HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 Bay West Cove Draft EIR DRAFT
Environmental Impact Report
Bay West Cove Commercial Project
City of South San Francisco
Morehousis Associates
SUMMARY, PROJECT 'DATA.
Ba West Cove Commercial PrDjcct
Locatiow ,East of Hwy. 101,and north-of Oyster Point Blvd. to
San'Frandsco Bay.
Land Area: 55A acres on-shore, and.118.6 acres off-shore.
Proposed Mixed User. Automobile sales, large commercial retail,
r w
S, SAN MA
DESIQNAnON
Current land uses: Vacant.site with remedisited haiakdo' us
General plan (East of 101 Area Plan) designation: Planned
Commerdal/Planned Industrial.
Zoning Ordinance designation: Nonq-,-E.ast of 101 Area.Plan
APPLICANTS REPRESENTATWYM
Mr. Bill Poland
Bay.West Group
.OW ToWhsend SL
San Frandsco, .CA 94103,
Contact:. Susy Kalldn;Senior Planner
City f South San Francisco
T=g Department
(415) 877�805
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFr
ENVMONA41NTAL IMPACT REPORT
BAY A'EST COVE COMhffiRCL4L PROJECT
(Formefly Shearwater Project)
State Clearinghouse No.
96092081
Prepared for:
City of South San Francisco
Planning Department
400 GrandAve.
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Prepared by:
Morehouse Associates
Consultants in Urban Planning and Design
P. 0. Box 188
Corte Madera, CA 94976
in association with:
Omni-Means Ltd.,Transportation Consultants, Walnut Creek
Don Ballanti, Certified Consulting Meteorologist� E Cerrito
Dames & Moore, Geotechnical Engineers, San Francisco
Andrew I Leahy, Registered Civil Engineer, San Francisco
RMI Inc., Biologists, an Rafael
August 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
KpUe
HVIRODUCHON
1.1 Purpose and Authority r the EIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Impact Analysi Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Public Comment on the Draft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-
NMQA77ON MEASURES
2.1 Overview of Significant Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. PROJECI'DESCREMON
3.1 Project Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Development Concept Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Project to ° es . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e
3.4 Project Approvals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Environmental . . . . . m . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . ®1
® . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. VISUAL CONDITIONS
.1 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
5.2 Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . 5®
® ® i . . . . . . . . n . . , . , . . a .
6. TRANSPORTA71ON AND CIRCULA71ON
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ® .
6.2 Base Case Analyses Without the Project
. . . . . . . . . .
.3 Significant Mitigation . . . . . . .
i t Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
x
Page
7. AIR QUALITY
7.1 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
7.2 Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures . . ° . . . . 7-7
7.3 Less-Than-Significant Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-10
8. NOISE
8.1 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
8.2
® Significant Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 8-7
9. EARTH
9.1 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1
9.2 Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures . . . . . . 9-12
9.3 ® i Impacts . . . . . . _ _ _ _ 9-17
10. HUMAN HEALTH
10.1 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-2
10.2 Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures , , , . , . . 10-8
10.3 Less-Than-Significant Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-10
11. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
11.1 Enviromnental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-1
11.2 Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . 11-7
11.3 Less-Than-Significant Impacts . . . . . . . . 11-13
12. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
12.1 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-1
12.2 Less-Than-Significant Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-9
13. CULTURAL RESOURCES
13.1 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-1
13.2 Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . 13-2
13.3 Less-Than-Significant Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-4
Eage.
14. Lrrt[ZIIES
® Water Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . ® . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-1
14.2 Wastewater Collection and Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . 14-6
14.3 Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-19
14.4 Gas and Electrical Semce . . . . . . . 14-19
14.5 Solid Waste Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-20
14.6 Energy Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-21
15. PUBUC SERVICES
15.1 Standards of Significance and Summary of Impacts 15-1
15.2 Police Protection
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-1
15.3 Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services . . . 15-5
15.4 Maintenance of the Bay Trail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-8
15.5 Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5®
15.6 Cumulative Impacts to Public Services . . . . . . . . . . 15-11
16. OPEN SPAM AND RECREATION
16.1 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ®1
16.2 Less-Than-Significant impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ®5
17. POPUIA77ON AND HOUSING
17.1 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 17-1
17.2 Less-Than-Significant Impacts . . . . . . . . . . 17-3
18. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
18.1 Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-1
18.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-5
18.3 Unavoidable Adverse impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-7
18.4 Irreversible Adverse impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-8
19. ff"ACIS OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED
PROJECT'
19.1 No Project Alternative . . . . . . . . . 19-1
19.2 Reduced Development Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-8
193 Off-Site Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-14
3
Eae
20. CONTRIBUTORS AND SOURCES
20.1 EIR Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ®1
20.2 Project Applicant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-2
® Persons and Organizations Contacted . . . . . 20-3
20.4 Bibliography and Documents
Incorporated by Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-4
21. APPENDICES
® Notice of Preparation
21.2 Transportation and Circulation Impacts Traffic Data
(Separately Bound)
21.3 Air Quality Methodology and Assumptions
21.4 Biological Resources On-Site Prior to Remediation.
21.5 Mitigation Monitoring Program
LIST OF FIGURES
Ewe No. Zid_e EUe
3-1 Regional Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
3-2 Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3-3 Project Area Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
3-4 Generalized Topography . . . . . . . . 3-8
® Shoreline Photographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
3-6 Project Area Aerial Photograph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11
® Land Use Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14
® Conceptual Shoreline Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . 3-17
3-9 Conceptual Cross-Sections at Shoreline . . . . . . . . . . 3-18
3-10 Proposed Oyster Point Boulevard Cross-Section . . . . 3-22
3-10 Emergency Access Easement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-25
4-1 East of 101 Area Plan Iand Use Map . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
5-1 Visual Exposure of the Site and Bay 5-2
5-2 Key to Photograph Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
® Photographs of the Project Area . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
5-4 Photographs of the Project Area, Page 2 . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
5-5 Photographs of the Project Area, Page 3 5-6
® Site Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2
® Year 2000 Intersection Land Geometrics . . . . . . . . . . 6-8
® Approved, Planned and Potential Development . . . . 6-10
6-4 Year 2000 Baseline Without Project
(No U.S. 101 SB Flyover) AK (PM)
Peak Hour Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-11
® Year 2010 Intersection Lane Geometries . . . . . . . . . 6-15
6-6 Year 2010 With Flyover: Base Case AM, (PM)
Peak Hour Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16
® Year 2000 + Project (No U.S. SB Flyover)
AM, (PM) Peak Hour Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-25
® Year 2010 With Flyover + Project AM,
(PM) Peak Hour Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-28
8-1 Noise Contours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3
9-1 Soils and Bedrock Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-4
® Major Active Faults in the Bay Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6
ii 10-1 Remediation Management Zone
Configuration Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ®5
12-1 Pre-Remediated Site Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-4
® Reinediated Site Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-6
16-1 Existing Bay Trail East of Project 16-2
5
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Tide Page
® Potential Wetlands and Waters Within the
Project Site, Including Areas Exempt from
Jurisdiction Under 33 CFR328.3(a). . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
3.2 Proposed Maximum Building Area
and Hotel Rooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20
6.1 Year 2000 Baseline Selected Intersection
LOS Conditions Without Proposed Project,
AM and PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-12
6.2 Year 2010 Baseline Intersections LOS Conditions
Without Proposed Project, AM and PM Peak Hour . 6-19
® Proposed Project Trip Generation:
Daily AM and PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-22
6.4 PM Peak Hour Project Trip Distribution 6-23
6.5 Year 2000 Baseline Intersections LOS
Conditions With and Without Proposed
Project, AM and PM Peak Hour . . . . . . , . . . . . . . ® 6-26
6.6 Year 2010 Baseline Intersections LOS
Conditions With and Without Proposed
Project, AM and PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-29
7.1 Major Criteria Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2
7.2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards 7-3
7.3 Summary of Air Quality Data for San Francisco
and Redwood City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5
7.4 Project Regional Emissions in Pounds Per Day . . . . . ®1
7.5 Predicted Worst-Case Carbon Monoxide
Concentrations at Selected Intersections in
Parts Per Million . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-12
8.1 Construction Equipment of Levels . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9
9.1 Summazy of Regional Fault Characteristics . . . . . . 9-10
15.1 Staffing Projections by the Police Department 15-4
19.1 Comparison of Potential Significant Adverse
Impacts of the Project with hnpacts of Other
® Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-2
19.2 Reduced Development Alternative
Proposed Maximum Building Area 19-9
Appendices
21.4-1 Plant Species Observed on the Project Site
21.4-2 Wildlife Species Observed at the Project Site
12.4-3 Special Status Species
6
Pus Environmental IApact Repon was prepared by Morehouse Associates,
Corte Madera, Cafifomia, and its subconsultanis. The consultant team has
devoted their best efforts to prepare a comprehensive information document
which idendfies and evaluates the hkely environmental anpacts of the proposed
project, and the possible measures which could be undertaken to nutigate
adverse impacts.
7he report is solely intended to fully disclose iinpacts and assist in the
evaluation of the proposedprqJect 7he consultants shall not be liable for costs
or damages of any chent or third party caused by the use of this document for
any other purposes, for such costs or damages of any client or third parties
caused by delay or teimination of any project due to judicial or administrative
action, whether or not such action is based on the form or content of this
report or any portion thereofprepared by the consultants
ENURODUMON
2
3
1.1 PURPOSE AND AUTHORnY FOR THE OR 4
5
6
1.1.1 Prqect Under Review 7
8
The proposed Bay West Cove Project (the "Project") includes an automobile sales 9
® ,large retail outlet stores,hotels and potential restaurants. The Project would .10
be built on a site bordered by Hwy. 101 and the Southern Pacific Railroad on the 11
west, Oyster Point Boulevard on the south, warehousing on the east, and San 12
Francisco Bay on the north. Development would take Place on a site which has been 13
cleaned-up of hazardous materials. See the full discussion of the proposed Project 14
in Chapter 3. 15
16
17
® Author*for the Environmental Impact Report (EEP.) 18
19
The proposed Bay West Cove Project will require the City of South San Francisco 20
to amend the East of 101 Area Plan (the General Plan which governs development 21
in the area) and approve a Specific Plan for the property. The Redevelopment 22
Agency will also be required to consider the Project. Prior to final action on any 23
application, the City will have to consider the potential adverse enviromnental 24
impacts created by the Project, and adopt measures to eliminate or significantly 25
reduce such impacts, should they be found adverse. 26
27
On Sept.27, 1996, a Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR was released for comment 28
by agencies and individuals. All property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the 29
project, along with reviewing agencies and organizations were sent notices and the _V
Initial Study. On the basis of the Initial Study, the City determined that an 31
Environmental Impact Report should be prepared. Agencies provided written 32
comments on the issues to be addressed in the EIR. 33
34
35
1.13 Use of the EIR 36
37
'Me EIR is required to assist the City of South San Francisco, in its capacity as Lead 38
Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),make an informed 39
decision regarding the Project. The EIR is also intended to inform other 40
I
1. INMODUCTION
public agencies of environmental impacts which may affect their jurisdictions or I
authority, as well as to inform interested citizens. Ile City would not be able to 2
approve the Project until it has considered the EIR and certified its adequacy under 3
CEOA. 4
5
6
® . Tiering Based Upon The East of 101 Area Plan EIR 7
8
In July of 1994, the City of South San Francisco certified the Final Enviromnental 9
Impact Report on the proposed East of 101 Area Plan. The Project site is within the 10
East of 101 Area. Under Area Plan Policy IM-12, "New public and private projects 11
in the East of 101 Area shall undergo site-specific environmental analysis if required 12
by the California Envirom-nental Quality Act. To the extent legally permitted, such 13
environmental analysis may rely on base areawide data and analysis contained in the 14
enviromnemtal impact report for [the] Area Plan, as well as other relevant 15
environmental review documents." 16
17
CEQA guidelines allow for a Lead Agency to prepare a "supplement to an EIR" is
rather than a subsequent EIR unless,in general, there are substantial changes® the 19
project which would result in new or more severe impacts, a r t here are new 20
circumstances, new information, or new mitigation measures which should be 21
considered. The intent of CEQA is to of duplication and re-analysis where 22
feasible. The City determined to prepare a new EIR rather than a supplement for 23
this project, because there were changes in the proposed Project, and new 24
information (e.g., on the location of hazardous materials beneath the Project site). 25
Also, changes to the East of 101 Area Plan itself are being considered as part of the 26
Project. Nevertheless, some analyses conducted in the Area Plan EIR are applicable 27
to the assessment of impacts for the proposed Project. Therefore, pursuant to 28
section 21068.5 of CEQA, this EIR "tiers" off of the Area Plan EIR. While CEQA 29
allows for incorporation by reference,this EIR excerpts relevant sections of the Area 30
Plan EIR for the convenience of readers of the Project EIR. The full East of 101 31
Area Plan EIR may be reviewed by contacting the City of South San Francisco 32
Planning Department, at the address provided at the end of this chapter. 33
34
35
1 - 2
1. INTRODUCTION
® IWACI7 ANALYSIS PROCMURES
2
3
12-1 Detemrination of
® 4
5
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) a "significant" effect is 6
defined as a
® or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment 7
(Public Resources Code Section 21068). The Guidelines implementing CEQA 8
require that this determination be based on scientific and factual data. 9
10
® each of the impact analysis chapters in this EIR, specific criteria are defined 11
for determining the significance of a particular impact. The criteria are consistent 12
with standards set forth in the Guidelines implementing
® Based upon these 13
standards, the range of impacts described in this EIR are defined as follows: 14
15
"Sienificant" firmacts 16
17
Impacts which are described as "significant" exceed thresholds defined by CEQA, a 18
regulatory agency or by specialists in the field. The term also reflects a level of 19
certainty that the impacts would occur if the Project goes forward as proposed. 20
2d
"Potentiallv sianificant" imnacts 22
23
Impacts which are described as "potentially significant" suggest that they would be 24
significant if measures proposed by the applicant or the EIR to mitigate the adverse 25
effects were not successful. For example, noise and dust from construction 26
operations are described as"potentially significant"to nearby businesses and residents 27
if identified mitigation measures to control noise and dust were not implemented. 28
29
"Less-than-sienificant" imDacts, 30
31
Impacts are"less-than-sipificant"where they do not exceed thresholds of significance 32
outlined in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. Significant Effects, or in common usage 33
by the lead agency or qualified practitioners in the field.Where impacts are identified 34
as less-than-significant, CEQA does not require the discussion or adoption of 35
mitigation measures. 36
37
"Beneficial
jiMpacts 38
39
The terms 'beneficial" and "insignificant" impacts are not defined in the CEQA 40
Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR a beneficial environmental impact is one in 41
which an environmental condition is enhanced or improved, while an insignificant 42
1 ® 3
1. INTRODUCTION
impact is one in which there is no long- or short-term significant adverse change in I
environmental conditions. 2
3
4
IM Mtigation of Impacts 5
6
Where potentially significant or significant environmental impacts are predicted, the 7
EIR must identify methods for mitigating such effects to less-than-significant levels. a
9
CEQA requires that public agencies not approve projects as proposed until all 10
feasible means available (Le, mitigation measures or alternatives) have been 11
considered to substantially lessen the significant adverse effects of such projects. 12
"Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a 13
reasonable period of time.' 14
15
For each case in which mitigation measures or an identified alternative cannot 16
substantially mitigate an identified finpa ision-making body must make a 17
"statement of overriding considerations" in order to approve the Project. 18
19
20
123 Alternatives to the Project 21
22
As required by CEQA, alternatives to the proposed project are required where they 23
would reduce or eliminate the impacts of the proposed Pr ecL Three alternatives 24
are outlined in Chapter 19 and their impacts discussed, relative to the impacts of the 25
proposed ProjecL The City may consider these alternatives in denying, or approving 26
the proposed Project. 27
28
29
12-4 Standard for Adequacy 30
31
Section 15151 of CEQA Guidelines specifies that an EIR should be prepared with 32
a sufficient depth of analysis to provide decision-makers with information that 33
enables them to make a decision which considers environmental consequences. An 34
evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed Project need not be exhaustive; 35
the adequacy of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. 36
CEQA requires a good faith effort at full disclosure. Where a project effect is too 37
speculative for evaluation, it need not be further addressed. 38
40
41
Public Remurcm Code 21061.1 42
1 - 4
1. INTRODUCTION
1.3 PUBLIC COMNFNT ON THE DRAFI7 M
2
Members of the public and representatives of interested jurisdictions, agencies and 3
organizations may comment on the Draft EIR during a 45-day review period. 4
Written comments received during this period will be responded to in a Final EIR 5
(FEIR). The Planning Commission will of a public hearing to review the proposed 6
Project and the accompanying DEIR. 'Me public will have an opportunity to 7
comment at the hearing. The Planning Commission will then recommend to the City 8
Council and the Redevelopment Agency,action on the EIR and on the Project. The 9
City may deny the Project, approve the Project as proposed, approve it with certain 10
mitigations, approve it with possible conditions, or approve an alternative projea 11
12
Readers of this document who wish to comment on particular text are asked to 13
reference the relevant page number and if number(shown on each page,as on this 14
page). Please contact the following department for the due date for written 15
comments. Comments may be submitted to the address provided below. 16
17
18
Planning Department 19
City of South San Francisco 20
P.O. Box 711 21
South San Francisco, CA 94083 22
23
Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner 24
(415) 877-8535
25
26
1, INMODUCHON
2. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACI7S
AND MITIGATION MEASURES 2
3
4
2.1 OVERVIEV OF SIGNMCANT IWACrS 5
6
The ProjeM ff approved, would result in twenty "significant", or "potentially 7
significant" impacis. Each such impact is required to be mitigated. With the 8
exception of one identified impact to traffic conditions and one impact to regional 9
air quality, all of these impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels, if 10
mitigation measures are implemented. For the two unavoidable impacts which 11
cannot be mitigated to insignificant levels, the City would have to make "statements 12
of over-riding considerations" to approve the Project. 13
14
Each of the significant or potentially significant adverse impacts and measures 15
proposed to mitigate them are summarized in the table beginning below. Impacts are 16
identified with a black square ( s accompanied by the chapter and sec ® of the 17
EIR where they are discussed more fully. Mitigation measures are signified with a 18
black diamond l 19
20
Less-than-significant impacts are discussed in each impact chapter (chapters 4 - 18). 21
22
mom= 23
LEVEL OF ENVIRONW[ENTAL DffAM AND LEVEL OF 24
SIGNIFICANCE NMOATION hEEASURES SIGNIFICANCE 25
WrMOUT AFMR 26
MITIGATION MITIGATION 27
Significant 28
29
Loading docks could be located at the rear of 30
commercial buildings facing the bay shoreline, in 31
conflict with East of 101 Area Plan policy DE-17. 32
33
Mithration Mea sures. Require loading docks t o i t 34
o be Nt Sgnifican
Za
located at the side of buildings is are sited 35
adjacent to the shoreline or "slot". 36
37
2 - 1
2 SUMAMRY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MFFIGA77ON MF,4SURES
LEVEL OF ENVIRON]MENTAL IMPAM AND LEVEL OF 2
SIGNIFICANCE rNMGA110N hIEASURES SIGNIFICANCE 3
W=OUT AFTM 4
MMGAnON MITIGATION 5
Significant 0 Chanter 6.3.4 Decline in LOS below level "D" at 6
three intersections for the year 2000 2haYro*ect 7
® The study intersections of Bayshore US 101 8
SB off-ramp; Airport/Sister Cities/Oyster Point; and 9
Oyster Point/Gateway would operate at unacceptable 10
levels for the AM and/or PM peak hour. 11
12
Mifleation Measures. Make improvements to the Not Significant 13
intersections to elevate LOS to level "D" or better. 14
No SB 101 flyover would be required to mitigate for 15
impacts
tote intersections. 16
17
Significant 0 Chanter 6.3.5 Decline in LOS below level "D" at 18
five intersections for thr,year 2010 baseline plus 19
Project traffic. Five of the Project study intersections 20
would operate at LOS "E" or worse during either the 21
AM or PM peak hour. These five intersections are 22
Oyster Point/US 101 NB on-ramp/Dubuque; Oyster 23
Point/Gateway/US 101 SB flyover ®r Oyster 24
Point/Eccles; Airport/Grand; and Grand/Gateway. 25
26
Mideation Measures. Make improvements to the Significant. 27
intersections to elevate the LOS for AM and PM Requires a 29
peak hours to level"D" or better. Improvements to statement of 29
the Oyster Point/Gateway/US 101 SB flyover off- overriding 30
ramp would not raise the LOS for either the AM or considerations to 31
PM peak hour beyond level "E". Therefore, the approve Project 32
peak hours LOS for this intersection would be without 33
considered a signiftcant unavoidable impact. mitigation. 34
35
36
2 - 2
2 SUMAL4RY OF MGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
LEVEL OF ENVIRONbEENTAL IMPACrS AND LEVEL OF 2
SIGNIFICANCE hMGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE 3
VaMOUT
® 4
MITIGATION MMGAITON 5
No=
Significant N Chapter 7.2.2 Construction dust Fugitive dust 6
emitted during construction could be a nuisance to 7
nearby properties and people with respiratory 8
problems. 9
10
Follow dust control Not Significant 11
measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality 12
Management District. 13
14
Significant 0 Cha Aer 7° °3 Sigmificant incre mffl re 'onal air 15
Rt ---a-
nollution emissions. Project traffic would emit 16
hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate 17
matter over the Bay Area which exceed thresholds 18
established by the BAAQMD. 19
20
re ° Implement a Significant. 21
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Requires a 22
program to reduce vehicular trips. However, the statement of 23
nature of the proposed Project severely limits the overriding 24
potential for reducing trips, so that the regional air considerations to 25
pollution would be considered a significant approve Project 26
unavoidabk bVact. without 27
mitigation. 28
29
2 - 3
° SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANTIMPACTS AND MITIGATION MMISURES
LEVEL OF ENVIRONAWIqTAL BeACM AM LEVEL OF t
2
SIGNIFICANCE NMGA710N MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE 3
MITIGATION MITIGATION S
Significant a ter 9.2.2 Potential jpsa ili ° ® 6
Commercial s and streets which will be 7
constructed on the soil underlies as of 8
e Project site may be subject to instability
damage. 10
11
hfitization Measures. Geotechnical Safety Not Significant 12
Element policies GEO-I and GEO-2 will require 13
site-specific investigations to design foundations 14
minimize which will instability and damagea 15
16
17
Significant 0 ChaRter 9.2.3 Laterals rea ° ate ` l. 18
Ground shaking or liquefaction caused 19
shaking may cause marshlands underlaid by Recent 26
Bay rea laterally, and cause damage to 21
structures. 22
23
Mitization Measures. Policies GEO-10 and Not i 24
GEO-11 should be implemented w' respect to 25
liquefaction-induced lateral spreading. 26
27
23
Significant ter .2m to *a liquefaction 29
liquefiable zone comprised of sand layers on the 30
Project site could be susceptible to liquefaction 31
during an earthquake, undermining structures. 32
33
i ° ai ea esa Examine the liquefaction Not Significant 34
potential for individual buit 35
policies -1 0 and GEO-11 which require design 36
and construction e a s (such ile mitigate 37
for liquefaction. 3
-
2 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFIC&VrIMPACTS AND WFICYWTION MEASURES
LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL BeACIS AND LEVEL OF I
SIGNIFICANCE M[T[GATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE 2
W=OUT AFMR 3
h4ITIGATION MITIGATION 4
Significant 0 5
6
materials. Excavation for utilities and building 7
foundations could expose buried hazardous materials 8
by dispersion of airborne particulates, dermal 9
contact or ingestion or contact with contaminated 10
groundwater. 11
12
Apply the approved Not Significant 13
Remedial Action Plan with respect to controls for 14
hazardous to clean-up, training of workers, dust 15
suppression, air monitoring to verify the 16
effectiveness of hazard controls, and recordation of 17
deed restrictions which survey the locations of 18
remediated wastes to alert future property owners. 19
20
Significant 0 a ter 11.2 7 'Pe%*s-"*;01 21
22
2ff:dte ° aye Ive a Construction could 23
demolish an existing City culvert which drains a 24
portion of Oyster Point Blvd° that crosses the 25
eastern portion of the Project site. Drainage would 26
be interrupted. 27
28
AMfifi9y_a91iioMnMMemas=& If the culvert still serves as Not Significant 29
an o u t f a l l, i t s hould be connected directly into the 30
Project drainage system and additional capacity be 31
provided to accommodate all upstream storm 32
drainage which is directed t® the culvert. 33
34
2 - 5
® SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND M177a4TION MEASURES
LEVEL OF ENVIRONNENTAL D"ACM AND LEVEL OF I
SIGNIFICANCE MTIGAn0N hW-ASURES SIGNIFICANCE 2
WrITIOUT AFMR 3
MITIGATION MITIGATION 4
IN=
Significant 0 Qapter-1 1.2.3. Potential localized flooding. 5
Locaked flooding on the site could occur if the on- 6
site drainage system does not convey existing and 7
future upstream runoff through the site to San 8
Francisco Bay, or if surface gradients are inadequate 9
to convey drainage. 10
11
4 Ntigation Measures. Design the drainage system Not Significant 12
to accommodate reasonably foreseeable design 13
rainfall events. Provide an overland flow route from 14
the Gateway Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. area capable of 15
conveying oftsite flows to the bay if the storm 16
drainage system becomes blocked. 17
18
Grading should consider fill composition and 19
thickness in the design of the drainage system. 20
Comply with Geotechnical Safety Element policies 21
® , -2 -3, -7 and -8 dealing with geotechnical 22
investigations relating to drainage. 23
24
25
Significant 0 Chanter 11.2.4. Potential waterqyaliV 26
deUadation. The Project could cause to ter 27
containing oil and gas residues, heavy metals, tire 28
fragments, and fertilizers to enter the bay and the 29
remediated wetland in the "slot" and cause 30
degradation of water quality and wildlife habitat. 31
32
Mitieation Measures. The applicant should Not Significant 33
prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 34
(SWPPP) in accordance with best management 35
practices of the Regional Water Quality Control 36
Board, to control pollution sources through runoff 37
treatment. The plan shall comply with the City's 38
Clean Water Permit and all applicable requirements
of the RWQCB. 40
2 - 6
2 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFIC4NT IMPACTS AAFD MITIGATION MEASURES
LEVEL OF ENMONMEWAL D"ACTS AND LEVEL OF I
SIGNIFICANCE NMOA71ON MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE 2
WMOUT AFMR 3
MITIGATION MMGA77ON 4
Significant 0 Cha ter 1 Potential cumulative fl l 5
The Project plus other 6
related projects would cause a small, but 7
cumulatively significant localized flooding and 8
degradation of water quality. 9
10
�Measures. The measures discussed Not Significant 11
Chapters
® ® and 11.2.4 above also apply to the 12
mitigation of c ! Cs,t 13
14
15
Significant 16
17
re mediation and construc#4 . Excavation and 18
foundation and utilities construction could 19
inadvertently unearth historic or archeologic 20
resources. 21
22
—N-fifilLtion Measures, Protect cultural resources Not Significant 23
found during construction by stopping wor 24
requiring an evaluation of the find by a cultural 25
resource consultant and undertaking other measures 26
outlined in CEOA Guidelines Supplementmy 27
29
29
2 - 7
2 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITICrATION MEASURES
LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACIIS AND IEVEL OF I
SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE 2
WITIIOUT AFTER 3
MITICATION MITIGATION 4
Significant 5
insufficient dr weather wastewater treatment
1_ 6
oRgc:ily. The Project could lower the quality and 7
increase the frequency of partially-treated discharges 8
from the Water Quality Control Plant into the bay, 9
if dry weather capacity is shown to be exceeded. 1®
11
M1 °o re The City and other cities Not Significant 12
which use the WQCP should develop an equitable 13
sewer connection allocation until the plant 14
improvements are made. 15
16
17
Significant 18
r °eft t)r re to ter 19
treatment oXggi
:1y. Approval of the proposed 20
Project could overcommit the system by granting 21
service connections which have already been 22
allocated to other projects. Build-out of all projects 23
with allocations would increase the Uelihood of 24
further partially-treated effluent discharges into 25
receiving waters that would diminish water quality. 26
27
Mi ures. In accordance with the
�ti�ation�Meas� Not Significant 28
East of 101 Area Plan Public Facilities Element 29
Policies PF-4 and PF-5, the City should not grant a 30
wastewater treatment allocation to the Project, until 31
it has been confirmed that the plant has available 32
capacity, considering all currently committed but 33
unused allocations. 34
35
2 - 8
2 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFIC41VTIM PAS TS AND AUTIGATION MEASURES
LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOACrS AND ]LEVEL OF I
SIGNMCANCE hMGAIION bULASURES SIGNMCANCE 2
VaMOUT AFTER 3
MMGATION MMGATION 4
Significant 0 5
Eastewater collection facilities. The Project would 6
increase the rate and volume of sewage through the 7
existing subsiding sewer line on Harbor Way and 8
through pumps that have been identified in need of 9
replacement. The Project could cause the a failure 10
of these facilities. 11
12
MLitigation Measures. Ile Project applicant has Not Significant 13
agreed to contribute its share of the improvement of 14
the Harbor Way sewer line and pumping station 15
before additional wastewater flows from the Project 16
are introduced into the collection system. 17
18
19
Significant ter a Cu ulative i tote 20
t ter etit to 'Me Project's demand 21
for treatment capacity is considered in the context of 22
other areas served by the City's Water Quality 23
Control Plant. 24
25
The mitigation measures Not Significant 26
defined for impacts 14.2.6 and 14.2.7 also apply to 27
cumulative wastewater treatment impacts. 28
20
30
2 - 9
2 SUMMARY OF MGMFICANTIMPAC7S AND MITIGATION MEASURES
LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACrS AND LEVEL OF I
SIGNIFICANCE AMIGAnON ACEASURES SIGNIFICANCE 2
WrMOUT AFMR 3
MITIGATION MITIGATION 4
NM MMMMEEM
Significant 0 Chanter 15.2.2. Increased demand foLpalice 5
services. Based upon the amount of commercial 6
S pace proposed for the Project, the Police 7
Department estimates that about 2 officers and 1/2 8
police car would be required to serve the Project. 9
10
Mitization Measures. The applicant should Not Significant 11
submit a Security and Safety Plan at the precise plan 12
approval stage, is would provide for private 13
security guards on-site, beginning with the 14
construction phase. The applicant should contribute 15
half of the cost of a police vehicle to the City. 26
17
18
Significant E Charoter 15.4.2. Need for Bay Trail maintenance, 19
Ile Project will create an on-going need for 20
maintenance of the proposed Bay Trail and 21
shoreline band through the Project site. In the 22
absence of a funding mechanism to maintain the 23
path, this is a significant impact. 24
25
Mitieation Measures. The applicant should own Not Significant 26
and maintain the Bay trail and all improvements 27
within the 100 ft. wide shoreline band, pursuant to a 28
development agreement. 29
30
2 - 10
2 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AAFD MITIGA77ON MEASURES
LEVEL OF ENVIRONNW14TAL 1WACrS AND LEVEL OF I
SIGNIFICANCE NMGA71ON NWASURES SIGNIFICANCE 2
WMOUT AFTM 3
MMGATION MITIGATION 4
Significant 0 5
(Included in Chapter 63-5) 6
7
Significant 8
9
10
Significant 0 Cha ter i I umulative storm wate r u 11
jMaacts. (Included in Chapter 1124) 12
13
Mitigation Measures. ®t Significant 14
15
16
Sipfficant E Ch ter 18.1.3 Cumulative wastewater gVAcit
17
2gnstraint. (Included in Chapter 142-9) 18
19
ft
M igation, Measures. Not Significant 20
21
Significant 0 Ch Aer 18.3.1 Unavoidable 1caffic con estion 22
iAARMLiAMLi- Z_ 23
for the g ear 2010. (Included in Chapter 63-5) 24
25
Significant 26
27
28
Significant 2.0
dagmd,ation. (Included in Chapter 7.23) 30
31
Mitigation M
...AMU ro.
Significant 32
33
2 - 11
2 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
a
® PROJECI7 DESCRIMON 1
2
3
Bay West Cove is a proposed mixed retail, automobile sales and hotel development project, 4
to
el on a 55.4 acre vacant site in the eastern portion of the City of South San 3
Francisco, bordering San Francisco Bay. The Project would serve customers and visitors mi 6
the North San Mateo area as well as South San Francisco residents and nearby employees 7
in the East of 101 Area. 8
9
The Project would consist of approximately 500,000 gross square feet (gsf) of commercial, 10
floor space at full build-out,which could also include up to a maximum of 1225 hotel rooms 11
in lieu of approximately 300,000 gsf of retail commercial floor space. 12
13
Related improvements include the construction of parldng areas to serve the proposed 14
commercial and hotel uses,landscaping of the Project site,installation of utilities, signs and 15
lighting fixtures. The site would also be graded to allow for the proposed improvements and 16
to ensure proper drainage of the site. 17
18
The proposed Project would also include the construction of a linear park adjacent to San 19
Francisco Bay, to include a continuous path along the shoreline - part of the proposed Bay 20
Trail -with seating and viewing areas. Ile path win be bordered by native plants and trees. 21
22
This chapter describes the proposed Project,which in its entirety has the potential to make 23
physical changes to the envirom-nent and to modify adopted policies of the City of South San 24
Francisco. Topics addressed in this chapter include: 25
26
0 The Project site, characteristics, ownership and history. 27
0 Approved plans to remedfate hazardous materials on the site and to mitigate the loss 28
of wetlands, prior to development of the commercial Project. 29
0 A Specific Plan of development for the property. 30
0 Project alternatives. 31
0 Required Project approvals required by the City of South San Francisco. 32
0 Agencies which may use the EIR in decision-malting on project permits. 33
3 - 1
i
Cc
ul
LU
Does
JIB
glib
wo
uj
I
a�
I
e
®, ;� ®°! r• ,�.,.d °:ice a�®�u mast +mss° � a
NOW
Figure 3-2
LOCATION MAP
4 Francisco Bay
AV
t®� i,` Kali
Slorm Point
cRy of Brisbane
PROJECT SITE
AL
lw
Appmmd point
e 1 i
or
&Wnew Park
mist e.
TF
r^ It • >I y � o
_� $�• f%�,�A:"° a + ®®° ®l � ��- „`\� .
�� �° a ° ,a ! ®®� �t�® •, p 7 Z V �m
,
ad
f� Y �!
�• ® s„ � �/!�° :.rte° s 0e d �®8f ®A� f
r �
m
vi A
°mom� n® ®` ® ® ® °. .°. °°.°4°° ° •
®® e
®Ca li fornis Side Aulanxt Jsna®1
-
3. PROJECT DESCRIP77ON
® PROJEC17 SrM
2
® lAxaflon 3
4
&&ion 5
6
The Project site is located in San Mateo County, one of the nine counties bordering 7
San Francisco Bay,which together comprise the San Francisco Bay Area(see F%we 8
3-1). The area is defined for the Project's potential impacts upon air quality in the 9
region. 10
Ii
Sub-ReL-ion 12
13
The site is immediately east of 11ighway 101 in the City of South San Francisco. 14
The site is within the City's "East of 101 Area7, shown in Figure 3-2 Location Map. 15
Sub-regional analyses in this EIR describe traffic impacts for streets and intersections 16
in the East of 101 Area and highways approaching the site (see Chapter 6). 17
18
Site 19
W
The Project site is bordered on the west by CalTrain right-of-way; on tee by 21
warehousing occupied by General Exposition Services(GES);on the South by Oyster 22
Point Boulevard and office and industrial uses on the south side of the street; and 23
on the north by Koll Center Sierra Point business park and San Francisco Bay. The 24
total area of the site is 174 acres, of is approximately 55.4 acres are on-shore and 25
® acres are offshore. 26
27
The entire site is within and coterminous with the boundaries of the "Shearwater 28
Redevelopment Project Area7, established by the City of South San Francisco 29
Redevelopment Agency. 7be Agency can exercise its powers under State law to 30
undertake redevelopment activities with owners of properties within a redevelopment 31
project area. 32
3 - 4
|
`
)
|
`
>
|
in
tPAN
co 0
CL
�
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.12 Property Ownership
2
The site is comprised of three parcels. Two are identified as San Mateo County 3
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 015-101-010 and 015-010-150,which have a total area of 4
® acres. These parcels were purchased by Bay West Cove LLC - the Project 5
applicant
e ° 1996. A third parcel about 6 acres in size is located immediately north 6
of Oyster Point Boulevard and is presently owned by the City of South San Francisco 7
Redevelopment Agency (formerly owned by the federal General Services a
Administration). The Citys parcel (APN 015-010-160) is proposed to be conveyed 9
by the Redevelopment Agency to the applicant under a Disposition and Development 1®
Agreement, to result in a project site about 174 acres in total area. 11
12
13
® Site Woory 14
15
From 1938 to 1978, the site was owned by U.S. Steel Corporation, now a subsidiary 16
of USX Corporation, and was used for steel and pipe fabrication and assembly. 17
liberty ships were built and repaired there during World War H and launched from Is
a 300 ft by 900 ft rectangular basin, roughly 6 acres in size, referred to as the "slot", 19
which remains today(see Figure 3-3 Project Area Map). The basin was also used for 20
the loading of steel products.The 6-acre site formerly owned by the General Services 21
Administration was occupied by a large general supply and distribution warehouse 22
it sometime between 1935 and 1948 on land which was previously vacant. The 23
South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency purchased the site in February, 1984. 24
In November, 1984, the warehouse experienced a fire, and the City demolished the 25
building. Ali site buildings and related structures were removed by the mid-to-late 26
1980s in anticipation of redevelopment which did not take '® The concrete slab 27
which underlaid the warehouse remains in place. 28
The history of site ownership is documented in [final] Order No. ®1 Adoption of Site Clepm 29
Reguirements for USX rati® and Bay West Cove,LLC,by the California Regional Water Quality Control 30
Board,San Francisco Bay Region,July 17, 1996. 31
3 - 6
3 PROJECT DESCRIP77ON
3.1.4 Site Chanicteristics
2
To o aphy
4
The site is generally level, having been rough-graded after the buildings and related 5
structures were demolished in the 1980s. Concrete construction rubble mounds and 6
piles of bricks and minor depressions dot the site. Topography rises from 7
approximately 6 feet above mean high water around the slot to about 10 to 15 feet 8
along Oyster Point Boulevard (see ]Figurc 3-4 Generalized Topography). The street 9
rises to an elevation of about 45 feet near the southwest comer of the site. 10
11
A portion of the site is presently subject to flooding during a 100 year event . The 12
affected area is shown in Figure
® The ground floor of new buildings Will be 13
required to be built above the 100-year floodplain. 14
15
The slot is bordered by decomposing timber piles,decking and crib walls (see FW= 16
3-5). It is open to the east where a partially dredged channel runs out to San 17
Francisco Day. The depth of the water in the slot varies from approximately 15 feet 18
at the back to about 9 feet at the entrance. Other sections of the shoreline are 19
bordered by zip-rap, broken asphalt, and chain link fencing. 20
21
Wetlands 22
23
The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers completed a jurisdictional wetlands determination 24
3
on the site . The Corps determined that Clean Water Act Sections 10 and 404 25
jurisdictional areas are present on the property. Section 10 tidal waters occur in all 26
areas below the Mean 0 Water (MHW) line. 27
28
'Me status of wetlands and waters subject to Section 404 federal jurisdiction under
29
the Clean Water Act are summarized in Table 3-1. Approximately 3.0 acres of 30
wetlandS and 121.9 acres of "waters of the United States" occur within the site 31
boundaries. Most of the wetlands(2.6 acres) are depressions formed by construction 32
and demolition activities. 33
2 Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)Rate Map,Panel 2 of 12,Community-Panel Number 34
0650620002, Effective Date September 2, 1981. 35
3 Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch,July 22, 1996, File#217045. 36
3 - 7
0
U)
CL
ILL
WE
i
I }
® 7
I � _
1
r
°
6 r�
I
° L- ®° ' I
e
i
®a`� O
Y
IMIL
do
CID
UJ
Cm ULJ za e,
y
All
-
4 4
1 roul
�e
�� Il
gg
y
2)
C N
i �l
V
!�r
a r 1 �I � � i � r ✓l ` / C
i
fr/ A�� lad r
R r ir °tiff
r
h try GJ �r ✓,! i uh
CD
to
a.
cc
ui
r r rll�l6 y �. 1 f / !11(�✓yl �
4+ _
y� J�
" l
1
1,
z
1 �
cr-
j 3 ®
4f
I
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hazardous Materials
2
Extensive soil and sediment samples taken over many years have documented the 3
presence of hazardous materials stemming from the years when it was used for steel 4
and pipe fabrication.On-shore contamination of soils i 5
in the upper one to two feet of soil. 6
7
Offshore contamination has been found in sediments in the slot, in the ship channel 8
beyond the slot and at the outfall of a former acid waste discharge line and a storm 9
drain east of the mouth of the slot (see Figure 3-5). Most contamination is 10
concentrated in the deeper sediments.Chapter 10 Human Health discusses hazardous 11
materials in more detail. 12
13
The site will be cleaned up of its hazardous materials before the commercial Project 14
is developed. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has issued a 15
Cleanup Order which will require the applicant to remove contaminated soil and 16
sediment, relocate it within the property, and cover it with clean non-contaminated 17
fill material'. The order also requires that jurisdictional wetlands which win be filled 18
in by the clean-up process be recreated as tidal wetlands within the slot. The 19
conditions of existing and remediated wetlands,and the impacts of the Project on the
recreated wetlands are discussed in Chapter 12. 21
22
Although the Site Cleanup Order is not a part of the Project, and its impacts are not 23
evaluated as part a f t his EIR, Chapter 10.12 discusses the site remediation process 24
and how it mitigates impacts of the Project. 25
26
Existina and Adiacent Develgpment 27
28
Existing and surrounding land uses are shown in Figure 3-6 Project Area Aerial 29
PhotogrVh. The site is vacant except for trailers on the City of South San Francisco 30
parcel, which has been used as a temporary construction materials marshalling yard 31
for the City's Oyster Point Interchange and Grade Separation Project . This parcel 32
is mostly underlain by a large concrete slab, intended to be graded over as part of the 33
proposed Project. The only other man-made structures on the entire site are several 34
slabs, small sumps, and drainage ditches and remnants of piers along the shoreline. 35
4 California Regional Water Quality Control Board,San Francisco Bay Region,[final]Order No.96-102 Adoution of Site 36
Cleanup Reguirements for USX g2uloration and Bay West Cove,LLr—July 17,1996. 37
5 CUM Hill,Inc,Phase I Environmental Site 38
City of South San Francisco,November, 1994.
3 - 10
�..
' I
: m
x
A i
N r
Ir
roI�W e
� � w
a , C
r
1
M
°tl i
i
;
v „
i
� I I
x
Y
w
4 r
ti
I.
ae
�r
INN
I
- F
r
tiw �
••III"��
o
Ub
Ejro
CD ,
— 11
3. PROJECT DESCRIP77ON
Table 3.1 Potential Wetlands and Waters VOithin the Project Site, Including Areas I
Exempt from Jurisdiction Under Section 33 CFR328-3(a). 2
3
Location Section 404 Wetlands Section 404 Waters 4
i--] (acres) (acres)
® i 2.6 3.3 5
T
idal a
0.4 118.6 6
TOW
® 121.9 7
ea will
mitigate for the loss of
wetlands by creating a
new wetland in the slot.
8
Source: Wedands Research Associates,Request to Utflize Nationwide Permit 38.Us Army Corps of Engineers San 9
Francisco District for Bay West Cove,Ujc Property,August 1996. 10
11
Surrounding site conditions are discussed in Chapter 4. land Use and Planning. 12
13
14
3.2 DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PIAN 15
16
The applicant has prepared a Specific Plan to guide development of the Project, 17
pursuant to Policy IM-3 of the East of 101 Area Plan. The Specific Plan specifies 18
development objectives, land use, public and private infrastructure to support the 19
uses ® the plan, development standards, and implementation measures, as required 20
by Government Code 65450. These features of the Specific Plan are summarized 21
below for the CEQA Project Description. 22
23
24
32-1 Project Objectives 25
26
The applicant has identified the following objectives for the Project: 27
28
0 Convert the site from its current degraded status as a former industrial 29
property to an economically-feasible, quality development. 30
31
0 Make the site aesthetically more pleasing. 32
3 - 12
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
• Generate net tax revenue from the development project.
2
• Support public works projects and off-site improvements desired by the City 3
of South San Francisco, through payment of development fees. 4
5
Build a project is is viable in the East of 101 Area based upon market 6
conditions and projected service requirements fort Area. 7
8
• Develop a project that has the quality of design that is called for in the 9
Design Policies and Guidelines of the East of 101 Area Plan. 10
11
• Build a project that creates quality jobs for South San Franciscans. 12
13
• Provide for the development of more retail services to serve the employees 14
of the East of 101 Area. 15
16
• Encourage the enjoyment of the San Francisco Bay shoreline and views of the 17
Bay by completing the segment of the Bay Trail through the property, in 18
conformance with Bay Conservation and Development Commission 19
requirements/recommendations. 20
21
22
32-2 1,and Uw 23
24
The Project would include a potential mix of retail commercial, restaurants, 25
automobile sales and service, and hotels, consistent with the East of 101 Area Plan 26
designation of Mixed Planned Commercial/Planned Industrial use for the site. These 27
land uses are apportioned among four on-shore "Planning Areas", separated by the 28
proposed curving alignment of the principal access drive through the site -Bay West 29
Cove Boulevard - as indicated on Figure 3-7 Land Use Plan. 30
31
32
323 Potential Anchor Tenants and Other Tenants 33
Anchor tenants proposed to be located within the Project area include an 35
AutoNation vehicle sales and service facility in Planning Area 1, and large retail 36
outlet(s) ("big box" stores) in Planning Area 2. These and other uses are further 37
described by Planning Area, below. In the event the proposed anchor tenants 39
described below do not become tenants in the Project, alternative tenants could
3 - 13
I
r
I
m
Ll 9L
CD
tm
to
ci
co
cc
C6
r
I
Boulev8rd -
c cc
co
a
FJ
Ns
_e Gateway Blvd
ov cm
I
6
e
4
RL
� I
j
�a
� X0 is al x is 4 zc, �
co
�°
cQ CL
V) ass
4
-
3. PROJECT DESCRIP77ON
replace them, provided that the replacement land uses and development are I
consistent with the proposed Bay West Cove Specific Plan and the East of 101 Area 2
Plan, where applicable. 3
4
Table 3-2 identifies alternative land uses and square footages for Planning Areas 1, 5
2, 3, and 4. These alternatives are intended to allow some flexibility for the 6
developer to respond to changing market conditions (see Mapter 33A for further 7
discussion of maximum development intensity). 8
9
Planning Area 1: AutoNation 10
11
The AutoNation facility would sell rem e , reconditioned vehicles. The 20 acre 12
site would contain a large choice of automobiles. One building at the center of the 13
site would contain the showroom, with a staffed child care area. An adjacent 14
automobile service center would provide diagnostics, oil and lube and vehicle 15
detailing, but no major painting, body repair or heavy engine rebuilding. Display 16
parking
its would be located on the west side of the Planning Area, and customer 17
and employee parking on tee side, adjacent to Oyster Point Boulevard.Although 18
Table 3-2 shows that up to 90,000 gsf of commercial retail space would be allowed 19
in Planning Area 1, the proposed AutoNation facilities would actually occupy W
approximately 45,000 gsf. 21
Planning Area 2: urea Retail Outlet Stores or Commercial Retail and a Hotel 23
24
This area would have two alternative uses: 1) up to 244,732 gsf of large retail 25
store(s), or 2) up to 209,661 gsf of commercial retail and a hotel up to 175 rooms. 26
The retail outlets would be located along the east side of Planning Area 2 and the 27
hotel would be located adjacent to the slot. 28
29
Planning Area 3; Ho tel or Commercial Retail 30
31
This area would have two alternative uses: 1) a hotel with up to 250 rooms with a 32
maximum building area of 204,732 gsf at an FAR of 1.02, or 2) commercial retail 33
totaling a maximum of 61,420 sq. ft. of space, at an FAR of 0.30. Either use would N
be located on the north side of Planning Area 3,facing the recreated wetland in the 35
slot. 36
3 - 15
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Plannine Area 4: Hotels or Commercial Retail
2
This area would have two alternative uses: 1) a hotel with up to 450 rooms and a 3
second hotel up to 350 rooms with a maximum building area of 370,260 gsf at an 4
FAR of
® or 2) commercial retail space totaling up to 150,0M gs at an FAR of 5
0.40. 6
7
Planning Area 5: San Frandagg-Bay 8
9
The offshore area would have no development, except for the tidal wetland to be 10
created in the slot, as required by the to Water Quality Control Board Site 11
Cleanup Order. 12
13
Other r Se rive tS 14
is
Restaurants totaling up to 9,000 square feet would be sited at unspecified locations 16
in Planning Areas 2, 3 and 4, within the building space limitations established for 17
these Planning Areas. Restaurants may be site to serve visitors to the Project in 18
general and/or to serve specific other uses, such as a hotel. No drive-through or fast 19
food restaurants will be built within 500 ft. of a freeway on-ramp or off-ramp in 20
compliance with Policy LU-22 in the East of 101 Area Plan. If restaurants are 21
located within 500 ft. of the freeway on-ramp, they win be integrated into a building, 22
pursuant to policy LU-22 of the East of 101 Area Plan. 23
24
A 100 ft. wide "shoreline band" along the shoreline in Planning Areas 2, 3 and 4 is 25
designated as Open Space in the Land Use Element of the East of 101 Area Plan. 26
Land uses within the band are also subject to permit authority of the Bay 27
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). A section of the Bay Trail 28
would be developed by the applicant within this area as part of the Project. Figures 29
3-8 and
® show the conceptual plan and cross-sections for the shoreline with a 30
proposed 8 ft.wide path and landscaping. Other uses within the band would include 31
buildingS, parking and landscaping. 32
33
Other on-site improvements will include signs and lighting, perimeter landscaping, 34
building and landscaping setbacks with screening trees, landscaped parking lots for 35
employees and visitors, and landscaped parking drives. All landscaping will have 36
automatic irrigation. 37
3 - 16
J tl
MM LL 0
viv
Lli
co
cc
Go
cri .0
CL
Z CL
coo
° 0 1
l
a
} B
I I s
8¢
i
® ? !f8
i
i
CM
+I CL
+1 0 CL e
Turf tm
r® 'Path
Pati C:
9
Ul
W Native plants
Planting
i
Slope ®1 /
native plants
i '
Zviewing area
cm Existin
B
3 ,
i ®1) /
native plants
CL
ca
IL
CL
Uj
I dm
�I
® + +
co C® .
LLJ
COO
a
m
3. PROJECT DESCRIP77ON
324 Mafmm Development Intensity
2
Table
® shows the proposed range of potential development allowed in each 3
Planning Area. Alternatives within each Planning Area which generate the maximum 4
development intensity (vehicular trips) are combined into a project description to 5
arrive at a "worst case" traffic impact analysis in Chapter 6. The alternatives which 6
make up this description are italicized in Table 3-2 7
8
9
325 Building Height 10
11
The Specific Plan would allow single story or"big box"retail outlets not to exceed 40 12
ft. in height,with up to 15 additional feet for architectural elements. Hotels would 13
be allowed to have a maximum height regulated by the Airport Land Use 14
Commission (ALUQ based upon Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 Criteria6. 15
Based upon interpolation of the ALUC height limitations map in Figure 11 of the 16
East of 101 Area Plan EIR,the maximum heights from sea level for a building in the 17
middle of Planning Areas 2 or 3 would be about 271 ft, and for a building in the 18
middle of Planning Area 4 would be about 336 ft, subject to more precise analysis at 19
the building permit stage. The actual height of hotels may be lower than allowed. 20
21
22
32-6 Property Dislmsition and Deed Restriction 23
24
The three existing parcels which comprise the site will be combined into one parcel 25
and then resubdivided to allow for sale or lease of the parcels to tenants. The 26
boundaries of areas where contaminated materials are buried Will be surveyed and 27
recorded to become deed restrictions on use of the parcels. 28
29
30
® Circulation and Acoess 31
32
Ovster Point Gr nin 33
34
Oyster Point Boulevard will be widened by the City of South San Francisco to four 35
lanes along the project frontage, from the Gateway Blvd. intersection to the Gull 36
Road intersection, The Oyster Point Blvd.street improvements will include curb cuts 37
6 Federal Aviation Administration ReaWation Part 77-Qbiecfives.Affeetitag Nble Ai aye,sets forth 38
height limits for land um within the navigable airspace of airports. 39
3 - 19
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Table 3-2 Proposed Maximum Building Area and Hotel Rooms I
Pl,aiming Area AamW Land Use Maximum Floor Ama 2
Demk)pment Ratio
(gross sq-ft
Irq;rooms)
Immmmommommomom 0110101111101100 M1001110110=1
1 + 20.00 acres Commercial 90,000 gsf 0.10 3
rut®Sales 4
2 +
® acres Commercial 5
Retail 244,372 gsf 0.29
21-
Commercial
retail 209,661 gsf
and
® 2
Hotel 175 rooms
(144,470 gsf)
3 +
® acres Hotel 250 rooms 6
(204,732 gsf) 1.02
21,
Commercial
Retail 61,420 gsf 0.30
4 + 8.5 acres Two Hotels 450 rooms & 7
350 rooms .00
(370,260 gsf)
91
Commercial
Retail 150,000 0.40
Subtotal + 523 acres Range of NA NA 8
Mixed Uses
and
Alternatives
Street + 3.1 acres Oyster Point NA NA 9
Expansion Blvd. 20
Widening
Total + 55A acres ®s NA NA 11
Project Area
11111 It esupto t® restaurant space in_TTa_nn[1;!i1 _370-7— 12
: !!1 1 , car
Note: Itaficized alternatives are used in the "worst case" traffic impact, analysis in 13
ChVter
® 14
3 - 20
3. PROJECT DESCRIP77ON
to eAsting businesses; bicycle lanes within five-ft. wide shoulders on each side, left I
turn pockets for eastbound traffic entering the Project at the signalized intersections 2
with Gateway and Bay West Cove Blvd. (discussed below); landscaped medians;and 3
sidewalks on both sides (see FWare 3-10). 4
5
This component of the proposed Project win be implemented by the City. 'Me 6
widening and other improvements are part of the Oyster Point Boulevard overpass 7
and street widening project, which has been completed east to the Gateway 8
Boulevard intersection. Ile applicant and other benefiting property owners will 9
® to the cost of this widening project. 10
11
A new one lane flyover ramp will connect southbound 11ighway 101 with eastbound 22
Oyster Point Boulevard at the Gateway Blvd. intersection (see Figure 3-3), as part 13
of the widening project. The flyover would not necessarily be required to be built 14
prior to occupancy of the Project, assumed to be in the year 2000. The analysis in 15
Chapter 6 Transportation and Circulation determined that the flyover would not be 16
needed to mitigate for the Project and five other projects in the area which might be 17
built and occupied in the year 2000. The year 2000 traffic impacts would be 18
mitigated by intersection improvements, as described in Chapter 63.4. The flyover 19
would be required by the year 2010 when other planned and potential projects may
be built in the East of 101 Area. The intersection improvements required by that 21
time are shown in FqWc 6-8. The flyover will be financed by Oyster Point Overpass 22
Fees, the sale of the aws property formerly owned by the General Services 23
Administration (GSA) and tax increment revenue. 24
25
Proiect Access Points 26
27
The Project will have three points of access from Oyster Point Boulevard (see F'Wure 28
3-7):
29
30
1) Opposite the eidsting Gateway Boulevard intersection with Oyster Point Blvd. 31
This intersection will serve thepTOposed AutoNation automobile sales facility. 32
Ihe intersection is now signalized and will be designed for 4-way turning 33
movements,plus a separate left turn signal phase for eastbound traffic on the -W
flyover. Flyover traffic will be able t® turn left into the auto sees site, 35
continue east on Oyster Point Blvd., or turn right onto Gateway Blvd. 36
37
3 - 21
.I
Truss outside
RAW r Trees outside
FLOW
'z Coll'
...............
Medi 0
on Two EB lanes an/ TWO We hum
Turn lane
nw
Amended Cross-Section - Varies
(Looking East from Bay West Cove Blvd.)
Lj
ff wr is 2'a1r 6 1 5• 1 51
"-dw ban UUTM =dim bim
A.O.W.
Existing Cross-Section,
East of 101 Area Plan
(Figure 12)
Figure 3-10
PROPOSED OYSTER POINT BOULEVARD CROSS-SECTION
3 - 22
3. PROJECT DESCRIP77ON
®s is the only public point of access being proposed for the 20 acre I
AutoNation project, off of Oyster Point Blvd. Automobile test drivers will 2
use this main entrance/exit to the facility'. Ile City may require a second 3
access point for the Project such as emergency access from Bay West Cove 4
Boulevard where automobile delivery trucks would enter and exit the 5
AutoNation facility (see Chapter 1522). 6
7
2) Approximately 900 ft to the east of the Gateway Blvd./AutoNation 8
intersection. This newly signalized 'r intersection will have two eastbound 9
left turn lanes on Oyster Point Blvd. connecting to a 4-lane divided road to 10
be known as Bay West Cove Boulevard. 11
12
3) Approximately 350 feet east of the main entrance at the proposed Bay West 13
Cove Boulevard intersection with Oyster Point Blvd. This two-lane 14
intersection would allow right turn inlright turn out only. 15
16
Internaicirculation 17
18
Bay West Cove Boulevard will follow a curving alignment between Oyster Point Blvd. 19
and
tee to Planning Area 4. It will narrow from 4 lanes to 2 lanes as it W
approaches the slot This road will serve the uses planned for Planning Areas 2, 3 21
and
® Delivery trucks will use the boulevard to reach loading docks or areas at each 22
large commercial facility. AutoNation vehicle delivery trucks will be able to access 23
the facility from Bay West Cove Blvd. 24
25
26
27
In keeping with the East of 101 Area Plan, the Project would include a continuous, 28
® wide path along the shoreline within the 100 foot wide "shoreline band"which 29
is the jurisdiction of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). 30
The path will be a link in the planned 400-mile Bay Trail, which is bemig 31
implemented in jurisdictions surrounding the bay. Pedestrian and vehicular access
n
through the Project to the shoreline would be guaranteed through recordation of 33
appropriate use easements for individual properties (or Planning Areas) which abut 34
the shoreline Open Space band. 35
36
In addition to the parking provided for shoppers and hotel visitors,public parking for 37
visitors to the shoreline could be provided, pending permit approval by BCDC. 39
7 MCG Archiftts,3 fay P t t r ibit May 13,1997. 39
3 - 23
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Emergen Access to Koll Site
Z
2
The Project would include a"no build" easement on a portion of the site to allow for 3
future construction of an emergency access drive between Planning Area 4 and the 4
Koll Center Sierra Point Business Park,located immediately north of Bay West Cove 5
(see F%we 3-11), should this ever be required. The purpose of the access road 6
would be to maintain adequate response times to the Koll site for police and fire 7
vehicles. The Bay West Cove Project would not be responsible for the construction 8
of the access route; the developer of the Koll Center site would be obligated to 9
construct the emergency access road on the Bay West Cove easement. The need for 10
the emergency access road shall be reviewed when the vacant Koll site is proposed 11
for development. 12
13
14
® Grading and Storm Drainage 15
16
The entire site would be graded to provide positive drainage from the Project 17
perimeter to San Francisco Bay. The upland area adjacent to Oyster Point Blvd. and 18
t e r ailroad would be filled so that the ground slopes gradually from an elevation of 19
roughly 15 feet along the street to about 6 feet along the slot. The Project would 20
direct drainage to two outfalls along the bay: east of the mouth of the slot and about 21
150 feet north of the slot(see Chapter 11.13). No drainage from parking lots would 22
enter the slot wetland. 23
24
25
32.9 Site Planning and Design Standards 26
27
The proposed Specific Plan contains objectives and standards to guide design 28
decisions, and to assist the City in project Design Review. Topics and standards are 29
summarized below. 30
31
Pe des ages 32
33
Pedestrian linkages between buildings to and along the shoreline are encouraged. 34
35
Building Setbacks 36
37
Building setbacks from streets and property lines are required to be consistent with 38
the East of 101 Area Plan.
3 - 24
|
| '
. . �
|
|
1
tj
lit LT
LIU
co
2 � um)
CUM alt
CD
CWWI
cc
ML W
|
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Perimeter Landscane Buffers
2
Landscaped buffers with trees and hedges are required beyond the public street right- 3
of-way and along property lines to screen parldng, loading areas and large 4
buildings. 5
6
Internal mlation and Parking 7
a
Parking requirements for different uses, and dimensions of parldng will comply with 9
Zoning Ordinance standards 10
11
ParkingjUot 11mandscaning and landscape Design 12
13
Standards specify the percent of the site which must be landscaped, landscape 14
treatments for parking lots, and standards for riparian plants adjacent to the planned 15
tidal wetland. 16
17
Architectural DeaijM 18
19
Standards emphasizing building articulation to provide relief for warehouse type 20
structures,requirements for outdoor plazas and landscaped open spaces are specified. 21
22
Building Hei In is 23
24
Building height limits are established for retail businesses and for multi-story hotels, 25
consistent,with airport height limitations. 26
27
Utilities Infrastructure 28
29
Standards address undergrounding of utilities, creation of utility corridors, and 30
suggested alignments. 31
32
Gradine and Drainaae 33
34
Grading standards are defined which address flooding, drainage to the bay,retaining 35
walls and maximum slope angles, and sedimentation and erosion control. 36
3 - 26
3. PROJECT DESCRIP77ON
32.10 Signs and lighting
2
The Specific Plan includes a proposed master sip program which sets forth 3
requirements for all sips attached to buildings, tenant identification signs, entry 4
sips, free-standing sips and center identification sips. 5
6
Ile sip program defines types of sips for different types of tenants, locations of 7
signs on buildings and at entry drives, maximum square footage of sign area, 1 8
sign
lighting, and suggested design character s. 9
10
SiM Area 11
12
The total sign area for anchor and major tenants shall not exceed 1.5 sq. ft.per linear 13
foot of building frontage. Sign area for smaller tenants are also defined. 14
15
Center Ldentification-Signs 16
17
Monument signs shall be located on each side of the two main entries to the project, is
with tenant names displayed on the monuments. The monument signs are 19
recommended to be about 14 ft. long and 12 ft. to 14 ft. high.
21
Similar free-standing monument signs are also allowed for individual tenants or 22
multiple tenants. 23
24
A single, double-sided, free-standing pylon sign for the Bay West Cove Project is 25
proposed, up to 75 ft. wide, 32 ft. wide and with up to 1000 ft. of sign area for each 26
side. Up to 7 tenants could be identified on each side of the sign. 27
28
ARLO a ° i 29
30
The proposed AutoNation facility would have pylon sips, roadway identification 31
signs, directional signs, building signage, and parldng area signs. 32
33
An internally illuminated pylon sign 50 ft. high and 21 ft. wide would bel t 34
the extreme southwest comer of the site, adjacent to ltrain and the Oyster Point 35
Blvd. overpass. 36
37
A monument sign would be located in the AutoNation roadway median at its 38
intersection with Oyster Point Blvd.
40
3 - 27
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Two pylon directional signs resembling interstate highway sips would be installed I
over the entrance roadway to welcome and direct drivers to parking and the proposed 2
service center. 3
4
Sign jig"tm 5
6
AD building signs would be composed of individual letters, individually illuminated 7
from within or externally illuminated. Monument signs could be externally 8
illuminated. Cabinet or box-type signs on buildings would be prohibited. 9
10
Other smaller signs and lighting are described in the Specific Plan. 11
12
32.11 Modifications to the Project 13
14
Subsequent to certification of the EIR and approval of the Project, e es to land 15
uses and building area could be made without triggering the preparation of additional 16
CEQA documentation. However, the following kinds of changes to the Conceptual 17
Development Site Plan could represent"significant changes"that could result in new 18
significant environmental impacts not considered in the EK and which could require 19
the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report: W
21
• Significant changes to automobile access and circulation. 22
• An increase in building square footage beyond the limits established in Table 23
24
0 Significant changes in the types and/or intensity of land uses. 25
26
27
32-12 Project Phasing 28
29
The entire site will be remediated for hazardous materials on upland sites before any -V
improvements are undertaken to develop the proposed Project.The exception to this 31
sequence is the wetland mitigation, which will continue during and after Project 32
development.Dredging to create the tidal wetland in the slot and along the shoreline 33
east of the slot will take place primarily using off-shore dredging equipment. 34
35
The project is proposed to be developed over a minimum two-year period. 36
Scheduling could depend upon permit approvals and availability of wastewater 37
treatment capacity, as discussed in Chapter . ® If the Project is developed by 38
Planning Area, or discrete longer term phases,precise plans will be required for each
Planning Area or phase. Each precise plan will require detailed development plans. W
41
3 - 28
3. PROJECT DESCRIP77ON
3.3 PROJECI7 ALTERNAMES
2
Chapter 19 discusses impacts of three alternatives to the proposed Project. The 3
alternativeS are defined as follows: 4
5
No
r® Alternative 6
7
Under this alternative, the Project site would remain un-developed. The site would a
be remediated for hazardous materials, pursuant to a Final Clean-up Order of the 9
Regional Water Quality Control Board, but the site would not be redeveloped. 10
11
Reduced Develo xnent Alternative 12
13
The proposed Project analyzed in the EIR assumes development alternatives which 14
would generate the "worst case" traffic impacts. The Reduced Development 15
Alternative assumes a mix of uses in Planning Areas 2,3, and 4 which would generate 16
the least number of vehicular hips during the PM peak hour. 17
18
Off-Site Afternative 19
20
The off-site alternative is examined to determine if another comparable site is 21
available,which would produce less environmental impacts than the proposed Project. 22
To be eligible for practical consideration, the site would have to be as large as the 23
proposed Project site, enjoy similar access, and be designated for commercial use in 24
the General Plan or mixed Planned Commercial/Planned Industrial use in the East 25
of 101 Area
® The vacant site on the Koll Center/Sierra Point business park 26
immediately north of the Project site has been identified as a potential alternative 27
site. Ilinpacts of these alternatives relative to the proposed Project are discussed in 28
Chapter 19. 29
31
3.4 PROJECIr APPROVAIS 32
33
The South San Francisco City Council and Redevelopment Agency will take action
34
on the "Project" as a whole. The Project consists of the physical improvements 35
described in Chapter 3.3, as well as legislative acts and entitlements which would 36
allow physical development to occur. In addition, the applicant will seek approval 37
f®r required permits of other trustee and responsible agencies. Discussed below are 38
required actions of the City and other public agencies.
40
3 - 29
3. PROJECT DESCRIP77ON
® Project Approvals Required by the City
2
City and Agency consideration of the Project are anticipated to include the following: 3
4
0 Amendments to the East of 101 Area Plan (the General Plan), as follows: 5
6
An amendment to Policy LU-21 to allow automobile sales and 7
associated service, on the Project site alone in the East of 101 Area, 8
(see Chapter 422). 9
10
An amendment to Policy CON-7 to allow development of buildings 12
within 100
® of known sensitive resources (the proposed remediated 12
wetland in the slot), on a case-by-case basis. This amendment has 13
already been inated as part of another general plan amendment in 14
the East of 101 Area(see Chapter 423 for proposed wording of the 15
amendment). 16
17
An amendment to Policy LU-10a to allow commercial buildings in the 18
area designated as Open Space in the East of 101 Area Plan on a 19
case-by-case basis(also described as the 100 ft wide"shoreline band"). 20
See Chapter 424 for proposed wording of the amendment. 21
22
An amendment to the East of 101 Area Plan Policy DE-7, to change 23
the discussion of Oyster Point Boulevard to encourage placement of 24
entryway monument features, street trees and median trees where 25
space allows within the Oyster of Blvd. right-of-way. The 26
amendment would include a revised cross-section in Figure 12 of the 27
East of 101 Area Plan (see Figure 3-10). 28
29
An amendment to Policy DE-47 to allow for free-standing signs for 30
major commercial and mixed use complexes located along the 101 31
corridor, subject to Design Review. (see Chapter 53A for proposed 32
wording of the amendment). 33
34
0 A conditional use permit pursuant to Policy LU-4b, for hotels ® Planning 35
Areas 3 and 4, which each exceed an FAR of 0.60 (see Chapter 42.7). 36
37
0 A discretionary permit, pursuant to Policy LU-10b to allow for the inclusion 38
of Open Space in calculations of allowed building square footage (see 39
Chapter 42-8). 40
Q
3 - 30
3. PROJECT DESCRIP77ON
0 A discretionary permit, pursuant to LU-10c to allow parking within 1
designated Open Space areas and within BCDC's 100
®wide shoreline band 2
(see 42-9) 3
4
0 A Specific Plan,prepared pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65450 to guide 5
future development and design of the proposed Project. 6
7
0 A Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) under which the South 8
San Francisco Redevelopment Agency may transfer title of City property 9
(former GSA property) to the applicant, and an Owner Participation 1®
® 11
12
Subdivision maps to allow the creation of smaller parcels within the Bay West 13
Cove property for purposes of sale,lease or financing of development on the 14
created parcels; and including an easement to allow for future construction 15
of a potential emergency access road to the Koll Center/Sierra Point Business 16
Park, by the owners of the business park. 17
is
0 Precise plans for individual developments within the Bay West Cove Project, 19
in conformity with the East of 101 Area Plan and Specific Plan.
21
0 Grading pennit(s). 22
23
0 Building permits, consistent with Specific Plan objectives and standards for 24
Design Review. 25
26
a Encroachment permit(s) to allow work within City rights-of-way. 27
28
0 Development Agreement to ensure property owner vesting of entitlements 29
granted by the City. 30
31
32
3.42 Other Agencies Which May Use the EIR in Their Permit Authority 33
34
The following
® s are expected to use this EIR in conjunction with their 35
regulatory and permitting authority over aspects of the proposed Project: 36
37
0 Airport Iand Use Commission (ALUC) 38
0 San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
0 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 40
0 Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) 41
3 - 31
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
0 California Department r s r 1
0 California Department of Fish and Game z
0 San Mateo 3
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 4
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service S
Federal ' 's ` 6
7
This EIR es not diminish or replace the requirements or authority of these and 8
other affected agencies. subsequent site specific e ` t review shall 9
include review e agencies, when required. 10
11
4. LAND USE AND PIANNING
2
3
This chapter addresses various land use compatibility issues raised by the proposed Project. 4
Existing ® ° and surrounding land use and open space patterns are discussed, followed 5
by a summary of public land use policies and standards which are potentially relevant to the 6
'ect® The Project produces no significant land use impacts. 7
9
4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 10
11
The environmental setting includes physical conditions on and in the vicinity of the 12
site, and the land use planning and regulatory requirements applicable to the site. 13
14
The Project location is defined in Chapter 3.1 and shown in Figure 3-1 Location 15
Map. 16
17
Is
4.1.1 Existing On-Site Development 19
20
Construction Materials Yard
21
22
The Project site is vacant except for a 6-acre City property adjacent to Oyster Point 23
Blvd. (see FW= 3-3 Project Area Map), which has been used as a construction 24
materials marshalling yard for the Oyster Point Interchange and Grade Separation 25
Project.The yard will be vacated and incorporated into the overall project site. The 26
only structures in the yard consist of trailers and a 130 ft x 475 ft concrete slab which 27
underlies the yard and once served as the foundation for a large General Services 28
Administration warehouse. 29
30
02en S ace I
31
32
The site provides open space and distant views of the Bay from public roads. 33
However, the open space is significantly degraded and inaccessible because of the 34
presence of debris and hazardous materials. There are no trees of any value on the 35
site. Therefore, existing open space cannot be characterized as a site amenity. 36
37
Topographic conditions,rubble and debris,hazardous materials, and wetlands on the 38
site are discussed in Chapter 3.1A Site CharacteristicL
40
41
4 - 1
4 LAND USE AND PLANNING
® Adjacent Existing Development
2
The surrounding area has historically been utilized for heavy industrial activities and 3
has recently been converted to warehousing, commercial mixed use, research and 4
development, and ancillary facilities. 5
6
Develonment North of the Site. 7
8
The Koll Center Sierra Point business complex lies north of the Project site. The 9
center includes three high-rise office buildings and a marina. A vacant Koll site 10
immediately north of the Project site is within the City of South San Francisco, and 11
the balance of the business park is within the City of Brisbane. 12
13
DevelODment East of the Site 14
IS
A large warehouse occupied by General Exposition Services and Eagle Trucking 16
operations are east of the Project. Ile GES building is elevated approximately 15 17
to 20 feet above the elevation of the Project site. 'Me Oyster Point Business Park Is
and Marina lie farther to the east of the GES building. 19
20
Develonment South of the Site 21
22
'Me Gateway Center is south of Oyster Point Boulevard and is the former site of 23
Bethlehem Steel Company. Bethlehem operated a steel manufacturing plant on the 24
majority of the site from 1903 to 1977. Edwards Wire Rope Company manufactured 25
wire rope and netting between 1916 and 1978, on the northern portion of Gateway 26
Center. Since the mid-1980s, the site has been redeveloped with high and low-rise 27
buildings with offices, banks, restaurants and hotels. 28
29
Buildings south of Oyster Point Boulevard, east of Gateway Blvd. include (in order): 30
an office building at 1000 Gateway Blvd. occupied by AESCULAP; Blue Line 31
Transfer, a solid waste transfer station;and Malcom Drilling Company at 200 Oyster 32
Point Boulevard. 33
34
Develonment West of the Site 35
36
Four tracks of the Southern Pacific Railroad border the west side of the site. 37
Between the railroad and lEghway 101 to the west is a two lane frontage road serving 38
nine officeAvarehouse structures, which extend along the Project site frontage a
distance of about 1400 feet. 40
41
4 - 2
4. LAND USE AND PLANNING
® Adopted Lmd Use Goa* Policies and Standards Applicable to the Pkqcct
2
The proposed project is subject to the following land use and development 3
requirements: 4
• City of South San Francisco East of 101 Area Plam
6
7
• City of South Sam Francisco Municival Zonim Ord 4 8
9
• City of South San Francisco Subdivision Regulations 10
11
• Airport Land Use Commission and Federal Aviation Administration 12
and 13
14
• Bay Conservation and Development Commission McAteer-Petris Act and San 15
Francisco B@L Plan. 16
17
Relevant goals,policies and implementing steps and standards of each are discussed 18
below. 19
East of 101 Area Plan 21
22
The East of 101 Area Plan was adopted in July, 1994 by the City of south San 23
Francisco as the General Plan for an area which is bounded by CalTrain and U.S. 24
Highway 101 on the west, the City of Brisbane on the north, San Francisco Bay on 25
the East,and San Francisco International Airport on the south (see Figure 3-2). The 26
Plan Area encompasses the Bay West Cove Project Site. 27
28
The adopted East of 101 Area Plan S ants,the General Plan for the area(except 29
for the Housing Element). -V
31
East of 101AMLPI Land Use Policie s 32
&n
33
The Land Use Element of the East of 101 Area Plan designates the Project site for 34
Mixed Planned Commercial/Planned Industrial use. The combined 35
commercial/industrial. categories "provide for future flexibility and the ability to 36
respond to changing development and market demands7' (Objective #8 Mixed Land 37
Use Categories, P. 61, East of 101 Area Plan). 38
The Land Use Element designates a 100 ft. wide band along the shoreline as Open a
Space (see Figure 4-1). The Open Space category allows parks, vista points, 41
4 - 3
•.
•.
•.
•
logos
...... • '°'yaje°
WOM• ° °....•.... . °°:do •. • J
e1 . e°''�p�g,• v.°h
a e4ce'3«
WE
Noonan
LD
Ad 0131°4°311!17
It
• : me®° ®Y s+ Vie®
a �
e
4
Ab 3/��0i AV 031M NK
ny
IL 0
7 0
cc
CL
I tm
1
.•
GO
s•
..
s.
4m USE AND PLAAWNG
pedestrian and bicycle trail corridors, fishing facilities, playing fields, recreational I
buildings, interpretive centers, marinas, and undeveloped open space. 2
3
Potential projects which may be developed in the future on vacant sites adjacent to 4
the Project would also be required to comply with the East of 101 Area Plan. The 5
vacant Koll site immediately north the Project site is designated for the same Mixed 6
Planned Commercial/Planned Industrial use as applies to the Project Site. 'Me 7
vacant site at the southeast comer of Oyster Point Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard 8
is subject to the Gateway Specific Plan,which allows uses similar to those allowed for 9
the Project site, including: retail sales, convenience stores, office buildings, 10
restaurants, athletic clubs, banks, theaters and auto service stations. 11
12
The East of 101 Area Plan includes 31 land use policies, of which 12 may be applied 13
to the proposed Project. Additional policies under the Open Space and Recreation 14
Element(RE-1),the Design Element(DE-22)and the Conservation Element(CON- 15
7) also guide land use. Some detailed policies are t i e dentified because they are not 16
germane to CEOA. The topics of these relevant policies are summarized below. 17
18
LU-3 Development consistency with land use categories. 19
20
LU4a Development consistency with permitted uses in Planned 21
Commercial. 22
23
LU-4b Maximum development within the allowed Floor Area Ratio 24
in Planned Commercial. 25
26
LU-5a Development consistency with permitted uses in Planned 27
Industrial. 28
29
LU-5b Maximum development within allowed Floor Area Ratio in 30
Planned Industrial. 31
32
LU-10a Uses allowed in Open Space. 33
34
LU-10b Allowance for a higher or Area Ratio based upon 35
inclusion of Open Space. 36
37
LU-10C Allowance for Parking in Designated Open Space. 38
39
LU-16 Encouragement of campus settings and multiple parcel 40
developments. 4l
4 - 5
4. LAND USE AND PLANNING
LU-21 Auto sales, rentals and storage not allowed. 2
3
LU-22 Locational requirements for drive-thru and fast food 4
restaurants. 5
6
® Maximum building heights. 7
8
® Shoreline-oriented uses encouraged. 9
10
® Development areas adjacent to sensitive resources. 11
12
DE-22 Open space as a continuous unifying element. 13
14
15
z2 din 16
17
The Municipal Zoning Ordinance is not applicable to the Project site, pending 18
amendments to the ordinance required by the East of 101 Area Plan. In accordance 19
with policy IM-8 in the adopted East of 101 Area Plan, "The City will adopt new 20
zoning implementing the land use categories of this Area Plan, and apply it 21
throughout the Area". Policy IM-3 requires that "the Shearwater S
2ecific Plan 22
District shall be superseded by the East of 101 Area Plan and is no longer in effect 23
as a [General Plan] land use plan or zoning designation. Preparation of a new 24
Specific Plan, or a Master Plan as defined in this document, is encouraged prior to 25
development of the Shearwater Site The proposed Bay West Cove Specific Plan 26
has been prepared in response to this policy. 27
28
Therefore,Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.61 Shearwater Specific Plan District is now 29
void and the City is in the process of preparing new zoning regulations consistent 30
with the Area Plan. Until new regulations are adopted, the East of 101 Area Plan 31
policies shall apply. 32
33
ation Admfinis tration Bu"din 34
Hei
lhtNoise Re ulations 35
36
The East of 101 Area Plan refers to building height regulations of the Airport Land 37
Use Commission (ALUC) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). East of 38
101 Area Plan Policy DE-43 stipulates that "Retail, flex and industrial buildings
should not exceed 35 feet in height. Landmark design elements should not exceed 40
50 feet in height. Office buildings are not subject to a height limit other than that 41
4 - 6
4 LAND USE AND PLANNING
of the ALUC� as outlined in Policy LU-23. . . Exceptions to this policy may be made I
if warranted by a specific proposed use, or if taller buildings heights are included in 2
an approved Master Plan [or Specific Plan]." 3
4
Policy LU-23 states: "Maximum heights of buildings in the East of 101 Area shall not 5
exceed the maximum heights established by the Airport Land Use Commission based 6
on Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 Criteria."' For the Project site, the ALUC 7
restrictions for San Francisco Airport define a conical zone that ascends, at a slope 8
of 20:1 to 261 feet along Oyster Point Boulevard and to 361 feet along a line parallel 9
to Oyster Point Boulevard, at the north end of the Project site. The applicant 10
proposes hotels that are located within the ALUC height limit zone. 11
12
Pursuant to the ALUCs 1995 San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use 13
Plan (CLUP), the applicant may be required to notify the FAA of the proposed 14
construction, using FAA Form 7460-1 'Notice of Proposed Construction or 15
Alteration"' 16
17
The San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan also addresses is
noise/overflight from aircraft operations at San Francisco International Airport.Ile 19
Project's compliance with noise standards of the CLUP is discussed in Chapter & 20
21
Bay e a 22
23
The r® Act, enacted in 1965, created the San Francisco Bay 24
Conservation and Development Commission to guide the protection and use of the 25
Bay and its shoreline. In 1968 the Commission completed its Bay Plan, and in 1969 26
the Legislature amended the McAteer-Petris Act to direct the Commission to 27
exercise its authority to issue or deny permit applications for placing fill, extracting Z
materials or changing the use of any land, water or structure within the area of its 29
jurisdiction, in conformity with the Act and the policies of the Bay Plan. 30
31
BCDC has permit jurisdiction for development in tidal waters of San Francisco Bay 32
up to the mean high tide line, known as the Commission's 'bay"jurisdiction, and on 33
uplands within 100 ft° of the mean high tide line, known as the Commission's "100- 34
foot shoreline band". BCDC is also authorized to implement the McAteer-Petris Ad 35
Federal Aviation Administration Regalation Part 77-Objectives Affecting Navigable Airspace,sets forth 36
height Hunts for land uses within the navigable airspace of airports. 37
2 David F.Carbone,ALUC StaI%Letter
Oct.24,1997(we 38
Appendix 21.1).
4 - 7
4 LAND USE AND PLANNING
requirement for"maximure feasible public access"to and along the waterfront within I
the shoreline band. 2
3
C u r r e n t l y, a 6 ft. wide asphalt pathway along the shoreline in the Oyster Point 4
Business Park terminates about 200 ft. east of the east boundary of the Project site. 5
A path along the shoreline band will be required for development of the vacant Koll 6
Center Sierra Point site north of the Project site. The proposed Project includes a 7
continuous path along es re ° a to ultimately connect with paths to the east and 8
® 9
10
11
4.2 LESS-THAN-SIGNIRCANT INWACrS 12
13
421 Standards of Significance and Summary of Impacts 14
15
Based upon Appendix G oft CEQA Guidelines,a project would create a potential 16
significant land use impact if it were to result in any of the following conditions: 17
18
1) incompatibility between the proposed Project and existing on-site land uses 19
and natural site conditions; 20
21
2) incompatibility between the proposed Project and existing land uses in the 22
vicinity; and 23
24
3) inconsistency between the proposed Project and existing adopted 25
environmental plans and policies,pursuant to Section 15125(b) of the CEQA 26
Guidelines. 27
28
Upon investigation of these conditions, it is deteindned that t ect would produce 29
no significant impacts. However, ect would cause eleven less-than-significant 30
impacts, as discussed below. 31
4 - 8
4. LAND USE AND PLAAWING
See other chapters for assessments of impacts of the Project on nearby properties:
2
- Clip. 5 Visual Setting (change in character of the area); 3
-
® 6, Transportation and Circulation (traffic, access, safety); 4
- Clip. 7 Air Quality (construction dust); and 5
- Clip. 8 Noise (construction noise). 6
- Chp. 12 Biological Resources (biological impacts to reinediated wetlands). 7
8
9
422 Auto Sales and Service Consistent With Proposed Amendment to PoF" 10
® 11
12
LQ&T_b - igaffi t t Im ac
Aal SM___p 13
14
The proposed Project includes a 20 acre site for automobile display,sales and service. 15
Automobile services would include diagnostics,oil and lube and vehicle detailing,but 16
no heavy painting and body repair and heavy engine rebuilding. Auto sales are 17
regulated by East of 101 Area Plan Policy LU-21, which prohibits automobile Wes, 18
rentals, storage and parking in areas designated for Mixed Planned 19
Commercial/Planned Industrial uses, as defined below. 20
21
"Auto, truck and equipment sales, rental lots, and storage and parldng shall 22
not be permitted in the Planned Commercial [or] Planned Industrial . . . 23
categories unless such uses are located under major utility lines. light 24
automobile repair, including tune-ups, smog control, oil changes, and radio, 25
alarm, tire and/or battery installations associated with an automobile fuel 26
station and/or retail commercial center, may be allowed subject to an 27
approved conditional use permit". 28
29
The Project is within the Mixed Planned Commercial/Planned Industrial categories 30
and no portion of the site is covered by major utility lines. Therefore, the 31
automobile Wes facility of be inconsistent with Policy LU-21 without an 32
amendment allowing automobile sales and light services. The proposed Project 33
includes an amendment to Policy LU-21 to allow these uses only on this site in the 34
East of 101 Area. Auto sales and associated service would be allowed subject to a 35
discretionary permit. Therefore, approval of the Project would eliminate any 36
inconsistency w i t h Policy LU-21, s o t he impact is less-than-significant. 37
38
The proposed automobile service center would appear to meet the requirement for
association with a retail commercial center; and the proposed kinds of services 40
offered by gasoline service stations would appear to be consistent with the concept 41
4 - 9
4 LAND USE AND PLANNING
of light repair services required by Policy LU-21. The requirement for a conditional I
use permit for the auto service center would be replaced by the requirement for a 2
discretionary permit, the samea rov required for the sales facility. 3
4
h9figafimikorem 5
6
None required. Approval of the Project would eliminate any inconsistency with 7
Policy LU-21 aft East of 101 Area Plan. 8
9
10
423 Development Within 100 feet of Known Sensitive Resources Consistent With 11
Amended East of 101 Plan Policy CON-7 12
13
Less-Than-Significant LMpact 14
15
The Project includes a 100 ft.wide shoreline band of designated Open Space around 16
the mitigated tidal wetland in the "slot". Buildings, loading areas, a pedestrian path, 17
landscaping,and parking would be located within the band (see Figures 3-8 and 3-9). 18
The proposed Project would allow loading docks facing the shoreline as long as they 19
were screened. Proposed parking within the band is allowed by East of 101 Area 20
Plan Policy ®1 (see Chapter 42.7). These improvements would be within 100 21
ft.of sensitive resources such as wildlife is are expected to be attracted tat e slot 22
wetland. 23
24
The Project is subject to East of 101 Area Plan policy CON-7, which requires a 25
buffer adjacent to sensitive resources (partial to of policy): 26
27
"New development adjacent to sensitive resource areas shall be required to 28
incorporate the following measures into project design: 29
30
Provide buffer areas of at least 100 ft feet between known sensitive 32
resources and development areas." 32
33
"Development areas"are interpreted to include buildings and loading docks. Loading 34
dock trucking operations within the 100 ft. wide shoreline band could be disruptive 35
to wildlife because of noise and bright illumination. ere ore,buildings and loading 36
areas within the 100 ft wide band would be inconsistent with Policy CON-7 without 37
a general plan amendment. Approval of the proposed amendment to Policy CON-7 38
would eliminate any inconsistency with CON-7, so the impact is less-than-significant.
40
4 - 10
4 LAND USE AAFD PLANNING
proposed The t within the 1
resources,band, less than 100 ft from known sensitive r 2
sensitive t are as follows 3
(proposed rl° a 4
5
development t to sensitive resource areas shall be required to 6
incorporate a project design: 7
a
Shield reduce off-site ° 9
16
11
° 12
13
® 14
15
16
17
18
19
21
A buffer of at least 100 feet in width
_,,grovi ed between known 22
r r 1.0jand 1 t is ° t t t 23
buffer mav be allowed follows. 24
25
BuildingLwhich have r- theme is r the 26
al r lic e y r ° d 27
watepmM 2
Buildinas with loading or e s e
rather than the - tali a 31
1
lornent tocated adnt to ° �s° 32 d w�terw� , 33
3
r ° t l da 34
36
t t t erS" t l i ° 37
i
t 38
y encroachment into the 100-foot bier rest receive the rcav�l®f the 3q
QL Bly Conservation eve e t isi
California Devaent of Fish e and shall onl be ermitted if 41
4 - 11
i
4. LAND USE AND PLANNING
2
be gL=ched as conditionLgflpLgnagaghmgnLI2pEgxdL 3
4
0 (remainder of Policy CON-7 to remain as presently written)" 5
6
T'he language of the proposed General Plan amendment, with the exception of the 7
requirement for loading docks to be placed to the side, rather than the rear of 8
projects adjacent to the shoreline, has already been initiated by the City for another 9
project. A single amendment incorporating the text relating to loading docks should 10
be adopted by the City. 11
12
Mfization Measures 13
14
None required. Approval of the Project would not be inconsistent with the East of 15
101 Area Plan because Policy CON-7 would be amended as part of the Project. 16
17
18
® Commercial Buildings Consistent with Proposed Amendment to 19
Policy
® 20
21
Less-Than-SiLynificant Imnact 22
23
The proposed Project includes commercial buildings such as restaurants and hotels 24
within the 100 ft wide shoreline band along the bay and slot. This band is 25
coterminous with the area identified as Open Space in the Land Use Element of the 26
East of 101 Area Plan. Also proposed in the band are a pedestrian and bicycle path 27
(segment of the planned Bay Trail),vista points, and undeveloped open space. The 28
Project is subject to East of 101 Area Plan Policy LU-10a: 29
30
"Uses allowed in the Open Space category shall include parks, vista points, 31
pedestrian and bicycle trail corridors, fishing facilities, playing fields, 32
recreational buildings, interpretive centers, marinas, and undeveloped open 33
space.it 34
35
East of 101 Area Plan Policy LU-10a limits buildings to "recreational" purposes. 36
Therefore, development of commercial buildings such as retail stores and hotels 37
within the Open Space area would be inconsistent with Policy LU-10a, without an 38
amendment to the Policy. The amendment of add the following to to Policy
LU-10a: 40
41
4 - 12
4. LAAM USE AND PLANMNG
"Commercial buildings including retail businesses, restaurants and hotels may I
encroach into the Open Space Category on a case-by-case is subject to a 2
discretionary permit and the following requirements: 3
4
• Water orientation of the proposed use of the building and design of the 5
building. 6
7
• Supportive of public access to, and/or use of the Open Space adjacent to the 8
Bay. 9
10
Since the Project proposes an amendment that would allow the kinds of commercial 11
uses in the Open Space area which are proposed in the Bay West Cove Project the 12
impact of the Project would be less-than-significant. 13
14
Aside from the proposed Bay Trail, vista points and undeveloped open space, the 15
proposed Project does not include the other potential uses allowed by Policy LU-10a. 16
The policy is interpreted to mean that the Project should include one or more of the 17
example uses or facilities ® not necessarily all of them. Therefore, the Project is 18
consistent with this aspect of Policy LU-10a. 19
20
21
22
None required. 23
24
25
423 Conversion of Open Land to Development 26
27
28
29
The Project demonstrates no incompatibility with existing site conditions that would M
result in a significant adverse impact. Development would result in the conversion 31
of about 53 acres of open land tort °l, restaurants, and hotels, streets and parldng. 32
Essentially the whole Project site would be developed. Normally, such a loss of open 33
space could be determined to be a significant adverse impact. However, in this case, 34
it is not a significant impact, because the existing site is virtually entirely degraded, 35
except for very small wetlands, which will be mitigated independent of development 36
of the Project. 37
38
The proposed 100 ft. wide band of Open Space along the shoreline, the small
landscaped open spaces to be incorporated into buildings,and trees to be planted on 40
the perimeter of the Project and in parking areas will provide more usable,attractive 41
4 - 13
4 LAND USE AND PLANNING
open space than currently exists. Policies of the Specific Plan relating to building I
design and landscaping should further compensate for the loss of open space. 2
3
M9999MAOMM 4
5
None required. 6
7
8
42 6 land Use Compatibility vnth Adjacent hDperties 9
10
Less-Than-SivifflonLImpact 11
12
The Project demonstrates no incompatibility with existing land uses in the vicinity 13
that would result in a significant adverse impact. 'Me proposed Project includes 14
commercial uses similar to existing and allowed commercial and industrial uses in the 15
Project vicinity. There are no sensitive uses such as housing which would be 16
adversely affected by the proposed uses. Housing is prohibited by the East of 101 17
Area
® 18
19
The Specific Plan proposes a project which would have similar site improvements as 20
high quality projects like Gateway Center and Koll Center Sierra Point business 21
parks. 22
23
Mfiggfimikamo 24
25
None required. 26
27
28
® Hotels Exceeding FAR 0.60 in ComplianceMith Conditional Use Permit As 29
Part of the Project 30
31
Less-Than-SigniflonLImpact 32
33
Policy LU-4b states that 34
35
"the maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio in the Planned Commercial 36
Category is 0.60. Additional floor area, up to a maximum Floor Area Ratio 37
of 1.6 may be permitted for hotels and motels meeting the CiWs development 38
requirements. Such additional floor area shall be subject to an approved 39
conditional use permit and an environmental review analyzing the additional 40
adverse impacts resulting from the increased Floor Area Ratio above 0.69'. 41
4 - 14
4 LAND USE AND PLANNING
The proposed Project includes one hotel built to an FAR of 1.02 in Planning Area 1
3 and two hotels built to an FAR of 1.00 in Planning Area 4, subject to an 2
environmental review, and approval of a conditional use permit. This EIR discusses 3
the visual impact of multi-story hotels in Chapter 5 and the transportation impacts 4
of an reduced development alternative which includes a ma itimum 1225 hotel rooms. 5
The visual impacts of multi-story hotels would not be significant and are anticipated 6
in the East of 101 Area Plan. Hotels exceeding an FAR of 0.60 should not produce 7
significant vehicular trip generation in comparison to a commercial project., a
Therefore, the conditional use permit as pan of the project would not cause a 9
significant adverse impact. 10
11
MitinfigLlAeasura 12
13
None required. 14
15
16
42.8 inclusion of Open Space in FAR Calculations As Part of Project 17
is
The East of 101 Area Plan allows for the calculation of commercial floor area to be 19
based upon the area of the commercial site as wen as the area of adjacent Open 20
Space. In the case of the Project,the allowed 0.60 FAR may be applied to the entire 21
® acre site, including the 8.5 acre Open Space band along the shoreline. This 22
provision was allowed through an amendment to Policy LU-10 in 1996,to create the 23
following new Policy LU-10b3- 24
25
"Dry lands (inland of high tide line) located within Open Space designated 26
areas and adjacent to an inland waterway may receive a Floor Area allocation 27
not to exceed the allowable FAR for the immediately adjacent land use 28
designation, subject to approval of a discretionary permit and an 29
environmental review analyzing any additional adverse impacts, including 30
traffic, sewage, and recreation impacts, as well as any impacts to sensitive 31
resources. An appropriate floor area allocation for public recreation facilities 32
shall be determined on a case-by-case basis after an environmental review." 33
34
Since the Project includes a discretionary permit to allow the applicant to include 35
Open Space in FAR calculations pursuant to LU-10b, the impact is less-than- 36
significant. 37
3 City Council, City of South San Francisco,A Resolution AMEMk&a General Plan 38
Policies in the East of 101 Area Ian Reeardinp Pmm1 egm2nLk 3e
Biological BasogM _Q2m3gi2LAmm_an4_Macent to Sensitive 39
June 26, 1996. 40
4 - 15
4. LAND USE AND HAAWING
The amount of floor area in the proposed Project is about 1,019,123 gsf, which I
averages about 0.45 FAR for the entire site. If the calculation of allowed floor area 2
excluded the approximately 368,000 gsf Open Space area, the result would be about 3
976,000 gsf, or roughly 43,000 gsf less floor area than proposed. Therefore, the 4
inclusion of the Open Space area in the calculation of FAR is necessary to achieve 5
the maximum square footage requested by the applicant. 6
7
Mifigation Measures
None required. 10
11
12
42-9 Allowance of Parking in Designated Open Space and Within the BCDC 13
Shoreline Band aa Part of the Project 14
15
In 1996 thecity amended LU-10 to include LU-IW: 16
17
"Subject to securing a discretionary permit, accessory parking from adjoining 18
portions of a site may encroach into dry land areas designated Open Space, 19
provided that the resulting project incorporates adequate public open space 20
and recreation opportunities consistent with the Open Space land use 21
designation, is compatible with Bay Conservation and Development 22
Commission's policies and regulations, and is protective of sensitive biologic 23
resources." 24
25
The proposed Project includes parldng within the 100 ft. wide band of designated 26
Open Space adjacent tot shoreline,as permitted by Policy LU-10c. Parking within 27
BCDCs 100 ft. wide shoreline band is also a permitted use, as to as public access 28
is commensurate with the uses i t s erves. Therefore,parking within the band is a less- 29
® impact because a discretionary perndt is required as part of the 30
Project. 31
4 Ibid. 32
4 - 16
4 LAND USE AND PLANNING
4ZIO Camaistency with land Use Policies of the East of 101 ATea Plan
2
Less:Than7ftalficant lmnact 3
4
Ile proposed Project is generally consistent with adopted land Use Policies and 5
Design Element Policies that address land use. The potentially relevant policies mi 6
the East of 101 Area Plan which are summarized in Chapter 4.1A are quoted in full 7
below, followed by evaluations of the Projeces consistency with them. 8
9
®3 Development consistency with land use categories: 10
11
"Ali development in the East of 101 Area shall be consistent with the 12
provisions of the land use categories . . . [Mixed Planned 13
CommerciaWndustriall and described in Policies LU-4 through LU- 14
lul. 15
16
Prpiect Consistena:The proposed Project is consistent with land use 17
policies LU4 through LU-10, as discussed below. 18
19
LU4a Development consistency with permitted uses in Planned Commercial: 20
21
"Uses allowed in the Planned Commercial category shall typically 22
include hotels and motels,retail uses,office development,restaurants, 23
administrative services, day care centers, business and professional 24
services, convenience sales, financial services, personal and repair 25
services, marinas, and shoreline-oriented recreation". 26
27
Proiect Consistency: The proposed Project will include some of the 28
uses fisted under LU-4a: retail uses, restaurants, hotels, and 29
shoreline-oriented recreation. Other listed uses may be considered 30
by the applicant if they do not exceed the maximum building square 31
footage shown in Table 3-2. 32
33
® Development consistency with permitted uses in Planned Industrial: 34
35
"Uses allowed in the Planned Industrial category shall typically 36
include non-nuisance light manufacturing,incubator-research facilities, 37
testing, repairing, packaging, publishing and printing, offices, 38
administrative activities,research and development facilities,"big-boi" 39
retail and warehouse sales, freight forwarding, warehousing, 40
distribution centers and facilities, customs brokerages, service 41
4 - 17
4 LAND USE AND PLANNING
businesses that serve the uses described above, marinas, and I
shoreline-oriented recreation." 2
3
'Me proposed Project will include some of the 4
useS allowed under Policy LU-5a: offices, "big-boie' and shoreline- 5
oriented recreation. The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan 6
which specifies allowed land uses. Approval of the Specific Plan will 7
eliminate any inconsistency between the Project and Policy LU5a. 8
9
® Maximum development within the allowed Floor Area Ratio in 10
Planned Industrial: 11
12
"The maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio in the Planned Industrial 13
category is 0.55. Structured parldng areas ancillary to the main use(s) 14
on a site are excluded from the Floor Area Ratio calculations." 15
16
The East of 101 Area Plan contains Table 1. V
Area Plan Development Potential which appears to allow an overall 18
Floor Area Ratio of 0.60 for the Mixed Planned Commercial/Planned 19
Industrial, rather than 0.55 for Planned Industrial. This possible 20
inconsistency in the Area Plan is not significant,however,because the 21
Project would have an overall Floor Area Ratio wen below 0.55 22
23
® Encouragement of campus settings and multiple parcel developments: 24
25
"The City shall encourage development of campus settings and 26
planned growth for multiple parcel developments and shall promote 27
the development of facility "Master Plans" and design standards that 28
meet the Area Plan's objectives. Master Plans shall include specific 29
commitments to high quality design that meet the City's goals for a 30
site. The minimum size for a Master Plan site is 20 acres." 31
32
try' sse Requirements of this policy do not entirely 33
apply to the Project. "Campus settings" are more applicable to 34
employment centers ® e the Genentech corporate and manufacturing 35
complex, than to commercial centers such as the proposed Bay West 36
Cove Project. The encouragement of Master Plans is met by the 37
Project's proposed Specific Plan. Therefore the Project is in 38
compliance with this policy.
40
4 - 18
4. LAND USE AND PLANNING
® Locational requirements for drive-thru and fast food restaurants:
2
"Drive-thru and fast food restaurants may be in all portions of the 3
East of 101 Area. For parcels within 500 feet of a freeway on-or off- 4
ramp, restaurants may only be permitted if they are integrated into a 5
building, are accessory t® the buildings primary use and consistent 6
with its architectural design. In addition, such restaurants must be 7
compatible with the circulation patterns of the site® Signage shall be a
minimal and appropriate to the use and pole signs should be 9
avoided." 10
11
RLoie-qL-Can-Lips LnM: While restaurant locations have not been 12
specified, no °ve® or fast food restaurant would be located 13
® 500 ft. of the freeway on- or off-ramps according to the 14
Cbapftr 3 Project Descriptiom This policy will be implemented at 15
the Design Review stage of the Project, so there is no inconsistency 16
between the Project and Policy LU-22. 17
18
LU-23 Maximum building heights: 19
20
"Maximum heights of buildings in the East of 101 Area shall not 21
e=eed the maximum heights established by the Airport Land Use 22
Commission based on Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 Criteria". 23
24
Pr
Aect Consistena: The proposed maximum building height for 25
proposed retail uses is 40 feet plus 15 ft. for architectural elements. 26
Policy DE43 limits retail buildings to 35 feet and 27 landmark de 1 SI P
elements to 50 feet® The proposed Project exceeds the ® e limits 28
by 5 ee ® However, the Project complies with LU-33 which allows 29
taller buildings when included mi an approved Master Plan. The 30
Specific Plan meets this height exception requirement. 31
32
The building height for proposed hotels ® to be governed by the Part 33
77 Criteria. Federal Aviation Administration Regulation Part 77 - 34
Objectives Affecting Navigable Airspace sets for height limits for 35
land uses within the navigable air space of airports. 36
37
Interpolating from the allowable height limits shown in Figure 11 of 38
the East of 101 Area Plan EIR, the Specific Plan proposes 39
development tote maximum height above sea level of 271 feet for 40
4 - 19
4 LAND USE AND PLANNING
a hotel in Planning Area 3, and 336 feet for hotels in Planning Area 1
® Therefore, the project is in compliance with Policy LU-23. 2
3
DE-22 Open space as a continuous unffying element: 4
5
"Developments in the Planned Commercial [and] Planned Industrial 6
categories should include on-site open space as a unifying element 7
and as areas for employee e® Open space should be continuous and 8
should connect separate buildings or sites, especially in campus4ike 9
developments . . . Open spaces should particularly be located 10
adjacent to lunch rooms and conference rooms." 21
12
Proiect Consistency: The kinds of uses proposed for the Bay West 13
Cove Project do not readily lend themselves to development 14
according to campus planning principles. Pedestrian-oriented 15
campus-type planning works best in large employment centers where 16
employees walk frequently between buildings, such as at the 17
Genentech corporate facilities in the east portion of the East of 101 18
Area. It is unlikely that customers visiting the automobile sales 19
facility or hotel guests will need to walk to major warehouse/retail 20
stores. 21
22
Placement of restaurants, however,will be important to serve on-site 23
workers, visitors and customers. 'Me proposed Bay Trail along the 24
water's edge could serve as an open space spine that could unify and 25
link separate office, restaurant and retail uses, and outdoor areas for 26
employees and visitors. 71fis policy will be implemented at the 27
Design Review stage of the Project, s a t here is no inconsistency 28
between the Project and Policy DE-22. 29
30
31
®1 Shoreline-oriented uses encouraged: 32
33
"Marina and shoreline-oriented uses shall be encouraged along the 34
bay front." 35
r ' 1te 36
Marinas are now located at the Oyster Point 37
Business Park east of the Project and in the Koll Center Sierra Point 38
business park to the north of the project. An additional marina is not 39
a part of the proposed Project. 40
41
4 - 20
4m USE AND PLANMNG
Ile proposed Project includes a greenbelt and section of the Bay I
Trail along the bay
® This shoreline-related path is consistent 2
with Policy RE-1. 3
4
e® See also Chapter 16 Open Space and Recreation finpacts for 5
ftn-ther discussion of the Bay Trail. 6
7
8
42-11 Qwsistency with the Airport Master Plan 9
10
The Project is consistent with the San Francisco International AAjiER:)grgt��Mast l 11
because it is consistent with the East of 101 Area Plan, with respect to airport 12
development and operations. 13
14
15
42.12 Cumulative land Use Impacts 16
17
Less-ThAa:5_I ' cant�fm aict 18
19
Land use ® of the Project are site-specific. The Project, when combined with 20
other potential projects in the Area, would not compound or increase impacts, or 21
contribute to the conversion of land from one use to another. 22
23
The East of 101 Area Plan anticipates in its development policies, the buildout of the 24
Area which includes the Project site, and the transportation and utilities 25
infrastructure necessary to accommodate buildout. Therefore, no significant 26
cumulative land use impacts are anticipated. 27
28
Mitization Measures 29
30
None required. 31
4 - 21
4, LAND USE AND PLANNING
® VISUAL CONDITIONS 1
2
3
This Chapter evaluates the potential visual impacts which the Project will have on 4
surrounding areas, and particularly how views of the ® e and bay from public streets and 3
highways will change if the Project is developed. light and glare impacts are assessed. 6
7
8
® ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 9
10
The environmental setting includes a description and illustration of existing 11
characteristics and features in the area, as well as a discussion of adopted design 12
policies and guidelines applicable to development of the Project. The analysis draws 13
upon the characterization of the site in the Revised Draft EIR for the Fast of 101 14
Area Plan'. 15
16
17
5.1.1 Vn-wal Character of the Area 18
19
e _°ng Features 20
21
The Project site is defined by four edges: the bay on the north and east; the steep 22
embanianent and GES Exhibition Services building on the east; and industrial 23
buildings on the south side of Oyster Point Blvd.;and the parallel combination of the 24
®n railroad, Highway 101 and a row of public storage buildings between the 25
railroad and the freeway (see Figwe 5-1, fture 5-2 and Figure 5-3). 26
27
On the west side of the freeway, the foothills of San Bruno Mountain rise abruptly. 28
A proposed housing development about 500 feet from the freeway known as 29
"Terrabay Point"is expected to be developed in the re® The elevated housing site 30
has swee ing views of the Project site (see F'*=5-3, Page 2).
p 31
32
Views of the Site and Bay 33
34
Despite its close proximity to Highway 101, the site is not readily visible from the 35
freeway. The only significant "window" on the site for northbound and southbound 36
freeway travelers is between the end of the northbound on-ramp, from the Oyster 37
38
Brady and Ammiates,
P. 107,J
1994. anuary, 39
40
a
I
I tj
�
I tl
{
„1
1 4 ! I t
{ I
i I
f
I
I
I
Bay
e qy V
d0 o
Lw
ui
cc
CL
LLJ
1
F ( Q
I
g1
t ! al
{
\e® II
�\ `►
II
r
tl '
cm LL d�
Cc
CL 32
c
/
|
|
/
�
/
/
IRS
CL
pme
CM
LO o
ca
RL
O
u
u
r>
f7d se s Gr y U d � lr� m
CL
LL
CL
C ® CD
NO
lot
CIO
r
.k
tm
JJ RI q1 IlA�
C
7
/ G
i
fix.
.2 Ild
IL ca
L d
i
w i U5
m u
I
�1
l
CL ID
Y
w
� I
p ,
V + � O0
CO
CL
r
M r 2+
CL ,
0 Ed
vi
LO 0
i
O
p
5 - 4
r r r R
� r r
E I *,
® rsi
r
JI I III
6 �" 4
CL
r
0 IL
C D
,fir r
w
® < l
� lbw
48 0
j'
®
J C
>S On
cm
CD
co
CC
C.3 32 v
c ��
cc
CL c
co
CL
a '
i
!L 4)
co �, a
c
e
(D »�-
I
IJ
i
� IIII
1 4 4
f 'II
t„
y
COL
CL
co
Q
m
r
V rn
C7
1 �
0
w
� � C
i
L
ID
Im
a
IL
Mai
LLJ
Lwl
i%
U.
INV
CD
co
um co CL
co
17L EL
® /
r oi'
5 - 6
5. V7SUAL CONDITIONS
Point Boulevard overpass, and the e®and two-story public storage buildings which I
border a freeway frontage road (see Fgure 5-1,5-2 and 5-3,Photco A,B and Q. Of 2
the
® public storage structures, the three located at the south end are two stories 3
and about 20 feet in height. The six northern buildings are one story and about 13 4
feet in height. Each is about 35 feet wide by 150 feet in length. The storage 5
buildings are arranged end-to-end, about 30 feet apart. Together, they extend about 6
1400 feet along the Project site frontage,effectively blocking most of the view of the 7
site from Highway 101. The limited view focuses on Planning Area I proposed for 8
eat sales facility. 9
10
Views of the bay from Oyster Point Boulevard are limited because of the long 11
distance between the street and the bay and the low elevation of viewpoints, relative 12
to the bay. For example, Oyster Point ® at its intersection with Gateway 13
Boulevard is about 1000 feet from the "slot7 and only about 10 feet above bay 14
elevation. From this vantage of the slot appears as a relatively narrow band in the 15
flat landscape. There are elevated vantage points which provide better distant bay 16
views, such as from Oyster Point Boulevard at the southeast comer of the site, from 17
the Oyster Point Boulevard Ovexpass, and from Airport Boulevard on the west side 18
of the freeway(Fire 5-1 and Figure 5-3,Photo A). It is not possible for the public 19
to view the bay from the edge oft shoreline,because the Shearwat site contains -V
hazardous materials, it is fenced off from visitors. 21
22
14admarks 23
24
The most prominent landmarks in the vicinity of the site are the two office towers 25
in the Gateway Business Park, located south of Oyster Point Boulevard. One is 12 26
stories and the other is 16 stories in height. Two office towers in the Koll Center 27
Sierra Point Business Park lie to the north. The taller of the two is about 13 stories nes 28
in height. These towers are visible from Highway 101 and sites throughout the East 29
of 101 Area. Both office parks have generous landscaping in and around parking lots 30
and along access drives. 31
32
1tokage Entries 33
34
Approaching the Project site from the west on Oyster Point Boulevard, the site 35
appears blighted with rubble and debris and devoid of any signifi cant vegetation (see 36
Figure 5-3, photo A). The south side of the street is bordered by industrial and 37
office projects which vary in character and relationship tot street. Unattractive 38
overhead transmission lines also border the south side of the street (see Figure 5-3, 39
photo D). 40
41
5 ®
5. VISUAL CONDITIONS
The site may also be reached from the south by two streets which intersect Oyster I
Point Boulevard: Gateway Boulevard and Eccles Avenue. Both provide generous 2
building setbacks and landscape buffers. The treatment for Gateway Boulevard 3
includes four lanes with landscaped median strips, turf landscaping, street trees and 4
a hedge to screen parked cars, and a sidewalk on the west side (see Figures 5-2 and 5
5-3,photo E). 6
7
Nembm Devl
1 2 == 8
9
Away from the freeway frontage e landmark office towers, the properties 1 0
adjacent to Oyster Point Boulevard have an industrial character with no consistent 11
landscaping along streets. Most buildings in the area are one- and two-story light 12
industrial and flex buildings that are used for offices, warehousing, manufacturing, 13
and research and development. Parking is located in front or along the sides of 14
buildings. Equipment storage is frequently unfenced. Loading docks are normally 15
at the rear of buildings. To the east of the Project site is the GES Exposition 16
Services Building, a
® concrete warehouse structure with little articulation and 17
no windows. On the south side of the street is Blue Line Transfer, a waste recycling Is
center, and the Malcom Drilling Company Building, a vivid blue structure, with 19
extensive outdoor storage of drilling equipment. 20
21
The visual quality of the streetscape improves t a t he east of the Project, beyond the 22
Oyster Point Blvd. intersection with Gull Road. As the boulevard descends to the 23
east, mature landscaping is visible on the south side of the street, and the attractive 24
Oyster Point Cove business park becomes visible. These projects are uniformly set 25
back and have a consistent massing, height, colors and materials. Oyster Point 26
Marina includes a marina and a mix of commercial buildings in an architectural style 27
reminiscent of Cape Cod or coastal housee. 28
29
30
5.12 Policies Relevant to Visual Impact Assessment 31
32
The proposed Project is subject to land use and design requirements in the following 33
City documents: 34
35
0 The City of South San Francisco East of 101 e g 36
37
0 Ile City of South San Francisco Desia Review Gui and 38
2 Ibid.,Page 125. 39
5 - 8
5. VISUAL CONDITIONS
Airport Land Use Commission,
E=77 building height regulations. 2
3
Relevant goals, policies and implementing steps of each are discussed below. 4
5
East of 101 Area Plan 6
7
Design Element(DE)policies and implementation measures relevant to the Project 8
Sit e are summarized below.Some detailed policies are not identified because they are 9
not germane to the Project or CEQA and would apply at the subsequent Design 10
Review stage of the Project. 11
12
DE-1 Development should take advantage of bay exposure. The Bay Trail 13
should be a minimum of 6 ft. in width. 14
15
DE-2 Development should be visually pleasing viewed from Hwy. 101. 16
17
® A landmark building, [or vertical element] should mark the approach is
to the Project. 19
20
®7 Oyster Point Blvd. should have special planting both sides of the 21
street signage (possible monument) and paving. 22
23
DE-8 The City should prepare a streetsmpe plan for Oyster Point Blvd. 24
emphasizing trees with a coastal orientation. 25
26
DE-15 Parking areas should be separated into small areas to de-emphasize 27
parking. 28
29
DE-17 Loading areas at the rear or sides of buildings should be separate 30
from large expanses of parking. 31
32
DE-21 There should be a landscape buffer along property lines® 33
34
® Utilities should be undergrounded, unless the City finds it to be in- 35
feasible. 36
37
® All sides of buildings visible from a public street shall have variety. 38
5 - 9
5. V7SUAL CONDFITONS
DE-43 Building heights are limited to 35 ft high with landmark elements to 1
50 feet; Office buildings may be built to a height allowed by the 2
Airport Land Use Commission. 3
4
DE-45 No sign should be taller than the building it serves. 5
6
DE-46 A
® sip program should be prepared for the entire 7
t® 8
9
DE-47 Shopping center or development identity sips should be on buildings, 10
not free-standing. 11
12
DE-49 Monument signs should be generally no more than 12 ft. tall and 13
free-standing signs and pole signs are discouraged. 14
15
DE-54, Additional design policies (Planned Industrial and Planned Com- 16
DE-56, mercial): street trees should be no farther apart than 25 feet 17
DE-59 landscape buffers should be at least 20 ft.wide on Oyster Point Blvd. ]a
There should be no blank walls longer than 30 ft.Social nodes(public 19
pI azas) should be incorporated in new development. There should be 26
one parking lot tree for every 12 parking spaces; Five percent of 21
parking areas should be planted in shrubs. 22
23
The East of 101 Area Plan prefers that development on the Project site be governed 24
by a Specific Plan, with site specific guidelines consistent with the East of 101 Area 25
Plan policies. The proposed Project Specific Plan responds to this directive. 26
27
T'he Design Element intends that the entry to the East of 101 Area on Oyster Point 28
Boulevard be similar to the East Grant Avenue streetscape, including entry features 29
close to the 11ighway 101 off-ramps. Landscape treatments shall utilize such elements 30
as plant materials, earth berms, l o w w a l l s o r e nces, lighting, paving, sculpture and 31
signage to create distinctive, high quality gateways to the area. Space should allow 32
for landscaped medians on Oyster Point Blvd.' 33
34
Desigri Review Guidelines 35
36
The City adopted Design Review Guidelines for the entire city in 1991,which discuss 37
building scale, parking and circulation, landscaping, lighting, and signs, and 38
3 Ibid.,Page 134. 39
5 - 10
5. KSUAL CONDMONS
T ecommend treatments or design alternatives to improve projects. Recent projects I
have complied with the Guidelines dealing with landscaped street frontages and 2
sideyards, vehicular entrances, and screened loading areas - generally at the rear of 3
properties. The Guidelines are applicable to new commercial and office 4
developments. They are advisory in nature, rather than regulatory.' The Guidelines 5
complement and are broadly consistent with the Design Element Policies of the East 6
of 101 Area Plan. 7
8
Desip Review Process 9
10
The City's Design Review Board will apply the Design Element policies in the East 11
of 101 Area Plan and the City's Design Review Guidelines to the review of individual 12
proposed buildings, except where supplanted by the standards in the Specific Plan. 13
This review will occur prior to the building permit stage. The DRB makes 14
recommendations to the final review body, w h i c h has the ultimate review authority. 15
The Design Review process is described in Municipal Code, Section 20.85. 16
17
Airnort Land Use CommiagsionFederal Aviation AdminklEafigni
-ERgggIIgt!iig&nZPaarqt M77 18
19
Building height limits on the site are imposed by the Airport Land Use Commission
and the FAA. 'Mese regulations could apply to proposed high rise hotels. The 21
requirements and height limits are discussed in Chapter 4.13.
23
24
5.2 SIGNMCANT IMPACrS AND MMGATION MEASURES 25
26
27
52-1 Standards of Significance and Summary of hnpacts 28
29
The standards of significance for visual impacts are embodied in City policies and 30
regulations outlined in Chapter 5.12,above. The standards deal primarily with issues 31
of compatibility between new and existing development. The Project would have a 32
significant impact if it would: 33
34
Substantially obstruct significant public views and view corridors; 35
36
0 Have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect; and 37
38
4
Ibid. P. 107. 39
5 - 11
5. 11SUAL CONDITIONS
Not conform to adopted policies relating to the principal visual features of I
a project; 2
3
By application of these statulanis the proposed Project creates one significant visual
impact as described below, and seven less-than-significant impacts as described in 5
Chqxff 5.3. 6
7
8
522 Inconsistency with Design Element Policy Relating to the Location of 9
Loading Areas 10
11
12
13
The proposed Project Specific Plan would allow loading docks and areas at the rear 14
of buildings located adjacent to the slot, where they would be screened with walls, 15
decorative gates or landscaping. The Specific Plan is in compliance with Design 16
Element policy DE-17: 17
is
"In all land use categories except Light Industrial, loading docks and service 19
areas should be located at the rear or side of the development, and should 20
be separated from automobile parking, areas." 21
22
However, East of 101 Area Plan Policy DE-1 requires developments on parcels 23
adjacent to San Francisco Bay to emphasize the bay shore atmosphere and take 24
advantage of the design and visual opportunities associated with the bay. This policy 25
is interpreted that trucking and loading adjacent to the slot and shoreline would be 26
inconsistent with the intent of Policy DE-1. This inconsistency results in a potentially 27
significant impact. 28
29
30
31
Include a standard in the proposed Specific Plan requiring loading at the side of 32
buildings whose rear elevations face the shoreline. (The proposed Project also 33
includes a general plan amendment to East of 101 Area Plan Policy CON-7, which 34
requires loading docks for buildings adjacent to the oft be to be located to the 35
side,rather than the rear of such buildings,subject to protection of sensitive resource 36
areas like the slot wetland - see Chapter 423). Inclusion of the standard in tile 37
Specific Plan would reduce the impact to less-than-significant. 38
5 - 12
® PTSU4L CONDITIONS
5.3 LESS-THAN-SIGNMCANT IWACI'S
2
3
53.1 No Signifimt View Obstriiction or Negative Aesthetic Effect 4
5
6
7
The Project will alter views to the bay. Rdsting distant views from public streets in 8
the vicinity will tend to be blocked by proposed street trees and parking lot trees 9
throughout the Project. Proposed retail buildings along the east side of the site could 10
block views of the bay from Oyster Point Boulevard. This is not a significant visual 11
impact because the distant views of the bay across the degraded site will be replaced 12
by much better views of the bay from new public areas along the shoreline,which are 13
not now accessible. The proposed Bay Trail path will provide opportunities for close- 14
up views of the shoreline and open waters. Therefore, the Project should not is
substantially obstruct public views and view corridors. 16
17
Views of proposed buildings from lEghway 101 will be limited due to e3dsting 18
development adjacent to the freeway (see Figm 5-1). The proposed automobile 19
sales facility on the west side of the site and retail buildings on the east side of the W
site will not be readily seen from the freeway (see the discussion of the narrow 21
viewing window from Hwy. 101, discussed in Chapter 5.1.1). 22
23
The most prominent buildings could be multi-story hotels developed in Planning 24
Areas 2, 3 and 4. Some of these potential high rise buildings could be readily visible 25
from the freeway, as are office buildings in the Gateway Center and Koll. Center 26
Sierra Point business parks. The hotels in Planning Area 4 could be as close as 300 27
feet from the freeway, and up to about 336 feet in height, pursuant to height 28
limitations established in Federal Aviation me Administration n R rulation Part 77. Upper 29
_ 1
stories of these buildings would be visible from the freeway over the one- two-story 30
office/Warehouses adjacent to the freeway. 31
32
The widely-spaced, potential high-rise buildings would not obscure views of the bay 33
from the viewpoints shown in Figure 5-1. As discussed in Chapter 5.1.1,views from 34
these vantage points are distant from the bay and of poor scenic quality. By contrast, 35
access
of proposed shoreline linear park Will provide far better bay views than 36
now eidst from distant viewpoints. 37
38
Development of high-rise hotels would be visually consistent with other high rise 39
buildings along the freeway and consistent with findings of the East of 101 Area Plan 40
EIR: "development along Highway 101 is to emphasize visitor-serving uses such as 41
5 - 13
S. YISUAL COMMONS
hotels and motels,and would be visually attractive,creating a positive first impression I
of the East of 101 Area6. Compliance with design guidelines in the East of 101 2
Area Plan and the proposed Specific Plan should also ensure that these buildings and 3
surrounding landscaping will be attractive, and not have a substantial negative 4
aesthetic effect on the area. 5
6
7
8
None
® 9
10
11
532 Win"light and Glare Impacts 12
13
Le DIiU::5'olgIIljfiicoangtLIIM= 14
is
Ught and glare impacts are not expected to be significant because there are no 16
sensitive receptors (such as housing) in the Project area east of Hwy. 101. Where 17
housing is expected to be built on the west
® of Hwy 101, as part of the proposed is
Terrabay project,with direct views of the Project site(Figure 5-3,Photo A),ambient
light levels from the highway are already
® 'Merefore,light and glare impacts are 20
less-than-significant. 21
22
Project implementation would result in an increase in ambient light and glare in the 23
Project vicinity.light levels for the proposed automobile sales facility and other on- 24
site and building and security lighting have not yet been specified. Ile primary 25
source of illumination would be
® lamps in the auto sales parldng lot. 26
27
The applicant will be required to prepare a lighting and landscaping plan at the 28
Design Review stage of the Project. The plan will establish a reasonable level of 29
illumination as a function of the spacing of lamp poles and the fight intensity of 30
lamps. 31
32
The City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance does not regulate the maximum 33
level of outdoor lighting, nor does it specify any minimum light levels for 34
development of the Shearwater site. The City does specify a minimum level for the 33
adjacent Gateway Area:parking lot lighting shall be a minimum of"I foot-candle or 36
such greater level as may reasonably be required to areas subject to heavy nighttime 37
5 Ibid,Page 134. 38
5 - 14
5. KSUAL CONDITIONS
® traffie c ® 20.57.290). This standard should be considered as the I
minimum for parking lots on the Bay West Cove site. 2
3
Potential building and parldng lot lighting adjacent to the planned wetlands in the 4
of could be disruptive to wildlife attracted to the tidal wetland (see Chapter 12-22). 5
6
7
8
None required. 9
10
11
533 Improvements to Oyster Point Boulevard Consistent vdth Amended Policy
12
DE-7 13
14
Less-Than-Sianificant Imnact 15
16
The proposed Project includes widening Oyster Point Boulevard to four lanes, plus 17
left turn pockets, by the City. The widening includes sidewalks both sides, but may 18
not include continuous street trees where there is no room in the ROW. 19
Improvements within the ROW are governed by East of 101 Area Plan Policy DE-7, 21
as follows: 22
23
Me principal roadway entries into the East of 101 Area should receive 24
S pecial attention and enhanced entry treatment, including special planting, 25
signage and paving. A master plan of entry improvements should be 26
developed by the City, with special attention on: 27
28
Oyster Point Boulevard: Treatments on Oyster Point Boulevard just 29
east of the Highway 101 ramps could include monuments on the sides
of the roadway and in the median, as well as enhanced landscaping." 31
32
Since the proposed widening of Oyster Point Blvd.may not allow for street trees or 33
monuments, the Project would be inconsistent with Policy DE-7, and constitute a 34
significant impact of the Project. However, the Project includes a general plan 35
amendment which would delete the bulleted sentence above, and replace it with: 36
37
Oyster Point Boulevard. "Encourage placement of entryway 38
monument features,street trees and median trees where space allows 39
within the Oyster Point Blvd. right-of-way. Where space is 40
constrained in the public right-of-way, encourage the planting of 41
5 - 15
5. USUAL CONDITIONS
street trees on adjacent private property. A typical crom'section of I
the ROW is shown on Figure 12". 2
3
Figure
® shows the current and revised cross sections on Figure 12 of the East of 4
101 Area Plan. 5
6
Policy DE-7 would still apply to other listed streets in the East of 101 Area. 7
8
Approval of the Project would eliminate any inconsistency with amended Policy DE- 9
7, sot impact would be less-than-significant. 1®
11
Mitig on Measures 12
13
None required. 14
15
16
53A Proposed Project Identification Signs Consistent With Proposed Amendment 17
to Policy DE47 18
19
Less-'Man-SignifionLIMM 20
21
The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan which incorporates a Master Sign 22
Program consistent with Policy DE-46 of the East of 101 Area Plan. The program 23
stipulates the size, thematic design and height of signs at proposed locations 24
throughout the Project. The program also includes a major ee®s identity 25
sign for the whole Project, and a second free-standing identity sign for the proposed 26
Auto Nation facility. 27
28
Shopping center and development identity signs are regulated by East of 101 Area 29
Plan Policy DE47 which discourages free-standing pole signs: 30
31
"Shopping center or development identity should be denoted through signs 32
or logos integrated into the design of the buildings,rather than through free- 33
standing signs". 34
35
The Specific Plan proposes a free-standing, twin-pole supported sign up to 75 feet 36
high and 32 feet wide,with up to 1000 sq. ft. of sign area on each of two sides. The 37
sip would identify the name of the center(e.g.,BAYWEST COVE), and the names 38
of up to seven tenants. The Specific Plan does not identify the location of the 39
proposed sign. 40
5 - 16
S, VISU4L COAMFIONS
Ile proposed AutoNation sip would be a free-standing, single pole mounted sip 1
50
®high and 21 ft. wide, located at the extreme southwest comer of the site,close 2
to the freeway. 3
4
The proposed
® pole identity signs would be inconsistent with Policy DE- 5
47 and create a potential significant impact. However, the Project includes an 6
amendment to the East of 101 Area Plan, allowing up to two
® identity 7
signs,
® to Design Review. Therefore, approval of the Project would eliminate 8
any inconsistency with amended Policy DE47, so the impact is less-than-significant. 9
10
The recommended amendment/addition to Policy DE-47 is as follows:"An exception 11
allowing additional free-standing sips for major commercial and mixed-use 12
complexes located along the 101 corridor may be allowed, subject to Design Review. 13
The location, height and size of the identity sip(s) shall be determined by such 14
factors as freeway proximity and exposure,region-serving uses, the number of tenants is
requiring identification on the signs, and the number, size and location of other 16
proposed signs in the project". 17
easure 19
LtiLation M ----I
20
None required. Z
22
23
53.5 Cauddency VFith Design Element PnUcies of the East of 101 Area Plan 24
Z
imjhml ct 26
27
The proposed Project Specific Plan is consistent with Design Element policies in the 28
East of 101 Area Plan related to the principal visual features of the Project. 29
Relevant Design Element Polices in the East of 101 Area Plan which are summarized
in Chapter 5.12 are quoted in full below, followed by evaluations of the ® 32
consistency with them. 32
33
DE-I Development should take advantage of bay exposure. The Bay Trail 34
should be a minimum of 6 ft. in width: 33
36
"Developments on Parcels adjacent to San Francisco Bay should 37
emphasize the bay shore atmosphere and take advantage of the 38
design and visual opportunities associated with the bay."
40
5 - 17
5. KSUAL CONDITIONS
Proiect Consistena: As shown in Figures 3-8 and 3-9, a meandering I
8-foot wide shoreline path (Bay Trail), bordered by native trees and 2
shrubs is proposed along the shoreline. These landscape 3
improvements would take advantage of views of the shoreline.At the 4
Design Review stage, the City will evaluate the orientation of 5
buildings, parking and loading areas to the bay. The Project is 6
consistent with policy DE-1, except for the potential that loading 7
docks will be placed within the shoreline buffer area (see Chapter 8
5.23). 9
10
DE-2 Development should be visually pleasing viewed from Hwy. 101: 11
12
"Projects in the vicinity of Highway 101 should be designed with the 13
freeway in mind. In particular, any new projects on the Koll and 14
Shearwater sites should be designed to be visually pleasing when 15
viewed from Highway 101". 16
17
ftigg site e Project will be visible from Hwy 101 for ]a
only very short periods of time, because views are blocked by 19
development along the freeway. However, the potential multi-story 20
hotels on the north and south sides of the slot could be visible over 21
the roofs of the a® office/warehouses adjacent to the freeway. 22
The building can be designed to be visually pleasing by application of 23
guidelines in the proposed Specific Plan and the Citys Design Review 24
guidelines. 0
26
DE-6 A landmark building, [or tower] should mark the approach to the 27
Project: 28
29
"Within each development,a landmark building should be encouraged 30
to mark the project approach for visitors coming to it. Such 31
landmarks should not include signs". 32
33
EE left fQR9AM: 34
35
Visitors approaching the Project on Oyster Point Boulevard Will 36
observe widely spaced development over the 52 acre site. No one 37
development will necessarily be a landmark which establishes the 38
identity of the entire Project(building designs are not included in the 39
Chapter 3 Project Description). Although it would appear that the a
Project does not comply with this policy, it could be inappropriate to 41
5 - 18
S. WSUAL CONDITIONS
mark the project approach for visitors with a single landmark I
building,because visitors will be seeking widely disparate destinations: 2
auto sales, large retail outlets, hotels, and restaurants. Project 3
identity and a sense of arrival may be better provided at vehicular 4
access points from Oyster Point Boulevard. 5
6
DE-15 Parking separated into small areas to de-emphasize large expanses of 7
puking:
"Site design should de-emphasize the visual prominence of parking 1®
areas by separating parking areas into relatively small components H
and locating parking behind buildings" 12
13
REW=_CMg its : The proposed Specific Plan recommends 14
landscaping along the main divided entry road (to be named "Bay 15
West Cove Boulevard"), which separates Planning Area 1 from 16
Planning Areas 2,3,and 4 (see F%=3-7). This landscaped roadway 17
will help to break up parking areas. The landscaped parking aisles is
and islands will further divide Planning Areas into parking lots. 19
20
DE-21 landscape buffer along property lines: 21
22
"Developments should include a landscaped buffer zone along 23
property lines that is appropriate to the land use category . . . 24
25
26
The si r oposed Specific Plan includes standards
for perimeter landscape buffers. Therefore the Project is consistent 27
with DE-21. 28
29
®3 Utilities should be undergrounded, unless City finds it to be
® 31
32
'Utility lines serving new development shall be installed underground, 33
unless the City finds that undergrounding would be financially 34
infeasible for a specific project". 35
36
EE S1St� requires undergrounding of 37
new utilities. 38
5 - 19
5. WSUAL CONDITIONS
® All sides of buildings visible from a public street shall have variety:
2
"All sides of buildings that are: visible from a public street or area 3
should be detailed and treated with relief elements and changes in 4
® Architectural elements . . . could include awning projections, 5
trellises,planters,integrated plazas,colonnades or arcades,expression 6
of structural elements . . . Blank walls should be avoided. . . 7
8
Proiect Consis Architectural design guidelines in the proposed 9
Specific Plan are consistent with this policy. 10
11
DE43 Buildings to 35 ft high with landmark elements to 50 feet; hotels and 12
office buildings to ALUC height: 13
14
"Retail, flex and industrial buildings should not exceed 35 feet in 15
height. Landmark design elements should not exceed 50 feet in 16
height. Office buildings are not subject to a height limit other than 17
that of the ALUC, as outlined in Policy LU-23. . . . Exceptions to this 18
policy may be made if warranted by a specific proposed use, or if 19
taller building heights e e l cluded in an approved ° ° . [Specific W
Note: LU-23 also allows construction to the height allowed 21
by the ALUC, but does not limit the type of buildings to offices. 22
Therefore, hotels could also be built to ALUC height limits. 23
24
Proiect Consiste Proposed building heights are 5 feet higher, or 25
40 feet, with architectural elements to 15 feet higher, or 55 ft. This 26
minor change is allowed by the policy. 27
28
The Specific Plan uses the same ALUC height limits as the East of 29
101 policy. Proposed hotels could be up to 271 feet in height for 30
Planning Area 3,and to 336 feet for Planning Area 4(see Figure 3-10 31
Und Use Plan). 32
33
34
DE49 Monument signs should be generally no more than 12 ft° tall and 35
ee®s signs and pole signs are discouraged (as amended June 36
26, )® 37
38
"Freestanding signs are discouraged, but may be installed as 39
monument signs generally no more than 12 feet tall . . . . Pole sips 40
are discouraged. Monument signage taller than 12 feet may be 41
5 - 20
5. PYSUAL CONDITIONS
allowed for vlr® business at thecity's discretion for I
properties within the 1500 foot band of property east of Highway 101 2
. . . The height of the sign shall be proportional to the size of the lot 3
and should be no higher than the minimum required to be seen from 4
Highway
® For buildings which can be seen easily from the 5
freeway, building signage is encouraged in place of taller monument 6
e® Signage shall otherwise follow the requirements of the 7
current zoning ordinance and adopted design guidelines for signage.- 8
9
The proposed Master Sign Program in the 10
Specific Plan includes 14 ft high monument signs at the Bay West 11
Cove Blvd. intersection with Oyster Point Boulevard, consistent with 12
the Policy
® allows signs "generally" no more than 12 ft. high. 13
Pole signs which extend over the internal driveway in the proposed 14
auto sales facility are proposed to direct visitors to parking and 15
service. Pole signs are discouraged,but not prohibited by the policy. 16
The use of monument signs in lieu of the overhead pole signs may be 17
considered by the City at the Design Review stage of the Project. is
19
Clapiter 53.5 discusses the Projeces compliance with a proposed 20
amendment to Policy DE-47 to allow free-standing identity sign(s). 21
22
DE-54, Additional design policies (Planned Industrial 23
DE-56, and Planned Commercial): 24
® 25
Me following additional design policies apply on the Koll and 26
Shearwater properties: Street trees should be planted within at least 27
25 feet of each other. Landscape buffers along Oyster Point 28
Boulevard and any new arterial should be 20 feet wide . . . On side 29
and rear property lines, they should be 6 feet wide. Blank walls
should be no more than 30 feet long. . . . New development . . . M
should include nodes, social centers, and/or public plazas . . . New 32
development . . . shall include specific design guidelines. These 33
guidelines could be developed as an integral part of Specific Plans for 34
the properties. Cars should not be parked more than 12 in a row 35
without a planting island that contains at least one tree. Medians and 36
bulbs inside . . . parldng lots shall be planted. A minimum of 5% of 37
the total parking lot area required to be landscaped shall be planted 38
with shrubs",
40
5 - 21
5° VISUAL COMMONS
EEWggLQgflg11gnZ The proposed Specific Plan is consistent and 1
complies ° °er the Shearwater site. 2
hfifiagmmom=
5
None required. 6
7
53.6 No Cumulative Vizual Impact
1
® 11
12
No other proposed or approved projects in the vicinity, in combination with the 13
proposed r to v erse cumulative visual ° The 14
Specific 1 an would improve visual conditions on the Project , through policies 1
which are consistent with the Design Element of East of 101 Area Plan. 1
17
g 1
1
required.None
6. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
2
3
® ENVIRONMENTAL SEMNG 4
3
6
6.1.1 Street Network 7
8
The proposed Bay West Cove Project site is located in theaty of South San 9
Francisco north of Oyster Point Boulevard (see Yguro 6-1). Local roadway facilities 10
serving the study area include Oyster Point Boulevard, Sister Cities Boulevard, 11
Gateway Boulevard, Eccles Avenue, Forbes Boulevard, Airport Boulevard, Linden 12
Avenue, East Grand Avenue, Dubuque Avenue, and Linden Avenue. Regional 13
access to the Project site is provided by Highway 101. A brief description of these 14
facilities
s® is
C"Ler PoinLBoulevard 16
17
is
From Airport Boulevard,this street crosses over Ifighway 101 adjacent to the Project 19
site, and provides access to commercial-office areas as well as the Oyster Point 20
Marina. Between the CalTrain railroad tracks and Eccles Avenue the roadway has 21
four travel lanes with two travel lanes beyond Eccles. 22
23
24
25
Extending west from Airport Boulevard,Sisteraties Boulevard has four travel lanes 26
with a raised, landscaped median. Sis aties Blvd. provides access to residential 27
areas west of the Project site. 28
Gateway Boulevard 29
30
31
Gateway Blvd. travels north-south between Oyster Point Boulevard and East Grand 32
Avenue. This roadway has four travel lanes and a raised landscaped median. 33
34
h2gles Avenue
35
36
Eccles travels between Oyster of Boulevard and Forbes Boulevard. Situated cast 37
of Gateway Boulevard, Eccles Avenue has two travel lanes.
39
Fo r Les Boulevard
40
41
Forbes Blvd.travels northeast from East Grand Avenue before turning east at Eccles 42
Avenue. Forbes Boulevard is a fourml arterial with a raised median that extends 43
for a major portion of its length.
® 1
lul
w VA1cEr
PIE
�'sass ` p� f * EI. f �4 > •C
w o WAUV ! — _
AMP
RW
sft
won
- a r
♦ ® i �� _
I ®\ ` _era f �� ® ,` s ®'•�
1 ®r.-----®®\
n
a
I COUNTY PARK `® - -- - x"•
w, . g
� t
irsrw
ale
oomm
CT
PROJECT
µKwtsr .sr .w t`
owes °' aC a it• r
``®\ ®_ - '�v w•� �'i g r'° M !I :. is I a
_ fta /
®kY wr i -i ai
r w ti av i • C r1 c .r► - t
zwb a y r r "Mr ®r fi. tale♦ J v
am
C 1 r ew y YelfFk rr°•7 F � s6.w `. \ '
f••q n o lw
21 btu pw. i� VA Mm
gB — (nr t w"yy YI Q 1 C! li
POW
'm sm®7
• ° +° ®®,r r ,r
wculk.r - -
fi twCE
°°craw. it G, I-•..; -
� r"
`1♦Aran w.., a C ^ns"- . w
\may- I c ze. rknwara.n;
a
SITE LOCATION MAP
omme 77-171-it-l-z-,7',:7 Figure 6-1
—
6 MMSPORTATIONAND CIRCULATION
Airport Boulevard
2
Airport Blvd. paraffels Highway 101 on the west side of the freeway. This major 3
arterial has four travel lanes, except where it widens to six lanes south of Grand 4
Avenue to the CalTrain railroad tracks. 5
6
ILnden Avenue 7
8
Linden travels west of Airport Boulevard with two travel lanes and provides access 9
to residential areas. 10
11
East Grand Avenue 12
13
East Grand Avenue travels from Grand Avenue under Highway 101 then passes over 14
the CalTrain railroad tracks (grade separated) before intersecting Gateway 15
Boulevard. In this section the roadway has six travel lanes. East Grand Avenue 16
provides access to office areas in the East of 101 area. 17
18
Dubuaug AyrMe 19
20
Dubuque serves as a frontage road to Highway 101 on the east side of the freeway. 21
A
® roadway, Dubuque Avenue provides northbound access to Highway 101 22
at Oyster Point Boulevard as well as access to the Caltrain Station just north of East 23
Grand Avenue. 24
25
U.S. 101 26
27
Regional access to the Project site is provided by U.S.Highway 101. The north-south 28
® facility located west of the Project provides access to Oyster Point 29
Boulevard, Airport Boulevard, and Grand Avenue. 30
31
32
® Existing Study Intersections 33
34
Intersection operation is usually considered one of the critical factors ® determining 35
the traffic handling capacity of a roadway system. Based on discussions with South 36
San Francisco Engineering staff, the following eleven intersections were selected for 37
evaluation of future operational characteristics and determination of potential 38
operational impacts due to the proposed Project (see F%un: 6-2): 39
40
Intersection Year 2000 Qntrol 41
42
1. Bayshore US 101 SB off-ramp All-Way-Stop 43
2. Airport/Sister Cities/Oyster Point Signalized 44
® Oyster Point/US 101 NB On/Dubuque Signalized 45
6 - 3
6 TRANSPORTATIONAND URCULA770N
4. US 101 NB ® On-ramp/Dubuque Signalized 1
5. Oyster Point/Gateway Signalized 2
6. Oyster Point/Eccles Signalized 3
® Linden/Airport Signalized 4
® Airport/US 101 SB Off-ramp Signalized 5
® Airport/Grand Signalized 6
® Dubuque/Grand Signalized 7
® Grand/Gateway Signalized 8
9
10
® Levels of Service at Intersections 11
12
'Me accepted method of measuring intersection operation is to apply a Level-of- 13
Service (LOS) scale of operational performance. At a signalized intersection, LOS 14
is determined by calculating the volume of conflicting turning movements at an 15
intersection during a one-hour period and dividing that total by the design capacity 16
to accommodate tho$e movements. The resulting calculations result in a 27
volume/capacity (v/c) ratio. Ile We ratio corresponds to a quantitative LOS rating is
® range from LOS"A"to "F". The range from A to F describes increasing levels 19
of traffic demand and deterioration of service. Level of Service ratings A through 20
F correspond to peak hour We ratios. Quantitative ratings and related traffic flow 21
descriptions are summarized in Appendix 21M 22
23
LOS A represents relatively e® conditions with little or no delay (zero to five 24
seconds) at intersections. LOS E represents unstable flow conditions with volumes 25
at or near design capacity. Vehicles are likely to experience major delays (40 to 60 26
seconds) crossing an intersection. Under LOS E, minor traffic° t lead to 27
forced flow or jammed conditions. LOS F represents a jammed situation where 28
traffic flows exceed design capacity resulting in long queues backing up from all 29
approaches to intersections. 30
31
At an intersection with all-way-stop control, the LOS reflects delays experienced by 32
drivers on all four approach legs. While an intersection's overall LOS may be C or 33
better, specific approach legs may have e lays equivalent to LOS E due to 34
substantially unbalanced volumes (i.e.higher approach volumes on one or more legs 35
of an intersection). 36
37
The City of South San Francisco has established Level of Service"D"as the minimum 38
level at which an intersection may operate. Improvements to intersections must be 39
made to raise the performance of an intersection to LOS "D" or better. The City 40
may accept an LOS "E" for unsignalized intersections. 41
42
LOS for signalized intersections has been based on methodology provided by a 43
modified version of the Transportation Research Board(TRB),Circular 212 Planning
Methoti. This methodology is consistent with planning applications in many Bay Area 45
6 - 4
6 7RANSPORTATIONAND CLRCULA77ON
counties. Consistent with previous transportation studies conducted for the East of I
101 Area Plan Draft EIR and the Dmft EIRfor the Oyster Point Interchange and Gmde 2
Separation Pwject, the methodology reflects more realistic lane capacides.' 1 3
Unsignalized intersections have been calculated using the 1994 Highway Capacity 4
Manual, Chapter 10 (Unsignalized Intersections)? 5
6
7
6.2 BASE CASE ANALYSES WHHOUT THE PROJEC17 a
9
Due to ongoing traffic analyses of the Oyster Point Interchange with respect to the 10
proposed US 101 southbound fly-over ramp(to Oyster Pt./Gateway intersection),the 11
Oyster Point Grade Separation Project, and the proposed Terrabay Specific Plan n
pr c intersection counts in the Project study area have been 13
conducted." I Future traffic growth projections for approved, proposed, and 14
potential development were then added in to existing base volumes to determine is
future base conditions without the proposed Bay West Cove project. Future traffic 16
growth projections have been provided by CCS Planners and Engineers at the 17
direction of the City of South San Francisco.' 'Me following sections describe future 18
baseline conditions with new and/or planned roadway improvements,project impacts, 19
and recommended circulation improvements necessary to mitigate future impacts on 20
the street network 21
22
This section evaluates the following future scenarios: 23
24
Year 2000 Baseline(existing traffic plus approved projects traffic,without the 25
proposed US 101 southbound fly-over ramp and without the Project). 71& 26
analysis focuses on key intersections in and around the Oyster Point 27
Interchange area; and 28
Brady and Associates,East of 101 Area Plan DMft EIR anuary 1994. 29
City of South San Francisco,J
2 P&D Technologies, r at Interch City of South San 30
Francisco,April 1990. 31
3 Transportation Research Board, C 9A Third Addition,Updated 32
1994. 33
4 CCS Planners&EngineeM I Traffic s and 0 rations for the US 101 Point Ju.ly 3,1997. 34
5
Omni-Means,Ltd.,Peak period traffic counts in South San Frandboo/East of 101 Area,July 1997. 35
6 Robert Berr,Planner Consultant,City of South San Francisco,Meeting on J*10,1997. 36
6 - 5
6 TRANSPORTATIONAND CIRCULATION
Year 2010 Baseline (eiristing traffic plus approved, pending, and potential I
projects traffic, but without the Project). This analysis focuses on all eleven 2
project study intersections. 3
4
5
6.11 Yew 2W Baseline ConditionsWithout Project 6
7
This section describes eidsting and anticipated traffic growth for the year 2000 nithout 8
the proposed Project. Proposed Project traffic is then added into year 20M baseline 9
conditions to determine Project impacts (see Chapter 63). 10
11
12
622 Planned Circulation huprovements 13
14
Planned circulation improvements to the Project study area have been taken directly 15
from the East of 101 Area Plan DEIR and the Dmft Supplemental Environmental 16
Impact Report For 77se ed Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement 17
78
Extension. The Terrabay project is a residential/commercial development on the 18
west side of Hwy 101, opposite the Project site. The following improvements would 19
apply to the future base year 2000 or earlier: 20
21
Ovster of Boulevard Grade Separation Proect
22
23
Most of the improvements to this project are complete and operational. The 24
completed US 101/Oyster Point interchange improvements include a new over crossing 25
structure between Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. The overcrossing 26
has created a new four-way intersection with Airport, Sister Cities, and Oyster Point 27
Boulevard, respectively. In addition, new southbound on and northbound off ramps 28
to/from US 101 now connect at Dubuque Avenue just south of Oyster Point 29
Boulevard. 30
31
Uncompleted improvements include proposed southbound "hook ramps" north of 32
Oyster Point Boulevard. This future improvement has not been included in the year 33
2000 baseline analysis. 34
7 Brady and Associates,Ibid. 35
8 Wagstaff and Associates,Rraft Supplemental Environmenld_hM2gq_Bg22g_E2LDElEg2gM4_lgg@hn 36
5222&Plan And Develonment AgEgM=_E2jMjM Oty of South San Francisoc,January 1996. 37
6 - 6
6 7RANSPORTA7IONAND MCULATION
QUIRoad
2
At this time, Gull Road i$ a My operational two-lane roadway would travelling 3
between Oyster Point Boulevard and Forbes Boulevard east of Eccles Avenue. 4
5
Sienalization of the followine locations 6
7
Eccles/Forbes a
E. Grand/Grandview 9
Forbes/Gull 10
Hillside/Chestnut 11
12
Widen 13, 01
m
.Lgf
lq-r P in B d
g 1QWaff 13
14
Oyster Point Boulevard would be widened from two to four lanes along the proposed is
Project frontage from Gateway Boulevard to Gull Road as part of the Oyster Point 16
Boulevard Grade Separation Project. 17
Is
Eacluded in overall intersection improvements would be public street improvements 19
to Oyster Point Boulevard which would include curb cuts, medians, left-turn lanes 20
and landscaping. Ilese improvements would be implemented by the City of South 21
San Francisco as part of the East of 101 Area Plan Chapter 12 Financing Element. 22
The proposed Project would contribute towards the cost of these improvements along 23
Oyster Point Boulevard. 24
23
Assuming the above circulation improvements,study intersection lane geometries for 26
the year 2000 are shown in Figure 6-Z 27
28
29
62-3 Year 2000 Baseline Conditions 30
31
Future year 2000 baseline volumes (mdthout the proposed Bay West Cove Project) 32
were supplied by CCS Planner and Engineers." Specifically, approved project 33
development was selected from all known development in South San Francisco. 34
These approved projects included Brittania Biotech(165,300 S® R&D),Hampton Inn 33
(100 rooms), Athena (55,000 s.f R&D), Trammel Crow (105,000 s.f R&D) and the 36
Point Grande Business Park (154,000 sI Office). As calculated, approved projects 37
in the study area would generate 692 AM eak hour trips and 635 PM peak hour 38
p
trips le ase see Appendices for trip generation related to all projected development
in the South San Francisco and East of 101 Area). Approved development for the 40
South San Fran /East of 101 Area Plan has been shown in Figm &3. 41
9 Mike Aronson,Traffic Engineer,CCS Engineers and Planners,Oyztzr Point Transinittal Letter,July 2,1997. 42
® 7
IQ)
ca
ci
m
-IF
T-r-
ci
T r
to z
ul
CO)
uj
ou
ui
CD
cc
w
z
L
cm
6 - 8
6 7RANSPORTA7IONAND CIRCULA77ON
Ike methodology used to derive year 2000 volumes (without the Project) is as I
follows: Approved project traffic was added into 1997 existing traffic volumes at the 2
at the following five key intersections associated with the Oyster Point Interchange 3
and related traffic flows in the project study area: 4
5
1. Bayshore/US101 Southbound off-ramp 6
2. Bayshorefflillside/Oyster Point 7
3. Oyster Point/Dubuque/US101 Northbound on-ramp 8
® Dubuque/US101 NB off-ramp-SB on-ramp 9
5. Oyster Point/Gateway 10
11
Without the proposed US 101 Southbound
® ramp connecting at the Oyster 12
Point/Gateway intersection,the above five intersections would likely be affected most 13
by proposed project traffic. The focus of this Year 2000 analysis was to determine 14
if the proposed US 101"fly-over"ramp would be necessary with the Proposed project. 15
16
It was determined that the 11yover ramp would not be necessary by the year 2000 if 17
the Project and related projects in the area were built by that time (see Chapter is
63.4). 19
20
Existing plus approved Year 2000 AM and PM peak hour (between 7:00-9:00 AM 21
and 4:00-6:00 PM) turning movement volumes for the key intersections are shown in 22
Figure 6-4. 23
24
62-4 Yew 2000 Intersection Operations Witilaut the Project 25
26
Year 2000 Levels-of-Service have been calculated for the five selected Project study 27
intersections as shown in Table 6.1. Ali project study intersections would operate at 28
LOS"D"or better with year 2000 volumes except one intersection. The Bayshore/US 29
101 SD off-ramp would operate at LOS"F during both the AM and PM peak hours.
31
With year 2000 volumes, the Bayshore US 101 SB off-ramp unsignalized intersection 32
would qualify for signalization based on peak hour signal warrant criteria." Ile 33
peak hour warrants referenced in this section refer to minimum thresholds identified 34
by
® When an intersection's peak hour volumes exceed the minimum 35
threS holds, a traffic signal could be warranted. However, intersections which qualify 36
for signalization would require further analysis of off-peak volumes, accident history, 37
proximity of other intersections/driveways and potential volume increases. The 38
assumed signalization of the Bayshore US 101 southbound off-rarnp is consistent with
year 2000 and year 2010 analyses conducted for the proposed Terrabay project. 40
41
10
Federal Ilighway Administration,Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Signal Warrants, Reivision No. 42
4,March 1986. 43
6 - 9
ca
IT
I
6
{.
'BAV IO#SIII
IL
IL CL
k
'AM JOqJ9H
ti
d3"6 Lli
CL
LZ
IF z
ct
CL
(L
now
r.
el
�e
� z
�r
a
can
F(Big)evt
le
Ali >
L(w
Fw)
Co
L-� t m
T
T CO
walks
z
LU
to D
0
L
t Big
cc LU
0
Cc
CL
Co
1 ov
.011, Ot
11
L
UJ
V D
lWam 7L,329))
22! iLfaw LES 0
D
L
0
>
woo
UJ CC
act Z
=1 0
w
CD
;9
CY 0-
MIMEM
6 TRAMPORTATIONAND CIRCULATION
TABIE 6.1 1
YEAR 2000 BASEIANE SEIECIM MERSECHON 2
PROPMED ® AM AM PM PEAK HOUW 3
4
AM PM 5
Intersection / t. / ° ® 6
7
8
® Bayshore US 101 SB off-ramp2 16
2. iter ter Point D 0.84 B 0.55 11
3. Oyster -r arnp/Dubuque C 0.61 C 0.59 12
4. 711. 7 A 0.44 13
5. Oyster 14
15
16
17
18
19
212 Planning critical volume ti on
traffic analysis. Please refer to Appendix for revised critical volumes. 21
22
z Volume/capacity ® ®r a stop-sign controlled intersection.
- 1
6. TRANSPOR TAT
IONAND MCUL47TON
625 improvements to Offset the Yew 2000 Base Caw Without the Project 1
2
With year M baseline volumes, the intersection of Bayshore/US 101 SB off-ramp 3
would be functioning at LOS"F"during the AM and PM peak hour. Consistent with 4
recommendations from previous studies,the intersection should be signalized and the 5
southbound off-ramp should be widened to two lanes. Both northbound and 6
southbound approaches on Bayshore Boulevard would be widened to two travel Imes 7
in each
® With signalization, resulting IDS would be "B" (0.51) during the 8
AM peak hour and LOS"A"(0.44) during the PM peak hour. The proposed flyover 9
would not be required to mitigate the year 2000 base case without the Prcj r 10
with the
® (see Chapter 63.4). 11
12
13
62-6 Yew 2010 Bawline Conditions Without the Pkqed 14
is
This section describes existing and anticipated traffic growth for the year 2010 m4thout 16
the proposed Project. Proposed Project traffic is then added into year 2010 baseline 17
conditions to determine Project impacts (see Chapter 63). 18
19
20
62-7 Planned Cimulation Improvements 21
22
Planned circulation improvements to the Project study area have been taken directly 23
from the East of 101 Area Plan DEIR and the Draft Supplemental Environmental 24
Impact t Agreement 25
Extension."' " In addition to year 2000 circulation improvements, year 2010 26
improvements would include the following: 27
28
BART Extension 29
30
The planned BART
® between the Cohna.(Daly City)BART Station and San 31
Francisco International Airport (SFO) would be in place by year 2010. 'Me 32
alignment is proposed along the El Camino Real corridor located west of the Project 33
study area. A South San Francisco BART Station is planned to be located adjacent 34
to the Mckey Boulevard extension (between El Camino Real and Hillside Avenue). 35
Brady and Associates,East Of 101 Area Plan DEIR My of South San Francisco,January 1994. 36
12 Wagstaff and Associates,Draft 37
&RdfiLrLan And Develo seat A ment Extension
2Me City of South San Francisco,January 1996
6 - 13
6 MNSPORTATIONAND CIRCULATION
Ovster Point Interchanee
2
A new US 101 southbound "flyover" ramp would connect with eastbound Oyster 3
Point Boulevard at Gateway Boulevard. Ile flyover would create the fifth leg of the 4
intersection and would require programmed signal heads to coordinate with 5
eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard. 6
7
Assuming the above circulation improvements,study intersection lane geornetrics for 8
the year 2010 are shown in FW=6-5. 9
10
62-8 Year 2010 Baseline Conditions 11
12
As with year 2000 volumes, future year 2010 baseline volumes (mithout the Project) 13
have been provided by CCS Planners and Engineers." Specifically, approved, 14
® ,and potential project development was selected from all known development 15
in South San Francisco and the East of 101 Area. These projects in the study area 16
would generate 4,482 AM peak hour trips and 4,789 PM peak hour trips (please see 17
Appendices for Year 2010 projected development/trip generation). 18
Approved, Pending, and Potential development for the South San Francisco/East of 19
101 Area Plan has been shown in Figure 6-3.
21
The methodology used to derive year 2010 volumes (without the Project) is as 22
3® Approved, pending, and potential project traffic was added into 1997 23
eidsting traffic volumes at all eleven study intersections associated with the Oyster 24
Point Interchange and other locations along Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue. 25
26
Consistent with CCS Planners and Engineers assumptions, the proposed US 101 27
Southbound "fly-over" off-ramp would divert 470 out of 710 of the existing vehicles 28
on the existing southbound off-ramp during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak 29
hour the fly-over would divert 200 out of 480 vehicles from the existing southbound 30
®r 31
32
Eidsting plus approved,pending, and potential development Year 2010 AM and PM 33
peak hour(between 7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM) turning movement volumes for 34
the Project study intersections are shown in Figure 6-6. 35
36
37
62-9 Year 2010 Intersection Operation Without the Project 38
With year 2010 volumes, four of the Project study intersections would be operating 40
at LOS "E" or worse during the either the AM or PM peak hour even with planned 41
13 Mike Aronson,Traffic Engineer,CCS Engineers and Planners,Oyster Point Transnuttal Letter,July 2,1 7e 42
® 1
( z Lc)
B
ID
L. Li I
-j TT
0
CL
IF
J
ca <
uj m
J -T
LLi
IL
w ui
>- z
0
4L
IF z
J -I 0
w
co
cc
w
+L
CY
a:
sums
C:
E
6 _ 15
C9
CIO co
CD
C co
FLL5')
gas��.
'F ov tit
ID-
SON �,0, tt V
L )16 tlt)OC
CM
in t
1
(0)0 J�1 f
( )
( )
i
i _ ��ON
lz
I a o )t (
Ott
IF t
1
91 CP
)L
z t)tz Igo � t
® °^ t `IZ
CL
� � r t
� t z) t
t ) �
t Ld
p �°t9z t! t
; `y t )t
0 t )
0
R SIP
( )
alp IF
t ) z
°� r
i
tZ90tl � a
is I,
EMBER
Eli
0
I
6 - 16
6 7RANSPORTA77ONAND CIRCULAMN
or programmed improvements. These intersections include Oyster Point/US 101 NB I
on/Dubuque, Oyster PointlEccles, Airport/Grand, and Grand/Gateway. It is noted 2
that the Gateway/Oyster Point/US 101 SB off-ramp intersection would operate at 3
acceptable levels without project traffic. However,a brief description of its proposed 4
operating characteristics are discussed in the following improvement section. 5
6
The seven remaining study intersections would be functioning at LOS "D" or better 7
during the peak hours (see Table 6-2). 8
9
10
62-10 Improvements to Offset Year 2010 Base Q=Mrithout Project 11
12
er 13
M
The westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach would have two left-turn lanes,two 15
through-lanes, and a separate t® lane with 2010 base lane geometries 16
(intersection configurations in place by 2010). 17
18
Re-stripe the westbound Oyster o® t Boulevard approach to include two left-turn 19
lanes, one through-lane,one combination through-right lane,and one right-turn lane. 20
Resulting intersection LOS would be "C" (0.69) during the AM peak hour and IA:)S 21
"D" (0.83) during the PM peak hour. 22
23
24
25
With construction of the US 101 southbound flyover off ramp connecting at the 26
Oyster Point/Gateway intersection, there would be an additional approach leg at the 27
intersection. Based on CCS Planners and Engineers recommendations, the 28
eastbound flyover approach is recommended to be striped for one left-turn lane (for 29
U-turns), one through lane, and one through-right-turn lane. 30
31
Ile eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach would need one left® lane (for 32
U-turns), two through lanes, and one right- turn lane. The westbound approach 33
would need one left-turn lane and three through lanes. The northbound approach 34
would require three left-turn lanes and one right-turn lane. Oyster Point Boulevard 35
would be widened to six through lanes for the eastbound and westbound approaches. 36
With these improvements, intersection LOS during the AM peak hour would be "D" 37
(0.83) and "C" (0.70) during the PM peak hour. 38
6 - 17
6 TRANSPORTATIONAND CIRCULA77ON
OnLer PRintT,&cles
2
With 2010 baseline geometries (intersection configuration in place, year 2010), the 3
eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach would have one through-lane and one 4
® lane. The westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach would have a 5
combination through-left-turn lane. 6
7
Widen and/or re-stripe the eastbound Oyster Point approach to include two through a
lanes and one right-turn lane. Widen and/or restripe the westbound Oyster Point 9
approach to include one left-turn lane and two through lanes. With mitigation, the 10
intersection LOS during the AM peak hour would be"B" (0.53) and"D (0.71) during 11
the PM peak hour. 12
13
AkR—OryGrand 14
15
With 2010 baseline geometries (intersection configuration in place year 2010), the 16
eastbound Grand Avenue approach would have a combination through-left-turn lane 17
and a separate right-turn lane. is
1-9
Widen the eastbound Grand Avenue approach to include one left-turn lane, one 20
through lane, and one t® lane. Resulting intersection LOS would be "D" 21
(0.82) during the AM peak hour and "C" (0.63) during the PM peak hour. 22
23
arand Gateway 24
25
With 2010 baseline geometries (intersection configuration in place, year 2010), the 26
northbound Gateway Boulevard approach would have one left-turn lane, one 27
combination through-right-tum lane. 28
29
Restripe the northbound Gateway Boulevard approach to include one left-turn, two 30
through lanes and one t® lane. Resulting intersection LOS would be "D" 31
(0.77) during the AM peak hour and "C" (0.66) during the PM peak hour. 32
6 - 18
6 TRANSPORTATIONAND CIRCULATION
TABLE 62 1
YEAR 2010 BASELINE INTERSECIIONS IDS CONDMONS WrMOUT PROPOSED 2
PROJECT,AM AM PM PEAK HOW 3
4
AM PM 5
Intersection LOS-V/C (Mitigated) LOS-V/C (Mitigated) 6
7
8
9
1. Bayshore, NB/TJS 101 SB off-ramp C 0.63 D 0.79 10
® Airport/Sister Cities/Oyster Point D 0.82 D 0.81 11
3. Oyster Point/US101 NB OnlDubuque C 0.69 (C 0.69) E 0.95 (D OM) 12
4. US101 NB off-SB on/Dubuque B 0.56 C 0.70 23
® Oyster Point/Gateway 0.70 14
6. Oyster PointMcdes E 0.99(B 053) F 1.13 (D 0.71) 15
7. Linden/Airport A 0.27 A 0.32 16
8. Airport(US 101 SB Off-ramp C 0.67 B 0.52 17
9. Airport/Grand E 0.92(D 0.82) C 0.67 (C 0.63) 18
10. Dubuque/Grand A
° 0.36 19
11. Grand/Gateway F 1.19
21
22
23
1 24
Circular 212 Planning critical volume capacities have been revised based on the East of 101 Area Plan DER 25
traffic analysis. Please re&r to Affendiz 212 for revised critical voltunei. 26
27
6 - 19
6. TRANSPORTA77ONAND CMCULA77ON
6.3 SIGNMCANT IWACIrS AND MMGATION MEASURES
2
This section evaluates the following future s® 3
4
• Year 2000 Baseline Plus Project (existing traffic plus approved plus project 5
traffic, without the proposed US 101 southbound e r r ramp). This 6
analysis focuses on key intersections in and around the Oyster Point 7
hiterchange area; and 8
9
• Year 2010 Baseline Plus Project (existing traffic plus approved, pending, 10
potential and project traffic). This analysis focuses on all eleven project study 11
intersections., 12
13
14
® Standards of Significance and Summary Of Impacts 15
16
The City of South San Francisco currently has minimum performance standards 17
established for signalized and unsipalized intersections. For signalized intersections, 18
Level-of-Service "D" or better is the minimum level at which an intersection may 19
operate; for unsignalized intersections LOS "E" or better is the minimum level at
which an intersection could operate. An exception would be for unsignalized all-way- 21
stop intersections which would be required to operate at LOS "D". 22
23
Should a base case LOS at a signalized or all-way-stop intersection already be at LOS 24
T" or "F', or if the base case LOS of a stop sign controlled movement is already at 25
"F", a two percent or more increase in traffic entering the intersection due to the 26
proposed Project would be considered significant. 27
28
Should base case traffic volume levels at an unsignalized.intersection already exceed 29
signal warrant criteria levels, an increase of in traffic entering the intersection of two 30
percent or more due to the proposed Project would be considered significant. 31
32
If a project worsens traffic and pedestrian safety, the impact could be considered 33
significant. 34
35
Upon application of these standards, ect would cause two potentially significant 36
adverse impacts and three less-than-significant: ts. 37
38
632 Project Trip Generation 40
41
The proposed Project would have four planning areas which would contain an Auto 42
Nation automobile sales facility, hotels, and other major retail outlets (see Chapter 43
3 Project Description and Figure 3-10). Planning Area #1 would contain 20 acres 44
of commercial-retail in which the proposed Auto Nation would be located. Planning 45
6 - 20
6 TRANSPOR2 A77ONAND MCULATION
Area#2 would contain 209,661 square feet of commercial-retail development and a 1
175 room
® Planning Area #3 would contain a 250 room hotel. Finafly, 2
Planning Area #4 would contain a 450 room hotel and a 350 room high-rise hotel. 3
4
Peak hour vehicle trip generation rates for the proposed Project are been based on 5
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip research for commercial-retail 6
and hotel development and actual vehicle counts conducted for the Auto Nation 7
component of the project.14 15 a
9
With respect to the proposed Auto Nation the operator of an existing Auto Nation 10
facility in Dallas was contacted to gain additional detail about the counts." It was 11
determined that the Auto Nation counts include truck trips to/from the site but do 12
not include people taking vehicle test drives. To correct this omission in the Auto 13
Nation data,the daily and peak hour rates for this proposed use have been increased, 14
based on projected Wes data supplied by the project sponsor. Auto Nation cites 15
sale$ of approximately 700-800 vehicles per month or about 26 vehicles per day. 16
Assuming a "good" sales day with 30-40 vehicles sold, this would represent 40 test 17
drives or 80 daily trips. Conservatively assuming there are five test drives for every 18
vehicle sold, there would be an additional generation of 400 daily trips with 10 19
percent occurring during the peak hours. Auto Nation trip generation rates have W
been changed to reflect this increase in project trips. 21
22
As a commercial-retail project a portion of the Project trips would represent "pass- 23
by" trips. Pass-by trips represent existing traffic diverted from other primary trip 24
purposes. rM identifies these trips as as iti
pass-bY" in nature. In addon to pass-by 25
trips, there would also be portion of the Project trips which would remain internal 26
to the site or be captured by other commerciallindustrial development in the study 27
® Consistent with previous transportation studies conducted for the East of 101 28
Planning Area,commercial-retail trips have been reduced 25 percent for pass-by trips 29
and 25 percent for internal or captured trips.17 These reductions were only applied 30
to the actual commercial-retaff portions of the proposed Project and not to the Auto 31
Nation or hotel land uses. 32
14 'nst'rute of TransPortatlon Eng"wers M),iMaLn—erat-30.1 Fft Edition, e bruary 1994 Jand 33
Uses 310 (Hotel)and 820 (Commercial Shopping Center). 34
15 Kintley-Horn and Associates,gg_Choice Traffic Count
s Lewisville,Texas,October 31, 1996. 35
16 Greg Burns,Principal,Kimley-Horn,Personal communication on February 26, 1997. 36
17 Brady Associatek DEIR East of 101 Area Plan
City of South San Francisco,January 1994. 37
6 - 21
6 7RANSPORTATIONAND CIRCULATION
TABIE 63 1
PROPOSED PROJECT'TRIP
® DAELY, AK AND PM PEAK HOUR 2
3
A. Project Component: 4
Planning Area #1: 20 Acres commercial-retail, includes an Auto Nation (90,000 st); 5
Planning Area #2: 209,661 square feet commercial-retail, includes large retail pads and 6
a 175 room hotel; 7
Planning Area #3: 250 room hotel; a
Planning Area #4: 450 room and 350 room hotels (800 room total). 9
B. Project Trip Generation Rates:
Auto
®' AM: 9.05 trips/Acre 12
® 12.40 trips/Acre 13
14
®2 AM: 1.20 trips/1,000 st' is
PM: 5.02 trips/1,000 st' 16
17
Hotel? AM: 0.67 trips/room 18
PM: 0.76 trips/room. 19
20
r— Project Trip Generation 21
Auto Nation: AM: 20 acres x 9.05 trips/acre = 181 (95, 86) 22
PM: 20 acres x 12.4 trips/acre = 248(129,119) 23
24
25
Comm.-Retail: AM: 209,661 st x 1.20 trips/1,000 st x 50% = 126 (79, 47)' 26
PM: 209,661 st x 5.02 trips/1,000 st x 50% =526(263,263? 27
28
Hotel AM: 1,225 rooms x 0.67 trips/room = 821(493,328) 30
PM: 1,225 rooms x 0.76 trips/room =931(503,428) 31
32
NETNEW 33
PROJECIr
® AM: 1,128 (667 in, 461 out) 34
® 1,705 (895 in, 810 out) 35
36
® and Associates,Car Choice Traffic Counts LewisvflleTexw tesincreased 37
& October 31,1996. Trip ra
to reflect vehicle test drives. 38
[2] Commercial-retail trip generation rates based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers PE), Tri
:R 39
eneraty .Sth Edition,Updated February 1994,I-and Uses 310(Hotel)and 820(Commercial Shopping Center). 40
P] Pass-By trip reduction to (25%) and capture rate (25%) for 50% total discount consistent with Brady 41
Associates, East of 101 City of South San Francisco,January 1994. 42
6 - 22
6 TPANSPORTATIONAND URCULAHON
TABLE 6.4
FM PEAK HOUR PROJECr TRIP DIMMIMON 2
3
4
Direction Inbound Outbound 5
6
7
North (Daly City, San Francissco 8
North Bay, Bay Bridge via US 1010 35% 30%
9
10
South (SSF vial US 101/1-280) 406 50% 22
12
Local (SSF-Brisbane) 25% 20% 13
14
15
Notew ne AM peak hour distribution would be the opposite of the PM peak hour distribution. 16
17
Source: Crane Transportation Group, Revised Draft SEIR for the Terrabay Specific Plan and Development 18
Agreement Extension. 19
20
6 - 23
6. TRANSPORTATIONAND CIRCULATION
AM and PM peak hour trip generation for the proposed Project is shown in Table 1
® As calculated, the Project would generate 1,128 net new AM peak hour trips 2
(667 in, 461 out) and 1,705 net new PM peak hour trips (895 in, 810 out). 3
4
5
633 Project Trip Distribution 6
7
AM and PM peak hour Project trip distribution has been based on the SEIR For The 8
Proposed Terrabay Specific Plan And Deve lopmentAgreementEvension. The PM peak 9
hour distribution has been shown in Table 6.4. The majority of the Project traffic 10
would be to/from the north and south via US 101 with the remaining traffic interrial 11
to the City of South San Francisco. 12
13
Project traffic has been added to year 2000 volumes and is shown in Fige 6-7. 14
15
16
63A Decline m IDS Below Level "V at three Intersections for Yew 2M 17
Baselme Plus Project Traffic is
19
M Potgntially Significant Adverse Impact 20
21
Year 2000 AM and PM selected intersection LOS was re-calculated with traffic from 22
the proposed Project (see Table 65). 23
24
As
to in section 6.23,these fi v e selected intersections were evaluated to detemmie 25
the potential need for the planned US 101 southbound fly-over ramp with project 26
traffic. These five locations would be most affected by the presence or absence of 27
the planned US 101 southbound fly-over ramp that would connect at the Oyster 28
Point/Gateway intersection. 29
30
With Project traffic, three intersections would operate at unacceptable levels during 31
the AM or PM peak hour and would be considered significant adverse impacts. The 32
affected intersections are:Bayshore US 101 SB off-ramp,Aftport/Sister Cities/Oyster 33
Point, and Oyster Point/Gateway. The remaining Project study intersections would 34
be functioning at LOS "D" or better during the peak hours. 35
36
The proposed SB HVVY. 101 flyover would not be required to serve the Project by 37
the year 2000. Ile flyover would be required as the area builds out. 38
6 - 24
z
CM
M-
GUl-L
L uff)on
Rn 4-(CO al
a - r(sts)9%
(30 6
IV
�d
eta!
UVO get-I
L eta-
ZOL
4-
j
as a z
co
w
CC -A T
uj uj
>
0
4_(089)age
'01
all
zoi �("
(OLD lot
A
0)at
COW m
Z
L04 �n C/3
m CD
'I
1p w
o rp
LU
e 2 L(tea)em
(slai 0 :3
(90)9
r
m -49wast Z -J
(90i a 1
(tag) >
Q CC
L
oge F ma UJ
cm
30
CC
CL
+
0 ,
C'J
CL
MIEW
E
0
6 - 25
6 TRANSPORTATIONAAD CIRCULATION
TABLE 6.5 1
YEAR 2000 BASE93NE MERSECHONS IDS COMMONS VVTM PROPOSED PROJECr 2
AM AND PM PEAK HOUW 3
4
Year 2000 w/Project 5
AM PM 6
Intersection LOS-V/C ° ®) LOS-V/C ° ® 7
8
9
® Bayshore US 101 SB off-ramp F— (C 0-62) F— (C 039) 10
.11
® AirportlSister Cities/Oyster Point E 0.94 (D 0.80) C 0.66 (C 0.66) 12
13
3. Oyster Point/US101 NB On/Dubuque D 0.81 D 0.72 14
15
® US101 NB off-SB onMubuque B 0.51 C 0.65 16
17
® Oyster Point/Gateway E 0.88 (D 0.72) D 0.78 (D 0.78) ]a
19
20
21
22
23
24
Circular 212 Planning critical volume capacities have been revised based on the East of 101 Area Plan DEIR 25
traffic analysis. Please refer to Appendix for revised critical volumes. 26
27
6 - 26
6 7NANSPORTATIONAND CIRCUL.A77ON
2
Recommended mitigation measures for the three impacted intersections of the five, 3
are as follows: 4
5
0 MumshogrEeILIUME1120LISE oi
.ER_gff:rLaWm 6
7
With Project traffic there would be greater than a two percent increase in traffic 8
(15% AM peak 19% PM peak). With year 2000 base case mitigation (discussed 9
under Chapter 625, the intersection would function at LOS "1 (0.62) during the 10
AM peak and LOS T" (0.59) during the PM peak hour with Project traffic. It is 11
recommended that the proposed Project contribute its proportional share of 12
improvements costs of this intersection. 13
14
16
With project traffic there would be greater than a two percent increase in traffic at 17
this location(8.5%AM peak, 15% PM peak). The eastbound Sister Cities approach 18
should be re-stripedAvidened to include one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and a 19
combination through-right lane. Resulting intersection LOS would be "Dil"
during the AM peak hour and LOS "C" (0.66) during the PM peak hour. 21
22
23
24
With Project traffic there would be greater than a two percent increase in traffic at 25
this location(41%AM peal;62%PM peak). The eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard 26
approach should be re-stripedAvidened to include one left-turn lane, two through 27
lanes, and a separate right turn lane. With this mitigation, intersection LOS would 28
e " (0.72) during the AM peak hour and "W (0.78) during the PM peak hour. 29
It is recommended that the proposed Project contribute its proportional share of 30
improvements costs of this intersection. 31
32
In the Year 2000 with approved plus project traffic, intersection LOS would be at 33
unacceptable levels at three project study locations. However, with proposed 34
circulation improvements at the BayshoreAJS 101 SB off-ramp, 3s
aties/Oyster Point and Oyster Point/Gateway intersections,intersection LOS would 36
be acceptable with project traffic. The proposed project could be constructed prior 37
to the planned US 101 Southbound "flyover" off-ramp. 38
6 - 27
CIO co
CD
w
(Lag)Sol
a
R id. i
itl�
jklD. as
Ld
)
(ML)StS CIO
Ws
r� r�
( t)
ku
t
fr)
to
e�7,- r-
R
cm <ul
Li I Lli�9:19)19
t t C7(c*)el (ole)
a ( )tia (lt`) V
M= )Ltd aeb ®�� ) ` e�
I ® )
®a[9@
Im �g
LU
ell
V?ffi I� cc CD
CL w
a- (es)s�
L(Zoe)L °
(o(Soft l l�
( ) 9L
'
LL 0
CL
( ol) 04
CL a
cr
0 s�oc
6 - 2
6 7RANSPORTATIONAAFL)CIRCUL,47YON
TABIE
® 1
YEAR 2010 BASELME M'EILSECITONS LOS CONDITIONS WITH PROPOSED PROJECF 2
AM AM PM PEAK HOUW 3
4
Year 2010 with Project 5
AM PM 6
Intersection LOS, LOS, 7
V/C (Mtigated) V/C (Mtigated) 8
9
10
11
® Bayshore NBAJS 101 SB off-ramp C 0.63 D 0.79 12
2. Airport/Sister Cides/Oyster Point D 0.84
D 0.83 13
® Oyster Point/US101 NB On/Dubuque D 0.84 (C 0.70) F 1.07 (D 0.83) 14
® US101 NTB off-SB on/Dubuque D 0.71 D 0.84 is
® US. 101 flyover/Oyster Point/Gateway 0.94) 16
6. Oyster Point/Eccles F 1.00 (B 0.54) F 1.14 (D 0.72) 17
® Linden/Airport A 0.29 A 0.37 18
8. Airport/US 101 SB Off-ramp C 0.69 B 0.54 19
® Airport/Grand E 0.96 (D 0.75) D 0.75
® Dubuque/Grand A 0.40 A 0.38 21
® Grand/Gateway F 1.19 (D 0.73) E 0.98 (C 0.68) 22
23
24
2S
26
Notes: 27
28
29
Circular 212 Planning critical volume capacities have been revised based on the East of 101 Area Plan DEIR 30
traffic analysis. Please refer to Appendix for revised critical volumes. 31
32
LOS reflect installation of planned U.S. 101 SB flyover. 33
34
6 - 29
6. TRANSPORTATIONAND CIRCULATION
635 Ekwline in WS Below Izvel"D"at Five Intersections for Year 2010 Baseline I
Plus Project Traffic 2
3
0 Potentially Significant AdverM Impact 4
5
Project traffic has been added to year 2010 volumes and has been shown in Figure 6
® 7
a
As shown in Table
® with Project traffic added to year 2010 volumes, five of the 9
eleven Project study intersections would operate at 1,OS "E" or worse during the 10
either the AM or PM peak hour and would be considered significant adverse impacts. 11
These five intersections are Oyster Point/US 101 NB on/Dubuque, Oyster 12
Point/Gateway/IJS 101 SB Fly-over off-ramp,Oyster Point/Eccles,Airport/Grand,and 13
Grand/Gateway. 14
15
All remaining six study intersections would be functioning at WS "D" or better 16
during the peak hours. 17
]a
Mitilgqfign Measures 19
20
Recommended mitigation measures for the five impacted intersections are as follows: 21
22
Oyster Lo
int(US 101 NB_Qnoubuque 23
24
The proposed Project would add more than two percent in overall traffic to this 25
intersection (17% AM peak, 22% PM peak). In addition to year 2010 baseline 26
mitigation(discussed in Chapter 62-10),eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach 27
should be
re® to include two left-turn lanes, two through-lanes, and two right- 28
turn
e ® With project traffic,intersection WS would be" ® } during the AM 29
peak hour and LOS "D" ® 3 during the PM peak hour. M
31
Oyster Point(gatewayVS 101 SB Fly-over off-ramp 32
33
The proposed Project would add more than two percent in overall traffic to this 34
intersection(26% AM peak,39%PM peak). In addition to recommended year 2010 35
baseline mitigation (discussed in Chapter 62-10), the US 101 SB fly-over ramp 36
(eastbound approach) should be re-striped to include a left-turn lane, two through 37
lanes, and a separate right-turn lane. With project traffic, intersection LOS would 38
be "E" (0.90) during the AM peak hour and LOS "E" (0.94) during the PM peak
r® These peak hour LOS would be considered a significant unavoidable impact. 40
It is recommended the proposed Project contribute a proportional share to 41
recommended improvements f o r this location. 42
6 - 30
6. TRANSPORTA77ONAND CIRCLFL47YON
QMLer P inlffigdes
2
With recommended year 2010 baseline mitigation (discussed in Chapter 6alO), 3
intersection LOS would be "B" (0.54) during both the AM peak hour and LOS "D" 4
(0.72)during the PM peak hour with Project traffic. It is recommended the proposed 5
Project contribute its proportional share (based on traffic impact fees) to 6
recommended improvements. The proposed project would add 1% in the AM peak 7
and 2% in the PM peak. 8
9
AkMortQrand 10
11
Ile proposed Project would add more than two percent in overall traffic to this 12
intersection (3.5% AM peak, 6.2% PM peak). In addition to recommended year 13
2010 baseline mitigation(discussed in Chapter 62-10),the eastbound Grand Avenue 14
approach should be re-striped to include one left-turn lane, one through-lane, and is
a combination through-right lane. Intersection LOS would be "D" (0.75) during the 16
AM peak hour and LOS "C' (0.67) during the PM peak hour with Project traffic. It 17
is recommended the proposed Project contribute its proportional share to 18
recommended improvements. 19
20
Grand��at 21
22
The proposed Project would add more than two percent in overall traffic to this 23
intersection (2.4% AM peak, 6.9% PM peak). In addition to recommended year 24
2010 baseline mitigation (discussed in Chapter 62-10), the eastbound Grand Avenue 25
approach should be widened and or re-striped to include one left-turn lane, three 26
through lanes, and a combination through right-turn lane. The westbound Grand 27
Avenue approach should be modified to include two left-tum lanes, three through 28
lanes, and a right-turn lane. Resulting intersection LOS would be "D" (0.73) during 29
the AM peak hour and LOS"C"(0.68) during the PM peak hour. It is recommended -V
the proposed Project contribute its proportional share to recommended 31
improvement& 32
33
6.4 LESS-THAN-SIGNMCANT IWACI7S 34
35
36
37
6.4.1 Need for Access hriprovernents hom oyster point Boulcmd 38
39
40
41
There could be congestion at the three points of vehicular entry to the Project and 42
within the Project site. However, the impact is not significant because the Project is 43
planned to include necessary traffic control, travel lanes and turning lanes, as 44
discussed below. 45
6 - 31
6. TRANSPORTATIONAND CIRCULATION
0 Oyster Point ./ to Intersection. This intersection would provide I
access to the proposed Auto Nation site. Figure 6-8 shows the year 2010 2
intersection improvements which will mitigate for potential congestion at this 3
location. It is recommended that southbound traffic from Auto Nation have 4
separate left, through, and right-tum lanes. 5
6
0 Bay West Cove
® This main Project entry would be located 7
appY °mately 800 feet east of Gateway Boulevard. It is recommended that a
Bay West Cove Drive have four travel lanes to serve inbound/outbound 9
vehicles. The four lane configuration would taper down to two lanes as it 10
approaches the vicinity of the slot. Eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard should 11
be widened and or re-striped to provide two eastbound left-turn lanes onto 12
Bay West Cove Boulevard. 13
14
In addition,Bay West Cove Boulevard would be located opposite an existing 15
driveway leading to Blue Line Transfer, a solid waste transfer station, served 16
by large
® A four-way intersection would be created. Due to the large 17
number of vehicles that would be traveling to/from the site via Bay West 18
Cove Boulevard, this location would need to be signalized. 19
20
0 East of Bay West Cove Boulevard. An easterly access point would be located 21
another 300 feet past Bay West Cove Boulevard and would be limited to 22
right-turns-only for inbound/outbound vehicles. This access driveway would 23
serve patrons coming to/from the major retail areas of the Project site. 24
25
The three Project drives off Oyster Point Boulevard would serve to disperse site 26
traffic along Oyster Point Blvd. roadway while still providing internal access to the 27
site. With year 2010 vehicle traffic and the planned US 101 southbound flyover off- 28
Y amp to the Oyster Point/Gateway intersection,this location would experience severe 29
congestion during the peak hours. 30
31
Nfi
�ti�afion�Measres 32
33
None required. 34
35
36
® Veb=lar Access to Future Development on the Adjacent Koll Center Site 37
38
® i cant net 39
40
Ile vacant property immediately north of the Project site in the Koll Center Sierra 41
Point Business Park lies within the City of South San Francisco. The balance of the 42
business park lies in Brisbane. The site in South San Francisco is designated in the 43
East of 101 Area Plan for mixed Planned Commercial/Planned Industrial 44
6 - 32
6 7RANSPORTATIONAND URCULATION
t®Iliere is no roadway connection between the Koff Center and the rest I
of the East of 101
® 2
3
East of 101 Area Plan Policy CIR-5 defines alternative roadway improvements to 4
support future development of remaining vacant properties in the business park: 5
6
"Roadway access to the Koff Site (aka: Sierra Point) may be provided via a 7
roadway between the site and the Shearwater Site,or via flyover ramps from a
the site to Highway 101 or Ba e Boulevard or as determined in a 9
subsequent traffic analysis submitted by the applicant and approved by the 10
City at the time a discretionary land use approval is issued for all or any 11
portion of the Koll/Sierra Point site. Planning for these improvements dmn 12
take
® account potential impacts resulting from Koll site development on 13
traffic® Brisbane, the East of 101 Area,and the rest of South San Francisco. 14
time -�
the- eof 15
en�sh beffcom,le ed the s ong®rai��I�e
in t' t ro s
of 0 ( in s�
!d:rE17�%en t h!�Ks site"�ee�ph a is adde�d;7ct 16
17
Although Policy
® discusses a roadway through the Shearwater(Bay West cove) 18
site to the intersection of Gateway Blvd.Myster Point Blvd. as an option, the 19
discussion which accompanies the Policy notes that projected traffic improvements 20
® the East of 101 Area do not include capacity for trips into the area from those 21
parcels in Koff Center is are in the City of Brisbane. According to the Area Plan 22
EIR, allowing access from the Koll site in Brisbane directly to the East of 101 Area 23
would have significant impacts at intersections on Oyster Point Blvd." 24
25
The flyover ramp option between Koll Center and Highway 101 South would not 26
impact or be impacted by the proposed Project. (Note: this 11yover is not the same 27
as the proposed U.S. 101 SB flyover which would terminate at the intersection of 28
Oyster Point BIvdJGateway Blvd.) 29
30
The Project would not have a significant adverse impact on the vacant Koff site or 31
on its future development, because the potential access improvements discussed in 32
the East of 101 Area Plan EIR and Area Plan Policy CIR-5 would be implemented 33
by the developer of the Koll Site. Policy CIR-5 is specifically directed at 34
development of the Koff Center site, rather than the Bay West Cove Project site. 35
36
37
38
None required. However, the Project will provide a "no build" easement at the
northernmost part of the site to allow construction of an emergency access road over 40
the easement and onto the Koff Center site, by the Koff site developer. An 41
emergency access route could reduce response times by emergency vehicles to the 42
is Brady&Anociates,&t 2 I2LAMLpIa&page 74,July,1994. 43
6 - 33
6® TRANSPORTATIONAND CIRCULATION
Koll site,as discussed in Chapter 327. The future developer of the Koff site and the I
City of South San Francisco could consider the potential use of the easement to 2
develop a permanent roadway between the Koll site to Oyster Point Blvd. through 3
the Bay West Cove Site, if development of such a road would be feasible and would 4
not cause significant disruption to the Bay West Cove Project or the East of 101 5
Area. 6
7
8
642 Construction Dmuption to Nearby Properties 9
10
Uss-Mian-Sh- ifiopLlmpact 11
12
During construction, property and business owners, employees and visitors to the 13
area would be disrupted. The mobilization and movement of equipment,temporary 14
closures of traffic lanes are expected. However, these disruptions would be 15
temporary, and deemed less-than-significant. 16
17
Note: Air quality impacts due to construction dust are described in Chapter 7. Is
19
Mligation Measures 20
21
None required, although a Construction Management Plan could be required to 22
rnuumize disruption. The Applicant could be required to alert property owners of 23
time periods when Oyster Point Boulevard would have limited access or be closed to 24
through traffic. Certain construction activities could be restricted to specified days 25
and hours. 26
6 - 34
7. AIR QUALITY I
2
3
7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL sETnNG 4
5
6
7.1.1 Air Pollution Climatology 7
9
The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the amount of 10
pollutant released and the atmosphere's ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. 11
The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, 12
terrain and
® for photochemical pollutants - sunshine. 13
14
Pollutants can be diluted by mixing in the atmosphere both vertically and 15
horizontally. Vertical mixing and dilution of pollutants is often suppressed by 16
inversion conditions, when a warm layer of air traps cooler air close to the surface. 17
During the summer, inversions are generally elevated above ground level, but are 18
present over 90 percent of the time in both the morning and afternoon. In winter, 19
surface-based inversions dominate in the morning hours, but frequently dissipate by
afternoon.
21
22
Northwest winds are most common in South San Francisco,reflecting the orientation 23
of wind gaps within the mountains of the San Francisco Peninsula. Winds are 24
persistent and strong, providing excellent ventilation to carry pollutants downwind. 25
Winds are lightest on the average ® fall and winter.
26
27
T'he persistent winds in South San Francisco result in a relatively low potential for 28
air pollution. Even so, in fail and winter there are periods of several days when 29
winds are very light and local pollutants can build up. 30
31
7.12 Ambient Air Quality Standards
32
33
Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources 34
Board have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These 35
ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants that represent safe levels that 36
avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each Pollutant. The ambient air 37
quality standards cover what are called "criteria"pollutants because the health and 38
other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. Table 7.1
identifies the major criteria pollutants, characteristics, health effects and typical 40
sources. 41
ti
7 - 1
°0 in 0 rA a
0 7
®
ad
: . °
Cd
0
rA
rA
El
�e
a °
�a Cs
Cd°
cs3
.®
IWD co w N4 'a° u
.� W. U as
®� C)
Id
43 bo U .—
EA w
eon
.�
Ou ®
w
0 ° 0 bo
pa
Cd
!� 0 cc ®�
Qa
Qy
® b d3
0 . .
Z ALR QUALrIY
Table 72 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality StandaW I
Poflutant Averaging Federal State 2
Time Primary Smndard
Standard
Ozone
® 0.12 PPM 0.09 PPM 3
Carbon Monoidde 8-Hour 9.0 PPM 9.0 PPM
1-Hour 4 35.0 PPM 20.0 PPM
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 0.05 PPM 5
I-Hour 0.25 PPM
Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average 0.03 PPM 6
24-Hour 0.14 PPM 0.05 PPM
1-Hour — 0.25 PPM
® Annual Average 50 jAg/m3 30 Lg/M3 7
2A-Hour 150 ILgIM3 50 Ag/M3
ad 30-Day Avg. —jLg/M3 1.5 ILg/M3 8
Month Avg. J 1.5
9
PPM Parts per Million
AgIm 3 Micrograms per Cubic Meter 10
11
12
13
The federal and California state ambient air quality standards are summarized in 14
Table 72 for important pollutants. The federal and state ambient standards were 15
developed independently with differing purposes and methods, although both sets of 16
standards attempt to avoid health-related effects. As a result the federal and state 17
standards differ. In generA the California state standards are more stringent. Ibis 18
is particularly true for ozone and Particulate Matter (PM-10). 19
The U.S.Environmental Protection Agency has recently revised the federal standards 21
for ozone and Particulate
r® The current 1-hour ozone standard will eventually 22
be replaced by a new, lower 8-hour standard. The U.S.E.P.A. has added a 24-hour 23
and annual standard for Particulate Matter less than 2-5 microns in diameter(Ply,,.). 24
7be new standards will become effective 60 days after their date of final 25
promulgation (July 18, 1997). 26
On July 18, 1997,the U.SX-PJL promulgated new federal standards for amone and particulate matter,effective in 27
September,1997,
28
7 - 3
Z AIR QUAL17Y
® Ambient Air Quality
2
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD) monitors air quality at 3
several locations within the San Francisco Bay Air Basin. The monitoring sites 4
closest to the Project site are located in San Francisco to the north and Redwood 5
City to the south. Table 73 summarizes exceedances of to and Federal standards 6
at these two sites. 7
a
Table 73 shows that most of the ambient air quality standards are met in the Project 9
area with the exception of ozone and PM-10. Prior to 1992,violations of the carbon 10
monoidde standards were also recorded within the air basin. Of the three pollutants 11
known to at times exceed the to and federal standards in the Project area,two are 12
regional pollutants. Both ozone and PM-10 are considered regional pollutants 13
because concentrations are not determined by proximity to individual sources, but 14
show a relative uniformity over a region. Thus, the data shown in Table 73 for 15
ozone and PM-10 provide a good characterization of levels eft ee pollutants on the 16
Project site. 17
Is
Carbon mono.,dde is a local pollutant, i.e., high concentrations are normally only 19
found near sources. The major source of carbon monoxide, a colorless, odorless, 20
poisonous gas, is automobile traffic. Elevated concentrations, therefore, are usually 21
only found near areas of high traffic volumes. 22
23
The data shown in Table 73 for carbon monoxide are not necessarily representative 24
of concentrations that would be found near the proposed Project site. Consequently, 25
concentrations of carbon monoxide have been estimated using a computer simulation 26
model that predicts concentrations based on information on roadway locations,traffic 27
volumes and traffic condi
Z AIR QU4MY
Table 73 Summary of Air Ouality Data for San Fkandeco and Redwood alp I
Pollutant Standard im 2
1996
Ozone Federal 1- rancisco 0 3
Hour Redwood City 0 1 0
Ozone State I-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 4
Redwood City 0 5 1
Carbon State/Federal San Francisco 0 0 0 3
Monoodde 8-Hour Redwood City 0 0 0 6
PM-10 Federal 24- San Francisco 0 1 0 0 7
Hour Redwood City 0 0 0 8
PM-10 State 2A-Hour San Francisco 6 0 2 9
10
11
12
13
14
The Bay Area was recently redesignated by the U.S. Environmental Protection is
Agency "maintenance area" for ozone. The "Urbanized ®e of the county is 16
considered a nonattainment area for carbon mo=dde; however, a request for 17
redesignation, to"maintenance aree has been submitted to the U. S. Environmental 18
Protection Agency. The county is an attainment area or is unclassified for all other 19
national ambient air quality standards.
20
21
The recent revisions to the national ambient standards for ozone and Particulate 22
Matter will have no immediate effect on nonattainnient planning. Eadsting ozone 23
and
® Matter designations will remain in effect until U.S. E.P.A establishes 24
new designations based on any new ozone or Particulate Matter standard. Final 25
promulgation of guidance for development of nonattainment plans for the new ozone 26
and Particulate Matter standard is scheduled for June of 1999.
27
2 B4Y Area Air Quality Management Disaict,A6fflhMSPQA Quidelinel 1996. 28
3 Bay Area Air Quality Management Distria,&LQLrren
A may Im. 29
7 ®
Z AIR QUALHY
State Air Quality Program
2
Under the California Clean Air Act, San Mateo County is a nonattainment area for 3
ozone and PM-10. The county is either attainment or unclassified for other 4
pollutants. 5
6
The California Clean Air Act requires local air pollution control districts to prepare 7
air quality attainment
® These plans must provide for district-wide emission 8
reductions of 5 percent per year averaged over consecutive three-year periods; 9
otherwise,they must provide for adoption of"all feasible measures on an expeditious 10
schedule". The Act also grants air districts explicit statutory authority to adopt 11
indirect source regulations and transportation control measures, including measures 12
to encourage or require the use of ride-sharing, flexible work hours or other 13
measures that reduce the number or length of vehicle hips. 14
15
The current area-wide plan required by the California Clean Air Act was adopted 16
in October 1994.' The Plan proposes the imposition of controls on stationary 17
s( m °es,power plants,industrial sources, etc.) and Transportation Control is
Measures designed to reduce emissions from automobiles. Since the Plan does not 19
provide for a 5% annual reduction in emissions, it proposes the adoption of "all W
feasible measures on an expeditious schedule". 21
22
23
® Sensitive Receptors 24
25
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District defines sensitive receptors as 26
facilities where sensitive receptor population groups(children,the elderly,the acutely 27
ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be found. These land uses include residences, 28
schools playgrounds, it care centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, 29
hospitals and medical clinics. The closest sensitive receptor to the Project site is the 30
Genentech daycare facility located about 500 feet to the south of the site, on the east 31
side of Gateway Blvd. 32
4 Bay Area Air QuaHty Management Districte !a94 Clean Air nlLLCAPJ 1994. 33
7 - 6
Z AIR QUALRY
73 SIGNINCANT IWACrS AND NMGATION AMMURES
2
3
® Standards of Signcance and Summary of impacts
4
The Project is considered to have a significant impact on air quality if it were to 5
result in any of the following conditions: 6
7
8
0 Violate any ambient air quality standard, cont7ibute substantially to an 9
existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to 1®
substantial pollutant concentrations [CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G (Jr)]. 11
0 Result in substantial emissi [ 12
13
Guidelines, Appendix I(II.2.a)]. Ile significance thresholds recommended 14
by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District are considered to 15
represent "substantial" emissions. These thresholds are 80 pounds per day 16
for all regional air quality pollutants except carbon monoxide. The 17
significance threshold for carbon monoxide is 550 pounds per day;exceeding 18
this threshold triggers the need for estimates of carbon monoidde "hot spot" 19
concentrations!
2®
21
0 Create objectionable odors [CEQA Guidelines, Appendix I [11.2.b)]. 22
23
0 Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or result in any change in 24
climate, either locally or regionally[CEQA Guidelines, Appendix I (11.2.c)]. 25
By application of these standards, die proposed Project produces two potentially 26
27
significant air quality impacts. The first is related to construction dust and the second 28
to regional air quality. Construction impacts should be fully mitigadbk by 29
implementation of recommended mitigation measures. Regional impacts would remain 30
1
signiftcant and unavoidable even with implementation ®f recommended mitigation 31
measures Each of these impacts is discussed below. 32
33
1 722 Construction Dust 34
35
36
37
38
Site remediation and project construction activities have the potential to generate
dust contaminated with hazardous materials. This impact and suggested mitigation 40
measures are addressed in Chapter 1 ► of this report. This section addresses air 41
quality construction impacts related to general dust generation. 42
4 Bay Area Air QualityManagement Di A ideli 19%. 43
7 - 7
7. AIR QUAL17Y
Fugitive dust is emitted both during construction activity and as a result of wind I
erosion over exposed earth surfaces. Earthmoving, trenching and excavati 2
on
activities comprise the or source of construction dust emissions, but traffic and 3
general disturbance of the soil also generate dust emissions. 4
5
Construction dust could affect local air quality at various times during construction 6
of the Project. 'The dry,windy climate of the area during the summer months creates 7
a high potential for dust generation when and if underlying of are exposed to the 8
atmosphere. 9
10
The effects of construction activities would be increased dustfall and locally elevated 11
levels of PM-10 downwind of construction activity. Construction dust has the 12
potential for creating a nuisance at nearby properties. This impact is considered 13
potentially significant. 14
Is
Mitmation Measures 16
17
The BAAQMD recommends the following construction dust control measures for 18
all construction sites greater than 4 acres in area: 19
20
0 Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. 21
22
0 Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be 23
blown by the wind. 24
25
0 Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all 26
trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard within the container. 27
28
0 Pave, apply water three times daffy,or apply(non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all 29
unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites® 30
31
0 Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking 32
areas and staging areas at construction sites. 33
34
0 Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material 35
is carried onto adjacent public streets. 36
37
0 Hydroseed or apply (non-to3dc) soil stabilizers to construction areas which 38
will remain inactive for to days or more.
40
0 Enclose,cover,water twice daily or apply(non-toxic) soil binders to exposed 41
stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) 42
43
0 Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
45
7 - 8
Z AIR QUAMY
0 install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent sat runoff to I
public roadways. 2
3
0 Replant vegetation in distubed areas as quickly as possible. 4
5
Implementation of all of the above measures through conditions of approval 6
incorporated into construction documents would reduce construction dust impacts 7
to a level that is less-than-significant. 8
9
10
723 Significant Increase in Regional Air Pollution Funissions 11
12
44i cant Adverse linvact 13
14
Project traffic would have an effect on air quality outside the Project vicinity. Trips 13
to and from the Project would result in air pollutant emissions over the entire Bay 16
® These emission would exceed air quality thresholds established by BAAQMD. 17
Since recommended mitigation measures would not reduce emissions below the 18
thresholds, the Project would cause a significant unavoidable impact to regional air 19
quality. 20
21
To evaluate emissions associated with the Project, the URBEMIS-5 computer 22
program,developed by the California Air Resources Board,was employed. The daffy 23
increase in regional
® from auto travel is shown in Table 7.4 for reactive 24
organic gases (hydrocarbons) and oxides of nitrogen (two precursors of ozone), 25
carbon monoxide and PM-10 (particulate matter, 10 micron). The LTRBEMIS-5
model and the conditions assumed in its use are described in Appendix 213. 27
28
29
Table 7.4 Project Regional Emissions in Pounds Per Day 30
Unit! Uses Reactive Pfitrogen Oxides PM-10
31
Organic Gases
Project Daily Emissions 32
from: 3.1
Hotels 104.9 113.9 107.8 34
AutoNation
® 29.2 27.6 35
Comm.-Retail 108.6 118-3 111.8 36
Total
® 261.4 f247.2 37
80 0
:BAAQMD Threshold 80.0 80.0 80.0 38
39
7 - 9
Z AIR QUAL17Y
Guidelines for the evaluation of Project impacts issued by the Bay I
Area Air Quality Management District consider emission increases 2
to be significant if they exceed 80 lbs per day for regional pollutants 3
(ROG, NOy, PM-10). Project emissions shown in Table 7.4 exceed 4
these criteria for all three pollutants, so the project would have a 5
significant impact on regional air quality. 6
7
Mi on Measu
Lfta ti r-
9
0 Ile Project should be subject to a Transportation Demand Management 10
(TDM) program. Specific trip reduction goals should be adopted and 11
enforcement procedures developed. This requirement could be met by 12
creating a new program, joining an existing TDM program, or by monetary 13
support of other existing programs in the region. 14
15
0 Developers should provide physical improvements, such as sidewalk 16
improvements, landscaping and the installation of bus shelters and bicycle 17
parking that would act as incentives for pedestrian,bicycle and transit modes 18
of travel. 19
20
The nature of the proposed land uses severely limits the potential for 21
reducing trips, since most Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 22
strategies target employee trips,which comprise a small fraction of total trips 23
generated by the Project. The small reduction in trips achievable through 24
TDM would fail well short of the 70%percent reduction in daily vehicle trips 25
needed to reduce the Project's impact to a level that is less-than-significant, 26
so Project impacts would remain significant after implementation of 27
mitigation measures. Therefore,the regional pollution created by the Project 28
wouI d result in a significant unavoidable impact.
30
31
7.3 LESS-THAN-SIGNIRCANT IWACM 32
33
7-3.1 Local Cubon Monoxide Impacts 34
35
Less-Than-:Sjiwififi�� 36
37
On the local scale, the Project would change traffic on the local street network, 38
changing carbon monoxide levels along roadways used by Project traffic. Carbon
monoxide is an odorless, colorless poisonous gas whose primary source in the Bay 40
Area is automobiles. Concentrations of this gas are highest near intersections of 41
major roads. 42
43
The CALINE4 computer simulation model was applied to two intersections near the
Project site. Model runs were made for year 200 baseline traffic conditions and 45
7 - 10
Z AIR QUALny
buildout baseline traffic conditions (assumed to occur in 2010) both with and I
without the proposed Project. The model results were used to predict the maxiniurn 2
® 8-hour concentrations, corresponding to the I- and 8-hour averaging times 3
specified in the state and federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoidde. 4
The CALME4 model and the assumptions made in its use for this Project are 5
described in Appendix 213. 6
7
Table 7-5 shows the results of the CALINFA analysis for the peak 1-hour and 8-hour 8
traffic periods in parts per million (PPM). The 1-hour values are to be compared 9
with the federal 1-hour standard of 35 PPM and the state standard of 20 PPM. Ile 10
8-hour values in Table 7.5 are to be compared with the state and federal standard 11
Of 9 PPM. n
13
Table 7-5 shows that concentrations are predicted not to exceed the ambient 14
standards with or without the proposed Project. Concentrations in year 2010 are 15
expected to be below concentrations in year 2000,despite higher traffic volumes due 16
to anticipated reductions in per-mile emission rates for vehicles resulting from 17
statewide emission control programs. 18
19
The additional Project traffic would increase carbon monoidde, concentrations by no 20
more than 1.3 PPM for the 1-hour averaging time and 0.9 PPM for the 8-hour 21
averaging time. Project impacts on local carbon monoxide concentrations are 22
considered less-than-significant. 23
M 24
Ltiggtion Measures 25
26
None required. However, required roadway and intersection improvements 27
identified as mitigation measures for traffic impacts would act as mitigation measures 28
for local air quality by reducing delay and congestion - two factors that elevate 29
carbon monoxide concentrations near intersections. 30
7 - 11
7 AIR QUAL17Y
Table 73 Predicted Worst-Cue Carbon Monadde Concentrations at Selected Intersections, I
in parts Per Mahon 2
Intersection No Project Project No Project Project 3
(2WO) (2000) (2010) (2010)
1-m 8-1-Ir
I-Hr 8-Elr 11a:11 l-Elr 8-Elr I-EIr 8-Hr
AirportlSister 10.1 6.4 11.4
aties/Oyster 5
Point 6
Oyster PointfUS
® 7.3 11.6 7.5 7.2 4.5 7.6 4.8 7
101NB/ 8
Dubuque 9
Oyster Point/ 10.6 6.8 11.4 7.3 6.6 4.1 6.9 4.3 10
Gateway 11
22
Oyster Point/ 8.3 5.1 8.2 5.1 5.7 3.4 5.7 3.4 13
Eccles 14
15
Airport! 10.0 6.4 10.2 6.5 6.0 3.7 6.2 3.8 16
Grand 17
----------
Applicable 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0 is
Standard 19
20
21
7 - 12
8. NOISE
2
3
This chapter considers whether or not of generated by construction and by day-to-day 4
operations of the proposed Project would be disruptive to neighboring businesses. It also 5
considers if proposed on-site uses would be adversely affected by nearby traffic and aircraft 6
noise. 7
8
The noise ® analysis is based upon the assessment of ° acts in the East of 101 Area 9
Plan EIR', since the adopted East of 101 Area Plan sets maximum noise level standards for 10
e ° of land uses in the proposed Project. 11
12
13
8.1 ENVIRONWNTAL SET11ING 14
13
® Meaumment of Noise Levels 16
17
Environmental noise is measured in decibels (dB). The A-weighted decibel (dBA) 18
scale refers to a scale of noise measurement that appro.,dmates the range of sensitivity 19
of the human ear to sounds of different frequencies. On this scale,the normal range 20
of human hearing extends from about 3 dBA to about 140 dBA. A 3 dBA increase 21
is barely noticeable to most people; a 10 dBA increase in the level of a continuous 22
noise represents a perceived doubling of loudness. Sleep is normally disturbed by 23
noise over 55 dBA. The sound level of speech is typically about 60 to 65 dBA. 24
25
AveMaEOise vela 26
27
Measurement of average noise levels affecting commercial and industrial 28
development is based upon daytime hourly average noise level (L, ). Average noise 29
q
levels impacting hotels are defined in terms of community noise equivalent level 30
(CNEL), which characterizes noise levels over a 24-hour period, with weighting 31
factors for evening and nighttime noise levels. CNEL is the methodology specified 32
in the
® Airport Noise Standards and is nearly identical to the yearly Day- 33
Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) described in Federal Aviation l ° 2° This 34
chapter discusses CNEL measurements for noise sources in the Project vicinity, 35
Brady&Associates,Ro t f 101 1 , 1994. 36
2 San Fran 6wo International Airport,Noise Exposure Map Update-1995,Pap I.msy, iggs. 37
8 - 1
8. IS
including Highway 101, Oyster Point Blvd., and aircraft operations at San Francisco I
International Airport, located about 1.85 miles south of the Project site. Railroad 2
noise is an intermittent noise which was not separately monitored. 3
4
Me ffs 5
6
In addition to average noise levels from airport operations, instantaneous, single- 7
event noises from aircraft takeoff are considered. Buildings must be designed to 8
attenuate single-event noises from airplanes. 9
10
11
® Noise Conditions 12
13
Measurgd Average Noise 1,eeels 14
15
The average noise level in the Project area is dominated by traffic on Highway 101, 16
and to a lesser extent,by truck and automobile traffic on Oyster Point Boulevard and 17
by train
ise® Figure 8-1 shows the locations of noise measurements taken in 18
March 1993 for each of these three noise sources, and CNEL noise contours 19
reflecting freeway and street noise levels, and aircraft noise levels. 20
21
Ambient noise level measurements taken at the three locations near the Project site 22
represented by letters A, B and C in Figure 8-1 are as follows': 23
24
Site A: 74 dBA CNEL at a distance of 38 feet from the center line of Oyster 25
Point Blvd. 26
27
Site B: 80 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the Hwy. 101 right-of- 28
way fence. 29
30
Site C: 71 dBA CNEL at a distance of 60 feet from the nearest set of 31
Railroad mainline tracks. Intermittent of from CalTrain to to 32
be masked by the adjacent freeway. 33
34
3 Brady&Associates, Revised Draft East of 101 Area Plan EIR 35
............. page 295,January, 1994
8 - 2
I
1
...
`j
s
AV UIIYIJ21MII �
CON
AV
LL
uj
07 AV 07
CL
Ar
co
CL
0 az 02 �!
co
C�
r
CL
-
8, NOISE
Aircraft Operations '
2
Average noise levels from aircraft operations in southern o io of the of 3
Area do not affect the Project site® Figure 8-1 shows the 65 dBA contour for 4
1995 aircraft operations and a projected 65 dBA contour for year 2006 operations. 5
6
The year 1995 noise level has no significant act on the Project site, and the year 7
projected noise contour-drawn ac toward the airport,reflects Teter aircraft s
expected to be in operation by that time - would have an even lesser effect on e 9
Project site (see Chapter 8.1.5 for further discussion of meter aircraft). 16
11
The 65 CNEL contour is significant because the Federal Aviation Administration has 12
funded oise insulation projects for non-compatible land uses(e.g.,residences)which 13
within fall r o rfs 65 CNEL contour. In this case, there is no residential 14
development on e East side of 101, so the 65 CNEL contour serves as a 15
general reference for aircraft noise in proximity tot the Project site® However, It 16
should e emphasized at the Project Site is not located °t °n any aircraft noise 17
contour. 18
19
Instantaneous Noise from Aircraft Takeoffs 20
21
e Federal Aviation Administration's Aircraft Noise Prediction Model, cited in the 22
East of 1 Area Plan EIR, calculated likely instantaneous noise levels affecting the 23
Project site for planes departing over the airporVs "Visual oreline Departure 24
oute"® This is the only route which crosses the East of 101 Area. The route varies 25
to the west or east side of a Project site, depending upon wind and other flight 26
control conditione. Operating procedures for specific es of aircraft vary widely 27
because of pilot technique,user operating pro ures,the requirements for air traffic 23
control and meteorology. For example, commercial jet aircraft of e same type 29
operated i ere es bound forte same destination may use somewhat 30
different a throttle settings resulting ° ere t rates of climb resultant 31
noise emissions . 32
33
The Visual Shoreline Departure Route is used for only 6.8 percent of l takeoffs, 34
when there Is a. strong sea breeze from the northwest and under certain storm 35
4 1 Airport Noise Abatement Officer,San Francisco International Airport;Personal communication,3/5/97° 36
5 Francisco to ional Airport,Noise Exposure Map Update- 1995,Page 4,May,1995. 37
8. NOISE
conditions,when other runways cannot be used. A maximurn current noise level of 1
92 dBA for Stage 2 aircraft is calculated for the Project site'. 2
3
4
® Noise Element of the East of 101 Area plan 5
6
'Me East of 101 Area Plan Noise Element supplants the City General Plan for the 7
East of 101 Area. Noise control policies in the East of 101 Area Plan set standards a
for the design of buildings to protect interior spaces from excessive exterior noise. 9
The noise attenuation required by these policies will generally be provided by 10
building
® walls, roofs, doors and insulation. One policy (Policy NO-4) also 11
requires that new development be designed to limit noise levels at exterior open 12
spaces and recreation areas. The of reduction policies for various Itinds of 13
development are summarized below: 14
15
®1 Design of hotel rooms to attenuate instantaneous maximum noise levels from 16
aircraft, and average noise levels from traffic. 17
18
® Design of office and retail space to attenuate instantaneous maximum noise 19
levels from aircraft, and average noise levels from traffic.
20
21
NO-4 Design to protect open space or recreation areas from excessive average noise 22
levels generated by proposed development. 23
24
25
® ° Noise Regulations of the City of South San Francisco
26
27
The Citys noise regulations define maximum permissible sound levels for sounds of 28
different duration and periods throughout the 24-hour day(Chapter 8.32 of the South 29
San Francisco Municipal Code). The maximum noise level generated on a property
shall not exceed 9OdB as measured at any point outside of the property plane 31
(Section 82.32.050).
32
33
34
8.1.5 Unfform Building Code Title 24,Appendix 35,Sound Transmission Controls, 35
36
Buildings may have to comply with this code to minimize the transmission of e i
e or 37
xt r
noise to interior, occupied space. Measures to accomplish these noise reductions 38
6 Brady&Associates, I Draft East of 101 Area Plan EIR
Pap 297,January, 1994. 39
8
8. NOISE
could include modifications to wall and roof assemblies, and installation of sound I
walls and double-glazed, sound-rated windows. Improvements such as these can 2
reduce noise levels to within the land use/noise compatibility standards established 3
by the state and set forth in the Noise Element. 4
5
6
® Projected Noise Conditions 7
8
Implementation of the East of 101 Area Plan would result in increased traffic, and 9
increased traffic noise levels along the streets serving the site® New development in 10
the area would also be exposed to instantaneous single event noises from aircraft 11
departing the San Francisco International Airport. The Area Plan EIR calculated 12
the following changes in noise levels when the Area is built-oue: 13
14
0 Noise levels on streets including Oyster Point Boulevard would increase by 15
4 to 6 dBA. For reference purposes, a 3 dBA sound is barely audible to most 16
people. 17
is
0 The noise level for instantaneous noise generated by aircraft flying over the 19
site on the Visual Shoreline Departure Route should be lower by the year 20
2000. At that time, current "Stage 2" aircraft (e® Boeing B-727) ® which 21
now generate a single event noise level of about 92 dBA for the Project site 22
are to be replaced by less of "Stage 3" aircraft (e.g., B-757) ®which should 23
generate a maximum single event noise of about 84 dBA at the Project site. 24
25
Classification of aircraft as Stage 2 and Stage 3 refers to noise standards 26
established by the Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 36. In 1991, Stage 3 27
aircraft accounted for about 64% of the total average daffy operations. The 2S
Airport plans a gradual phase-out of Stage 2 aircraft by the year 2000'. The 29
San Francisco International Airport of Exposure Update- 1995 projected 30
that the 65 CNEL contour would be drawn back from the 1995 measured 65 31
CNEL contour (see Figure 8-1), reflecting the use of quieter t® 32
33
34
35
36
7 Ibid.,Page 299. 37
Ibid.,Page 292. 39
8 - 6
8. NOISE
8.2 I.ESS-THAN-SIGNMCANT IMPACrS
2
3
821 Standards of Sipfficance and Summary of impacts 4
5
The standards of significance for noise impacts are embodied in CEQA and in 6
policies of the City of South San Francisco Noise Element of the East of 101 Area 7
® The Project would have a significant adverse impact if it were to cause: 8
9
0 a substantial increase in ambient noise levels in areas adjacent to the project 10
site; or 11
12
0 exposure of new development in the Project to noise levels which e=ed 13
standards in city poles. 14
15
By application of these standards, the Project would produce no potentially significant 16
adverse noise in"cts. 77ze project would createfour less-than-significant noise brpacts. 17
18
19
8.2.2 Short Term Construction Noise 20
21
Less-T`haan:-S&igp&iaL1m= 22
23
Construction operations will produce noise levels above the existing ambient level. 24
Actual noise levels will depend upon equipment used, distance between the 25
equipment and sensitive receptors, weather conditions and other factors. If pile 26
drivers are used for construction of foundations, noise from the equipment could 27
exceed the maximum allowed noise level of 90 dBA at the property line, as defined 28
in City Noise Regulations. If, however, construction shielded pile drivers are used in
29
the center of the Project site, well away from property lines, noise levels may be 30
to 90 dBA at the property lines. 31
32
Although construction noise can be annoying, it is relatively short-lived. Also there 33
are no sensitive receptors in the area(such as housing) and eAsting buildings to the 34
south and east of the Project site are elevated and/or set back from the Project. 35
Therefore, construction noise is deemed a less-than-significant impact. This 36
conclusion is consistent with the findings for development throughout the East of 101 37
Areas. 38
9 Ibid., Page 300.
8 - 7
8. NOISE
Table 8-1 compares sound levels emanating from equipment without noise control I
measures with the same equipment with feasible noise control (muffling, shielding, 2
etc°}® If noise control measures are implemented, it appears that all equipment listed 3
would comply with the Noise Ordinance standard of 90 dBA at the property plane, 4
with the exception of pile driving equipment which would generate 95 dBA'even with 5
of control. 6
7
Miti ation�Meas�ures 8
9
None required. The Project will have to comply with the Citys Noise Regulations, 1®
including control of hours of construction, monitoring of noise levels from 11
construction equipment in order to move, muffle and/or shield equipment from 12
exceeding 90 dBA at the property plane. 13
14
15
823 Minor Increase in Noise I"els
16
17
18
LeSs-11m:&&nifi panL1m= 19
20
The developed Project would increase noise levels in the vicinity. Traffic would 21
increase along Oyster Point Blvd.,bordering the Project site. The East of 101 Area 22
Plan calculated an increase of 4 to 6 dBA for Oyster Point Boulevard associated with 23
complete build-out of the East of 101 Area. The Plan found that since the existing 24
land uses in this area are industrial and commercial in nature, the impact would be 25
less-than-significant". 26
27
Since the proposed Project would not be built-out to the extent projected in the Area 28
Plan, the Project would have an even lesser noise impact than the project assumed 29
in the East of 101 Area Plan. Neither existing development on the south side of 30
Oyster Point Blvd. nor new development on the or side of the street should be 31
adversely effected by traffic noise increases. 32
33
New development will be exposed to single event noise from aircraft passing over the 34
Project site. This will not constitute a significant adverse impact of the Project, 35
because of the relative infrequency of the departures(6.8%of all departures)and the 36
varied flight patterns which could affect some parts of the Project area but not 37
others. 38
10 Ibid.,Page 299, 39
8 - 8
& NOISE
Table 8-1 1
Conshvcdon Equipment Noise Leveli 2
(Partial list of equipment) 3
Before and After Mitigation 4
5
6
NOISE LEVEL AT 50 FT. 7
WITHOUT VnM FEASIBLE 8
MUNNURU TYPE NOME CONMOL NOISE CONMOLF 9
Ewflanoving 10
11
Front Loaders 79 75 12
Backhoes 95 75 13
Dozers so 75 14
Tractors 80 75 is
Trucks 91 75 16
Pavers 89 80 17
Materials Handling 18
19
Concrete Mixers 85 75 20
Cranes 83 75 21
22
Stationary Equipment
23
Pumps 76 75 24
Generators 78 75 25
Compressors 81 75
26
Inipact Equipme 27
nt
28
it Drivers
101 95 29
Jack Hammers 88 75 30
Pneumatic Tools 86 80 31
other 32
33
Saws 78 75 34
Vibrators 76 75 35
11
Bolt,Beranek,and Newman, Noise from Constructio i rations Buildi 36
Home &w&nc mvironmental Protection Agency,Dec.31, 1971.
37
12
Estimated levels obtainable by selecting quieter procedures or machines and implement in no
g n
features requiring no a®r redesign or extreme cost. ise co tro 38
8 - 9
8. NOISE
The proposed AutoNation facility will use pagers rather than to speakers on the I
Wes and service lot. 2
3
Miti&ation-Measures 4
5
None required. However, buildings will be designed to comply with applicable 6
portions of iission 7
Cgntrol,s and the Citys 8
9
10
82-4 Consistency with Noise Element Policies of the Fast of 101 Area P1= 11
12
1&ss-'_Man-_SiMdcant: Impact 13
14
The following policies of the East of 101 Area Plan will be applicable at the precise 15
plan stage fare Planning Area or e® These policies set performance 16
standards to minimize the transfer of exterior noise to interior spaces. The three 17
relevant policies are defined below, followed by an assessment of the Project's is
consistency with the each. 19
20
®1 "Hotels in the East of 101 Area Plan shall be designed s a t hat the calculated 21
single-event noise level due to an aircraft flyover does not exceed 55 dBA in 22
hotel rooms, and the CNEL does not exceed 45 dBA!'. 23
24
The Project includes potential hotels. The maximum single event noise 25
projected in the East of 101 Area Plan by the year 2000 for Stage 3 aircraft 26
is 81 dBA. To reach the 55 dBA target, a 26 dBA reduction would be 27
required. Traffic of from Hwy 101 within 50 feet of the freeway was 28
measured at 80 dBA. To reach the average 45 dBA target, a reduction of 35 29
dBA CNEL would be required (no proposed development is within 50 ft. of 30
the freeway, and public storage buildings block the freeway from potential 31
development within 300 feet of the f r e e w a y, s o t he 35 dBA reduction is a 32
conservative,worst case requirement). A masonry building with single pane 33
windows generally reduces the noise levels from outside sources by 25 dBA, 34
and a masonry building with double glazed windows generally reduces the 35
noise levels from outside sources by 35 dBA. 36
37
Noise reduction measures will be applied,in compliance 38
with Policy NO-1 and the Uniform Building Code. Construction techniques
discussed above and others will be used as necessary to achieve the standard. 40
Therefore the Project is consistent with the policy. 41
8 - 10
8. NOISE
NO-2 "Office and retail developments in the East of 101 Area shall be designed so I
that the calculated hourly average noise levels during the daytime does not 2
exceed an Lq of 45 dBA and instantaneous maximum. noise levels do not 3
exceed 60 dBA." 4
5
® of the assumed 80 dBA noise level from Hwy. 101 to an interior 6
level of 45 dBA (L ) for offices and stores would represent a 35 dBA 7
reduction. Attenuation of the instantaneous level of 84 dBA to 60 dBA 8
would require a reduction of 24 dBA. See the discussion under Policy NO-1 9
for the ldnd of construction improvements which of yield these 10
reductions. 11
12
EKW=-Qaj=M: Compliance with theaty Noise Regulations and the 23
Uniform Building Code would make the Project consistent with Policy NO-2. 14
15
NO-4 "New development shall be designed so that the average noise level resulting 16
from the new development does nate a q of 60 dBA at the nearest V
open space or recreational areal. 18
19
This policy applies to the proposed Bay Trail and any other shoreline 20
amenities. Freeway noise creates a high ambient noise level on the site, 21
which should not be significantly increased by the kinds of uses proposed for 22
the Project. Reduction of freeway noise along the Bay Trail win not be 23
feasible, and gathering places in outdoor areas have not been defined in the 24
proposed Specific Plan. 25
26
E1W=-CQn9=W: The City will have the opportunity to consider the 27
shielding of outdoor areas around buildings to mitigate for noise, at the 28
Design Review stage of the rojeet® Therefore, the Project is consistent with 29
Policy 30
31
32
hfitigation,Mcasuros 33
34
None required.
35
36
37
39
8 - 11
& NOISE
82.5 No Cumulative Impact
2
Less-Thnn-19i I 1---- 3
4
No other approved projects in the vicinity would be under construction during the 5
same period that the proposed Project would be under construction, so there would 6
be no cumulative construction noise. Cumulative traffic on Oyster Point Boulevard 7
and aircraft would generate higher noise levels in the vicinity, but the impact would 8
be less-than-significant because the area is commercial and industrial in character. 9
10
M9999MAMMU 11
12
None
® 13
14
8 - 12
9. EARTH 1
2
3
1he following sections are related to earth impacts, geotechnical aspects, and the geol 4
091c
setting of the Bay West Cove property. 5
6
7
9.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 8
9
10
9.1.1 Topo"hy 11
12
Structures used by US. Steel Corporation and others on the subject property were 13
demolished in the 1980s, leaving a rough-graded site that is approximately level. 14
Elevations range from about 6 feet to, typical;y� 10 to 14 feet above mean sea level is
(msl), although the southeast comer of the property rises to about 45 feet in 16
elevation. A key feature of the property is the northeast to southwest-trending 17
rectangular basin that connects to r ancisco Bay. This basin, which is known as 18
the "slot," was used to launch Liberty ships constructed Steel during World 19
War
® Given the long history of heavy industrial use of the property, contaminated 20
soil and groundwater are known to be present at the site as described in Chapter 10. 21
22
Stockpiles of fill and debris are present on the site. 'Me stockpiles include bricks and 23
concrete rubble as well as earth fill resulting from demolition of structures on the 24
site; some depressions in the ground surface probably have the same origin. 25
26
The shoreline around the property is lined with rip-rap and asphalt pieces used as 27
rip-rap. Chain link fencing marks the approximate property line. Wood decking,crib 28
walls, and timber piles remaining from shipping operations border the slot. The 29
channel extending to San Francisco Bay is partially dredged, and the water depth 30
varies from 9 to 15 feet. Wetlands also border the Bay and may consist of 31
depressions from demolition, construction, or former site activities. The status, 32
preservation, and impacts to wetlands are discussed in Chapter 1Z 33
34
35
9.12 Regiona Ocology 36
37
The 1 r Bay West Cove property is located on the San Francisco Peninsula east 38
of San Bruno and Millbrae, adjacent to San Francisco Bay, a northwest-trending 39
depression controlled in shape and orientation by the regional structural/tectonic 40
setting. The southwest corner of the subject property is part of a northwest trending 41
9 - 1
9. EARTH
ridge,which is in turn part of San Bruno Mountain extending into San Francisco Bay. J
Other similar, long linear ridges and valleys, reflecting the structural/tectonic setting 2
of the region are evident to the west of the area. The remainder is land reclaimed 3
from San Francisco Bay by progressive filling of the adjacent shoreline in an area 4
referred to as the "flat bay margin zone." The entire Project is located on the U.S. 5
Geological Survey San Francisco South, 7-1/2 minute topographic quadrangle. 6
7
The San Francisco Peninsula lies within the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province. 8
The complex structural style of the Coast Ranges is a result of a long history of 9
tectonic deformation. The Coast Range Province is characterized by northwest- 10
trending structural features, including folds, faults, and geological units. 11
12
San Francisco Bay is a drowned river valley that developed approximately 2 million 13
years ago when the San Francisco-Marin block tilted towards the east along the 14
Hayward fault, which is located along the western flank of the Berkeley Hills and 15
trends parallel to the San Andreas fault. The uplifted western edge of the block 16
formed the hills of Marin and San Mateo Counties,while the down-dropped eastern 27
edge created the elongated depression that is now occupied by San Francisco Bay.' 18
19
Bedrock units in the region are divided into several major structural blocks by the
San Andreas and related faults. Within the greater San Francisco Bay Area, the 21
trace of the San Andreas fault separates bedrock into two distinct types: a granitic- 22
metamorphic complex tote southwest, and the primarily sedimentary Franciscan 23
Complex tat northeast. The subject area is situated within the complex San 24
Andreas Fault System which includes the Hayward and Calaveras faults on the east 25
side of the Bay. The San Andreas Fault itself lies about 3 miles tote west and 26
transects the San Francisco Peninsula in a north-northwesterly direction. 27
28
29
9.13 IAXZI Geology 30
31
The area around the Bay features three primary types of sedimentary deposits,which, 32
from the surface down, are Recent Bay Mud, alluvial deposits that are locally 33
present, and Old Bay Clay. At the surface, these natural deposits are sometimes 34
capped by artificial fill placed during historically recent development. The top layer 35
is Recent Bay Mud described by the U.S. Geological Survey as "unconsolidated, 36
water-saturated, dark, plastic, carbonaceous clay and silty clay." The Recent Bay 37
Mud is underlain discontinuously by alluvial deposits of relatively dense material 38
Bailey,1966. 39
9 - 2
9. EAR TH
consisting of sand, clayey sand and sandy clay. The provenance of the alluvial I
material is erosion of nearby hills. Where the alluvial deposits exist, they are thickest 2
beneath the Bay, gradually thinning toward the surrounding hills. The Recent Bay 3
Mud or alluvial deposits are underlain by Old Bay Clay which is over-consolidated 4
and contains varying amounts of silt, and lenses of sand and gravel. The Old Bay 5
Clay was deposited in an estuarine environment similar tote modem Bay. It is 6
generally suitable for deep foundation support. Ali sedimentary deposits are 7
Quaternary in age, and probably less than about 120,OW years old. 8
9
Fil,we 9-1 shows the shoreline and tidal flats underlain by Recent Bay Mud as 10
surveyed in the period from 1830 to 1860. Land area that is not shown as Recent 11
Bay Mud or fill has bedrock or relatively firm soils at or close to the surface. 22
Figum 9-1 classifies the six rficial soil and bedrock in a simplified ner® Further 13
differentiation of soft and bedrock types can be found on the geological map for the 14
area' but is not considered appropriate for this document. The selected 15
classifications are as follows. 16
17
Redrock 18
19
The exposed and surficial bedrock in the area is generally Cretaceous sandstone and
shale of the Franciscan Complex; however, sexpentinite is also resent® The more 21
resistant serpentinite forms the high o® t of the area. In places, the rock mass is 22
sheared and forms a matrix t ® fragments of hard rock of various sizes. 23
24
Soils 25
26
This classification excludes Recent Bay Mud which is a separate category(see below). 27
The Soils category includes all unconsolidated sedimentary deposits landward of the 28
historical shoreline, generally surrounding the higher areas of bedrock. The soil is 29
mainly slope debris and ravine fill consisting of silty to sandy clay or silty to clayey X
sand or el® Part of the area is overlain by Colma Formation, which is mostly 31
sandy clay and silty sand. A narrow strip close to Highway 101 contains alluvium, 32
and d-ds is mostly sand and silt. Artificial fill has been placed as development of the 33
area continued. 34
35
36
2 Bonilla, 1971, 37
9 - 3
o s
� mm
� mm
m m
J:
a�� mom
a °� mom
9
ST,
e
w m�smmmmom m
I �".�°�a®��;';° ®a am•m o m m m�m m m m ®a�®°tea° °®®°®®°®®°®
®°®°®°°m a°®®®°®®® m
�� mmmmmmms.emme ®®®a°°®®® �m
�. �� mmmmmoommms
•"
OR zm
AMIN
®� �; °tia®®m m s ®m r •,�f'° ®�ms°eY, m ��' a°�aae°�°®®®®m®aaa®®®°®a®a a
ON
•°°�`�. °��°��° wT�o-°°•rifaSo.•°uree' � ;Q g•�°ems t° °° v.�°® e � � ®�p$Xw� ��>, ®�°®°°ma®a°®°®®
�fq� ;0 a y w V �'«® '° a„e� "�•a8�°�a"� ° .�° �t ®� ` 8 °.� °:x �°.I• e®8° a° ®,,®� °��.®®�®®®®sa°°°
° �a.���--. .`" t ffi �� a ,e a e®° ® '��® aka •° + �®°'•°�°°°m
°tip • fie° � °, � �° ° pw m�°°s°•a° ��°�'®°° �,�°ea.°�4�' . �.°®®a
® � ®e tea• ��® � �°. a®®° ®®
i f°
�®
MO Moo
Cf) e®A ° sSA®gyp. a °e®®®
a ®a :® ° . ®®®° ®k
o
�°� �® fit Bloom ®°
Co
te
rL
� ' I
® some
� '��=
®�° moms
.mom
op
co C) moms
M 03 �, °e ®mom not,,
l
,� moms
moms �• �
9. EARTH
EU2dA=WffldLMML2UAILd
2
'Me area delineated as Recent Bay Mud is the area mapped in the mid-1800s as 3
® exposed marshland margins. This area has subsequently been almost 4
entirely reclaimed either by draining and filling or by filling directly on the 5
marshlands. 6
7
Fill over Bay Mud 8
9
®s area represents the area bayward from the historic coastline that has been filled 10
by pushing fill out from the shore, dumping of dredged material, or by hydraulic 11
placement of fill. 12
13
14
9.1.4 Regional Seismicity 15
16
The Bay West Cove property is located within a region characterized by the 17
seismically active San Andreas fault system shown on Figure 9-2 The San Andreas is
system and the major faults that lie in close proldmity to the Project area are 19
discussed in the following sections. 20
21
The San Andreas fault system is the principal tectonic element of the North 22
American/Pacific plate boundary in California. This fault system accommodates the 23
largest component of motion between the two plates and nearly all of the lateral 24
motion; as a result, the San Andreas has the highest slip rates and is the most 25
seismically active of any fault system in California. In the latitude of the San 26
Francisco Bay Area and northward, seismic slip is partitioned onto several subsidiary 27
faults that are distributed across the Coast es® The most active components of 28
the fault system are- the San Andreas, the source of the 1906 Magnitude 8.25 and 29
possibly the 1989 Magnitude 7.1 earthquakes; the Hayward fault, source of the 1836 30
and 1868 Magnitude 6.8 earthquakes; and the Calaveras fault, source of the 1911 31
Magnitude 6 and 1984 Magnitude 6.2 earthquakes. The characteristics of several of 32
the major faults within the San Andreas fault system are summarized in Table 9-1. 33
The peak ground accelerations(PGAs) presented in Table 9-1 are based on average 34
values of multiple deterministic methods for calculating PGAs. 35
36
37
9 - 5
v
co
moo m
9
„5I
kv
GIF
i
iI
y{f
e I
N®
e
WA
W
E
LU CC
LLJ
SOA
9. EARTH
!an Andreas Fault
2
Recent investigations of the San Andreas fault indicate that the fault consists of at 3
least ten major segments of contrasting seismic behavion' Three segments, located 4
in northern and central California, are characterized by frequent small to moderate 5
earthquakes and seismic fault creep. These segments are not believed to be capable
6
f ® i ° rating great earthquakes (with magnitudes close to M = 8). In 7
contrast, two separate areas along the fault,which ruptured in 1857 near Fort Tejon, 8
in Southern California and 1906 in Northern California,have had low rates of seismic 9
activity for many years and are believed to be the likely sources of future great 10
earthquakes along the San Andreas fault system. Great earthquakes such as the 1857 11
and 1906 events involve the sequential rupture of multiple fault segments. 12
13
The northern portion of the San Andreas fault zone strikes approximately N35W 14
through the Coast Ranges geomorphic province. This portion of the fault extends 15
from near San Juan Bautista in San Benito County to Shelter Cove in Humboldt 16
County, for a total length of about 280 miles (450 km), and is made up of three 17
major segments: the North Coast segment that extends from Menlo Park to Olerna; 18
the San Francisco Peninsula segment that extends from Menlo Park to San Juan 19
Bautista; and a subsegment of the San Francisco Peninsula segment called the
20
southern Santa Cruz Mountain segment. The recent October 17,1989,Magnitude 7.1 21
Loma Prieta event was associated with the Santa Cruz Mountain subsegment. Long- 22
term slip rates across these three segments have been estimated to be approximately 23
16
® mm/year. 24
25
The working group of seismologists and geologists coordinated by the USGS (1990) 26
estimated the conditional probabilities of earthquakes along the San Andreas Fault 27
in California. This study considered an event in the vicinity of the October 1989 28
Loma Prieta earthquake to have a high probability of occurrence. Following the 29
Loma Prieta earthquake, the study group reconvened to examine in more detail the 30
probability of events on faults in the San Francisco Bay area during the next 30 years. 31
The results of this study estimate a 37%probability of a magnitude 6.5 to magnitude 32
7® event occurring on a segment of the San Andreas fault that extends south from 33
Crystal Springs Reservoir to the northern end of the Loma Prieta rupture zone.' 34
Such an event will include a large displacement pulse due to the close proximity of 35
3 WaHace, 1990. 36
4 UsGs, 19900 37
9 - 7
9. EARTH
the San Andreas fault and represents the controlling earthquake with a high
likelihood of occurrence. 2
3
HMEwd Fa 4
ult
5
The Hayward fault is an active strand of the San Andreas fault system that extends 6
from the Evergreen area of San Jose at least 60 miles (97 Ian) northward along the 7
East Bay foothills to Point Pinole near Richmond. 8
9
Historically, the most active and best r d portion of the Hayward fault 1®
extends from the Warm Springs District of Fremont to Point Pinole near Richmond, 11
for a distance of 45 miles (72 kin) through a highly populated area. This portion of 12
the fault is considered to be the source of two large- magnitude earthquakes that 13
occurred in 1836 and 1868. The Working Group concluded that the Hayward fault 14
has a
® to 28% conditional probability of generating a M >7.0 event in the next 15
30 years.' A finfiting magnitude of M = 7 is assumed for the Hayward fault. 16
17
_CalaverasFault Zone 18
19
The Calaveras fault zone branches from the San Andreas fault near Hollister and 20
extends approximately 80 miles (130 km) along the east side of the East Bay hills. 21
7be predominant behavior of this fault in the northern section appears to be non- 22
seismic slippage. Its southeastern extremity apparently lies close to,and parallel with, 23
the San Andreas fault south of Hollister, but the fault departs from this trend 24
becoming more northerly through Hollister,continuing to the northwest past Danville 25
and Walnut Creek. The southerly section of the Calaveras fault has been the site of 26
recent events such as the 1984 Magnitude 6.2 Morgan Hill earthquake. A limiting 27
magnitude of M = 7 is assumed for the Calaveras fault zone. 28
29
San Grggygrpio Frauft ZQne 30
31
The San Gregorio fault zone is located west of the San Andreas fault and extends 32
from the Point Sur area southwest of Monterey Bay to Bolinas Bay where it 33
intersects the San Andreas fault. The San Gregorio fault zone is at least 170 km long 34
and may extend at least 370 km if it is structurally related to the Hos fault further 35
tote south. Right-lateral offset of marine terrace shoreline angles suggest an 36
average late Pleistocene rate of movement ranging from 6.0 to 11.0 mm/yr. This rate 37
compares favorably with rates determined from offset stream channels (5 to 9 38
5 Ibid. 39
9 - 8
9. FA R TH
mm/yr.). Based on a rupture length of 110 km, a limiting magnitude of M ® 7.5 is I
assumed for
® fault zone. 2
3
QLher Faults 4
5
High resolution seismic reflection profiling conducted by the USGS in San Francisco
6
Bay in 1992 and 1993 indicated the presence of two broad zones of deformation 7
defined by the apparent displacement of reflectors in the Recent Bay Mud.' These 8
features, designated the Hunters Point fault zone and the Coyote Point fault zone 9
were preliminarily interpreted as showing very recent surface displacements. The 10
Coyote Point fault zone trends in a northwest-southeast direction and appears to 11
Project toward the Hillside fault,mapped by Bonilla on the south flank of San Bruno
12
Mountain." Accordingly, the East of 101 Area Plan adopted by the City of South 13
San Francisco in 1994 recognized the potential for surface fault rupture along this 14
feature and contained provisions for siting and construction of developments within 15
its zone of influence. 16
17
Subsequent geophysical investigations by the USGS in 1994 revealed that previous 18
interpretations of these It zones and their movement were incorrect! 19
Consequently, although faulting does wdst at great depth in bedrock beneath the 0
southern part of San Francisco Bay, there is no indication of movements, either as 21
surface features Or at depth, within the last 4.5 million years. Given this geologic 22
history,it is unlikely that the fault is active or will result in near-surface disturbances. 23
24
6
Mann and other-s, 1993.
25
7 Bonilla, 1971® 26
Marlow and otheM 1994. 27
9 - 9
9. FARTH
summary of RegionW Faidt CharacterMcs
Fmdt Estimated Magnitude Distance from Site Peak Grcmmd
Oundd
NO Aweleration
I
9)
San Andreas 7.8 (777-1/2 .5 E0.664
9a-n-Gregorio 7- ------ 15 0.25
Hayward 7 24 0.17
Calaver I as 7 40 0.11
8
A magnitude 7.0 event on the San Francisco Peninsula segment of the San Andreas is 9
considered to have a 37%probability of occurring in the next 30 years;therefore,values have 10
been provided for both the maximum historical earthquake, and, in parenthesis, the event 11
with a high probability of occurring in the next 30 years. 12
13
14
® East of 101 Area Plan Policies 15
16
The City's Geotechnical Safety Element Policies are listed below and referenced in 17
the subsequent sections of this document.' 18
19
Policy
® The City shall assess the need for geotechnical investigations 20
on a project-by-project basis on sites in areas of fin and shall 21
require such investigations where needed. 22
23
Policy GEO-2. Where fill remains under a proposed structure, project 24
developers shall design and construct appropriate foundations. 25
26
Policy GEO-3. Given the extensive use of the area for industrial and waste 27
disposal purposes, investigation both by drilling and by 28
examination of historic aerial photographs shall be conducted 29
by project developers in all fill areas to determine if landfills 30
exist under the site prior to construction(discussed in Chapter 31
10). 32
33
Policy GEO-4. Project developers shall design developments on landfills and 34
dump sites to deal safely with gas produced by the 35
decomposition of the buried garbage. Inorganic it capping 36
over landfills shall be thick enough that excavation for repair 37
9 Dames &Moore, 1994. 38
9 - 10
9. EARTH
of existing utilities or installation of additional utilities does I
not penetrate to buried garbage. 2
3
Policy GEO-5. If hazardous fill, such as "garbage organics", is encountered, 4
i t s hall be appropriately disposed by a project developer 5
during construction. This material shall not be used for either 6
structural fill or grading fill. However, other uses may be 7
p ible, such as 'landscaping around vegetation" if the fill 8
ossi
has a high organic t able use is found on- 9
site, the hazardous fill should be properly disposed off-site. 10
11
Policy
® Where a landfill or dump occurs under a proposed structure, 12
project developers shall design and construct appropriate 13
foundations. 14
15
Policy
® New slopes greater than 5 feet in height, either cut in native 16
soils or rock or created by placing fill material, shall be 17
designed by a geotechnical engineer and should have an 18
appropriate factor of safety under seismic loading. ff 19
additional load is to be placed at the top of the slope, or if 20
extending a level area at the toe of the slope requires removal 21
of part of the slope, the proposed configuration awl be 22
checked for an adequate factor of safety by a geotechnical. 23
engineer. 24
25
Policy
® ® The surface of fill slopes shall be compacted during 26
construction to reduce the likelihood of surficial sloughing. 27
The surface of cut or fill slopes shall also be protected from 28
erosion due to precipitation or runoff by introducing a 29
vegetative cover on the slope or by other means. Runoff 30
from paved and other level areas at the top of the slope shall 31
be directed away from the slope. 32
33
Policy GEO-9. Steep hillside areas in excess of 30 percent grade shall be 34
retained in their natural state. Development of hillside sites 35
should follow existing contours to the greatest extent possible 36
and grading should be kept to a minimum. 37
39
Policy GEO-10. In fill areas,a geotechnical investigation to determine the true 39
nature of the subsurface materials and the possible effects of 40
9 - 11
9. EARTH
liquefaction shall be conducted by the project developer I
before development. 2
3
Policy
911® Development shall be required to mitigate the risk associated 4
with liquefaction. 5
6
Policy
® Structural design of buildings and infrastructure shall be 7
conducted according to the Uniform Building Code and 8
appropriate local codes of practice which specify procedures 9
and details to reduce the effects of ground shaking on 10
structures. 11
12
Policy GEO-13. Development within the preliminary boundary of the Coyote 13
Point hazard area shall be reviewed by a geotechnical 14
eer® Fault trenching may be required on individual 15
development sites where feasible and determined necessary by 16
the engineer. No structure for human occupancy shall 17
occur within 50 feet of identified active faults, unless a 18
geotechnical investigation and report determine that no 19
active branches of that fault underlie the surface. (This X
poI icy presumably will be deleted, give the recent 21
® discussed in C%apter 9.1A.) 22
23
24
9.2 SIGNMCANT IMPACrS AND bMGATION MEASURES 25
26
92-1 Standards of
® and Summary of Impacts 27
28
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would create a potentially 29
significant adverse impact if it would expose people or structures to major geologic
® Determination of the significance of geotechnical and geologic impacts is 31
based on a set of criteria outlined by the City of South San Francisco in its East of 32
101 Area Plan Ge chnical Safety Element Policies. The criteria on which the 33
policies are based identify the key geotechnical and geologic hazards that could result 34
in loss of life, endangerment oft public, structural hazards, and related monetary 35
costs; these include the following: 36
37
0 A substantial increase in seismic hazard in the event of minor or major 38
earthquake activity;
0 Poor performance of structures under earthquake loadings;
9 - 12
9. FAR TH
Susceptibility of the site to occurrences of landslides,mudflows, or soil creep; J
Susceptibility of the site to earthquake-induced liquefaction leading to a loss 2
in bearing capacity or lateral spreading of slopes, including offshore slopes; 3
Potential for soil expansion that could disrupt foundations, buildings, and 4
utilities; 5
0 Potentially unstable slopes(cut or fill and naturally occurring or constructed); 6
0
® with grading ordinances; 7
0 Poor performance of structures on fill; a
0 Selection of foundation types inappropriate to subsurface conditions; and 9
0 The potential of landfills and hazardous materials to affect foundations, 10
® and other development aspects. 11
12
Geotechnical and geologic impacts are differentiated by types of materials and or 13
Geologic impacts are typically related to rock and depositional characteristics of 14
sediments (soil) as well as to major earth structural characteristics such as 15
earthquake$ and large landslides. Geot hnical impacts are more often related to 16
soil and
® features and to the performance of soil when it is used as a 17
construction material or supports or otherwise affects structures. The two areas also is
differ in their professional practitioners with geologists rendering scientific 19
observations and opinions regarding geologic impacts and geotechnical engineers
providing engineering recommendations regarding potential geotechnical impacts. 21
Ile two fields obviously overlap considerably-, geologists typically provide scientific 22
support to geotechnical engineers for use in developing geotechnical investigations 23
and recommendations. The geotechnical policies described below therefore 24
encompass evaluation of geologic ® as well as strictly geotechnical issues. 25
26
Based upon the standards of significance &led above, t qject would cause three 27
significant adversegeologicallgeotechnicalin;mcts andfour less-than-significant impacts 28
With application of the recommended nuagatum measures, all of the sigmficant impacis 29
would be reduced to less-than-signiftcant.Each of the bnpacts is discussed below 30
31
922 Potem:W Instability of Fill Soil 32
33
34
t 11111,
n1 I--- t 35
36
The Bay West Cove site is largely constructed of fill soil that was placed during filling 37
of the Bay during the last 150 years. Fill of unknown origin was placed directly on 38
Bay Mud,
® wetlands and other depressions, and sometimes directly on rock. The 39
quality of the fill varies considerably, as does the thickness although site-specific 40
explorations of this and other sites have provided some data. The reports by
9 - 13
9. EARTH
Treadwell& Rollo specific to this site describe less than I foot to about 8 feet of fin I
consisting of sandy gravel that is medium dense to dense in consistency to clayey and 2
silty sand that is very loose to loose. These reports also indicate that some of the fill 3
was placed recently and may have been spread from mounds of fill dumped on 4
site.10 5
6
Project construction on fill is a potentially significant impact because fill is subject to 7
settlement when buildings or other loads are placed on it. Factors that affect the 8
rate and amount of settlement include the length of time since the fill was originally 9
placed,the type of soil(or other constituents), and the compaction or consistency of 10
the fill. Pockets of deleterious materials (such as debris) may be encountered unless 11
fill material was approved by an engineer or agency during placement. Fill may also 12
be variable in types of soil and degree of compaction (if any). 13
14
® . ation�Meagures 15
16
Policies GEO-1 and GEO-2 govern placement of structures on fill soils. These 17
policies call for geotechnical investigations specific to the proposed construction, Is
foundation design specific to fill conditions,and structural requirements for buildings 19
to be constructed on fill. The investigation should be planned to evaluate the W
placement history and characteristics of the fill, to provide geotechnical design 21
criteria f o r structures to bof e in fill, and to provide recommendations for 22
appropriate grading techniques including compaction. Geotechnical design criteria 23
should include bearing capacity, recommendation of the appropriate bearing layer 24
and depth if the fill will not support the proposed structure adequately, and amounts 0
and rates of total and differential settlement of the fill. If piles are recommended, 26
downdrag forces must be calculated based on anticipated fill settlement. Slopes that 27
are to be constructed in fill (whether cut or fill) should be designed by an engineer 28
and reviewed for stability by an engineer. Pavements, buried utilities, and other 29
structures should be designed to withstand settlement. These types of geotechnical
criteria and issues related to fill condition and stability are typically evaluated for any 31
site where fill is present. Implementation of Policies GEO-1 and GEO-4 should 32
reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. 33
34
35
36
10 Treadwell&Rollo, 1990a, 1990 .b 37
9 - 14
9. FAR TH
92-3 Lateral Spreading Potential
2
Flic�!I;!:j;�I i'311111F fi S im 11
dkNofflolailum 3
4
Lateral spreading is a potentially significant impact that may be triggered by a strong 5
ground shaking or by liquefaction caused by strong ground shaking. The marshlands 6
underlain by the soft Recent Bay Mud may spread laterally even though the shoreline 7
slopes are relatively flat (less than 5 percent) because ground shaldng may cause 8
material with a relatively low shear strength to spread despite the flat surface. For 9
this reason, the U.S. Geological Survey clasdfies most Bay shorelines as having 10
"unstable" slope conditions. 11
12
liquefaction occurs when seismic activity causes a temporary loss of shear strength 13
in fine granular, saturated soil (see Chapter 92.4). Overlying, unsaturated soil may 14
then spread laterally on the liquefied material. The fill that is below groundwater 15
and some of the Recent Bay Mud deposits (which arac s "variable" in 16
liquefaction potential) may liquefy, resulting in spreading toward lower elevations 17
including creek beds and the bay. Such failures would be localized and would is
increase in extent with earthquake intensity. Such failures are known to have 1 9
occurred historically in the area south of San Bruno Avenue. 20
21
The likelihood of landslides at this Project is relatively small because of the flat 22
topography. At the extreme southeastern comer of the site, the topography rises 23
steeply at about a 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope. landslides are also unlikely here 24
because the area appears to be underlain by bedrock that is part of the ridge 25
extending from San Bruno mountain, The applicant may propose to construct a high 26
retaining wall at this location. Landslides are not likely in any fill slopes to be 27
constructed as part of the Project because no high fills are planned. 28
29
ti Yation Measures 30
31
As noted below, Policies GEO-10 and GEO-11 require mitigation of risks related to 32
liquefaction. These also apply to liquefaction-induced lateral spreading. Lateral 33
spreading is not known to have occurred historically at the site, but it should be 34
evaluated along with other seismically-induced or liquefaction-related hazards. 35
Typically seismically-induced lateral spreading is restricted to within 100 feet of the 36
shoreline. The Project calls for replacement of the upper 2 feet of existing loose fill 37
with clean, compacted backfill within 100 feet of the shore, and the effect of this 38
measure should also be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer as part of the
required site investigation and related engineering analysis. Landsliding unrelated 40
to lateral spreading is not likely at this site because of the level topography. 41
9 - 15
9. EARTH
Treatment of the existing slope in the property's southeastern comer win be governed I
by Policy GEO-7 which deals with slopes greater than 5 feet in height. 2
Implementation Oft ese measures should reduce the impact to less-than-significant. 3
4
924 liquefaction Potential 5
6
0 EotenitialkSinificant Impact 7
8
Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction during strong ground shaking are loose, 9
clean, fine sands, and silts that are free of clay. In addition, these materials must be 10
below the groundwater table (saturated) for liquefaction to occur. Ge chnical 11
investigations in the vicinity have not for the most part encountered such material 12
within the Recent Bay Mud, although Tre ll&Rollo encountered a 5-foot-thick 13
liquefiable zone." Sand layers have been predominantly medium dense to dense 14
silty and clayey sands;however, San Mateo County has mapped the Recent Bay Mud 15
as having "variable" liquefaction potential, because it contains, or in places is 16
underlain by, sand lenses that are saturated and may have relatively high liquefaction 17
potential. In this regard, settlement of up to 4 inches was reported at San Francisco is
International Airport's wastewater treatment plant at the southeast extremity of the 19
subject area, after the October 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; therefore, while 20
seismically-induced liquefaction may not be widespread,the risk of it occurring within 21
the subject area does exist. 22
23
Mi
Ltigatio n Measures 24
25
Geotechnical investigations should examine the liquefaction potential for individual 26
buildings, and appropriate measures should be taken if liquefiable material is found. 27
Policies GEO-10 and GEO-11 address liquefaction by requiring a geotechnical 28
investigation before development and then requiring design and construction methods 29
to mitigate the effects of liquefaction. A variety of conventional methods (some
them quite costly) are available for mitigating liquefaction, but they may not be 31
appropriate to every site. Fill can be added to construct a thick layer of firm soil to 32
prevent ground rupture due to liquefaction. Foundations must be designed to 33
tolerate settlement induced by liquefaction or to be deep ® to penetrate 34
liquefiable layers so the structure is founded on suitable, non-liquefiable o° ® Pile 35
design should include provisions for seismic loading and temporary loss of lateral 36
support in the liquefiable zones. Ground improvement techniques (such as 37
vibroflotation, densification by compaction pile driving, and construction of a 38
ii Treadwell &Rollo, 1990a, 39
9 - 16
9. FARTH
densified ® of material around the site) can also be used to s® or contain I
® soil. Implementation of the appropriate construction techniques 2
supported by the geotechnical report should reduce the impact to lessthan- 3
significant. 4
5
6
93 1,ESS-THAN-SIGNMCANT IWACrS 7
8
® hfinor Potential for Damage Due to Ground Shaking 9
10
kffi:th�w *�cant�Imqt 11
12
Historic earthquakes have caused strong ground shaking and damage in the area. 13
Earthquake magnitude is typically described by Richter magnitude, is is based on 14
a mathematical expression of energy released by an earthquake. A less familiar scale, 15
the Mercalli Scale, is expressed in Roman numerals from I to XII, describes the 16
intensity of an earthquake based upon observed damages and effects from an 17
e® At the site, the maximum expected ground shaking is Mercalli VHI, 18
described as: 19
20
"Damage slight ® specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial 21
buildings, with partial collapse; great e n poorly built structures. Panel walls thrown 22
out of es s® Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, column all
S, . . . w s. Heavy 23
furniture overturned. Sand and mud ejected in small amounts. Changes in well 24
VP
water . . . 25
26
An intensity of ground shaking up to and including this level should be expected 27
during major earthquakes.
28
29
31
None required. Although ground shaking due to seismic activity can be expected at 32
this Project over the life of any development, 411 ® e application of 33
the Uniform Building Code to design of structures and infrastructure; therefore, no 34
significant impacts are expected. 35
36
37
9 - 17
9. FAR TH
932 Mmor Potential to Fmcounter Abandoned Foundaftons Dunng Construction 1
2
1&ss-than-siZmftcant Impact 3
4
Structures that were previously present on the Project have been demolished. 5
Presumably, foundations were also removed during the demolition process, 6
accounting
rte presence of some depressions in the surface of the site. It is a 7
common occurrence, however, that some foundations, particularly piles and other 8
deep foundations are abandoned in place. This is not expected to be a significant 9
impact for the site if policies from the East 101 Area Plan are implemented. 10
11
12
13
None required because Policy GEO-1 applies to this potential impact. Interpretation 14
of aerial photographs (done as part of the research preparatory to geotechnical field 15
explorations) will help identify locations of past structures and possible buried 16
foundations. Drilling during the geotechnical investigation should not be considered 17
reliable in locating abandoned foundations;exploratory bore holes are relatively small is
in diameter and may not encounter abandoned piles. 19
20
21
933 Minor Impacts on Slope Instability 22
23
L,ess-thgfl:ggqifiORL1Mact 24
25
Very few natural slopes and unplanned excavated or fill slopes are evident, and no 26
slope instability was noted in the project area. As a result of the topography and 27
probable development of the site,slope instability is concerned a less-than-significant 28
impact with no mitigation measures needed at this time. Most of the area is flat, 29
having been developed by infilling and draining of marshlands. 30
31
32
33
None required. 34
35
36
37
9 - 18
I
9 EARTH
9-33.4 Minor
®t
I
ShOow 2
groundwater is CxPected t We st t
3
re re 4 t e e s S suggest that groundwater 1 m S t tee � t t fe eI° es s t.12 s °near Proposed grade o
should be c e excavations site for
e ®
tee Agroundwater and 3 to require
qmay contain safety and handling S 3 measures tt and effluent
groundwater s storage, 6 appropriate 10 sewer system sanitary Discharge from c Department f ®c e s J t t Permit 12 Of dewatering
Batch 13
° S 14
None required.
1
5
will Produce I sec° es site-specific s tec j 16
es Proposed ate which a 1
and
require mitigation e ° Potential ts® s suitable� le for a 19
measures related implementation s a ® ®e i s e 10. tnx t groundwater, 21
22
23
24
I
12
® Os 1990a, 1990b.
23
10. HUMAN HEALTH
2
3
This introduction summarizes the clean-up of the Project site, and the regulatory authority 4
over the clean-up process to protect human health. As discussed in Chapter 31A the 3
applicant
s ' the process of cleaning up the site of various contaminants located both on- 6
shore and off-shore. The clean-up process is expected to be completed on-shore before the 7
construction of commercial buildings takes place. Off-shore clean-up will occur during and a
after Project development. Although site re mediation is a responsibility of the applicant, it 9
is 11.0t a part of the proposed Project and its impacts are not assessed as part of this EIR. 10
11
The remediation process is regulated by a Cleanup Order of the Regional Water Quality 12
Control r® The order references a Conceptual Remedial Action Plan (RAP) which 13
defines the remediation process'.The clean-up order also requires a program to protect the 14
health of persons who could come in contact with contaminants (a "health risk ®' 13
or a "comprehensive health and safety plan") during construction activitiesP. The risk 16
assessment and the health and safety plan have been approved. The foregoing process 17
included a public comment period which occurred in accord with the established procedures 18
of the RWQCB.Implementation of the RAP is categorically exempt from CEQA and as such 19
is not addressed in this EIR.
20
21
Impacts to human health associated with the environmental condition of the property during 22
Project construction and during subsequent development or redevelopment of the site are 23
subject to the ongoing jurisdictional authority of RWQCB. Upon completion of the 24
remediation activities on the site, the Project applicant will record a notification covenant 25
which will apprise future owners of the location and characteristics of contaminants 26
encapsulated at their sites. Notification and inquiry with RWQCB in accord with the 27
covenant will also notify future users of any further risk assessments or health and safety 28
plans when may be required for any re is of the encapsulated areas. 29
Implementation of the clean-up order should reduce impacts to human health to a less-than- 30
significant level.
31
California Regional Water Quality control Board,San Francisco Bay Region,[final] ®tats 32
u R stirs n-for USX Corporation and Bay West Cove,LLr,July 17,1996.
33
2 Treadwell&RoDo, 19 a,
34
3 RWQCB,Order No.96-102,Page 6. 35
1 0 - 1
10 HUMANHEALTH
10.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETrING
2
® site Pollution 3
4
The overall approximately 174-acre Bay West Cove property consists of three parcels: 5
the former U.S.Steel(now USX Corporation)onshore parcel(about 49.4 acres);the 6
City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (former U.S. Government) 7
parcel (about 6 acres); and the offshore parcel (about 118.6 acres, including about 8
6 acres represented by the "slot"). 9
10
® environmental studies have been performed at the project site since 1984,which 11
have identified soil, groundwater and sediment pollution". Maps showing on-shore 12
and off-shore exploration locations and levels of contamination are included in the 13
Conceptual
S. A subsurface investigation of site conditions on the 6-acre 14
Former GSA Properq,= now mimed by the City-was conducted in late January and 15
early February 1997. The investigation identified petroleum-related compounds and 16
locally
® concentrations of lead in the it as well as a possible underground 17
storage tank (UST)'. 18
19
_Onshare Conditions 20
21
The dominant on-shore contaminants consist of petroleum hydrocarbons such as 22
diesel fuel and motor oil in addition to metals, particularly total lead,which to to 23
be concentrated locally in the upper one to two feet of soil. Other metals, such as 24
zinc and copper, and other organic constituents, such as polychlorinated biphenyls 0
(PCBs) and polynuclear aromatics (PNAs) occur more sporadically across the site. 26
27
28
_QffshoreCondition�
29
Contamination of San Francisco Bay sediments has been identified in the following 30
areas: 31
32
0 the launch basin (slot); 33
4 ibid.,Page 2. 34
5 Treadwen&Rollo,Ibid. 35
36
6 CH2MHa,1, 1997. 37
10- 2
ia HumANHEALTH
0 near the outfall of the former waste discharge line and stonn drain at the I
mouth of the slot; and 2
3
0 along the southern bank of the former dredged channel along the axis of the 4
slot.
5
6
Contaminants detected at elevated levels include lead,selenium,PCBs, it and grease 7
and PNAs (at the storm drain outfall). The results of the studies undertaken since 8
1984 suggest that most contamination to to be concentrated in the deeper 9
sediments,with the exception of PCBs,which seem to occur at higher concentrations 10
in the shallow sediments.' 11
12
13
14
Although soil contamination by a variety of constituents has been identified across 15
the proe ater does not seem to be adversely impacted! This is probably 16
due to the relatively low solubility of metals and petroleum hydrocarbons.' 17
18
10-12
19
Site Cleanup Order
20
X
The applicant is in the process oc cleaning up the site prior to development of n
proposed roadways, utilities, buildings and landscaping. Because wetlands will be 23
filled in as part of the cleanup, they will have to be recreated as required by the U. 24
S. Army Corps of Engineers. The process of recreating lost wetlands in the slot will 25
continue during and after development of the Project. 26
27
On July 17, 1996, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted 28
Cleanup Requirements for the site® The Cleanup Order: 29
30
0 Requires implementation of an approved cleanup plan in accordance with 31
established cleanup standards for soil, sediment and groundwater. 32
33
0 Prohibits discharge of wastes/hazardous$ubstances that could degrade water 34
quality or adversely affect the waters of the State, could cause significant 35
7 TreadweU& RoHo, 1996b.
36
8 RWQCB, 1996. 37
9 Treadwell &Rolio, 1996. 38
10 - 3
10. HUMANHEALTH
migration of wastes/hazardous substances to the waters of the State, and I
could include subsurface investigation or cleanup activities that could cause 2
significant adverse migration of wastes/hazardous substances. 3
4
0 Requires a Health Risk Assessment or a Health and Safety Plan, and a Final 5
Remediation System Design/Implementation Activities Wor (approved 6
by the
}® 7
8
0 Requires remediation activities with associated documentation, including 9
® monitoring. 10
11
The Conceptual Remedial Action Plan (RAP)"incorporated into the final Cleanup 12
Order has three components: 13
14
0 on-shore soil remediation.via removal and cover; Is
16
0 off-shore sediment remediation via spot dredging and cover; and 17
is
0 tidal wetland reconstruction. 19
20
Each of these activities is discussed below. 21
22
23
it Remediation 24
25
it and groundwater cleanup standards for upland portions of the site have been 26
established by the RWQCB. The on-shore portion of the site has been divided into 27
two units identified as Remediation Management Zones for soil and groundwater 28
cleanup (see Figure 10-1). The first zone is identified as a Human Health Protection 29
Zone (HHPZ)
is includes the on-shore portions of the site, and the second is 30
identified as a Saltwater Ecological Protection Zone(SEPZ)which encompasses the 31
portion of the site within 100 feet of Mean High Tide Line on the bay. Soil clean-up 32
standards have been defined for each based upon a) the protection of human health 33
rte future onsite development;b) the protection of human health for eidsting and 34
future site uses; and c) the potential for the pollutants to leach into groundwater 35
and migrate to the bay. 36
10 Ibid. 37
10 - 4
|
/
|
)
�
)
|
|
`
|
|
�
(
Ll I
CL
wag
cc
�
o
LLJ
OLIJ
17L CC
10- 5/
10. HUMANHEALTH
The basis for the SEPZ clean-up will be the protection oft aquatic species and J
other species that inhabit the bay as well as the proposed intertidal wetland that is 2
to be created as part of the site remedial and wetland mitigation activities. 3
4
r 5
or
Remediation of on-shore contaminated soils win be performed in accodance with the
Wkplan". The top two feet of soil within the SEPZ and -6
onshore Soil Mitigation standards will bere sued, followed by replacement 7
deeper soil which exceeds SEPZ
capping (covering) with imported fin that is in accordance with accepted clean-up 8
levels. -Me contaminated soils will be spread avert designated fill areas in the 9
southwestern portion of the site° soil with total lead and hydrocarbon 10
concentratios exceeding the applicable cleanup objectives will be excavated and 11
n
encapsulated on site away from the shoreline. Lead-contaminated soils will be 12
g with Portland cement prior to placement. The site will then 13
treated on-site by mildn accor a l 14
over the HHpZ and SEPZ,in dance with grding pans
be capped with clean fill
being developed by the Project civil engineer. The commercial Project may pave over 15
these areas for parking, providing an additional encapsulation of the relocated 16
17
hazardous materials. 1 8
ey areas where contaminated soils are re td and record the 19
The applicant will sury unty for disclosure to future proptfty purchasers. W
surveys with San Mateo CO 21
Existing piles of rubble and debris will bere Quad in the courn of iht remediation 22
for hazardous materials. Concrete rubble and bricks may be brOI=anWisposed on- 23
site® Ali remaining construction debris, unclassified dumped vaterh and other 24
spoils will e r e emoved from the site® 25
26
27
§h,,,, e i e eediai=n 28
A p p r o x i m a t e l y 30,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment from t of the 29
former acid waste/storm drain outfan will bere ave redging, anded at the 30
ar d wd th where it will be covered
re or close eat en of e slot with Cl%nd and 31
gravel. Clean dredged material win then replace th e con t ami 32
nate d s e dts which
ot. A workplan to accomplish this activity will be titted to 33
are moved to the sl 34
the regulatory agencies.
35
Trea&en&ROUO,1997.
10 - 6
10. HUMANHEALM
Tidal Wetland Reconstruction in lot 1
2
Pursuant to the Section 404 permit approved by the Corps of Engineers, the 3
applicant is required to create a minimum 4 acre tidal wetland in the slot. The 4
applicant expects to exceed the 4 acrere r idal wetland approximately 5
6 acres in area.Tberefore, the approximately 3 acres of tidal and non-tidal wetlands 6
which would be lost due to hazardous ter would be replaced on a 2:1 7
basis by the creation of a total of 6 acres of tidal wetlands in the slot. The slot a
wetland will be filled with about 30,000 cubic yards of dredged material from the 9
outfall area, some of which contains hazardous sediments, and capped with clean 10
imported sand, gravel and Bay Mud. The fill will descend from an elevation of + 2 11
feet above mean high tide at the back of the slot to where it meets the Bay, to allow 12
for tidal action within the slot12. 13
14
15
® Other Permits Required for Site Cleanup 16
17
In addition to the RWQCB clean-up process,the remediation of hazardous materials 18
and the recreation of wetlands will also be conducted pursuant to an approved 19
Section 404 permit from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, and an approved 20
Section 401 water quality certification by the Board". 21
22
® 404 of the Qea n W
Ater AGI 23
24
This permit is required from the Corps of Engineers to allow dredging of 25
contaminated sediment from San Francisco Bay and disposal in the slot as well as in 26
upland portions of the site and placement of clean fill onsite, over contaminated 27
dredge spoils in the of and in previously dredged/excavated areas in San Francisco 28
Bay. 29
12 Wetlands Research Associates,Inc.,Conceotual Wetlands MtjgLtLion Plan,Bay West Cove,LLC Property,
3,Request to Utilize Nationwide Permit 38,US Army Corps of Engineers,San Francisco District,August 1996. 31
13 Department of the Arrny, San Francisco District, Corps of Engineers,File Number 21704S: Authorization 32
under 33 CFR 330 Appendix A,Department of the Army Nationwide Permit 38 Cleanup of Hazardous and Tcadc 33
Waste,pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344)and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors 34
Act of 1899 (U.S.C.403). November, 1996. 35
36
Regional Water Quality Control Board,File No.2188.07 (PRO)416 T° Resolution No. 96-128, 37
Recommendation for Water Quality Certification for Bay West Cove,Hazardous Materials Cleanup Site and 38
Commercial Development. Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and State regulations in Title 23 39
California Code of Regulations Section 300 et.seq.,Sept.27, 1996. 40
10 - 7
10. HUMANHFALTH
Section 401 of Clean Water Act
2
This is a water quality certification or waiver of certification obtained from the 3
RWQCB as partial fulfillment for permit requirements under Section 404 of the 4
Clean Water Act. 5
6
Coastal Zone Consistency Concurrence 7
a
® is a certification issued by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and 9
Development Commission (BCDC), also filed in support of the Section 404 of the 10
Clean Water Act permitting process. 11
12
13
102 SIGNMCANT IMPACM AND MMGATION
® 14
15
® Standards of Signcance and Summary of Impacts 16
17
For the purposes of this Environmental Impact Report, the Project would have a 18
significant adverse impact on the environment if it would: 19
20
0 Result in the introduction of sensitive land uses to areas which are unsafe 21
due to the presence of hazardous e ® 22
23
0 Create a potential public health hazard. 24
25
0 Introduce activities to the area which would result in the use, production, or X
disposal of materials in such a way that these materials would pose a hazard 27
to human, animal, or plant populations. 28
29
By application of these standards, the proposed Project would create one significant 30
adverse impact to human health, and two less-than-significant impacts The sig?uftcant 31
impact to human health would be reduced to a less-than-significant impact if it were to 32
comply with the recommended mitigation measures 33
10 - 8
I0 MAUNHEALTH
1022 Fkpowe of Sensitive Receptors, Includimg Construction Workers
2
U Potential S. nificant Adv 3
4
5
Potentially significant impacts associated with site re e ° and the proposed 6
Project could result from construction activities in contaminated areas that would 7
expose sensitive receptors,including construction workers and Project employees and 8
visitors to unacceptable hazards, e.g., by airborne particulates, dermal contact or 9
ingestion, or contact with contaminated groundwater. 10
11
The Conceptual Remedial Action Plan requires dredging and excavation of large 12
quantities of contaminated soils, placement of these materials in both upland and 13
underwater (slot) locations and covering with dean fill. 14
15
Upon completion of the site remediation activity,Project development will proceed, 16
resulting in potential worker exposure to hazardous materials, e.g.,during excavation 17
for placement of foundations and subsurface utilities. 18
19
T'he Project could be developed in phases,or some facilities could be demolished and
new facilities constructed in their place. The new construction could take place in 21
proximity to facilities developed °er® Therefore, hazardous materials could be 22
excavated and cause a health risk to persons on-site, including employees, retail
23
customers, hotel guests and other visitors. 24
25
Airborne particulates generated during excavation activities could also adversely 26
impact human health in the site vicinity (see Chapter 722 Air Quality). 27
28
4 M ti Y-ation Measures
29
30
The ongoing authority of RWQCB for implementation of the anup Order, 31
including the Conceptual Remedial Action Plan and Health and Safety pl=14 32
should reduce impacts of the Project to a less-than-significant level. The Order 33
specifically requires the adopted Health and Safety Plan to protect sensitive receptors 34
®and off-site during and after remediation activities(emphasis added). The Health 35
and Safety Plan should reduce the exposure of humans to hazardous materials 36
through the following measures: 37
14 Ammn Industrial Hygiene, 19% 38
10 - 9
10. HUMANHEALTH
• engineering controls ® dust control measures (watering);
2
0 administrative controls for cleanup workers- designation of regulated areas; 3
employee training; personal hygiene practices; 4
5
• personal protective equipment for cleanup workers - to minimize personal 6
contamination and potential inadvertent ingestion of lead; and 7
a
• air monitoring - worker monitoring and perimeter monitoring to verify the 9
effectiveness of hazard controls and to document off-site emissions, if any. 10
11
• provisions for 40-hour training of construction employees or persons who may 12
handle or come ® contact with potentially hazardous materials in accordance 13
with 29CFR
® Construction contract documents and Project 14
specifications should supplement the ggntractor's Code of Safe Practices 15
requiring posting to indicate the potential presence of hazardous materials 16
and
$pecial precautions if encountered. 17
18
To avoid future disturbance of buried wastes, upland hazardous wastes disposal sites 19
will be surveyed and recorded, as required by the final Order. These notification 20
covenants, or deed restrictions, will alert property owners and developers of the 21
presence of pollutants on their project sites, and any requirements of the RWQCB. 22
23
If all of these mitigation measures are applied, the impact will be reduced to a less- 24
® i level. 25
26
27
103
® IMPACI7S 28
29
103.1 Minor Hazard Associated with Handling of ConUminated Grioundwater
31
I&ss-Than-Siaftcant Impact 32
33
Groundwater would not be adversely impacted by contamination based on studies 34
conducted to date". However, it is possible that local areas might contain pockets 35
of higher concentrations of contaminants than previously identified. ff construction 36
dewatering is required for site development, contaminated groundwater would have 37
to be appropriately handled and discharged to minimize adverse effects to 38
15 RWQCB,1996
10 - 10
1 .
1
i
10. RUMANHEALTH
construction workers and the enviromment. This would not be a significant impact I
because the Project would have to comply with the required site-specific Health and 2
Safety Plan. 3
4
MWgAhMAOMM 5
6
None required. 7
8
9
1032 Minor Potential Contamination Associated vdth Pile Driving 10
11
Less-ThgflS
iificant Im pact 12
13
In the event that pile support is required for certain Project structures, located in 14
areas where soil contamination remains, downward migration of contaminants would 15
theoretically occur during construction. This is a less-than-significant ® for the 16
following reasons: 17
18
0 piles would presumably only be required in areas underlain by significant 19
thicknesses of Bay Mu4;ho�ever,due to its cohesive nature,Bay Mud would 20
be essentially self-sealing as piles are driven through it, minimizing potential 21
downward contaminant migration; and 22
23
0 groundwater ® this area is not le® 24
25
MfiafifflAMMM 26
27
None required. 28
29
10 - 11
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1
2
This chapter assesses the impacts of the Project on r ® and drainage structures, 3
® flooding and water quality. 4
5
11.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 6
7
11.1.1 Existing Drainage 8
9
As noted in Chapter 3, most of the approximately 53 acre dry land portion of the 10
Project site slopes toward the former ship launching channel that is referred to as the 11
"slot." Only two small areas along the northern and eastern boundaries drain directly 12
to San Francisco Bay. There is little e ® on the site of defined drainage 13
patterns or channelization, except for an existing concrete lined ditch with vertical 14
side is that runs in a southwest to northeast direction, beginning approximately 15
400 feet from Oyster Point Blvd. This ditch discharges into a small channel lined 16
with concrete rubble and debris at the edge of San Francisco Bay, juste of the 17
slot. In addition to carrying storm water, the ditch once served as an ouffall of an is
acid waste discharge line. 19
-V
According to the Citys storm drain maps,the existing ditch on the Project site begins 21
at the outfall of an of concrete box culvert that drains the Oyster Point Blvd. street 22
drainage system. This system of catch basins and interconnecting culverts serves that 23
portion of Oyster o® t Blvd° located between the freeway ramp and the naturally 24
occurring high ground at the eastern end of the Project site, comprising 25
approximately 2.5 acres. This system also drains a roughly 39 acre area lying on both 26
sides of Gateway Blvd.that is bounded by Highway 101 to the west,by the high point 27
in Gateway Blvd. to the north and by a steep embankment that forms the easterly 28
boundary of the Gateway Office Plaza and adjoining developed properties on the 29
east. It appears that only the developed area on the east side of Gateway Blvd. is 30
now connected into the Oyster Point Blvde drainage system, although it is expected 31
that no from the currently vacant parcel west of Gateway Blvd, (the northerly 32
portion of the Gateway project) will eventually be routed into this system as well. 33
34
ecity Engineering Department reports that there may be an additional Oyster 35
Point Blvd. discharge culvert that crosses the eastern end of the Project site to San 36
Francisco Bay. use it dates from the 1940s, the City has no plans showing its 37
location or the extent of its drainage area on Oyster Point Blvd. 36
® RainM and Runoff 1
2
The San Francisco Bay region's climate can be characterized as Mediterranean,with 3
wet winters and dry summers. In the vicinity of the Project site,mean annual rainfall 4
equals approximately 19 inches,' with at least 75% of this total occurring during the 5
October through March rainy season. Peak rainfall intensity for a 15 minute 6
duration, 10 year recurrence interval rainstorm equals 1.69 inches per hour,while for 7
a 24 hour duration, 100 year recurrence interval rainstorm the intensity equals 0.2 8
inches per hour.' 9
10
Storm water runoff is that portion of rainfall that is not absorbed into the ground, 11
taken up by plants,or lost through evaporation. Coarse-grained,permeable soils and 12
heavy vegetative cover reduce runoff, while steep slopes, fine grained soils, and 13
impervious surfaces (buildings and pavement) increase runoff. The duration, 14
frequency, and total amount of rainfall also affect the volume of runoff; frequent 15
and/or heavy rains saturate the soil and reduce infiltration, causing the percentage 16
of rain that runs off the land to increase with the severity of a storm. 17
18
Existing surface soils on the site consist of between one and eight feet of imported 19
fill material that ranges from a medium dense sandy gravel to a loose, clayey/silty 20
sand? It is expected that these loosely compacted, granular soils have a relatively 21
high percolation rate. The combination of rapid percolation and poorly defined 22
runoff patterns on the Project site makes it unlikely that a significant amount of 23
rainfall now runs off into the slot or directly into San Francisco Bay. Most rain 24
probably percolates into the soil within a short time after it stops raining. In 25
addition,because the site is relatively level,the velocity of storm water that does run 26
off the site is quite low, so there is probably very little erosion of on-site soils into 27
the slot or directly into San Francisco Bay. 28
29
30
31
32
1 Santa Clara Valley Water District,"Mean Annual Precipitation Map, San Francisco&Monterey Bay 33
Region, 1988'. 34
2 "Guidelines for the Use of Standards Developed by the 1941-1971 Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency 35
Analysis",California Department of Transportation,October, 1974® 36
3 Treadwell and Asso6ates,"Geotechnical Investigation Parcel 5 Office Building,Shearwater Development," 37
March 14, 1990, and"Geotechnical Investigation Roadways and Utilities, Shearwater Developmentv"March 38
7, 9 ®
11 - 2
11. HYDROLOGYAND WATER QU4LI7Y
11-13 Proposed Drainage
2
Development of the proposed Project would cover up to 85% of the site's 53 upland 3
acres with buildings or pavement,with the remainder reserved for landscaping. This 4
net increase of impervious surfaces on the site would significantly decrease the 5
infiltration of rainfall into the sod and increase runoff into San Francisco Bay. 6
According to the preliminary Drainage Plan prepared by the Project sponsors, -Si onte 7
storm
to runoff would be collected into a network of catch basins and storm 8
drains that discharges into San Francisco Bay at two locations." 9
10
The discharge for the larger,southern portion of the site would be into San Francisco 11
Bay at the cast end of the slot approximately 100 feet west of where the site's 12
concrete lined ditch now intersects the Bay. This culvert system would also pick up 13
two sources of offsite runoff. the existing box culvert that drains Oyster Point Blvd. 14
and an existing drainage swale that runs along the east side of the Southern Pacific 15
® In addition, the existing ditch outfall into the Bay would be eliminated 16
upon completion of the new culvert system. The site's northern discharge would be 17
located approximately 150 feet north of the slot, and it would also serve as an outlet 18
for runoff that collects in the SPRR drainage swale. 19
20
21
® Storm Drain Design Criteria 22
23
The City of South San Francisco Engineering Department requires that all private 24
storm drain systems be designed with sufficient capacity to accommodate the peak 25
runoff from a 10 year storm, and that all major public drain lines, such as the existing 26
Oyster Point Blvd. outfall line that enters the site at Gateway Blvd., have capacity to 27
accommodate a 25 year storm. There are no criteria specifying minimum design 28
water elevations at culvert discharge points, but the City relies on individual project 29
engineering to ensure that new systems will not back up and cause localized flooding -V
during all reasonably anticipated rainfall and runoff conditions.' The Citys review 31
of proposed storm drain finprovements would be based on a hydrology and drainage 32
S tudy prepared by the project sponsors. 33
34
35
4
Reimer Associates, Februaly 4, 1997. 36
5 Letter by Richard Harmon,signed by Dennis Chuck for Arthur Wong,City of South San Francisco City 37
Engineer, dated December 5,1995,and personal communication with Richard Harmon,City of South San 38
Francisco Engineering Department,March 10, 1997, 39
11 - 3
11. HYDROLOGYAND WATER QUAL17Y
11.15 Flooding
2
Approximately 40% of the dry land portion of the Project site is located within Flood 3
Hazard Zone Al, as shown on Figure 3-4,with a 100 year flood elevation of 7.0 feet 4
above mean sea level(MSL).' The flood hazard rating,as established by the Federal 5
Emergency Management Agency,is a measure of ter of change in the depth and 6
extent of flooding in response to storm or tide events of increasing severity. Because 7
maximum flood elevations on the site would result from slowly rising ocean tides, and 8
not from concentrated flow within a confined watercourse, it has been given the 9
loweSt flood hazard rating. 10
11
The City of South San Francisco Municipal Code requireSt t the first floor of all 12
new structures be constructed a minimum of three feet above the published 100 year 13
flood elevation. According to the Project sponsors'prelimmary Rough Grading Plan, 14
the entire upland portion of the Project site would be filled so that the ground .15
surface slopes gradually from Oyster Point Blvd. to an elevation of about 6 feet or 16
10.0 ft. MSL around the edge of the slot and along the San Francisco Bay shoreline." 17
This would remove all areas proposed for development, including parking, out of the Is
as hazard zone. In addition,it would prevent the back up of high tides within San 19
Francisco Bay into any low areas surrounding catch basins on the project site. 20
21
22
® Water Quality 23
24
Water quality in California is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection 25
Agency's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), is controls 26
the discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non-point sources. In the 27
San Francisco Bay area, this program is administered by the San Francisco Bay 28
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Federal regulations issued in 29
November 1990 expanded the authority of the RWQCB to include permitting of 30
storm water discharges from municipal storm sewer systems(which would include the 31
proposed Projects on-site drainage system), industrial processes, and construction 32
sites that disturb areas larger than five acres. The City of South San Francisco is a 33
co-permittee of the San Mateo County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program,which 34
is a coordinated effort by local governments to improve water quality in San 35
Francisco Bay. 36
6 Federal Emergency Management Agency,Flood Insurance RateIft_&_Qh9L50gh_Lm 37
Community Panel Number 065062 0002 B,Effective Date: September 2, 1981. 38
7 Reimer Associates,Rough Grading Plan for Bay West Cove,February 4, 1997. 39
11 - 4
IL HYDROLOGYAND WATER QUAL17Y
In 1994,the RWQCB issued a set of recommendations for New
These recommendations include policies that 2
define watershed protection goals, set forth minimum non-point source pollutant 3
control requirements for site planning, construction and post construction activities, 4
and establish criteria for on-going reporting of water quality control activities. 5
Watershed protection goals are based on policies identified in the San FrancilM B 6
Basin W alter n Control Plan (Basin Plan). and the entire program relies on the 7
implementation of "best management practices7 that attempt to limit pollutant, 8
contact with storm water runoff at its source and to remove pollutants before they 9
are discharged into receiving waters. Ile California to Water Ouality Task 10
Force" has published a series of best management practices handbooks that can be 11
used to identify the most effective ways to achieve the water quality objectives 12
identified by the Basin Plan for the beneficial uses of surface waters, groundwaters, 13
wetlands and marshes, 14
15
For near-shore waters of the Bay in the vicinity of the Project site, principal 16
beneficial uses include® u ater supply,water contact and non-contact 17
recreation and the preservation and protection of wildlife, fish and estuarine habitat. 18
The Basin Plan!s related water quality objectives specify that the presence or 19
concentration of listed, potentially deleterious constituents of surface water runoff X
shall not cause a nuisance raver l eneficial uses. A partial list of these 21
constituents includes floating material, suspended material, settleable material, oil 22
and grease,biostimulatory substances, sediment, pK dissolved oxygen,bacteria, and 23
toxic substances that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in 24
aquatic organisms! 25
26
27
Soil Erosion 28
29
As previously described under Rainfall and Runoff, the site's flat topography limits 30
s runoff velocity, which prevents significant erosion of the site's existing 31
granular surface soils during rainstorms. However, it is possible that some erosion 32
occurs as airborne dust during the extended summer dry season when strong winds 33
blow across the site. 34
35
36
0 Tbe State St Task Force is a conimittee of the California chapter of the American Public Works 37
Association. 38
9 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1986. 39
11 - 5
11. HYDROLOGYAAD WA7ER QUALnY
Non-Point Source Pollution
2
As also previously noted, there is limited storm water runoff from the currently 3
vacant Project site into the slot and San Francisco Bay. However, it is likely that 4
some of this runoff becomes contaminated through contact with hazardous materials 5
(primarily lead and petroleum hydrocarbons) mixed into surface soils. In addition, 6
high concentrations of hazardous materials are found along the shoreline fringe 7
bordering the Bay and the slot and in sediments that have accumulated on the floor 8
of both the slot and the ship channel. In response to a clean-up order of the 9
RWQCB, the Project sponsors have developed a plan to remove, isolate and/or 10
contain all contaminants that threaten human health or degrade San Francisco Bay 11
water quality. 12
13
14
® Groundwater 15
16
Depth to groundwater across the Project site ranges between one and ten feet below 17
the existing ground surface, depending on the surface elevation and on the proximity is
to the slot and San Francisco Bay." There is no direct information regarding the 19
constituents of this water,but its elevation varies with the tides, so it is probably very 20
brackish and not suitable for consumption or irrigation. The RWQCB determined 21
that the groundwater underlying the site has not been significantly affected by the 22
relatively immobile contaminants found in the soils on the Project site. 23
24
25
11.1.8 General Plan Policies 26
27
The following policies are set to in the Drainage and Flooding Section of the City 28
of South San Francisco t o f f f 101 Area Plan. 29
30
0 Policy PF-8
ro ® that drainage and flood protection requirements be 31
determined on a project by project basis. n
33
0 Policy PF-9 requires all development within the east of 101 area to comply 34
with the NPDES discharge program. 35
36
10 California Regional Water Quality Control Board,Order No. 96-102,Ad2RIj2RA3jILQgpM2 37
d at ShegpMter Site and Treadwell 38
Inc., Geotechnical March 149 1990. 39
11 - 6
11. HYDROLOGYAND WATER QUAL17Y
® PF-10 stipulates that developers shall implement erosion control plans I
during construction to restrict the discharge of into San Francisco Iky. 2
3
4
11.2 SIGNMCAW H"AM AND MMGATION AIFASURM 5
6
112-1 Standards of Significance 7
and Summary of Impacts a
9
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, an impact would be found to be significant if 10
it would result in:
12
• the exposure of people and structures to new or increased flooding hazards; 13
0 a loss of flood carrying capacities within existing storm drain facilities; 14
• a decline
® local surface or groundwater quality as a result of Project .15
development, including impacts caused by future occupants or users of the 16
site; 17
• a decline in the quantity of available groundwater. is
19
By application of these standar&, the proposed Project would create four potentrafly 20
signiflcant adverse drainage and water quak awcts and two less-lhan-sOdflcant 21
drainage and flooding impacts Ae potendafly significant adverse impacts related to 22
drainage and water quality should be fully mutgable by implementation of the 23
recommended midgadon measures. 24
25
26
1122 PoWnfial Disruption of Fmsfing Offute Drainage Culvert 27
28
29
H there is an existing culvert that crosses the eastern portion of the Project site and 30
31
drains a portion of Oyster Point Blvd. (as reported by the City),excavation associated 32
with Project development would likely demolish it. Demolition would interrupt the 33
discharge of storm water and could cause Oyster Point Boulevard to flood. 34
Mi 36
ration Measure 35
37
The Project sponsors should inspect the Oyster Point Blvd. drainage system and 38
conduct on-site subsurface investigations as needed to confirm whether this culvert 39
exists, and,if it does,whether it still serves as an outfall for Oyster Point Blvd. If the 40
culvert is still in use, it should be connected directly into the Project drainage system 41
11 - 7
11. HYDROLOGYAND WA7ER QUAL17Y
and additional capacity should be provided in the new system to accommodate all I
storm water runoff from the culveres upstrearmii drainage area. 2
3
4
1123 Potential 1";W�Flooding Caused by Offute Storm Water Runoff 5
6
M Potentiall Significant Adver§LIMpact 7
8
Because the Project site is located at the edge of San Francisco Bay, development of 9
the proposed Project would not affect storm water runoff flow capacity or flooding 10
conditions on any downstream properties. However,the on-site drainage system must 11
convey upstream runoff from the Gateway Project, Oyster Point Blvd. and SPRR 12
drainage ditches to San Francisco Bay. The City's engineering design guidelines 13
require new facilities to accommodate upstream flows, but future development or 14
other changes within the contributing watershed could result in localized flooding if 15
sufficient flow capacity is not provided at the time of Project development. 16
17
Although buildings will be elevated above the 100-year floodplain, surface-water 18
drainage remains critical for parking lots, landscaped areas, and generally low-lying 19
sites where subdrainage is prohibited by inadequate elevation for drainage gradients, 20
and surface-water ponding; is undesirable. 21
22
ACtip-ation Measures 23
24
It is recommended that the City work closely with the Project sponsors to identify all 25
worst case, future upstream runoff conditions so that the proposed Project's on-site 26
drainage system is constructed with sufficient excess capacity to accommodate all 27
reasonably foreseeable design rainfall events. In addition, it is further recommended 28
that the Project's final grading plan provide an overland flow route from the Gateway 29
Blvd. entrance to the Bay or slot that is capable of conveying offshe flows through _V
the site with minimal flooding in the event that design flows exceed projections or 31
that some segments of the main storm drain fail or become blocked by debris. 32
33
Implementation of Policies GEO-14 -2, -3, -7 and -8 and all of the following 34
additional mitigation measures should reduce ponding to a less-than-significant level: 35
36
0 Surface-water drainage should be designed in conjunction with grading so 37
that fill thicknesses may be selected with drainage as a significant 38
consideration. Effects of surface-water drainage on adjacent properties must 39
also be considered. 40
41
11 - 8
IL HYDROLOGYAND WATER QUAL17y
If the existing fill is acceptable, appropriate geotechnical criteria for any I
subexcavation, replacement, and recompaction should be developed during 2
the geotechnical investigation. 3
4
0 According to the Treadwell & Rollo reports, clayey soft that to to be 5
expansive appears to form a limited portion of the fill." If import fill Mi 6
required, geotechnical specifications for the fill should be provided and 7
should state that clayey materials are not acceptable. Otherwise, specific 8
recommendations are needed to address expansion potential, appropriate 9
foundation types,compaction requirements,drainage,and restricted irrigation 10
of landscaped areas. 11
12
0 The
® plan should address drainage issues, and, if the property is 13
developed in either multiple parcels or multiple phases, grading and drainage 14
muS t be planned so that drainage does not adversely affect the adjacent 15
parcels or phases. The engineer should review the grading plan(s) and 16
confirm drainage gradients during construction. 17
18
112-4 Potential Water Quality Degradation 19
20
21
22
23
As previously described, development of the proposed Project would substantially 24
increase the amount of st orm. water runoff from the Project site. This additional 25
runoff could also increase the discharge of non-point source pollutants into San 26
Francisco Bay, causing a small but cumulatively sigaificant degradation of water 27
quality. In commercial areas,these pollutants principally consist of litter,landscaping 28
fertilizers and pesticides, and the heavy metals, oil and gas residues, tire fragments
and debris normally deposited by vehicular traffic. 29
_V
31
If stormwater runoff is allowed to enter the slot marsh, it will have the potential to 32
over-enrich the marsh, by discharging nutrients from fertilizers used in landscaped 33
areas bordering the slot. Runoff that contains heavy metals, off, grease and other 34
pollutants would be potentially harmful t®marsh biota. Turbidity from runoff d 35 1
UrIng
construction can lead to excessive siltation problems in the marsh, and harm filter- 36
feeding organisms. 37
38
Treadwell & Rollo, 1990a, 1990b.
11 - 9
11, HYDROLOGYAND
Mi on Measures 1
2
Long term prevention is normally accomplished 3
combination through a pre-discharge t® It is
recommended t to City, as a component of its compliance with NPDES S
regulations, the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments
r r ' re ve e e t 7
require the Project sponsors to prepare ter Pollution Prevention 8
, in r t management practices,
sources. Such programs normally include a public education component to 1
limit is posal of contaminants into r s by labeling storm 11
drains t "Drain to ", e °minating the use of non-biodegradable fe ° ° r 12
or pesticides and reducing vehicle maintenance and washing in e that drain 13
directly into the storm drain system. s would also include a pavement 14
cleaning ten r for all parking areas, particularly at the onset of 15
rainy the season, t® reduce of urban pollutants e t are 16
normally washed into storm drains. 17
1s
Officials with the RWQCB have previously indicated t it is ° ' 19
responsibility to ete i e whether the terms of its e Water Program permit
the existing iti S within the receiving water body would also require that new 21
projects ° le e t a runoff e r °" It is recommended t
such r be required r the proposed Projeci;to remove pollutants from 23
site's storm water runoff before discharge into San Francisco 2
25
Runoff treatment ntls can generally e t the
following categories: 27
Detention in permanent or seasonal ponds or ° e , in 29
which suspended sediments allowed e out and dissolved pollutants
e removed through vegetative upt e° 31
32
Infiltration, in °C not surface waters but 33
percolates into e ground.
35
Biofilters, in °ch runoff is routed ,grass fined swales re
vegetative contact traps suspended to ° for uptake of 37
dissolved ll t °
12 Stroh, Regional Water Quality Control ® ,personal communication, 1
1 - 1
IL HYDROLOGYAND WATER QUALJ7Y
0 Media filtration, in which runoff is routed through sand filters to remove 2
suspended sediments. 3
4
0 Oil/Water separators, which sldm floating grease, petroleum products and 5
debris from the surface of runoff. 6
7
0 Siltation fences or barriers which are placed around the edge of the a
landscaped areas adjacent to wetlands, such as along the Bay Trail corridor 9
running along the shoreline, for the duration of the construction phase. .10
11
0 landscaping materials which are native and drought tolerant, once 12
e$tablished, and which do not require herbicides and fertflizers 13
14
rates infiltration and detention 15
ponds/constructed wetlands as the most effective treatment methods, and the 16
RWOCB has recently encouraged the use of biofilters for new development130 17
However,it is not clear whether these biologically based, low maintenance treatment 18
methods would work on the proposed Project site. Relatively high,tidally influenced 19
groundwater would limit the effectiveness of infiltration, and the excavation of a
percolation pond or subsurface infiltration trenches could disturb hazardous materials 21
that are to be buried and encapsulated in accordance with the project's Remedial 22
Action Plan. 23
24
Detention ponds, constructed wetlands and b1 t rs all require large open areas to 25
function properly,but the proposed development plan includes no upland areas that 26
could be set asi
11® HYDROLOGYAND WATER QUALUY
facilities, however, require regular inspections and ongoing, long term maintenance I
to remain effective. 2
3
It
i e nd d that the City of South San Francisco initiate discussions with the 4
RWQCB to determine the level of pre-discharge runoff treatment that would be 5
appropriate for the proposed Project. It is further recommended that the City work 6
closely with the Project sponsors during their preparation of the SWPPP so that 7
runoff will be controlled in compliance with the terms of the City's Clean Water 8
Permit and meet all applicable requirements of the RWQCB. Construction and long 9
to operation of all components of this program would remain the responsibility of 10
the Project sponsors and all future owners of the project improvements. Operational 11
monitoring would be performed by the City to ensure compliance with the terms of 12
the Projects development approvals. Implementation of the SWPPP should reduce 13
the Project's non-point water quality impacts to a less-than-significant level. 14
15
16
1125 Potential Cumulative Flooding and Water Quality Impacts 17
18
19
20
As discussed in sections 1123 and 112.4,the Project could cause significant localized 21
flooding and degradation of water quality. Also, as discussed in these sections, the 22
Project plus other related projects or conditions in the vicinity could cause cumulative 23
impacts. 24
25
Mitigation Measures 26
27
As discussed under mitigation measures for sections 1123 and 112A the measures 28
recommended to mitigate the Project impacts would also reduce the impacts of the 29
cumulative projects to a less-than-significant level. 30
31
32
33
11 - 12
IL HYDROLOGYAND WATER QU4L17Y
11.3 LESS-THAN-SIGNMCANT p"ACrS
2
3
113.1 Minor Potential Water Ouality Degradation During Construction I
5
6
7
During Project construction, there would be an increased likelihood of soil erosion 8
and
® in San Francisco Bay and there would be an ongoing risk of 9
hazardous material or fuel oil spills on the Project site. Erosion, in particular,would 10
be expected to increase as on-site soils are regraded and stockpiled, exposing them 11
to wind and water erosion. Following the completion of construction, the likelihood 12
of onsite erosion would be virtually eliminated,because all disturbed areas would be 13
stabilized underneath buildings,pavement,and landscaping. As a result,there should M
be little significant threat of long to erosion or increased sedimentation in the Bay 15
resulting from Project development. 16
17
Ltigation Measures 18
19
None required, but the proposed Project would have to be designed in accordance 20
with the NPDES,compliance and erosion control provisions of policies PF-9 and PF- 21
10. NPDES regulations stipulate that, for the disturbance of more than 5 acres, n
Project sponsors must obtain an NPDES general construction permit from the 23
Regional Water Ouality Control Board. 'Me terms of this permit would require that 24
Project development not cause any increase of sedimentation,turbidity,or hazardous 25
materials concentrations within downstream receiving waters (San Francisco Bay). 26
It is expected that the measures employed on the project site to comply with 27
applicable NPDES,permit requirements would include,but not necessarily be limited 28
® preventing the discharge of turbid runoff into the created wetlands;placement of 29
siltation barriers around the landward edge of the shoreline buffer during _V
construction; and the use of native, drought-tolerant plants which do not rely upon 31
chemical fertilizers wherever irrigation waters would flow into the Bay or marsh. It 32
is expected that implementation of an approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention 33
Plan(as required by the RWQCB and by Section 14.04 of the atys municipal Code) 34
would satisfy all NPDES erosion, sedimentation and hazardous materials control 35
requirements. 36
37
'Me Project sponsor's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan would be prepared in M
accordance with City of South San Francisco, RWOCB and Association of Bay Area
Governments design standards, and it would be implemented throughout Project 40
® It has been demonstrated that properly designed and implemented 41
11 - 13
11® HYDROLOGYAAFD WATER QUAL17Y
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans can have a significant, beneficial effect on I
the quality of storm water runoff from construction Sites® Specific design and 2
implementation recommendations are included in the Construction Handbook of Best 3
Management Practices. 4
5
6
1132 Minor Potential Change in Existing Flood Hazard Conditions 7
a
Less Man-Significant Impact 9
10
Federal regulationsr it to notify FEMA of any changes in 11
flooding conditions within their borders so that the Flood Insurance Rate Maps can 12
be updated to reflect actual flood hazards. This notification also provides a 13
mechanism for the removal of flood hazard designations from individual properties. 14
The proposed filling of the Project site would represent a change in flooding 15
conditions and would trigger the Citys responsibility for FEMA notification. 16
17
® is
19
None required,but before the beginning of construction,it is recommended that the
Project sponsors prepare an application for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision. 21
This document, which must be submitted to FEMA by the City, sets forth the 22
conditions of construction that would protect all Project building improvements from 23
flooding during a 100 year storm or high tide event. Upon the completion of 24
construction, the Project sponsors would document their compliance with all 25
provisions of the Conditional Permit, and FEMA would issue a final Letter of Map 26
Revision, removing the entire site from the flood zone. 27
11 - 14
12. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
2
3
This chapter discusses potential impacts to biological resources within and adjacent to the 4
Bay West Cove Project site subsequent to re I ° of hazardous materials on the site (as 5
dI scussed in Chapter 32 and Chapter 10.12). Existing pre-remediated conditions are briefly 6
discussed followed by remediated conditions in greater detail. Biological impacts to the 7
remediated site are described, and mitigation actions are proposed. Topics include: 8
9
0 Remediated wetland and upland habitats. 10
0
® botanical and wildlife species that may utilize the site after development. 11
a Significance of the Project site's biological resources with respect to the greater San 12
Francisco Bay ecosystem. 13
a Consistency of the Project with the Conservation Element of theaty of south San 14
Francisco "East of 101 Area Plan'. 15
0 Significant impacts and mitigation actions . 16
17
18
12.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 19
20
21
I2°1.1 Ire® Conditions 22
23
Location and Mstoric t�^-,4.44——- 24
25
The Project site is located along the western shoreline of South San Francisco Bay 26
immediately west of Oyster Point (see FW=3-2). The physiography of South San 27
Francisco Bay has been largely altered by human activities such as placer mining, 28
diking and filling.' Shoreline alterations have been particularly acute in the portion 29
of the bay in the Project area where shoreline filling and dredging activities have left
very little of the original salt marsh and natural freshwater inflow features. 31
32
Ali of the Project site's natural features are the products of previous dredging and 33
filling activities. The upland and wetland portions of the site consist of former bay 34
bottom and/or salt marsh lands that were filled prior to the 1930s to accommodate 35
the site's early industrial facilities. Original fill materials apparently consisted of 36
Nichols,F.H.,J.E. Cloern,S.N.Luoma and DR.Peterson. 1986.The modification of an estuary. Science 37
31:567-573. 38
12 - 1
12o LOGICAL RESOURCES
sand, gravel, clays and debris.' The site®s submerged areas consist of baybottorn I
and/or former salt marsh lands that were dredged to create a boat launch and repair 2
® ("slot"),as well as offshore portions of the bay that were previously dredged for 3
creation of a shipping channel. 4
5
The site is bordered by urban development on the east, south and partially on the 6
west(see Higure 3-3). Therefore the site's wetlands and uplands have no connectivity 7
to other natural areas except where the site adjoins San Francisco Bay on the north 8
and east. Approximately 0.5 mile tote west of the ffighway 101 corridor lies the 9
San Bruno Mountain Preserve which supports a large area of coastal scrub and 10
grassland habitat including critical habitat for the endangered mission blue and San 11
Bruno elfin butterflies. No other significant upland natural features occur near the 12
project site. 13
14
Upland Habitats 15
16
The Project site contains approximately 49.1 acres of filled uplands, exclusive of 17
wetlands, consisting of sparse ruderal vegetation interspersed with bare ground, 18
rubble and concrete foundations from former manufacturing facilities. Dominant 19
ruderal vegetation consists of common weedy species such as wild fennel(Foeniculum 20
vulgare), bur clover (Medicago hispida), vetch (Vicia spp.), Scotch broom (Cytisus 21
scoparius) and ripgut brome(Bromus diandrus). Appendix 21A Table 21.4-1 provides 22
a complete plant species list for the site based on surveys conducted by Wetlands 23
Research Inc? 24
25
Wildlife surveys conducted on the site throughout 1996 demonstrated that the upland 26
areas provide very poor habitat, due to a lack of cover,proximity to human activities, 27
and high level of disturbance from past land uses." Additionally, the presence of 28
soils contaminated by lead and oil wastes greatly diminish the value of the site for 29
wildlife. Species observed in the uplands were limited almost exclusively to common 30
urban wildlife such as mourning dove (Zen cc'da macroura), barn swallow (Hirundo 31
rustica), California towhee (Pipilo crissa&), house finch (Carpodac dc anus), 32
2 Treadwel] and Rollo,Inc. 1996. Draft Remedial Action Plan -Shearwater Development Praiject,South San 33
Francisco, California. Prepared for the Bay West Group,600 Townsend St.,San Francisco, CA. 34
3 Wetlands Research AssoLiates,Inc. (WRA). 1996a. Delineation of jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the 35
United States-Shearwater Property South San Francisco, Califorma. Corps File No. 15783S49. 36
4 Wetlands Research Associates,Inc. (WRA). 1996b.Wildlife habitat assessment of Bay West Cove.LLC 37
Property,South San Francisco, CA,Prepared for Washburn,Briscoe and McCarthy,55 Francisco St.,Suite 600,San 38
Francissoo,CA. 94133. 39
1 ®
c
0
s
to
f � �
4
��..
�.e
4m
1
LU
LU
i� z z Ir 0
LU
LLJ
UJ
ceir
17L a.
® +°
12 BIOLOGIC,4L RESOURCES
house mouse (Mus musculus), Norway rat (Rattus vi is ground squirrel I
(Spermophilus beeckd)and opossum(Didelphis virginiana). Common raptors such as 2
red-tailed hawk(Buteo jamaicensis)and American kestrel(Falco sparveyius)may also 3
forage in the uplands given the presence of rodents and squirrels. A complete list 4
of observed wildlife species is provided in AppL 21A Table 21.4-7- 5
6
7
8
Approximately 6.3 acres of wetland and ponded habitat occur on the Project site 9
based on wetland delineations conducted in 1995 and 1996.',' All of the delineated 10
wetlands were determined to be Corps of Engineer jurisdictional, under Section 404 11
of the Clean Water Act. There are approximately 118.6 acres of non-vegetated 12
aquatic habitat within the property boundaries. These aquatic habitats are Corps- 13
jurisdictional as "Other Waters of the US" under Section 404 and/or as navigable 14
waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Figure 12-1 shows the 15
distribution of wetlands, ponds, ruderal ground and open water. 16
17
Existing open water tidal areas provide very poor habitat due to the presence of 18
contaminated substrates that are unsuitable for colonization by benthic organisms. 19
This, in turn, limits the utility of the habitat for higher level trophic organisms such
as fish and birds. 21
22
23
24
Vegetation and wildlife surveys have shown that no special status plant or animal 25
species have been observed or are expected to occur on the site (see Table 21.43 for 26
further discussion). 27
5 Treadwell and Rollo,Inc. 1995.Delineation of jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the United States- 28
Shearwater Property South San Francisco, California. 29
12 - 3
12 BIOLOGICAL REsouRCES
® Remediatcd Sltc C011ditk=
2
The remediation process is regulated by an order of the Regional Water Quality 3
Control Board'• The clean-up order references a Conceptual Remedial Action Plan 4
(RAP) which defines the remediation procese. The RAP will eliminate 0 of the 5
sites®S wedand habitat and will reduce open water tidal habitat due to filling as well 6
as excavation and removal of contaminated soils. The RAP was developed to 7
compensate for these impacts (see Cbaptcr =1). The RAP will result in a
substantially different biological site conditions. finpacts from the Bay West Cove 9
development therefore must be considered in the context of fully r ated site 1®
conditions.
12
i to is 13
14
Following remediation work, existing ruderal upland habitats will be removed and 15
replaced by unvegetated fill that will rapidly(within 1-2 years) be recolonized by the 16
same
site of ruderal vegetation. Therefore,if the Project were not developed,most 17
of the upland portions of the site would continue to provide the same low quality 18
habitat for urban wildlife. However,mitigation for the re mediation plan also includes 19
1 00-foot wide buffer,portions of which would be landscaped with native ground cover 20
(e.g., meadow barley -Hordeum brachyantherum), shrubs (coyote brush - Baccha& 21
pilularis) and trees (see Figure 12,2 and Figures 3-8 and 3-9). 22
23
7be creation of this transitional tidal wetland and upland buffer zone will improve 24
the utility of the uplands for wildlife by providing improved cover adjacent to 25
mitigated wetland habitats. Many faunal species (e.g., ducks, small mammals) that
26
use marsh habitats need adjacent uplands with good cover which is used as a refuge 27
during high tidal periods. Vegetated uplands that He just above the high tide fine 28
may also provide nesting sites for waterfowl. Therefore, following remediation, the
29
Project site's uplands will provide upland habitat°for a greater diversity of fauna. 30
31
6 C"ornia Reponal Water Quaffry Contra Wwd,San Franmwo Bay Repon,[final] Ad�tfe�n 32
9MELEMU-irements f®r USX corporation and Bay West Cove,ILC�J*17,1996. 33
7 Treadwell &RoHo, 1996a.
34
12 - 5
lE 1a � t
..\�
N
U5 ul
cm
ir_ cc
t tln
12 - 6
12 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
2
Approximately 6.0 acres of wetlands will occur on the Project site following 3
completion of remediation and associated wetland mitigation plans! There would 4
be a minimum of 6.0 acres of tidal wetlands in the slot, Additionally, approxiniately 5
112® acres of open water tidal habitat outside of the slot will be unaffected by the 6
remediation or AD these habitats are expected to be Corps-jurisdictional under 7
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 8
9
46 Remediated Tidal Wetlands (6.0 acre) - Under post-remediation conditions, 10
there will be a substantial increase in the extent of tidal wetlands. The 11
existing narrow shoreline fringe of salt marsh vegetation will be replaced by 12
a large and continuous expanse of low,middle and high salt marsh vegetation 13
with full tidal connection (see Figure 12-2). of the quality and diversity of 14
wetland habitat types will be improved by the establishment of a ° of 15
mudflat, tidal channel and emergent marsh areas. This will result in 16
improved wetland functional benefits not only forte Project site but also for 17
the greater bay ecosystem. Whereas existing tidal wetlands are too small and 18
stressed to provide any significant feeding,nesting or cover for wetland fauna, 19
the remediated site should provide these functional benefits to resident and
migratory fauna. Outflow of vegetative debris from the slot to the bay,which 21
can be important to the bays food chain, are almost non-existent under 22
current conditions, but should be significantly improved under post- 23
remediation conditions. 24
25
The number of the wildlife species currently using the site (see Appendix 26
21A TM& 21.4-2) should increase and will be supplemented by other 27
wetland-associated species not currently expected to occur on the site. 28
Mudflats will offer new substrates for marine invertebrates and foraging areas 29
for shorebirds. During low tides, tidal channels will also provide foraging -V
areas for shorebirds and for waterfowl,wading birds and possibly California 31
black and dapper rails during high tides. The high marsh areas and adjacent n
upland buffer will offer cover and nesting sites for waterfowl and small 33
® Feeding opportunities for raptors should also improve. 34
35
36
Wetlands Research Associates. (WRA). 1996c. Nationwide Permit 38,U.S.Arroy Corps of Engineers San 37
Francisco District-Bay West Cove,1J-C Property,South San Francisco,CA. COE File# 17729S49. 38
1 2 - 7
12 BI OGICIL RESOURCES
• Remediated Open Water Tidal Habitat (112.6 acres) - Under the remediation I
plan and associated wetland mitigation plan, open water tidal habitat in the 2
slot will be substantially changed. Contaminated soils will be removed, 3
consolidated and sealed in the slot and then covered by native bay mud to an 4
elevation suitable for the establishment of salt marsh vegetation. The total 5
area of open water tidal habitat within the property boundaries will be 6
reduced by approximately 6.0 acres. 7
8
Although the remediation and mitigation plans will reduce the extent of open 9
water tidal habitat in the Project area, the implementation of the RAP win 10
greatly improve the quality of the remaining habitat. Under post-remediation 11
conditions, contaminated open water tidal habitat will be replaced by high- 12
quality uncontaminated marsh habitat providing increased productivity 13
benefits to the adjacent open water tidal habitats in the bay. Increases in the 14
numbers and diversity of aquatic invertebrates, fish and waterfowl and 15
shorebirds will probably occur in adjacent open waters inside and outside the 16
property boundaries. 17
• Rentediated Non-Tidal Seasonal Wetlands and Ponded Areas - No non-tidal 19
seasonal wetlands or ponded areas will occur on the Project site following 20
post-remediation conditions. As discussed in Chapter 12.2.1,the loss of these 21
areas will be mitigated by establishment of the expanded tidal wetland 22
habitats. 23
24
SDecial Status Soecies under Remediated Conditions 25
26
The RAP is designed to develop a dense pickleweed marsh in the slot. Erosional 27
processes in the created marsh are expected to develop a dendritic network of 28
narrow,
® tidal channels. These features should make the post-remediation 29
Project site attractive to both the California black rail and the California clapper rail. 30
31
32
12.13 Policies of the East of 101 Area Plan Relevant to the Site's Biological 33
Resources 34
35
The City's East of 101 Area Plan contains a series of development policies for land 36
east of ffighway. These policies are directed toward protecting and enhancing 37
biological resources and are mandatory in all circumstances. These policies and their 38
relevance to the Project site are summarized below.
1 ®
12 BIOLOGIC4L RESOURCES
Pgfigin CON-1 ,grid 2
2
® requires that of wetland delineation be performed on all lands having 3
sensitive resources in order to adequately evaluate project impacts. Ile policy 4
further defines sensitive resources to include wetland habitat types and specifically 5
identifies two wetland habitat types (salt marsh and freshwater marsh) as occurring 6
on the Project site. CON-2 mandates compliance with all applicable State and 7
Federal laws and regulations regarding the protection and replacement of wetlands. a
Polig CON-3 9
10
11
This policy requires that slopes with native vegetation be preserved and enhanced. 12
t ° not relevant to the Project site due to the absence of such habitat. 13
Eolicies CON4 and 5 14
15
16
CON4 requires that all feasible measures be taken to preserve sensitive plant and 17
animal species. CON-5 mandates that adequate studies of plant and animal resources 18
be performed to evaluate the site-specific status of sensitive species. These polices 19
are relevant to the Project site due to the presence of wetlands and marine resources. 20
Egft21
®7
22
23
This policy requires measures to protect sensitive habitat resources from nighttime 24
illumination, to use native landscaping in buffer areas, and to restrict entry into 25
habitat areas with such devices as fences, landscaping and signage. 2V
27
28
12.2 LESS-THAN-SIGNMCANT IWACFS
29
30
31
=1 Standards of Significance and Summary of hqncts
32
33
According to CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the Bay West Cove commercial 34
development would have significant adverse impacts on biological resources if the 35
Project would: 36
37
substantially affect a rare or endangered species of plant or animal or the 38
habitat of the species;
40
12 - 9
12 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
0 interfere substantially with the movement of any species of animal or plant I
or the habitat of the species; 2
3
a substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife or plants; or, 4
5
0 conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community in 6
which the project is located (e.g., East of 101 Area Plan). 7
8
These criteria are applied to the re mediated Project site -not to existing conditions 9
preceding re mediation. impacts of the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) on the Project 10
site are categorically exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Section 15321, because the 11
re mediation is an enforcement action order of the Regional Water Quality Control 12
Board. 13
14
By application of these standards, the proposed Project would cause one less-than- 15
significant impact 16
17
Two additional impacts to biological resources are discussed in other chapters. 18
Chapter 423 discusses the less-than-significant impact of development within the 100 19
feet of lmown sensitive resources. Chapter 112.4,discusses potential adverse impacts 20
on water quality in the slot and along the bay due to runoff during construction, and 21
runoff during occupancy (e.g., from landscaping fertilizers), although no storm 22
drainage facilities will directly drain into the slot. 23
24
25
1222 Dkuft=of Wildlife Foraging and Nesting Activities Due to Daily Human 26
Activities 27
28
Less-T`han§iggifi=L1MgggL 29
30
A 100-foot wide shoreline band consisting mostly of open space will be established 31
along the bayfront and around the mitigated tidal wetlands in the slot, pursuant to 32
the East of 101 Area Plan and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission 33
shoreline band (see Figures 3A 3-9 and 12-2). An 8-foot wide meandering pathwill 34
be built adjacent to the slot wetland,with trees and shrubs between the path and the 35
edge of the wetland. Vehicular access aisles, parldng, buildings and loading areas 36
may be proposed inland from the path. (The EIR assumes that, pending final site 37
planning of individual Planning Areas, the path, landscaping, parldng, and portions 38
of buildings could all be built within the 100-foot wide shoreline band.) 39
40
12 -, 10
12 BIOLOGIC4L REsour S
Wildlife utilizing salt marsh habitats can typically become habituated to human I
activities provided that the human activities tend to recur in a physically-separated 2
location from the marsh'. For example, wildlife will rapidly adapt to a heavfly-used 3
pedeS trian pathway along a marsh shoreline because human movement along the 4
pathway becomes a regular and expected daily phenomenon. Wildlife will become 5
disturbed, however, if people frequently enter the marsh from the trail or, more 6
importantly, if people allow dogs to run into the marsh. 7
8
Outdoor human activities in the shoreline band will be limited to pedestrian pathways 9
or other passive recreational activity areas. The Project Specific Plan also has 10
landscape design guidelines and a plant list, which includes native plants, which will 11
help to protect wildlife. Portions of the shoreline band adjacent to the mitigated 12
wetlands will be planted with native tree, shrub and herbaceous plant species to 13
provide zones of high cover value for marsh wildlife. A low fence (approximately 3 14
to 4 feet high) will be placed waterward of any trails, walkways or other human use 15
areas in order to discourage human intrusion and to prevent dogs from entering the 16
marsh. Signs will be posted advising people of the e ntal sensitivity of the 17
marsh and the need to keep dog on leashes. 18
19
The Project is subject to East of 101 Area Plan Policy CON-7, which includes X
requirements to protect wildlife. The Project includes an amendment to CON-7 to 21
allow encroachment into the 100 ft° wide buffer adjacent to known sensitive 22
resources, on a case-by-case basis (see Chapter 423). Therefore the potential for 23
disturbance of wildlife foraging and nesting is a less-than-significant impact of the 24
Project. 25
Miti tion Measures 26
Za 27
28
None required.
29
9 City of Albany,Draft d�Nee�D:l �an B an
Tr ect March 14, 1996.Ile 30
ar t'o �uch �S ���
CEQA docurnent for this P!�M=wfth::blic near a sensi:e=habZt,P,7hirh i
BCDC was approved by the 31
32
® 1
12 BIOLOGICAL S tl G
12 - 12
13. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1
2
This chapter references and summarizes the assessment of impacts to cultural resources ® 3
the East of 101 Area Plan EIRI, supplemented by research on cultural resources by the 4
Northwest Information Center,Historical Resources Information System(HRIS),at Sonoma 5
State University, Rohnert Park, CA.' 6
7
® ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 9
10
11
® Archaeological Resources 12
13
There are no recorded Native American resources on the Project site which are listed 14
with the Northwest Information Center, Historical Resources Information System 15
® The office has no record of an archaeological study of the Project area. 26
17
The East of 101 Area Plan EIR concluded that shoreline characteristics of the East 18
of 101 Area as a whole would be "favorable"for native American inhabitance and the 19
presence of prehistoric cultural resources . Native Americans (speakers of the
Ramaytush dialect of the Ohlone language) who lived in the area tended to be 21
situated along historic bay margins and alluvial fans near sources of water. 22
23
However, the HRIS found that the extensive fill and modification of the shoreline 24
on the Project site would make it unlikely that Native American sites would be found 25
in this area. 26
27
28
13.12 Histone Development and Resources 29
-V
All industrial buildings on the site have been demolished; the only remaining 31
structures are broken timber pilings along the slot and shoreline which once 32
supported docks and piers. 33
34
Brady&Associates, Reviselltlftgast of 101 Area Plan 131%Page 531,January 1994. 35
2 Lynn Comps,Researcher 11,Northwest Information Center,Historical Resources Information System, 36
Sonoma State University,Letter to Jeff Drier,Wetlands Research Associates,July 18, 1996,incorporated in Rg_Uest 37
to Utilize N by Wetlands 38
Research Amodates,August 1996. 39
3 Brady&Associates,Devised Draft East of 101 Area Plan EIIt,Page 531,January, 1994. 40
13 - 1
13 CULMRAL RESOURCES
Review of historic literature and maps on file in the HRIS offices give no indications I
of historic structures in the Project area. to and federal inventories list no historic 2
properties within the Project Aree. 3
4
Heavy industrial use of the site began in 1913 with the Shaw Batcher Steel Company. 5
During World War I Pacific Coast Steel and Shaw-Batcher constructed submarines, 6
gunboats and other war vessels. Western Pipe and Steel, American Bridge and U.S. 7
Steel Co. occupied the site in succession to 1983. During World War 11 U. S. Steel 8
fabricated and repaired Liberty ships and launched ships in the sloe. The last 9
industrial buildings were demolished in the 1980s. 10
11
12
13.2 SIGNMCANT IMPACrS AND bMGATION MEASURES 13
14
15
132-1 Standards of Significance and Summary of Lnpacts 16
17
A proposed project would cause a significant environmental effect on cultural 18
resources if it would "disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic 19
archaeological site or a property of historic or cultural significance to a community 20
or ethnic or social group;or a paleontological site, except as part of a scientific study' 21
(CEQA guidelines, Appendix G.). 22
23
By application of this standard, t ject could cause one adverse intpact to potential 24
cultural resources, as described below. 25
26
27
13.2.2 Potential to Damage Unknown Sites and Arffacts,During 28
Project Construction 29
30
0 P(ate ntiallL&Lfifi t Adverse IMpact 31
32
Section 13.1 EnWromnental Setting indicated that there are no known resources of 33
archaeological or historic significance on the Project site®Because the Project site has 34
been disturbed for many years by heavy industrial operations, it is unlikely that it 35
contains "important archaeological resources" as defined by CEQA (Supplementary 36
4 Compas letter,Page 1. 37
5 Brady&Amociates,Revised Draft. East of 101 Area Plan EIR 38
,Page January, 1994.
13 - 2
13. CULMRAL RESOURCES
Document J, Archaeological impacts). Therefore, a formal excavation plan is not I
necessary. 2
3
There is the potential, however, to unearth unknown resources in the process of 4
excavating for utilities and building foundations. It is this potential - however likely 5
or unlikely - that unknown resources could be encountered and damaged, which 6
creates the potentially significant adverse impacL 7
8
4 Mitiation Measures for ArchaeoloVcal Resources 9
10
East of 101 Area Plan Policy LU-28 provides part of the is for the following 11
specific mitigation measures: The City shall protect buildings, sites, and land uses 12
which are historically significant." While the City policy does not speak to 13
archaeological resources, all of the following measures shall apply to protection of 14
historic resources as well as to archaeological resources. 15
16
0 The applicant should make provisions for cultural sites accidentally 17
discovered during construction.These provudons should include an immediate 18
evaluation of the find by a cultural resource consultant, If the find is 19
determined to be an important cultural resource, contingency funding and a 20
time allotment sufficient to allow for recovery of a cultural resource sample 21
or to employ avoidance measures (outlined in Supplementary Document J, 22
Archaeological Impacts, Section 11 B.) should be required. Construction 23
work may continue on other parts of the building site while cultural 24
mitigation takes place (Supplementary Document J, Archaeological impacts, 25
Section
27
0 Project personnel shall not collect cultural resources. Prehistoric resources 28
Include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars and pestle% and 29
dark friable soils containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, 30
or human burials. Historic resources include foundations and walls,industrial 31
equipment structures and remains with square nails; and refuse deposits, 32
to in old wells and privies. 33
34
0 In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains,the developer 35
shall immediately notify the county coroner, and there shall be no further 36
excavation or disturbance oft a site or any nearby area reasonably suspected 37
to overlie adjacent human remains until the county coroner is notified. If 38
remains are of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage
Commission shall be notified[(916)322-77911,and other measures to protect 40
13 - 3
1,3° CULTURAL RESOURCES
the remains, rebury them, or remove them pursuant section 1
Impacts.Supplementary Document J, Archaeological 2
3
cultural 0 Identified resources should be recorded 4
sites) and/or (historic r operties), or similar forms. 5
6
If Se mitigation measures followed, unknown cultural resources should be 7
protected m and the impact will be re to - - 6
significant level. 9
16
11
IESS-THAN-SIGNMCANT 12
13
13-3.1 No Cumulative Cultural Impacts 14
15
The potential to e unknown sites and artifacts construction f the 16
Project, when considered with s to other known or unknown 17
cultural sites in e vicinity would result in la 've impact. 16
19
1 -
14. UTIIMES
2
3
This chapter discusses potential Project impacts to the following public utilities: 4
0 Wate Supply, 5
r
0 Sewage treatment, 6
a Communications, 7
0 Gas and electrical service,
0 Solid waste disposal, and
0 Engy consumption. 10
er
11
12
Significant impacts were found for wastewater treatment. No significant adverse 13
impacts were found for
to supply, communications, gas and electric service, solid 14
waste disposal and energy consumption. Each topic is discussed below: 13
16
17
14.1 WATER SUPPLY
18
19
14.1.1 Environmental Setting 20
21
ter
23
24
Potable water is provided for the City of South San Francisco and much of San z
Mateo County by the California Water Service Company (CWSC),which purchases 26
virtually its entire water supply from the San Francisco Water Department(SFWD). 27
At this time, average water use throughout the CWSC service area is approximately 28
31.33 million gallons per day (mgd), and in 1990 the average daily demand in the 29
South San Francisco subarea was approximately 6.12 mgd.' CWSC owns and -V
operates the storage and distribution system that conveys water from the SFWD 31
aqueductS throughout South San Francisco, and it also handles all ® for the 32
provision of water service. Applications for new water service are processed directly
through the
® 34
35
ne Citys 1994 East of 101 Area Plan estimated that total growth in water use east 36
of the freeway would equal 2.675 mgd by tee 2010. This is more than four times 37
the CWSC estimate of increased water use that was also presented in the Area Plan. 38
CWSC based its prediction on ABAG growth projections and on a different
® of commercial, industrial and residential land uses east of the freeway. 40
Memo from Darin Duncan, CWSC� to Gene Gravelle, CWSC� dated February 20, 1997. 41
14 - 1
14. U77LJ77ES
'Me assumptions used in the Area Plan reflect the Citys latest land use designations I
and the potentially higher water requirements of biotech and other emerging 2
industries now projected to be among the mix of future development east of lEgIrway 3
101. Neither the East of 101 Area Plan nor the Project plan includes any residential 4
development. 5
6
'Me California Water Service Company projects that total,system-wide water demand 7
will increase to approximately 34.46 mgd by the year 2010, and that demand within 8
its South San Francisco subarea will increase to a maximum of 8.46 mgd.' This 9
represents a total increase throughout the subarea of 2.34 mgd above 1990 levels. 10
By contrast, South San Francisco's East of 101 Area Plan estimated that demand 11
within just the CiWs eastern industrial area would increase by 2.675 mgd between 12
1994 and the year 2010? It appears, though, that CWSC has sufficient resources to 13
accommodate either level of growth. The water co s current contract with the 14
San Francisco Water Department specifies a maximum delivery rate of 42.5 mgd 15
(17,400 acre feet/year), so there is roughly an 8 mgd surplus above year 2010 16
projections to serve unanticipated water use within individual subareas. As a result, 17
CWSC anticipates that it will have the capacity to meet all water supply needs within 18
its service area, and at this time there are no limits on the provision of water for new 19
development." X
21
CWSC normally draws its water from "turnouts" on two of the three SFWD 22
aqueducts that run through South San Francisco. It also maintains a turnout on the 23
third aqueduct in the event that there is a flow interruption within one or both of the 24
two active connections. In addition,CWSC has eight groundwater wells that produce 25
approximately 0.45 mgd in addition to its SFWD supply. The water company is 26
currently constructing a water treatment plant to correct some taste and odor 27
problems in this groundwater supply, so that it can continue to provide a reliable 28
supplement to water drawn from the SFWD aqueduct. 29
-V
Storage and Distribution 31
32
The California Water Service Company currently has two, 1.5 million gallon tanks 33
providing storage for the pressure zone that services the Project vicinity. One is 34
located on Cbe Street near downtown South San Francisco and the other is on 35
2 Op.Cit., memo from Darin Duncan, CWSC,, to Gene GraveUe, at February 20, 1997. 36
9 City of South San Francisco, East of 101 Area Plan, July, 1994. 37
4 Op.Cit., memo from Dazin Duncan, CWSC, to Gene Gravelle, ated February 20, 1997. 38
14 - 2
14® UTILMES
a low hill off of East Grand Avenue. Water storage requirements normally consist 2
of three components:equalization, storage. 2
provides a balance between peak, daffy demand surges and the overall ®s 3
maximum rate of supply. CWSCs aqueduct connections have the capacity to meet 4
peak demand rates i r reservoirs provide 5
protection only fire er storage. Ile water company has determined 6
its existing ° s have sufficient eet all anticipated 7
emergency storage r t it ° the r ci area.' 8
9
existing CWSCs to the east side of ° 101 consists of an 10
interconnected r of -° larger eer pipes that were 11
accommodate the high water demand expected within a Y developed industrial 12
area. of identified one existing pi 13
was in need of r 12-inch connection between Oyster Blvd.and the 14
SFWD turnout located on °rport Blvd., on the west side of Highway 1 . This line, 15
which lacked sufficient capacity to accommodate future development and was in poor 16
condition, replaced fine is located in an easement 17
on the Project that begins at Gateway Blvd. and runs along the north side of 1
Oyster Point Blvd., at the base of the railroadtfreeway overpass. It then s north 14
along e Southern Pacific ° r a distance of r ate y 250 feet, at
which of it es es the railroad and freeway to Airport 21
22
oiec i °li °es
23
24
It is estimated that the proposed Project would have a total water demand of 25
approximately ,000 gallons per ° For e a e eve developable 26
site,which has an overall ° , this is o average e 7 27 FAR of
/1 s. ° building.T The Area Plan assumed that aer demand would range 28
from 7 s. ® for light industrial and commercial s, placing the 29
Darin Duncan, California Water Service Company, personal communication, February 24, 1997. 30
6
Estimates t r use are based on e following, generany accepted rates of demand (which 31
equal roughly 1 estimated ewa er production rates): 32
a 90,000 s° . auto e e 1 . . = 11,700 gpd 33
a 9000 s.f. restaurant @ 125 s° . = 11,2M gpd 34
o 209,661 sf. commercial @ 115 gpd/1000 s° . 24,111 gpd 35
a 700 hotel r 155 gpd/room 189,875 gpd 36
Total =
236,936 gpd 37
7
52 acres 35 siJacre 1,359,072 s. .
237,000 ® 1,359,072 s. . = 174.4 gpd/1000 s.f
14 - 3
14. U77LI7IES
proposed Project approximately 15% above the high end of this range. Because the I
estimated Project water use is higher than the Area Plan's projections, this would 2
suggest that total water use at build-out east of the freeway may ultimately exceed 3
both the Area Plan's figures and CWSCs somewhat lower estimates. As previously 4
noted, though, CWSC has determined that its current supply is sufficient to meet all 5
future demand in South San Francisco without constraining future water deliveries 6
elsewhere within the service area. 7
a
As now proposed, the Project would connect to the existing 16-inch water main on 9
Oyster Point Blvd., at an unspecified number of locations. The water distribution 10
system would extend throughout the Project site, and all water mains would be 11
designed with sufficient capacity to supply the Project's maximum daily demand in 12
addition to interior sprinkler systems and exterior fire hydrants. Minimum required 13
fire flows would be as determined by the City Building Department and the Fire 14
Department. 15
16
The normal hydraulic gradient in the San Francisco aqueduct in the South San 17
Francisco area is 200 feet above sea level, which equals a static pressure of 18
approximately 82 psi at the proposed Project's minimum finished floor elevation of 19
10.0 feet above sea level (three feet above the 100 year flood). CWSC normally 20
requires a minimum static delivery pressure of 40 psi, so there is sufficient excess 21
pressure at the site to lift water to a height of 99 feet above the ground. 22
23
Maximum building elevations as permitted by Federal Aviation Regulations range 24
from approximately 260 to 360 feet across the site, so booster pumps would be 25
required to lift water to the upper stories of any proposed high rise buildings. 7he 26
City's Fire Prevention Office reports that each high rise would have to have separate 27
fire and domestic supply facilities, a standby, emergency power source for the fire 28
pumps and, depending on site specific fire suppression demands and the capacity of 29
the to distribution network, an auxiliary storage tank to provide a fire fighting 30
reserve.' The design of all booster facilities would be reviewed by the City Building 31
Department and the City Fire Marshall at the time of individual building 32
construction. 33
34
East of 101 Area Plan Policies 35
36
8 One psi is equal to 231 feet of hydraulic gradient. 37
9 Laura Mapes, Assistant Fire Marshall, City of South San Francisco, personal communication, 38
March 25, 1997.
14 - 4
14. U77LITIES
Listed below are current City of south San Francisco policies governing the provision I
of new water service in the Project vicinity, as set forth in the East of 101 Area Plan. 2
3
• Policy
® prohibits new development unless it can be provided with an 4
adequate water supply. 5
6
• Policy PF-2 requires the use of low flow plumbing fixtures and drought 7
tolerant landscaping for all new development. a
9
10
® of Signcance and Summary of Impacts
1.1
12
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, a water supply impact would be deemed 13
significant if it would:
14
15
• create a demand for water service that exceeds existing water supply capacity 16
or utilizes water supplies earmarked for future, planned development; 17
18
• place a demand on the City's water storage/distribution system that exceeds 19
its existing capacity; or
• result in the wasteful use of water. 2J
22
23
Based on these criteria, no significant water supply impacts were identifled for the 24
proposedProject However,two less-than-significant impacts were identified,as descnbed 25
in the following section.
26
27
28
14.13 Wasteful Use of Limited Water Suppr=
29
-V
31
32
Tbe Project would increase the overall use of water produced by the San Francisco 33
Water Department and distributed by the California Water Service Company within
34
the City of South San Francisco. Since there is a widely recognized potential for 35
continued and worsening water shortages throughout California, the Project would 36
be required to incorporate the water conservation measures set forth in Policy PF-2, 37
pursuant to AB325,which requires the use of low flow plumbing fixtures and drought 39
tolerant landscaping by all new development. It is assumed that, particularly for the
proposed hotel rooms, implementation of these measures would bring project water 40
use closer to the estimates contained in the Area Plan. 41
14 - 5
14. UTILMES
Mitig ition-Measures
2
None required. 3
4
5
® Potential Construction and Maintenance Impacts to CWSC Water Main 6
7
LesS-nI4R:5igdfiOnUM= 8
9
The 16" water main recently installed in an easement along the boundary of the 10
Project site by the CWSC was buried approximately 6 feet below the existing ground 11
surface. The Pr eces preliminary Rough Grading Plan indicates that two feet of fill 12
will be placed in th`se a e toe of a new embanlanent. CWSC officials are 13
concerned that additional depth of cover could make future pipeline maintenance or 14
replacement difficult and costly. 15
16
mwg§924-�r 17
is
None required. However, if the finished grade along the CWSC easement on the 19
Project site increases the depth of cover above the existing pipeline by more than 24 20
inche it is recommended that the Project sponsors remove and replace the pipeline 21
as needed to provide a depth of cover acceptable tote CWSC. In addition, the 22
Project's final design plans should provide unrestricted maintenance vehicle access 23
to of ends of this easement. 24
25
26
® WASTEWATER COUEMON AND TREATMENT 27
28
142.1 Flirvironmental Setting 29
30
Wastewater Treatment 31
32
All wastewater produced within the City of South San Francisco is treated at the 33
City's Water Quality Control Plant(WQCP),which is located at the end of Belle Air 34
Road, near the edge of San Francisco Bay. The WQCP is jointly owned by the cities 35
of South San Francisco and San Bruno, with approximately one third of the total 36
plant capacity allocated for San Bruno's use." The WQCP also has contracts to 37
10 Letter from Scott Chad, Director of Public Works, City of San Brimo,to Susy KaIldn, Senior 38
Planner, City of South San Francisco, dated 10/l/96.
14 - 6
14. UTILITIES
treat most of the wastewater produced by the City of Cohna and a portion of the I
wastewater produced by the City of Daly City. These two municipalities have a 2
combined dry weather allocation of 700,000 gallons per day (gpd) at the WQCP.11 3
4
6
When originally constructed, the WQCP was rated at 13 million gallons per day 7
(mgd). Since that time, discharge requirements have tightened, so each gallon of a
wastewater that passes through the plant needs further treatment,effectively lowering 9
its rated capacity. The City's 1994 East of 101 Area Plan reported that hydraulic 10
restrictions within the WQCP's final clarifiers were the most significant treatment 11
constraint, giving the plant a dry weather capacity of 8 mgd. A City official reports 12
that the clarifiers, along with the rest of the treatment components, have recently 13
been reevaluated and given a 9 mgd rating. This is 0.5 mgd higher than the 1996 14
average dry weather flow of 8.5 mgd." Recently completed process improvements 15
within the secondary aeration tanks have also made the plant's overall operation 16
more reliable, significantly reducing the risk of partially treated dry weather V
discharges." 18
19
Ile discharge ®f treated wastewater effluent into San Francisco Bay is regulated by x
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a federal program 21
authorized by the Clean Water Act. Throughout California, NPDES permits are 22
issued and enforced by the state's Regional Water Quality Control Boards
23
)® Ile Citys current NPDES permit issued by the San Francisco Bay 24
RWOCB, is based on the WQCP's original design capacity of 13 mgd", although 25
the to of the permit also require that the plant's treated effluent meet spe
cific 26
water quality requirements designed to protect the beneficial uses of San Francisco 27
Bay. This provision of the permit limits flow through the WQCP to the actual 28
capacity of its treatment processes.
ii 29
Wastewater projections by CaroHo Engineers, January 30, 1997. 30
David Castagnola, Water Quality Control Plant Superintendent,personal communication, I/10j97. 31
Mike Britten, Carollo Engineers,personal communication,January 30, 1997. 32
Johnson Lam, Area Engineer for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants, San Francisco Bay 33
Regional Water Quality Control Board, personal communication, 1/29/97. 34
14 - 7
14. UTILITIES
2
To accommodate further development within the WQCP's service area, the City has 3
retained a consulting film, Carollo Engineers, to begin final design on a package of 4
treatment plant improvements that will increase the plants dry weather capacity. 5
Phase I will increase the capacity to 12 mgd, and is scheduled for completion by the 6
year 2000. The consultants projections indicate that average daily flow will increase 7
to approximately 9.1 mgd by the year 2000,which would provide an excess of 2.9 mgd 8
to accommodate unanticipated growth and peak flow surges." later phases would 9
increase the WQCP's average day dry weather capacity to a maximum of 13 mgd, 10
although plans to construct the entire improvement program as a single phase to 11
better accommodate increased rates of development within the WQCP's service area 12
are currently under consideration. The City Councils of South San Francisco and 13
San Bruno have recently approved the initial increase in annual sewer rates and 14
connection fees that will be needed to fund the estimated$40 million Phase 1 WQCP 15
improvement cost." 16
17
The consultant's flow projections were prepared in cooperation with the four cities 18
that contribute wastewater to the treatment plant, based on anticipated rates of 19
growth and development densities through the year 2015. Ile largest absolute 20
change in wastewater flow was attributed to South San Francisco. It was estimated 21
that between 1995 and the year 2000 residential/commercial wastewater production 22
in the City would increase by 70,000 gpd and industrial production would increase by 23
580,000
® By the year 2015, the total, 20 year increase would be 380,000 gpd for 24
residential/commercial and 2.3 mgd for industrial."' 25
26
These figures are fairly consistent with the conclusions reached by the City's East of 27
101 Area Plan, although the predicted mix of development is different. The Area 29
Plan estimated that 38% of the growth in wastewater production east of the freeway 29
Is Mike Britten, Carollo Engineers, personal communication, January 30, 1997. It was noted by Mr. 30
Britten that the treatment plant's rated capacity is based on an expected pollutant load in the 31
incoming wastewater. If the future mix of domestic and industrial wastes generated within the 32
service area differs from current projections, the capacity of the plant%treatment process may be 33
adjusted up or down. Industrial wastes, for example, normally require a greater degree of 34
treatment, so if they constitute a higher than expected percentage of total flow,the plant might not 35
be able to handle its original design volume, 36
16 Mike Britten,Carollo Engineers,personal commurneation,June 26,1997. 37
17 Op.Cit., Wastewater projections by Carollo Engineers,January 30, 1997. The projections assumed 38
that virtually all industrial growth would take place east of aghway 101.
14 - 8
14. UTILITIES
would be due to commercial development and 62% would result from either light I
industrial or planned industrial development. The total increase in wastewater flow 2
by the year 2010 was estimated to be 2.13 mgd." 3
4
At this time, there is no moratorium on new sewer connections within the City or 5
within the larger treatment plant service area,and a portion of South San Francisco's 6
dedicated capacity at the WQCP has been allocated to a number of approved or 7
p d development projects. These include the Genentech Campus expansion, 8
several pharmaceutical projects proposed for the cast side of 101 and the McUllan 9
Nursery, Chestnut Estates and Terrabay residential developments." 10
11
Combined increases in wastewater production by the year 2000 for the other three 12
cities that contribute to the WQCP (San Bruno, Daly City and Colma) were 13
estimated to be 10,000 gpd residentiallcommercial and 100,0M gpd industrial. By the 14
year 2015, these would increase to 30,000 gpd and 790,000 gpd, respectively. Adding 15
in the projections for South San Francisco brings the total estimated increase in 16
wastewater flow over 1995 levels to 760,000 gpd by the year 2000 and 3.5 mgd by the 17
year 2015. Approximately 85% of the year 2000 increase and 76% of the year 2015 18
increase is allocated to growth within the City of South San Francisco. 19
20
The proposed Phase 1 WQCP improvements would provide sufficient dry weather 21
treatment capacity to meet the service area!s needs for the immediate future, but it 22
is expected that they would also significantly improve current compliance with 23
NPDES permit conditions by raising the pl wet weather capacity. A combination 24
of infiltration and inflow" (1&1) push instantaneous discharge rates at the plant to 25
between 35 and 38 mgd during major rainstorms, with maximum day discharges in 26
excess of 25 mg&' These surges essentially flush out the plant, washing the 27
City of out San Francisco, East of 101 Area Plan, July, 1994. 28
Letter by Richard Harmon, sigaed by Dennis Chuck for Arthur Wong, City Engineer, City of 29
South San Francisco, dated 17/5/96, and Wagstaff& Associates, Final Supplemental Environmental 30
Impact Report for the Proposed Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Fidension, 31
October, 1996.
Inflow is principally caused by private storm drain lines that are connected directly to the street 33
sewer, and infiltration is caused by groundwater seepage through leaking pipe joints and broken 34
sewer mains. These conditions are common throughout older wastewater collection systems, 35
which,in South San Francisco, are concentrated in the neighborhoods located west of Highway 36
101. 37
David Castagnola, Water Quality Control Plant Superintendent,personal communication, 1110/97. 38
14 - 9
14. UTILITIES
bacteria that are the foundation of the secondary treatment process right out of the I
aeration tanks. Until the bacteria reestablish themselves, the plant cannot fully treat 2
e ° wastewater, resulting in partially treated effluent discharges. 3
4
Completion of the Phase 1 improvements will increase the WOCP's hydraulic 5
capacity, reducing the likelihood that the aeration bacteria will be flushed out of the 6
® It is not expected that this additional capacity will be sufficient to put an end 7
to partially treated wet weather discharges, though, so theaws consultant is 8
evaluating wet weather treatment options to identify an efficient,low cost alternative. 9
'Me most straightforward approaches would be to substantially reduce I&I (which 10
entails widespread replacement of the existing collection system) or provide far more 11
capacity at the WOCP. Both approaches are prohibitively expensive so a third 12
opiion,'wet weather bypass, is being evaluated. 13
14
In a bypass, a portion of the incoming wastewater is given primary treatment only 15
and then mixed with fully treated secondary effluent before disinfection, 16
dechlorination and discharge into San Francisco Bay. The effectiveness of wet 17
weather bypass treatment relies on the dilution provided when high volumes of is
rainwater runoff are mixed into the normal wastewater stream. This allows the plant 19
to still meet its water quality discharge objectives while protecting treatment 20
processes that only have the capacity to fully treat dry weather flows. Design of a 21
bypass system for the WQCP has not been completed, but the City's consultant 22
currently believes this represents the most promising wet weather solution.' 23
24
The City's active effort to address its wet weather discharge problem is being 0
overseen by the Regional Board, which reports that the plant has been regularly 26
exceeding its discharge requirements during the rainy season.' The Regional 27
Board is expected to approve a Cease and Desist Order in July or Aupst of this year 28
that will mandate improvements in the WQCP's wet weather treatment capacity and 29
tighten the effective discharge requirements. The anticipated compliance schedule 30
in this order was jointly developed by the Regional Board and Carollo Engineers, so 31
implementation of the phase I treatment plant improvement program, which has 32
already entered the final stages of design,should satisfy all requirements of the Cease 33
and Desist Order.' 34
21 Mike Britten, CaroHo Engineers,personal communication,January 30, 1997. 33
23 Johnson Lam, Area Engineer for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants, San Francisco Bay 36
Regional Water Quality Control Board, personal communication, 1/29/97. 37
24 Mike Britten, Carollo Engineers,personal communication, June 26, 1997. 38
14 - 10
14. U_T Lj.
T
E.S
1n an unrelated effort to prevent
discharges fi-ent from the WC-::?Cp of San Francisco Bay by
Of Partially treated ef hinfier centanimaoVon
e the
Francisco has recently b en sued by the United AngIft.,
An attorney handling this case fOr the City reports % ; City of South San 2
thawt local fishermen's group
ro affect Plans to improve the WQ the laws 3®equirements through construc nit is not expected'
expected that compl compliah��e with lVPD.M 4
tion Of thtion of Phase 1 treatl7nent -
e Phase Improvemen discharge 5
largely satisfy the co e 1 Plans and mm,j,ti - ts. it is
,, , ation of con 6
MPants raised in the United Arigletrsf SUit.25 struction win 7
XZ2 Treated Wastewater Diq"d
One additional 10
element Of the
cl'sd'arge Of the plants City$wastewater treatmera't Ii
is c0rnbined at the treated effluent into San Operation concerns fin, 12
WQCP with treated effluent from -
frOul the cities of Burlingame and Mllbrae. Tog Franciscc-l' Day- 7be Citys efflu 13
OOMPrise the the Sft Francisco ent 14
North Bayside System Unit (NB ether., the�s Airport and
operates a e Public agencies is
Pumping station at the hi, jointly 16
force main that runs WQCP that SU). I s Mult'-agencY authority
DUt
® t the Bay. Overland to point San B Pumps effly'Jent into a 48" 17
Discharge is thro runO and then diameter is
JiStributes the effluent over a wide• area of open water. , approximately 40(lo feet
:)Uring periods of high ugh an 1100 foot'Ong Of`fshore diffuser Pipe that
ack sufficient capacity wet weather flows, the pump 21
to deliver all effluent to the -station a-nd 22
)verflows in the vicinity Of the Wo Overland force ra
Jnlike 23
deep water outiall. am
in the mi ddle Of the Bay CP that discharge direc'tJ3, in This
nd along the Bay shore 9 there is not enough water to COIma causes 24
line to adequately dilute exch CreeJL 25
cceptable receiving water body concentratons the treated ange in COlma Creek 26
effluent and maintain
ffluent after treatment. Of the pollut,-Ints remaining
_tion again The Regional
Board In the 27
is also COIIQL-�ring 28
"ve include't the NBSU to Stop C01 ma Creek discharges, an
d these cl an enforcement 29
ldress this problem,vioiat'Ons Of the the United Anglers
NBSU's NPDEs ®t In their lawsuit. To
the City and the N13SUare X
dsting Pump statiOn and increase
.e the tentatively Planning to re ace the 31
C'ty's Phase I WQCp - Capacity Of the Overland force . Pi 12
lmPrOvements.26 main as part of
'nsultant has PrOPOsed that implementation H—ever,
'PrOVements, as required Of the WQCp wetC"Y's wastewater 33
by the Regional Boardis Weather a ® 34
forthcomin, ty 35
i
Cease and Desist 36
2s '8 Wth A4eyers' Nave' RJback Silver and WilsonPemnal conuntmication, Jan"ary 31,
Carole' Engineers,personal conunurucation, Januar
14 - 1 y 30, 1996
1 . 38
39
14. UTIIJT'ES
........... jon of further studies designed to identify the I
aci
order,be delayed pending the complel mcr,,gsed discharge OaP ty. until these 2
noviding ie lacks sufficient capacity to accommodate 3
most
® means of I charge In Cp 27 4
improvements are made,the dis that must be provided at the WO - 5
all of the increased wet weather capacity 6
7
WasWwata CoUection a
.1423 ?0, Blvd, gravity sewer line that 9
sdng oyster gUtion #2, located 10
,Ct site is served by an em the city's Parnp
The Froje oyster ]pomt Marina and runs to of oyster P,oint Ilvd. From this 11
begins ® the' )roximately 150 feet South anottei Stvity system that 12
on r ay to Grand 13
jatevway Blvd. aPI uns almost 800 feet UP Gateway to
a force main r bill This system then runs south On Gav'
statim the top of the - )nth oil I-jarbol to Pq,P station #4 14
begins at larbar Way and s( e East Of 101 Area.in concluded 15
-and to I Th
Avelluea,east on GI with Mitchell Avenue, ,to accommodate, all puted growth 16
near the
, intersection dent caPadP In addidonis estimated 17
se gravityes have SUM project site-
that the ea,which includes the M) pumps in pump s)Dn #2 can 18
within Their service ar minute (9 250% above currenflow rates, 19
tilat; the two 1000 gallon per
Low increase of approximately 20
accommodate a f 192,000 gallon"per day.23 21•which are, estimated at -ficant deficiencies withh collection 22
ast of 101 Area Plan identified two sign, �prcjimately 1400 foo� segment 23
The E I of pump station #2. An al -East Grand Avenue east Harris 24
downstrean erin, % Ween
system -,arbor vay,bet N capacity and increase need for 25
of the 21" gravity sew ®s has reduced its firy 'Me other proh at pump 26
is Subsiding. Isceptible to blockages•
ell there Wemy more 27
Avenue) it is more SA
maintenance,since astructed ill, the, 1950s Wh as capa4owever, 28
The station was cO' so it has plenty of exce
station #4. ater producers in the area, . unreliable and need replat and/or 29
jar ge wastew , and contrOls are becoming main that comiectsation to 30
i tog PUMPS that the V force 1equate 31
ts� isn.indication 12.5 mgd capacity apt
upgrade. There structural problems,and its
the W(ICp has any
32
.-Unicatim june 26,1 9
V Naenrinen.CWOUO Enoeol% ter Quality control Plant Mmemo 33
)IR, Val a maidWissible 34
Ltion #2 flow rate from David Castagn, ess CaPacnY is based on ), or an Wly 35
ble, e mcy standby"
29 PUMP SU waild be on"emerge h1gow). 24 houl 36
dated January 21, ® Eamiate Ofassumed to
n1gow rate a of 1000 pm (one PUMP adug f ador of 3 at Mai"u"m 37
flow rate of 333 gpm (assuming Pe over 192,000 gPd-
average rate equals 4S09000 gpd;a 2500/0 increase
1 4 - 12
14. UTILITIES
to accommodate any foreseeable increases in wastewater flow resulting from I
continued development east of Highway 101.21 2
3
142-4 General Plan policies 4
5
6
Usted below are current City of South San Francisco policies governing the provision 7
of wastewater collection and treatment service in the Project vicinity, as set forth in 8
the East of 101 Area ® 9
10
0 Policy
® states that collection system and pumping station repairs and 11
improvements shall be made by the City as required to support the demands 12
of continuing development. 13
14
0 Policy PF-4 requires the City, worldng cooperatively with the city of San 15
Bruno, to make capital improvements at the wastewater treatment plant as 16
needed to support development throughout the service area. In the event 17
that sufficient treatment capacity is not available, the city shall limit 18
development approvals accordingly. 19
W
0 Policy PF-5 commits the City to perform studies to determine the wastewater 21
treatment plant capacity. 22
23
0 Policy
® requires the City to adopt a wastewater treatment plant upgrade 24
and expansion plan that includes an implementation schedule and funding 25
program.
26
27
0 Policy PF-7 requires projects east of the freeway expected to have higher than 28
normal wastewater r oduction rates to limit their treatment needs through 29
implementation of site treatment or recycling programs. 30
31
1425 Standanis of Sigafficance and Summary of hapacts 32
33
34
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, an impact would be found to be significant if 35
it were to:
36
37
Force main capacity is based on a maximum flow velocity of 8 feet per second. -9
14 - 13
14. UTILITIES
0 create a demand for wastewater treatment that exceeds existing treatment I
capacity or utilizes capacity earmarked for future, planned development; 2
3
0 place a demand on the Citys wastewater collection system that exceeds its 4
existing capacity; or 5
6
0 result in the discharge of partially treated wastewater effluent to the 7
environment. 8
9
By application oft a standards, the proposed Project would create four potentiaUy 10
significant adverse wastewater treatment, collection and disposal impacts and two less- 11
than-significant impacts. 77w potentially significant adverse impacts should be fully 12
mitigable by implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. 13
14
15
14M6 Water Quality Impact Due to Insufficient Dry Weather Wastewater 16
Treatment Capacity 17
18
Lotentiall Significant Adverse Im act. 19
'Me proposed Project would increase current dry weather flows to the WQCP,which 21
will soon be operating under the conditions of a Cease and Desist Order issued by 22
the Regional Water Quality Control Board and which is already threatened with a 23
lawsuit filed by the United Anglers. These actions are being taken in an effort to 24
stop the WQCP's discharge of partially treated wastewater effluent to San Francisco 25
Bay. The addition of more wastewater from the Project would potentially lower the 26
quality and increase the frequency of partially treated discharges, worsening the 27
impact on pollution in San Francisco Bay. 28
29
The treatment plant improvements completed at the end of 1996 significantly 30
improved the plant's dry weather reliability,giving it a firm capacity of 9.0 mgd,which 31
appears to and may have put an end to partially treated dry weather discharges.' 32
However, it has not been possible to accurately gage the planes dry weather capacity 33
during the rainy season, so the new rated capacity,and the corresponding availability 34
of excess capacity, is unknown. In addition, it is not clear how much of the WQCP's 35
rated capacity (currently estimated at 9.0 mgd) should be reserved for peak dry 36
weather flows. Standard treatment plant designs allow for maximum month flows as 37
much as
® higher and instantaneous flows as much as 60% higher than a plant's 38
Mike Britten, Carollo Engineers,personal communication,January 30, 1996 and June 26, 1997. 39
14 - 14
14. MLITIES
average daily floW.31 Since the WQCP was running at 8.5 mgd during the summer I
of 1996, a rated capacity of 9.0 mgd only allows for dry weather peaks of 6%. It 2
appears that further
® is needed to determine the effect of higher, short term 3
peak flows on the plant's operation,and to identify a firm, dry weather, average daily 4
flow capacity�Ibis improvement has only provided an excess capacity of 300,000 gpd 5
over the planes current 8.7 mgd dry weather flow rate. This remaining capacity 6
represents less than 40% of the total 760,000 gpd increase in dry weather flow that 7
Carollo Engineers estimated would occur between 1995 and the year 200b, one year 8
before the projected completion date of the phase I WQCP improvements. 9
10
r 1l
12
It is recommended that the City develop an equitable sewer connection allocation 13
program, in cooperation with the cities of San Bruno, Cohna and Daly City for 14
implementation until all excess capacity at the WQCP is exhausted or until the 15
planned, Phase I WQCP improvements are completed. Policy PF-4 would require 16
the city of South San Francisco to establish a distribution schedule for its share of 17
new connections under the terms of any system-wide allocation program. 18
Implementation of this schedule could also require that the proposed project be 19
developed in phases as its capacity allocation becomes available. 20
21
2 2
142-7 Water Ounlity impacts Due to ftoject Demand for Akcady_Camunrla�
23
Wastewater Treatment Capacity 24
25
M P
K9knam" !"i11111 nificant Adverse 1�
26
27
As previously stated, the City of South San Francisco has already granted future 28
sewer connections to a number of approved or proposed development projects within 29
the City lfinits. If,as discussed in the previous impact,wastewater treatment capacity 30
is currently limited, approval of the proposed Project could feasibly overcommit the 31
system by granting service connections that rely on capacity that has already be
en 32
allocated to other projects. Build-out of all projects with allocations before the Phase 33
I WQCP improvements are completed would then increase the likelihood of further 34
® effluent discharges.
35
36
37
Wastewater projections by Carollo Engineers,January 30, 1997. 38
14 - 15
14. UTIMIES
_®fi lgation�Measu�re
2
In accordance with Policies P174 and PF-5, prior to the completion of the Phase 1 3
WOCP improvements, the City should not grant a wastewater treatment allocation 4
to the proposed Project until it has been confirmed that the plant has available, 5
capacity and that the connection of all currently committed but unused allocations 6
would not increase the frequency or severity of partially treated effluent discharges. 7
8
9
142.8 Potential Fail= Of Aging WadewslOr CoRection Facilities 10
11
N LotentiallLSiggificant Adverse Im act 12
13
Development of the proposed Project would increase the rate and volume of flow 14
through the existing subsiding sewer fine on Harbor Way and through the pumps and 15
controls that have been identified as in need of replacement at pumping station #4. 16
This creates a potential for more serious wastewater backups if the Harbor Way 17
sewer breaks completely or becomes blocked or if pumping station #4 experiences 18
an operational failure. The Project sponsors have reached an agreement with the 19
Redevelopment Agency to pay for the Projeces fair share of pump station 20
improvement costs,which would provide initial funding to help defray the CiWs total 21
project cost. 22
23
24
25
The City should implement its East of 101 Area Plan policy PF-3 to improve both the 26
Harbor Way sewer line and pumping station #4 before additional wastewater flows 27
from the proposed Project are introduced into the collection system. 'Me Project 28
would be required to expand the agreement with the Redevelopment Agency to 29
contribute its fair share for both the sewer line repair and pumping station upgrade. -V
31
32
142-9 Cumulative impacts to the Wastewater Treatment System 33
34
LUentiallLSiVificant AdverM Im
2act 35
36
Because
® 1426 and 142.7 consider Project wastewater demands in the 37
context of other areas served by the Citys Water Quality Control Plant, the impact 38
analysis under these sections is effectively a cumulative impact analysis. Therefore,
the Project plus related projects in the service area would result in a significant a
adverse cumulative impact to the wastewater treatment facilities. 41
14 - 16
14. UTILITIES
2
The measures identified to mitigate significant impacts of the Project in wxtions 3
142-6 and 142-7 would also apply to cumulative impacts. 4
5
6
142-10 Emsuffident Wet Weather Wastewater Treatment Capadty to Serve 7
Continued Development'Within the Serysce Area 8
9
kffimm:% ° t �t 10
11
There is no indication that the 1996 WQCP improvements significantly reduced 12
either the frequency or severity of partially treated wet weather effluent discharges. 13
Theawswastewater consultant estimates that the peak I&I (infiltration &inflow) 14
flow into the sewer system during major storms is 15.25 mgd. When added to the 15
average daily dry weather flow of 8.5 mgd,total peak flow through the WQCP would 16
be 23.75 mgd. If, for example, it is assumed that average daily dry weather flow 17
increases by 03 mgd(to 9.0 mgd, the plant's current to capacity) by the year 2000, is
® would represent only a 2.1% increase in total wet weather discharges.' 19
20
This increase would represent a cumulative worsening of the existing wet weather 21
discharge situation at the WCQP. It would not be considered significant, though, 22
because the net increase would be small and because the problem would be corrected 23
on a schedule approved by the Regional Board's Cease and Desist Order. 24
25
26
None required. 27
28
It is assumed that there will be a negligible I&I contribution from any new sewer lines installed to 29
serve new development. Carefid construction inspections that prohibit new, direct storm drain 30
connections and the use of improved pipe materials substantially reduce I&I within new collection 31
systems. 32
14 - 17
14. UTILITIES
14.Z11 Long Term Increases in Wastewater Production that E=eed Current I
Projections 2
3
4
5
It is estimated that the Project's currently proposed mix of retail, food service and 6
hotel development would generate an average wastewater flow of approximately 7
190,500 gpd.11 For the Project site's 52 developable acres, this represents a 8
wastewater production rate of 3660 gpd/acre. It also represents about 9% of the 9
total 2.13 mg;d increase in wastewater flows that the East of 101 Area Plan calculated 10
would be caused by continued development on the east side of the freeway, and 11
about 7% of the total 2.68 mgd increase projected by the Citys wastewater 12
consultants to occur within South San Francisco by the year 2015. 13
14
The East of 101 Area Plan utilized per square foot wastewater production rates 15
similar to those cited in this EIR, but the 2.13 mgd wastewater flow increase was 16
spread across approximately 1265 buildable acres that were already more than 50% 17
developed. As a result, it is not possible to directly compare the per acre figures. 18
However, the Area Plan assumed that production rates on the mixed Planned 19
Commercial/Planned Industrial site would range from 50 to 120 gpd/1000 s.f. of new 20
buildings. Since it appears that the proposed Project would be approidmately 17% 21
above the high end of this range, it is possible that the City's area-wide estimates of 22
future wastewater production may need to be periodically recalculated as the area 23
builds out. This may require that the City initiate an ongoing program to monitor 24
increases in wastewater flow that are caused by new development to ensure that its 25
long range projections of required wastewater treatment capacity remain consistent 26
with actual conditions. 27
Flow rate computations are based on the following, generally accepted rates of wastewater 28
production: 29
0 90,000 si. auto dealership @ 105 gpd/1000 s-f- = 450 gpd 30
0 9000 s.f. restaurant @ 1000 gpd/1000 s-f- = 9000 gpd 31
0 209,661 s.f. commercial @ 90 gpd/1000 s.f. = ,870 gpd 32
153 125 gpd 33
0 1225 hotel rooms @ 125 gpd/room
Total 190,445 gpd 34
14 - 18
14. MUMS
Hfinfimikaffim
one required. 2
3
4
14.3 COMMUNICATIONS 5
6
7
143.1 Sufficient Capacity to Serve the Piqcct 8
9
Telephone service is provided to the East of 101 area by Pacific Bell 'Telephone 12
Company. Pacific Bell is a state-franchised utility and serves all areas requiring 13
telephone service in accordance with the California Public Utility Commission rules 14
and tariffs. Major eiristing below-ground routes include Oyster Point Boulevard and 15
Gateway Boulevard. Ile company does not anticipate any trenching in Oyster Point 16
Blvd. to serve the project. The company has the capacity to serve the proposed 17
Projece". 18
19
20
None required. 21
23
14.4 GAS AND EIECIRIC SERvICE 24
25
14.4.1 Sufficient Capacity to Serve the proiect 26
27
28
Less a1gfl:2Zpifi0flLLm= 29
-V
Pacific Gas and Electric Company serves the Project area. The utility has generating 31
capacity and access to power and natural gas to serve the proposed Project. 32
33
With respect to natural gas,PG&E has a 24 inch gas transmission line which parallels 34
lEghway 101. Gas regulator stations drop the pressure from the transmission line to 35
the distribution system. Proposed hotels may require elevated gas pressure service. 36
37
34 Jeff Reckers,DeAgn Engineer,Padfic Bell Telephone Company,Personal commmcation,3/6/97. 38
14 - 19
14. U77LI7Y
With respect to power, PG&E has an electrical substation on East Grand Avenue, I
south of the Project site. Some improvements to transformer banks and a new circuit 2
in Oyster Point Blvd. may be s® 3
4
i 5
mfig��� 6
None required. To ensure adequate timing of the availability of service,the applicant 7
should contact PG&E well in advance of Project development. a
9
10
14.5 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 11
12
® Minor Demand for Solid Waste Disposal Servim 13
14
15
16
The South San Francisco Scavenger Company provides solid waste handling and 17
disposal.in the City. The Project would not generate unusual or hazardous wastes. is
Assuming safe handling and recycling at each commercial project, the Project would 19
not place a significant demand upon disposal or recycling of wastes by the refuse 20
service'. 21
22
res 23
24
None required, although the City could require that developers of the proposed 25
commercial facies contact the Scavenger Company at the precise planning stage 26
to ensure that access requirements for scavenger company vehicles are met. 27
35 Hendrick Him,Pacific Gas and Electric Company,Betmont office,Personal communicaftion,3/6/97. 28
36 Stephanie Uccelli Menner,South San Francisco Scavenger Company,Personal communication,3/6/9T 29
14 - 20
14. UTILITIES
14.6 ENERGY CONSUMPTION
® Minor Consumption of EMW 2
J
4
i&9MM§49ffiMLLM= 5
6
The Project will not result in the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy, or 7
require the development of new sources of energy.
9
10
H
one required, although buildings would have to be designed to comply with State 12
Energy
® Standards. 13
14 - 21
14. UTILITIES
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
2
3
This chapter discuses potential Project impacts to the following public services: 4
• Police protection 5
.
• Fire protection and Emergency Medical Services 6
• Maintenance of the 7
Bay Trail
• Schools 8
9
10
Impacts to public utilities, including water supply,wastewater treatment, electricity and gas, 11
communications and solid waste are discussed in Chapter 14. 12
13
14
15.1 STANDARDS OF SIGNMCANCE AND SUMMARy OF
1WACrS 15
16
17
15.1.1 Standards of Significance
is
19
'Me standards of significance in assessing impacts to public services and facilities 20
relate to demands for services created by the Project and the ease or difficulty of the 21
service providers to meet those demands. Demands are significant if they exceed the 22
current or projected capacities of service providers.
23
24
1512 Summary of hnpacts 25
®
26
27
By these standards of significance, the Project would produce two potentially signiftcant 29
impacts to public se ices and facilities. In addition the ject wo ca e four s
than-significant impacts, as discussed below. Pro uld us ki 29
31
152 POUCE PROTECrION 32
33
34
The Police Department actively participates in the city planning process through 35
application of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design(CPTED)principles 36
and the City's Minimum Security Standards Ordinance(chapter 15.48 order 37
to reduce the likelihood that new development will cause negative impacts on police 39
15 - 1
15 PUBLIC SERYICES
services and the community. The following discussion of impacts was prepared with I
the direct assistance of the Department'. 2
3
4
® Police Protection and Elisting Setting 5
6
The City of South San Francisco provides police services for the Project site® The 7
department is responsible for crime prevention and apprehension, and enforcement, 8
of state laws. Traffic safety is also a responsibility of the Police Department. 9
10
Current Staff and Eguipment 11
12
The City of South San Francisco Police Department has a total of 110 persons, 13
including 75 sworn officers,of which 68 are involved in street services activity. Based 14
upon a current population of 57,000, the per capita ratio of officers to residents is 15
1.32 per 1000,with 1.19 officers per 1000 residents involved in field services and .09 16
traffic officers per 1000 residents.With future development, the department desires 17
to maintain a ratio of 1.3 officers per 1000 residents, 1.18 street services officers per 18
1000 residents, or .09 traffic officers per 1000 residents . 19
20
The department currently has 24 marked police units(17 patrol units,2 police service 21
technician units, and 5 motorcycles). n
23
The department typically works a four-beat system. The Project site is within beats 24
one and four. Each beat is typically staffed by a one-officer unit with between six 25
and nine other officers consisting of traffic, ® ,training,float, and supervisory units, 26
available for back-up and overlap. 27
28
Average response times to serious felonies and"priority one calls" for the entire City 29
of South San Francisco typically do not exceed 3 minutes. Responses to all other 30
calls do not normally exceed 15 minutes, and never more than 30 minutes. 'Me 31
police facility is centrally located in the city at 33 Arroyo Drive, and response times 32
to the developed Project site should fall well within these current response times. 33
34
The City of Brisbane provides police, fire and medical services to a parcel in South 35
San Francisco, because of the parcel's relatively poor access from the City of South 36
1 Ron Petrocchi,Sergeant, Crime Prevention/Planning,City of South San Francisco Police Department, 37
Personal correspondence,February 6, 1997. 38
2 Ibid, 39
15 - 2
15° PUBLiC SFRpyCES
San Francisco. is a vacant site located immediately I
site in the r Sierra Point Business Park. There is no roadway connection 2
Project °t r site. If the vacant property were 3
developed, and South San Francisco were to provide emergency response 4
times would be poor, particularly for emergency vehicles returning from the site S
so
being uth. Returning vehicles would have to travel away from the City e 6
le to get onto Hwy. 101 southbound. This could negatively a response 7
times, especiafly to areas es of 1 Camino Real'. The estimated emergency s
response ter Sierra Point is to 13 minutes for a "priority one 9
call", only ° to or such elsewhere ° e CiW. 16
11
12
r 13
e °
1
ot Si i t t 14
16
The proposed Project would eats a demand for a bout 13/4 new police in 17
half e City. Build-out of the Project would also create a demand for an additional e® 1
of a police car. Ilese projections are based upon the same ratios of officers to 19
commercial s, and officers to equipment which are now in effect in i °
21
Manpower projections are based upon expected police calls for the land uses
proposed in ° 1996, the Police Department received g S for 23
service
from the( for all uses throughout the ° a is r ®c 24
32,710 CFS reported in 1992; however, the decrease does not accurately 25
assess e officers' workload increase due to ° le eta ° e e ® 26
Community ` to d Policing and Pr le program the 27
increased comple ° of requests and dispositions. Therefore, the Police 26
i
Department r s that an averse CPS figure for the past 5 years( 1 29
of 31,002 calls be used to compute the workload figures calculated in
® ® 30
3r
t Police a to a cost additional s police 32
costs are based upon build-out of the East of 101 Area provided in Table 69 of the 33
T
1
Ron etr Sergeant, Fr Police Department, _ - r to�n n®F1 nict l�n s® 34
1 °
35
Brady �r�tt lit�f 101 e�P1� Pas 4A January 1994° 36
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
East of 101 Area Plan EIR, adjusted upward by 6% for inflation . Cost figures are I
not provided here, because an EIR is not intended to be a financing document. 2
3
It generally takes at least one year to hire and train an officer so that he/she can 4
function alone on a patrol beat. In order to provide adequate time for training, 5
funding for additional staff and equipment would need to be authorized at least one 6
year before occupancy. Demand for additional police protection services is a 7
potentially significant adverse impact if such services are not provided when 8
construction begins and prior to Project occupancy, or if other mitigation measures 9
discussed below are not put into place. 10
11
12
Table 15-1 Staffing Projections by the Poll= Department 13
14
am--
Proposed Caft for Projected Current CSF Projected 15
Development Service CFS per year per year per number of 16
(CSF) per swom officer additional 17
y=, per unit Of ricers
area; or per
facility
EMENEEMMEMEMEM MEMOMMEMOMMEM
Large retail 1.5 CSF per 314 CSF 413 0.76 is
outlets: 1000 gsf 19
209,661 gross 20
® ft. 21
Hotels: 0.32 CSF 392 CSF 413 0.95 22
1225 rooms per room 23
Car sales 16 per facility 16 CSF 413 0.04 24
Fa i ty 25
Total E1.75 d 26
27
Development scenario used in the assessment of transportation impacts in Chp.6. 2S
29
30
31
32
5 Brady&Associates,-R-e-vi-s-e-d-D-r-RAL-East of 101 Area Plan EIR 33
,Page 435,January 1994.
15 - 4
15 PUBLIC SFRpyCES
re
2
7be applicant cannot be required to compensate the City for additional police 3
associated with development of the Project. 7be City may authorize expenditure for 4
the personnel in anticipation of future sales taxes from the Project, 5
6
The applicant should submit a Security and Safety Plan for the Project at the time 7
of application for approval of prccise plan(s) to the City. 71te plan should make a
provision for private security guards to be on the site commencing with the 9
construction phase.Early application of a uniformed private security force on the site 10
will not only reduce the likelihood of night-time problems during construction and 11
early occupancies, but may also reduce the number of police calls received by the 12
Police Department and the number of regular police personnel which need to be 13
hired in the future.
14
15
7be applicant should provide funds forte purchase cost of one-half a o ® vehicle. 16
17
7be Security and Safety Plan should make provision for emergency access for fire 18
and police vehicles. Fire department keyed entry(Knox Boxes) will be required for 19
all structures that do not have personnel on-site for 24 ors® Knox entry systems 20
will also be required at any locking gates or barriers across entryways'. Since there 21
is only one public entrance to the to a ® facility, secondary emergency access 22
should be provided. Upon site plan review by the City, alternative points of 23
secondary access will be considered, including the truck delivery entrance to 24
AutoNation from Bay West Cove Boulevard. 25
26
If the applicant provides these mitigation measures, the impact should be mitigated 27
to a less-than-significant leve ® 28
29
15.3 FIRE PROTEMON AND EME
RGENCy MEDICAL
SERVICES 31
15-31 Fire Protectim Services and Existing Setting 33
®
34
35
Fire protection and paramedic services for the Project site and vicinity are provided 36
by the City of South San Francisco Fire Department. Proposed development on the 37
6 Laura MapeA Assistant Fire blarshalL March 17,1997. 38
15® PUBLIC SERTICES
Project site would be served by Fire Station Number 2, located on the East side of I
Hwy. 101, about 1.1 miles south of the site, at the intersection of Harbor Way and 2
Mitchell Avenue. There are a total of five stations in the City. 3
4
'Me San Francisco International Airport is maintained by the crash, fire and re e 5
scu
(CFR) operations of the Airport, and does not fail within the jurisdiction of South 6
San Francisco Fire Department. 7
a
The department has reorganized since the East of 101 Area Plan EIR was certified. 9
In the 1994 EIR, mitigation for build-out of the entire East of 101 Area included 10
adding three new firefighters and a ladder truck. These projected personnel and the 11
truck are no longer needed, according to the fire depart7nentad 12
13
The City has one ambulance and crew. In 1994, the City received about 2250 14
medical calls per year, of which about 300 calls were referred to private ambulance 15
services. The City is now in the process of adding a second ambulance vehicle and 16
crew, consistent with the recommendations of the East of 101 Area Plan EIR. 17
18
19
1532 No Significant Imeased Demand for Fire Fighting or Emergency Services 20
21
22
23
Development of the Project should not create any significant increase in demand for 24
fire protection services, according to the City Fire Marshalla. Current fire-fighting 25
staff and equipment are adequate whenever the Project is build-out. The City's 26
planned addition of a second ambulance and crew, supplemented as necessary by 27
private ambulance companies,will serve the site and cumulative development in the 28
East of 101 Area for the near future. 29
30
Water supply to meet firellow needs may now be inadequate; however, adequate 31
water supply can be obtained from the California Water Service Company (see 32
Chapter 14). 33
7 Fred Lagomarsino,Fire Marshall,City of South San Francisco,Personal communication,January 29, 19970 34
a Ibid. 35
15 - 6
S. PUBLIC SERTICES
Mwaliffli&AMM
2
None
® Ibis conclusion assumes that all proposed development on the site 3
will comply with the CiWs approved building and fire codes for new construction. 4
As discussed in Chapter 152A keyed entry (Knox Boxes) will be required for all 5
street entryways, and structures that do not have 24 hour on-site security. 6
7
8
1533 Compliance With Fire Safety Requirements 9
10
Less-than-Sioriificant lm2= 11
12
e ° Department will require that the Project comply with various fire protection 13
standards, i 14
15
0 provisions for minimum 20 ft wide fire lanes; 16
17
0 sprinklered buildings, per the requirements of the Uniform Building Code 18
and Uniform Fire Code and NFPA 13, Current Edition; and 19
20
0 provisions for fire hydrants and their maintenance per the requirements of 21
California Water Service and the Uniform fire Code Appendix 111-B & IH- 22
BB. 23
24
These standards are made a part of the Specific Plan which is part of the proposed 25
Project. Therefore,the Project is not inconsistent with the standards,and the impact 26
is less-than-significant. 27
28
Mitieation Measures 29
30
None required. 31
32
33
153.4 Provisim of an Easement Allowing for a Future Emergency Access Roadway 34
to the Koll Business Park 33
36
I4a-Than-55-igafficant Im act 37
39
9 lAurn Ma^Ibid. 39
15 - 7
15 PUBLIC SERMES
The proposed Project includes a" a® °l "easement over the northern-most portion I
of the site leading to a vacant property in the Kell Center Sierra Point Business Park 2
(see Chapter 32.7). The easement would be established to allow developers of the 3
Koll Center site to build an emergency access road and extension of the proposed 4
Bay Traff, over the easement, connecting to the all site, if and when the Koff 5
Center site is developed (see Figure 3-10). 6
7
The purpose of an emergency access route between the two properties would be 8
improve response times for police and fire vehicles to reach the Koll site® The access 9
route would be designed for use by emergency vehicles only. (Chapter ® ° discusses 10
the difficulty of providing a permanent roadway connection between the Koll Center 11
and Oyster Point Blvd., pursuant to East of 101 Area Plan Policy CIR-5.) 12
13
The emergency access easement is part of the proposed Project. If the Project is 14
approved, its impact is less-than-significant. 15
16
The actual future connection between the Project and the vacant Koll Center Sierra 17
Point site would be completed when the City approves any discretionary land use is
permit for a portion or all aft a vacant Koll site in the City of South San Francisco. 19
The constructed road connection, and landscaped Bay Trail north of the state 20
drainage easement would not be an obligation of the proposed Bay West Cove 21
Project. 22
23
Mitizatian Measures 24
25
None Required. 26
27
28
® hLAINTENANCE OF THE BAY TRAEL
15.4.1 Existing Setting 32
32
Ile Bay Trail now ends within about 200 feet of tee property line of the Project, 33
after passing around the Oyster Point Business Park and the Oyster Point Marina. 34
This 6 foot wide asphalt path is overgrown and buckling in places. The proposed 35
Project includes extension of the Bay Trail westward from its property line, and then 36
north to about 400 feet south from the Project's boundary with the Kell Center Sierra 37
Point business park, from which point it will eventually be extended north along the 38
Bay. The Project description proposes that an 8 foot wide decomposed granite path 39
be developed, bordered by trees and native plants. 40
41
15 - 8
15. PUBLic sERWCES
15.42 Need for Bay Trail Maintenance
n 2
4
The proposed Bay Trail and its immediate surroundings (excluding planting areas 5
related to wedand re ation) will require maintenance. This represents a 6
potentially significant impact if a funding mechanism were not put in place to provide 7
for maintenance.
8
Yation Meas 9
®
nfigmikMIM 10
11
Tire City should require ownership and maintenance of the traff and an 12
improvements within the 100 ft. wide shoreline band, possibly as part of a 13
Development Agreement. If on-going funding is provided, the impact would be 14
reduced to a less-than-significant level. 15
16
15.5 SCHOOIS 17
18
15.5.1 Existing Facilities and Enrollment 19
W
22
The South San Francisco Unified School District serves the East of 101 Area. 22
However, there are no schools in the area because there are no residents. 23
gut-of-District Studen 24
is
25
26
The District enrolls students who reside in the district as well as a limited number 27
who come from
® of the District. Under the Alan Bill (Education Code 28
Section 48204(f) AB 2071), school districts in California are allowed (but not 29
required) to enroll K-8 students whose parents or guardians are employed within M
school district boundaries, but who live outside of the districts. In addition, if an 31
enrolled "Alan Bill student" wishes to continue his/her education beyond the 8th 32
grade, the school district is required to comply. 33
34
District policy is to enroll Alan Bill students, whenever possible. Since the school 35
district is a"Reserve Limit District",it receives state revenue for all enrolled students 36
whether or not they live in the district. However, the district receives no additional 37
compensation from the state or district of residency for special education students. 38
39
Currently, the South San Francisco Unified School District serves a limited number 40
of Alan
® students,particularly in the lower grades. The exact number is not Imow 41
15 - 9
15 PUBLIC SERVICES
because Alan Bill students are accounted for with other transfer students. The I
District has been able to accommodate all requests for space at each grade level,but 2
not always in the schools requested". Over the to to school enrollment is 3
projected to decrease throughout South San Francisco as families mature. The 4
number of Alan Bill students generally decreases as students grow older because 5
parents seek ways to have their children attend schools in their neighborhoods. 6
7
The District acknowledges that it may become more difficult to accommodate Alan a
Bill students because of reductions in lower-grade-level class sizes mandated by the 9
State in 1996. Shortages of classrooms require that resident students be given greater 10
priority. If it is found that it would be financially infeasible to serve Alan Bill 11
children, the School District may refuse. 12
13
The District is adding portable classrooms in the spring of 1997. Funding for such 14
facilities is not provided by the legislation to reduce class sizes. Districts are able to 25
assess developers of residential and commercial properties a mandatory school finpact 16
fee based upon gross square footage. Ile District currently is assessing new 17
commercial property on the is of$0.151 sq. ft., which is well below the $0.25/sq. 18
ft. allowed by the State. The District is now seeking authorization for a fee 19
adjustment from the State Allocation Board pursuant to Government Code section 20
65996. The Board can raise the maximum fee that can be charged, if justified. 21
22
23
1532 No Significant Impact on School Facilities 24
25
26
27
The proposed Project would not create any potentially significant direct demands 28
upon public schools and services because it would not include any residential 29
development. Impacts upon transportation services are less-than-significant because 30
the district does not provide transportation for any of its students, whether they are 31
from within the district or outside of it. 32
33
New employment in the school district could attract families with children, creating 34
some indirect demand for enrollment as Alan Bill students, and for participation in 35
publicly-funded day care in schools. Alan Bill students would not overwhelm, district 36
facilities, at least in lower grades where the reduced class sizes are in effect, because 37
the district is not obliged to take new Alan Bill students. Similarly, the district and 38
10 Janice B.Smith,Assistant Superintendent,East Of_101 Area Plan Final FIR
Page 100,June, 1994. 39
15 - 10
15 PUBLIC SERTICES
City could control the number of children participating in day care in school I
classrooms. The district regards these as less-than-significant impacts. 2
3
MwafimikMMIS 4
5
None required, however, the school district would receive school impact fees which 6
would offset
® demand for classroom space from Alan Bill students. 7
8
15.6 CUMUIATIVE IMPACrS To pUBUC SERVICES 9
10
156.1 No Cumulative impacts to public Servk= 11
®
12
13
i&ffimlmlii 14
15
Cumulative impacts to fire and police protection, schools and maintenance of street 16
improvements would not be significant. Ile Project in combination with other 17
development projects in the City would not necessarily result in increased police calls is
beyond the number that would be generated by the individual projects. Ile Police 19
Department estimates the demand for additional personnel and equipment for each
20
project as it is developed. 21
22
The Project alone would not create any unanticipated demand for fire protection and 23
emergency medical services, and therefore would not contribute to cumulative 24
demands.
25
26
The Project would not create any direct demand for school facilities, because no 27
housing is proposed. The Project could create demand for out-of-district enrollment 28
from parents who would work at the Project but live outside of the district. 29
However, similar demands from other past, present or future projects would not M
create cumulatively greater demand for school facilities. 31
32
33
34
None required. 35
15® PUBLIC SERYICES
15 -
16. OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 1
2
3
This chapter assesses the Projeces effects on recreation facilities and recreational 4
opportunities in the area, and demand for additional parks and recreation facilities created 5
by the Project. 6
7
The analysis draws upon the assessment oft e impacts of the East of 101 Area Plan on open 8
space and recreation facilities? Conditions in the area have not significantly changed since 9
the EIR was certified in July, 1994. 10
11
12
16.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SMTING 13
14
® Existing Open Space and Recreation Facilities 15
16
0
2en Space 17
18
Existing open space on the site is significantly degraded with hazardous materials, 19
mounds of rubble and debris. The site will be cleaned up and redeveloped, as 20
described in Chapter 3 Project Description. 21
22
Ba Trail
23
24
The San Francisco Bay Trail follows the shoreline adjacent to the Oyster Point 25
business complex and terminates about 200 feet cast of the proposed Projeces, east 26
boundary. The Bay Trail is intended to eventually border the entire bay front, 27
wherever feasible. Existing developments in the East of 101 Area which now have 28
direct access to sections of the trail include the Oyster Point Marina, Oyster Point 29
Business Park, Genentech, and some other businesses to the south of Genentech. 30
Benches and access to fishing stations have been installed at some locations along the 31
bayfront. 'Me pier at the Oyster Point Marina and Point San Bruno near the 32
Genentech development of offer fishing access. 33
34
The width, quality and maintenance of the Bay Trail varies. At the Oyster Point 35
Business Park, the trail is paved with concrete and is 8 feet wide, consistent with 36
bicycle path standards (see Figure 16-1,photo A). Behind the Air Eagle Trucking 37
Company building the path is paved with asphalt to a width of 6 feet. The trail is 38
overgrown and buckling in places (see Figure 16-1,photo B). 39
1 Brady&Amociates,East of Recreation 40
F
, 41
IdLtie
,s July 1994.
16 - 1
a
EL
ctl
IL
U
CD
to
�.
r,
IL C
Y
� q
p i 14
r �
n
�r_jg lr
�w�IG k(�1J9 I p i4 ui
f
P
r I ��rr AH rvl /
V
a.
m CL W
V 0)
m
'hp "rif � � wr I C
8 E
M
CD
y ri/t9aritl ,w r �, LLB ^
� o
ui
r
co L�L
CO
uj Z5
1 ® 2
16. OPEN SPACE AND RECREA77ON
2
To the east of the Project site are a public marina and a private marina. The public 3
Oyster of Marina Park contains 604 boat slips and is maintained by the San 4
Mateo County Harbor District. Currently, 61% of the slips are occupied, and the 5
District intends to reduce t e n umber of slips by 72, and transfer them to other 6
marina(s) in the Districe. A fishing pier, boat launching ramps, and the Oyster 7
o® ch has a small bee available to the public on the 18.5 acre site. a
9
Ile private Oyster Point Business Park maintains a 245 slip marina known as Oyster 10
Point Cove, located immediately west of the Oyster Point Marina Park. Owners of 11
the business park intend to seek City approval for expansion of lodging and 12
restaurant facilities. The City has not taken any action on the project. 13
14
15
16
The City's Parks and Recreation Department does not provide recreation programs 17
or public playgrounds in the East of 101 Area, since there are no residents in the 18
area.
19
The City has two community parks, five neighborhood parks, to mini-parks 21
(including to lots located in housing developments), six special facilities such as 22
recreation centers (one with an indoor swimming pool), shared recreation facilities 23
at 13 school sites, and eight linear parks . Ile to and San Mateo County own San 24
Bruno Mountain State and County Park - opposite the Project area - which is 25
operated by the County as one park.
26
27
28
16.12 Adopted Policies and Standards 29
East of 101 Area Plan Land Use Ma 30
31
32
A 100 ft.wide band along the entire shoreline perimeter of the East of 101 Area is 33
e ® as Open Space. This land use category is consistent with the Bay 34
Conservation and Development Commission's policy of requiring linear park 35
improvements in new developments whose properties are within 100 feet of the bay's 36
2 Jim Stilhvell, General Manager,San Mateo County Harbor District,Personal communications,Dec. 19, 1996. 37
3 Callander Associates,
July 11, 1990. Page 46, 38
39
16 - 3
16 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
® Uses allowed in the Open Space category shall include parks, vista I
points,pedestrian and bicycle trail corridors, fishing facilities, playing 2
fields, recreational buildings, interpretive centers, marina, and 3
undeveloped open space. 4
Policies 6
7
Ile Open Space and Recreation Element of the East of 101 Area Plan includes two 8
policies relevant to the proposed Project: 9
10
®1 Marina and shoreline-oriented uses shall be encouraged along the bay 11
front. 12
13
RE-2 Developers in the East of 101 Area shall be required to either pay 14
park in-lieu fees or dedicate park land based on a formula which 15
estimates the demand for park and recreational facilities generated by 16
the expected employment of projects. 17
is
19
20
The City's Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan, 1990, assesses recreation 21
needs of the community and strategies to meet those needs. It is currently being 22
updated". Policy 1.5.1 specifically encourages private developers to provide bayfront 23
access and commits the City to working with BCDC and other agencies to complete 24
the Bay Trail. 25
26
The Master Plan does not anticipate acquisition and development of land for new 27
parks since little additional residential construction is anticipated. Population is only 28
expected to grow by 3000 over the next 15 years [1990- 2005], according to the Bay 29
Area Association of Governments. The planned Terrabay project is expected to be 30
the last major residential development in the City and should add approximately 725 31
housing units and 2000 persons. Therefore, as the population stabilizes, the median 32
age will rise and services will shift toward more adult and senior activities . 33
34
4 Barry Nagel,Director of Park%Recreation and Community Services, City of South San Francisco,Personal 35
communications,January 27, 1997. 36
5 Callander Associates, Page 4,July 37
11, 1990. 38
16 - 4
16 OPEN SPACE AATD RECREATION
Ile Plan does not include standards for parks and open space related to growth in
employment. Nor does the City have any park in-lieu fee structure to assess 2
commercial property developers for park improvements, such as described in Fast of 3
101 Area Plan Policy M-Z above.
Relevant Master Plan recommendations for the area that includes the Project 5
include: 6
7
0 Provide addonal public parking at the bayfron 8
iti t.
9
10
0 Provide fish cleaning stations,picnic areas,and spaces for lunchtime activities 11
in conjunction with the pedestrian trail system." 12
13
14
15
BCDC has permit jurisdiction over a"shoreline band"extending from the mean high 16
water line upland a distance of 100 feet. Thecity and BCDC require linear park 17
improvements within this band for new developments bordering the bay. BCDC is
requires t " fe
hat maximum asible public access"be provided to and along the shoreline 19
band. As part of its permit process, BCDC will consider the need for dedicated 20
®c parking adjacent to the shoreline, to assure space availability for non-Project 21
visitors and Project employees. 22
23
® LESS-THAN-SIGNMCANT IMPACrs 24
25
26
162-1 Standards of Significanor and Summary of Impacts 27
28
29
The Project would have a significant impact on open $pace and recreation if it were V
to result in any of the following conditions: 31
32
Conflict with an established recreational land use in the area. 33
34
Inhibit the ability to provide recreational opportunities in the future. 35
36
Create a shortage of park and open space facilities for the residents and 37
employees of South San Francisco.
38
6 Ibid.,P. 19.
39
16 - 5
16. OPEIV SPACE AND RECREATION
0 Be inconsistent with adopted plans and policies. 2
3
Upon f stigatron of these con&tlons, it is detemuned that the project would not result 4
in any significant adverse impacts to open space and recreation. Four less-than- 5
significant impacts am discussed below. 6
7
8
1622 Nnor Prciect Effects on Existing or Potential Future Recreation Facilities 9
10
1&ss-T_han-_Si=Lcant Imp—act 11
12
The proposed Project includes an 8 foot wide path (which would become a segment 13
of the Bay Trail) adjacent to the shoreline. "Viewing plazas" are proposed on each 14
side of the "slot" at its opening to the Bay (see Figures 3-8 and 3-9). The Bay Trail 15
is required by BCDC and the City! Some Project commercial parldng would be 16
located adjacent to the trail, and employees and visitors to proposed nearby 17
commercial buildings would have access to the trail. Additional public parldng spaces 18
for non-Project visitors to the shoreline could be required by BCDC. Therefore, the 19
proposed Project would facilitate,rather than inhibit the City's ability to ensure that 20
recreational improvements will be provided in designated Open Space. Maintenance 21
of the Bay Trail and adjacent landscaping is discussed in Chapter 15A. 22
23
No eidsting recreational land use in the vicinity would be adversely affected. 24
Employees and visitors to the Project site would be able to gain access, via the 25
proposed trail, to the nearby Oyster Point Marina and Oyster Point Park. This 26
pedestrian access would support rather than conflict with the use of the Oyster Point 27
facilities. 28
29
H99992amumm 30
31
None required. 32
7 plan n S�Weand�Recrea�tionEle�ment p. ill,J* 1994. 33
Brady&Associates,9-H-1--f-1-01—A-11-52—
16 - 6
16. OPEArSPACEANDRECREA77ON
16-23 Demand for Parlm and Open Space by pzqM Vm-dtom and Empklyeea
2
3
4
Since the Project does t include housing there will be no new residents and no 5
direct demand for additional parks and recreation facilities. 6
7
While Project employees will seek out park and recreational facilities,as,for example 8
during lunch hour% the Project is not expected to create a quantifiable demand for 9
new parks and recreation facilities associated with employment. Nor is it likely that 10
employees of the Project and visitors to the Project will utilize City parks and 11
recreation facilities on the west side of Hwy.101,or compete for use of such facilities 12
with other employers or residents. 13
14
While the commercial development will preclude development of a marina on the 15
site, neither the commercial Project nor employees of site businesses will create 16
demand for marina facilities. Moreover, the occupancy of boat slips at the Oyster 17
Point Marina is only 61% and the San Mateo County Harbor District plans on 18
reducing the number of slips by 72. 19
.V
21
M
None required. By development of the Bay Trail and linear park along the shoreline, 23
as required by the City and BCDC, the Project developer should meet any demand 24
for parks and recreation facilities generated by the Project. No other contribution 25
of land or fees by commercial Project developers is required by the City for 26
development of parks. Although East of 101 Area Plan Policy RE-2 requires 27
developers to either pay park in-lieu fees or dedicate park land based on a formula 28
developed by the City which estimates the demand for park and recreation facilities 29
generated by the expected employment of projects, the formula has not yet been 30
devised. If and when such an ordinance is adopted in the future, the Project could 31
be required to comply with it.
32
16 - 7
16 OPEN SPACE AND RECRMATION
1624 Consistency With Adopted Park, ReaneatiOn, and Open Space Master Plan 1
2
Less-Thp
,:Siificantlm ct 3
4
The open space and recreation features of the Project are consistent with the goals 5
and policies of the adopted ParL a ter 1990. 6
7
mifi res 8
9
None required. 10
11
12
1623 No Cumulative Impact 13
14
Ixss-D]@A:aJigniififipja1nL,1ii1act 15
J6
The Project alone would not create any significant, unfulfilled demand for park and 17
recreation facilities. No other planned or pending commercial or industrial projects 18
in the vicinity are expected to compound demand for additional parks and recreation 19
facilities. However, the Project might increase the demand for extension of the 20
proposed Bay Trail East of Highway 101. This would represent a beneficial 21
cumulative impact of the Project;but completion of the Bay Trail on these adjacent 22
sites all not be a responsibility of the Project applicant. 23
24
Mititation Measures 25
26
None required. 27
28
16 ®
17. POPUILATION AND HOUSING 1
2
3
This chapter assesses the direct increases ® population, employment and housing demand 4
created by the Project. Secondary effects relating to employment and population growth, 5
such as traffic increases and demands for public services, are discussed in other chapters. 6
7
The analysis draws upon the assessment of impacts associated with build-out of the East of 8
101 Area, of which the Project is a parf. It compares assumptions and findings for the 9
Shearwater site in the East of 101 Area Plan EIR with assumptions and findings for the new 10
Bay West Cove Project. 11
12
13
® ENVIRONMENTAL SETI7NG 14
15
17.1.1 Empbyment 16
17
Employment in South San Francisco grew by about 19.8% between 1980 and 1990, 18
from 36,129 to 43,300 jobs® In 1995, the Association of Bay Area Governments 19
(ABAG) projected a 5% increase to 45,490 jobs, by the year 20001. 20
21
17.12 Population 22
23
The CiWs population grew by 4,919 persons from 49,393 in 1980 to 54,312 in 1990. 24
The average annual growth rate forte period was about 1%. The local employment 25
base grew much more rapidly than population because housing supply between 1980 26
and 1990 grew by only 6%. Population is expected to increase slightly during this 27
decade as the few remaining residential projects in the City, such as the Terrabay 28
project are developed. Population is expected to grow from 1990 by about 7,588 to 29
61,900 by the year 2000, at an average annual rate of about 1.2%. 30
31
® Jobs/Empbyed Residents 32
33
The to "jobs/housing balance" is a ratio of the number of jobs and housing units 34
within a jurisdiction. A jurisdiction with a shortage of housing relative to 35
employment theoretically has a surplus of employees who are forced to commute 36
Brady Associates, .3 37
p. 137,January, 1994. 38
2 Dan Stone,Association of Bay Area Governments Data Center,Personal communications,January 30, IM. 39
17 - 1
1Z POPUEATIONAND HOUSING
firom their homes outside oft e jurisdiction. Cities and counties attempt to maintain I
a balance between their residential and job-generating land uses to help reduce traffic 2
congestion and air pollution. 3
4
Ile
to "jobs/employed residents balance" has replaced "jobs/bousing balance" as 5
a more accurate description of the phenomenon. The primary reason is because 6
some households have no workers and other households have multiple workers. 7
Tberefore, it is more precise to compare jobs to employed residents. 8
9
Although it is useful to examine the jobs/employed residents within the City, it is 10
more important to examine the ratio at the regional or county level, because other 11
variables can be acknowledged, including smaller cities, a mobile population, 12
distribution of affordable housing, etc® The City's jobs/employed residents ratio in 13
1990 was 1.59, meaning 1.59 jobs for every employed resident. By the year 2OW, 14
ABAG projects the ratio to slightly improve to 1.543. At the county level, the 15
balance of jobs t o e mployed residents has been, and will continue to be more 16
balanced than at the City level: in 1990 the ratio was 0.92;it is projected to improve 17
to 0.95 by the year 2000. 18
19
17.1A Housing 20
21
The City of South San Francisco's Housing Element of the General Plan was certified 22
by the State Department of Housing and Community Development in February 1992. 23
To help meet the City's "fair share" of regional housing needs projected by the 24
Association of Bay Area Governments, the element identified a number of sites 25
where housing could be built. Included on the Est was the vacant Kell Center Sierra 26
Point site immediately north of the Shearwater site® The element was amended in 27
1993 to include other °tes® In 1994 the East of 101 Area Plan changed the use of 28
the Kell site from housing to Planned Commercial/Planned Industrial®t e same land 29
use designation as the proposed Project site® No housing is designated for any 30
portion of the East of 101 Area, because the Area is established for commercial, 31
office and industrial businesses,and because aircraft noise from nearby San Francisco 32
Airport makes the area unsuitable for housing. 33
34
The ® Element designated sites in the City suitable for development of its fair 35
share of regional housing needs(2,376 units by 1995),including housing for very low, 36
to and moderate income households. The element, as revised in 1993, identified 37
sites where up to 3,598 dwelling units (up to 3,897 with density bonuses) could be 38
3 Dan Stone,Association of Bay Area Governments Data Center,Personal communications,January 30, 1997. 39
17 - 2
17 POPULATIONAND HOUMNG
built, rehabilitated for occupancy or 4® A change in the land use I
designation from housing to commercial on the Koff Center Sierra Point site would 2
reduce the number of residential units by 300, to 3,298 units. The December 1992 3
® Element amendments acknowledge factors which may make it difficult for 4
the City to meet its housing allocation, "given past trends and realities of the housing 5
® Nevertheless,the City will strive to meet its housing objectives to the fullest 6
extent possible within the constraints imposed by the regional and national 7
economies"s
8
9
Among implementation mechanisms cited in the Housing Element, there are no 10
inclusionazy housing policies or fee structures requiring commercial projects to 11
contribute to the construction of affordable housing. However, commercial projects 12
® a redevelopment project area(such as the Project site)must contribute at least 13
20% of these revenues for increasing and improving the supply of low and moderate 14
income housing elsewhere in the City, pursuant to state redevelopment law. 15
16
17.2 LESS-THAN-SIGNMCANT IMPACM 17
18
19
172-1 Standards of Significance and Summary of impacts 20
21
22
The Project would have a significant impact on population, employment and housing 23
if it would result in any of the following effects: 24
25
0 Employment growth rates which would out-pace the ability of the City to 26
provide required services; 27
28
0 Population growth rates is would outpace the ability of the City to 29
provide required services; 30
31
An imbalance between the number of employed residents and jobs in San 32
Mateo County created by Project employment; or 33
34
4 City of South San Francisco,11mift Element B. Residential Development Potential,Page 37,December, 35
1992.
36
37
Ibid.,Page 92 38
17 - 3
I z POPULA TION AND HO USING
A failure to contribute to the City's need to provide housing for households I
with a range of income levels. 2
3
Upon investigation of these conditions, it is detemuned that the Project would not cause 4
any significant adverse employment, population or housing impacts. Four less®t 5
significant impacts are discussed below. 6
7
8
1722 Mnor Employment Growth Fffects upon City Services 9
10
Less Mgg:Siffic�antlm�act 11
12
Employees of businesses on the Project site would utilize City facilities and services, 13
although not to a significant extent. Approximately 677 full time equivalent (FIE) 14
persons are projected to be employed by the Project'. 15
16
The East of 101 Area Plan EIR estimated that implementation of the Area Plan 17
would generate 33,738 new jobs at full build-out of 16,491,304 gross square feet of 18
commercial space. Ile ®a represents an average of 488 square feet per 19
employee, which was rounded to 500 sq. ft./employee in the Area Plan EIR. 20
21
The
to 101 Area Plan EIR did not estimate thes e of projected employment 22
on the Shearwater site; but when calculated at 500 sq. ft./employee and a potential 23
build-out on the 51.9 acre site of 1,356,458 sq. ft. of space (at 0.60 FAR for mixed 24
Commercial/Industrial space), the development would have 2712 employees. This 25
represents about 8% of the 33,738 jobs expected to be generated by development of 26
all properties in the East of 101 Area. 27
28
The East of 101 Area Plan EIR found that the amount of employment generated by 29
the build-out of t e e ntire Plan Area was not excessive and would not place 30
unacceptable demands upon City services. And since the estimated number of 31
employees in the proposed Project (667) would be only 25% of the number 32
extrapolated from the Area Plan (2,712), the Project would have a proportionately 33
lesser impact. 34
35
36
6 Auto sales: 100 employees;retail:210 employees @ 1/1000 sq.ft.;hotek 367 employees @ 0.3/room;Total- 677 37
employees,based upon the development smnario used in Chapter 6 Transportation and Circulation. 38
1 ®
17, POPULATIONAND HOUSING
mwgafi��� 1
2
None required. Employment growth rates less than those experienced in recent years 3
would make it possible for the City to keep up with new service needs,provided that 4
the applicable
® measures discussed in Chapter 15 Public Services hapacts, 5
are implemented. 6
7
17-23 No Population Growth Effects on City Services 8
9
10
12
The proposed Project includes no new housing units. Therefore, the Project would 13
not directly add any new residents to thedwspopulation, nor make any direct 14
demands upon aty services, associated with residency. Growth in employment and 15
visitors to the City could indirectly create demand for more housing (see Chapter 16
1725). Indirect demand for City service% such as fire and police protection are 17
discussed under Chapter 15. 18
19
20
None required. 21
22
23
172-4 Bala= of JobWEmployed Residents 24
25
26
27
28
This section references the analysis of the jobs/employed residents contained in
the 29
East of 101 Area Plan EIR, for the proposed Project'. Impacts are assessed for the 30
City and the County. 31
32
Because the Project would not add any new employed residents, it would add to the 33
present surplus of jobs in the aty, relative to the number of employed residents.
34
However, this is not unexpected, since South San Francisco functions as a job center 35
for other communities in San Mateo County, which have fewer jobs than employed 36
residents.
37
38
7 Brady&Assmates,Daft—EIREast of 101 Area Plan
,page 162,Januaxy, 1994. 39
17 - 5
17 POPULA 7T ITT AND HO USING
While the Project would expand the current surplus of jobs in the City, it would not I
significantly contribute to the County surplus of jobs relative to employed residents 2
of the County. The Association of Bay Area Governments projections for San Mateo 3
County indicate that the over County-wide jobs/employed residents ratio would 4
improve from 0.92 to 0.95 by the year 2000,and would reach a balance between 2000 5
and
® The jobs contributed by the Project would help to achieve this balance, 6
indicating that the Project would have no adverse impact on the County-wide 7
jobs/employed residents balance. 8
9
Mi ion Measures 10
Ltila-t
None required. 12
13
14
1723 Impacts on Availability of Affordable Housing 15
16
Man-Si * cant Im, act 17
18
The proposed Project does not include housing, nor are there any current or 19
projected housing sites in the East of 101 Area. 20
21
The Project's failure to provide housing on site for households with a range of 22
income levels is not an adverse impact of the Project, because development of 23
housing at this location would be inconsistent with the East of 101 Area Plan. 24
25
However, the Project will create a demand for housing associated with employment 26
opportunities, particularly housing affordable to persons employed in retail and 27
service positions in the Project. The East of 101 Area Plan EIR evaluated housing 28
affordability for new workers who might wish to live in South San Francisco, and 29
found that a lack of housing supply would make it difficule. The housing 30
affordability gap was not found to be a significant adverse impact of the East of 101 31
Area Plan, and hence of the Project, because it proposes a land use mix consistent 32
with the East of 101 Area Plan. 33
34
35
8 Dan Stone,Association of Bay Area Governments Data Center,Personal communications,January 30, 199T 36
9 Brady&Associates,East of 101 Area Plan EIR es 150-158,June, 1994. 37
Pag
17 - 6
IZ POPULATIONANDHOUMNG
HfinfimikARM
2
None required, however, the Project will generate tax increments to the 3
redevelopment agency. By law, a minimum of 20% of these revenues must be set 4
aside for ® and improving the supply of low and moderate income housing 5
elsewhere in the City. Eligible activities include acquiring land or sites, certain off- 6
site improvements, construction of buildings, rehabilitation, providing subsidies and 7
the payment of principal and interest on bonds, loans and advances. 8
9
172.6 No Cumulitive impacts 10
11
1&MMLm-_SiMifIcant ImDact 12
13
14
The above discussion of Project impacts to population, housing, employment, and 15
jobs/housing balance is essentially a cumulative impacts analysis, because it relies 16
upon data from the Association of Bay Area Governments. Since ABAG considers 17
growth and development on a regional level, the analysis encompasses cumulative 18
impacts. Since this discussion found no Project impacts; therefore, there would be 19
no cumulative impacts.
20
21
22
23
None required. 24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
17 - 7
17 POPULA TION AND HO USING
18. OTBER ENVIRONMENTAL I
CONSIDERATIONS 2
3
4
This chapter addresses mandatory findings of significant effect,as required by CEOA Section 5
® Topics discussed in this chapter include: 6
0
7
Cumulative Impacts
0 Growth-Inducing Impacts 8
0 9
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
0 Irreversible Environmental Changes 10
11
12
18.1 CUA41JLATIW IWAM 13
14
1.5
"Cumulative impacts7 refers to two or more individual effects which,when considered 16
together, are considerable, or which compound or increase other environmental 17
impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a 18
number of separate projects" . 19
For Chapter 6 Transportation and Circulation impacts, the analysis of cumulative 21
impacts is based upon a list of approved, planned and potential future projects (see 22
Figm 6-3). Such a list was included in the form of projected square footages of 23
development in the East of 101
® Other cumulative impacts (e.g., water 24
® are based upon relevant growth policies of responsible and trustee public 25
agencies, as well projections of the Association of Bay Area GovernmentS3. 26
27
This section summarizes discussions of cumulative impacts ® are included in 28
three other chapters: Chapter 6, Transporbition and Circulation, Chapter 11, 29
Hydrology and Water Ouality, and Chapter 142 Wastewater Collection and
Treatment
31
I CEQA Guidelines,Section 15355 (a)and (b). 32
2 CCS Planning and Engineering,Inc,EWmL3 12ngg_20MLo eee j*,IW7. 33
3 CEQA Guidelines,Section 15130 (b)(1)(B). 34
18 - 1
I8, OTHER ENVIROMMEMMI, CONSIDERATIONS
® Cumulative Traffic Impacts
2
0
to 3
As discussed in Chapter 635, the Project, when combined with baseline growth in 6
traffic volumes in the year 2010, would result in a significant adverse impact. Five 7
study intersections would operate at LOS "E"or worse during either the AM or PM 8
peak hour. 9
10
hfitipya-tionMeasures 11
12
Mtigation would consist of intersection improvements. However, intersection 13
improvements at one of the five intersections would not mitigate the impact to a less- 14
than-significant level, and would require a statement of overriding considerations by 15
the City to approve the Project. 16
27
18
1&1.2 Cumulative Storm Water Quality Impacts 19
20
0 Potentially SigpifiOULIM= 21
22
As discussed in Chapter 112-4, storm water runoff from the site and upstream areas 23
will cause localized flooding and cumulatively significant water quality degradation 24
from non-point sources. 25
26
27
28
Ile applicant would be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 29
(SWPPP) to control pollution sources before discharge into the bay. 30
31
32
® Cumulative Wastewater Capacity Consbraint 33
34
0 Potenfift_aiggifionLIMM 35
36
As discussed in Chapter 142.9,the Project plus other properties served by the City's 37
Water Quality Control Plant would result in a cumulative demand for wastewater 38
treatment, in excess of treatment plant capacity.
40
41
18 - 2
® 07HER ENVIRONMENTAL CONMDERATIONS
MitiL
ation Mgasures
2
To
® the impact,the City-in consultation with other cities which use the plant 3
-should devise an equitable sewer connection allocation program and is a permit 4
to the Project only when treatment capacity is available. 5
6
7
1&1.4 Minor Cumulative Effects 8
.9
10
11
The Project would not cause any cumulative impacts in the following areas: 12
13
Land Um-
and P
-IL__hmning, Land use impacts of the Project are site-specific. When 14
considered with other planned or reasonably anticipated future projects,the proposed 15
Project would not contribute to any cumulative land use impact, such as the 16
conversion of land from one use to another. 17
18
is found visual impacts associated with loading dock 1.9
locations. No other development is planned in the vicinity, is -when combined
with the proposed Project - would create adverse cumulative visual impacts from 21
loading areas. 22
23
NQiLe. No other known approved projects in the vicinity would be under 24
conS truction during the same period that the proposed Project would be under 25
construction,so there would be no cumulative construction noise. Cumulative traffic 26
on Oyster Point Boulevard and aircraft would generate higher noise levels in the 27
vicinity,but the impact would be less-than-significant because the area is commercial 28
and industrial in character, and there are no sensitive receptors such as housing in 29
the larger East of 101 Area. 30
31
_EK_ffi. Geotechnical impacts are less-than-signilicant for the Project, and should not 32
affect geological conditions on adjacent sites, if Project development complies with 33
the slope grading requirements in the proposed Specific Plan, and with 34
recommendations of the geotechnical reports which will be required for individual 35
sites, as they are developed. 36
37
Risk of JWset-L Human Health. Hazardous materials located on-shore win be 38
rernediated before the Project is developed. Off-shore rernediation will continue
during and after the Project is commenced. No other remediation programs or 40
developments on contaminated sites in the vicinity are planned, which, in 41
18 - 3
I& OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL COMMDERATIONS
combination with the Project construction, would otherwise expose construction I
workers, project employees, commercial customers, or occupants of buildings in the 2
area. 3
4
Biological Resources. The site is somewhat isolated from other waterfowl habitats 5
in the e ® Therefore, impacts to waterfowl which may become established in 6
remediated tidal wetlands on the Project site would not necessarily be felt in the 7
wider area. Such disturbance, however, is not anticipated for the Project, nor for 8
cumulative habitat conditions. 9
10
Culturd Resources. The potential to damage unknown sites and artifacts during 11
construction of the Project,when considered with potential disruption to other known 12
or unknown cultural sites in the vicinity would not result in a cumulative impact. 13
14
s. Cumulative impacts to fire and police protection and schools would 15
not be significant. The Project in combination with other development projects in 16
the City would not necessarily result in increased police calls beyond the number that 17
would be generated by the ° i ' jects. Ile Police Department estimates the 18
demand for additional personnel and equipment for each project as it is developed. 19
20
The Project alone would not create any unanticipated demand for fire protection and 21
emergency medical services, and therefore would not contribute to cumulative 22
demands. 23
24
Maintenance of the proposed Bay Trail would not, in combination with other 25
projects, result in cumulatively greater maintenance requirements for the applicant. 26
27
The Project would not create any direct demand for school facilities, because no 28
housing
® proposed. The Project could create demand fro t®a is enrollment 29
from parents who would or at the Project but live outside of the district. 30
However, similar demands from other past, present or future projects would not 31
create cumulatively greater demand for school facilities. 32
33
Oven &)gapcge
_Aagndq tafign 1mgggla. The Project alone would not create any 34
_2&cgreation
significant, unfulfilled demand for park and recreation facilities. The Project 35
proposes to develop a shoreline path (segment of the Bay Trail) to mitigate for the 36
demand for parks and recreation facilities. 37
38
No projects are proposed to the north or east of the Project site, but development
of the Project will increase the demand for extension of the proposed Bay Trail on 40
these properties. This would represent a positive cumulative impact of the Project; 41
18 - 4
I& 0771ER ENVIRONMENTAL coNMDERATIONS
but
® of the Bay Traff on these adjacent sites would not be a responsibility I
of the Project. 2
3
The discussion of Project impacts to populatio% 4
housing, employment, and jobs/housing balance in Chapter 17 is essentially a 5
cumulative impacts analysis, because it relies upon data from the Association of Bay 6
Area Governments. Since ABAG considers growth and development on a regional 7
level, the analysis encompasses cumulative impacts. Chapter 17 found no Project 8
impacts; therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts.
9
10
12
None required. 13
14
15
18.2 GROWM-INDUCING IMPAM 16
17
The CEQA Guidelines define g r o w t h inducement as a stimulus to economic growth, is
population growth or construction of new housing. Specifically, it refers to "ways in 19
which the proposed project could foster . . . [such] growth, either directly or 20
indirectly,in the surrounding envirom-nent. Included in this are projects which would 21
remove obstacles to population growth . . . 22
23
Since the Project would not include housing, it would not directly generate 24
population. Chapter 17 Population and Housing Impacts determined that the Project 25
would not increase employment sufficient to put any significant demands upon City
services.
27
28
29
182-1 Minor Stinnilus to Growth -V
31
32
33
COM Proposed commercial space and employment on the 34
Project site could have an economic stimulus to the East of 101 Area and the City 35
as a whole. The development of new housing or the pace of development of new 36
housing could accelerate, although it is not possible to foresee where it might occur- 37
inside or outside of the City. -V
4 CEQA Guidelines section 151260).
18 - 5
I& OTHER ENKRONMEWAL CONSIDERATIONS
This growth inducement is not significant. The Project would add a relatively small I
number of employees (677) relative to the number extrapolated (2,712) for the 2
Project site from the East of 101 Area Plan,or the number projected(33,738)for the 3
entire East of 101 Area. Moreover, the East of 101 Area Plan encourages the ldnd 4
of development which is being proposed on the Project site,and the East of 101 Area 5
Plan EIR did not find any significant growth-inducing impact for the East of 101 6
Area Plan. 7
8
'Me East of 101 Area Plan encourages growth in the Area because properties like the 9
Project site are underutilized. Development east of 101 would help to avoid 10
development in outlying areas'. 11
12
Infras 13
jaLcturg Ex nsion. 'Me proposed increase in capacity of utilities serving the
2a-
East of 101 Area are anticipated and are not a result of demand from the proposed 14
Project. The construction of new utility lines to serve the Project would not provide 15
capacity that would necessarily encourage new development in the vicinity of the site 16
(see Chapter 1426). The potential improvements to the sewage treatment plant are 17
consistent with Public Facilities Policy PF-3, which requires upgrades to treatment 18
and distribution facilities and anticipates growth in the East of 101 Area. Therefore, 19
the Project would not induce new growth in the area. 20
21
'Me Project applicant has agreed to pay for the Projeces fair share of improvements 22
to a subsiding sewer line on Harbor Way and to Pump Station No. 4 (see Chapter 23
142-8. e' rove e consistent with planned areawide improvements,and 24
growth projections, so would not constitute growth inducement. 25
26
Mi e r 27
28
None required. Infrastructure and municipal services required to accommodate 29
minor direct and indirect growth of the Project would be paid for through normal 30
fees assessed by the City. However, the Project could be required to participate ® 31
an assessment district to make improvements to a wastewater collection line and 32
pumping station (see Chapter 142.8). 33
5 Brady&Assodates,Draft Ewt of jol Awa Plan EIR Page Uary 1994. 34
552,Jan
18 - 6
18. OTIM ENKRONMENTAL CONS[DERATIONS
183 LINAVOI]DABLE ADVERSE IWACIS
2
Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are those significant impacts that cannot be 3
mitigated to a less-than-significant level. 4
5
CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against 6
its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. 7
ff the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental 8
effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable'. To 9
approve the project without significantly reducing or eliminating an adverse impact, 10
the agency must make a "statement of overriding considerations", supported by 11
information in the record. 12
13
The Project would have the following unavoidable effects on the enviromnent: 14
15
16
183.1 Unavoidable Traffic Congestion for the Year 2010 17
Is Potenti F S 18
19
20
The proposed Project would worsen the level of service at five study intersections for 21
the Project plus cumulative projects. 22
don M 23
MWnfimikMM 24
25
Mitigation measures to improve the intersections would raise the LOS to "D" or 26
better for four of the five intersections. Improvements at the intersection of Oyster 27
PointlGateway/US 101 SB flyover off-ramp would not raise the LOS to"D"or r® 28
Therefore, the impact would be unavoidable.
29
30
31
1832 Unavoidable Regional Air Quality Degradation
33
34
35
The proposed Project would generate vehicular trips and vehicular pollutants which 36
would exceed standards issued by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 37
38
6 CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 (a). 39
18 - 7
18 07HER ENMONMENTAL C N l E N,S
1 ° _Measures 1
2
Transportation Demand a t l mitigation es would not reduce 3
the impact to a less-than-significant v l® Therefore, the impact would unavoidable 4
(see Chapter )° 3
18.4 IRREVERSEBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES 8
9
The Project result in eversi lc or irretrievable loss of non-renewablc to
resources. site is rose l y degraded with lc and hazardous materials °c 11
have no resource value. Moreover,wetlands remediation to be undertaken pursuant 12
to a clean-up order of e State Water Quality Control Board is ec ed to reverse 13
environmental e t use of the site. 14
1
19. ALTERNATIVES TO TBE I
PROPOSED PROJECT 2
3
4
CEQA requires an assessment of alternatives to the proposed Project which would mitigate 3
significant impacts created by the Project. These alternatives are to be "reasonable" and 6
consistent with the Project's basic objectives (discussed in Chapter 33.1). The EIR is only 7
required to set forth the alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. An EIR need 8
not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose 9
implementation is remote and speculative. Three alternatives have been defined, 10
includi
the required "No-Projece alternative: Ing 11
19.1 NoProject Alternative 12
®
19.2 Reduced Development 1
Alternative 3
19.3
® Alternative ("Koll" site) 14
15
16
CEQA requires the identification of the"environmentally superior"alternative. The Reduced 17
Development Alternative is environmentally superior to the other two alternatives, because 18
it would accomplish the atys objectives (as expressed in the East of 101 Area Plan) for 19
reuse of the long- neglected site, without the intensity of use of the proposed Project. 20
21
Each alternative and the impacts is produces,vela °y re use I 'eet are discussed 22
® Table 19-1 provides a summary comparison of the impacts of the proposed Project 23
and the two
® alternatives. 24
25
19.1 NO-PROJEC17 ALTERNATIVE 26
27
28
The No-Project alternative would retain the site in its current condition. No 29
redevelopment of the site would occur. The Applicant would not be able to achieve
any of his objectives, as listed in Chapter 3.3.1. 31
32
Selected impacts of the No-Project alternative as compared to the proposed Project 33
are as follows (parentheses references refer to the chapters in which the topics are U
discussed for the proposed Project): 35
land—JUse and Planning (Project chapter 4) 36
37
38
The No-Project alternative would perpetuate the present under-utilization of the site. 39
Ile City would not be able to achieve its objectives for Mixed Planned 40
CommercialiPlanned Industrial development of the site, as designated in the East of 41
101 Area Plan. 42
19 - 1
1e 70 THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Table
® Comparison of Potential Significant Adverse Impacts of the Project With Impacts of .1
Other On-site,Alternatives 2
® 3
E_RNATWES 4
5
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT
® 19.2 6
HAPACT OF PROJECT No Reduced 7
With Chapter Reference No. Project Project 8
9
10
11
5.2.2 Inconsistency with Design 12
Element policy relating to 13
the location of loading docks < = 14
15
® Decline in LOS below -D" 16
at three intersections 17
for the year 2000 < < 18
19
6.3.5 Decline ® LOS below 'D" X
at five intersections 21
for the year 2010 < 22
23
7.2.2 Construction dust < = 24
25
® Increase in regional 26
air pollution emissions < = 27
28
® Potential instability 29
of fin son < -W
31
9.2.3 Lateral spreading 32
potential < = 33
34
9.2.4 Ilquefaction potential < = 35
36
37
® < = Impact less than proposed Project; (>) Impact greater than proposed Project; 38
Impact equal to proposed Project
19 - 2
19. AL 7ERM4 TIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Table 19-1 Cbmparig(M Of Potentially Significant Adverse h%nft of the Project With Impacts of I
Other On4tc Alteriatim LQn n�
JLu d 2
® 3
ALTERNATIVES 4
5
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT 19.1 19.2 6
1WACr OF PROJECI' No Reduced 7
With Chapter Reference No. Project Project 8
9
10
® Exposure of sensitive receptors, 11
incI uding construction workers 12
to hazardous ® 13
14
11.22 Potential disruption of 15
existing ®S drainage 16
culvert 17
18
11.23 Potential localized flooding 19
W
caused by off-site St orm 21
water < = 22
11.2.4 Potential water quality 23
degradation > 24
25
26
® Potential cumulative flooding 27
and water quality impacts 28
. . e
29
1322 Potential to damag unknown -V
cultural sites and artifacts 31
during Project construction < = 32
33
Key: Impact less than proposed Project; 34
Impact equal to proposed Project. Impact greater than proposed Project; 35
36
19 - 3
19 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Table 19-1 Comparison of Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts of the Project With Impacts of I
Other On-site Alternatives LQgntinuedl 2
® 3
ALT_ERNA=S 4
5
POTENTIALLY SIGNMCANT 19.1 19.2 6
MPACIP OF PROJECI' No Reduced 7
With Cbapter Reference No. Project Project 8
9
10
11
® Water quality impact due to 12
insufficient dry weather waste- 13
water treatment capacity < < 14
15
14.2.7 Water quality impacts due to 16
Project demand for already- 17
committed treatment capacity < < 18
19
14.2.8 Potential failure of aging
wastewater collection facilities < = 21
22
14.2.9 Cumulative impacts to the 23
wastewater treatment system < = 24
25
® . Increased demand for police 26
services < = 27
28
15.4.2 Need for Bay Trail 29
maintenance > 30
31
®1 Cumulative Impacts: 32
traffic (see 6.2.5); 33
water quality (see 11.2.4); 34
wastewater capacity (see 35
14.2.9) M
37
® Unavoidable Impacts: traffic 38
(see 6.2.5,); regional
air quality (see 7.2.3) 40
41
42
Key: (<) = Impact less than proposed Project; Impact greater than proposed Project; 43
= Impact equal to proposed Project. 44
19 - 4
19 ALMX97 TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
3aM9_JQUkg(Project chapter 5) 1
7he
® r 3
roject alternative would retain current views of the site and bay 2
from
perimeter streets like Oyster Point Boulevard and TEghway 101 (limited No 4
landscaping would take place, in contrast to the proposed Project. Views of the Bay 5
would continue to be limited because there would be no opportunity to enter the site 6
and observe the bay along the shoreline, without some form of development and 7
public access. Ile No Project Alternative would be inconsistent with policies of the 8
Design Element which encourage a visually pleasing development as viewed from 9
Hwy. 101. 10
11
(Project chapter 6) 12
The current smooth-flowing traffic on Oyster Po Blvd. would remain if the se is 13
int ®t
14
not developed. 15
Ak17
-Quali1y (Project chapter 7) 16
18
In contrast to the proposed Project, the No-Project alternative would not generate 19
any traffic, nor automobile pollutants. W
Ngise (Project chapter 8) 21
22
23
Since the No Project Alternative would have no development on the site,there would 24
be no increased exposure to vehicular,aircraft or construction noise. Although noise 25
impacts aft No Project alternative would be less than the proposed Project, the 26
distinction between the Project and No Project is not significant because the Project 27
would not create any significant adverse noise impacts. 28
Eafth (Project chapter 9) 29
31
If no project were developed on the site, there would be no exposure of buildings or 32
people to potentially unstable fill soils, liquefaction and lateral spreading due to 33
earthquakes. However, this is not a significant concern because accepted structural 34
design practices should mitigate the danger of the Project to a less-than-significant 35
level.
36
19 - 5
19. AL7 TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Human Health (Project chapter 10)
2
The site is to be remediated of its hazardous materials, whether or not the Project 3
is developed. However, the proposed Project would more completely cover 4
contaminated soils and sediment than the No Project Alternative. For example, 5
paved parking
is would cover hazardous soils. While the Project would draw 6
visitors and employees to the site while the No Project alternative would not, the 7
long term Remedial Action Plan (RAP) approved by the Regional Water Quality 8
Control Board should limit the exposure of visitors to hazardous wastes to a less- 9
than-significant extent. Therefore, the No Project alternative would have a 10
marginally lesser impact to human health than the proposed Project. 11
12
HyArologL and-Water (Pro
gall je c ter 13 ct hap 11)
14
The No Project Alternative would avoid the potential for localized flooding, is
cumulative projects flooding and degradation of water quality in San Francisco Bay, 16
as a result of soil erosion, sedimentation and parking lot runoff containing hazardous 17
materials and petroleum products. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would 18
produce fewer water quality impacts than the proposed Project. 19
20
Biolo'cal Resources (Project chapter 12) 21
22
The biologically degraded site will be cleaned-up under the authority of the Regional 23
Water Quality Control Board. Tidal wetlands will be created and enhanced as 24
required by the Board. Human activity could be disruptive to wildIffe that is 25
expected to become established in the created tidal wetlands,but the Project includes 26
landscaped buffers to minimize that eventuality. Therefore, a mitigated Project 27
would enhance plant and animal life, while the No Project Alternative would not. 28
29
_CulturalResources (Project chapter 13) 30
31
The No Project alternative would not involve excavation which could encounter 32
cultural remains. However, the area has been filled and used for industrial 33
operations for most of the century, so the likelihood of damage to unknown cultural 34
remains is small. Therefore,the No Project is marginally superior to the Project with 35
respect to cultural resources impacts. 36
37
Utilities (Project chapter1 ) 38
39
The No Project Alternative is superior to the Project because it makes no demands 40
upon sewage capacity, which is a significant impact of the proposed Project. 41
19 - 6
19 ALTERIVATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Demands for electrical,gas,communications,solid waste disposal and energy are not J
significant impacts of the Project. 2
kublic_SeMces (Project chapter 15) 3
4
5
The No Project alternative would not make service demands upon police and fire 6
protection. However, these services have the capacity to respond to needs of the 7
roject® Therefore, the No Project Alternative would be marginally superior to the 8
proposed Project with respect to public service impacts. 9
10
9psa-bace and_Recreation (Project chapter 16) 11
12
The proposed Project would provide the opportunity to improve upon a degraded site 13
and develop a segment of the Bay Trail along a re fate shoreline. This 14
opportunity would not be available under the No Project Alternative. 15
16
(Project chapter 17)
17
18
The proposed Project would not use any significant growth impacts associated with 19
additional employment or population in the city, nor significant impacts to the 20
availability of affordable housing. Since there would be no growth whatsoever under 21
the No Project Alternative, it would be marginally superior to the proposed Project. 22
23
(Project chapter 18) 24
25
Unlike the proposed Project, the No Project Alternative would cause no significant 26
cumulative impacts to: 27
28
0 traffic conditions, and 29
wastewater treatment.
31
However, the No Project alternative could cause a greater cumulative water quality
32
impact than the Project, because the Project would have storm water pollution 33
control devices put in place, while the No Project alternative would not necessarily. 34
This could be a concern for control of runoff from the hazardous material 35
remedfated site. 36
37
Neither the proposed Project nor the No Project Alternative would create any 38
growth-inducing impacts.
19 - 7
19 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The No Project Alternative would not cause any unavoidable impacts. The proposed I
Project would cause unavoidable traffic congestion and air quality degradation. 2
3
Neither the No Project Alternative nor the proposed Project would cause any 4
irreversible loss of environmental resources. The Project would,however,re-establish 5
natural resources on. the site, which would not be accomplished by the No Project 6
alternative. 7
8
Conclusion 9
10
Wiffe the No Project alternative would avoid some impacts associated with 11
commercial development,including increases in traffic and air pollution and demand 12
for wastewater treatment capacity, the No Project alternative would also deny the 13
City the opportunity to improve and make use of a degraded site, and gain access to 14
the bay front, consistent with many policies of the East of 101 Area Plan. 15
16
17
19.2 REDUCED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE 18
19
To mitigate for traffic impacts of the proposed Project, a reduced development 20
option is evaluated here. The Project consists of various mixes of uses at maximum 21
floor areas to be built in each of the Planning Areas (see Table 32). The project 22
evaluated in Chapter 6 Transportation and Chmulation included the mix of uses and 23
floor areas which would generate the gtatest number of vehicular trips ("worst 24
e")® This Reduced Development Alternative contains the mix of uses and square 25
foot ages which would generate the least era vehicular trips. The Reduced A
Development Alternative would consist of auto sales and all retail commercial uses; 27
unlike the proposed Project, there would be no hotels in this alternative (see Table 28
192). 29
30
Impacts of the Reduced Development Alternative, as compared to the proposed 31
Project are as follows (parentheses references refer to the chapters in which the 32
topics are discussed for the proposed Project): 33
19 - 8
19 ALTERAAT S TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Table 19.2 Reduced Development Altemalivc proposed Maximum Building Am
2
Planning Acmage Land Use Maximum Floor Am 3
AA,rea Dew1opment Ratio 4
(gross sq. ft,
rooms)
acres Commercial 5
Auto Sales 90,000 gsf 0.10 6
2 19.2 acres Commercial 244,372 gsf 0.29 7
Retail
3 +
® acres Commercial 61,420 gsf 0.30 8
Retail
4 + 8.5 acres Commercial 150,000 gsf 0.40 9
Retail
Subtotal + 52.3 acres Mix of 545,792 gsf 0.24 average 10
Commercial
Uses
Street + 3.1 acres Oyster Point NA NA 11
Expansion Blvd.
12
Widening
Total + 55.4 acres On-shore NA NA 13
Project Area
14
Source:
arch® Associates
15
16
19 - 9
19 ALTERIVATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
1,and Use and PlamiLng (Project chapter 4)
2
Ile Reduced Development Alternative would have essentially the same land use and 3
planning impacts as the proposed Project, because both projects would develop the 4
site fully and have a similar distribution of development sites, open space and 5
® Neither the proposed Project nor the Reduced Project would create 6
any unmitigated significant land use impacts, and the Reduced Development 7
Alternative would not create any new significant land use impacts, 8
9
Visual Selfin (Project chapter 5) 10
11
The Reduced Development all-commercial Alternative would be less visible from the 12
freeway than the hotel-oriented proposed Project. The Reduced Development 13
Alternative would have the same potential significant impact due to the potential 14
location of loading docks at the rear of buildings facing the slot. 15
16
T'he Reduced Development Alternative would also have the same less-than-significant 17
visual impacts as the eet® Chapter 53.1 found that the mix of commercial retail Is
buildings and °® t hotels would not cause a significant view obstruction or 19
negative aesthetic impact. 20
21
(Project chapter 6) 22
23
Ile Reduced Project alternative would generate less traffic than the proposed 24
Project.'Me proposed Project hotel-oriented alternative analyzed in Chapter 6 would 25
generate an estimated 1705 vehicular trips in the PM peak hour, while the all- 26
commercial Reduced Development alternative would generate an estimated 1391 27
trips during the PM peak hour, or about 20% fewer trips. 28
29
The impacts of the Reduced Development Alternative on levels of service at study 30
intersections would be proportionally lower than the proposed Project. Year 2000 31
approved projects + Project trips would likely require the same kinds of intersection 32
improvements at three intersections as the proposed Project. Year 2010 approved, 33
planned and potential projects + Project trips would likely require the same kinds 34
of intersection improvements at five intersections as the proposed Project. 35
36
Cumulative and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project alternative discussed 37
in Chapter 6 would also apply to the all-commercial alternative, as would proposed M
mitigation measures. 39
19 - 10
19 ALTMWATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Ak-Q"ah (Project chapter 7)
2
The Reduced Development Alternative would have the same kind of exposure to 3
construction dust as the proposed Project. 4
5
Although the Reduced Development Alternative would generate less automobile 6
pollutants, it would still exceed the threshold for regional air pollutants as the 7
proposed Project. 8
kickse (Project chapter 8) 9
10
11
The Reduced Development Alternative would be exposed to the same noise sources 12
as the Project, and would create essentially the same levels of construction noise. 13
Neither the Project nor the alternative would create significant adverse noise impacts. 14
Earth15
(Project chapter 9)
16
17
The Reduced Development Alternative would subject its to the same underlying 18
soils and geotechnical conditions as the proposed Project. However, this is not a 19
significant concern because accepted structural design practices should mitigate the 20
danger to a less-than-significant level. 21
Hump Heg.Ith
22
(Project chapter 10)
23
24
The proposed Project and the Reduced Development Alternative would both have 25
the potential to encounter hazardous materials during construction. Both would also 26
be subject to the requirements to protect construction workers and other sensitive 27
receptors from exposure to contaminated wastes. The to to Remedial Action 28
Plan (RAP) approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board should limit 29
exposure of humans to potentially hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level. 30
31
lbLdo roject chapter 11)
32
33
The Project and the Reduced Development Alternative would have the same 34
potential to disrupt drainage, cause localized and cumulative flooding, and degrade 35
water quality. They would also have the same potential mitigation measures to 36
reduce the significance of the impacts. 37
19 - 11
19 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Biolo ®-Resources (Project chapter 12)
2
The biologically degraded site will be cleaned up under the authority of the Regional 3
Water Quality Control Board. Tidal wetlands will be created and enhanced as 4
required by the Board. Human activity could be more disruptive to wildlife which 5
is expected to become established in the new tidal wetlands, but the Project and the 6
Reduced Development Alternative would be required to comply with Policy CON-7 7
and the Specific Plan to protect the wetland. Therefore, the proposed Project and 8
the Reduced Development Alternative would have the same less-than-significant 9
biological impact. 10
11
Cultural_Resources (Project chapter 13) 12
13
Excavation for the Reduced Development Alternative or the Project would have the 14
same potential to unearth cultural remains. However, the area has been filled and 15
used for industrial operations for most of the century, so the el® of additional 16
damage to unknown cultural remains is small. Therefore,the Reduced Development 17
Alternative and the Project would have the same less-than-significant impact to 18
cultural resources, 19
20
Utilities (Project chapter 14) 21
22
The Reduced Development Alternative would use only about 22% of the water 23
required for the Project, because the Project contains hotel rooms which use much 24
more water than commercial sales. Similarly,the Reduced Development Alternative 0
would generate about 31 mil® of the wastewater that would be generated by the Project. 26
Both projects would have the following significant impacts:water quality degradation, 27
failure of aging wastewater collection facilities, and cumulative impacts to the 28
wastewater treatment system. They would also have essentially the same mitigations. 29
Demands for water supply, communications, gas and electrical service, solid waste 31
disposal and energy are not significant impacts of the Project or the Reduced 32
Development Alternative. 33
34
35
Public Services (Project chapter 15) 36
37
The Reduced Development Alternative would make very similar demands upon 38
police and fire protection and schools as the proposed Project. Demand for
additional police and equipment would be the same for both the Project and the 40
alternative. 41
19 - 12
19 a TIVES 70 THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Q22a_59jgLa__nd R
Lcreati
Qn (Project chapter 1.6)
2
The proposed Project and the Reduced Development Alternative would each provide 3
the opportunity to improve upon a degraded site and to develop a segment of the 4
Bay Trail along a remediated shoreline. 1herefore, they would have the same 5
beneficial impact to open space and recreation. 6
7
(Project chapter 17) 8
9
Ile proposed Project would not cause any significant growth impacts associated with 10
additional employment or population in the City, nor significant impacts on the 11
availability of affordable housing. 12
13
(Project chapter 18) 14
15
0 7le Reduced Development Alternative would he essentially the same 16
cumulative impacts to transportation,water quality and wastewater treatment 17
capacity as the proposed Project. 18
19
0 Neither the proposed Project nor the Reduced Project would create any
growth-inducing impacts. 21
22
0 Like the proposed Project, the Reduced Development Alternative would 23
cause unavoidable traffic congestion at one intersection in the year 2010, and 24
regional air quality degradation. 25
26
0 Neither the Reduced Project Alternative nor the proposed Project would 27
cause my irreversible loss of environmental resources. 28
29
-Conclusion 30
31
® could consider the Reduced Project Alternative when they take 32
action on the
®In aggregate terms,the alternative has impacts ®e are equal 33
to, or less significant than the proposed Project(see Tabk 19-1). Also, the Reduced 34
Project Alternative satisfies the applicant's basic objectives, as listed in Chapter 3.3.1. 35
However, the alternative would not improve upon the overall Project in a substantial 36
way, for any of the categories of significant impact discussed in this EIR. 37
19 - 13
19 ALTERMMM TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
® OFF-SrM ALTERNATWE
2
This section discusses an alternative to develop the project on another site in the 3
City. According to CEQA, "the first step in the analysis is whether any of the 4
significantee s of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting 5
the project in another location."' "Among the factors that may be taken into account 6
when addressing the feasibility of off-site alternatives are site suitability, economic 7
viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or a
regulatory limitations,jurisdictional boundaries . . . and whether the proponent can 9
reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site? 10
11
Ile Off-Site Alternative analyzed in this EIR is located on the Koll Center/Sierra 12
Point business park vacant site , immediately north of the Project site, in the City of 13
South San Francisco. like the Project site, it is designated for Mixed Planned 14
Commercial/Planned Industrial development in the East of 101 Area Plan. The site is
area for the Off-site Alternative ("Koll") is roughly 42 acres, in contrast to about 52 16
acres for the Project. 17
18
Impacts of the Off-site Alternative, as compared to the proposed Project are as 19
follows(parentheses references refer to the chapters in which the topics are discussed 20
for the proposed Project): 21
22
Land Use and P1 anniU_1MpagLs (Project chapter 4) 23
24
The Koll site would be able to accommodate about 80% of the development 25
proposed for the larger Project site. Proposed development in Planning Areas 1, 2 26
and 3 would be roughly the size of the Koll Center site. 27
28
like the proposed Project, auto sales at the Koll alternative would be inconsistent 29
with Policy LU-21 of the East of 101 Area Plan.
31
The Off-site Alternative would not provide the opportunity to convert the site from 32
a stagnant,former industrial property to commercial use,as would be possible for the 33
proposed Project. The applicant has incurred significant costs in cleaning up the 34
project of hazardous materials. 35
1 CEQA Guidelines,Section 15126(d)(5)(A), ® Amendments July 8,1994. 36
2 CEQA Guidelines,Section 15126(d)(5)(A),Amendments adopted July 8,1994. 37
19 - 14
1 ® ALTFJ?NA77M TO 7HE PROPOSE0 PROJECT
The retail component of the Koll project would be somewhat isolated from the I
remainder of the East of 101 Area and the businesses it could serve, in contrast to 2
the more accessible Project site. 3
4
In summary, the Kell alternative and would not improve upon the proposed Project, 5
® respect to land use. 6
Y—ual Condons (Project chapter 5) 7
is iti
8
9
The proposed Project and the Koff alternative could be inconsistent with Design 10
Element policies of the East of 101 Area Plan,with respect to signs and loading dock 11
locations. The alternative would include high-rise hotel(s) or office building(s). 12
These buildings would be compatible with the two existing high rise office buildings 13
in the business park. 14
15
(Project chapter 6) 16
17
The Koll alternative would require a new traffic connection to southbound Hwy 101. 18
Policy CIR-5 of the East of 101 Area Plan outlines access alternatives for 19
implementation by the developer of the Koll site, including two which involve a W
roadway between the Koll site and Oyster Point Boulevard through the Shearwater 21
site, and a third which involves a flyover over Hwy 101. Thus, the Doll alternative 22
of require significant access improvements, whose feasibility has not been 23
assessed and which would not necessarily improve upon the proposed Project and its 24
access improvements. Moreover, funding for access improvements has not been 25
identified.
26
Ak-Q9AIiMImp=(Project chapter 7) 27
28
29
In contrast to the proposed Project, the smaller Off-site Alternative would generate
lower levels of automobile pollutants. Also, the Koll Center alternative would not 31
have the PToject's potential to release airborne hazardous materials into the 32
atmosphere during grading, excavation and construction of foundations and utilities. 33
—N—oise Impacts (Project chapter 8) 34
35
36
Neither the Project nor the Koll alternative would be subject to any significant n ise 37
or
impact from airport operations and would have similar,less-than-significant exposure 38
to highway noise. Construction noise impacts and mitigation would be comparable. 39
19 - 15
19. AL TERNA TIVES TO 77IE PROPOSED PROJECT
Earth Impacts (Project chapter 9)
2
Sierra Point was once a sanitary landfill'. It has been engineered to allow for 3
development of such buildings as the high-rise office towers in Koll Center. Use of 4
the vacant Koll site should not present any significant obstacles to development of 5
the kinds of buildings in the proposed Project, as long as accepted structural design 6
practices are followed. 7
a
As with the proposed Project,mitigation measures would be required to mitigate for 9
potential instability of fill soil, lateral spreading and liquefaction. Based upon a 10
required geotechnical report,accepted structural design practices would be required, 11
which should mitigate the danger to less-than-significant level. 12
13
Human_Health Risk (Project chapter 10) 14
15
The Koll site is not known to contain hazardous materials, (except methane from the 16
previous landfill) so it would not subject construction workers to potentially 17
significant impacts of exposure to such materials during grading, excavation and is
foundation construction. Therefore,the risk to human health is less for the Koll site 19
than the Shearwater site. This is not a major distinction between the Koff and 20
Project sites,however,because the long-term Remedial Action Plan approved by the 21
Regional Water Quality Control Board should limit exposure of humans to hazardous 22
wastes to a less-than-significant level. 23
24
Hydroloa and Water -Qualitx Impacts (Project chapter 11) 25
26
If the Koll Center alternative were developed in a similar manner to the proposed 27
Project, up to 85% of the site area would have impervious surfaces - principally 28
parldng
® Both projects would have a similar potential to degrade water quality 29
as a result of soil erosion, sedimentation, and runoff from parldng lots containing M
petroleum products. The Koll alternative would not have runoff containing 31
hazardous wastes. 32
33
It would appear that the Koll site would be as susceptible to localized flooding as the 34
Project site, and buildings would have to be flood-pr d. Therefore, the Koll 35
Alternative would have similar impacts and mitigation measures. 36
3 Planning Department aty of Brisbane,Personal communicationk J*2, 7° 37
19 - 16
19 ALTERIVAT TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
EdQW_CdIM2= (Project chapter 12)
2
The biologically degraded site will be cleaned-up under the authority of the Regional 3
Water Quality Control Board. Tidal wetlands will be created and enhanced as 4
required by the Board. Human activity could be disruptive to wildlife that is 5
expected to become established in the created tidal wetlands,but the Koll alternative 6
could have no such resources at all. Therefore,the comparison of biological resource 7
impacts between the Project and the Koll Center Alternative is not relevant. 8
CW!mral Resources (Project chapter 13) 9
10
11
Excavation for the Koll alternative would have the same potential to unearth cultural 12
remains. However, both sites have been filled, so the likelihood of construction 13
damage to unknown cultural remains is small. Therefore, the Koll alternative and 14
the Project would have the same less-than-significant impact to cultural resources. 15
16
Utilities Impacts (Project chapter 14)
17
18
The smaller Koll Center Alternative could havea lesser demand for sewage capacity 19
than the proposed Project.As with the proposed Project, it is assumed that the Doll 20
alternative would also impact the aging wastewater collection system, and create a 21
demand for use of the wastewater plant capacity which is already committed. 22
23
Demands for water supply, communication% gas and electrical service, S olid waste 24
disposal and energy are not significant impacts of the Project or the Koll alternative. 25
Eublic_Services (Project chapter 15) 26
27
28
The Koll Center Alternative, as a smaller project than the proposed Project, would 29
make a lesser demand upon police and fire protection and schools than the proposed 30
Project. However, the access to and from the Koll Center is poor, so emergency 31
vehicles would have higher response times to emergency calls than the proposed 32
Project site® Therefore the Koll alternative would result in a potentially greater 33
impact to emergency services than the proposed Project. 34
35
Nfitigation for poor emergency access to the Koll site would require construction of 36
an emergency access road through the Project site, or construction of a permanent 37
19 - 17
19 ALTERNATIVES TO 771E PROPOSED PROJECT
flyover from the Koll Center to Hwy 101 southbound, as a mitigation measure for I
implementation of the East of 101 Area Plan . 2
3
(Project chapter 16)
The proposed Project would develop a segment of the Bay Trail along a r ated 6
shoreline, pursuant to the East of 101 Plan and poles of BCDC. A similar 7
requirement would
® e apply to the Kell Center Alternative.Therefore,they would a
have the same beneficial impact. 9
10
Population and Houing-IMpacts (Project chapter 17) 11
12
The proposed Project would not cause any significant growth impacts associated with 13
additional employment or population in the City of South San Francisco, nor 14
significant impacts on the availability of affordable housing. The smaller Koll Center 15
Alternative would have a lesser effect on population and housing,but again,to a less- 16
than-significant level. 17
18
Other Environmental Conditions (Project chapter 18) 19
-V
The Off-site Alternative would have similar cumulative impacts than the proposed 21
Project with respect to: 22
23
0 traffic congestion and 24
0 wastewater treatment. 25
26
The Koll Alternative would have different cumulative traffic and intersection impacts 27
as the proposed project, due to different trip generation, trip distribution and access 28
constraints. The East of 101 Area Plan Policy CIR-5 requires that vehicular access 29
to the Koll Site be a condition for any development of the site (see Chapter 6.4.1). 30
The feasibility of the flyover as a mitigation measure for cumulative development in 31
the area has not been assessed in detail in this or any other study. 32
33
Unavoidable Ady c rs lin acts 34
t --p
35
The Koll Alternative would likely have the same or similar cumulative traffic impacts 36
as the proposed Project, although no detailed study of changes in LOS at affected 37
intersections has been completed as part of this EIR. With respect to air quality,the 38
4 Brady&Associates,East of 101 Area Plan EML2ge 201 JanuaM 1994.
19 - 18
19 ALTERIVATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Koll project would be smaller than the proposed project, so the amount of vehicular I
pollutants dispersed into the atmosphere should be commensurately less. However, 2
the Project significantly exceeds standards for regional pollutants, so the Koll 3
Alternative could also exceed the standards. 4
5
�Q nclusion 6
7
7he Off-site Alternative at all Center is rejected as a necessary or reasonable 8
alternative to the proposed Project. Implementation of the Off-site Alternative 9
would not demonstrably avoid significant environmental impacts of the proposed 10
Project. Rather,the site Alternative would have impacts generally similar to the 11
proposed Project. Particular impacts of the alternative are cited below. 12
13
The Koll Alternative does not avoid either of the two unavoidable ® 14
of the proposed Project: traffic LOS worse than "D", and regional air quality 15
degradation. 16
17
The Koll Alternative would trigger the need for new over access to ]a
southbound Hwy 101 as a mitigation measure for this alternative. No such 19
flyover would be required of the proposed Project. 20
21
Decision-makers may consider other aspects of the Koll Alternative which may 22
demonstrate its infeasibility: 23
24
The applicant has incurred significant costs in working with federal,state and 25
local governments to prepare a hazardous materials clean-up program for the 26
proposed Project site, which has been approved by the Regional Water 27
Quality Control Board, and is being implemented. 28
29
The availability of the all site to the Project applicant, the economic 30
viability ofd elopme t at the Koll site, the feasibility of improved vehicular 31
access and the availability of utilities infrastructure are unknown factors in 32
development of the site for the proposed project. 33
19 - 19
9 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
19 -
20. CONTREBUTORS AND SOURCES 1
2
3
20.1 OR CONTMUMRS 4
5
Chy of South San Fraocisco and Redevelopment Agency amd Agency) 6
7
Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner 8
Planning Department 9
400 Grand Ave. 10
South San Francisco, CA 94080 11
12
13
M Consultant 14
15
Morehouse Associates 16
Urban Planning and Design Consultants 17
P.
® Box 188 18
Corte Madera, CA 94976 19
20
Principal Author: Richard Morehouse, AICP 21
22
23
Tcchnic2l Sub-Conwhant, C[kVtcr 6 24
25
George Nickelson, Principal 26
Omni-Means
® 27
Walnut Creek
28
29
30
TOchnical Sub-Consultant Chapter 7 31
32
Don Ballanti, Certified Consulting Meteorologist 33
El Cerrito 34
20 - 1
20. CONTRIBUYORS AND SOURCES
Technical Sub-Consultant, Chapter 9
1
2
Gillian Holmes 3
Dames & Moore 4
San Francisco 5
Technical Sub-Consultant, Chapter 10 8
Ray Rice 1
Dames & Moore 11
San Francisco 2
13
14
Technical Sub-Consultant, Chapter 11 15
Technical Sub-Consultant, Chapter 14 16
17
Andrew Ixahy 18
1
San Francisco 2
21
2
Technical Sub-Consultant Chapter 12 23
George o r 25
Resource t International 26
San Rafael 27
8
20.2 PROJECIP APPLICANT 30
31
Bill Poland, 32
Bay West Group 33
Townsend St. 34
San Francisco, 35
3
37
20. CONTRIBUTORS AND SOURCES
203 PERSONS AND ORGANIZA-HONS CONTACUED
2
Dale Bowyer, Regional Water Quality Control Board. 3
Mike Britten, Carollo Engineers. 4
5
6
® Castagnola, Water Quality Control Plant Superintendent, City of South San 7
Francisco. 8
9
Darin Duncan, California Water Service Company. 10
11
Marvin Ellis,Airport Noise Abatement Officer, San Francisco International Airport. 12
13
Blesilda h. Gebreyesus, Senior Transportation Planner, California Department Of 14
Transportation. 15
16
Richard Harmon, City of South San Francisco Engineering Department. 17
18
Hendrick Han, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Belmont office. 19
20
Rick Jarvis with Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver and Wilson. 21
Joe La Clair, Bay D esi gn Analyst, Bay Conservation and Development Commissi 22
on. 23
24
Fred Lagomarsino, Fire Marshall, City of South San Francisco. 25
26
Johnson Lam, Area Engineer for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants, San 27
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 28
29
Stephanie Uccelli Menner, South San Francisco Scavenger Co. 30
31
Barry Nagel, Director, South San Francisco Park% Recreation and Community 32
Services Department. 33
34
Ron Petrocchi, Sergeant, South San Francisco Police Department. 35
36
Jeff Reckers, Design Engineer, Pacific Bell Telephone Company. 37
Janice B. Smith, Assistant Superintendent, South San Francisco Unified School 38
39
District.
40
41
20 - 3
20. CONTRIBUTORS AND SOURCES
Jim Stillwell, General Manager, San Mateo County Harbor District.
2
Dan Stone, Association of Bay Area Governments Data ter® 3
4
Doug Stroh, Regional Water Quality Control Board. 5
6
7
20.4 BIBIJOGRAPHY AND DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY 8
REIFERENCE 9
10
Acumen, Health & Safely Plan, Shearwater Deve lo 3ment Proect South San n
Francisco, CA, Project No: TR 9603, November, 1996. 12
13
Albany, City of, Draft 14
PrWect March 1 , . 15
4 1996
16
Bailey, E.H., GeologLof Northern California California Division of Mines and 17
Geology, Bulletin 190, 1966. 18
19
Bonilla, M.G.,Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South Quadrngle and 20
Part of the Hunters Point Quadrangle, California, U. S. Geological Survey, 1971. 21
22
Bolt, Beranek and Newman, is from Construction Eguipment....adn...0perations, 23
Envriorunental Protection Agency, 24
Dec.31, 1971. 25
26
Brady&Associates, Revised Draft (January, 1994 and) Final Environmental Imnact 27
Renom East of 101 June, 1994. 28
29
Brady & Associates, as of 101 Area Plan ly, 3
Ju 1994. 0
31
California Air Resources Board, ter r eri e 32
Guide arki yz Generation, 1987. 33
July 1995.Institute of Transportation Engineers, P
34
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region 35
(RWQCB),Final Order to le a ire e is r 36
Cgrporation,Bay West Cove July LLC 17, . 37 1996
20 - 4
20. CONTRIBUTORS AND SOURCES
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, I
s Materials Cleanu Site and 2
cam-09 3ment.Pursu t ection 401 o W iLt r Act an 3
s Section 3830 et. se . 4
. Se 27,
pt
1996. 5
6
California Department of Transportation, gumild-e-Ii-n-e—s -f-car the Use of Standards 7
Devel uen An is October, 8
1974. 9
10
® Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Qwallitt-Qn—trp-1—Plan, 1986.
12
13
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Order No. 96-102, Aftlion of 14
Site est Cover LLC for the 15
and Resolution No.96-128,Recommendation for 16
r tip r es 17
18
Callander Associates, i t acre to 19
Master Plan July 11, 1990. 20
Chad, Scott, Director of Public Works, City of San Bruno, I&lg_lg 21
_aMzy Kalkin. 22
SenioLBARMLLWL2LaQRIh-&a-E=dK% dated 10/1/96. 23
24
City of South San Francisco, Hqm9a&fjEm= December, 1992. 25
26
City of South San Francisco City Council, r e r 27
Amendmen I endin e n �he 101 Area�-Plan Re ar�din 28
R�
of
iolop
I sources
=i1v��B a Re
t
ci i��
cc Ar c
v 10 m t Poll
S
De �e �entffi a &cas�andAd�ae �S n�sit 29
June 26, 1996. 30
CH2M HIIJ,
31
Se
agulh-&-n-F-rancisco November 32
, 1994. 33
34
Department of the Army, San Francisco District, Corps of Engineers, Efle number 35
Au�lhafio%�nder �CFR 3300�Aen�dA De a�rtment of the 36
P 0 t u r ix
t%i z u T03dc W s cave r.
19
Na de e 38 ea of Ha�ad sand a to NovemVber, 1996. 37
38
Compas, Lynn, Researcher 11, Northwest Information Center, Historical Resources 39
Information System, Sonoma State University, Letter to Jeff Drier Wetlands 4o
20 - 5
20. CONTRIBUTORS AND SOURCES
Research Associ in Reauest to Utilize Nationwide Permit 38. U.S. ALnny I
of,,Enghie.e,r,s San Francisco District, ADDendix D, August, 1996. 2
3
Dames&Moore, r 4
Future Develonment. South San Francisco for the Bethlehem Steel CoMpany, Job. 5
No. 00120-041, 1960, 6
7
Dames & Moore, Foundation Investigation - Proposed Warehouse Buildin&,Cabot 8
Cabot & Forbes Industrial ParL South San Francisco for SjmgfidM-Ra= 9
Comp= Job No. 05909-001, 1967. 10
11
Dames & Moore, "East of 101 Area Plan, South San Francisco, for Brady & 12
Associates, 1994. 13
14
Duncan, Darin, Memo to Gene Qravelle to February 20, 1997. 15
16
Federal Aviation Administration ERE MzyullatfiiognLZParqtjZz_�° es e 1 17
Airsoace. n.d. 18
19
Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate MaD for City of 20
South San FranciM Community Panel Number 065062 0002 B, Effective Date: 21
September 2, 1981. 22
23
Harmon, Richard, Letter sianed by Dennis QLuck for Arthur Wong. City Ensdneer 24
City of South San Francisco, dated 12/5/96. 25
26
Helley, E. J. and KR. Lajoie, 27
California- Their 28
Comprehensive Plang"n U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 943, 1979. 29
30
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation. 5th edition. 1991. 31
32
San Francisco International Airport, 33
34
Santa Clara Valley Water District, can Annug Precigitation Ma San Francisco 35
& Monterev Bav ReRion. 1988. 36
37
Nichols, F.H., J.E. Cloern, S.N. Luoma and D.H. Peterson, Ile Modifir&hon of an 38
Estuary. Science 31:567-573, 1986. 39
20 - 6
20. CONTRIBUTORS AND SOURCES
®s T.H., et. al., Bela ve S
�andt�d la�nn San
in e�
Is P m
U�
logi
cl
E fo� U e ssi e San I
Francii o �BaRIe�' n Call mi S. Geo Cal y Profe onal Paper 944, 2
gn
®
3
Reimer Associates, 4
es ve February 4, 1997. 5
6
Reimer Associates, February 4, 1997. 7
Treadwell and Assodates, 8
5k4M=LP=wRM= 9
and U 'liti Sh a er D 10
Treadwell & Rollo, 1990b, eot�e In 12
hul
&LeAnyAter] t sco e 13
"lonm u�outhan Fran
- 1 ::i��'
10 n t
k_,cnn 14
Project 105A-600. r ter
15
Treadwell & Rollo, 1996a %aft,Re edial A on P_an hea :er Deve lo men, 16
cti S
PrpLec scO forr! , Proj 18 .01 r ' 199--p t 17
t South San Franci a ect 28' Feb :a 28 6. 18
19
Treadwell & Rollo, 1996b, Environmental Restoration and Develonment of th 20
5h—e—ar—water Site
., South San Francisco, CA, 5 p. 21
Wagstaff&Associates,DMft(January 1996 and) n Su lemt— a"Pn-,;— 22
, t
''1 3 ,� '' I,1,1, 'err
F I! 23
ARA
24
October, 1996.
25
26
Wallace, LE., The-5—an-Amn-d-r-e-a—s—Fault S
Mtenh Professional Paper 1515, 1990. 27
Wetlands Research Associates,Inc., once tual Wet-ininfie Aizg 28
Cove, LLC Property, Page 3, Bay West 29
30
31
Working Group on Calffornia Earthquake Probabilities, 32
33
--Sl—i -=k23AL Re 'on
dk�s L 1;�i I n F Zwh9&a-DL"ER
1053. 1990. ___p, California U.S. Geol. Surv. Circular 34
35
36
Youd,
° S.N. Hoose, Hitonc Ground Failu es in Northern 37
log_
lhg gas d-by�� e U.S. Geo 1cal Survey Profressional Paper 99 38
39
Map of lEstoric Marshlands Margins, San Francisco, U.S. Geological 40
Survey.
41
20 - 7
20® CONTRIBUTORS AND SOURCES
21. APPENDICES
r
z
21.1 NO710E OF PREPARAIION 3
S
6
Notice re of an EIR re e to 7
State Clearinghouse noticed public reviewing agencies. The comments received s
from five public agencies are reproduced o pages. 9
I
I
I
i
I
I
C9-Z� EZ;:1 ELE:-,
F.2/16
of Califorrinia
4.
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AN[) RESEARCH
14D)TFNTI1 STREET We-Pe
PETE WILSON SACRAMENTO 95814
CCVEANOR
DATE : September 27, 1996
TO: Reviewing Agencies
® SAY COVE DEVELORMB&I'T PROJECT (FORMERLY SH$ARWATER
PROJECTT''
SCH# 46092081
Attached for your comment is the Notice of Preparation for
the SAY COVZ DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (FORMERLY SEZAIRWATEER, PROJECT)
draft Environmental impact Report (EIR) .
Responsible agencies must transmit their concerns and
comments on the scope and content of the NOP, focusing on specific
information related to their own statutory responsibility, within
30 days Of receipt of this notice . We encourage commenting
agencies to respond to this notice and express their concerns
early in the environmental review process.
Please direct your comments to
SUSY KALKIN
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
4
0o GRAND AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083
with a copy to the office of Planning and Research. Please refer
to the S number noted above in all correspondence concerning
this project .
If you have any questions about the review process, call
Kristen Derscheid at (916) 445-0613 .
Since I V"
ANTERO A. RIVASPLATTA
Chief, State Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Lead Agency
OPT lie
sill X 2
sit,
ASS
SY "M x1,it 501 moo! 50
to nit- fail IS: 1112 taxi; wall 801
y 11 rA X I
My 2141 Ants me
MY
ME ' ISIS
-A
its Oil! 11111 lift loll ' "1 1
[JI Li
El El L7 El LE-] El El
it A
-0 P I
!I Rj Ila SE cm
- 0 6 j X
tit NX ti A-
CA fig
A
Vol
141-0
Ing
H MIS
oil lain E AW
AS
Hilt OR A'Sh y®
I
Li
S A J is
Cha H UK n
c row
!lily m , j'', m
61 '"M I ;
DOB Q
WAS
is
MAX 4002. 33M a i A 2
W.. lie! ME Em
IS El Li 1:1 El D D Ej
mix Jig -311 lZig
GR W
te,
U Thas jWqj jWj 111i OUR V try
®w � Lt
"AIA
Hat
Eg m I E U I
pp W El ro LEI 1:1 LEJ
II
WX
ME Awl
at
W;
laze V.ij,l
116
terms vqU_
UPM
1 Z d;2
ti a
Lj
pv 9-F 4E
r -E 1, X
1. zE
21
2
ts I
x a ID El Ej 1Z 03 E]
EEPI.ELE 1' cc•
7 CAU w! TMA"S"TATOOM AND
aox Z
CAMAINQ CA 3
f57
TM Is}
Cktober a
i
v y i
i
City of South saalprancisco
Planning Department
400 Grand Avenue
South San , cA 94M
Re: Notice 01 PrePa="on Of A Drait'EnvirUnmental Impact Report for the BW
Cove
Dear Ms. Kalkin�
I
i
including t t r .
5)
above
referenced
traffir is e
US-101 and its intezrchangL-s with Grand Avp assess impaeft on
e, st o ,t '
bald, and Old
Ba
4110 COnnectiOn ME= Point). The analym should indude trip generation,
® _ facilities. r
in compiling the information should be explained, Trip distri-bution Wormation
Should be ba-sed Ona t0all-StiC estimate of where the patrcm and employew of the
1 AutO/retail/exttertainmvit orionate. t
each of the Following conditions with appropriate turning movement
tralfic
j
i cmuladve traffic
j
e
I
U=1 Y-DtS 09:2S
Kalkiv/SM101211-A
Lk�r ,1
F�tge 2
Calculation of cumulative traffic volt=es should cortsider all traffic-
generadnS developments, both approved a-nd pendin& that would affect dw
facilitfes evaluatW, and should not be limited to projects under the juxi&Uction of
the lead agency. Maps depicting dm5e developments shoWd be included.
The awlysis must include adequate midgabon for impads to -State highway
facilities. Special attention should be given to the development of alternative
solutiom to circulation problems which do not rely on i=eased 10&way
construction
®t on non4dghway JmFrove.ments such as.
* Provision of informaflan on transit to a-11 patrons and
employees of the commercial cerder
a Coordiriation with the S= Mateo County Transit
Distric± (SamTrans) to provide bus shelters with seating at
azy futu= bus pullouits
-a Inclusion of inte%nal r=-motorized facffities in the
design of the project and, as feasible,incorporation of such
facilities mto local and reporial bicycle and pedestrm
systems
implementatim of transit sexVices with Particular
emphasis on express service to regional rail staticris such as 'BART and!
CalTrain
AdditionaRy, all mitigation pyoposed sbould be fufly discumd, in the
environmental document. This discussion should include but not be lintited to
following areas-
* CW .0 Lead a9mr-Y monitomg
* Fixtancing - Implemrntation responsibiftes
2- finy work or traffic ccmtrol done widdn-%de nght-O-WaY wiR require an
encroadment permit. During the permit pbam, d&MAs c0=ernk'k8 roadway dftW
wM be
® To apply for a C&IL-Ans pemft, subzdt a compleftd appECA6011.
,envimmmer,tal documwtabon, five sets Of PLUW, And Am Whal Processing fee Of
SUO to the followirtg address:
G.J, Batt&SW. District Oft ice Chief
CAltrims, Distrki 4 II
Maintenance Services amd Pezzits
ICI
P.O.&m 23W
Oakland,CA k623-0660
°;m �Q��, �'��_ ': 2? EEP Ei EY!5513 C TF V-i FLAj-. It K 04 e�•a
Page 3
We look forwaxd to reviewing the
j t® ' t .t�
copy
Iron-, tat t k 16 Q
copies in
advance two
t
Office
IGR/CEQA
Caltram,
Oakl=d, CA 946Z3,-MW
Should you have questions op tlu*e c==gng, pkjse contact MeAnda
Pagaduanof my staff at
JOE BROWNE
Mulct Dhvctar
r
, Antero A. Rivaspbta,
l �
m ,
x
Y i
TOWN10FCOLINIA 0 1198 l Camino l Colma,California 94014
415-997- 4155-997-8308
0
September 27, 1
Ms. Susy skin, Senior Planner
Planning t
Grand
South an Francisco, CA, 94083
RE; Bay Cove Development DElR
Dear Ms. Kalkin,
.
Thank you for noticing i Colma regarding preparation i
Impact Report for the above project. We request t l include i
the ml ti ve traffic effects impacting i r Cities Boulevard/Hillside
Boulevard]Serramonte Boulevard °
We are iir interested in the t
Boulevard intersection i th Highw 280 and the mitigation ! achi�ved
by implementing the Hi Ivr d extension from Mission ill
Boulevard. r8 we request that the EIR also include an analysis of the aftects
at the intersections of Serramont e Boulevard at Hillside l Camino
Real.
• k
E
Ji c ere ly,
a co 4
t r� AICP
i Planner
r p
cc. Frances Liston, { G
t i Manager
fg V
f
I
g®
8
9
(
b
e!t
6
N1.1V 0,:-Z '9E C
P.9/16
,i, a NECEIVED
OCT 151996
October 11, 1.996 PLANNING
rwanwnt Of Pek Wdmn
=5. Wmwa Cx"WW?
1
.10fts M. sowd
Z V.SE&Z Avemm Ms. Susy Kalkin Secretoy
2 nicer o?,
U!"e 00 Seor Planner F-Viroxam?"
BV"Ley. CA City of out San Francisco Prmcfim:
n-1710-2737 Planning Department
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, California 94083
Dear Ms. Kalkin:
BAY COVE DEVELOPMENT PROJ33CT, NORTH SIDE OF OYSTxR ponn
BOULZVARDe SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - NOTICZ OF PREPARkTION Op A
DRAFT MMIRONMMAL IMPACT RzpORT
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input into
the preparation off the draft Environmental Impact Report for
this project.
It was difficult to determine, based on the project
location description, if this project is located .on a Site
which DTSC was previously involved in. If this is the
former location of Bethlehem Steel Company, United States
Steel Corporation (a.k.a USX Corporation) , or Edwards Wire
and Rope Company, heavy metal impacted soil, demolition
debris and acidic soil-a may be present on the property. Our
files indicate that a deed -striction was to be placed on
the property with which we were involved.
1her%--f0le, it *ould be aPP-CUPruts Lo addre heLher
hazardous substances are present at the Site and the
information this conclusion is based upon. If hazardous
substances are identified as being present at this property,
the EIER should discuss where they were found and at what
levels. The EIR also address the following issues:
0 whether these contaminants pose a threat to public
health under current conditions, during construction
activities and during future occupancy of the site.
If it does pose a threat, the EIR should include how
this threat will be abated.
,V 04 '96 09:32 BERKELEY P 1b/16
Ms. Susy Kalkir.
October 11, 1990'
o
Page Two
0 whether construction activities will exacerbate
hazardous substance releases at the property. For
example, .Ipile d�iving can move concaminants deeper in
the subsurf ace, :potentially impacting groundwater.
Grading activities can move contaminants from areas
with high concentrations to areas previously with low
concentrations. :
0 whether construction activities involve the generation
of hazardous wastes. If so.' these wastes must be
property handled, stored, and disposed of according to
the requirements of Health and Safety Code, Chapter
6 ® and associated reculations.
0 whether hazardous substances would be released into
the air and/or " urface water during construction
activities, potentially impacting construction workers
and the surrouniling community.
0 whether the soil, , groundwater and surface water have
been adequat-ely, characterized.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide input
an your project . you have any questions, please contact
LTanet Naito at (510) 1540-3833 .
Sincerely,
Barbara J. Cook, P.E. , Chief
Northern California - Coastal
Cleanup Operations Branch
o
110V 17J4 'q-S 0`:34
P.13/1
CITY OF SAN BR L'NQ
DEPARTMENT OF Ft'SIX'WORKS
October 1, 1996 3
Ms. Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner
Planning Department
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Dear Ms. Kalkin:
SUBJECT: BAY COVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Impacts on Wastewater Treatment Plant capacity are of concern to the
City of San Bruno. San Bruno shares approximately one third of the
existing Plant capacity. A plan to upgrade and expand the Wastewater
Treatment Plant needs to be in place concurrently with any major project
approvals.
Sincerely,
Scott Chadd
Director of Public Works
SC.-jf
cc: Frank Hedley - City Manager
Steve Rogers -Assistant City Manager
George Foscardo - Planning/Building Director
567 EI Camino Retd.San Sruno.Cafanaia 94066
(415)&77® ®PAX t4 IS)873-6749
0— P.7/16
ri',�'V 04 '56 I'D--jO-SEPPZLEY
E C E I V E D
CCAG OCT Z 5 Md
Crry/CouNTY Assocmm op GovEmhmms
OF SAN W Tzo CoLNTy PLMNIN�
I
AdwrWx 0 Bebama 0 Brubaw 0 Bwfing&w, a CoLw * Vaty C4y e &wl pajo Aho *Faster 01Y 0 J@Wf Moon Bay'a Hiulbarough 0 Undo PW
PadfiCa* P17M01a Vdiky 6 Rrd%ood Chy 0 San Snow 0 Son Carlar 0 San Mateo San Mateo Camry 0 Sa�Sa4 Fr4RMCV 0 .f
October
, 1
Ms Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco
Planning Department
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Dear Ms Y.-Wrin:
rse
t W
RE: C/CA O- Airport Lard:V Comrr�i # uc) 4 Cqi�*nts on i#e Notice of
h Pro ormefly known as the
-Abir an EIR I e Bay Cove...
Preparaidow opmeF� f
Shear��erkp:"rqJect)
JR aircraft
There are Ow�o airpotbft' nd use.461ated isw. s tfit'*e rele.. t to thq�
pposed project
Internatio4A-kip&t and FAA
on, S to
noise/oveAgh t from-ait-c ra ff 6 i 119 an n
.notification related to proposed constructionior alteration. Both issues are addressed in the 1995
San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan(CLUP)for San Francisco
Int!
,vatiomd.A'. on
ov
The proposed Bay Cove development project is subject to aircraft no i se a>d' erflight from
aircraft using the Runways 28 Shoreline Departure route fi-orn San Francisco International Alpxt
(SFIA), The subject site is located within the 65-70 CNEL aircraft noise contour for SFI& a;
shown on Map SFO-3 on page V-I I in the 1995 San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Jan-A-
Use Plan(CLUP)for San Francisco rat to Airport. The Airport Noise/Land Use
Compatibility Standards for an Francisco International Airport shown on page V-13 of the IFIA
CLUP indicate the proposed commerail and retail I-and uses are"compatible with little noise 1
impact and requiring n o s pecial noise insulation requirements for new constructioW' in a nor
range less than 70 CNEL. For clarification, the subject site is not located within any aircraft Oise
contour, as shown on the updated SFIA FAR Part ISO Noise.Exposure Maps (NEMs)for 19?5
'and 2000,
The majority of the subject site is located within the FAA FAR Part 77 Conical Surface for
airs.pace protection for an Francisco lnternaaional Airport. Therefore,the project spa"='r inay
be required to notify the FAA of the proposed construction, via FAA Form 7460.1, "Notice if
Proposed Construction or Alteration!'. Pleas�e contact the FAA Airports District Office in
-JA
9,Y)' C14 '96 1-715: 31 BEPi'ELE. P.8/16
Burlingame , at 876-2779, to determine if federal notice is required.
Utter to Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner
CitY Of South San Franesico
A
RE*- ALUC Staff Commnets on a Notice of Preparation for the Propsoed B2Y Cove Pmj*t
Page 2
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on'this Notice of ation for th proposed Bay
PI * e J
Cove project, If you have any questions, ple":e contact me at 363-.04417.
J
Sincere
David F. Carbone, A
ALUC Staff
A
cc: ALUC members
John Pfeifer, Manager, FAA Airports District Office, Burlingame
IV,rysusyssf dfc J
21.2 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCUIATION IMPACIS I
TRAFFIC DATA 2
3
e l or Service LOS) definitions and computer generated
volumes e which the background information the 5
transportation t S are Se _te Cont e
City of South San Francisco the printouts at the Planning Department:
8
Senior Planner
Planning Department 10
City of T e 11
Ave.400 Grand 12
South San Francisco, 13
877-8535 14
21.3 AIR QUALHY MMUODOLOGy AND ASSUMpTIONS
CALME-4 MODFUNG
The CALINE-4 model is a fourth-generation line source air quality model that is based on the
Gaussian diffusion equation and employs a mixing zone concept to characterize pollutant
dispersion over the roadway! Given source strength, meteorology, site geometry and site
characteristics, the model r edicts pollutant concentrations for receptors located within 150
meters of the roadway. The CALINE-4 model allows roadways to be broken into multiple links
that can vary in traffic volume, emission rates, height, width, etc..
The intersection mode of the model was employed, which distributes emissions along each leg of
the intersection for ee® traffic, idling traffic and accelerating and decelerating traffic. The
® model extended 500 meters in all directions. Receptors (locations where the model
calculates concentrations) were located at distance of 20 feet from the roadway edge for all four
corners of the intersection and at locations 50 feet in either direction, for a total of 12 receptors.
Fipm I is a schematic diagram showing the location of receptors.
The worst e mode aft CALINE4 model was employed. In this mode the wind direction is
varied to determine is wind direction results in the highest concentration for each receptor.
Emission factors were derived from the California Air Resources Board EMIFAC-7G model.
Adjustments were made for vehicle mix and hot start/cold startt hot stabilized percentages
appropriate to each roadway. Temperature was assumed to be 40 degrees F.
'Me computation of carbon monoxide levels assumed the following worst-case meteorological
conditions:
Windspeed: I mps
Stability: F Category
Mixing Height: 1000 meters
Surface Roughness: 100 cm
Standard Deviation of Wind Direction: 10 degrees
The CIE-4 model calculates the local contribution of nearby roads to the total
concentration. The other contribution is the background level attributed to more distant traffic.
Ile assumed 1-hour background level was 4.5 PPM for 2000 and 3.5 PPM for 2010. The
assumed 8-hour background level was 2.5 PPM for 2000 and 1.9 PPM for 2010. These
background concentrations were developed using carbon monoxide background levels and
correction factors for future years prepared by the BAAQMD. To generate estimates of 8-hour
concentrations from the I-hour CALINE results a persistence factor of 0.70 was employed.
California Department of TransportatiM CALINE-4- fs xsion Model for Pred i r ill l Concentrations
NW rt No. 4-15,1984.
URBEMIS-5
Estimates of regional emissions generated by project traffic were made using a program called
URBEMIS_5.2 URBEMIS-5 is a program which estimate the emissions that result from various
land use development projects. Land use project can include residential uses such as single-
family dwelling units, apartments and condominiums, and nonresidential uses such as shopping
centers, office buildings, and industrial parks. URBEMIS-5 contains default values for much of
the information needed to calculate emissions. However, project-specific, user-supplied
information can also be used when it is available.
Inputs to the URBEMIS-5 program include trip generation rates, vehicle mix, average trip length
by trip type and average speed. Trip generation rates for project land uses and land uses
removed by the project were provided by the project transportation consultant. Average trip
lengths for the Bay Area were used. Average speed for all types of trips was assumed to be 30
MTH.
The URBEMIS-5 runs assumed summertime conditions. The URBEMIS-5 program provides
emission rates for Total Organic Gases (TOG). The TOG emission was multiplied by 0.92 to
estimate Reactive Organic Gases (ROG).
® emissions from road dust are not calculated by the URBEMIS-5 program. Daily Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT) generated by project traffic was multiplied by a road dust emission
factor' of
® grams per mile, and this emission was added to the URBEMIS-5 estimates of
exhaust emissions.
2 CaNfornia Air Resources Board,URBEMIS-5 Comnuter Program Version 5.0 July 1995.
3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District,BAAOMD 9PQ&P_u&d_e1i_n_e_%19%.
2
Location of CAUNE,4 Receptors
0 0
20 Pt
21.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ON SITE PRIOR I
TO REMEDIATION 2
3
4
This appendix supplements Chapter 12 Biological Resources, It provides an 5
inventory of plant and animal resources on the Project site. 6
7
a
21.4.1 Existing (Pre-Remediated) Elabitat Conditions 9
10
0 Open Water Tidal Habitat (118.6 acres) - consisting of permanently 11
submerged areas within the slot and outside the slot in San Francisco Bay 12
(see Figure 12-1). Open water tidal habitats comprise about 68 percent of 13
the entire Bay West Cove property. Submerged substrates consist of 14
previously dredged bay muds and sediments heavily contaminated by 25
metals and other toxins. Bioassays conducted in various locations within 16
and adjacent tote of demonstrated a high level of toxicity to marine 17
organisms! Ile open water tidal habitats therefore are considered poor 18
habitat for benthic aquatic invertebrates and bottom feeders that typically 19
occur in healthy bay bottoms. Based on these circumstances, the open
water tidal areas do not provide high quality habitat for organisms higher 21
2
on the food chain such as fish and birds 22
23
California Department of Fish and Game Department surveys conducted 24
over a to year period included a sampling station offshore from the 25
Project site? According to Bay West Cove wildlife surveys, data from the 26
CDFG station provides an indication of the fish species likely to occur 27
within Project boundaries.' Observed fish species are provided in Table 28
12-Z and include 29
Treadwell and Rollo,Inc. 1996.Draft Remedial Action Plan-Shearwater Development Project,South San 30
Francisco, Calffornia. Prepared for the Bay West Group,600 Townsend St., San Francisco, CA. 31
2 Wetlands Research Associates,Inc. (WRA). 1996b.Wildlife habitat assessment of Bay West Cove.LLC n
Property,South San Francisco, CA.Prepared for Washburn,Briscoe and McCarthy,55 Francisco St.,Suite 600, San 33
Francisco, CA. 94133. 34
3 Herbold,B.,A.D.Jassby and P.B.Moyle. 1992. Status and trends report on aquatic resources in the San 35
Francisco Bay estuary. San Francisco Bay Project. 36
4 Herbold,B.,A.D.Jassby and P.B.Moyle. 1992.Status and trends report on aquatic resources in the San 37
Francisco Bay estuary. San Francisco Bay Project. 38
Table ® 1
Plant Spedes Observed on the Ptqcct S® 2
Sdmffic Nam Common Nam 3
4
bellardis. 5
t brome 6
ice plant 7
8
Coada comopifoUa
Qp�Sp. sedge 1
Cyaw Scoparim Scorch broom 11
t grass 1
fennel 13
14
clover 15
Micris echibides bristly 16
Po4pwn monspdknsis rabbit's t grass 17
YhSinka pickleweed 16
Scippa C utus hard-stem buhwh 1
21
broad-leaved 22
vetch 23
24
1
1
I
Table 21.4-2 1
Wildlife Species Observed at*e Project Site 4 2
Ommarm Name Scienffic Name 3
4
HqVMTMRATM 5
purple shore crab Hemigrapsus rumho 6
rock crab Cancer sp. 7
unidentified skimmer dragonfly s
backwimnrer Notonecia sp. 9
Anise swallowtail Papffio zeficaon 1®
unidentified aquatic snails 11
FISEEBS 12
threespine stickleback aC 13
14
15
Pacific 16
BUMS 17
double-crested cormorant Phalacrocarax aurilla 1
great blue heron Anlea herodias 19
at egret
snowy egret Egreffa&ula 21
black-crowned t heron Nyedcoym nycdcorax 22
mallard s
black-belfied plover Pluvialis squatarola 24
sernipalinated,plover Chamdnus semipabnaam 25
killdeer Chadrius vociferus
et Catoptrophoms sem4wbnatus 27
least sandpiper Cafidds minutifia 28
solitary sandpiper a solitaria 29
western gull Lams occidentafts 30
rock dove Coh4mbia fivia 31
Table 21.4-2
Wfldffe Species Observed at the Ptqea siw4
Common Nam Sclenfific Name
mourning dove Zemida macroum I
belted kingfisher Cm*a&wn 2
black phoebe Saymnh nigFicans 3
bam swallow ffvwsdo nadrA 4
northern mockingbird miff=palmionos 5
California towhee PWo cAssaUs 6
® Pmkn*m minimus 7
Brewees blackbird FAmh%w cyamocephalus 8
house finch Cwpo&cus mcdcamis 9
MAWMIS 10
California ground squirrel Spe!"nophilm bmcW 11
Botta's pocket gopher Thomomis bonaE 12
black-tailed jackrabbit LAPUS mufomicus 13
racown Pmeyon kwr 14
15
Pacific herring (Clupea harengeus),northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), I
shiner perch (Cyrnatogaster aggregrata),and white croaker (Genyonemus 2
fineatus). Although few birds were observed in the open water tidal areas 3
during wildlife surveys, several common species of waterfowl and 4
shorebirds probably ® ® the open water tidal areas. These include 5
cormorants, pelicans and gulls. 6
7
0 Tidal Wetlands (0.4 acre) - occurring as a narrow band (generally less than 8
5 feet) in a few scattered locations along the slot's shoreline and near the 9
former acid outfall (see Figure 12,1). Dominant vegetation consists of 10
pickleweed (Saficomia virginica), salt grass (Distichlis spicata) and sea 11
lavender (Limonium californicum). These coastal salt marsh species 12
typically colonize steep and eroded shorelines around the bay, and do not 13
provide high-quality salt marsh habitat under these circumstances due to 14
poor cover values, steepness and lack of adequate area for foraging and 15
nesting. Observed wildlife species were primarily common shorebirds such 16
as double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorar auritus), willet (Catoptrophorus 17
sent4palmattis), and killdeer (Charadfius vo Cie ms). 18
19
0 Non-Tidal Seasonal Wetlands (2.6 acres) - occurring along former drainage X
channels and other topographic depressions in the filled substrate 21
throughout the site. Non-tidal seasonal wetlands are not directly 22
connected to tidal waters (see Figure 12,1) and are seasonally inundated 23
or saturated by local rainfall runoff. They support an array of brackish 24
and freshwater marsh species. One small (0.25 acre) pond occurs in the 25
area south of the slot In areas with longer periods of inundation and 26
deeper waters, typical species are emergent hydrophytes such as willow 27
(Safix lasiolepis), cattails (Typha spp.) and alkali bulrush (Scirpus robustus). 28
In seasonal wetlands with shorter inundation periods and/or minimal 29
inudation depths, marginally hydrophytic species (i.e., "facultative" species 30
under Corps of Engineers wetiand delineation methodology) predominate, 31
such as rabbitsfoot grass (Po4pogon monspefiensis),plantain (Plantago 32
lanceolata) and perennial ryegrass (Picris echioides). 33
34
Non-tidal seasonal wetlands provide the best wildlife habitat on the Project 35
site. The 0.25 acre pond, for example, supports a variety of aquatic 36
invertebrates such as water beetles, dragonfly larvae and aquatic snails, 37
amphibians such as Pacific treefrog (Hyla regila) and bullfrog (Rana 38
catesbeiana) and fish (threespine stickleback - Gasterosteus acul eat us). The
presence of these organisms in turn provides feeding habitat for waterfowl 40
and wading birds. Great blue heron (Ardea herodias), great egret 41
(Casmerodius albus), mallard (Anas plaoyhynchos) and black-crowned night 42
heron (Nyclicorax nycdcorax) have been observed at the pond and other 43
seasonal wetlands. 'Me presence of several dense stands of tall emergent 44
vegetation provide roosting and nesting areas for common wetland 45
passerine its such as red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) and I
marsh wren (Cistothorus pal )° 2
40 Non-fi&I Po d Areas (3.3 acres) ®consisting of barren depressions 3
scattered around the site that were mostly created by the removal of old 4
building foundations or removal of rubble piles (see Figure 12-1). Ilese 5
depressions are seasonally-mundated but have notdeveloped any significant 6
(>5% total area) vegetative cover due to inadequate periods of surface 7
inundation and/or unsuitable substrates. They provide very little habitat 8
value due to the lack of sufficient inundation period and the paucity of 9
food resources for wildlife. They may be exempt from Corps of Engineers 10
jurisdiction based on an exemption in Clean Water Act regulations relating 11
to artificially-created wedand areas.-' 12
13
14
15
Vegetation and wildlife surveys have shown that no special status plant or animal 16
species have been observed or are expected to occur on the Project site 17
upland and wetland habitats are too disturbed, isolated and contaminated to 18
provide potential habitat for any of the species listed in the CDFG Natural 19
Diversity Data Base (NDDB) as possibly occurring in the general region of the 20
Project site (i.e., USGS San Francisco Quadrangle). Appendix 21A Table 12.4-3 21
summarizes all species listed for the area under the NDDB and their evaluation 22
relative to the site. Although marginal habitat theoretically exists for two special 23
status fauna, San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) - federal 24
and state endangered, and saltmarsh common yellowthroat (Gepthbpis hichas 25
sinuosa) ® to species of special concern, the site's high degree of isolation and 26
disturbance indicate that occurrence of either species is unlikely. 27
28
29
a 93 a ci cl r.
0 0 0 0 0
J3
Alo Zoo Alo Zoo ZOO zoo nr as
ZO z z
dd
s 00
to
94 '60.
ed
wi
u
CA
W
W4 0
13
10
ts 0
RM
13
64
vi
64
gas
gg -ru-
g. 9 1 1.
E E
a ci C3 0 a
0 0
4d.
Ul
-40)
14
40.
rA
Cd
C3 u
C3
8
CIO
so
we o
to, Cd
toi
0 V
4i
-4 04
s.
go
a
jw
a Cd
ed
'ZI cd
N od c3 ago
Cd V
C3
bo
12
C3 0
NO a
lug
od a
Ig
44
O
Cd
m
21.5 MUIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 1
2
Pursuant to California Assembly Bill 3180, effective Jan. 1, 1989 (California Public 3
Resources Code, Section 21081), public lead agencies must adopt a program to 4
monitor the mitigation of significant environmental effects. The program must be 3
adopted, in this caw,when and if the City Council and Redevelopment Agency 6
certifies the Final EIR and approves the Pr ternative. 7
A monitoring and reporting program must be defined to implement the mitigation 9
measures outlined for each significant adverse impact identified in the EIR. Other 10
recommended conditions identified for less-than-significant impacts are not subject 11
to the requirements of AB 3180. 12
13
MWs are outlined for the proposed Project, beginning below. 14
15
E is Impact: QMptu 5.22 Inconsistency with Design Element policy 16
relating to the location of loading docks.
M gation: Require loading docks to be located at the side of buildings 17
which are
site adjacent to the shoreline or "slot".
P
ba
gcL
atl
on:
iResponsible Party: Project applicant. 19
1
When to Accompfish: g the Design Review Process. 20
V rjf
Y.
Who to Verify: ratyof South San Francisco Planning Department. 21
22
U hnpact. Chapter 63A. Decline in LOS below level "D" at three 23
intersections for the year 2000 plus Project Traffic.
Mfigation: Make improvements to the intersections to elevate LOS to 24
level "D" or better. No SB 101 flyover would be required. 25
EEIEHe Party: Project applicant 26
Respond
When to Accomplish: or to permit approvals 27
Who to Verify: ary of South San Francisco Planning Department 28
29
21.5 - 1
21.5 MITIGATION
U Impact: 1
t P 6 ®
Decline 1 1 "D" t five
intersections for the ° plus Project
c.
Mitigation: Make improvements t intersections c1 t
s 3
101 SB flyover) t t level "D" or .
Responsible t.
When t determined, t -
5
East of 101 Area, and the t
requiring a fair share contribution by the applicant to
tersection improvements.
Who t t r t. 6
7
IN Impact: Chanter . t S
Mitigation: Follow dust C T 9
Area Air Quality Management District,, r t 1
construction documents.
FF low Responsible P . 11
Accomplish: P issuance of a Grading 12
MW:hen to Who t [P:ublic:�W' orks P t t 13
.
14
. . . Significant increase in 15
emissions.
Implement a Transportation Demand Management program 1
to reduce vehicular trips.
Responsible P t. 27
When to Accomplish: Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. 13
Who to . 1
21.5 M177GATIONMONrWRING PROGRAM
r0
® _C20=922. Potential instability of fill soft. 2
4
® Geotechnical Safety Element Policies GEO-1 and GEO-2 3
will require site-specific investigations to design foundations 4
which will minimize instability and damage.
IM
stability a d damage'
4 M,
Responsible Party: Project applicant. 6
When to Accomplish: or to permit approvals. 7
ncjsco PI n p
Who to Verify: City of South San Francisco Plannmg Department. 8
9
0 Impact: ChaoW 923. Lateral spreading potential. 10
® Policies GEO-10 and GEO-11 should be implemented with 11
respect to
® lateral spreading. 12
Responsible Party: Project applicant. 13
When to
® Prior to permit approvals. 14
Who to Verify: city of south San Francisco Planning Department. Is
16
N hnpact: _Cba
jpx 924. Potential liquefaction potential. 17
0 Mitigation: Emunine the liquefaction potential for individual buildings, is
and comply with policies ®1 and GEO-11 which 19
require design and construction methods (such as piles) to
20
mitigate for liquefaction.
r mmmm
Qam=vtcr 9.�
Responsible Party: Project applicant. 21
When to Accomplish: Prior to permit approvals. 22
Who to Verify: City of South San Francisco Planning Department. 23
24
21.5 - 3
21.5 MI77GATIONMOAUTORING
AM 1022 Exposure of 1
sensitive receptors, incl
construction Y , to hazardous materials.
Mitigation: Apply the approved with respect to
controls Y hazardous waste clean-up, r r d
dust suppression, air monitoring ` 5
hazard controls, and recordation S ` ` S which
survey the locations of remediated wastes t
property .
Responsible Party: Project t. 6
When to . Prior to permit approvals. 7
Francisco Who to Verify: City of South San t. 8
9
® t ential disruption of eidsting off-site 19
r ® .
+ hfitigation: If the culvert still serves as an , it should be connected 11
directly into the j drainage '
provided capacity s
drainage is to .
Responsible Party- Project . 12
approvals.When to Accomplish: Prior to permit 13
t Y 14
15
7 Impact: Qm=.1123.77
Potential 16
Mitigation: Design the drainage system to t reasonably 17
foreseeable rainfall events. Comply with GEO-1, _ -3, -7 18
AND -8 dealing with geotechnical investigations Y to 1
.
Responsible
t.
When t ° `t
approvals. 21
Who t Y
22
21.S MMUTION MONITORING PROGRAM
0 limpact: Qog=11 -4. Potential water quality degradation. 2
Prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) 3
in accordUnce with best management practices of the 4
2 ------.......
Mitigation:
Regional Water Quality Control Board, to control pollution
sources, through runoff treatment The plan shall comply
with the ciWs aean Water Permit and all applicable
requirements of the RWQCB.
Responsible Party: Project
® 6
When to Accomplish: Prior to permit approvals. 7
7,
Who to Verily: City of South San Francisco Planning Department.
9
F (Itantu 112.5. Potential cumulative flooding and water 10
quality impacts.
n: Apply the measures discussed for impacts 11.2.3 and 11.2.4. 11
. 12
Party:
[;VAe!n to Accomplish: Prior to permit approvals. 13
�7
Who to Vernff:=y: of South San Francisco Planning
® 14
.. . .........
0
® Ql= IL22 Potential to damage unimown cultural sites 16
and arfficts during Proje c t remediation and construction.
Mitigation: Protect cultural resources found during construction, by 17
stopping work, requiring an evaluation of the find by a 18
cultural resource consultant and undertaldng other measures
oufted in CEQA Gudelines Supplementary Document J 29
i ,
Archaeological impacts.
Responsible Party: Project applicant.
When to Accomplish: During construction. 21
Who to Verify: City of South San Francisco Planning Department. n
23
21.5 - 5
21.
SIM 142.6. 1
Water to ' t 2
weather wastewater treatment capacity.
Nfitigation: The bl
ewer i r r 3
made.the WQCP should develop an equitable sewer connection 4
allocation until improvements to the plant are Ian
ft
ne on
5
Responsible Party: Water Quality Control Plant.
When to Accomplish: Prior t r . 7
Who to Francisco 1 t. 8
E Impact: gr 1422-7. Water to r j 1
demand for already-committed wastewater treatment
Lt ® r t t 11
® should
Facilities Element Policies PF-4 and PF-5, the not grant a wastewater treatment allocation to the Project,
until It 1 available
committed,capacity considering all currently but unused
s Water 1 1 12 o Accomplish: Prior to `t approvals. 13 Verify: City of South San Francisco t. 14
15
21.5 MMGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
N hapact: Chapter
® Potential failure of a&g wastewater 2
collection facilities.
® The Project applicant has agreed to contribute its share of 3
the improvement of the Harbor Way sewer line and 4
pumping station before additional wastewater flows from the
ti
':gabon Project are introduced int
r 6
o the collection system.
-b P7
[�Responsible Party: Wate Quality Control Plant.
11po'
When to Accomplish: Prior to permit approvals. 7
Who to Verify. City of South San Francisco Planning Department. 8
9
0 1mpact: ChaDtcr 142-9. Cumulative impacts to the wastewater 10
treatment system.
4 hfitigation: The mitigation measures defined for impacts 14.2.6 and 11
14.2.7 also apply to cumulative wastewater treatment impacts 12
rMptigation:
[Responsible Lft7rty: Water Quality Control Plant. 13
spo
: to h.
When to Accomplish: Prior to permit approvals. 14
If 15
Who to Verify: City of South San Francisco Planning Department.
16
E Empaciz- Chmftr 1522 Increased demand for police services and 17
t®
hfitigation: 'Me applicant should submit a Security and Safety Plan at 1 8
the precise plan approval stage,which provides for private 19
security guards on-site, beginning with the construction 20
phase. The applicant should contribute half the cost of a
police vehicle. —1
Responsible Party: Project applicant. 21
J When to Accomplish: Upon project approval. 22
Who to Verify: qty of South San Francisco Police and Planning 23
Departments.
21.5 - 7
21.5 MITIGA77ON MONrTORING PROGRAM
0 Impact.- ChLetff..15.42 Need for Bay Trail maintenance. 2
T'he applicant should own and maintain the Bay trail and alII 3
uprovements,within the 100 ft. wide shoreline baF
n nd,
pursuant to a development agreement.
Responsible Party: Project applicant.
When to Accomplish: Prior to occupancy permit approval.
Who to Verify: City of South San Francisco Planning Department. 6
NEEMEMENEMEM 7
U IMPa&- _Chapter 18.11 Cumulative traffic unpacts. 8
Nfitigation: (see Chapter 633) 9
Responsible Party: 10
When to Accomplish: 11
Who to Verify- 12
13
0 hq)act: _Cba=-18,,-1-2 Cumulative storm water quality impacts. 14
* AIitiga!tio:nw::::d (see Chapter 112-4) 15
Responsible Party: 16
When to Accomplish: 17
18
19
21.5 - 8
21.5 MMGA77ON MONITORING PROGRAM
E Impact: CIMDtCr---M-1 C-Tmula7fiive wast"ewatWer capacity constraint. 2
4 Mitigation: (see Chapter 1429) 3
Responsible Party: 4
LWhen to Accomplish:
h:
Who to Vefify: 6
7
0 hnpKt: Unavoidable traffic congestion. 8
4 blitiption: (See Chaptcr 63-5) 9
L
Responsmible Party: 10
Vo
When to
W ho tto o V VAe cflcfom: ph
sh:
11
y 1 12
13
r0 impvxr ChaDW---1832 Unavoidable air quality degradation. 24
blitigation: (See ChapW 7.23)
"m
bli 7ga on.
ltl
ib
Responsible ParWty: 16
L:Wh:en to
®Accomplish: 17
Who to Vefi:f : m 18
19
21.5 - 9
21.5 MITIGATION
21.5 - 10