would be a potentially significant impact during and following site construction activities. Mitigation Measure 5-4a Erosion Control Plan. The Project applicant shall complete an Erosion Control Plan to be submitted to the City in conjunction with the Grading Permit Application. The Erosion Control Plan shall include winterization, dust control, erosion control and pollution control measures conforming to the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. The Erosion Control Plan shall describe the "best management practices" (BMPs) to be used during and following construction to control pollution resulting from both storm and construction water runoff. The Plan shall include locations of vehicle and equipment staging, portable restrooms, mobilization areas, and planned access routes. Recommended soil stabilization techniques include placement of straw wattles, silt fences, berms, and gravel construction entrance areas or other control to prevent tracking sediment onto city streets and into storm drains. Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit the applicant's Erosion Control Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of South San Francisco Storm Water Coordinator and City Engineer. The City of South San Francisco Department of Public Works staff and/or representatives shall be required to inspect the site during grading and construction to ensure compliance with the SSFMC Grading Ordinance and LC1WE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 5-17 CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS approved plans, and require that the Project applicant immediately correct any violations. Mitigation Measure 5-4b Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. In accordance with the Clean Water Act and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the Applicant shall file a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to the start of construction. The SWPPP shall include specific best management practices to reduce soil erosion. This is required to obtain coverage under the General Permit fox Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 99-08- DW~. Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit the applicant's SWPPP shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of South San Francisco Storm Water Coordinator and the City Engineer. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the Project's impact to a level of less than significant. SEPTIC SYSTEMS A sewer system is present in the area and septic systems are not required at the site. No impact. LOSS OF MINERAL RESOURCES No mineral resources important to the State of California would be impacted by the Project. No Impact. UNIQUE GEOLOGICAL FEATURE No unique geologic features will be impacted by the proposed Project. No Impact. PAGE 5-18 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR 6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 6.1 INTRODUCTION The following section summarizes identified hazards and potentially hazardous materials existing or considered likely to occur on the property and which would, therefore, impact the proposed Project. This includes a description of the history of hazardous materials at the site; and consideration of the threat to future occupants, workers, and the surrounding environment that would result from development as proposed. This includes consideration of risk from exposure to hazards or hazardous materials during demolition, earthwork and grading, construction, and during the course of normal operations at the proposed Lowe's Home Improvement Store. A hazardous material is a substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may either 1) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; or 2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and safety, or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed. Hazardous materials include waste that has been abandoned, discarded or recycled on the property that may represent a continuing hazard as development occurs. The information presented below was drawn from several sources of data, including: (1) Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment and Addendum Report by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. (CEI) Quly 8, 2005 and August 10, 2005); (2) Limited Phase 2 Subsurface Environmental Site Assessment (December 23, 2005); (3) Letter of geotechnical report review by CEI (September 27, 2005); (4) Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR) Radius Map with Geocheck database search for the proposed Project site Qune 15, 2005); (5) EDR Sanborn Map Report for the proposed Project site Qune 16, 2005); (6) EDR Site Report, Homart Development 480 Industrial Way, South San Francisco, CA 94080 Qune 20, 2005); (7) EDR Site Report, HWY 280, South San Francisco, CA Qune 23, 2005); (8) Species List for Lowe's Retail, U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Qune 15, 2005); (9) Report on Asbestos Surveys completed on Commercial Property at 600-790 Dubuque Avenue prepared by Krazan & Associates, Inc. Qune 30, 2005); (10) Report on Lead Based Paint Surveys completed on Commercial Property at 600- 790 Dubuque Avenue prepared by Krazan & Associates, Inc. Qune 30, 2005); (11) Environmental Sampling, Testing and Evaluation of Soil by Consolidated Engineering Laboratories (CEL) (Revised August 29, 2005); (12) Analytical Reports by Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc. (August 23, 2005, December 7,8,9, 2005); (13) Final Case Closure: LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 6-1 CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Contaminant Contour Maps and Volume Estimates for Property at 600-790 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, California by AllWest Environmental Inc. (February 26, 2001); (14) Review of Historical Topographic Maps (http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/histopo/); (15) Review of the East of 101 Area Plan of the City of South San Francisco, as well as all other applicable ordinances and regulations; (16) Development Plan Sheets prepared for Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse, Inc. by AMS Associates, Inc. Qune 7, 2005); (17) San Mateo County Environmental Health Department website, (www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/smc/department/home.html); (18) personal communication with San Mateo County and City of South San Francisco officials; and (19) a site visit by Questa Engineering Staff on August 22, 2005. 6.2 SETTING Site History Site history was documented from the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared by CEI Engineering (2005), as well as from independent review of historic maps. More recent information was obtained from personal communication with County and City officials, planning documentation, and a site visit on August 22, 2005. An early map of the area is the 1896 United States Geological Survey's (USGS) topographic map of the San Mateo 15-minute quadrangle. According to this map, the vicinity south of Colma Creek and west of the present day Bayshore Freeway alignment was akeady developed. Roads are shown in similar alignment to present Dubuque and East Grand Avenues, while the railroad terminated near the northern end of the Project site. No buildings are shown on the subject property. By 1915 the railroad was shown to be significantly wider and three large buildings are shown on the subject property. Amore detailed Sanborn Map from 1925 shows the Enterprise Foundry Company and the American Brake Shop and Foundry Company occupied the western half of the Project site, while the eastern portion nearest the railroad tracks and including the present long warehouse building, was classified as a low marshy area. Facilities included several iron foundries, a machine shop, steel cleaning room, sand blaster, and various metal working facilities. The Bayshore Highway is not shown, but appears on the 1939 USGS topographic quadrangle map, which also shows a minor road was added to connect Dubuque Avenue to a railroad station at the south end of the site in similar location to the current CALTRAIN station. The 1939 map is important because it no longer shows Colma Creek as an open channel, indicating it was routed into underground culverts sometime prior to 1939. The 1947 USGS topographic map of the area shows that the highway had been upgraded to a freeway in similar configuration to the present day, while a spur of the railroad is shown to extend to metal working facilities on the site. A Sanborn Map dated 1956 shows the property was still used for metal working, including welding and machining, but that buildings on the site had been remodeled and additions made. This map shows the electrical transmission towers located near the northeast corner of the property were constructed by that time. PAGE 6-2 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The most significant change to the property since original development as a foundry and metal shop took place in the 1960s, as witnessed in a 1965 aerial photo. The photo shows the original buildings had been demolished and replaced with new structures. Three of the four existing buildings are shown, while a pad for the fourth building located on the northwest portion of the proposed development site was apparently in preparation for construction, with a graded pad clearly visible. The fourth building is later shown on the 1968 USGS topographic map. Asphalt pavement appears to have been placed in conjunction with the new construction. More recent maps indicate the Project site has undergone no major structural changes since 1968. Site history reflects development of industry in close proximity to the railroad and highway. The property was used for metal working until the 1960s, and since then for a variety of commercial and light industrial uses, including freight transportation. The entire area east of U.S. 101 appears to have undergone a similar history, with a transition from more heavy industrial uses such as metal foundries and sheet metal work and warehousing to more recent development of laboratory facilities and commercial complexes. Regulatory Setting Regulation of toxic and hazardous substances is locally administered through the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD). The department administers several programs to regulate and monitor the use of hazardous materials, including the hazardous materials business plan program, hazardous waste generator program, California accidental release program, underground storage tank program, groundwater protection program, and the stormwater pollution prevention program. These programs, which are mandated by State and federal Laws, are aimed at protecting public health and the environment. The Hazardous Materials Business Plan is used to keep track of the use of hazardous materials by businesses in accordance with both State and federal laws. The Hazardous Waste Generator Program was started in 1984 when the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) authorized the SMCEHD to inspect and regulate non-permitted hazardous waste generators in San Mateo County based on the Hazardous Waste Control Law found in the California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5 and regulations found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5. The groundwater protection program is funded wholly or in part, by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Cooperative Agreement L-009450-1-0 to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and by Contract 8-014-550 to the County of San Mateo. In conjunction with these laws, the underground storage tank program was created to regulate the chief source of underground contamination: leaking underground storage tanks (LUST). At the federal level, the chief regulator is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region IX for Northern California. At the State level, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is chiefly responsible for regulation, handling, use, and disposal of toxic materials. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) regulates discharge of LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 6-3 CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS potentially hazardous materials to waterways and aquifers, as well as stormwater protection through the general permit, which must be obtained for any grading projects exceeding one acre, including the Project. The local branch of the Water Board is the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB). The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has also established environtnental screening guidelines for commercial developments (RWQCB, 2005). According to the publication, the environmental screening levels (ESL) axe to be used as Tier 1 guidelines: "Use of the ESLs and this document in general is intended to be entirely optional on the part of the regulated facility and subject to the approval of the case manager in the overseeing regulatory agency. 'The presence of a chemical at concentrations in excess of an ESL does not necessarily indicate that adverse impacts to human health or the environment are occurring; this simply indicates that a potential for adverse risk may exist and that additional evaluation is warranted. ESLs presented for chemicals that are known to be highly biodegradable in the environment may in particular be overly conservative for use as final cleanup levels (e.g., many petroleum-related compounds). Use of the ESLs as cleanup levels should be evaluated in view of the overall site investigation results and the cost/benefit of performing a more site-specific risk assessment." Other standards have been developed by the State of California through the Department of Toxic Substances Control and other agencies to qualify concentrations that are generally greater than the Environmental Screening Levels and that are considered hazardous. These standards are referred to under Titles 22 and 26 of the California Code of Regulations. The leaching procedures, known as the Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC) and Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC), are intended to simulate the conditions that may be present in a landfill where water may pass through the waste and travel into the groundwater, carrying the soluble materials with it. The TTLC analysis determines the total concentration of each target analyte in a soil sample, while the STLC analysis determines the total concentration of the target analyte in water. More stringent standards are used to determine suitability of water for drinking, known as maximum contaminant levels (MCL). These are enforceable regulatory standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act and must be met by all public drinking water systems to which they apply. Primary MCLs can be found in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. Regulatory agencies maintain a database of sites with contamination, as well as potential sources of contamination, such as underground fuel tanks. Databases with information on hazardous materials sites include the Federal Superfund list started through the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Conservation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 and the EPA, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), HAZNET, the leaking underground storage tank information system (LUST), the Cortese list, and many others. These databases were searched for the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the Project site. Air pollution is regulated through the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). PAGE 6-4 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS These programs and regulations are primarily intended to mitigate for environmental contamination including hazards to wildlife, provide protection for natural resources, and limit public exposure to harmful chemicals. Specific programs intended to protect workers from exposure to hazardous materials and from accidental upset are covered under the Occupational Health and Safety Administration at both the federal Level (OSHA) and the State level (CAL- OSHA). Transportation of hazardous materials on the highways is regulated primarily through the federal Department of Transportation (DOT) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). This includes a system of placards, labels, and shipping papers required to identify the hazards of shipping each class of hazardous materials. Existing federal and State laws address risks associated with the transport of hazardous materials. These laws include regulations outlined in the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act administered by the DOT. Caltrans is mandated to implement the regulations established by the DOT, which is published as the Federal Code of Regulations, Tide 49, commonly referred to as 49 CFR. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) enforces these regulations. Regulations associated with hazardous materials and wastes include the manufacture of packaging and transport containers; packing and repacking; labeling; marking or placarding; handling; spill reporting; routing of transports; training of transport personnel; and registration of highly hazardous material transport. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Overview The Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. (CEI) in 2005 for existing businesses at 600 to790 Dubuque Avenue to identify any hazards and potential environmental hazards present at the Project site. Hazards may result from use and storage of chemicals on the property, any hazardous building materials, and from the history of hazardous materials and environmental contaminants on the property and nearby properties. A Phase 1 ESA is intended to not only identify hazards and provide basic risk assessment, but also to provide recommendations for further investigation, including sampling and testing of potentially contaminated soil, groundwater, and building materials. The Phase 1 ESA included a literature review, records review, site reconnaissance, and interviews with knowledgeable parties. The search through local, State, and federal databases for environmentally hazardous properties identified three businesses on the property. 101 Trucking at 790 Dubuque Avenue is included because it has a Hazardous Materials Business Plan on file with the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department for generating and recycling waste oil and solvent. US Air Conditioning is reported for storing less than 3,500 gallons of unidentified hazardous materials. Bressie and Company, which currently owns the subject property, is included in both the Haznet and Cortese Databases. This is apparently related to the case of the former leaking storage tanks (LUSTs) on the property, including two underground tanks which were removed and which received case closure in 2001. According to the Phase 1 ESA, inclusion of these properties in the environmental databases was not considered a recognized environmental condition, perhaps since there is no ongoing remediation or request for remediation. The report did consider LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 6-5 CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS asbestos containing material and lead based paint found on the proposed Lowe's site as recognized environmental conditions. The Phase 1 ESA also considered several nearby properties with a history of remediation as recognized environmental conditions. Subsurface Contamination Sources Subsurface contamination of soil, groundwater, and fill material on the site may be attributed to four primary sources: leaking aboveground or underground storage tanks on the property; subsurface migration of contamination onto the property from nearby properties through groundwater flow, dispersion, and diffusion; a history of contaminated materials at the site which were discarded as on-site fill; and penetration of contaminants through the surface from leaks and spills. Records indicate the site formerly contained two leaking underground storage tanks with approximate capacity of 2,000 gallons each. These tanks were located at the northeast corner of the second long warehouse building nearest Dubuque Avenue. In a letter from the San Mateo County Health Services Agency dated June 11, 2001, the case for the storage tanks was granted closure following tank removal and subsequent monitoring of contamination. At the time of closure, All[-Ylest Environmental estimated the combined mass of petroleum hydrocarbons remaining in the soil was 43,000 pounds, and that an additional 40 pounds of hydrocarbons remained in groundwater. The network of monitoring wells formerly present on the property during the leaking underground and aboveground storage tank investigation determined these hydrocarbons were concentrated in two separate plumes with total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations exceeding 100 parts per million (ppm) inside each of these plume areas. According to the closure letter report, the plumes were located next to the power lines along the northeastern edge of the property. The closure letter did not consider the proposed development and possible exposure to workers during site grading of at least a small fraction of the 43,000 pounds of total hydrocarbons estimated to remain in soil along the northeast side of the property. Contamination may also occur due to subsurface migration from nearby sites. This type of contamination was not specifically identified through the former monitoring well network. However, any contaminant migration following well destruction would obviously not have been detected. The Phase 1 ESA considered the likelihood of contamination from nearby sites a recognized environmental condition, and recommended a Phase 2 investigation of subsurface sampling and testing to identify the occurrence of any such contamination. The property is located in an industrial area, and according to the Phase 1 ESA, there are five properties on the CAL-SITES list located within a 1-mile radius of the site. CAL-SITES is the database maintained by the California Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC) for sites with known hazardous and potentially hazardous substances. Seven nearby leaking underground storage tank sites were also considered to be recognized environmental conditions. PAGE 6-6 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Subsurface contamination could also result from former site uses, including use as an iron foundry, steel foundry, metalworking shop, brake manufacturing plant, and sandblaster. Contaminated materials may have been left in fill at the site during the 1960s. Other subsurface contamination could have resulted from surface spills that penetrated to the subsurface, but this is limited by the extent of paved surfaces that currently cover the site. Historical maps and aerial photos indicate that about 90 percent of the site has been paved since the late 1960's. Additional Chemicals of Concern and Sources of Contamination Chemicals of concern are chemicals documented on the property or considered likely to exist, and which also pose a calculable human health or ecological risk. These risks are sometimes called recognized environmental conditions. Chemicals and hazardous materials specifically addressed in the Phase 1 ESA include asbestos containing building materials, lead based paint, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and radon. Chemicals of concern include asbestos and lead, since there is documented evidence of asbestos containing materials and lead based paint in existing building materials. PCB's were found unlikely to occur, since no PCB-labeled transformers were observed on the property or in the site vicinity, and a radon survey found radon levels below the recommended safe radon level for San Mateo County of 2 picocuries per liter of air. However, another source of potential PCB contamination from fluorescent light fixtures manufactured prior to 1979 may not have been considered. Based on the site history, other potential chemicals of concern are related to the recent history of the property. Businesses occupying the four major buildings on the property include Hoyt Shepson Freight, the Jackson Arms Shooting Range, U.S. Air Conditioning, the American Furniture Warehouse, Compdata, West Marine, 101 Trucking, Fitness West Sports Club, and SAI Packing and Crating. Some of these businesses almost certainly use common potentially hazardous materials. Trucking and freight companies on the property use heavy equipment such as hydraulic lifts to load containers, and have stores of diesel fuel, hydraulic oil and other hydrocarbons. Staining of asphalt was observed in the parking area and loading docks of some of these facilities. U.S. Air Conditioning stores refrigerants such as Puron and R22 in products they are vending both commercially and for residential use. In addition to these chemicals, normal cleaning agents are stored in businesses at the site. While these chemicals are potentially hazardous, there is no evidence of site contamination from these chemicals through spills or leaks. Chemicals of concern include ammonia, sodium hypochlorite (bleach), oxidizers, abrasives, and other substances that pose a definite threat to the environment, but which are so common as to be ignored unless they are spilled or catch on fire. Provided these chemicals are safely stored and removed prior to development, the hazard from these chemicals should be minimal. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAET FOCUSED EIR PAGE 6-7 CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Metal contamination may pose a human health risk if present at elevated concentrations. Current exposure is limited because foundations of structures and paved surfaces cover and contain soils. However, during demolition of site structures and utilities, grading of site soils, and construction of new structures, construction workers could be exposed to contaminated soils. Other potential contaminants include asbestos used in brake linings, solvents, and other chemicals used in metalworking and steel manufacturing that may have been left on site following the former land uses. The San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD) does not include the property in either the Hazardous Materials Inventory or Site Remediation Database. The Hazardous Material Inventory is a database with files on sites that use or generate hazardous waste, or have underground storage tanks. The Site Remediation Database is a database of sites that are being remediated for soil contamination, groundwater contamination, or disposal of hazardous materials from the site. According to the SMCEHD, there is no ongoing or proposed remediation, except that businesses participating in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan program would need to submit a closure work plan prior to vacating the property. Off-Site Sources Of Contamination Contaminants migrate through a variety of media, including air, soil and groundwater. The most transient contaminant is air pollution. Since the site is not in close proximity to a major factory emitter or other source, small-scale emissions from nearby businesses are considered insignificant when compared to regional pollution from sources such as the adjacent Bayshore Freeway. Less transient sources of pollution are soil and groundwater contamination. The mobility of contamination within the soil depends in large part upon the solubility of the contaminants in water and the rate of groundwater flow through the soil. Groundwater flow is much less rapid than surface flow. However, where groundwater is shallow and a source of contamination penetrates into the aquifer, contamination may travel a considerable distance. The greatest threat to the property is from contaminated sites located immediately up-slope or up gradient from the site. Contamination from these sites is most likely to flow downhill or down gradient onto the subject property. The EDR report included a records search of more than thirty different federal, State and local databases. Only the databases containing sites most likely to impact the proposed development are mentioned here. The Phase 1 ESA (citing the EDR report) identified numerous sites within one mile radius of the property, and from this list narrowed down five CAL-SITES (California Department of Toxic Substances and Control database), 48 LUST (Leaking Underground Storage Tank) sites, two BEP (Department of Health Services Bond Expenditure Plan) sites, and one voluntary cleanup program (VCP) site as recognized environmental conditions. However, the criteria for distinguishing these sites as recognized environmental conditions is unclear, especially since some of the CAL-SITES are identified as being at a lower elevation and nearly a mile from the subject property. Contamination spreading from these sites onto the property seems unlikely since it would appear opposite the likely groundwater flow direction. PAGE 6-8 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Excluding sites greater than one-eighth of a mile from the property narrows the list of sites with potential contamination affecting the proposed development to ten. Out of these ten sites, five are reported as small quantity generators of hazardous materials with no reported violations in accordance with the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Another two sites are listed as small quantity generators of hazardous materials in accordance with San Mateo County with no reported violations. Only two sites were found to have had leaking underground storage tanks. These are Housing Construction at 821 Cypress Avenue and Bob Leech's Auto Rental at 435 South Airport Boulevard. Both sites are located on the opposite (west) side of the Bayshore Freeway. Records show that the County case on the underground tank at 435 South Airport Boulevard was closed. Spills of TPH as diesel and TPH as gasoline (with MTBE) at 821 Cypress Avenue were reported, and groundwater samples showed a level of TPH as gasoline in groundwater of 50 parts per million (ppm). A groundwater investigation was completed in conjunction with another site and the case was closed. However, the site remains in the Cortese database, a California database of sites with suspected or known contamination. The Phase 1 ESA concluded that these and other nearby sites represent recognized environmental conditions to the proposed development. However, no adjoining properties are reported with ongoing or required remediation. This suggests a low level of potential impact to the subject property. Building Testing Sampling of building materials and paint was completed for the Phase 1 ESA in 2005. Results of sampling and testing for asbestos and lead are documented in a June 2005 report by Krazan and Associates. Floor file and associated mastic at 712 Dubuque Avenue, 700A Dubuque, and 700 Dubuque Avenue was found to contain at least one-percent asbestos. This is in addition to other material found to contain trace concentrations of asbestos. According to the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CAL-OSHA), asbestos-containing construction material contains at least one-tenth percent asbestos. Based on this criterion, there are potentially hazardous asbestos concentrations in building material on the property, and disturbance of this material is considered a potential human health hazard, primarily due to exposure from inhalation. The lead based paint survey report dated June 30, 2005, documented lead concentrations exceeding 0.5 percent by weight in yellow striping on the concrete floor at 600 Dubuque Avenue, as well as on yellow metal bollard posts located outside buildings on the property. Additional paint samples found to contain concentrations of lead exceeding 0.06 percent by weight were identified on interior and exterior concrete walls at 600 Dubuque Avenue, on a concrete wall and metal door at 700 Dubuque Avenue, a metal door in the break room of 710a Dubuque Avenue, a wood door frame at 630 Dubuque Avenue, and on gypsum wallboard at 700a Dubuque Avenue. According to California OSHA regulations, disturbance of paint with LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PACE 6-9 CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS any detectable lead requires that federal and State guidelines to protect workers during disturbance shall be followed. This would include demolition necessary for the proposed development to proceed. Recent Subsurface Investigations Consolidated Engineering Laboratories (CEL) recently completed sampling and analytical testing in conjunction with the preliminary geotechnical investigation. Sampling was performed at the northwestern corner of the site at depths of 5 and 10 feet below the ground surface and in the north central portion of the site at the same depths. Samples were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline, TPH as diesel, TPH as motor oil, and fox benzene, toluene, ethylene and xylenes (BTE~. Samples were also tested for the CAM 17 metals of antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, vanadium, zinc, and mercury. CAM is an acronym for California Administrative Manual, which is presently known as CCR or Calfornia Code of Regulations. CAM 17 refers to lists of heavy metals identified in the manual as potentially hazardous. Reported concentrations of arsenic, chromium, and cobalt were found to exceed the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Levels (ESL), but are below the EPA Residential preliminary remediation goals and California total threshold limit concentrations (I I'LC) and soluble threshold limit concentrations (STLC). Petroleum hydrocarbons were either not detected, or found at only very low levels below the ESL. Most recently, a Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) dated December 23, 2005 was completed by Consolidated Engineering Laboratories that documents sampling and testing of soil and groundwater in November and December of 2005. This investigation was completed pursuant to previous findings of contamination from the former leaking underground storage tank (LUST) investigation, sampling during the geotechnical investigation, and review of site history. Testing was completed for a suite of chemicals, including petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater according to EPA 8260, volatile organics according to EPA 8260B, semi- volatile organics according to EPA 8270, and CAM 17 metals. These contaminants were considered most likely from past industrial uses of the site and vicinity, including use as a metal foundry, and from the former LUST. Samples were taken from nine boreholes drilled on November 22, 2005. These boreholes are shown to generally cover the northern and southern areas of the property, as well as the segment along Dubuque Avenue. Not all areas could be sampled due to inaccessibility within buildings and to avoid utilities. Groundwater was typically encountered at a depth of between 5 and 10 feet below the ground surface (BGS), while boreholes were continued to depths of between 10 and 14 feet BGS. Results of testing from four of the boreholes, Borehole CEL-1, 4, 6 and 7, indicate the upper five feet of fill contains residual contamination that exceeds the environmental screening levels developed for shallow soils underlying commercials sites where groundwater is not to be developed. Groundwater taken from Boreholes CEL 6 and 7, located within the former plume of petroleum hydrocarbons associated with the former leaking underground storage tank, were found to have concentrations of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) occurring as diesel of PAGE 6-10 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 2,800 ug/L (micrograms per liter) and 17,000 ug/L, while the concentration of TPH occurring as motor oil from groundwater in Borehole CEL-7 was found to be 5300 ug/L. These concentrations all exceed the environmental screening level of 640 ug/L. Hydrocarbon concentrations in soil samples taken at 5 feet below the ground surface were also found to exceed the respective ESL of 400, 500, and 1000 mg/kg for TPH occurring as gasoline, diesel, and motor oil. Reported concentrations were 6200 mg/kg of TPH-diesel, 1900 mg/kg of TPH- motor oil, and 410 mg/kg of TPH-gasoline. Only Borehole CEL-1 was found to have significantly elevated metal concentrations. Samples taken from a depth of 5 feet were found to have concentrations of antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and cobalt exceeding the ESL. None of these concentrations approach the Total Threshold Limit Concentrations (TTLC) considered hazardous by the State of California. However, concentrations in groundwater were found to be hazardous by the State of California since they exceed the Solubility Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) for cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc. Concentrations of the semi-volatile organic compounds benzoanthracene, benzofluoranthene, benzopyrene, and indenopyrene in soil also exceeded the environmental screening levels in Borehole CEL-4. Total Threshold Limit Concentrations (Hazardous Waste Levels) have not been established for these chemicals. Trace levels of benzene, fluorene, phenanthrene or toluene were also encountered in groundwater from Boreholes CEL-1, 2, 4, 5, and 7, but these concentrations are below the maximum contaminant level (MCL) established for drinking water. Elevated metal concentrations in CEL-1 are apparently associated with scrap metal, slag (melted metal fragments produced from metal smelting) and mixed debris, including brick and glass that was found buried on the property. High concentrations of TPH-diesel, gasoline, and motor oil are directly connected with the former leaking underground storage tanks, while other contaminant levels may be related to general low-level contamination of groundwater underlying the industrial area. Exposure to contaminants, such as from buried fill contaminated with semi- volatile organics, petroleum, and metals depends upon the extent and depth of grading, foundation work, and trenching. This includes possible exposure to groundwater with dissolved cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc exceeding STLC near the southern edge of the property. Based upon these findings, CEL reiterated their previous recommendation that a soil and groundwater management and contingency plan be adopted. The conceptual plan developed by CEL is designed primarily to protect workers during soil disturbance and establish provisions for future use or recycling of onsite soils. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 6-11 CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Current Contamination Levels and Health Risks Contaminant levels can be estimated based on sampling and testing. Concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline, TPH as diesel, and TPH as motor oil associated with former leaking underground storage tanks were measured in soil and groundwater in 2001. More recently, asbestos and lead were detected in building materials at the site, as reported in the Phase 1 ESA. Hazards associated with demolition of structures containing asbestos-containing materials and lead based paint is a well-known and documented risk during demolition. The hazard from petroleum hydrocarbons such as diesel fuel, gasoline, and motor oil is also well known. There is expected to be at least a slight risk of exposure during grading near the power lines, since this is where contaminant plumes were shown in the 2001 leaking underground storage tank closure report. The actual risk would depend upon the depth and extent of grading. There is also documentation of low levels of metal contamination in soil, and higher concentrations of metals in groundwater that exceed the STLC (Title 22 Hazardous Waste Level). Since soils in the upper five feet below the ground surface are proposed to be graded and used as engineered fill and utility line excavations may extend to greater than five feet in depth, there are definite exposure hazards. During construction there would also be normal construction hazards. These hazards include fall hazards, collapse hazards, risk of electrocution or explosion from utilities, as well as any other foreseeable hazards. Regulation of these hazards is normally administered through CAL- OSHA (California Occupational Safety and Health Administration), the California Division of Industrial Health and Safety, and related agencies. Implementation of safety procedures and training is the responsibility of the contractor, and would require a health and safety plan. PAGE 6-12 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 6.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a Project's environmental impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines: 1) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 2) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 3) Would the Project produce hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 4) Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 5) Would the Project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport? Would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project Area? 6) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project Area? ~ Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 8) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? LC1WE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 6-13 PROJECT IMPACTS AND 1VIITIGATION MEASURES HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USE, TRANSPORT Impact 6-1 Routine transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed Lowe's complex, including parking, warehousing, delivery, and shopping facilities, is designed for commercial retail. Retail sales items include many potentially hazardous products, including paints, thinners, solvents, preservatives, propane gas (for both sale and use in forklifts), and large potentially flammable items, such as lumber. These items would be routinely delivered to the facility, transported to and from the site by consumers (generally in small quantities), and, when not sold or warehoused, must be transported from the site for disposal or return to the manufacturer. Transport would be concentrated along Dubuque Avenue and onto the Bayshore Freeway. The risk of accidental upset and environmental contamination from routine transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous and potentially hazardous materials to the public and environment is a potentiulZy significant impact. Mitigation Measure 6-1a Hazardous Materials Business Plan. In accordance with State law and local regulations, businesses occupying the development must complete a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the safe storage and use of chemicals. The Business Plan must include the type and quantity of hazardous materials, a site map showing storage locations of hazardous materials and where they may be used and transported from, risks of using these materials (included in material safety data sheets fox each material), a spill prevention plan, an emergency response plan, employee training consistent with OSHA guidelines, and emergency contact information. Businesses qualify for the program if they store a hazardous material equal to or greater than the minimum reportable quantities. These quantities are 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and pressure) for compressed gases. Retail establishments, such as Lowe's Home Improvement Stores are normally required by law to report non-retail chemical storage of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials may include paints, solvents, batteries, aerosol cans, compressed gas cylinders, asbestos containing materials, silica gels, lubricating oils, and fuels used to power generators and other mechanical equipment, as well as any other chemicals considered hazardous by the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department, Department LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 6-14 CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS of Toxic Substances Control, and other regulators. Lowe's is also responsible for reporting "off spec" materials. These are materials that were not sold and are not able to be returned to the manufacturer. Lowe's is responsible for the safe disposal of these materials, which shall be additionally reported and included in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan. Businesses occupying and/or operating at the proposed development must submit a business plan prior to the start of operations, and must review and update the entire Business Plan at least once every two years, or within 30 days of any significant change. Some of these changes are new emergency contact information, major increases or decreases in hazardous materials storage, and/or changes in location of hazardous materials. Plans shall be submitted to the San Mateo County Environmental Health Business Plan Program. The San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD) shall inspect the business annually to verify that the Business Plan is complete and accurate. Prior to the final inspection the applicant shall provide a copy of the County approved HMBP to the City of South San Francisco Fire Marshall. Mitigation Measure 6-1b Compliance with U.S. Department of Transportation, State of California and local laws, ordinances and procedures for transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. All transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste to and from the site would be in accordance with Tide 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and local laws, ordinances and procedures including placards, signs and other identifying information. Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce the impact of routine transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials to a level of less than significant. Impact 6-2 Accidental Hazardous Materials Release. Mitigation for the accidental release of hazardous materials during construction is included in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) required for the Project under conditions of the Regional Water Quality Control Board Construction Stormwater Program. This is discussed in greater detail under the Hydrology Section of this environmental impact report. The required SWPPP includes implementation of best management practices for preventing the discharge of construction-related pollutants such as diesel fuel, hydraulic oil, paint, and LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 6-15 CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS concrete into the environment. However, the SWPPP is unlikely to address mitigation for the accidental release of hazardous materials during demolition of the existing facilities. Hazardous materials to be encountered include asbestos containing building materials, and possible lead based paint. Demolition presents a primary hazard to workers through inhalation of dust, dermal absorption, and ingestion of hazardous materials. Following the completion of construction; warehousing, transport, and vending operations at the proposed facilities are expected to represent a continuing threat to the environment through accidental release of potentially hazardous materials. The greatest risk is likely from a spill into the storm drain system. These hazards are a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 6-2a Demolition Plan and Permitting. Prior to demolition of any buildings or structures, the applicant shall prepare a Demolition Plan and obtain a Demolition Permit from the City of South San Francisco Building Division. The Demolition Plan shall include measures ensuring safe demolition of existing buildings and structures. The Plan shall include measures to control asbestos dust and incorporate site surveys for the presence of potentially hazardous building materials. The Demolition Plan shall address both on- site worker protection and off-site resident and worker protection from both chemical and physical hazards. All contaminated building materials are required to be tested for contaminant concentrations and are required to be disposed of at appropriate licensed landfill facilities. Prior to building demolition, hazardous building materials such as peeling, chipping and friable lead based paint and asbestos containing building materials are required to be removed in accordance with all applicable guidelines, laws, and ordinances. The Demolition Plan shall include a program of air monitoring for dust particulates and attached contaminants. Dust control and suspension of work during dry windy days shall be addressed in the Plan. Prior to obtaining a Demolition Permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), an asbestos demolition survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2. For the impact of flaking and peeling lead based paint, the requirements of Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1 (T8 CCR 1532.1) must be followed. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: • Loose and peeling lead-containing paint should be removed prior to building demolition. Workers conducting removal of lead paint must receive training in accordance with T8 CCR 1532.1. PAGE 6-16 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS • Lead-containing paint removal shall be designed by aDHS-certified lead project designer, project monitor or supervisor. • Preparation of a written Lead Compliance Plan that meets the requirements of the lead construction standard by any contractor that impacts leads coatings. • Workers conducting removal of lead paint must be certified by DHS in accordance with T8 CCR 1532.1. • Workers that may be exposed above the Action Level must have blood lead levels tested prior to commencement of lead work and at least quarterly thereafter for the duration of the Project. Workers that are terminated from the Project should have their blood lead levels tested within 24 hours of termination. • A written exposure assessment must be prepared in accordance with T8 CCR 1532.1. • Any amount of lead waste generated, including painted building components, must be characterized for proper disposal in accordance with Title 22, Section 66261.24. Prior to the issuance of the Demolition Permit by the City of South San Francisco, the applicant shall provide a copy of the BAAQMD Permit and Compliance Plan to the City of South San Francisco Building Official. Mitigation Measure 6-2b California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CaIARP). The applicant shall check the state and federal lists of regulated substances for chemicals that pose a major threat to public health and safety or the environment because they are highly toxic, flammable or explosive. This list is available from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD). Businesses are responsible for deterr„ining which list to use in consultation with SMCEHD. Should the applicant's business qualify for the program, as determined in consultation with SMCEHD, the applicant must complete a CaIARP registration form listing all regulated substances and submit it to the SMCEHD. Following registration of the regulated substances, the applicant shall submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP). RMPs are designed to handle accidental releases and ensure that businesses have the proper information to provide to emergency response teams if an accidental release occurs. All LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 6-17 CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS businesses that store or handle more than a threshold quantity (T~ of a regulated substance must develop and implement a Risk Management Plan. Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public health and the environment if a regulated substance is released near schools, residential areas, hospitals and childcare facilities. RMPs must include procedures fox: keeping employees and customers safe; handling regulated substances; training staff; maintaining equipment; checking that substances are stored safely; and responding to an accidental release. Prior to Final Building inspection, the applicant shall provide a copy of the Risk Management Plan to the City of South San Francisco Fire Marshall. Mitigation Measure 6-2c Employee Training. The applicant shall develop and implement an Employee Training Plan covering spill prevention, cleanup, and notification procedures in accordance with OSHA and CAL OSHA. The operation of the store will require having sufficient cleanup materials such as spill kits, absorbent rags, sand, etc. available to staff for containing and cleaning up spills and leaks, as well as procedures for proper disposal of contaminated materials. Prior to the Final Inspection the applicant shall provide a copy of the Employee Training Plan to the City of South San Francisco Fire Marshall. 'The Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Fire Marshall. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact of accidental releases of hazardous materials to a level of Tess than Significant. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS NEAR SCHOOLS The nearest registered school or daycare facility is the Martin School, located at 35 School Avenue, approximately 0.4 miles from the site. This distance of greater than one-quarter mile from the site, and the relative isolation of the Project site between Highway 101 and the railroad tracks, results in the potential impact to schools from hazardous emissions or accidental spills being characterized as a less than significant impact. HA7.AR~OUS MATERIALS SITES Impact 6-3 Potential Exposure to Residual Site Contamination. According to the most recent Environmental Database Report, dated June 16, 2005, the property remains on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government PAGE 6-18 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Code Section 65962.5. This is despite receiving case closure from San Mateo County Environmental Health Department for former leaking underground storage tanks. Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessments, as well as sampling associated with the geotechnical investigation for the site, have assessed the extent of hazardous materials that is feasible, given the constraints of existing buildings and utilities. Sampling and testing has revealed residual contamination of soil and groundwater in the vicinity of the former leaking underground tanks that were located near the center of the northern quarter of the property. Levels of total petroleum hydrocarbons occurring as diesel, motor oil and gasoline were found to exceed Water Board Environmental Screening Levels (ESL) for commercial sites in this area. Other contaminants found to exceed the ESL were semi- volatile organic compounds in soil taken from a borehole located near the northern edge of the long warehouse structure constructed next to the east edge of the property, and concentrations of the metals antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and cobalt exceeding the ESL in soil taken at a depth of 5 feet BGS near the southeast corner. Groundwater in the same area was also found to exceed the Solubility Threshold Limit Concentrations (STLC) for cadmium, copper, lead and zinc. Since it was not feasible to screen all areas, it is possible that similar contaminant concentrations could be encountered in other areas, especially during site grading. Pockets of debris and fill may remain, with elevated concentrations of metals, semi-volatiles, hydrocarbons, or other contaminants. Encountering low levels of diesel, gasoline, and motor oil in soil and groundwater can be expected in the location of the former hydrocarbon plume on the north side of the property, as well as scattered metals and metal contaminated soil and groundwater, especially near the south edge of the site. During site demolition and grading activities, construction workers could be subjected to exposure to residual site contamination. This represents a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 6-3a San Mateo County Environmental Health Department Closure of Existing Facilities. Facilities registered in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan program, including 101 Trucking at 790 Dubuque Avenue, and US Air Conditioning at 700 Dubuque Avenue, shall submit a closure work plan in accordance with the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department Business Closure Policy prior to vacating the property. The closure plan must detail any necessary sampling and remediation. Closure would not be granted until businesses have demonstrated there is no need for further remediation, and shall include documentation of the removal of any hazardous chemicals. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 6-19 CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Mitigation Measure 6-3b Preparation and Implementation of a Soil and Groundwater Management and Contingency Plan. A Soil and Groundwater Management and Contingency Plan shall be prepared. The Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department 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. Specific mitigation measures designed to protect human health and the environment would be provided in the Plan. At a minimum, the Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1) Documentation of the extent of previous environmental investigation and remediation at the site, including closure reports for the Underground Storage Tank (UST) and contaminant concentrations. 2) Requirements for site-specific Health and Safety Plans (HASP) to be prepared in accordance with OSHA regulations by all contractors at the Project site. This includes a HASP for all demolition, grading and excavation on the site, as well as for future subsurface maintenance work. The HASP shall include appropriate training, any required personal protective equipment, and monitoring of contaminants to determine exposure. The HASP would be reviewed and approved by a Certified Industrial Hygienist. The Plan shall also designate provisions to limit worker entry and exposure and shall show locations and type of protective fencing to prevent public exposure to any hazards during demolition, site grading and construction. 3) Description of protocols for the investigation and evaluation of previously unidentified hazardous materials that could be encountered during Project development, including engineering controls that may be required to reduce exposure risks. Screening should delineate the vertical and horizontal extent of any contamination within the footprint of foundation or utility work. Excavated materials should then be segregated and stockpiled accordingly on plastic tarps to prevent the further spread of any contamination. Should testing reveal hazardous waste levels, the excavated soil or groundwater would be shipped by a licensed hazardous material hauler to an approved disposal site under the proper manifesting documents. A report shall document the volume, concentration and nature of contaminants in the off- hauled material. PAGE 6-20 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 4) Requirements for site-specific construction techniques that would minimize exposure to any subsurface contamination. This shall include treatment and disposal measures for any contaminated groundwater removed from excavations, trenches, and dewatering systems in accordance with local and Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines. Groundwater encountered in trenches and other excavations should be pumped or drained into a closed containment facility, unless otherwise proven to have concentrations of contaminants below the Environmental Screening Levels for commercial sites where groundwater is not to be developed. 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 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 ESL shall be deemed 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. 6) Restrictions limiting future excavation or development of the subsurface by owners, tenants or visitors to the proposed development, and prohibition of groundwater development. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact of potential exposure to residual site contamination to a level of less than significant. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN Impact 6-4 Potential Interference with Emergency Response Plan. The proposed development is not expected to physically interfere with implementation of an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. However, traffic may increase along Dubuque Avenue, and could reduce response times. Discussion of specific traffic and transportation impacts resulting from the proposed development are also discussed in the Traffic and Transportation Section of this EIR (see Chapter 11). In addition, Project construction could result in a reduction of response times, due to large construction equipment and reduced access to the site and surrounding areas. Demand fox fire protection and LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 6-21 CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS emergency medical services may also increase at the site since the proposed facility is designed to accommodate more visitors than the existing facilities. Such an increase in traffic must be accommodated in the local Emergency Response Plan, and represents a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 6-4 Fire Department Review. Prior to issuance of the Building Permit, the Ciry of South San Francisco Fire Department is required to review construction plans for roadway modifications and shall establish temporary alternative emergency routes necessary for the duration of the Project construction. The applicant shall design the aisleways and driveways to meet the SSFMC and Uniform Building Code requirements for emergency access. The on-site circulation system shall be subject to the review and approval by the City of South San Francisco Chief Planner in consultation with the City Engineer and Fire Marshall. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact of development to any emergency response or evacuation plan to a level of less than significant. Airport Land Use Plan While the proposed Project would be located within the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Francisco International Airport, it would have a less than significant impact in terms of the Plan's policies. Private Airstrip The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and would not result in a safety hazard for people working or residing in the area. As such, the Project will have no impact. Wildland Fires The project site is located in a fully urbanized area, and is not subject to wildland fires. It is not located adjacent within the adjacent to any residences, and is not within the vicinity of a wetlands. As such, the Project will have no impact. PAGE 6-22 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR 7 HYDROLOGY 7.1 INTRODUCTION This section presents an evaluation of potential Project impacts to hydrology and water quality. The discussion is based on the review of several reports and documents as well as site visits conducted on July 12 and August 22, 2005 by Questa Engineering, and correspondence with the City of South San Francisco and San Mateo County Public Works Department. The various reports and documents reviewed include: (1) Project Description; (2) Conceptual Plans and ALTA Survey prepared by AMS Associates, Inc. Qune 7, 2005); (3) Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations completed by Consolidated Engineering Laboratories (August 4, 2005); and (4) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Lowe's Home Warehouse, prepared by CEI Engineering Associates (July 8, 2005). 7.2 SETTING CLIMATE AND TOPOGRAPHY The Project site is located in a relatively flat industrial area east of U.S. 101 in the City of South San Francisco. The San Francisco Bay is located approximately 2,000 feet northeast of the site. The regional climate is typical of the San Francisco Bay Area and is characterized by dry, mild summers and moist, cool winters. About 80 percent of the total annual precipitation occurs during the months of November through March, with an average annual precipitation of 20 inches. Average monthly temperatures range from a high of 74 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer to a low of 42 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter.' The Project site and surrounding area is largely developed with light industrial, research, retail, warehousing, office, and hotel uses. Nearly 90 percent of the 12.8-acre Project site is currently covered in impervious surfaces. There are four buildings on the site, with paved parking and loading areas occupying most of the remainder of the site. Railroad tracks parallel the eastern boundary of the property. The site ground surface slopes generally to the southeast toward the railroad tracks. Ground elevations range from approximately 21 feet above Mean Sea Level 1 Western Regional Climate Center, 2005 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 7-1 CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY (MSL) at the north corner of the property to 14 feet above MSL along the eastern border of the property. REGIONAL HYDROLOGY The Project site is located within the Colma Creek watershed, which includes portions of the San Bruno Mountains and urbanized areas of Daly City, Colma, and South San Francisco. Most of this urbanized creek is channelized or conveyed underground to allow for urban development. Ina 1998 study conducted by San Mateo County, impervious surface area in the Colma Creek watershed was estimated at 63 percent, the highest in San Mateo County.2 The creek discharges into the San Francisco Bay just north of the San Francisco International Airport. Colma Creek is a flood control channel that is maintained by the San Mateo County Department of Public Works. Improvements to and maintenance of the creek and its flood control infrastructure are funded by properties that fall within the county-designated Colma Creek Flood Control Zone. Figure 7-1 shows the boundaries of the Zone. The Project site is located within the Zone and must contribute to the Zone's revenue. SITE HYDROLOGY Storm water runoff from the site begins as overland sheet flow across the roofs of the buildings and the paved parking areas. Several storm drains are located in the north-side parking lot and in the center drive-through area between the four existing buildings. These on-site storm drains convey runoff to two municipal drainpipes that run through the site. One of the pipes crosses through the northeast corner of the site and the other pipe runs along the southern property line. Both of the municipal pipes are 30-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipes (RCPs) and approximately half of the runoff from the site drains into each pipe. From the entrance to the municipal system, flows are routed eastward beneath the railroad tracks to a 36-inch RCP that runs south down Executive Drive, then east to Gateway Boulevard. At Gateway Boulevard, the 36-inch pipe connects to a 72-inch RCP that continues south to the point of discharge at the Colma Creek flood control channel. GROUNDWATER The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) defines State groundwater basins based on geologic and hydrogeologic conditions. According to the DWR, the Project site is located within the Westside Groundwater Basin. The Westside Groundwater Basin consists of bedrock and unconsolidated materials. Unconsolidated materials overlying the basin represent the primary water-bearing strata and are comprised of dune sands, the Colma Formation, and the Merced Formation. While groundwater quality in the basin is generally in compliance with z Daly City Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, 1998 PAGE 7-2 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR _ _ 1~'~.~ ` -CITY AND C - -- f _. ~~~. ~ ~~ ..~~,.~ __ DALY --..~I-TY - ---Tr=, ~ _-T :-t= ~` . -~_='._, SaN I. 1 f ~~ , raN -. ~' .• ~ ,~I ~. ` ~ ~° :,- ~~ B RISB~N E 2 ' 1 r ~ O ~ L O \ SIERRA P01~ ~, ;, - , __- CK 4/`, -...-C:ITY '`• ;, '~'' ^~.~-.~ o y ,off/'~~~ ~4 i3 ~i ~: j `•`.~ '.~ ~`- ~ -OYSTER POII 1 ?~ v., ,, ` . _ --.`,` ' SO_ UTH ' N= FRANCISCO E DGEMAR ~ ~ - , 1 - ~ -`-,-- '?:.,; ~ .~ '~ ,~ ,.,, f~P01NT SAN '"'as t r _ ~, ' .• `_ v : - ... • ... ~- _ ~. PACIFICA - - • ~~ ~ r (I :. • BEACH -. ~ ` ~ ._'~S'- -___ _-~_-.-___, ~ ~ - ~ -~ t(f\/ e• t 1 -_ .1~-. .. '~ - .. 1~ ~~; _.! ~ .1 ,' ~, J , =. - '~ ~ ~•: ~, 1 SAN FR9NCiSCO INTERNATID L T C 9Y} ~J .f '-- ~\~' / t +y ~ .. ~ ( ~ "t~' AIRPORT ~- •~ ""tom ~ `~ (~`' ~" r ~ _.` _ .~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~:: ~. •.., .. - ., ~ ~ ~. 4 f ~~'; ~l. BURL4N~~~-- COLMA CRLLK •L ~ ~`~' .~'~ ~ i FLOOD CONTROL ZONE I ~~~. ~ `~' 1 ~' /~ - ~._! 500 X0000 ~~ 16 \~ v A! c ~. Y-. ,~ T ' -184- ~ t ~' > y~_ ~,( SCALE ~ ~ ' f ~Q Civil FIGURE UESTA Environmental COLMA CREEK 8 Water Resources FLOOD CONTROL ZONES 7- 1 ~. (6ID)136-6„< FAX (510) L36-2A23 queslaQpuesisac.com Phis page intenti~nallt~ ]eft blank. LOWERS PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 7-4 CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY drinking water quality standards, some wells in the basin have experienced nitrate-nitrogen concentration in excess of the primary maximum contaminant levels.3 The preparation of the I'relitninary Geotechnical Recommendations for the proposed Project included twelve exploratory boreholes drilled on July 22, 2005. All but one of the boreholes was drilled to depths of 15 to 20 feet below ground surface (bgs); one borehole was stopped at 4 feet. Groundwater at the Project site was typically encountered at 5 feet bgs.4 FLOODING Approximately half of the Project site is located within the 100-year flood hazard zone of Colma Creek as delineated by the current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Figure 7-2 shows the location of the 100-year flood hazard zone in the vicinity of the Project site. 7.3 REGULATORY SETTING The proposed Project must be constructed in accordance with several regulatory programs, laws, and regulations that aim to protect surface water resources. In some cases, federal laws are administered and enforced by state and local government. In other cases, State and local regulations in California are stricter than those imposed by Federal law. This section summarizes relevant regulatory programs, laws, and regulations with respect to hydrology and water quality, and how they relate to the proposed Project. FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS CLEAN WATER ACT The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted by Congress in 1972 and has been amended several times since its inception. It is the primary federal law regulating water quality in the United States, and forms the basis for several State and local laws throughout the country. Its objective is to reduce or eliminate water pollution in the nation's rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters. The CWA prescribes the basic federal laws for regulating discharges of pollutants, as well as sets minimum water quality standards for all waters of the United States. At the federal level, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the CWA. At the State and regional level, the CWA is administered and enforced by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). The State of California has developed a number of water quality laws, rules, and regulations to assist ul the implementation of the CWA and related federally-mandated water quality requirements. In many cases, the federal requirements set minimum standards, and s Department of Water Resources, 2004. ~ Consolidated Engineering Laboratories, 2005. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 7-5 CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY the laws, rules, and regulations adopted by the State and Regional Boards are more restrictive, i.e., more protective of the environment. STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act establishes the SWRCB and the RWQCB as the principal State agencies having primary responsibility for coordinating and controlling water quality in California. The Porter-Cologne Act establishes the responsibility of the RWQCB for adopting, implementing, and enforcing water quality control plans (Basin Plans), which set forth the State's water quality standards (i.e., beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater) and the objectives or criteria necessary to protect those beneficial uses. NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS The CWA has nationally regulated the discharge of pollutants to the waters of the U.S. from any point source since 1972. In 1987, amendments to the CWA added section 402(p), which established a framework for regulating non-point source (NPS) storm water discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The Phase I NPDES storm water program regulates storm water discharges from industrial facilities, large and medium-sized municipal separate storm sewer systems (those serving more than 100,000 persons), and construction sites that disturb five or more acres of land. Under the program, the Project applicant will be required to comply with two NPDES permit requirements. The NPDES General Construction Permit Requirements apply to clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground (such as excavation). The Project applicant is required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resource Control Board's (SWRCB) Division of Water Quality. The NOI includes general information on the types of construction activities that will occur on the site. The applicant will also be required to submit asite-specific plan called the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activities. The SWPPP will include a description of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the discharge of pollutants from the site during construction. It is the responsibility of the property owner to obtain coverage under the permit prior to site construction. The NPDES General Industrial Permit Requirements apply to the discharge of storm water associated with industrial sites. The permit requires the implementation of management measures that will achieve the performance standard of best available technology (BAT) economically achievable and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). Under the statute, operators of new facilities must implement industrial BMPs in the Project SWPPP and perform monitoring of storm water discharges and unauthorized non-storm water discharges. An annual report must be submitted to the RWQCB each July 1. Operators of new facilities must file an NOI at least 14 days prior to the beginning of operations. PAGE 7-6 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR W N ~a ~ U O p W ~ c Z ~ li Q c N = ~, Q (n L Q 3 0 o ~ O J ~ ~ O ~ Q U Q m~ ~e Q, C ~ i Q W ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ CO ~ ~ O L ~ .--~ ~ O •~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ "'Eo ~~~ ° ~ o`S E o - ma U N O ~ ~ ~ o Wr' oU 3 as a° 0 m 0 K 0 Y C /~ V J W m N N N M O r X O m d 3 ~ Q O ~ W O ~ rn r ~ ~ ~ ~H/~ °o T Q vl N ro 0 This page intentionally left blank. LC1WE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 7-8 CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY LOCAL PROGRAMS AND REGULATIONS SAN MATEO COUNTYWIDE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM To comply with the CWA, San Mateo County and the 20 cities and towns in the County formed the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP). STOPPP holds a joint municipal NPDES permit from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The permit includes a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to creeks, San Francisco Bay, and the ocean to the maximum extent possible. SAN FRANCISCO BAY WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN (BASIN PLAN The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is responsible for the development, adoption, and implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay region. The Basin Plan is the master policy document that contains descriptions of the legal, technical, and programmatic bases of water quality regulation in the San Francisco Bay Region. The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater within its region, and specifies effluent limitations, discharge prohibitions, and water quality objectives to maintain the continued beneficial uses of these waters. The proposed Project is required to adhere to all water quality objectives identified in the Basin Plan. Beneficial Uses of Surface Waters and Groundwaters The beneficial uses of surface waters in the south San Francisco Bay include wildlife habitat, estuarine habitat, preservation of rare and endangered species, fish migration, shellfish harvesting, commercial and sport fishing, water contact and non-contact recreation, navigation, and industrial service supply. The beneficial uses of groundwater in the Westside Groundwater Basin (also referred to as the Merced Valley North Groundwater Basin) include municipal and domestic supply, industrial process supply, industrial service supply, and agricultural supply.5 EAST of 101 AxEA PLAN The East of 101 Area Plan provides detailed planning policies that are consistent with policies of the adopted South San Francisco General Plan. With respect to hydrology and water quality, the Plan aims to reduce flooding by evaluating specific development proposals to determine drainage and flood protection requirements, and to prevent the degradation of water quality by minimizing erosion and sedimentation. s San Francisco Bay RWQCB, 1995. ~ City of South San Francisco, 1994. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 7-9 CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY COLMA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT The Colma Creek Flood Control District is administrated by the San Mateo County Department of Public Works. The District was created for the purpose of constructing flood control facilities along the Colma Creek channel and reducing flooding problems in the City of South San Francisco. The Colma Creek Flood Control Zone extends over the entire watershed and contains the parcels that must contribute financially to the District's revenue and maintenance of the flood control facilities. Several channel improvements have been constructed since the District was created in 1964. The proposed Project is located within the Zone boundary and must contribute to funds for flood control improvements and maintenance. 7.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would: 1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; 2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted); 3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site (i.e. within a watershed); 4) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site; 5) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems due to changes in runoff rates or volumes; 6) Otherwise degrade water quality; ~ Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map; 8) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows; PAGE 7-10 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY 9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; or 10) Cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The proposed Project involves the demolition of three of the four existing on-site buildings and the complete removal of the existing parking lot pavement in order to construct a new building and a new surface parking lot. The site soils will be re-graded, and a new on-site subterranean storm drain system will be installed. Unlike the existing on-site storm drain system, which directs approximately half of the runoff from the site to a municipal storm sewer pipe in the northeast corner and the other half to a municipal pipe that runs along the southern property boundary, the new storm drain system will convey nearly all site runoff to the southern pipe. A small area (approximately 1.2 acres) in the northeast corner of the site will continue to drain into the northeast municipal storm sewer pipe; this area contains three electrical transmission towers that will be separated from the rest of the property by a concrete curb and gutter. Potential hydrological and water quality impacts from the Project are primarily related to: (1) the exposure of soils during the construction period; and (2) the increased flows contributed by the proposed new storm drain system to the existing municipal drainpipe near the southern boundary of the site. INCREASE IN NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION (NPS) IN RECEIVING WATERS Non-point source pollutants (NPS) are washed by rainwater from roofs, landscape areas, and streets and parking areas into the drainage network. Typical industrial NPS pollutants for various industrial activities are listed in Table 7-1. Development of the proposed Project would contribute to the levels of NPS pollutants and litter entering Colma Creek and the San Francisco Bay. An increase in NPS pollutants could have adverse effects on wildlife, vegetation, and human health. NPS pollutants could also infiltrate into groundwater and degrade the quality of potential groundwater drinking sources. Under the NPDES storm water permit, the proposed Project is required to provide permanent treatment for site runoff. To meet this requirement, the proposed Project includes a network of parking lot catch basins that are connected by subterranean pipes to the existing municipal storm sewer drainpipe that runs along the southern boundary of the Project site. A 1.2-acre area in the northeast corner of the site would drain into the other municipal storm sewer drainpipe located in the northeast corner of the site. As a means of treatment, a storm drain interceptor would be placed directly before the connection to the southeast municipal drainpipe. LC1WE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 7-11 CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY TABLE 7-1 POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS FROM INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES ~y iG N ~ ~ N .n C/) y INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ O '° a + ~ gyp `~ c~ ~ ~ ~ o Q ;~ O ~ a ao ~S' O ehicle Equipment Fueling ehicle Equipment ashing ehicle Equipment Maintenance Repair Outdoor Loading Unloading of Materials Outdoor Container Storage of Liquids Outdoor Process Equipment Operations Maintenance Outdoor Storage of Ray Materials, Products, Biproducts aste andling Disposal Contaminated or Erodible Surface Areas Building Grounds Maintenance Building Repair, Remodeling, Construction Parking/Storage Area Maintenance Source: California Stormwater Quality Association, 2003. California Stormwater BMP andbook, Industrial Commercial. PAGE 7-12 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY 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.$'~ Site constraints, including availability of soils of suitable depth, level surface, and stability, can restrict the effective performance of the interceptor unit. Appropriate sizing of the unit relative to impervious drainage area is also important.10 It also should be noted that these types of structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) require periodic cleaning and maintenance. Manufacturers suggest different sizes for their interceptor models depending on treatment requirements and site specifics. The Project applicant has neither indicated a particular model to be used, nor provided site-specific hydraulic sizing calculations for the proposed storm drain interceptor. Impact 7-1 Lack of Hydraulic Sizing Calculations for Storm Drain Interceptor. Storm drain interceptor devices must be properly sized to maximize pollutant removal and meet water quality requirements. The Project applicant has not provided hydraulic sizing calculations. This presents a j~otentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 7-1 Storm Drain Interceptor Shall Be Designed in Accordance with CASQA Sizing Recommendations. The storm drain interceptor shall be designed in accordance with CASQA sizing recommendations for in-line separator BMPs. Final calculations, sizing criteria, and maintenance responsibility provisions shall be submitted and approved prior to issuing appropriate building permits. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 7-1 will reduce the impact of non-point source pollution to alevel ofless-than-significant. ~ BASMAA, 1999. s University of Massachusetts Amherst, 2003. ~ Rinker Materials Corporation, 2005. i° EPA, 1999. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 7-13 CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY DECREASE IN GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Approximately 90 percent of the Project site is currently covered in impervious surfaces. Redevelopment of the site would result in an approximate 2 percent decrease in impervious surface areas. This slight decrease in impervious area would not have a negative effect on groundwater recharge; in fact, the small increase in permeable ground surface might have a beneficial effect. No mitigation is required. INCREASED EROSION OR SILTATION TO RECEIVING WATERS Construction of the proposed Project would involve the demolition of existing structures and pavement areas that currently help to stabilize site soils. Bare, unprotected site soils would be subjected to the erosional forces of runoff during construction. Impact 7-2 Soil Erosion. Project grading and other construction activities will disturb site soils, potentially leading to impacts to the San Francisco Bay. This represents a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 7-2a Preparation and Implementation of Project SWPPP. Pursuant to NPDES requirements, the Project applicant shall develop a SWPPP to protect water quality during and after construction. The Project SWPPP shall include, but not be limited, to the following mitigation measures for the construction period: 1) Erosion control/soil stabilization techniques such as straw mulching, erosion control blankets, erosion control matting, and hydro-seeding, shall be utilized, in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. Silt fences used in combination with fiber rolls shall be installed down slope of all graded slopes. Fiber rolls shall be installed in the flow path of graded areas receiving concentrated flows and around storm drain inlets. 2) BMPs for preventing the discharge of other construction-related NPDES pollutants beside sediment (i.e. paint, concrete, etc) to downstream waters. 3) After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be inspected for accumulated sediment, and these drainage structures shall be cleared of debris and sediment. Long-term mitigation measures to be included in the Project SWPPP shall include, but not be limited to, the following: PAGE 7-14 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY 4) Description of potential sources of erosion and sediment at the Project site. Industrial activities and significant materials and chemicals that could be used at the proposed Project site shall be described. This shall include a thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources. 5) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the Project site based on identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources. Emphasis shall be placed on source control BMPs, with treatment controls used as needed. 6) Development of a monitoring and implementation plan. Maintenance requirements and frequency shall be carefully described including vector control, clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures, vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters, regular sweeping of parking lots and other paced areas, etc. Wastes removed from BMPs may be hazardous, therefore, maintenance costs shall be budgeted to include disposal at a proper site. Parking lot areas shall be cleared on a daily basis of debris that may enter the storm drain system. ~ The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the frequency agreed upon by the RWQCB and/or City of South San Francisco. Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and submitted annually to the SWRCB. The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as necessary, to address any inadequacies of the BMPs. 8) The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on industrial and commercial BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed development. This information shall. be distributed to all employees at the Project site. At a minimum, the information shall cover: a) proper disposal of commercial cleaning chemicals; b) proper use of landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and appropriate disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and d) prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains. Mitigation Measure 7-2b Erosion Control Plan. The applicant shall complete an Erosion Control Plan to be submitted to the City of South San Francisco in conjunction with the Grading Permit Application. The Erosion Control Plan shall include controls for winterization, dust, erosion, and pollution in accordance with the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. The Plan shall also describe the BMPs to be used during and following construction to control pollution resulting from both storm and construction water runoff. The Plan shall include locations of vehicle and equipment staging, portable restrooms, mobilization areas, and planned access routes. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 7-15 CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY Public works staff or representatives shall visit the site during grading and construction to ensure compliance with the grading ordinance and plans, and note any violations, which shall be corrected immediately. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the construction and post-development impacts associated with erosion and siltation to a level of less-than-significant. CHANGES IN PEAK RUNOFF Under current conditions, approximately 53 percent of the storm water runoff from the Project site is directed into a municipal storm sewer 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. 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. TABLE 7-2. EXISTING AND PROPOSED DRAINAGE CONDITIONS FOR THE 10-YEAR DESIGN STORM Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Runoff coeff. Precipitation Intensity Drainage area Peak flow Runoff coeff. Precipitation Intensity Drainage area Peak flow Flow Increase" (cfs) (in/hr) (acres) (cfs) (cfs) (in/hr) (acres) (cfs) (cfs) (percent) South Inlet 0.9 1.66 6.85 10.3 0.9 1.69 11.65 17.7 6.05 72% Northeast Inlet 0.9 1.26 5.95 6.7 0.6 1.11 1.15 0.8 -5.9 -88% * cfs =cubic feet per second ** A negative flow increase represents a flow decrease. PAGE 7-16 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY Impact 7-3 Increases in Peak Runoff. 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 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. Mitigation Measure 7-3a 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 southern property boundary has capacity to accommodate the increased flows resulting from the proposed Project. The analysis shall include Rational Method calculations of pre- and post-development 10-year peak flows and shall take into account drainpipe slope and elevations, drainpipe size(s), and system head losses. The Storm Drain Analysis shall be subject to the review and approval by the City of South San Francisco City Engineer. If the existing storm drain cannot accommodate the Project flows, Mitigation 7-3b shall be implemented. Mitigation Measure 7-3b Revised Storm Drain Plan. If the hydraulic analysis described in Mitigation Measure 7-3a cannot show that the existing southern storm sewer drainpipe has capacity for Project flows, the applicant shall submit a Revised Storm Drain Plan for the Project. The revised plan shall include drawings of the new proposed system and shall include calculations of the new system capacity. Methods such as on-site storm water detention 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 sewer drainpipe. Prior to the approval of the Final Map, changes to the Project Drainage Plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the City of South San Francisco Storm Water Coordinator and the City Engineer. Implementation of these mitigation measures including review and approval from the City of South San Francisco will reduce the impact of changes in peak runoff to a level of Less-than- significant. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 7-17 This page intentionally left blank. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 7-18 E~~ J LAND USE 8.1 INTRODUCTION South San Francisco is largely comprised of single-use areas, with industry in the eastern and southeastern portions of the City (in the East of 101 Area), single family homes to the north and west, commercial uses along a few transportation corridors, and multiple family housing clustered in those same corridors and on hillsides.' The City was an important center for the steel and shipbuilding industries through the 1920s and World War II, which in turn led to significant residential development and helped spur asix-fold increase in population between 1940 and 1959. South San Francisco has been making a slow industrial transformation over the past 35-40 years, with steel production and heavy industries largely replaced by warehousing, research, development, and biotechnology. Both South San Francisco's identity and land use designations and policies are now strongly tied to its unofficial title of "Biotechnology Capital of the World". Included within South San Francisco are 14 planning sub-areas. This Project is located within the East of 101 Area, which is actually an aggregation of four sub-areas in the General Plan Land Use Element and encompasses all the land within the City limits east of Highway 101. Adopted in 1994, the East of 101 Area Plan was prepared to maximize the potential of undeveloped or underused properties in the City's traditional industrial area east of U.S. 101. Consisting of approximately 1700 acres of land, the East of 101 Area is comprised of eight land use categories: Planned Commercial, Planned Industrial, Gateway Specific Plan Area, Light Industrial, Coastal Commercial, Airport-Related, Open Space, and Transportation Corridors, with the largest portion of land zoned as Planned Industrial. The Project site is zoned Planned Commercial, and is consistent with the City's desire to "accommodate destination uses such as warehouse style retail specialty stores"? It is also consistent with the City's desire for retail uses to be located along the perimeter of the East of 101 Area to serve visiting shoppers, business people, and recreational users, with the majority of these to be located along the western portions of the area, so as to provide a transition between the industrial uses of the east and the remaining portions of the City west of Highway 101. ~ Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999. z Brady and Associates, East of 101 Area Plan, 1994 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 8-1 CHAPTER 8: LAND USE 8.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a project's environmental impacts are based on CEQA Guidelines thresholds: 1. Would the Project physically divide an established community? 2. Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project? 3. Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES DIVIDING ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY The proposed Project would have no impact related to the division of an established community. The Project site is bounded on the west by Dubuque Avenue and Highway 101, on the east by railroad rights-of--way, and on the north and south by office buildings. There are no residential communities east of Highway 101, and the highway serves as a buffer and shield in preventing the Project site, and the access points along Dubuque Avenue, from dividing the established residential communities to the west. CONFLICT WITH PLANS AND POLICIES The Project site is currently zoned Planned Commercial (I'-C) and is part of the "East of 101" Planning Sub-Area as defined by the City of South San Francisco General Plan. The site's General Plan designation is Business Commercial. This designation accommodates business and professional offices, visitor service establishments, and retail, and is intended for the emerging commercial and hotel district that include and surround the project site along South Airport, Gateway, and Oyster Point boulevards. The proposed Project is consistent with the following General Plan policies: Policy 3.5-G-1 Provide appropriate settings for a diverse range of non-residential uses. Policy 3.5-I-3 Do not permit any residential uses in the East of 101 area. PAGE 8-2 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 8: LAND USE The proposed Project is consistent with the following East of 101 Area Plan policies: Policy LU-4a Uses allowed in the Planned Commercial category shall typically include hotels and motels, retail uses, office development, restaurants, administrative services, day care centers, business and professional services, convenience sales, financial services, personal and repair services, marinas, and shoreline-oriented recreation. Policy LU-13 No residential development shall occur in the East of 101 Area. Policy LU-24 Retail and personal services shall be encouraged throughout the area to serve the employees of the East of 101 Area. Policy PF-2 Low flow plumbing fixtures and drought tolerant landscaping shall be installed as part of all new developments in the area. Policy DE-3 As an edge to the East of 101 Area, Dubuque Avenue should have streetscape improvements to emphasize its visual importance. Policy DE-13 New construction projects shall be required to supply and install street trees and landscaping to meet the City's specifications for their frontages. streetscape planting, irrigation and hardscape should be designed for minimum maintenance by City staff. Selection and spacing of street trees shall be approved by the City Landscape Architect and the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services. Medians should be cobbled and grouted or landscaped with low maintenance plants with automatic irrigation. Policy DE-17 In all land use categories except Light Industrial, loading docks should and service areas should be located at the rear or side of the development, and should be separated from automobile parking areas. Policy DE-21 Developments should include a landscaped buffer zone along property lines that is appropriate to the land use category, as shown in Figure A and specified in Section D of the Design Element. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 8-3 CHAPTER 8: LAND USE Policy DE-24 Perimeter landscaping should be provided in the landscaped buffers required in Policy DE-21, at a minimum rate of one tree for each 200 square feet of buffer area. Buffer areas should be planted with low-growing flowering ground cover or shrubs. Policy DE-28 Plant species chosen for the area should include low maintenance plants and plants adaptive to the extremes of climate in the area. In addition, plant species and planting design should complement the development's design. Policy DE-29 Lighting on the exteriors of buildings should be incorporated into the overall building and landscape design. Security and entry lights should align with, be centered on, or otherwise coordinate with the building elements. Policy DE-34 All activities and stored materials in loading, service, storage and trash disposal areas should be screened from views from public streets, trails, adjacent properties, and overhead views from adjacent properties, by planting, berms and/or decorative walls. The screening should be integrated into the design of structures or the site landscaping, so it does not appear as an appendage added to the outside of the structure. This policy applies to all types of outdoor storage areas containing materials, supplies, or equipment, including autos, trucks and trailers. Policy DE-38 The form and location of structures, the use of building colors and materials and the selection of landscape materials and street furniture shall consider the overall context of the Project and promote the development of a sense of identity for the East of 101 area. Policy DE-39 All sides of buildings that are visible from a public street or area should be detailed and treated with relief elements and changes in plane. Policy DE-52 Rooftop mechanical equipment should be screened from view by integral architectural elements such as pitched roofs, ornamental parapets, mansards or low towers. Policy DE-53 Mechanical equipment shall be painted to match the color of the roof where it is located. Policy DE-55 The following additional design policies apply in the 101 Frontage Area: Street Trees: Street trees should be planted within at least 30 feet of each other. Dubuque Avenue should be specifically targeted for streetscape improvements due to its visual accessibility from Highway 101. PAGE 8-4 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 8: LAND USE Landscape Buffer: Landscape buffers along Dubuque Avenue should be at least 20 feet wide, and along other streets should be 10 feet wide. On side and rear property lines, they should be six feet wide. Blank Walls: Blank building walls should be no more than 30 feet long. Longer lengths of wall should conform with Policy DE-38. Development along Dubuque Avenue should pay particular attention to visual integrity of their development as seen from Highway 101. Parkins Lot Trees: Cars should not be parked more than twelve in a row without a planting island that contains at least one tree. Parkins Lot Shrubs: Medians and bulbs inside the perimeters of a parking lot shall be planted. A minimum of five percent of the total parking lot area required to be landscaped shall be planted with shrubs. Policy NO-2 Office and retail developments in the East of 101 Area shall be designed so that the calculated hourly average noise levels during the daytime does not exceed an L~ of 45 dBA, and instantaneous maximum noise levels do not exceed 60 dBA. The proposed Project would be consistent with and would not conflict with the above applicable City of South San Francisco General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan land use policies, thereby constituting no adverse environmental impact. CONFLICT WITH CONSERVATION PLAN Construction at the Project site would remove all existing vegetation at the site, resulting in the removal of approximately sixty existing trees. Of these, twelve (12) of the trees on the site are considered "protected" trees under Section 13.30.020(f)(1) of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code relating to tree preservation (Tree Ordinance). A "protected" tree is any tree with a circumference of 48" or more when measured 54" above natural grade; a tree or stand of trees so designated based upon findings that it is unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, historical significance; or, a stand of trees whereby each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. "Protected" trees must be replaced with either three 24" box trees each ox two 36" box trees each. The proposed Landscaping Plan would meet the criteria of replacing the 12 "protected" trees, in that it calls for a total of forty (40) 36" box trees (16 more than required): 26 along Dubuque Avenue, and 14 at entries to the project site. As such, the project will have a less than significant impact. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 8-5 This page intentionally left blank. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 8-6 9 NoisE 9.1 INTRODUCTION Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound could be caused by its pitch or its loudness. Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (frequency) of the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than sounds with a lower pitch. Loudness is the intensity of sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the ear. Intensity may be compared with the height of an ocean wave, in that it is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave. In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, there are several noise measurement scales which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the Lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents aten-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and its intensity. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities. Technical terms are defined in Table 9-1. There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A- sveighted sound level or dBA. This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Representative outdoor and indoor noise levels in units of dBA are shown in Table 9-2. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events. This energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called Leg. The most common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration. The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends upon the distance the receptor is LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 9-1 CHAPTER 9: NOISE TABLE 9-1 DEFINITION OF ACOUSTICAL TERMS TERM DEFINITIONS Decibel, d6 A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals (20 micronewtons per square meter). Frequency, The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. A- Bighted Sound Level, d6 The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasi es the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this report are A-weighted, unless reported otherwise. Loi, L,o, Lso, Lso The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1 ,10 , 50 ,and 90 of the time during the measurement period. Equivalent Noise Level, Lei The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels measured in the night between 10:00 PM and 7:00 am. Day/Night Noise Level, Lan The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 PM and 7:00 am. L~«, Lorin The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level. Source: ILLING ORT ROD IN, INC. I Acoustical Engineers PAGE 9-2 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 9: NOISE TABLE 9-2 TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS MEASURED IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND INDUSTRY At a Gi en Distance Fro Noise Source A- Bighted Sound Le el in Deci els Noise En iron ents Su ecti e I ression 140 Civil Defense Siren (100) 130 et Takeoff (200) 120 Pain Threshold 110 Rock Music Concert Diesel Pile Driver (100) 100 ery Loud 90 Boiler Room Freight Cars (50) Printing Press Plant Pneumatic Drill (50) 80 Freeway (100) In itchen ith Garbage Disposal acuum Cleaner (10) 70 Running Moderately Loud 60 Data Processing Center Light Traffic (100) 50 Department Store Large Transformer (200 ) 40 Private Business Office Quiet Soft hisper (5) 30 Quiet Bedroom 20 Recording Studio 10 Threshold of Baring 0 Source: ILLING ORT ROD IN, INC.I Acoustical Engineers LC1WE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 9-3 CHAPTER 9: NOISE from the noise source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within about plus or minus 1 to 2 dBA. 9.2 SETTING In South San Francisco, the Noise Element of the City's General Plan (1999) contains land use criteria for noise impacted areas. These criteria define the desirable maximum noise exposure of various land uses, in addition to certain conditionally acceptable levels contingent upon the implementation of noise reduction measures. These criteria indicate that noise levels of less than 70 dBA (CNEL)' are acceptable noise levels for commercial land uses? The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Noise Regulations, Section 8.32.030) specifies the maximum permissible sound levels for residential, commercial and industrial land uses. The Project site is zoned "P-C, Planned Commercial," and the noise level standard for this zone is 65 dBA between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., and 60 dBA between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. (Lso).s Shorter periods of noise levels higher than these limits are allowed, but only for specified periods of time. Specifically, the standard + 5 dB for more than 15 minutes, the standard + 10 dB for more than 5 minutes, and the standard + 15 dB for more than one minute in any hour are used. The standard + 20 dB cannot be exceeded for any period of time. However, where the existing ambient noise level already exceeds the above noise limits, the ambient noise level becomes the standard. The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Section 8.32.050) restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also limits noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the property line. As the East of 101 Area is exposed to noise from a variety of sources, including aircraft, surface transportation, and various industrial uses, the East of 101 Area Plan calls for office and retail developments to be designed so that calculated hourly average noise levels during daytime does not exceed an Leg of 45 dBA, and instantaneous maximum noise levels do not exceed 60 dBA. 1 Decibel: Since the human eax is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions in a process called "A-weighting" written as "dBA". CNEL: Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). z Dyett and Bhatia, City of South San Francirco General Plan, 1999, p. 280, Table 9.2-1. s The noise limit that cannot be exceeded for more than 30 minutes in any hour (50 percent of any given hour). PAGE 9-4 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 9: NOISE In order to meet this, interior noise reduction for retail uses adjacent to Highway 101 between Coma Creek and Oyster Point Boulevard must meet or exceed 32 dBA.4 9.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a Project's environmental impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines thresholds: 1. Would the Project expose persons to, or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 2. Would the Project expose persons to, or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 3. Would the Project lead to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? 4. Would the Project lead to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? 5. For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? 6. For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES VIOLATION OF LOCAL NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS As noted in Section 9.2, the Noise Element of the City's General Plan (1999) contains land use criteria for noise impacted areas, which indicate that noise levels of less than 70 dBA (CNEL)5 are acceptable noise levels for commercial land uses. The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Noise Regulations) specifies the maximum permissible sound levels for residential, commercial and industrial land uses. The Project site is zoned "P-C, Planned Commercial," and the noise level standard for this zone is 65 ' Brady and Associates, East of 101 Area Plan, 1994, p. 157, Table 14 b Dyett and Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 280, Table 9.2-1. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 9-5 CHAPTER 9: NOISE dBA between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., and 60 dBA between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. (LSO).' Shorter periods of noise levels higher than these limits axe allowed, but only for specified periods of time. Specifically, the standard + 5 dB fox more than 15 minutes, the standard + 10 dB for more than 5 minutes, and the standard + 15 dB for more than one minute in any hour are used. The standard + 20 dB cannot be exceeded fox any period of time. However, where the existing ambient noise level already exceeds the above noise limits, the ambient noise level becomes the standard. The noise ordinance also restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also limits noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the property line. PERMANENT NOISE INCREASES Traf jic. Implementation of the proposed Project would increase traffic noise levels along local streets due to Project-generated traffic. In general, a doubling of traffic volumes would result in a 3-dBA noise increase in atraffic-dominated noise environment, and a 3-dBA noise increase is barely perceptible to most people. As shown in Tables 11-11A, 11-11B and 11-11C of the Transportation and Circulation chapter of this EIR, Project-related daily vehicle trips would increase to an estimated 5,908 daily trips under the proposed Project, which would lead to a noticeable increase in traffic noise levels at the Project site and its vicinity. However, due to the prevalence of commercial, office, and industrial land uses in the area, as well as the isolated geography of the site, noise thresholds vis-a-vis the Project and neighboring land uses are higher there than they would be if more sensitive land uses were present near the Project site. Due to these factors, the impact of traffic noise produced by the Project would be considered less than significant. Mechanical Equipment. Implementation of the proposed Project could increase ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity due to the operation of more powerful rooftop mechanical equipment than currently function on the multiple buildings at the Project site. However, the equipment would be screened by the raised building parapet walls. The impact of the HVAC system would be considered Zess than significant, provided that the noise level produced by it conforms to the City of South San Francisco Noise Ordinance. Vibration. It is not be expected that proposed land uses at the Project site would generate excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise. Therefore, it is expected that the Project would have no impact related to excessive groundbourne vibration or excessive groundbourne noise. ~ The noise limit that cannot be exceeded fox more than 30 minutes in any hour (50 percent of any given hour). PAGE 9-6 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 9: NOISE NOISE, GROUNDBOURNE VIBRATION Temporary Noise Increase. During site preparation and construction at the Project site, operation of heavy equipment could result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site. Impact 9-1 Construction Related Noise. Project construction would result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy equipment. This would be a potentially significant impact associated with Project development. Construction noise sources range from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet for most types of construction equipment, and slightly higher levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment. Mitigation Measure 9-1 Noise Abatement. While there are no existing noise-sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity that would be affected by Project-generated construction noise, neighboring businesses would be subjected to high noise levels during site preparation and construction. If noise controls are installed on construction equipment, noise levels could be reduced to 80 to 85 dBA at 25 feet, depending on the type of equipment. Assuming construction noise levels comply with the 90-dBA noise limit specified in the City Noise Ordinance, construction related noise impacts could be reduced to a level of less than significant. NOISE FROM AIRPORTS, RAIL, AND ROAD 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. 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 significant impact. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 9-7 This page intentionally left blank. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 9-8 10 PUBLIC SERVICES 10.1 SETTING FIRE PROTECTION The South San Francisco Fire Department provides a full emergency medical services program, with certified paramedics on its fire engines and two full-time Advanced Support ambulances. The 85-member department staffs three engine companies, two quints (combination fire engine and fire truck) and two ambulances. Minimum on-duty staffing is 20 persons.' Many areas of open space within the city pose a substantial risk of fire hazard to surrounding areas.2 Beyond the topographic, climatic, and land use conditions that create fire hazard, two factors contribute to fire risk in individual locations: 1. Vegetation. Accumulations of vegetation serve as fuel for wildland fires; large concentrations of fuel, particularly where fires can spread from ground level to the tops of trees, can create conditions where wildland fires spread rapidly. Vegetation on both public and privately owned land in South San Francisco is generally poorly maintained and overgrown. 2. Infrastructure. Public infrastructure, particularly site access and water supply, affect the City's ability to respond to fire. Poor access and inadequate local water supply can increase the loss of life and property in a fire. Eight fire hazard management units are identified in areas of the city that need vegetation management or other measures to reduce wildland fire risk and increase the potential for successful fire suppression.3 Each management unit is designated as high, medium or low priority in recognition of the relative need for risk management. The Project site is not located in any of these fire hazard management units, and access to the site is adequate via Dubuque Avenue. 1 City of South San Francisco, Fire Department website. 2 Dyett and Bhatia, City of South San Francirco General Plan, 1999, p. 264. 3 Ibid. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 10-1 CHAPTER 10: PUBLIC SERVICES POLICE PROTECTION The South San Francisco Police Department's jurisdictional area includes the entire city. The Department currently has a total of 80 sworn officers. The current ratio of officers is 1.2 per 1,000 residents. The Department is generally able to respond to high priority calls within two to three minutes. These times are within the Department's response time goals. The Department typically works afoot-beat system, but the watch supervisor has the discretion to deploy his personnel as he sees fit to accomplish daily goals and objectives. Each beat is typically staffed by a one officer unit with between six and nine other officers consisting of traffic, K-9, training, float, and supervisory units available for backup and overlap. SCHOOLS The South San Francisco Unified School District operates all public schools serving South San Francisco, the Serramonte area of Daly City, and a small area of San Bruno, and is the largest school district in San Mateo County. The District operates ten elementary schools, three middle schools and two high schools. The District does not expect that school facility capacities will be met or exceeded during the General Plan horizon. Although projected residential development, and State-directed class size reduction efforts have added new students, an aging population and a trend toward smaller families in the city will reduce the student population. Some schools have been closed, since they are no longer needed, and additional schools may need to be closed in coming years for the same reason. PARKS The City of South San Francisco operates 21 recreational facilities through its Recreation and Community Services Department'4 These include 9 parks (3 community parks and 6 neighborhood parks), a gymnasium, an athletic field, and a variety of play lots and areas. 10.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a Project's environmental impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines thresholds: • Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: a City of South San Francisco, Recreation and Community Services website PAGE 10-2 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 10: PUBLIC SERVICES - Fire Protection - Police Protection - Schools - Parks - Other Public Facilities IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FIRE PROTECTION The Project site is not located in any of the city's fire hazard management unit areas, and access to the site via Dubuque Avenue is adequate. The Project's design would be required to comply with the City Fire Marshall's code requirements regarding on site access fox emergency vehicles. Therefore, the Project would have no im j~act on the city's fire protection services. POLICE PROTECTION Though the Project would bring more people to the city, it is expected that the proposed commercial retail land use would lead to a less than significant increase in service calls to the Police Department. It is not expected that the Project would lead to an increase in Police Department service call response times. SCHOOLS The proposed Project would not involve the construction of residences which would increase student enrollments in the South San Francisco Unified School District. It is possible that the Project might lead some future employees of Lowe's to move their families to the city to live. However, such an influx of new residents would be so small that it would have a less than signif2cant impact on the South San Francisco Unified School District. PARKS The proposed Project would not place a significant demand on the City's public parks. Though some users of the Project site might use the City's parks, this use would be considered less than significant. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 10-3 CHAPTER 10: PUBLIC SERVICES This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 10-4 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR 11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 11.1 INTRODUCTION This section presents the analysis of circulation and traffic impacts related to development of the Lowe's Project along Dubuque Avenue. It first describes the existing transportation network in the City of South San Francisco in the immediate area of the Project, as well as year 2006 (projected Lowe's opening) and year 2020 Base Case circulation conditions without Lowe's. Potential circulation impacts due to Lowe's on this network are then detailed in contrast to the current development on the Project site, as well as in contrast to potential office/research & development activities that potentially would occur by 2020. Finally, measures are proposed to mitigate any Lowe's circulation and traffic impacts. Where relevant, parts of this section draw on the 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R&D project Draft and Final EIRs (Morehouse Associates and Dowling Associates, September 2004 and February 2005), the 249 East Grand Draft EIR Circulation Analysis (Lamphier-Gregory and Crane Transportation Group, June 2005), the 2005 Terrabay Draft EIR traffic analyses by Crane Transportation Group and the 2005 Home Depot Draft EIR traffic analysis by Crane Transportation Group. For the analysis of the currently proposed Lowe's Project, local transportation system conditions are described for the following scenarios: • Existing (spring 2005) • Year 2006 Base Case (anticipated future traffic conditions with the current activities in operation on the Project site) • Year 2006 Base Case with the currently proposed Lowe's replacing existing uses (with the exception of the "West Marine" building) • Year 2020 Base Case (anticipated future traffic conditions with office/research & development on the Project site) • Year 2020 Base Case with the currently proposed Lowe's and West Marine replacing office/research & development For year 2006 and 2020 future year scenarios, this analysis assumes the following condition based on current development timing or specific Project development proposals for the Lowe's site: LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-1 CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION • Roadway and intersection geometrics are assumed to remain the same from 2005 to 2020 for analysis purposes, unless specifically stated otherwise in the text. All specific future roadway improvements needed as mitigation are presented after each impact. 11.2 SETTING LOCAL CIRCULATION SYSTEM The network of freeways, arterial streets, and local streets serving the Project area is illustrated on Figure 11-1 and described below. U.S. Highway 101 (LT.S.101) is the principal freeway providing access to the Project area. U.S.101 has eight travel lanes through South San Francisco, with auxiliary lanes provided between some interchanges. Access to U.S.101 in the Project area is provided by the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange and by select on- and off-ramps connecting to Bayshore Boulevard (to the north) and Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue (to the south). The Oyster Point interchange provides on-ramp connections to both north- and southbound U.S.101, as well as a northbound off-ramp. The northbound off-ramp and southbound on-ramp connect to a common signalized intersection with Dubuque Avenue on the east side of the freeway, just south of the Dubuque Avenue connection to Oyster Point Boulevard. The northbound on-ramp extends north as the fourth leg of the signalized Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue intersection .Southbound U.S.101 traffic accesses the Project area via a stop sign controlled off- ramp connecting to Bayshore Boulevard along the Terrabay site frontage (soon to be signalized). Northbound Bayshore Boulevard traffic is stop sign controlled at this location as is off-ramp traffic. A northbound U.S.101 off-ramp to northbound Bayshore Boulevard is provided just north of the Project area. U-turns are prohibited on northbound Bayshore Boulevard well into the City of Brisbane. Anew southbound on-ramp connecting to Bayshore Boulevard at the existing off-ramp intersection is under construction, and will be open by mid 2005. A northbound on-ramp and a southbound off-ramp are provided to Airport Boulevard just north of its intersection with Grand Avenue to the south of the Project site. There are auxiliary lanes on northbound U.S.101 both north and south of Oyster Point Boulevard and on southbound U.S.101 south of Oyster Point Boulevard. U.S.101 carries an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 226,000 vehicles south of Oyster Point Boulevard and 212,000 vehicles north of Oyster Point Boulevard. Sister Cities Boulevard is a four-lane divided arterial roadway extending westerly from its signalized intersection with Bayshore Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard on the east to its signalized intersection with Hillside Boulevard Extension/Hillside Boulevard on the west. Bayshore Boulevard is primarily afour-lane arterial roadway extending north from South San Francisco into the cities of Brisbane and San Francisco on the west side of U.S.101. South of LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-2 r 'a ~~ a~ ~ m L LL Q a O C7 z O H Q H O a z ag w z x ~ ~ ~ O o Z Z W a> 3 0 J ~a ~' This page intentionally left blank. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 1 1-4 CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Oyster Point Boulevard it continues through South San Francisco as Airport Boulevard and South Airport Boulevard. Adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Terrabay site, Bayshore Boulevard has two travel lanes in each direction, narrowing to single travel lanes near its intersection with the U.S.101 southbound off-ramp (scissors ramp). Improvements are underway to make Bayshore Boulevard afoot-lane roadway adjacent to the Terrabay site. Airport Boulevard/South Airport Boulevard is a north-south arterial roadway located parallel to, and west, of U.S.101. The roadway is four lanes wide in the Project area. Oyster Point Boulevard is a major arterial roadway extending east from the Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection across the U.S.101 freeway and Caltrain railroad tracks into the East of 101 employment area. The freeway overpass has eight travel lanes and a narrow raised median. Dubuque Avenue is a frontage road running along the east side of U.S.101 from Oyster Point Boulevard south to Grand Avenue. It has two travel lanes along its entire length, except adjacent to the majority of the existing Levitz furniture (proposed Home Depot) frontage (where two northbound and one southbound travel lanes are provided), and from Oyster Point Boulevard to its intersection with the U.S.101 freeway northbound off-ramp and southbound on-ramp (where up to eight lanes and a narrow raised median are provided). It has signalized intersections with Grand Avenue, the freeway ramps, and Oyster Point Boulevard. Adjacent to the Project site, the roadway is 26 feet wide, and on-street parking is prohibited. No turn lanes are provided on the approaches to the four driveways now serving existing activities on the Project site. A 30 mile per hour speed limit sign is provided for southbound traffic just south of the U.S.101 /Northbound Off-Ramp/Southbound On-Ramp intersection, and for northbound traffic just north of Grand Avenue. STUDY INTERSECTIONS In order to evaluate the impacts of the proposed Lowe's Project, the AM and/or PM peak hour operations of 10 existing or future intersections in South San Francisco have been studied (see Figure 11-2). Signalized • Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 northbound on-ramp • Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 northbound off-ramp/U.S.101 southbound on-ramp • Bayshore Boulevard/Southbound U.S.101 freeway on- and off-hook ramps/Proposed Terrabay North Access (to be signalized) • Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard • Grand Avenue/Dubuque Avenue LC1WE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-5 CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Side Street Stop Sign Controlled • Dubuque Avenue/Project site north driveway-Site Driveway #1 • Dubuque Avenue/Project site central/north driveway-Site Driveway #2 • Dubuque Avenue/Project site central/south driveway-Site Driveway #3 • Dubuque Avenue/Project site south driveway (West Marine) -Site Driveway #4 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Both AM and PM peak period (7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:15 PM) turn counts were conducted for this study at all existing analysis intersections north of the Project site within South San Francisco in February 2005. The recently completed southbound-to-eastbound flyover off-ramp from the U.S.101 freeway to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection was in full operation. In addition, AM and PM peak period counts were conducted in June 2005 at the two Grand Avenue intersections to be evaluated, and in July 2005 at each of the four driveways now serving activities on the Project site. The July counts also included turn movements to/from the driveway just south of the Project site serving the Caltrain station. Existing AM peak hour counts are presented in Figure 11-3, while existing PM peak hour counts are presented in Figure 11-4. Figure 11-5 shows existing lane striping at each analyzed intersection. EXISTING CIRCULATION SYSTEM OPERATING CONDITIONS Intersection Operation Analysis Methodology Signalized Intersections. Intersections, rather than roadway segments. between intersections, are almost always the capacity controlling locations for any circulation system. Signalized intersection operation is graded based upon two different scales. The first scale employs a grading system called Level of Service (LOS) which ranges from Level A (indicating uncongested flow and minimum delay to drivers), down to Level F (indicating significant congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches). The Level of Service scale is also associated with a control delay tabulation (year 2000 Transportation Research Board [TRB] Highway Capacity Manual [HCM] operations method) at each intersection. The control delay designation allows a more detailed examination of the impacts of a particular project. Greater detail regarding the LOS/control delay relationship is provided in Appendix B Table 1. Unsignalized Intersections. Unsignalized intersection operation is also typically graded using the Level of Service A through F scale. LOS ratings for all-way stop intersections are determined using a methodology outlined in the year 2000 TRB Highway Capacity Manual. Under this methodology, all-way stop intersections receive one LOS designation reflecting operation of the entire intersection. Average control delay values are also calculated. Intersections with side streets only stop sign controlled (two-way stop control) are also evaluated using the LOS and average control delay scales using a methodology outlined in the year 2000 TRB Highway Capacity LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-6 Q=~ r m o o a o_tya fA O ITO 1~6 ~zm~ I I I ~o°~ _ ~ ~ ~~ T f6 LL J Q I I • PN8 v c ~ 'o ~a a O ~ t r ~ z00 ~_ d N C _ • ~ o ~ ~ J ~ N d ~ o c ~ Q T ~ > fA ~ O .p+ Q v o n~ o aE~y cn O ~ ... o ~o ~ °' O oo~ ~O z ~ ~ ~, J ea H ~ ~N L ~ ~ d Pnlg a~oys e8 .o PnlB Yo ny ~ ~ Q I ~ a L ~ c ~ p ~ y ~ ~ tr E ci .. o mm0 ~ T w 3a c i I C y nGO WmO "' I r d d ~d J O H . I I I I 0 U N N N C O C w+ o ~ d J i N ~ .N ~ ?, c~ c ~ ~ o~'n o°OOa ~ ~ ~ c ~tE h ~~m L ~ m~ V W o~~ cn m o ~ ~ ome `~ ro o n ago safe d ~'y ~ ;; ?~ h m C C :~ U oMa a ~ ~ m amo p N N LN in in d d ... C I I • Q ~_ W N 3 J fl. ~ N ~ ~N ~ ~ d ~ LL ~ N ~ ~ ~ O ~ i v ~ 7 H LL ~ L y ~ ~ C ~ C_ O .~ N ~ O C ~ ~ V J a O Z O H Q H O a z a w z ~' This page intentionally left blank. LC1WE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-8 I I I I Sister I I I I I I 745 l j- 300 1 190 15 145 2910 610 ~ 200 1 ~- ,(" 90 's Blvd 75 ,' 1045-- 25100 2 45 -i, a 'm 8350 l 1040 ~l 7010 l 7970 1. t- 95 95 3710 395 ~- 110 ~ 105 i ~- 210 200 ,' ran ve 145 --- ~ 290 70 -i, 1 8065 1 7325 '~ 265 ~- 95 _ Oyster Point Blvd `` 240 460 ~ 695 ~ 12 0 645 785 15 ~. 79 '~ 0 945 1 ~ l b F 5 - , j o 825 ,' p -- 10 45 0 45 ~, 1 ~ 8195 0 Lowes Project Site ~ • --~ NOT TO SCALE N 63 14 L 21 ,~ 5 1 4 t~' 80 2 58 10 '~ 1 ~, 4 r 9 81 2 65 2 m ~ 0 1 ~•' ° ~ 0 t~' 93 1 64 1 L 0 1 4 r1 t ~' 94 0 ~ . Caltram ~ _, Station ~ • - - • ~ 45 ; ~ L 14 ' ~ ~ 500 ~ 55 `` 10 10 Q ~ 45 20 ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Grand Ave R l ~ 3 * ~ ~ ~ ~ 55 ~ ~ I ~ 80 20 ~ 705 • - ~ I Figure 11-3 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes This page intentionally left blank. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-10 I I I I Sister I I I I I I I I 745 I ,~ 455 i 235 !- 35 340 3715 485 F 730 1 ~- ,` 185 's Blvd 75 ,' ~ t 335 -- 50125 2 35 ~, m 6965 l 230 ~~ 6280 1 7990 l 1 9060 I 7735 '~ 1015 ~-- 550 Oyster Point Blvd '` 1100 245 3 ~ 235 -- 600 1 5 04 ~ 65~^ 1655 40 5 '~ 0 510 ,' ~ I 1 -~ 50 90 0 34 ~, 1 8280 0 Lowes Project Slte NOT TO SCALE N '~ 33 69 j 34 4 ,` 6 t~' 96 20 69 g '~ 11 ~, ~ r 18 x, ~ 152 81 g m '~ 6 1 4~ ,~ 30 ~ ~ t~' 122 2 78 g 't_ 4 ~, l~ ~ 5 1 120 11 _ _ . Caltrain ~ ~ Station L 175 165 4215 145 t- 265 460 i ~- 675 190 ~' ~ ran ve 75 -- 75 460 115 145 'i, `~ _ .~ -!~ 80 ~ ~ ~ '~ 23 ~ ". ~ ~ 20 ~ 1515 60 ~ 66 17 Q' ~ 14 ~ ~ ~ R Grand Ave ~ ~, 4 ~ ~ J ~ ~ 40 ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ 12 295 ; 108 i Figure 11-4 I CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes This page intentionally left blank. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-12 i~ t m ,~ ~~E~b~ ~ ~ Sister Cities Blvd ~ Oyster Point Blvd `` tt~ -- ~'~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ m ~, r'r~ Lowes Project Site •~ ~ ~ Caltrain • - - ~ Station NOT 10 SCALE N ® =Signal =Stop Sign =Free Right Turn ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~ ' ~~ Grand Ave ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j- _, ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ ran ve u j • - ~ ~ `~11~r' ---------------- Figure 11-5 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Existing Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control This page intentionally left blank. LC1WE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 1 1-14 CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Manual. However, unlike signalized or all-way stop analysis where the LOS and control delay designations only pertain to the entire intersection, in side street stop sign control analysis LOS and delay designations are computed for only the stop sign controlled approaches or individual turn and through movements. Appendix B Table 2 provides greater detail about unsignalized analysis methodologies. Level of Service Standards The City of South San Francisco considers Level of Service D (LOS D) to be the poorest acceptable operation for signalized and all-way-stop intersections, and LOS E to be the poorest acceptable operation for unsignalized city street intersection turn movements. The City has no standards for stop sign controlled turn movements from private driveways. Existing Intersection Levels of Service All intersection analysis within the Oyster Point interchange has been conducted using the Synchro software program, which evaluates the coordinated operation of a system of intersections. Intersection operating results (levels of service) are typically a little poorer with Synchro analysis than would be the case if each intersection were evaluated on a "stand alone" basis. The two intersections along Grand Avenue have been evaluated as individual "stand alone" locations as the Dubuque Avenue/Grand Avenue intersection is traffic activated and not coordinated with operation at Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard. Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that all intersections analyzed for this study are currently operating at acceptable levels of service during both the AM and PM commute peak traffic hours. All operations are either LOS A, B or C. Freeway Operation Analysis Methodology Freeway segments have been evaluated based on the Year 2000 Highway Capaczty Manual as specified by the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Planning level lane capacities have been determined based on a theoretical maximum of 2,350 vehicles per lane per hour along sections with no auxiliary lanes. Based upon a 2005 count of the U.S.101 freeway by Crane Transportation Group at the Oyster Point interchange (where peak hour factor and truck percentages were obtained), the capacity of a four-lane one-way segment of U.S.101 during peak commute hours in South San Francisco is considered to be 8,880 vehicles per hour (2,220 vehicles per lane per hour), with LOS E for volumes between 7,900 and 8,880 vehicles, LOS D fox volumes between 6,340 and 7,899 vehicles, and LOS C for volumes below 6,340 vehicles. The hourly capacity of a segment with four lanes plus a 1,500-foot auxiliary lane is considered to be 9,750 vehicles, while the capacity of a segment with four lanes plus a 2,000- foot auxiliary lane is considered to be 10,170 vehicles. San Mateo CMP Standards for Regional Roads and Local Streets The LOS standards established for roads and intersections in the San Mateo County CMP street network vary based on geographic differences. Fox roadway segments and intersections near the LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-15 H W V z 0 V W z V ti A a O a 0 x a W~ W o M ~, oo r ~ z z o ~ ~ o ~ o Ca Q w Q Q d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ + 0 N O N W ~ r M `n pp "~' ~ r c,` M ~ .~ ~ ~ o r ~ N .j r +n o o c~ +~ ao C\ Q ~ Q Q ~ z z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ca W a o v ~ od N ~ ~ ~ z r ~ ~ z ~ z ~ ~ ~ ¢ ~ ~ ~ ~, v cv v cv a~ + W N r O N V' N N M ~ "' .-: G~ G~ C\ W ~ L~ U U V ~ r7. ~ 7. Zi 6 ~ z ~ c~ N N N ~ .M~ z Z z ~ ~ Z ,~ ~ V U U 6 Lp ~ ~ ~ W O z ~ .~ O ~, w o ~ o GL a ~ ~ v ~ O ~ ti GL w O ~ ti ~ t ' ~ ~ +~' '+w+ ~ ~ > ~ Q ~ ~ ~ i 77 C y y C 7 7 C ~ O N p" W N W O r" O ~ y ~ u ~ A ~ •-• ti y V] N ti N (n M vi N Cn ~f y CNJ Cn C 'I.7 y b ~ FG v ~'+ v V U U ~ (~ 'b ~ ~ C ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ O Q V ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ v U ~ ` ~ D a + .~i cn 'b O 'J 7 O (~ ~ ~ z ~ . r' ~ cvd .S: ~ ~ SJ ~ cva Ste' ~ cva , v Pa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .ti ~ ~ a o ~, o a Q a o W ~ ' p ~ ~ ~ ai ~ ~ ai ~ ~ p W ~ D W P~ ~ v ~ W D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ (n v O" a ~ ~'-~ A. w ~ R v~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v O H ~ ~ v O ~ v H O w ~ a ~ v O ~ ~ v C O" O v g H O v C a" O v C ~" O Gy j~.'y ~ Q~~' y ~'O~' VJ "'~ ~a ~' ~ 7~ Li 7 ~' "'Vi a ~ N w~' Vi a~~ Vi a~ ~ .~ ~ ~ A .. r a C c. a c r QO QO QO QO v v ~ LL, Q ~ 0 O a c~ b C O p _ .~ 0 .~ Q oo b O V~J Vii y .~ •~ .~ ~ ~ '~ 'ti 'd ~ ' O ~ O , y ~ . O q C ~ q O O d O ~ v ~ ~ Q ~ tQ`. ~ U .QY ^e~ • I ~ ~ N O ~i .~~„ Q ti ~ ~' .~ o o 'e ,~~' r, ~ W v v v ~ ~ ~ ~ °4 ~ ~ W _y O 'C ~ ~ vaa~ ti~~~~V ~ N ~ U '' ~ x c d O ~~ ~3 ~ ..,~~~`~~v ~ o N r1 H W V V ~ O w~ O ~, aA ~w a w ~~ V `!' W^ M~ I~ O z 0 x W a W N •~ M ~ 00 ~ V' d' N ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ 7 N V' N v~ N d: ~ O a ~n Q N w N w M ~ 6 z z w c$ . . as -. as . -~ ~ . . as ~+ N N ~n Q N w N w M v ¢ z z O w ~ a, ~--~ ~ z, ~ ~ ~ rl ~ M ao •~ ~, o c~ o r ~- 0 r ~ M M ~ ~' z .V 1. C' z C' z O ~ O O ~ a ra w ~ q ¢ ~ cc w ~ as s .-. M c, ~n r N if1 ~ ~ ~ ~i ~i ,n C1,• o O ~ C ao ~ ~ PQ . -. w r w M v M Q ~ z ~ z z ¢ ~ oa ~ --i ~ O n' W ~ OM M M M ~ G~ --~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ z N G~ b G~ G~ C.~ ~+5 G\ y'~ ~ M V U V ~ i W -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C o ~ z .~ o ~ w o ~, a , ~ O Y C a V~ ~ ~ m a W W O ~ N o, ~ 1: i i S.' t ~ ~ O ~ ~ '° ~ C o ~ ~ . ~ i ~ v W w a '~' .-' N M ~ ~ •p O 'b ~~ v a ~ ~ u`n ti u`n u~ u~ ~ V '~ ai ~ ~ Gq `i' o ~ F ~ ° ~ 8 d ~ ~ c ~- u ~ ~ r. ° r. vi T v cn cn a., cn „ ~ z ~ ~ b ' y ~ ~ ° C7' ~ ~ vJ ,~ ~ ~z 'b ~ 'p v N 'p ~ w 'p u 'p v w O ~ .o ~ o o ~ o ~ o a , L ~ W Fq ~ o ~ ~ •v ~a ~ ~ .. w „ . W ~ • o ~ ° ~; v ra ~ v GA C . ~ . ¢ . ~ . W m '~ ,. '~ 0 i '~ p '~ p '~ ~ 0 ~ 0 '~ 0~ A ~ o ~ b ~ A b a' ~ n m ~ b o^ p A Cy„ ~ N ~0 N b. ~ ~ ti . h ~ p 00 p 0O p QO p QO Q ~" b ~ caw~" c7~' C7~ ca r~~' mw~' w~' G I~ v w Q 0 u O N a -o 0 .~ 0 cd N .~ Q ti .~ .~ oo b U y N N .~ .~ .~ cd 'b b b O O C O O m bq ~ v Q cd p ~ ~ ~' fi U V ~ . . C fi ~ ~ ~ '~ ti ~~~ w ~ ~°~' v ~ u E~ 1- U ~ w ' ,d, N ~ `pAo'~ U ~ U ;~ ~ ~x ~ ~ O ~ . p_ ~~ ~p ~~,~° w W Q ~ ~ fi o o~'~~~~'U ~ ~ CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION county border, the LOS standard has been set as E in order to be consistent with the recommendations in the neighboring counties. If the existing level of service in 1990/91 was F, the standard was set to LOS F. If the existing or fixture LOS was (or will be) E, the standard was set to E. For the remaining roadways and intersections, the standard was set to be one letter designation worse than the projected LOS in the year 2000. If a proposed land use change would either cause a deficiency (to operate below the standard LOS) on a CMP- designated roadway system facility, or would significantly affect (by using LOS F in the 1991 CMP baseline LOS), mitigation measures are to be developed so that LOS standards are maintained on the CMP-designated roadway system. If mitigation measures are not feasible (due to financial, environmental or other factors), a Deficiency Plan must be prepared for the deficient facility. The Deficiency Plan must indicate the land use and infrastructure action items to be implemented by the local agency to eliminate the deficient conditions. A Deficiency Plan may not be required if the deficiency would not occur if traffic originating outside the County were excluded from the determination of conformance. Existing Freeway Operation Existing levels of service on the freeway segments in South San Francisco were based upon Crane Transportation Group's 2005 AM and PM peak period counts of the U.S.101 freeway at the Oyster Point interchange and from Caltrans' February and August 2004 counts of the U.S.101 freeway in South San Francisco. Year 2005 interchange ramp counts were used to derive volumes for freeway segments lacking current counts. Figure 11-2 shows the freeway mainline segments analyzed for this study. Tables 11-3 and 11-4 show existing freeway level of service results based on the 2004/2005 traffic counts when compared to the standard capacity of a four-lane segment or segments with auxiliary lanes. Results are summarized below. AM PEAK HOUR Southbound LOSE North of the Bayshore Boulevard Southbound off-ramp LOS D South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange Northbound LOS D South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange LOS D North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange PM PEAK HOUR Southbound LOS D North of the Bayshore Boulevard Southbound off-ramp LOS D South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange Northbound LOS D South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange LOSE North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-18 Table 11-3 FREEWAY OPERATION LOWE'S AM PEAK HOUR YEAR 2006 EXISTING BASE CASE BASE CASE + HOME DEPOT PROJECT PERCENT TOTAL LOS VOL LOS VOL LOS INCREMENT INCREASE VOL SOUTHBOUND North of SB Off-Ramp to 8350 E 9051 F 8 +0.1% 9059 F Bayshore Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. San Mateo Ori ins On! 181 A 181 A Between Oyster Point SB 7970 D 8401 D 19 +0.2% 8420 D On-Ramp and Grand/Miller SB Off-Ramp (San Mateo Origins Only) 168 A 168 A NORTHBOUND Between Grand Ave. On- 8195 D 8832 D 27 +0.3% 8859 D Ramp and Oyster Point Off-Ramp San Mateo On ins On! 6270 C 6290 C North of Oyster Point On- 8065 D 8330 D 15 +0.2% 8345 D Ramp San Mateo Ori ins Onl 5914 C 5925 C Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-19 Table 11-4 FREEWAY OPERATION LOWE'S PM PEAK HOUR YEAR 2006 EXISTING BASE CASE BASE CASE + HOME DEPOT VOL LOS VOL LOS PROJECT PERCENT TOTAL LOS INCREMENT INCREASE VOL SOUTHBOUND North of SB Off- 6965 D 7222 D 16 +0.2% 7238 D Ramp to Bayshore Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. (288) (A) (290) (A) (San Mateo Origins Onl Between Oyster Point 7990 D 8506 D 38 +0.4% 8544 D SB On-Ramp and Grand/Miller SB Off- Ramp (San Mateo Origins (340) (A) (342) (A) Onl NORTHBOUND Between Grand Ave. 8280 D 8698 D 46 +0.5% 8744 D On-Ramp and Oyster Point Off-Ramp (San Mateo Origins (7481) (D) (7520) (D) Onl North of Oyster 9060 E 9731 E 37 +0.4% 9768 F Point On-Ramp (San Mateo Origins (8369) (D) (8400) (D) On Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 1 1-20 CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION The San Mateo County Congestion Management Program 2003 Monitoring Deport (Fehr and Peers, July 29, 2003), identified AM peak period LOS D operations in 2003 for U.S.101 between the San Francisco County Line and I-380 based on travel time surveys. The 2001 LOS for this segment was measured at E and the 1999 LOS was F. This indicates that traffic congestion has lessened somewhat over the past several years, most likely due to employment reductions in San Francisco and the Peninsula. Freeway Ramp Operation Analysis Methodology Freeway ramps have been evaluated based upon the methodology contained in the year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, where ramp capacities have been set at 2,100 vehicles per hour for diamond (slip) ramps and 1,900 vehicles per hour for any ramps with sharp curves (such as the southbound buttonhook ramps connecting to Bayshore Boulevard). These capacities reflect LOS E operation, the same service level which is acceptable for freeway operation. Existing Freeway Ramp Operation Figure 11-2 shows the various freeway ramps analyzed for this study. Tables 11-5 and 11-6 show that all ramps at the Oyster Point interchange currently are operating under capacity during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours. VEHICLE QUEUING Analysis Methodology The Synchro software program has determined estimates of vehicle queuing on the approaches to all intersections within the Oyster Point interchange during each peak traffic hour. Projections are provided for each turn and through lane for the 50th percentile queue. Queuing Standards The City of South San Francisco standard is that the 50`h percentile vehicle queue must be accommodated within available storage, while the Caltrans standard is that the 95`'' percentile queue must be accommodated within the available storage. Existing Queuing Conditions It should be noted that existing observed queuing between intersections within the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange should be improved with the opening of the new southbound freeway on-ramp from Bayshore Boulevard. This will eliminate southbound Brisbane/San Francisco traffic on Bayshore Boulevard traveling through the entire Oyster Point interchange to access the southbound on-ramp from Dubuque Avenue. The elimination of these vehicles should free up additional green time within the interchange to provide greater accommodation of other movements. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 1 1-21 v x '~ V~// W w Ww za ~~ z~ ~~ Ox W/Wh ~ ~ v ~~~ ~o~ Hz~ x ~~ ~z ZV ~ ~ ~""~ W I~ ax (~ o ~n V " x w~ ~w W O N ~ N ~ v. N 00 ~--~ v CO r ~ M ~ .-+ ~ ~ N N O ~ N O ~ N N M r ~ ~ ~ ~ .--~ ~ .--~ O O .-~ .-+ u'~ N u-> V M ~--~ ~+'~ G~ .--~ ~--~ .-. N C\ e-. V O to M 00 ~ M O M V' .--~ ~ a O,w ~+ Nw Nz w N N V O M O o0 M 00 00 N -» N N N (,7~~ W o0 .--~ O .--~ V .--~ V .--~ ~ ~ V, N O O ~ N N M N u, a0 H M O ~ M -+ O .-. V, G~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ + rV --~ . G1 ~ l~ M l~ M O t~ --~ r' . r ~ ~ w ~ W r+ V w W Ord N l~ O M M ~ M ~ r~~i ~ ~i ~ ~i ~-~ r~~i ~ O ~ O G~ O 00 O G~ .-. V ~ ~i '~' O ~ O ~ [~ r. ~--~ 00 Vf 00 ~ N M .~. M ~ O M 'V ~ ~ aw ~+ ow Nz w ~~{ `~ rTl ~ [~ C'1i N N ~ N ~ ~i ~ ~i ~ ~i ~ ~i ~ W ~ N 00 .-. 00 O [~ N V l~ ~i 7 N N ~ •~-~ ~ .--i r N ~ d N [~ N V N O ~, ~ V~^ j -~ . --~ -~ -~ ~ ~~~ zww o ~~•I r~l w ~ ~ w r~~i F-a ~~ii H ~~ji H ~~ii H r~~i F-a ~i ~ ~~ii H ~~ii H ~ 00 M ~ .~ N ~ O N a-r ~ ~i '~ G1 [~ ~ ~y ~ ~y M ~ V ~ ~ ~y to M ~ M O M e--~ w ~ ~ V H z w o w ~ ~ °" ~ c~ w w ~ O ~+'~ ~ l~ 0 O 0 O ~ ~+ ~ O O N ~ O O O ~ w H N ~ U1 N 0 V' 0 .•-~ 0 ~ ~ v'~ ~ v~ N ~ ~ it1 ~ ~ N M ~ ~ O ~--~ O O O O ~ v~ N v~ O + z M T V V' M G1 M ~+'~ fn M V M N N N N ti N N l~ A N N ~, ~ ~ o ~ w H ~ a U ] ~ ~' a o ,~ H w A ~ ~ w ~ H '" Vxi ~ ~ ^~ w O w O N ~ o '~ '~ O ~ ,~ ~ O ,~ v O ~ '~ H w ~ ~ w w '~ d ~ ~ ~ +~O I'" ' .~ ' W ~y ' ~ G ~ ~ ~~1 ^~ .4: ~ fn ~ .~ '~ ~ 4? (r~~ ~r W s-i W .I7 ~a7 ~ (n ~ r r~~ f-i ~ ~ a W ~rr ~~ f-i Crr ~~ f-i C~ C~ W (n `r ~ W W f~ Cn GG C/1 Fq (~ ~ ~ ~ O W W W W FA W rWr,~ f-~ ~rrA~~ f-i W~ii H F.+ A O ~ FI VJ FA VJ a 0 x w a i a~ ~ ~ 'G id , o ~ ~ 'b O bfy,' c~ ~~ ~ ~, v U v .'t jE ~ N w Q Q_ U W_ 0 W J W N U 0 C~ ~\ V W Ww F~ za 1~1 z~ Ox WW ~ ~ V ~~ ~o~ Hz~ H ~H ~z z~ ~ ~ fTl F~1 ax O V " x W~ W ,7 U W W 0 M V M ~ v M G\ ~ ~ V' ~ t+'1 O N v M O ~,.~ ~ ~ O ~ [~ ~ N M ~ M d' V V' O V i--~ ~ ~n V N .--~ e-~ O L~ M O .-. ~-. .--~ V N V oo ~ ~ N 'V" ~ ~ N V N N V N V ~--~ .--~ V N .--~ r a ~' a aw ~+ °w Nz w ~~ M G~ M l~ d' V' O G~ to ~ --' N O N o0 O O V' N ~ ~ ~ M ~ O ~ ~ G~ ~ M ~ ~ . .--~ • O V ~ ~ O V' f' ~ f' ~ ~ N N M rV ~ ~ W M M e-+ M N M V ~--~ V M ~--~ t ) t ) N N W W (~ V W ~ N G1 N ~ Vr ~ V' ~ r~~i z r~~i z r~~i z r~~i z M ~ M ~ V' ~--~ ~ ~--~ ~ ~ 00 M r~~' z O ~--~ O ~--~ O •--~ G1 N .M• M M ~ tf') N N w ~' a aW ~+ ow Nz w (( ~~~ I r~ /~ W d G1 .-• ~ M l~ M I~ ~i 'z ~i ~-~ ~i '~-~ ~i '~-~ N N O 'V' '~ r r ~ ~ ~ M ~i z ~ ~ O G~ O CT O N '~ N G1 N ~--~ Vr ~--~ 'V V' N tf1 ~ H ~~ z wW o CA ~ W W W z z ~-~ z z z z z ~ O e 'd' r Q r O ~ M M `-' ~ Z N G\ ~ V ~ .N-i to .~-i ~ ~ .-r M I~ M 00 M G~ .-+ M .-. dz w N z W p ~ v ~ a ~ w W w O ~ ~+'~ t~ O O O O '~ O O ~ ~ O O pp 7 W F M ~ ~ N O Vf O .--~ O A N v'~ ~ u~ N ~ u1 N v'~ N v'~ M ~r> ~ O ~--~ O 0 O 0 ~ ~ N ~ o M ~ V V ~ M G~ M N fn M 'V M N N N N .--~ N N l~ L~ N N ~ ~ x ~ w H d a F ~ V ~ `n P. •~• ~ ,~ H z W A ~ .~ ~ w H ~ o o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ x .~ ° w w x ~ ° ~ o x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ W w a ~ w ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~" ~ ~ ~ ~ w w ~ aa ~ z ~ aa z ~ z ~ ~ ~ oa ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ w ~a w w w z z z A 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O x a ~o ~~ ~~ .o ~~ -~ o b~ ~ ~~ W W o .~ .~ ~ ~ ~U ~ u w o~ ~o N U W 0 U O ~- H C~ x~ U W WW za Iii z~ H ~ Ox ~1 WW ~~ ~~ o~ z~ H ~ H V W ZV ~ ~ WW ~x a~ O~ ~~ V `~ x W~ ~ W W ( O N d' M Vf G~ -~ M 00 N ni 00 N M ~ 00 .--~ N .-~ M M N G~ M e} i--~ ~ M O 00 --~ V ~ ~ ~ 00 l~ O 00 00 N .-. G1 .-~ a~ V O 00 ~ V ~ ~ 00 .--i ~ G~ ~ N a a . . .--~ .--~ V ~--~ M M l~ V V M o,W ~+ ° c v w Nz w W 00 N -. N ~ -• W W .-. M [~ .--~ Vr N . ~ N 'V ~ N M .-. O N 00 M . ~ M V .--~ --~ G1 ~ `""' ~ O ~ ~ °"' G1 ~ ~ 00 ~--~ O ~ G~ e-~ r. O M N u~ r N N '_"' I o0 rV ~y . ~--~ ~--~ ~ ~--i N M V V V M N W V w ~ ~ ~ M V' N 00 N W ~i ~-i Q' ~-i ~i ~ Q' '~ .-• `~ `"' ~M. O .N-i •--~ N ~ M N ~ ~i ~ G1 ~' N M ~ M .-+ ~-~ M ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~ ~ a ~ - - -i . . a,W C a+ ow Nz ~ w ~ rT~ N ~ ~ N V' O 00 O 00 ~i r~ F ~ ~i ~ ~i ~ ~ 7 F ~ ~' ~ N ~--~ ~ N .-. to '"'~ ~ ~ .--~ .-• ~i ~ ~ ~ M .-. M ~ N V ~r7 --i tf1 V --i CT ~ N Vr M O v ~+'~ ~ N -~ v~^ i - i -i -~ i i i M . ~M z H oo w W W ~ W w ~ ~ 7 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ y~ i o0 N G~ N N ~ z N ~ aNO ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~n ~ ~,,,~ ~ waz --~ -~ -~ -~ -~ -~ -~ -~ Q'i •y .-- N N M e-+ rr ~ z W o ~ v a w (,7~ w O ~ N t~ O O ' O O ' ~ '~ ~ O O ~ d' O O O ~ ~ W F ~ M ~ N 0 V 0 ~--~ 0 A ~ ~ ~ ~+'~ ,~ N ~ N ~ ~ ~ N M u1 ~+'~ O ~+ O O O O N ~ ~+'1 ~ O z M ~ V V M G1 M N fn M Vf M N N N N .--~ N N l~ l~ N N ~, ~ ~ o ~ a F ~ ~ H a U ] ~ ~' a ~ z H A ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p '~ w a '~ ~ w a ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ p ~ '~ O ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~~ . A ~ .~ w w o~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ 1'S ~ ca ~ W z C z FA ~, W ~, ~ aa ~ W FG ~, W ~, ~, ~q ~ i~ PS ~" O P~ W W W fA W FG Z ~A Z f~ Z ~ A 0 0 al cn f~ v~ a 0 x a a. ~~ .o b ~ H CS W .~ ~ O ~ ~ ~v N U W 3 ~ o 0 ~- C.7 J N U w U O LL 0 Table 11-10 VEHICLE QUEUING WITHIN OYSTER POINT INTERCHANGE (95TH PERCENTILE AVERAGE VEHICLE QUEUE) PM PEAK HOUR EXISTING YEAR 2006 QUEUES IN FEET YEAR 2020 QUEUES IN FEET STORAGE IN FEET QUEUES IN FEET BASE CASE BASE CASE + PRO ECT BASE CASE BASE CASE + PRO ECT BAYSHORE/SB 101 RAMP S SB left 350 NA 251 251 561 561 NB throw h 475 NA 83 84 493 497 WB off-ram left turn 600 NA 129 134 663 670 WB off-ram left/ri ht 600 NA 129 134 684 691 BAYSHORE/CENTRAL T ERRABAY ACCESS NB left turn 300 NA NA NA 195 196 NB throw h 945 NA NA NA 51 50 SB ht turn 300 NA NA NA 0 0 SB throw h 540 NA NA NA 98 94 BAYSHORE/SISTER CITI ES/OYSTER PO I NT/AIRPORT EB left turn 55 93 99 102 457 473 SB left turn 325 210 98 112 345 354 SB throw h 660 164 195 197 457 456 SB ri ht turn 310 174 187 195 765 764 WB left turn 80 52 55 86 146 153 WB throw h 255 205 375 391 542 571 WB ri ht turn 255 NA NA NA 23 103 OYSTER POINT/DUBUQ U E EB left turn 75/255 162 185 190 375 382 EB throw h 255 107 80 110 103 124 EB ri ht turn 255 285 106 208 120 176 NB left turn 135 281 404 476 782 808 NB left/throw h 255 302 428 501 820 849 NB ri ht turn 210 50 53 54 107 105 DUBUQUE/101 RAMPS Off-ram left turn 700 95 138 138 382 432 Off-ram left/throw h 700 95 137 138 382 432 SB ri ht turn 255 69 45 43 335 395 SB throw h 255 41 103 140 147 226 ~ * All capacities and demand are per lane. Source: Crane Tranr~ortatron Grou/i LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-27 CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that during the AM and PM peak hours, the 50th percentile queues within the Oyster Point interchange are not exceeding available storage. However, Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that 95th percentile queues are exceeding available storage on several approaches to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue intersection during both the AM and PM peak hours and on one approach to the Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. Field observations confirm that the theoretically predicted queuing intermittently exceeds available storage on certain approaches for certain movements. EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE Local Bus Routes The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service to South San Francisco. There is currently no SamTrans service running adjacent to the Project site on Dubuque Avenue or east of the U.S.101 freeway. Local area bus service west of the freeway is as follows. Route 34: Tanforan Shopping Center-Geneva operates along Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard between Brisbane and the San Bruno BART station in the study area. This route operates during midday only on weekdays, with headways of about two hours. Route 130: Daly City/Colma BART-South San Francisco operates along Linden Avenue and Grand Avenue in the study area. It connects central South San Francisco with the Colma BART station and Daly City. It operates with 20- minute peak period headways and 30- to 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays, 30-minute headways on Saturdays and 60-minute headways on Sundays. Route 132: Airport/Linden-Arroyo/El Camino operates along Hillside Avenue, Linden Avenue and Grand Avenue connecting to the South San Francisco BART station. It operates on 30-minute peak period headways and 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 60-minute headways on Saturdays. Route 292: San Francisco-SF Airport-Hillsdale Shopping Center operates along Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard. It operates with 20- to 30-minute peak headways and 25- to 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 30- to 60- minute headways on Saturdays and Sundays. Route 397 (297): San Francisco-Palo Alto (Stanford Shopping Center) operates along Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard. Buses operate on one-hour headways each direction between about 1:00 AM and 5:00 AM, seven days per week. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-28 CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Caltrain Caltrain provides train service between Gilroy, San Jose and San Francisco. There is a station located on the corner of Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue in South San Francisco adjacent to the Project site. Trains operate every 15 to 20 minutes during commute periods, and hourly during midday. Caltrain/BART Shuttles Van shuttles are provided between the South San Francisco Caltrain station and employment centers east of U.S.101 during commute hours. Separate shuttles provide service to/from the Colma BART station. The Gateway Area/Genentech Shuttle (BART and Caltrain) provides service on Gateway Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard, Forbes Boulevard, Grandview Drive and East Grand Avenue. There axe 15 morning trips and 15 afternoon trips on the BART shuttle, and six morning trips and five afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle. The Utah-Grand Shuttle (BART and Caltrain) serves over 20 employers in the Utah/Grand/Littlefield area. It provides service on Harbor Way, East Grand Avenue, Cabot Court, Grandview Avenue, Littlefield Avenue, Haskin Way and Utah Avenue. There are six trips in the morning and six trips in the afternoon on the BART shuttle, with seven morning and seven afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle. Shuttle service is fixed-route, fixed-schedule and is provided on weekdays during the commute periods. The shuttles are free to riders. The operating costs are borne by the Joint Powers Board QPB), SamTrans, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the City/County Association of Governments (75 percent), and sponsoring employers (25 percent). There are no shuttle stops along Dubuque Avenue other than at the Caltrain station. PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE A sidewalk is in place along the east side of Dubuque Avenue adjacent to the Project site. It extends northerly to Oyster Point Boulevard and southerly to Grand Avenue. However, there axe no bicycle lanes striped or posted along Dubuque Avenue in the Project area. PLANNED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS The City of South San Francisco is currently completing construction on the final ramp improvement project at the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange. The "hook ramps" project is replacing the existing "scissors" off-ramp from southbound U.S.101 to Bayshore Boulevard with a more conventional hook ramp terminating at a signalized intersection. Anew on-ramp is being constructed from Bayshore Boulevard to southbound U.S.101 from the same intersection. The hook ramps will significantly improve access to and from southern Brisbane, and will divert additional traffic from Bayshore Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue within the interchange area. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-29 CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Additionally, intersection improvements are committed by the approved Bay West Cove development project for the intersections of Bayshore Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard (change the existing second westbound left turn lane to a through lane and re-striping the westbound through/right lane to a right turn lane), Veterans Road and Oyster Point Boulevard (widen southbound Veterans Road to add a right turn lane and re-stripe the optional through/left lane to an optional right/through/left lane), and Gateway Boulevard and East Grand Avenue (re-stripe the existing northbound Gateway Boulevard shared through/right turn lane to a right turn lane and re-stripe the existing eastbound Grand Avenue approach to provide a separate right turn lane). Based upon direction from the South San Francisco Public Works Department, only Bayshore Hook Ramps intersection improvements and signalization were assumed in place at study intersections by 2006. Figure 11-6 presents year 2006 Base Case intersection geometrics and control, while Figure 11-7 presents year 2020 Base Case intersection geometrics and control. BASE CASE (WITHOUT PROJECT) TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The following discussion presents anticipated impacts on the local transportation system due to non-project Base Case growth in traffic expected in the site vicinity by the years 2006 and 2020. Year 2006 Base Case Traffic Conditions Traffic Volumes Approved Development Trip Generation South San Francisco Trip generation was estimated for approved industrial/office/R&D developments in the Project area (see Table 11-11). Information on approved developments was obtained from City of South San Francisco staff. In addition, traffic from a Home Depot store recently proposed along Dubuque Avenue just south of the Oyster Point interchange was also included in the analysis at the direction of City of South San Francisco staff (see Table 11-12). It should be noted that 2006 Base Case development did not include construction of the approved 665,000- square-foot office/10,000-square-foot retail development on the Terrabay Phase 3 site. However, trip generation projections were developed for remaining Terrabay Phase 2 residential development at that time of the new traffic counts: 12 townhouse units and 61 high-rise condo units (see Table 11-13). Traffic generation rates for approved office/R&D/hotel development are based on the analysis conducted for the Draft Supplemental Enuimnmental Impact Deport for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (Apri12001). Traffic counts were conducted at existing office, R&D and hotel uses in the East of 101 area. The resulting peak hour traffic generation rates were somewhat lower than the standard national averages reported in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation reference. In addition, all recently approved development in the East of 101 area is required to implement transportation demand management (TD1Vi) measures to reduce vehicle traffic. The analysis for the General Plan LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-30 ti„~ ~,~~~~~t N ® =Signal =Stop Sign =Free Right Turn ~~ ~ ~~ Sister Cities Blvd -'l~-~. z Lowes Project Site Caltrain Station ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ve ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ------------------ _ Figure 11-6 ~ Year 2006 C, CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP ~=~ Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control ~- ~~~~ This page intentionally lift blank. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-32 Terrabay Ph 3 Access Terrabay Ph 3 Access Terrabay Ph 3 Access ~~~~~ Sister Cities Blvd -> 1 Lowes Project Site Caltrain Station N,~~ ~<,s~A~t N ® =Signal =Stop Sign =Free Right Turn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ nd Ave ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Figure 11-7 -~\ ~'~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Year 2020 ~~-- ~ Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control Phis page intentionally left blank. LC1WE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-34 Table 11-11 TRIP GENERATION OF APPROVED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EAST OF 101 AREA EXPECTED TO BE BUILT AND OCCUPIED BY 2006 RESULTANT PEAK HOUR TRIPS PRO ECT SIZE AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR 1.333 Oyster Point Blvd. Office/R&D 315,444 SQ.FT. 445 426 (replacing light industrial) (-94,990 SQ.FT.) ~~46) ~52) Net 399 374 2. Britannia East Grand Office/R&D 783,530 SQ.FT. 1,207 1,201 Retail 8,000 SQ.FT. Child Caxe 8,000 SQ.FT. Fitness Center 5,000 SQ.FT. (replacing light industrial) (-354,880 SQ.FI), - 170 - 191 Net 1,037 1,010 3. Genentech Building 5 33 R&D and 37 ara e 125,000 S .FT. 61 131 4. Genentech Building 31 Office/R&D 150,972 SQ.FT. 234 225 5.180 Oyster Point Office 105,000 S .FT. 100 90 6. 200 Oyster Point Office 155,000 SQ.FT. 147 133 7.345 East Grand R&D 210,560 SQ.FT. 124 115 (replacing warehouse uses) (T31) (_ 45) Net 93 Net 70 8. 285 East Grand Ave./ 349 Allerton Ave. 122 111 Office/R&D (replacing existing site uses) - 38 - 28 Net 84 Net 83 Source: Crane Transportation Group LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-35 Table 11-12A HOME DEPOT TRIP GENERATION DAILY AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS 2-WAY TRIPS INBOUND OUTB OUND INBOUND OUTBOUND USE SIZE RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL Home De of 125,794 S .FT. 29.8 40 3750 .65 82 .55 69 1.15 145 1.30 164 + 25% Safe Factor 940 21 17 36 41 TOTAL 4690 103 86 181 205 Trip Kate Source: Trip Generation, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group Table 11-12B HOME DEPOT SITE NET CHANGE IN NEAR TERM HORIZON TRIP GENERATION-HOME DEPOT MINUS EXISTING SITE USE (LEVITZ FURNITURE) AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK H OUR TRIPS USE INBOUND OUTBOUND INBOUND OUTBOUND Home De of 103 86 181 205 Existin Site Use -4 -2 -20 -19 Net Change in Site Trip Generation 99 84 161 186 Source: Crane Transportation Group Table 11-12C HOME DEPOT SITE NET CHANGE IN YEAR 2020 TRIP GENERATION-HOME DEPOT MINUS OFFICE/R&D USES AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK H OUR TRIPS USE INBOUND OUTBOUND INBOUND OUTBOUND Home De of 103 86 181 205 Office/R&D -173 -32 -46 -161 Net Change in Site Trip Generation (-70) +54 +135 +44 Source: Crane Transportation Group LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-36 Table 11-13 TRIP GENERATION TERRABAY PHASE 2-REMAINING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (AS OF FEBRUARY 2005) AM PEAK H OUR TRIPS PM PEAK H OUR TRIPS INBOUND OUTBOUND INBO UND OUTBOUND SE # UNITS RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL ~wnhomes 12 .07 1 .37 4 .35 4 .17 2 ~ndominiums 61 .07 4 .37 23 .35 22 .17 10 ~TAL 5 27 26 12 Trip Bate Source: Trip Generation 7th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 1 1-37 CHAPTER 1 1 : TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Amendment assumes that a moderate TDM program will reduce peak hour traffic generation by an additiona19.5 percent compared to existing traffic generation rates. Brisbane Traffic generated by development expected to be completed in Brisbane by the year 2006 was projected using a two percent per year growth rate in traffic accessing South San Francisco via Bayshore Boulevard. Regional Traffic Growth on U.S.101 Freeway North and southbound AM and PM peak hour traffic on the U.S.101 freeway not associated with any on- or off-ramp in South San Francisco was projected to grow at a straight line rate of one percent per year from 2005 to 2006. Approved/Proposed Development Trip Distribution The estimated distribution of approved office/R&D/hotel development traffic was based upon employee surveys conducted for the East of 101 Area Plan Environmental Impact Report (Brady and Associates and Barton Aschman Associates, January 1994). The inbound and outbound traffic generation from each development was distributed according to the percentages shown in Table 11-14. New Terrabay Phase 2 residential trip distribution was based upon surveyed AM and PM peak hour trip distribution patterns at both entrances to the existing Terrabay Phase 1 + 2 development. Resultant AM and PM peak hour year 2006 Base Case volumes are presented in Figures 11-8 and 11-9. Year 2006 Base Case Intersection Level of Service Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that by 2006 all analyzed intersections would be expected to operate acceptably during the AM and PM peak traffic hours, with one exception. The Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 northbound on-ramp intersection would be operating at LOS E conditions during the PM peak traffic hour. Year 2006 Base Case Freeway Operation Table 11-3 shows that during the AM peak traffic hour, traffic on all analyzed freeway segments would be operating at minimum acceptable levels of service (LOS D or E), with the exception of southbound flow north of the Oyster Point interchange, where operation would be LOS F. Table 11-4 shows that during the PM peak traffic hour, traffic on all analyzed freeway segments would be operating at minimum acceptable levels of service (LOS D or E). Year 2006 Base Case Freeway Ramp Operation Table 11-5 shows that AM and PM peak hour volumes on all five analyzed freeway ramps at the Oyster Point interchange would be under capacity in the year 2006. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 1 1-38 NOT TO SCALE N Sister I I 105 375 743 ~l~ 220 ,' 211 -- 70 ~, • • ~ --• ~ 50 ~ r 570 a Gra 71 ~ 1110 Caltrain Station '~, 21 79 1 14 4 ,~ 5 t ~' 101 2 74 10 '~ 1 1 ~- ~9 ~, 102 81 2 ~ '~. 0 1 4~ ro ~ ~ t~' 114 1 80 1 '~ 0 1 ~- ~ 1 t ~' 115 0 ~~ ~ • ~ '~ 14 ~ ~ 71 10 Q' ~ 10 ~ 1 ~3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o t ~ ~ ~ 101 20 ~ I Figure 11-8 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Year 2006 Base Case (W/O Project) AM Peak Hour Volumes Lowes ~' Project Site This page intentionally left blank. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-40 I I I I Sister I I I I I 435 350 ~ 30 l b ~ 492 281 i 186 350 391I5 182 ~ 847 i ~- ,` 212 's Blvd 85 ~ ~ t (~ 378 -- 130180 ~ 60 ~ a m 7222 l 275 ~~ 6945 l 8506 1. 1 9731 1 8060 'L 1300 ~- 773 _ Oyster Point Blvd '~ 1272 255 1 ~ 2332 11 9 6~. 1452 147 5 '~ 0 .J j~ ~ 5 ,ro 561 ,' 0 -- 104 211 0 77 '~, 1 8698 0 Lowes Project Site NOT TO SCALE N 33 t 101 34 1~• - ~ 6 1 130 ~ 101 6 '~ 11 ~, 4 ~ 18 9 ~, ~ 23 13 113 6 ~ '~ 6 1 ~ ' r 30 ~ ~ t~' 156 2 110 g '~ 4 ~, 1, ~ 5 1 154 11 Caltrain ~' ~ ~ ~. Station L 291 187 430 231 ~-- 335 8671 ~ ~ ~- r 680 198 .~, ~ranaHVe 96 -- 75 46 21 0 145 ~, ~ ~ il., 93 ~ '~ 23 ~ ~ 1890 ~ ~ ~ 87\ vI Grand Ave ~ 9$ 4 j '` 14 ; ~r ~ 1 61 ~ _ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ 386 ~ 142 12 ~ I~ Figure 11-9 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Year 2006 Base Case (W/O Project) PM Peak Hour Volumes This page intentionally left blank. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 1 1-42 Table 11-14 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION OFFICE/RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT SOUTH SAN DIRECTION FRANCISCO DEVELOPMENT Year 2005 US 101 North/San Francisco 29 US 101 South 48 South San Francisco (central area) 3 Daly City/Colma via Sister Cities Blvd. g Daly City/Colma via Guadalupe Parkway 0 Brisbane ~ Airport area via South Airport Blvd. 3 Local east of US 101 2 TOTAL 100% Year 2020+ US 101 North/San Francisco 29 US 101 South 48 South San Francisco (central area) 2 Daly City/Colma via Sister Cities Blvd. 1 Daly City/Colma via Guadalupe Parkway p Daly City/Colma and South San Francisco (central area) g via Railroad Avenue Extension Brisbane ~ Airport area via South Airport Blvd. 2 San Bruno/south via San Mateo Avenue 1 Local east of US 101 2 TOTAL 100% Source: City of South San Francisco, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, Apri12001. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-43 CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Year 2006 Base Case Vehicle Queuing: 50`'' Percentile Queue Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that year 2006 Base Case volumes would be producing 50th percentile vehicle queues longer than available storage during the AM and PM peak hours on select approaches of both the Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersections. AM PEAK HOUR • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection The northbound right turn approach lanes would have storage demands about 3 car lengths greater than available storage. PM PEAK HOUR • Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard Airport Boulevard Intersection The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would have a demand (per lane) about 4 car lengths longer than available storage. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection The northbound left turn lane would have storage demand about 4 car lengths greater than available storage. Year 2006 Base Case Vehicle Queuing: 95`'' Percentile Queue Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that year 2006 Base Case volumes would be producing 95th percentile vehicle queues longer than available storage during the AM and/or PM peak hours on select approaches of both the Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersections. AM PEAK HOUR • Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound approach left turn would have a demand 2 car lengths longer than available storage. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach right turn lanes would have storage demands (per lane) 10 car lengths greater than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane would have a storage demand 1 car length greater LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-44 CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION than available storage. In addition, the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach through lanes would have a storage demand (per lane) 3 car lengths greater than available storage. PM PEAK HOUR • Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would have a storage demand (per lane) 5 car lengths greater than available storage. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound approach left turn lane would have a demand 2 car lengths greater than available storage. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane would have a storage demand 11 car lengths greater than available storage, while the northbound through/left turn lane would have a storage demand 7 car lengths greater than available storage. Year 2020 Base Case Traffic Conditions Traffic Volumes The year 2020 Base Case (without project) conditions include traffic generated by approved development in the study area, traffic generated by projects which are completed or under construction and not yet fully occupied, traffic generated by proposed projects, and traffic generated by potential development of vacant or under-utilized land in the study area. Appendix B Tables 3 and 4 present new development in South San Francisco and Brisbane expected by 2020. Evaluation of year 2020 + conditions is based upon traffic projections from the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Keport (DSEIR) for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001, with project description and improvement updates based upon a series of EIRs and traffic studies conducted over the past four years (see References). The proposed project in the 2001 DSEIR consists of a General Plan Amendment and a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance, and it includes a set of physical street improvements as well as policies requiring TDM measures and traffic reduction at employment sites. The program of street improvements and TDM measures is referred to throughout this EIR chapter as the East of 101 Transportation Improvements Plan (IIP). Preliminary year 2020 Base Case volumes were obtained using AM and PM peak hour projections from the City's East of 101 traffic model developed as part of the year 2001 Transportation Demand Management DSEIR. Year 2020 projections developed in 2001 were then adjusted to reflect the most recent changes in specific development proposals. Specific projects include: LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-45 CHAPTER 1 1 : TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 333 Oyster Point Boulevard (South San Francisco) Home Depot store along Dubuque Avenue replacing office/R&D use (South San Francisco) • Baylands Phases I and II (Brisbane) A traffic study was prepared for the City of Brisbane in 2004 evaluating the circulation impacts of a revised plan for the Baylands Phase I and II developments. It was determined that South San Francisco's East of 101 model had included a land use scenario for the entire Baylands project somewhat more intense than the current Phase I proposal, but somewhat less than the current Phase I + potential Phase II plan. Since Brisbane Planning staff indicated that all of Phase I would likely be built and occupied by 2020, but that it was unknown how much, if any, of Phase II would be constructed by that horizon, South San Francisco staff concluded that the Baylands development proposal within the East of 101 model presented a conservative estimate of the likely development potential of this property by 2020. Because the Brisbane model is three years more current than the East of 101 model, Brisbane year 2020 (with Baylands Phase I and II development) projections for Bayshore Boulevard near the Brisbane/South San Francisco border were used as guidance to adjust future projections along Bayshore Boulevard. Year 2020 Base Case traffic projections also include development of the proposed retail/movie theater, office and residential development on the Terrabay Phase III site. Resultant AM and PM peak hour year 2020 Base Case volumes are presented in Figures 11-10 and 11-11. Year 2020 Base Case Intersection Level of Service Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that by 2020 all analyzed intersections would be expected to operate acceptably during the AM and PM peak traffic hours, with three exceptions. AM PEAK HOUR • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp: LOS F operation PM PEAK HOUR Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard: LOS F operation • Bayshore Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Mandalay Terrace: LOS F operation • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp: LOS F operation LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 1 1-46 CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Year 2020 Base Case Freeway Ramp Operation Tables 11-5 and 11-6 show that AM and PM peak hour volumes on all five analyzed freeway ramps at the Oyster Point interchange would be well under capacity in the year 2020 with three exceptions. During the AM peak hour volumes on the northbound off-ramp to Dubuque Avenue would be above theoretical capacity limits, while during the PM peak hour volumes on the northbound on-ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard and on the southbound on-ramp from Dubuque Avenue would also be above theoretical capacity limits. Year 2020 Base Case Vehicle Queuing: 50``' Percentile Queue Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that year 2020 Base Case volumes would be producing 50th percentile vehicle queues longer than available storage during the AM and/or PM peak hours on select approaches of the Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp and the Bayshore Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay North Access intersections. AM PEAK HOUR • Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard Airport Boulevard Intersection The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would have a storage demand about 7 car lengths longer than the available turn lane's storage. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection The northbound left and right turn approach lanes would both have storage demands greater than available storage distance (1 car length longer for the left turn lane; about 12 car lengths longer (per lane) than available storage for the right turn lanes). The eastbound through lanes would have storage demand (per lane) about 6 car lengths longer than the available storage. PM PEAK HOUR • Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard Airport Boulevard Intersection The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would have a demand about 14 car lengths longer than the available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would have a storage demand (per lane) about 15 car lengths greater than the available storage distance. The westbound approach left turn lane would also have a storage demand about 3 car lengths greater than the available storage. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-47 CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach right turn lane would have a demand about 14 car lengths greater than the available storage. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left and combined left/through lanes would have storage demands about 14 to 17 car lengths greater than the available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach left turn lanes would have a storage demand about 2 car lengths greater than the available storage. • Bayshore Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay North Access The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach left turn lane would have a storage demand 1 car length greater than available storage. Year 2020 Base Case Vehicle Queuing: 95`'' Percentile Queue Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that year 2020 Base Case volumes would be producing 95th percentile vehicle queues longer than available storage during the AM and/or PM peak hours on the intersection approaches presented below. AM PEAK HOUR • Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand 14 car lengths longer than available storage. The Bayshore Boulevard southbound left turn lane would have a demand one car length longer than available storage. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound through lanes would have a demand (per lane) 10 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a demand 7 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound through/left turn lane would have a demand 3 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound right turn lanes would have a demand (per lane) 17 car lengths longer than available storage. • Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp/Southbound On-Ramp Intersection The Dubuque Avenue southbound through lane would have a demand 5 car lengths longer than available storage. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 1 1-48 CHAPTER 1 1 : TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION PM PEAK HOUR • Bayshore Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay North Access Intersection The Bayshore Boulevard southbound left turn lane would have a demand 9 car lengths longer than available storage. The off-ramp left turn lanes would have a demand (per lane) 3 car lengths longer than available storage. The Bayshore Boulevard northbound through lanes would have a demand (per lane) 1 car length longer than available storage. • Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand 16 car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound left turn lane would have a demand 3 car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound through lanes would have a demand (per lane) 12 car lengths longer than available storage. The Bayshore Boulevard southbound right turn lane would have a demand 19 car lengths longer than available storage. The Bayshore Boulevard southbound left turn lanes would have a demand (per lane) 1 car length longer than available storage. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound left turn lanes would have a demand 17 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a demand 26 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound through/left turn lane would have a demand of 23 car lengths longer than available storage. • Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp/Southbound On-Ramp Intersection The Dubuque Avenue southbound right turn lanes would have a demand (per lane) 4 car lengths longer than available storage. L_OWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-49 This page intentionally left blank. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-50 I 36 794 398 .~ 1 ~. Ten'abay Ph 3 Access 17 51 ~ 14 ~, 39 1326 I Ten'abay Ph 3 Access 22 ,' 61 'i 10 1377 I Terrabay ~= Ph 3 Access 77 ~. I 229 446 779 •~ 1 ~• Sister Cities Blvd 60 ~ I 322 ~' 1448 -- I 100 ,, 160 4151615 ~l~ 530 ,' 414 --- 90 '~, '~ ~n Lowes Project $Ite Caltrain - - ~. station ss ~ r 905 aI R Grand Ave 104 ~ 2153 NOT TO SCALE N 'L 10 416 56 l 4 ~ 1 *I 163 9 362 55 '~ 10 1 ~• ~ 2 x, 16210 309 55 ~ L 9 1 ~= 3 r2 ~ 1 163 10 271 40 '~ 8 1 ~- r 2 t ~' ----- 165 8 ------------ -. t zs ' ~ 117 156 ¢ ' ~ ~ ~ j f 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 145 28 ' Figure 11-10 I Year 2020 Base Case (W/O Project) CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP AM Peak Hour Volumes This page intentionally left blank. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-52 I 5g 529 440 Ten'abay~ 1 44 Ph 3 Access 59 ~' 228 --- 112 '~, 49 1485 I Terrabay Ph 3 Access 83 232 ~ I 23 1694 Ten-abay Ph 3 Access 275 I 924 576 469 ~l~ Sister Cities Blvd 90 ~ I 269 ~' 528 -- I 65 -i, 560 505 522 •~ 1 ~• 455 ~' 115 --- 100 ~, RF Lowes ~' Project Site Caltrain ~~ Station ~ 103 4 r 2400 ~I Grand Ave 52 ~ 680 NOT TO SCALE N '~ 50 172 15 1 4 ~$ 0 7 165 15 '~ 50 1 4 ~8 ~, ~ 359 158 15 ~ 't_ 50 1 4= r~ 9 ~ 311 3 158 g '~ 40 1 ~- r 9 t ~' 284 3 ~ ~ ~ 't.. 130 ~ ~ 127 40 Q' '` 25 ~ 1 4; ~ ~ ~ 0 1 (~ ~ ~ 147 8 ~ Figure 11-11 I Year 2020 Base Case (W/O Project) CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP pM Peak Hour Volumes t This page intentionally left blank. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-54 CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 11.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR PROJECT IMPACTS Project impacts would be significant if they result in any of the following conditions: • The Project would exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the local roadway system. This is the trip generation threshold utilized by the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County to determine when their Congestion Management Program policies and guidelines must be followed for new projects. • Signalized intersection operation would change from LOS A, B, C or D to LOS E or F and volumes would be increased by at least 2 percent. • Movements or approaches at unsignalized intersections would change from LOS A, B, C, D or E to LOS F and volumes would be increased by at least 2 percent. • Project traffic would increase Base Case volumes at an unsignalized intersection to meet peak hour signal warrant criteria levels. • The proposed Project would increase traffic entering an intersection by two percent or more with a signalized or all-way stop operation akeady at a Base Case LOS E or F, or when the intersection is side street stop sign controlled and already operating at LOS F. • The proposed Project would increase traffic entering an unsignalized intersection by two percent or more with Base Case traffic levels already exceeding signal warrant criteria levels. • The proposed Project would increase acceptable Base Case 50th percentile vehicle queuing between intersections to unacceptable levels, or if Base Case 50th percentile queuing between intersections was already at unacceptable lengths, the Project would increase queuing volumes by two percent or more (City of South San Francisco criteria). • The proposed Project would increase acceptable Base Case 95th percentile vehicle queuing between intersections to unacceptable levels, or if Base Case 95th percentile queuing between intersections was akeady at unacceptable lengths, the Project would increase queuing volumes by two percent or more (Caltrans criteria). • Project traffic would degrade operation of the U.S.101 freeway or a freeway ramp from LOS E to LOS F with at least a 1 percent increase in volume, or would increase volumes by more than one percent on a freeway segment or a freeway ramp with Base Case LOS F operation. • The Project worsens traffic, pedestrian or bicycle safety. LC1WE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-55 CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION • If on-site circulation would be confusing to drivers and result in excessive traffic flow through various parts of the Project site. • If, in the opinion of the registered traffic engineer conducting the EIR analysis, a significant safety concern would be created. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Lowe's trip generation was developed using trip rates for "Home Improvement Superstores" contained in the traffic engineering profession's standard source of trip rate data, Trip Generation 7th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. In consultation with City staff, average trip rates were then increased by 25 percent in order to provide a safety factor for impact analysis. In addition, specialty retail uses were projected for the northern half of the building owned by West Marine that will remain on the Project site. Traffic from this use was also increased 25 percent above average. The West Marine existing traffic levels were projected to continue into the future. Table 11-15A presents gross trip rates that would be expected due to the Lowe's store and activity from the West Marine building. The net increase in traffic from the Project site for the near term horizon was then determined by subtracting the level of trip generation associated with existing site uses from that of the proposed development. As shown in Table 11-15B, the net increase in traffic from the Project site, with the proposed development replacing most existing site uses would be expected to be about 90 net new inbound and 70 net new outbound trips during the AM peak traffic hour, with about 135 net new inbound and 185 net new outbound trips during the PM peak traffic hour. For the year 2020 long term horizon, the Project site has been Projected in the East of 101 traffic model to contain high-rise office or research and development activities. These uses, assumed in place for the 2020 Base Case analysis, would have a higher level of trip generation than existing site activities. As shown in Table 11-15C, the net increase in traffic from the project site with Lowe's/West Marine replacing office/R&D uses would be expected to be about 115 net fewer inbound and 65 net more outbound trips during the AM peak traffic hour, with about 180 net more inbound and 45 net more outbound trips during the PM peak traffic hour. PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Distribution patterns of existing site traffic were based upon July 2005 AM and PM peak period turn movement counts at project driveways, while distribution patterns of office/R&D traffic projected to be generated by the project site by 2020 were obtained from the City's East of 101 traffic model. Distribution patterns for Lowe's/West Marine traffic were developed by Crane Transportation Group in consultation with City staff based upon the projected service area of the store (San Francisco/Brisbane to the north, the U.S.101 corridor to Burlingame to the south and South San Francisco on the east and west), knowledge of existing nearby Lowe's operations (San Bruno) and attractive access routes based upon roadway/freeway congestion during commute periods. C-verall, Lowe's/West Marine traffic was projected to distribute in the following patterns: LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-56 CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION LOWE'S TRIP DISTRIBUTION AM PEA K HOUR PM PEAK HOUR IN OUT IN OUT U.S.101 Freeway & Ba shore Blvd. North 30% 30% 27% 31% U.S.101 Freeway South 20% 20% 21% 23% West of U.S.101 Freeway Sister Cities/Grand Avenue 40% 40% 39% 42% East of U.S.101 Freeway 10% 10% 13% 4% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% Resultant weekday year 2006 Base Case + Lowe's AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Figures 11-12 and 11-13, respectively, while year 2020 Base Case + Lowe's AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Figures 11-14 and 11-15, respectively. BASE CASE + PROJECT INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS AND CONTROL Figure 11-6 presents year 2006 Base Case and Base Case + Project intersection geometrics and control, while Figure 11-7 presents year 2020 Base Case and Base Case + Project intersection geometrics and control. As shown, Base Case + Project intersection geometrics and control axe projected to remain the same as Base Case conditions for both horizon years, including the four project access driveways. The Project is not proposing turn lanes on the Dubuque Avenue approaches to any of the four Project driveways. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-57 Table 11-15A LOWE'S SITE TRIP GENERATION DAILY AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS 2-WAY TRIPS INBOUND OUTBOUND INBOUND OUTBOUND USE SIZE RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL Lowe's 148,749 SQ.FT. 29.8 4434 .65 97 .55 82 1.15 171 1.30 193 West Marine Bldg.-North Area 6,590 SQ.FT. 44.3 292 .72 5 .48 3 1.8 12 1.8 12 Subtotal 4726 102 85 183 205 + 25% Safety Factor 1182 26 21 46 51 + Existing West Marine Store o Chan e - NA* 2 0 14 12 GRAND TOTAL 5908** 130 106 243 268 * NA =Not surveyed fox daily trip generation. ** Does not include existing West Marine store. Trip Kate Source: Lowe s: Trip Generation, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003; Specialty retail.• Traffic Generators, San Diego Association of Governments, 2002; Existing West Marine Sto~z, Crane Transportation Group, June 2005. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group Table 11-15B LOWE'S SITE NET CHANGE IN TRIP GENERATION LOWE'S & WEST MARINE BUILDING MINUS EXISTING SITE USES AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS USE INBOUND OUTBOUND INBOUND OUTBOUND Lowe's and West Marine Bld . 130 106 243 268 Existin Site Uses includin West Marine Bld . - 42 - 37 - 108 - 86 Net Chan e in Site Tri Generation +88 +69 +135 +182 Source: Crane Transportation Group Table 11-15C LOWE'S SITE NET CHANGE IN YEAR 2020 TRIP GENERATION-LOWE'S & WEST MARINE MINUS OFFICE/R&D AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS USE INBOUND OUTBOUND INBOUND OUTBOUND Lowe's and West Marine Bld . 130 106 243 268 Office/R&D -243 -44 -64 -224 Net Chan e in Site Tri Generation -113 +62 +179 +44 Source: Crane Transportation Group LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-58 i I Sister I I I I I I I 155 340 352 ~l~ 's Blvd 120 ~' 1122 -- 135 105 375 748 •~ 1 ~• 220 ~' 214 ~ 70 '~, L 305 ~- 110 ~ 290 ~~ 5 55 1078 0 ~. --' -!., 55 3 r 570 a Gr 81 ~ 1110 Lowes Project $Ite Caltrain N OAT/TAO/S\\C\A L E N 146 20 't_ 5 ,`' 2 1 ~ t ~' 174 5 88 60 '~ 56 1 ~• r7 ~ 123 3 7' + Q ~ 4~ ~ '~ 17 ,i' 15 ~ ~ 1 (~ 119 10 90 2 '~ 1 ~, 4 r 3 * I 128 2 Station ~ -~ t.. ~ ~ 83 10 Q' 14 ~ 4 ~ r 10 ~ ~ i ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ 116 20 ~ Figure 11-12 I CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Year 2006 Base Case + Project AM Peak Hour Volumes This page intentionally left blank. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-60 I 456 350 7238 c t- 30 ~, t 1 4 ~ 508 ~ I 2 4 275 I m 0 ~ I m 6945 i 189 1 I 350 39 5 219 1 1 ~- F 903 ~ 220 Sister Cities Blvd 85 ,' ~ 1 (~ 403 -~ 130180 273 ~ 60 ~ m 8544 1. 1 9768 1 8060 '~ 1302 ~-- 776 Oyster Point Blvd '` 1272 255 9 6 ~ 240 --- 400 17 35 151 y 1448 219 5 '~ 0 .J j ~. ~ 5 j- o 555 .1' 0 --- 146 316 0 129 1 8744 Lowes Project Site NOT TO SCALE N 244 20 't- 20 l 4 ,` 5 295 5 146 103 't_ 111 ~, 4 ~ 15 9 ~, 1 189 111 50 ~ '~ 60 j 4 ~ ~ ~ 37 ~ 1 144 27 140 g '~ 10 ~, 4 ,` 10 161 5 ,~ ' - `~ Caltrain 187 430 237 .~ 1 ~ 19 99 -~ 145 ~, L 296 ~- 345 688 686 ran ve 75 4 5 2 ~ _ _ _ , Station • ~ -~ ~ ~ R., 93 ~ ~ L 23 27 r 1895 ~ 133 17 ~ ,` 14 ~ 120 ~ ? Grand Ave ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 72 ~ ~ ~ 153 12 ~ ; 386 ~•------------ ----~ Figure 11-13 I CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Year 2006 Base Case + Project PM Peak Hour Volumes This page intentionally left blank. LC1WE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-62 I 36 787 398 ~ .~ 1 ~. Terrabay Ph 3 Access 1~ 51 --- 14 ~. 39 12,l63 I Terrabay Ph 3 Access 22 ,' 61 ~ I 10 13114 Terrabay ~= Ph 3 Access 77 I 229 446 716 ~l~ I Sister Cities BIv~= 60 ~ 322 ,' 1473 -~ I 100 ~, 160 4151621 •~ 1 ~• 530 ~' 404 -~ 90 ~, ~ ~n Caltrain NOT TO SCALE N 346 1 20 ~' ~ 2 ~ t 210 5 288 60 '~ 56 1 ~• r7 t ~' ~, 159 13 277 1 g ~ '~ 17 1 4 ~ ,i- 15 O 155 10 290 2 '~ 1 ~, 4 ~ 3 * I ~ - --- 164 2 ----------- Station - -~ ~ ~ 'L 28 ~ 137 156 ? r 5 ~ o ~ 1 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 (~ ~ ~ ~ 138 28 ~ Figure 11-14 I Year 2020 Base Case + Project CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP AM Peak Hour Volumes Lowes Project $Ite This page intentionally left blank. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 1 1-64 I 5g 546 440 Terrabay~ ~ 4 Ph 3 Access 59 228 --- 112 -i 49 1510 I Terrabay ..~ Ph 3 Access 83 232 ~ 23 1719 I Terrabay Ph 3 Access 275 'i I 924 576 494 •~ 1 ~- I Sister Cities BIv=~ 90 ~ 269 ~ 561 --- I 65 ~ 560 505 541 .~ 1 ~ 455 -1' 130 -- 100 t ~~ Lowes Project Site Caltrain NOT TO SCALE N 299 20 L 20 l ~ ~5 1 448 5 201 103 L 111 ~, 4 r 15 * I ~, 342 15 166 50 ~ ~ 60 j 4 ~ ,` 37 ~ 1 ~ 297 27 195 8 't_ 10 1 4 ,~ 10 1 ~ 314 15 Station ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ 130 ~ ~ ~ 165 40 ¢ a~ ~ 20 ~ 1 4= , 3 ~ t ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 199 8 ~ I CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Figure 11-15 Year 2020 Base Case + Project PM Peak Hour Volumes This page intentionally left blank. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 1 1-66 CHAPTER 1 1 : TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS YEAR 2006 Impact 11-1 Project Trip Generation Will Exceed 100 Trips During the AM and PM Peak Hours The proposed Project would generate more than 100 net new trips than existing site uses during the AM and PM peak hours (± 160 more trips during the AM peak hour and ±320 more trips during the PM peak hour than existing site uses). This requires that the proposed Project follow C/CAG policies and guidelines to mitigate the impact of the net new trips. The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for the implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program ("C/CAG Guidelines") specifies that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants will mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 11-1 The Project sponsors shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program consistent with the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable to C/CAG. These programs, once implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life of the development. The C/CAG guidelines specify the number of trips that may be credited for each TDM measure. Appendix B Table 5 outlines TDM programs that can generate trip credits to offset the ± 160 net new AM peak hour trips and ±320 net new PM peak hour trips generated by the Project. Since the majority of vehicles associated with Lowe's will be retail customers and not employees (and not influenced by typical TDM measures), the Project applicant and C/CAG will need to meet and develop a program agreeable to both parties. Implementation of a TDM plan will reduce the Project's impact to a Zess-than-significant level. Impact 11-2 Year 2006 Intersection Level Of Service Impacts Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that all but one analyzed intersection would maintain acceptable operation during AM and PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project. At the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection, PM peak hour Project traffic would degrade operation from LOS E to LOS F and increase volumes by more than two percent (3.5%). This would be a significant impact. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-67 CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Mitigation Measure 11-2 There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by city of South San Francisco staff to improve operation to Base Case Conditions or better. The impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 11-3 Year 2006 Freeway Mainline Impacts Tables 11-3 and 11-4 show that the proposed Project would not result in any U.S.101 freeway segment changing AM or PM Peak hour Base Case operation to an unacceptable LOS F, with one exception. During the PM peak hour, northbound U.S.101 north of the Oyster Point interchange would have Base Case LOSE operation changed to LOS F operation with the addition of traffic from Lowe's (±40 vehicles). However, this increment would be less than a one percent increase in northbound traffic (a 0.4 percent increase) and would be a less-than- significant impact. For those freeway segments projected to have Base Case LOS F operation, the proposed Project would result in aless-than-significant increase in traffic. AM PEAK HOUR Southbound U.S.101 (north of the Oyster Point interchange): The Project would result in Base Case freeway volumes being increased by 0.1%. This would be aless-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 11-3 No mitigation required. Impact 11-4 Year 2006 Freeway Ramps Impacts Table 11-5 shows that the proposed Project would not result in any freeway ramp having AM or PM peak hour Base Case volumes increased above capacity limits. This would be aless-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 11-4 No mitigation required. LC1WE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-68 CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Impact 11-5 Year 2006 Vehicle Queuing Impacts 50th Percentile Queue Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed Project would result in significant 50th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the PM peak traffic hour in 2006. All intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-7 and 11-8 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an increase in vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance criteria level. PM PEAK HOUR 1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. The Oyster Point westbound approach through lanes would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (6.6%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing. 2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (13.6%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing in the left turn lane. Acceptable Base Case queuing in the combined left/through lane would also be increased beyond the available storage with the addition of Project traffic. The Project would increase combined through/left turn movements by 16.7 percent. These would be significant impacts. Mitigation 11-5A: 50`'' Percentile Queue 1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Proposed restriping of the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach (as required of the Bay West Cove development) to provide one left turn lane, two through lanes and one right turn lane would reduce westbound through queuing demand to 195 feet, less than the available 255 feet of storage. This impact would be reduced to a less-than- significant level. 2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco staff to reduce queuing to Base Case conditions. The impact would remain significant and unavoidable. LC1WE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-69 CHAPTER 1 1 : TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 95th Percentile Queue Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed Project would result in significant 95th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2006. All intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-9 and 11-10 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance criteria level. AM PEAK HOUR 1) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (9.6%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing. PM PEAK HOUR 2) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. The Oyster Point westbound approach through lanes would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (5%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Also, acceptable Base Case queuing in the westbound approach left turn lane would be increased beyond the available storage (by 1 car length) with the addition of Project traffic. 3) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and through/left turn lanes would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (19.5%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing in both lanes. These would be significant impacts. Mitigation 11-5B: 95`'' Percentile Queue 1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Proposed restriping of the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach (as required of the Bay West Cove development) to provide one left turn lane, two through lanes and one right turn lane would reduce westbound through queuing demand to 225 feet, less than the available 255 feet of storage. In addition, the 95th percentile queuing in the westbound left turn lane would be reduced to 80 feet, within the planned available storage length. This impact would be reduced to a Zess-than-signifZCant level. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-70 CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco staff to reduce queuing to Base Case conditions. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. YEAR 2020 Impact 11-6 Year 2020 Intersection Level Of Service Impacts Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that all but three analyzed intersections would maintain acceptable operation during AM or PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project. At the Bayshore/U.S.101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay access intersection, PM peak hour operation would remain LOS F, but volumes would increase by less than two percent (0.8%), resulting in a less-than-significant impact. At the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection, AM peak hour operation would remain LOS F, but volumes would increase less than two percent (0.2%). In addition, PM peak hour operation at this intersection would remain LOS F, but volumes would increase by less than two percent (1.5%), resulting in aless-than-significant impact. However, Project traffic would produce a significant impact during the PM peak hour at the Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. Operation would remain LOS F, but volumes would increase by more than two percent (2.4%). This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 11-6 Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard o Provide a fair share contribution to the same mitigations required of the Terrabay Phase 3 development. o Restripe the northbound Airport Boulevard approach to provide a second left turn lane. o Reconfigure the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach to provide two left turn lanes, an exclusive through lane and a shared through/right turn lane. Improvements to the eastbound approach should also provide adjustments to the north curb line of Sister Cities Boulevard, if needed, to allow safe U-turn movements. Resultant Operation PM Peak Hour LOS D-51.8 seconds vehicle delay The impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-71 CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Impact 11-7 Year 2020 Freeway Mainline Impacts Tables 11-3 and 11-4 show that the proposed Project would not result in any U.S.101 freeway segment near the Oyster Point interchange receiving a significant impact by 2006. No segment would receive more than five-tenths of one percent traffic increase due to the Project. Therefore, since background traffic on the U.S.101 freeway will increase from 2006 to 2020, and the percent project traffic contribution to overall volumes will decrease, no freeway segment will receive a significant impact due to Project traffic in 2020. This would be aless-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 11-7 No mitigation required. Impact 11-8 Year 2020 Freeway Ramps Impacts Table 11-6 shows that the proposed Project would not result in any freeway ramp having AM or PM peak hour Base Case volumes increased above capacity limits. For those freeway ramps projected to have Base Case LOS F operation, the proposed Lowe's/West Marine Project (in comparison to office/R&D uses projected for the site) would result in a net decrease in traffic. AM PEAK HOUR • U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue would have volumes decreased from about 2,095 down to about 2,010 vehicles per hour and operation would improve from an unacceptable LOS F to an acceptable LOS E. PM PEAK HOUR • U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard would have volumes decreased from about 3,000 down to about 2,965 vehicles per hour. Operation would remain LOS F. U.S.101 Southbound On-Ramp from Dubuque Avenue would have volumes decreased from about 2,165 down to about 2,115 vehicles per hour. Operation would remain LOS F. This would be aless-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 11-8 No mitigation required. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-72 CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Impact 11-9 Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts 50th Percentile Queue Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed Project would result in significant 50th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-7 and 11-8 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance criteria level. AM PEAK HOUR Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp • The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane would receive a ±5.8% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. PM PEAK HOUR Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. • The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would receive a ± 5.0% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. • The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would receive a ±3.7% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp • The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and combined through/left turn lanes would receive a ± 4.4% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. These would be significant impacts. Mitigation Measure 11-9A: 50`'' Percentile Queue Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard (same improvements as for level of service) • Provide a fair share contribution to the same mitigations required of the Terrabay Phase 3 development. • Provide two left turn lanes on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach. • Stripe a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard approach. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PACE 11-73 CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION These measures would not reduce unacceptable westbound through and left turn lane queuing to acceptable levels. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp • There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco staff to reduce project queuing impacts to Base Case conditions. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 95th Percentile Queue Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed Project would result in significant 95th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-9 and 11-10 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance criteria level. AM PEAK HOUR Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp • The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and combined through/left turn lanes would receive a 6.2% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. • The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach left turn lanes would receive an 8.8% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. In addition, the Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would have demand increased beyond the available storage with the addition of Project traffic. PM PEAK HOUR Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. • The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach left turn lane would receive a 5.3% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. • The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would receive a 5% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-74 CHAPTER 1 1 : TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION • The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would receive a 3.7% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp • The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and combined through/left turn lanes would receive a 4.4% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queung. These would be significant impacts. Mitigation Measure 11-9B: 95`~ Percentile Queue Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard (same improvements as for level of service) • Reconfigure the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach to provide two left turn lanes, an exclusive through lane and a combined through/right turn lane. • Stripe a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard approach. These measures would not reduce unacceptable westbound through and left turn lane queuing to acceptable levels. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco staff to reduce Project queuing impacts to Base Case conditions. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-75 CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Impact 11-10 Project Access Impacts The proposed Project would have four driveway connections to Dubuque Avenue. Driveways would be in the same locations as driveways now serving existing site uses. For identification purposes, they have been labeled #1 to 4 starting with the north driveway. No left or right turn deceleration lanes are proposed on the approaches to any driveway. Speeds along Dubuque Avenue adjacent to the Project site range from 35 to 45 miles per hour. Driveway #1, near the north end of the site, would be 48 feet wide and would serve truck deliveries as well as an employee parking area in the back of the Lowe's store. This wide entrance would facilitate truck turn movements to/from Dubuque Avenue. It would be channelized about 25 feet internal to the site and would lead to a large open area that would accommodate truck turning maneuvers to/from the Lowe's unloading dock. Driveway #2 would provide access to an east-west parking aisle running directly in front of Lowe's entrance. It would be 36 feet wide (with one inbound and one outbound lane) and would be channelized about 40 feet internal to the parking lot on the south side of the entrance lane and about 25 feet on the north side of the exit lane. Driveway #3 would be located just north of the existing West Marine Building and would provide access to an east-west parking aisle serving the north-south rows of parking in front of the Lowe's store. It would be 25 feet wide (with one inbound and one outbound lane) and would be channelized about 30 feet internal to the parking lot on the south side of the entrance lane and about 80 feet on the north side of the exit lane. Ninety-degree parking associated with the West Marine Building would begin on the south side of the entry lane 30 feet internal to the site. Driveway #4 would be adjacent to the south Project boundary and just south of the West Marine building. It would be about 36 feet wide (with one inbound and one outbound lane) and would be channelized adjacent to both the entry and exit lanes about 65 feet internal to the site. It would lead to an east-west parking aisle that would serve the West Marine building as well as rows of north-south parking serving Lowe's. The south edge of Driveway #4 would be located about 15 to 20 feet north of the north edge of the driveway serving the Caltrain station. Turn Lane Warrants No Project driveway would have northbound Dubuque Avenue right turn entering volumes meeting warrant criteria levels for provision of right turn deceleration lanes in either 2006 or 2020. In addition, none of Lowe's four driveways would have volumes warranting provision of southbound left turn lanes in 2006. However, by 2020, PM peak hour volumes at driveway #2 (serving the front of Lowe's store) would be exceeding warrant criteria' levels for provision of a southbound left turn lane. In addition, year 2020 PM peak volumes would also be approaching warrant criteria levels for provision of left turn lanes at driveways #1 and 3. ~ Intersection Channeli~ation Design Guide, Transportation Research Board Report 279, November 1985-see Appendix B Table 6. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-76 CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This would be a significant impact. Sight Lines at Project Driveway Connections to Dubuque Avenue Vehicle speeds along Dubuque Avenue adjacent to the Project site range from 35 to 45 miles per hour. Minimum stopping sight distances for travel speeds of 40 and 45 miles per hour are 305 and 360 feet, respectively, based upon guidelines in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Street, 2004.2 Dubuque Avenue has a straight alignment between driveways #2 and 4 and a very gradual curve between driveways #1 and 2. This gradual curve will require that direct line of site between drivers on Dubuque Avenue and vehicles exiting the Project site at either driveway #1 or 2 extend through landscaping along the site frontage. This presents the possibility that landscaping may interfere with required sight lines. This would be a significant impact. Relationship of Caltrain Station Driveway to Lowe's Southerly Driveway The Project's southerly driveway (#4) connection to Dubuque Avenue will be located less than 20 feet north of the driveway serving the South San Francisco Caltrain station. While the existing moderate to low turn movements to/from the Caltrain station driveway in combination with the low projected turn movements to/from Lowe's southerly driveway would result in only a moderate near term safety concern, should the Caltrain property redevelop with a high intensity use, safety concerns would increase significantly This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 11-10 Left Turn Lanes • Revise the Project site plan in the vicinity of driveway #2 in order to widen Dubuque Avenue sufficiently to provide a southbound left turn lane at least 250 feet long. In addition, it is strongly recommended that Dubuque Avenue be widened to provide a continuous turn lane along the entire site frontage. Sight Lines Provide low height landscaping along the site's entire Dubuque Avenue frontage that will allow permanent sight lines of at least 360 feet in both directions from each Project driveway. • The City of South San Francisco shall post speed limit signs of 30 to 35 miles per hour along Dubuque Avenue in the vicinity of the Project site for both travel directions. z American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-77 CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Caltrain Station & Lowe's South Driveway • The Caltrain station and Lowe's southerly driveways should be combined. If this isn't done with Lowe's initial development, the Project site plan should take this ultimate single driveway connection into account that will be provided at the time the Caltrain station parcel is redeveloped into a higher intensity use. These measures would reduce the Project's impact to a Zess-than-significant level. Impact 11-11 On-Site Circulation The Project site plan by AMS Associates, Inc. (6-7-2005) shows all internal parking aisles (with two exceptions) being a minimum 25 feet wide and serving 90-degree parking. Twenty-five-foot aisles meet City Code criteria and represent good traffic engineering practice. The two exceptions are: 1) an access aisle to be located along the west side of the Lowe's building (connecting driveways #1 and 2) that narrows to 15 feet for at least 160 feet near driveway #2 and 2) an access aisle to be located along the east side of the Lowe's building that will be 20 feet wide. No parking will be directly served via either of these aisles. The 15-foot-wide aisle is planned for use by Lowe's forklifts to move merchandise between the truck unloading area near driveway #1 and the front of the store near driveway #2. The 20-foot aisle on the east side of Lowe's building will be open to the public, although it should receive minimal levels of traffic activity. This width meets fire department standards. Ninety-degree parking stalls are proposed along the inbound lane of driveway #3 starting about 25 feet from Dubuque Avenue. They would be located in the same location as stalls that axe currently in place serving the business in the north part of the West Marine building. Although not ideal, this distance would allow one inbound vehicle to fully queue onsite if blocked by a vehicle exiting the first internal parking stall. These would be less-than-significant impacts. Mitigation Measure 11-11 No mitigation required. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 1 1-78 12 UTILITIES 12.1 SETTING WATER SUPPLY South San Francisco has two water suppliers. The California Water Service Company, Bayshore District (CWSC) serves that portion of the city east of Interstate 280, which represents the majority of the city's area, including the Project site. According to its website, the CWSC uses eight water wells to pump 1.5 million gallons of groundwater per day for its 16,600 customers in South San Francisco.' The CWSC also serves 36,100 users in San Carlos and San Mateo, with no restrictions on water allocation among these communities. To meet the needs of its users in the Bayshore District and beyond, the CWSC buys water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). The company's current contract with the SFPUC entitles the city to 42.3 million gallons per day (mgd) per year. Water use in South San Francisco has increased steadily over the past few decades at a rate faster than increases in the number of users, resulting in a per capita increase in water consumption. Water use has rebounded significantly from the levels of the late 1980s and early 1990s, when an extended period of drought and resulting conservation measures brought water use levels down considerably. According to the General Plan, while residential users comprised approximately 90% of the water accounts in South San Francisco between 1986 and 1996, less than half of the total consumption could be attributed to these users. On the other hand, industrial users comprised only 0.46% of the water accounts but used 11% of the total water, at an average of 3.6 million gallons per user per year. Part of the reason for the high industrial water usage in the city is the predominance of biotechnology firms. Pharmaceutical manufacturing requires extremely pure water, and large quantities of water are used to achieve necessary water purity levels. Commercial users accounted for approximately 10% of total accounts, but used approximately 37% of the total water, for an average of 528,132 gallons per user per year.2 1 California Water Service Company website z Dyett and Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 193, Table 5.3-2 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 12-1 CHAPTER 12: UTILITIES The CWSC bases its future water use projections on estimates of both the number of future water users and the amount of water each type of user will consume. The five-year average growth in the number of accounts is the basis for the utility's projections of the number of water users through 2020. Water use projections for 2020 range from 5.9 million gallons per day (mgd) to 9.1 mgd. Assuming the SFPUC contract allocation is not modified during the remaining contract period, the CWSC has adequate supply to meet even the highest projected demand.3 However, while the CWSC has adequate water supply to meet the increased water demand that would be created by the allowed development in the East of 101 Area Plan, this increase would be greater than that estimated by the CWSC for the Bayshore District, and would use approximately 24 percent of the district's surplus supply, based on 2010 projection with similar assumptions.4 Water lines in the East of 101 Area would generally be adequate to serve new development allowed under the East of 101 Area P1an.5 The water distribution system in the area was designed and constructed to meet industrial water demands. It consists of a network of 12-inch lines in relatively good condition, adequate to meet the 2,500 gallons per minute fire flow requirement and use demands for the land uses planned for the area. WASTEWATER The South San Francisco/San Bruno Sewage Treatment Plant was constructed in the early 1970s and is jointly operated by the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno. The sewage of both cities is treated there, as is wastewater from Colma and the Serramonte portion of Daly City. As of 1995, the average dry weather flow was 8.33 million gallons per day (MGD), and had increased on average 0.5 MGD per year since 1991. Since 1998 the plant has undergone an expansion in order to accommodate wastewater flows from future development in the city, and work has been undertaken to upgrade the city's trunk sewers, including along East Grand Avenue. The plant expansion has increased the dry weather flow capacity to 13 MGD. These improvements to the wastewater infrastructure have all taken into account, and will satisfy, increased demand on the system resulting from future development in the city, including the proposed Project. ~ s Dyett and Bhatia, p. 194. a Brady and Associates, East of 101 A~za Plan, 1994, p. 97 s Brady and Associates, p. 98. 6 Raul Dacanay, Assistant Engineer, City of South San Francisco, personal communication, May 4, 2005. PAGE 12-2 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 12: UTILITIES STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES The existing drainage system in the East of 101 Area is generally designed and constructed for industrial development, which has extensive impervious surfaces. As noted in Table 7-2, development of the proposed Project would result in an approximate 6 percent decrease in impervious surfaces at the Project site. As a decrease in impervious surface area would result in a corresponding decrease in peak discharge from the Project site, redevelopment of existing development would not increase runoff. SOLID WASTE Solid waste is collected from South San Francisco homes and businesses, and then processed at the Scavenger Company's materials recovery facility and transfer station. Materials that cannot be recycled or composted are transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, near Half Moon Bay. Browning-Ferris Industries, owner of the landfill, has a permit fox future expansion of the Corinda Los Trancos Canyon at Ox Mountain. When the permit expires in 2016, either Corinda Los Trancos will be expanded further, or Apanolio Canyon will be opened for fill. The Scavenger Company's facility is permitted to receive a daily maximum of 1,250 tons per day of wastes and recyclable materials. This facility gives the Company increased capability to recover valuable materials from wastes, reducing the amount of waste being sent to the landfill. South San Francisco recycles household and industrial solid waste and sewage sludge. With an expected buildout population of 67,000 residents in South San Francisco, the city will generate approximately 38,000 tons of solid waste each year, based on the assumed generation rates used by San Mateo County. 12.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a Project's environmental impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines: • Would the Project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? • Would the Project require substantial expansion or alteration of the City's water or wastewater treatment and collection facilities? • Would the Project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities? LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 12-3 CHAPTER 12: UTILITIES • Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? • Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves, or may serve, the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? • Would the Project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs? • Would the Project comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES WASTEWATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS The proposed Project's wastewater discharge would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY The proposed Project would not lead to an increase in demand for potable water that could not be fulfilled by the California Water Service Company, as stated in the South San Francisco General Plan. The wastewater treatment plant that serves the city and the trunk sewer system that would serve the Project site have recently been, or are in the process of being, expanded and upgraded. This work will ensure adequate wastewater collection and treatment service over the city's buildout horizon. Because the existing drainage system in the East of 101 Area is generally designed and constructed for industrial development, it is capable of accommodating large amounts of storm water from the large areas of impervious surfaces in the area. Thus, any redevelopment of existing sites, including on the Project site, will generally not increase runoff. The proposed Project would have a less than signif `scant impact on utility service and infrastructure in the City of South San Francisco and East of 101 Area. LANDFILL CAPACITY Given the large amount of space still available at Ox Mountain, and the option of opening Apanolio Canyon after Ox Mountain is no longer available, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on solid waste service capacity. PAGE 12-4 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR 13 ALTERNATIVES 13.1 INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, 1970, as amended, Section 15126.6) requires an EIR to include a discussion of a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. CEQA also requires that the EIR explain why specific project alternatives that were considered at one time in developing the project proposal were rejected in favor of the Project. The selection of alternatives is to be guided by the provision of reasonable choices and the promotion of informed decision making and informed public participation. An EIR need not evaluate alternatives that would have effects that cannot be determined, or for which implementation would be remote and speculative. CEQA also requires that the EIR specifically address a "no project" alternative within this discussion, and that an "environmentally superior" alternative be identified (Section 15126.6 [e]). Where the "no project" alternative is also identified as the "environmentally superior" alternative, another alternative which would represent the "environmentally superior" in the absence of the "no project" alternative should then be identified. The environmental consequences associated with this Project are fully addressed in Chapters 4 through 12 of this EIR. In addition to the proposed Project, this EIR includes a discussion of the following alternatives: No Project Alternative, which would leave the Project site in its current state, and • 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative 13.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Under the No Project Alternative, the Project site would remain as it is today: developed with four buildings that tota1241,737 square feet: three circa 1970 one-story concrete (23,949, 65,330, and 139,280 square feet, respectively) that house a variety of office and retail uses, and a fourth one-story concrete building, 13,178 square feet in size and occupied by West Marine. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-1 CHAPTER 13: ALTERNATIVES This alternative would maintain the site's Planned Commercial General Plan designation, but the retail, office, and warehousing uses would not be as intense or economically beneficial to the City, an issue which is addressed in numerous General Plan goals and policies. The No Project Alternative would not result in environmental impacts described in this EIR document, particularly those identified as significant and unavoidable, as it would not involve any construction or other changes. Table 11-15B shows that there would be approximately 160 fewer AM Peak Hour trips and 320 fewer PM Peak Hour trips than the proposed Project, resulting in lower air pollutant vehicle emissions and traffic levels of service. The No Project site would also not introduce several of the hazardous materials that would be stored and used on site as part of the Project, and would maintain the protected trees that would need to be replaced if development of the Project occurs. As such, it would be environmentally superior. 0.50 FLOOR AREA RATIO ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative, the Project's Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would be reduced from the currently proposed 0.29 FAR for the 148,749 square foot Project (home improvement warehouse and garden center), to a square footage of 74,375 square feet, corresponding to a FAR of 0.15. As the applicant has indicated it would not be economically feasible for a Lowe's to occupy such a small building based on its standard store size and business model (the average store size is approximately 115,000 square feet), the alternative would have to be an alternate retail store. This reduced development intensity would produce fewer vehicle trips and less air pollutant emissions. Fewer vehicle trips would result in better freeway Levels of Service and better Levels of Service on street intersections near the Project site, but would still not completely mitigate the significant impacts detailed in the Transportation and Circulation Chapter. This alternative would still increase and improve landscaping on the site, and would also require a smaller amount of vehicle parking facilities. However, it would effectively prohibit the Project applicant from occupying the site, and most other alternate warehouse-style retail uses, especially at a 50% Alternative, would not generate as much sales tax revenue as the proposed Project. 13.3 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION Consideration of the alternatives to the proposed Lowe's Project reveals that the environmentally superior alternative would be the No Project Alternative, since it would result in no new environmental impacts. However, should the site retain its existing use, it would not meet the goals, policies, or visions of the City's General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan as well as the proposed Project would. In the absence of the No Project Alternative, the 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would be designated as environmentally superior because it would fulfill the City of South San Francisco's General Plan designation for the site as Planned Commercial. Implementation of this reduced PAGE 13-2 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 13: ALTERNATIVES intensity alternative would lead to reduced environmental impacts, but would likely be economically unfeasible for the Project applicant. The applicant has a standard template for most of its stores, which includes a minimum warehouse size to be economically viable and carry their full line of products. Reducing to a 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would likely make the Project unfeasible. The applicant would be required to seek an alternate site in the City of South San Francisco or surrounding communities. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-3 This page intentionally left blank. LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-4 14 IMPACT OVERVIEW 14.1 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The following Project-related impacts have been identified as significant and unavoidable: Impact 11-2 Year 2006 Freeway Level of Service. Tables 1 and 2 show that all but one analyzed intersection would maintain acceptable operation during AM and PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project. At the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection, PM peak hour project traffic would degrade operation from LOSE to LOS F and increase volumes by more than two percent (3.5%). There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco staff to improve operation to Base Case Conditions or better. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 11-5 Year 2006 Vehicle Queuing Impacts. 50th Percentile Queuing Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed Project would result in significant 50th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the PM peak traffic hour in 2006. All intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-7 and 11-8 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an increase in vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance criteria level. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 14-1 CHAPTER 14: IMPACT OVERVIEW PM PEAK HOUR 1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. The Oyster Point westbound approach through lanes would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (6.6%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing. 2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (13.6%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing in the left turn lane. Acceptable Base Case queuing in the combined left/through lane would also be increased beyond the available storage with the addition of Project traffic. The Project would increase combined through/left turn movements by 16.7 percent. 95th Percentile Queuing Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed Project would result in significant 95th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2006. All intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-9 and 11-10 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance criteria level. AM PEAK HOUR 1) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (9.6%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing. PM PEAK HOUR 2) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. The Oyster Point westbound approach through lanes would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (5%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Also, acceptable Base Case queuing in the westbound approach left turn lane would be increased beyond the available storage (by 1 car length) with the addition of Project traffic. PAGE 14-2 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 14: IMPACT OVERVIEW 3) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and through/left turn lanes would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (19.5%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing in both lanes. This impact would remain Significant and unavoidable. Impact 11-9 Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts. 50th Percentile Queue Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed Project would result in significant 50th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-7 and 11-8 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance criteria level. AM PEAK HOUR Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On- Ramp • The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane would receive a ±5.8% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. PM PEAK HOUR Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. • The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would receive a ± 5.0% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. • The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would receive a ±3.7% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On- Ramp • The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and combined through/left turn lanes would receive a ± 4.4% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 14-3 CHAPTER 14: IMPACT OVERVIEW 95th Percentile Queue Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed Project would result in significant 95th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-9 and 11-10 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance criteria level. AM PEAK HOUR Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On- Ramp • The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and combined through/left turn lanes would receive a 6.2% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. • The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach left turn lanes would receive an 8.8% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. In addition, the Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would have demand increased beyond the available storage with the addition of Project traffic. PM PEAK HOUR Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. • The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach left turn lane would receive a 5.3% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. • The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would receive a 5% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. • The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would receive a 3.7% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On- Ramp • The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and combined through/left turn lanes would receive a 4.4% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base. Case queuing. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. PAGE 14-4 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 14: IMPACT OVERVIEW 14.2 IMPACTS DETERMINED NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT As indicated in the DEIR Analysis, there would be no significant Project-related environmental impacts associated with the following topic areas: • Air Quality • Geology and Soils • Hazardous Materials • Hydrology • Land Use • Noise • Public Services • Utilities 14.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES An EIR must identify any significant irreversible environmental changes that could be caused by the proposed Project. These may include current or future uses of non-renewable resources, and secondary or growth-inducing impacts that commit future generations to similar uses. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified. The CEQA Guidelines describe three distinct categories of significant irreversible changes: 1) changes in land use which would commit future generations to specific uses; 2) irreversible changes from environmental actions; and 3) consumption of non-renewable resources. Changes in Land Use Which Would Commit Future Generations The Project would commit future generations to new development at the Project site. The property would be converted from a furniture showroom and warehouse use to a retail home improvement store land use. Irreversible Changes from Environmental Actions Impact 11-2 Year 2006 Freeway Level of Service. Tables 1 and 2 show that all but one analyzed intersection would maintain acceptable operation during AM and PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project. At the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection, PM peak hour Project traffic would degrade operation from LOSE to LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 14-5 CHAPTER 14: IMPACT OVERVIEW LOS F and increase volumes by more than two percent (3.5%). There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco staff to improve operation to Base Case Conditions or better. These would be significant impacts. Impact 11-5 Year 2006 Vehicle Queuing Impacts. 50th Percentile Queuing Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed Project would result in significant 50th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the PM peak traffic hour in 2006. All intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-7 and 11-8 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an increase in vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance criteria level. 95th Percentile Queuing Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed Project would result in significant 95th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2006. All intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-9 and 11-10 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance criteria level. These would be significant impacts. Impact 11-9 Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts. 50th Percentile Queue Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed Project would result in significant 50th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-7 and 11-8 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance criteria level. PAGE 14-6 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 14: IMPACT OVERVIEW 95th Percentile Queue Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed Project would result in significant 95th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-9 and 11-10 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance criteria level. These would be significant impacts. Consumption of Nonrenewable Resources Consumption of nonrenewable resources includes increased energy consumption, conversion of agricultural lands, and lost access to mining reserves. No agricultural lands would be converted and no access to mining reserves would be lost with implementation of the Project. The Project would result in the consumption of some nonrenewable resources during construction and operation, such as electricity and construction materials. 14.4 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS The proposed Project would not be expected to result in a direct increase in the local population, since it would not result in the construction of any new housing units. The proposed Project would not require any major increases in the capacity of local infrastructure which might later be used to support new housing development, and would not result in the extension of infrastructure into areas which might ultimately support new housing. 14.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS As defined in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. "Cumulative impacts" refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, axe considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the Project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonable foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. As the discussions in Chapter 4 (Air Quality) and Chapter 11 (Transportation) indicate, the development of the Project site as proposed would contribute to a permanent cumulative increase in regional emissions of air pollutants and to reduced freeway Levels of Service. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 14-7 CHAPTER 14: IMPACT OVERVIEW As noted on Page 4-9 of the Air Quality chapter, the URBEMIS2002 Model was used to quantify the emissions associated with the Project, and to determine if it could result in potentially significant regional emissions. Based on the estimate of 5,908 daily two way trips (Table 11-15A), the Project's emissions for ROG, NOX, and PM10 were found to be below the significance threshold. So, while new vehicle trips would result in new regional emissions, the Project's emissions would represent a less than significant cumulative impact. Chapter 11 discusses the Project's impact on reduced freeway Levels of Service in the years 2006 (page 11-68, Impact 11-3) and 2020 (page 11-72, Impact 11-7). As discussed in Chapter 11, Tables 11-3 and 11-4 show that the proposed Project would not result in any U.S.101 freeway segment changing AM or PM Peak hour Base Case operation to an unacceptable LOS F with one exception, and that would be a less than significant impact. As background traffic on the U.S.101 freeway will increase from 2006 to 2020, and the percent Project traffic contribution to overall volumes will decrease, no freeway segment will receive a significant impact due to Project traffic in 2020. As such, the Project's cumulative impact on freeway Levels of Service will be less than significant. PAGE 14-8 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR 15 REFERENCES 15.1 REPORT PREPARERS Lamphier -Gregory 1944 Embarcadero Oakland, Ca. 94606 510-535-6690 Joan Lamphier, President David Levitan, Planner 15.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY AMS Associates, Project Plans for L.osve's, 600-790 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, CA, June 2005 Association of Bay Area Governments, http://www.abag.com (Seismic and Other Hazards Analysis Pages), 2005. Association of Bay Area Governments, Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures, June 1981. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summaries, 2001- 2003. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Permit Handbook, 2005. http: / /www.baagmd.gov/pmt/handbook/default.htm Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). Start at the Source, Design Guidance Manual for Storm2vaterQuality Protection, 1999. Bonilla, M.G., Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7.5' Quadrangle and Part of the Hunters Point 7.5'Quadrangle, San Francisco Bay Area, California: A digital database, USGS Open-file Report 98-354, 1998. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 15-1 CHAPTER 15: REFERENCES Brady and Associates, East of 109 Area Plan, adopted July 1994. California Division of Mines and Geology, Earthquake Fault Zone Map of the South San Francisco Quadrangle, 1982. California Division of Mines and Geology, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, 1994. California Division of Mines and Geology with U.S. Geological Survey, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of Cal forma, 2002. California Geological Survey, Fault Evaluation Reports Prepared Under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, CGS CD 2002-01, 2002. California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), Neiv Development and Redevelopment Handbook, 2003. California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), California Stormsvater BMP Handbook, Industrial and Commercial, January 2003. California Water Service Company, http://www.calwater.com, Customer Service Section, Find Your District, 2005 CEI Engineering Associates, Inc., Phase 9 Environmental Site Assessment, Losve's Home Warehouse, 600-790 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, CA, July 8, 2005 CEI Engineering Associates, Inc., Addendum # 9, Phase 9 Environmental Site Assessment, Lotve's Home Warehouse, 600-790 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, CA, August 10, 2005 Consolidated Engineering Laboratories, Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations, Losve's South San Francisco, Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, California, August 4, 2005 Consolidated Engineering Laboratories, Environmental Sampling Testing and Evaluation of Soil, Love's South San Francisco, Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, California, August 24, 2005 (Revised August 29, 2005) Consolidated Engineering Laboratories, Limited Phase 2 Subsurface Environmental Site Assessment, Lowe's of South San Francisco, CA, 600-790 Dubuque Avenue, December 23, 2005 City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Municipal Code: Tree Proservation, adopted June 28, 2000. Crane Transportation Group, Tra~zc Impact Report.• 285 East Grand Avenue and 349 Allerton Avenue, July, 2002. PAGE 15-2 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 15: REFERENCES Crane Transportation Group, Tra~c Impact Keport.• 345 East Grand Avenue, November, 2001. Department of Water Resources (DWR), California's Groundavater-Bulletin 118. Updated 2004, 1975. Dyett &Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October 1999. Dyett &Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, 1997. Environmental Data Resources Incorporated, Sanborn Map Keport, June 16, 2005 Environmental Data Resources Incorporated, Kadius Map avith Geocheck database, June 16, 2005 Environmental Data Resources Incorporated, Site Report HWY280, South San Francisco, CA, June 23, 2005 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Date Map, City of South San Francisco, California, September 1981 Fehr &Peers/Lamphier-Gregory, Genentech Building 31 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, February 2005. Fehr & Peers, Genentech Site Access -Buildings 33 d~° 37, Evaluation of Building 33 and Mid Campus Parking Garage (Building 37), December 2003. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard Office Projects Draft Tra~cAnalysis report, October 2001. Krazan & Associates, Inc., Asbestos Survey completed on Commercial Property at 600-790 Dubuque Avenue, June 30, 2005 Krazan & Associates, Inc., Lead Based Paint Survey completed on Commercial Property at 600-790 Dubuque Avenue, June 30, 2005 Morehouse Associates, 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office Kd9°D Project Draft EIK, September 2004. Morehouse Associates, 333 Oyster Point Boulevard O~ce K~'D Project Final EIK, February 2005. Morehouse Associates, Britannia East Grand Project (Fuller O Brien Property) Recirculation Draft EIA, February 2002. LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 15-3 CHAPTER 15: REFERENCES San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, 2003 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay Basin, 1995 Severn Trent Laboratories Inc., August 23, December 7, 8, 9, Analytical Reports, 2005 United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Species List for Lowe's Retail, June 15, 2005 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet Hydrodynamic Separators, EPA 832-F00-017, September 1999 United States Geological Survey (USGS), Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7.5' Quadrangle and parts of the Hunter's Point 7.5'Quadrangle, San Francisco Bay Area, California, USGS Open-file Report 98-354, 1998. University of Massachusetts Amherst, Stormwater Technology: Stormceptor Fact Sheet No. 4, February 2003 Wentworth, C.M., Graham, S.E., Pike, R.J., Beukelman, G.S., Ramsey, D.W., Barron, A.D., San Francisco Bay Legion Landslide Folio Part C -Summary Distribution of Slides and Earthflows in the San Francisco Bay Region, Calfornia, USGS Open File Report 97-745 C, 1997. Western Regional Climate Center, 2005. Period of Monthly Climate Summary for San Francisco WSO AP, California (047769). Period of Record.• 7/ 1 / 1948 to 12/31 /2004. Online. 20 June. 2005. Available: http•//wwu~wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cIiMAIN~I?ca oa+,rfo Working Group On California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region: 2002-2031, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-214, 2003 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS Castain, Don, Per telephone conversation between Joseph Farrow, Staff Geologist at Questa Engineering and Don Castain, City of South San Francisco Building Inspector, 27 June 2005. Dacanay Raul, Assistant Engineer, City of South San Francisco, personal communication, May 4, 2005. PAGE 15-4 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 15: REFERENCES Munar, Kelvin. Per telephone conversation between Kelly White, Environmental Scientist at Questa Engineering and Kelvin Munar, City of South San Francisco Public Works Department, 21 June 2005. Montufar, F. Eduardo, Per telephone conversation between Joseph Farrow, Staff Geologist at Questa Engineering and F. Estuardo Montufar, San Mateo County Environmental Health Department, September 20, 2005 Nakashima, Stevan, Per telephone conversation between Kelly White, Environmental Scientist at Questa Engineering and Stevan Nakashima, Consulting Civil Engineer, 15 June 2005. Powell, Michelle, Per telephone conservation between Joseph Farrow, Staff Geologist at Questa Engineering and Michelle Powell, San Mateo County Environmental Health Department, August 2, 2005 Rudhel, Cathy. Per telephone conversation between Anna Rensi, Assistant Environmental Engineer at Questa Engineering, and Cathy Rudhel, City of South San Francisco Water Quality Control. August 1, 2005 Shaw, Caroline, Per email correspondence from Caroline Shaw, Greenberg Farrow Due Diligence Coordinator, to Anna Rensi, Assistant Environmental Engineer at Questa Engineering, August 2, 2005 LOWE'$ PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 15-5 CHAPTER 15: REFERENCES This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 15-6 LOWE'S PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR 16 APPENDICES APPENDIX A NOTICE OF PREPARATION RESPONSES TO NOTICE OF PREPARATION APPENDIX B TRAFFIC TABLES AND EQUATIONS APPENDIX C AIR QUALITY MODEL OUTPUT, EMISSIONS PROCEDURES, AND CALCULATIONS PAGE 16-1 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF PREPARATION RESPONSES TO NOTICE OF PREPARATION PAGE A-1 V q11 LV LVV V 1 • 1 11 Il V a 1 1 VI V VI I L111111111V V11 1 VVV VLV VVVV '/. L DEPARTMENT OF ECONON[IC ANO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEM PLANNING DIVISION (eso} an-esss FAX (650) 628.8839 August 5, 2405 Certified Mail # 7001-1140 000] 0464 6014 State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street/P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Subject: Notice of Preparation, Lowe's Project, Environmental impact Report, City of SouW San Francisco Lead Agency: Consulting Firm: Agency Name: City of South San Francisco Firm 1~Tame: Lamphier-CYregory Plannin Division Street Addreas: 31 S Maple Avenue Street Address: 1944 Embarcadero South San Francisco, CA Oakland, CA 94606 94080 • Mailing P.O. Sox 711 Address: South San Francisco, CA 94083 Contact: Steve Carlson Contact: Joan Lamphier The propose of this Notice of Preparation (NOP) is to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and to inform all interested parties that the City of South San Francisco intendsto prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIIt) for the Lowe's Project. This notice is to request continents and guidance on the scope and the content of the environmental information to be included in the Draft ElR. An initial assessment of environmental factors potentially affected is attached. Responsible agencies should comment on the scope and content of the environmental information germane to their statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project, and will. need to use the prepared E]R in their permitting and approvals. RESPONSE TO NOP Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your written response must be sent at the earliest possible date but net later that 30 daps after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Steve Carlson a# the address shown above. 315 MAPLE AVENUE • P O. BOX 711 SOIJT'ti SAN FRANCISCO, CA B/i083 u O11 VV LVVV a • T 11 11 Va I 1 ul MJI I L111111a111) Ya Y a UJY iJLJ YIJ J..I r.•.J ..`'. Subjeet+ Notice of Preparation, I.owe's Project Environmental Impact Report From: The City of South San Francisco Page 2 . SLOPING MEETIlVG CEQA requires. $ Lead Agency to call at least one seoping meeting for a proposed project that may affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation, and for aproject of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance. The Lead Agency shall. call the scoping meeting as soon as possible, but not later than 30 days after receiving a request far the meeting from the Department of Transportation (Section 2I fl83.9 of the Public Resources Code). The Lead Agency shall provide notice of the scoping meeting to all of the following. any county or city that borders on a county or city within which the project is located; say responsible agency, any public agency that leas jurisdiction by law with respect to the project; and any organization ar individual who has filed a written roquest for the notice. The project location and description are summarized below. PROJECT LUCATION AND BOUNDARIES Regional Location The City of South San l~ancisco is located on the west shore of the San Franc>SCO Bay, in northern San Mateo County. The city is buili upon the Bay plain and the northern foothills of the Coastal Range. South San Francisco is sbrategicallylocated along major transportation coaidors and hubs, including US 101, Irtterstates I 280and I-380, BART and Captain, the Uniom Pa~aific Railroad (formerly owned by the Southern Pacific Railroad) mainline, and the San Francesca International Airport, Sign Hi11 is a distinctive city landmark. The regional location of the city i.s shown in Figure I , ~ ~ ~ .. Project Locatfon a~rtd Boundaries The 12.8 acre Project sete.is situated at 600-700 Dubuque Avenue, and is bounded on the west and north by Dubuque Avenue and Highway i 01, an the north by single story office buildings and services, and to the east and south by Union Pacific Railroad line right-of-way. It is in the northwest portion of the East of 101 Axea, which consists of the roughly 1,700 acres of-land in the City~of South SanFrancisco east ofHeghway 101. PROJECT DESCRIPTIOIrt . The proposed Proj ect would involve the demolition of the three of the four existing buildings totaling 22fl,932 square feet and the construction of a 124,051..square foot I.owe's home . improvement warehouse, an adjoining 24,698 square foot Garden Center, the retention of a 15,t78 retail building, and 6~5 open ~t-grade parking spaces. The project will require a Use Permit; Type C Sign Peirnit, Planned Unit Development Permit, Design Review, Development Agreement, Demolition Permit, Crrading Permit and Building Permits. ...... ~.. ~..,... _. ..... .._ , .... ...... ~.,,.,._.... ...._ ..~.. ..~... .......... r.~ . ~ ~ .. ~, r Subject~ Notice of Preparation, Lowe's Project Environmental Impact Report From: The City of South Sa~a Francisco Page 3 . FR C .~ -0 ~; - -- Daly ' . Ctty S pdC~C.a J +~ ~~~ 82 } r t .. ,1 ~;, Mil1b ~ ~ Linda Mor ~ 7 ~' ~ `'~ ,~ i0sborou j MAT~~~~ ~. .~ ti~ `~. `'~ ,, ~ Montana ~ ~' ~~ •• ~~~~~ Moa Beacfi~~ ~ t ~ ~ .: •..,4 ~~~ ~ '` 8 Gt~da i ;is~~ '~~~ ~ ~ taa t ~~ . l{IaH Moon Bar ,- ~. ~~ V 1 ` '~ `` .r` r _ ~ r~ lu a u `v, ~~ ,~ ~ '~ ~~ . ~ ~ C L ~` ~ ' ~~. ~ .r ~~• ~r \ o Project ~~, ~ . LacatioM ~~, ~, ~~ i" lJftO `. ~~ .t'J ,.r San 4 8 ~\ MILES [~-~J-) van cb cuuo a:-rim t.aii ur oar runnnanu uava oau-uc~-ooa~ p.~ '.'~..+ ,,....i Subject: Notice of Prcparatioxt, Lowe's Project Environmental Impact Rrport From: The City of South San Francisco Page 4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmentalfactors checkedbelowwould bepotentially affected bythisproject, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist. ^ Aesthetics ^ A 'cultural Resources ® Air ~ uali ^ Biolo 'caI Resources ^ Gultural Resources ® Geolo /SoiLq ® Hazards c~ Hazardous Materials ® I3ydroIogy/Water a1i ^ Land Use/Planning ^ Mineral Resources ~ ® Naise ^ P ulation/Sausin © Public Services ~ ^ . Recreation: ® artation/Traffic ® UtilitieslSerS*ice S ems ^ Maada#ory Findings of Si 'ficance DETERMIIgATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: CI 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATNE DECLARATION will be prepared ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the enviromnent there wdl not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the projecthave been made by or agreed to by the project proponent.-~ A NIITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared Y find that the proposed proj ect MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ie required . ®I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact vn the environment,~but at least one affect 1) has beem adequately analyzed in ea earlier document pursuant~to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressedbyaritigationmeaswresbasedv~tlie~earliex• analysis as described on attached sheets. Am ENVIRONMENTAL llVVIPACT REPORT is required but it must analyze only the effects #hat remain to be addressed: ~ . ^ I fend that although. the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially sicant effects (a) have beets analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATNE DECLARATI ON pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier F1R or NEGATIVE I)~',CLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are. imposed upon the proposed pmjeot, ~nothiing further is required. . `~ Th ; parks ~ Date Chief Piaruier ~ . ~ - --•• ~~ ~~~`~ ~ • • .. ~.~ . . v• ~~~ I ~.I ~1 llla~laa ua ~ i u..~V uLJ V1:IJJ I . ~f l~I. rlr •~ U .~.. . .~ L ~1 !~ .~ ' .'rY 0 o - N ~~ .. ^;.,r ~' ~u E~~- :• C •.: ~ ~ C L e ~ O ~~ ~ O ,-~ O 0p V •~ V. LL ~ . ~~ ~.O :~ .lJl C~,~~~-~F.Ft. rwen..~ STATE~IFCALEFS2 I~~~G ~~' ~='t~01;'1'.\T1QR,1.lDHfJi~cIKC1AGr'!'4'Y D~F.A-~3'~~N'~ ~F 'TR.,A~~f'~OIEi.T.A.'~'I~N 111 GIi1-il'ID A~'Ei`~T[.7F1 F'. fl. SaX 23660 OAKLAiQD, C%A 0~1~i2i-U86U PHONE i51U) 2Ba""-oUl}G T'I`P IS00) 735-`L9~9 August ?6, '?a05 1VIr. Steve C:ulson City of South Sdn ~rtat~cisco 3 ] ~ Nl:,ple Avenue South San Francisco, C.A ~4i}$3 D~• 1'Jfr. Carisan: g,uv~re's p'rojeet -1~iotic~ a~' ~ eeneation ~` [ ,+j ~w L 1 H ~+ ~g q p F1Px your poiurr.~ J~~ 4! ~ 2D05 8e.vtrrRyPl~crrnC! ~i~9~'~ S~IIUl~•14 SM-lUl-2Z.~ SCHIt 200a()8?031 Thank you far' ittGluding the California. Department uf.Transpot~tation (Dcpartmert# j in the envixonmontai revieu~ process fc~r the above-cefetenced project. VVe have reviewed tl~c Notice of Preparation. for Cite Ll~we's Project draft?EnvironmentalImpoct Report and have the following cdmrnetits to offer: C3ur primary concern with Ute project is the potentially sigtuficant impact ii tray have to tlFift:ic ~•olurne and congestion, We re4ommetlcl a traffic imgaCt analysis be prepared. The tritffic impact analysis shouicl incla.de, but riot be linritcd to t13c following: 1. Infa~mation on the project's traffic impacts in terms of trip generation, distribution, and a,~;sigtlr-ient. The assurnptians and meLhodalogics used in compiling this information should be arldressed. 2. Average Daily Traffic (ADT} and AM and PIIVi peak hour volumes on all significantly aFlected streets anti highways, including crossroads ,.Ciltl ct~ntrollin; intersections. 3. • Schematic illustration of the tzaCfic conditions 1'or: 1'} existing, 2) existing plus project, 3 j cu3tittlative, and ~•) cumulative plus project Tnr the rnterseeu4ns and roadway segments in clte project area. 'Carttruns ineproses muLdaty ucroes Cnti(ns*+rr,' t'd 668g-6Z8-AS9 lAIQ JNINNd'1d ~S5 ~0 7..LI0 W~r~O=G SOOZ GO ~a5 R'Ir. Steve Curlsan AuER~st 2d, 20(lri Page 2 ~. Calculation of cumulati.•e traffic vnlumes should cs~nsidcr all traffic-generating clevelopttter-ts, both existutg cold future, thai would affect the State hil;hw~ay faciFific~: being evaluated. 5. IVtitigation rneasures shr:old consider highway and non-higlnvay iutprovemelits anal sen~ices. Special attention should be given to th4 development of alternate solutions to circulation problems that do not rely an increased highway construction. ~i. All mitigatiah measures pzoposed should lie full; discussed, including fina.nr:.ing, sclteritiling, itnplementatiun responsibilities; and lead agent}' monitoring. W~ cncaurage the City of SoutYa~San Francisco to ~oardinate prepar~Elian of she study with our office., and we would appreciate the npportunit}~ to .review the scope of work. Flcasc see the Degartment.'s "Gztirte jar rFte Preyaration ~j 7'rdf~ic Irnpacr Sru.clies" at the fc~llativing weLsite fc~r more infonnatian: ltttp:/l~~~~~.dot.ca.~avlYta/trafFaps/~evrJlc}aservl+~pcratic~nalsvsti;mslrc:nnrtrJtisguid_ n.ndf Vti~e l~~ol: fc~ru-ard to re~riewing tl:e traffic impact analysis and draft Ert~riron.inzntal Impact Report for this project. Please send two copies ta: 1~liGc Jackson Office of "Fxansit and Community Plauniz:g Department of Transportation, District 4 P.a. Box 236611 Oakland; CA X4623-(Ki6~ Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call Alice Jac~:san of my staff at +(S1U} ?86-593S. S'Ii1CEl'Z13+, ~~~ ~~ t~ `"~l '1'IMQTHIr C. SABLE District Branch Chief IGRJCI/f~A c: Sett Morgan (State Ciearinghcruse) "Callrarta irrpruues maLitity arrnse Cali(rrnin." ti'd 6699-6~8-OS9 tnlQ 9NIbINti-ld ASS fit] d,ll~ WFJ~O=L SDOc LU ~~S }L,~ ~F~~r~~D SEP 0 7 200 P~~Nj~ BaARD aF SUPERVISaRS MARK CHURCH RICHARD S. GORDON JERRY HILL RASE JACOBS GIBBON ADRIENNE TISSIER NEEL R CULLEN DIRECTOR COUNTX OF SAN MATEO 855 COUNTY CENTER, 5TM FLOOR • REDWODD CITY • CALIFORNIA 94063-1686 • RHONE (fi50) 3fi3-4100 • FAX (650) 361-8220 September 2, 2005 Mr. Steve Cazlson City o~ ~Qnth~San Francisco . Plan~~Division . P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Mr. Carlson: Q COPY Subject: Notice of Preparation, Lowe's Project, Environmental Impact Report, City of South San Francisco (APN 015-021-090) . We received your letter=dated August 5, 2005 on August 8, 2005, regarding the subject . pmj ect. The letter was addressed to Walt Callahan with the County of San Mateo who has retired. Future. correspondence of this nature whereby the City of South San Francisco is requesting comments from the San Mateo County Flood Control District (District) should be addressed to: Ann Stil]man County of San Mateo, DPW 555 County Center, 5~ Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 The San Mateo County Department of Public Works, in its capacity as the Administrator of the District, has reviewed the Notice of Preparation ofEnvironmental Impact Report (EIlt) for the project and offers the following comments: • Our records.show that the proposed project site is located within the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone (Zone). The District requires that the stoma 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 .detenagined tbat the future discharge rate exceeds .the existing rate, an on-site storm water detention system which would release surface runoff at a rate campazable to the existing flow rate of the site must be designed and incorporated into the project. Mr. Steve Carlson, City of South San Francisco, Planning Division . Subject: Notice of Preparation, Lowe's Project, Environmental itmpact Report, City of South San Francisco {APN 015-021-090) September 2, 2005 Page 2 • The District advocates that trash management measures be incorporated into the design elements of the storm drainage system and appurtenances. Please ensure that trash collecting devices are installed at stogy drain inlets and maintained by the owner. If you have any questions, please contact Mark Chow at (650) 599-14$9, or myself at (650) 599-1417. Very truly yours, Ann M. Stillman, P.E. Principal Civil Engineer Utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection AMS:MC:sdd F:IUSERSIADMII~IP&S\Uh'iity Services\20051600.700Dubuque Lowe`s -Notice of Prep. Review.doc ~:\USPdiS\UTIIITY1Cobaa Cheek FCDIWQRD\Review Fatsmel Pmject\Z0051606-700 Dubuque Lowe's -Nc13ce ofPrep. Review.dac F-149 (9H) cc: Mark. Chow, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer, Utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection Rub 3t] 2005 4:09PM CITY til= 'SSF ~pLR1iNItYt3 ~DI.VI 650-8~9-6639 p.4 ~ ~ , QRC6ft: • August 22, 2005 Steve Carlson Citq of South San Francisco Planning Division . P.O. Box 71t ' Swath Sao Francisco, CA 95115.0005 Re: Notice of Preparation ~ ~ , Lowe's Project, Enviromnatatal Impact Report 600-y00 DuTyllque Ave., South San Frsm~cisco Ms. Carlson: toad t-w,riodr 111 Aia.rM Htniww~, Rnam H1 ~ Cotpdntd M.I Est^fd ~ ~~ GI Sti11t~0006 • w~ada.., P.D. Hot S5lWB S~. Jox. CA 86116.0005 ~~? 3~~ D The» lc you •fnr the opportunity to comme>af on the Notice of Preparation for the ~..owe's Pmjed, Envirtatal Impact Report at ¢00-700 ]3ubtique Ave. is 3ottth 3aa Francisco. PC3&Eowas and operatea.gas and electric ~distttibutioa' faca~ities which ate adjacent to the 1~Po~ pml~- T'o promote the safe Bind reliable mare and opesatio~a of ~nt0ity facilities, the Cali~Fomia Public Utilities Cannnissioa (CPUG? has mandated specafic clearance requireno~eots betwean.~ity ftlcili~es and s~anuading objecfs or canstrvetLOn activities. To endue. co®pliance with these . standards, project ;proponents 'should coaadinste with PG~tE early in tiu daveyopamoat of their pirojcct•plaos. A>zl+ pry development plans should provide for ~icted utility access and prevent easelrfead encraar~mnents that might impair the safe. and re];ablo maintienance end operation of PCt&13's facilities Developers 'will be responsible for the costs associated ~ the relocsstiota of existing PCi~BcE facili4es to • acoagmiodate their proposed development, Becatssa becilities relocation's require Long Iead times and ere. atot always feasible, developers should be enoonraged to consult with PGBrE as early is their planning stages as possible. Relocations of PO~~,E's electric transmission sad substation facilities (50,000 votes and above could also require formal approval from the California Public Utilities Commission. l#raluir+ed, this approval process could taioe up to two yeeis to ovmplebe. Pnopva>emts with deveIapmentplans whielz could aft such electric fraosmission fgc~ities sbauld be t~ne_d fi4 PG~.E for. ad~itign~l ^infdiination and asslataiace in't]ae Pmeiit.o~lheii'.projeatt scliedyley, ~ , . ~ . ' ' ~ ..,: : t ' We.. would .also, ~' to note that developaipgt coris~stint with. your: General P]aas w01 boas a cumulative impact oar PGdtB's gas and electric~s'ystems and mnq iegaire on-site and o$ site sdditiatts ratio improvemarts to the facilities which sngply three services. Because tatitity facilities are operated as an iategrat~ed system, the presence of an Auk 30 2005 4:09PM. CITY OF SSF PLRtiNING ~IVI 850-829-6633 p.5 existing gas or electric transmission or dishibution facility does rrot naxssarily mt~an the facility has capacity to conrerct new loads. Expamsian of dism'bution and transmission lines asd related facilities is a necessary cansegamcx of growth end developraerrt. lh addiiio®to adding new disoribution feeders, rho range of dectric system imps+ovemeat.~ needed to acronunodatc growth may inc~udc ups n8 ~ and ttanaamissiatr lint egoip®ent, expanding existing substations to thew ultimate buildout capacity, acrd building new substations nerd inteuccornnoc~ting transmission lines. Comparable upgrades or ,additions needed to accommodate additional load on the gas system could include facilities such as zegtrlator statians, odarizer stations, valve lots, distribution sad transmission lines. We would Ir1ce to reoommead that ewitomaierltal documents for proposed development projects~ir:chtde adequate evalaation•of cumabi#iv~ impacts tvutt~ity syeb~ns; tlio.utibiy, facilities needed to serve those davelvpmenta and any poteffiat eavironmemtal issues asavciated with extending utility service to the proposed project. This will ensure the project's compliance with CEQA and neduee potential delays to tl~e project sdtedula 'We also auooluage the City to include iaiormatiooa about the issue of elecbaic end, magnetic Selds ~ in the Euvitvnmental Impact Report R is P48tE's policy to sheQe iaformet3oa and educate people about the issue of EIVlF. Electric and Magmatic Fields (EMF) rxist wherever there is electricity is appliances, homes, schools and offices, end iai power. lines. TLene is no sciesrtihc consensus on the ~c4rel health effects of EMF exposwv, here it is au issue of public concern. ff you have questions about EMF; Please call your local PCidtE office. A package of won which inciude6 malerlels firom the Cslifmaia Departmeat of Flealth Services ar~d other groups will be sent do you upon your i~gaesi: PC~&.E remaa4s ovtumittcd to worlamg with the City to provide timely, reliable and cost ' e~ective'gas aad~ deatric service to South San Fragciseo.. Please contact Mary Ruiz, Service Plaiming Supervisor, et 415.b95.3434 if yon have any questiions regarding ~ ' - - cdmme~rts. We waald also_gpppeaiate•beirrg copied on futnee ca~pendence.i~c~e+ding .. . this subject as tLis project develops. The California Constitution vests is the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) exclusive power and sole aadharity with respect tD the reEtilation of privately owned or invesWr owned public utilities suet as PG~BtE: This exclusive power extends to all aspects of the location, design, oonstrucdon, nn:intenearx and operation of pablia utility facr~ities. Nevertheless, the CPUC has provisions for regulated atilities to woaic closely with local govenoments and give doe considerntiou to their concerns. PCid~E must balance our cxnanrim~rettt to provide doe eousideratioa to local concerns witbt our obligation to provide the public with e. safe, reliable, coat-effective energy supply is compliance witL the rules'and.tariffs of the CPUC. . APPENDIX B TRAFFIC TABLES AND EQUATIONS PAGE B-1 Appendix B Table 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY RELATIONSHIP FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service A B C D E F Control Delay Per Vehicle (in seconds) 10 > 10-20 > 20-35 > 35 - 55 > 55 - 80 > 80 Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move up time to first in line at the intersection, stopped delay as first car in queue, and final acceleration delay. Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board Appendix B Table 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY RELATIONSHIP FOR ALL-WAY STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service A B C D E F Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (in seconds) 0-10 > 10 - 15 > 15-25 > 25-35 > 35 - 50 > 50 Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move up time to first in line at the intersection, stopped delay as first car in queue, and final acceleration delay. Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board Appendix B Table 3 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PROPOSED/POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND TRIP GENERATION EAST OF 101 FREEWAY (2000-2020) AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT STATUS SIZE LAND USE RATE TR1PS RATE TRIPS Gateway NE Potential 315,710 SF Office 0.95 300 0.86 271 Existin -140,760 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -67 0.54 -76 Trammel Crow Potential 273,580 SF Office 0.95 260 0.86 235 Potential 11,400 SF Commercial 0.93 10 3.39 39 Potential 65 Rooms Hotel 0.27 18 0.19 13 Existin -94,990 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -46 0.54 -52 Oyster Point Marina Potential 3,250 SF Commercial 0.93 3 3.39 I 1 Potential 78,090 SF Office 0.95 74 0.86 67 Potential 20 Rooms Hotel 0.27 5 0.19 4 Pt. Grand Potential 2,110 SF Commercial 0.93 2 3.39 7 Potential 15 Rooms Hotel 0.27 4 0.19 3 Pt. Grand Harbor Way Potential 400,000 SF Office 0.95 380 0.86 344 Potential 23,750 SF Commercial 0.93 23 3.39 81 Potential 135 Rooms Hotel 0.27 36 0.19 26 Existin -197,880 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -95 0.54 -107 Forbes Area Potential 750,690 SF Office 0.95 713 0.86 645 Potential 279,790 SF R&D 0.59 165 0.54 151 Potential 10,590 SF Commercial 0.93 10 3.39 36 Potential 60 Rooms Hotel 0.27 16 0.19 11 Existin -366,300 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -176 0.54 -198 Eccles Area Potential 2,178,840 SF Office 0.95 2069 0.86 1874 Potential 90,790 SF Commercial 0.93 85 3.39 308 Potential 520 Rooms Hotel 0.27 140 0.19 99 Existin -799,410 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -384 0.54 -432 MRF Area Potential 35,130 SF R&D 0.59 21 0.54 19 Existin -17,570 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -8 0.54 -9 Genentech Potential 686,630 SF R&D 0.59 405 0.54 371 Grandview Area Potential 737,900 SF Office 0.95 701 0.86 634 Potential 30,750 SF Commercial 0.93 29 3.39 104 Potential 175 Rooms Hotel 0.27 47 0.19 34 Existin -329,530 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -158 0.54 -178 Dubuque Area Potential 794,580 SF Office 0.95 755 0.86 683 Potential 36,100 SF Commercial 0.93 34 3.39 123 Potential 135 Rooms Hotel 0.27 36 0.19 26 Existin -21,830 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -10 0.54 -11 SUBTOTALS Proposed 0 0 Potential 6341 621 S Existin -944 -1063 TOTAL 5397 5152 Note: Trip generation rates for proposed and potential projects were reduced by 19% to reflect a 45% alternative mode usage as presented in the East of 101 Area Plan (Apri12001). Sources: City of South San Francisco, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001. Appendix B Table 4 BRISBANE PROPOSED/POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND TRIP GENERATION (2000-2020) AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR PLANNING SUBAREA SIZE LAND USE RATE TRIPS RATE TRIPS 1. Sierra Point 42,000 SF Retail 0.67 28 2.93 123 1,646,990 SF Office 1.56 2,569 1.49 2,454 1,100 Rooms Hotel 0.67 737 0.76 836 8,000 SF Restaurant 3.32 26 4.78 39 2. Southeast Bayshore N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 3. Southwest Bayshore 35,000 SF Retail 0.67 23 2.93 102 3,500 SF Office 1.40 5 1.32 5 66,500 SF Trade Comm. 0.98 65 1.24 82 4. Brisbane Acres 210 Units SF Residential 0.74 156 1.01 213 5. Central Brisbane 139 Units SF Residential 0.74 102 1.01 140 16 Units Townhouse 0.44 7 0.55 9 6. OwlBuckeye Canyons N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 7. Quarry N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 8. Crocker Park 2,500 SF Health Club 0.12 0 1.70 5 2,500 SF Retail Outlet 0.36 1 2.14 5 3,000 SF Restaurant 3.32 10 4.78 15 120,140 SF Trade Comm. 0.98 117 1.24 149 9. Northeast Ridge 87 Units SF Residential 0.74 65 1.01 88 268 Units Townhouse 0.44 118 0.55 147 214 Units Condo/A ts. 0.67 143 0.82 176 10. Northwest Bayshore 228,000 SF Trade Comm. 0.98 224 1.24 283 11. Northeast Bayshore N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 12. Baylands 2,000,000 SF Retail 0.77 1,540 3.34 6,680 500,000 SF Office 1.40 700 1.32 660 690,000 SF R&D/Educ. 1.07 738 0.94 649 75,000 SF Restaurant 3.32 250 4.78 359 2,000 Rooms Hotel 0.67 1,340 0.76 1,520 a . 1 mil. SF SUBTOTAL 4,200, 000 SF 4, 568 9, 868 13. Candlestick Cove N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 TOTALS 8,964 14,739 N/A = No net additional development planned. ~'~ Baylands land uses shown are estimated land uses to match maximum high generating traffic increment reported in General Plan EIR traflic analysis. The range of development currently considered feasible by the City of Brisbane would be one million SF of high traffic generating uses to 4.2 million SF of low traflic generating uses. Sources: City of Brisbane 1994 General Plan EIR; CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc. Appendix B Table 5 MENU OF POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES AND C/CAG GUIDELINES TRIP CREDITS NUMBER OF TRIPS RECOMMENDED TOTAL TRIP TDM MEASURE CREDITED UANTITY CREDITS Bicycle lockers and racks 1/3 per bike locker/rack 18 (1 per 50 parking 6 s aces Showers and changing 2 trips per facility Insta113 shower/locker 6 rooms facilities (1 per building) Operation of a shuttle 1 trip per round trip shuttle seat; 2 Implement Guaranteed 160 service to rail stations trips per seat with Guaranteed Ride Ride Home. Implement Home program. 5 trips will be new shuttles or fund credited if shuttle stops at a expansion of existing childcare facility en route to/from shuttles to provide 80 the worksite. additional round tri seats. Charge employees for 1 trip for each parking spot 0 parking charged at $20 per month Subsidize transit tickets for 1 trip per transit pass subsidized at Subsidizes 79 monthly 79 employees $20 per month. 1 additional trip if transit passes (10% of 790 subsidy increased to $75 for employees) parents using transit to take a child to childcare en route to work. Preferential parking for car 2 trips per reserved parking spot 26 carpool parking places 115 and vanpoolers for carpools; 7 trips per parking (3% of 882 total); 9 spot for vanpools. vanpool parking places 1% of 882 Implement a vanpool 7 trips per vanpool, 10 trips with Implement Guaranteed 20 program Guaranteed Ride Home program Ride Home. Implement 2 van ools. Operate commute 1 trip per features, plus 1 trip per Install information kiosks 3 assistance center hour staffed in each of 3 buildings with links to transit and rideshare information Installation of highband 1 trip per connection Coordinated with tenants to 40 width connections to em to ees' homes install connections for 5% of 90 em to ees Install a video conference 20 trips per center Install one video 20 center conference center Provision of on-site 1 trip per on-site feature 0 amenities Coordinate TDM programs 5 trips Coordinate with nearby 5 with existing buildings develo ments/ em to ers Provision of childcare 1 trip for every 2 childcare slots; 0 services as part of the increasing to 1 trip for each slot if development multiple age groups are selected (infants-2 yrs, preschool=3-4 s, school a e=5-13 rs . Combine 10 elements 5 trips 5 TOTAL 459 Source: City of South San Francisco Appendix ~ Ta~ie 6 ~Qa ~~ 544 E >° v+ A00 c .~ a ss. C3 340 240 1 QC ~ L ANE RO 4~ RAPH AE~ LEFT TURtd TREAT~E~6" 4YARRANTEC? (4a mph) 5°16 96 LEFTTURNS 1 +~96 15°.ia LEF T TURN TREATA NAT 1+V1~RRANTE ,~ENT 4096 a 20'~t~ r X40 204 304 404 540 604 740 Advancing Vc+[ume;VPk#~ 'WARRANT F(?R iPR©VISI~N f~F LEFT TURN LANES Intersection ChannelCzat€on Guld'e HCghway Research Program, Repflrt #~79. TRB, November 3985 APPENDIX C AIR QUALITY MODEL OUTPUT, EMISSIONS PROCEDURES, AND CALCULATIONS PAGE C-1 CO ANALYSIS PROCEDURE FOR TRAFFIC INCREASES Traffic : From traffic report. Only weekday PM traffic was used, since highest CO concentrations occur during the early morning or evening. Emission Factors Modeled using EMFAC2002 for San Mateo County Used worst-case speed 5 mph for all street intersection links, which results in high emission rates. Speeds of 25 mph were used for freeway (US Highway 101) operations. EMFAC2002 rates for 2005 used to model existing; rates for 2006 and 2020 for project conditions Reference CO Concentration at edge of roadway (worst case): 14.0 for Primary at grade 4-lane road 3.7 for Secondary at grade 4-lane Road 2.0 for depressed 8-lane freeway at 200 feet Background 8-hour CO concentration: 2.8 ppm for existing/near term and 2.5 ppm for future. Screening Method & Assumptions Use BAAQMD CO Hot Spots Manual calculation method to estimate roadside CO concentrations. The 1-hr average CO concentration is estimated using BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Table 12 values. The BAAQMD max. 1-hr CO values are based on worst-case met conditions and converted to an 8-hour average. The screening calculations that compute the max 1-hour CO concentration contribution from each roadway (in ppm) is based on the following equation: Ci = (Cri x Vi x Efi) / 100,000 Where, Cri = CO reference conc. in ppm Vi = hourly traffic volume EFi = CO emission factor in g/VMT This yields a 1-hour CO concentration based on worst-case meteorology that is then converted to a 8-hour concentration using a persistence factor of 0.7 (recommended by BAAQMD) and then added to the existing background 8-hour concentration (3.5 ppm). The resulting concentration is then compared to NAAQS and CAAQS. Calculations attached. Regional Emissions Calculations Regional emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS 2002 model (version 7.5) obtained from the California Air Resources Board website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/soft.htm URBEMIS 2002 is a computer program that can is used to estimate emissions associated with land development projects in California such as residential neighborhoods, shopping centers, and office buildings. The model calculates emissions from traffic generation, area sources (such as gas appliances, wood stoves, fireplaces, and landscape maintenance equipment) and construction projects. The model includes land use types for different types of retail use. Inputs to the model are as follows: Project Type Size: Home improvement store Trip Rate: Adjusted for project traffic projections Project Year: 2006 Season: Summer Temperature: 85°F All other inputs were default inputs used for analysis conducted in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Emissions were predicted for area sources and operational motor vehicle sources. Area Source Emissions The model predicts area source emissions from the different land uses. These include emissions from natural gas usage and landscape equipment. Traffic Emissions The model predicts vehicle trips and associated vehicle miles traveled based on the land use types. The trip generation from these land use types is adjusted for project-specific forecasts. URBEMIS2002 OUTPUT FOR SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LOWES ?d J~: I uxeFx1S1a03 a,tp::,t. r c VaEEm25 iv0? Far ly}~sQcw:S ...,u F#ie N.YE: ^¢..2F~ {:i pS\~s>=S'E#_T5 23J3 {-pr a'i nC9t.Y t.PrCfeCts:kitti051. LCwoES ..a+t: ~::> i"'^c2j4[E n`ame_ °. idrl FY.2')Gi SL9 lt9mE CvYPac. >:+•S3ELF Ld~,dt5 Wx: 53z1 i'ra,=L f $dy AFei Un-Rpd. mf3T~r vein :o fi'.?g5 i.^,ns R gRtl GY.- FYFK ail 'mrg ``-SXf 7.2 •.IMNA~'~ CF3.;y,T Au~A S~JURCE EmU51Vh E. "mn~:; ROG NCxz S03 ?Ml9 tR 'TU?,L.S <IRS~iay, urmitiy~todi 0.:2) S.SI 1.r7 0.0:3 d-413 JRERA'1CkaL (Vfitt..E; X'#1S's1aN EsixiAleS f Oi: rCs'€ALY (Itslv~ay, wxn±e=,gdt4d') dd.96 ~Vm UY aN.EA ASiU pu Le4'1~?`:AL Em1S51',<a ES.1 zo-~ 1U: AlS Clbs!auy, u: ~g'L',aecC) ss, ?} 503 Rmlb CU S33. F( 0.54 36.14 iC SCJ2 FM10 s3s.ss 9. `.0 a~.an xOn. 52.E1 MA`;"$ k~e Ss... cage: '1 ~ig6EmS5 Yv2 %cF win~t~xrs ...~ Piep Narz}: G::?raj- r ,:.~vr :CQ? Apr Yi ndryas :`ryaS+rr 4.ygR: 5. SL Y - i..`n~K O- lP 7ett5?k?ls9`aF 3CYxe,S.ua'b ' i r r sd rear A a On F~o3 M ,G!Sf 'i4 E(FliiY 1:*19 EantA G. E F .4.[ Yel vi't 2,2 AREA Y t ":l E#i's :,l:iro C>':METES .i`l`nE^ RGY!+df PEr pdy, Urymf Ci•1dCE61 ifz.rCR D:A: tst?x CO 54`32 PN7f) hawr,l as v.31 i.SC G.89 - W.vW Ct;-.,.:~ ~~ Nn Siim+tr emiSS}?ns G. Da F •p~, w - N::t ';g.Ter s*r.4 S51::1':•S L vid3:.ar i~•.<< '3.16 (>.+'i: ..2T Q. C(j O. C.~ '44ALa!'.b, (ddy, unr.:i F#yEF~JY 3.27 3.52 I.77 6.~ 0.61 Pd9t: S IFM#i <I.iA'x.C ~.:~e;eXIZ:XiAi, !:'k7~,S t(X+S RSG Ntx <0 503 p?i:ti Nome imp r6vCRSni Supsrs TO d:..3 36.Sd `•a7. t1 t,'. d? 37, fib arse Marine 2. f•8 ?.f 37.63 0.13? I.&5 'Y O'1AL EM15S10rt3 (9~sS: Uayl id. tb .2.31 53d. i6 0.50 36.3Y fk7ef r0i irt<1{ula GL rECCiQ: 'Gr Vaf SbY C 5 ~n~e i9t iraclp'Q¢ Ap :2 ex;nti dd j:,e h»a r_r r'es'.fdi tr?pg. UrKRAFI `UUU, (Vekir'Rp [Miss/~?k xiTtaaT(5 aueiyf.}a rESr: ?ODF ?Er!EeraturE (:-J: PS SedYCa:: Si{m{+ir EfY'M vers#<m: L#1N =C£~: f4:?CG2) $umavy Oh Larcd 45Ef: vn#t ?ypc~ xri; aeee siz¢ Th td= n'Spa riane imprC•Ve.~~°nC 5xmer•; CO i7.?S XrtuY ? 30tH :G. 1`C. ICy. Ti 5, 56G.~7fl WESt MXYSi1E SS. S$ Lri^.S 3090 SA. kC. 5,54 ?63,42 4~Ett ti..€a A}S 6,TSp2idif: Filf.F Min'; ye£,iCie type Ref'~~a: '/i:E h.'n•'axAljsC :::dE3i€ YC. ~ it it5el sight Au F¢ 5.60 t#ght Tro;ck < 3.750 ?bs 1...10 i.: v" «. C£> 9i. U 9b.4G fl.54 7.80 ~i~hS Trurk I, 957- c %i'' 75.40 - vt.?6 1.1C +g rn+ck ,iS1- ?. SC£~ ~ ` 95.20 3.ti0 h!d ,, »,,a7.1~,49~ :io :%~; s7.e:; o 7~.a :.i;c-nsavy 19,601-/?.009 G.>0 ^ ~ ba ~ p 3'3p 7 Yed•r+edvy 14,001.' ~; 's .^. a ~ . 'J: QO .andvy-tinivy 73, G}Sl-c4.£J^ :` ~ 4 ~ 11.14 83.69 _r,e na,,: > 66,0130 ihf : ~~ ;~ Puv ^.1C ~..~. o. t£' . ll' o.oa 9.04 lc~.ab lU'i. U9 ^"ye?e .%C~ , 3.4:: 17,60 0.90 ~.>i s{ss C. 10 ac+, u. Lri 0. MS 1CY1.00 Mc'crr r+tme 1.?c O. C£' 41.70 ~}.?6 TT~»rel CondF t#a„ aesidQ~t iai i"crtmprLial arri Sh;Y :.)!flaw it€p L9ngLh ?!fiiES: 13.5 7.6 +'cirtr Ca E." ?Ylp, to ha+-W4'4 l1.8 '.0 ~uS LaiNr 5.0 RUr#1 T }p lerojch Pie;, IY 3? 0 30.0 ls.0 16.0 10.U 7rSpp t~ais Qnph) -0 ^ ..0 313.0 30,U 3tl.a x9f-.ring • pe?; i,le,.aa ~...n .... 5'.; 'K eP Trips LatAwi~_`:di (ty idrt:d :.sue, N~;m,tl #m{1rCV(flm tirC SupFM Cd'Y fL'J•Nfiii 7. t1 7.9 9T.~] agst Mart n. ^..9 1.0 9t.0 C:rgr: A {'h.]nOrS mdd~` SC ihf pe`d{;it Yd'~RPF. fpf {,d*d £~SE Tf}R pr rfG/Ifi()t!I. Pa9~t 1 CO Screening Calculation Worksheet so~~•t~-sa~~ri>tsavc-rsco r:ow~s GAkBO..ItJ.Q.~L1E e...LLYSE$ 1+M?cak F391a Astuotet wont rav of atE iAteaurtioot Gaud eA toial ~titlAme, 4CF5 atd project gatfipr emteibtttitAt t~~ff,.- c~,~»~».• f -tt~„u ru c.mna, d;~m Taal 0-Hoer CO CarteWr:[tes Stl9tnu. mt6 tti...-- Yca au.- Sw6Gu... Yaroa...- 2006 Baxe4 3020 Hasa* (atxrsettlAa zaw ce. t.9.z+ +aolsa taw m»tw.co. er.„a tt.t.n I:sitt 20066weCate Frojece projen LiaF: 01~ster}biovDuG9qut Atr 7.3 fi.9 6.t3 4.4 OvslerPoiAt Bltd.• 30}5 3764 3'.69 S67E 4.1 S.1 i.! 1.9 DubuyueAv _300 2F?t 253$ s5$3 1.0 lG 1.1 0.4 Frtcway • YH U$101 ~'_OOfl io Cltt• 7535 $060 SDbO IQV W 0.9 t.0 1 A 0.3. Fr~w..ay.SHtl4ltltu20bflinCot• e2$0 MNS ti9aS 10000 b.$ 0.:3 0.s O.i LinM° CieanAla~GAtpv me _ i,4 .5.6 3.7 1,6 CirandAas• E9t0 2424 :i?# 5-s0? 2.6 33. i3 tt bu6Agw Mr 200 2Ab 312 t92 0.1 tl.I bl 00 freewn•-\91 l`)Ib11rC_`(MnieCM• 7)SS $060 SbtNl IOOOb 01 ps b3 b3 Freeway • S9 US701 3200n tt1 C.M• b2$t) A945 6945 IbCPo0 0.$ tl 3 b 3 n l _ 1A61Ca1tE pleAW IW16waY (4bIC IV (06bC[WEVDK) _ _ Etektlw Fut9ts (E.\fFAC2W2 ~Su 7<4Cee Cry) T ~~ ~ Dbpeaslw FactAas _ . ~ rd13 t~ E ar F {3ng~) [IOS'06 . t 1 345 Luigi 0 R.t7R B Af F tSAtph) ^020 ++ ~ : $a0 $:'AM 4 l,A 119 RPS S. orF {.51apb - Crm~'ay1 40k06 GO$$ gAti $ (,\ idepl • 200fl «.0 I.CM fi nr F' C«Smp6 . Pveeway) 202; _ 1 6'7 g-mi $ t-N {der?, 0b0 0 7 Ln 3.9 Sackgrontl CO lea'els j, How 8Hosr a Lo 3,3 Re1k+~aa6CiN~$aa Fr®cicrn Stn • F~citt S :..8 61e :.3 FtAAre SQ 2S