HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 Bay West Cove Final EIR FIANL
Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comments
Bay West Cove Commercial Project
City of South San Francisco
Morehouse Associates
SUMMARY. PROJECT DATA
PROJEC,r-TMA DESCRIPTION,AND LOCATION
t Point
San Francisco .
on-shore Land Area: 55.4 acres -s . r
Proposed Mixed Uses- 'Automobile sales, large commercial retail,
hotels, and restaurants.
'ASSESSOR
#015-101-010, ,. -
DESIGNATION,pRESENT LAND USE, GENERAL PLAN ZONING
DESIGNATION
t t site s
General : Planned
r ' s
Zorung'Ordinance-designation: None; East of 101 Area Plan
applies until the,Zoning Ordinance,isupdated.
APPIUCANTS REPRESENTATIVE
Mr. Bill Poland
Bay 600 Townsend S.West Group
t.
San Francisco,.CA 94103 _
Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco
Department.Planning
Grand, e..
South San Francisco, CA 94080
` -
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL H"ACT REPORT ,
BAY WEST COVE (BWC) COMMERCIAL
PROJECT
(Formerly Shearwater Project)
State Clearinghouse No.
96092081
Prepared for:
City of South San Francisco
Planning Department
400 Grand Ave.
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 Balland, Certified Consulting Meteorologist, El Cerrito
Dames & Moore, Geotechnical Engineers, San Francisco
Andrew J. Leahy, Registered Civil Engineer, San Francisco
RMI Inc., Biologists, San Rafael
November, 1997
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
PUe
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " , 1
2. LETTER FROM STATE
® . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 2
3. RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Robert F. Beyer, Economic Development/Redevelopment Project Manager, 3
City of South San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .
John Gibbs, Public Worb Director, City of South San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
George Morris, Morris &07jef, Project applicants (with Bay West Cove . . . . . . . .. . . 12
Carole Nelson, Plarming Director and James Thompson, City Engineer,
Cityof Brisbane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Phillip Badal, District Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation . 25
(Caltrans) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rich Napier, Executive Director, City/County Association of Governments of
San Mateo County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Richard Harmon, Development Review Specialist, City of South San Francisco . . . . . . 49
Lisa Aozasa, ALUC Staff, Airport I-and Use Committee, City/County
Association of Governments of San Mateo County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Joseph R. Rodriguez, .. . . . . . . . . . .Planning and Programming, Federal Aviation
Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Thomas J. Zlatunich, Land Agent, Pacific Gas and Electric Company . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Police Departrnent� City of South San Francisco
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ® 62
4. RESPONSE TO ORAL TESTIMONY RECEIVED AT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION HEARING ON OCTOBER 9, 1997
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. RESPONSE TO ORAL TESTIMONY RECEIVED AT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION HEARING ON OCTOBER 16, 1997,
CONTINUED FROM OCT. 9 . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
INTRODUMON
Purpose
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that public comment on the impacts
of proposed projects be considered by decision-makers. Comments on the DEIR were received
during the required 45-day public review period on the DEIR, ending September 26, 1997.
The City also received oral comments at public hearings after the comment period closed. A
hearing of the Planning Commission was held on October 9 and a continued hearing of the
Commission was held on October 16.
Comments in letters received by the City by September 26, and transcribed comments at the two
public hearings are responded to in this report. Each letter comment and each oral comment is
summarized and u rI and followed by a response by the authors of the DEIR. In some
cases, the commenter identifies a factual correction to the DEIR or raises an opinion with which
the authors of the EIR agree; therefore the normal response is "Comment acknowledged".
Not all comments require responses. Responses are given to comments which raise questions
about the thoroughness or clarity of the DEIR in defining likely impacts and mitigation measures
for the Project. Responses may not be made to statements of support or opposition to the
Project or to impacts which are not caused by the Project.
T'his Final EIR as well as the DEIR use the capitalized word "Project" as short-hand for the Bay
West Cove Commercial Project and all features of the proposed Project. The text also
abbreviates Bay West Cove as the BWC Project, and the BWC DEIR.
Process
The Responses to Comments and the original DEIR constitute the Final Enviromnental Impact
® The FEIR will be reviewed by the City and the Redevelopment Agency of South San
Francisco at a public hearing. The City and Redevelopment Agency will consider certification of
the adequacy of the Final EIR and then take action on the proposed Project or an alternative
plan.
PETE WILSON.Govwyw
STATE IF I
Govemor's Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
September , 1997
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
400 GRAND AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083
Subject: BAY COVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (FORMERLY SHEARWATER
PROJECT) sCH # : 96092081
The State Clearinghouse i environmental
agencies document to selected state 1 period
is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. i
letter acknowledges a with the State
Clearinghouse i ew requirements for draft environmental
documents, pursuant to the California i 1 Quality
Please i c i (916) 445-0613 if
questions regarding i i process.
contacting i in i , please use the eight-
digit i .
Sincerely,
s 44�d�
Chief, State Clearinghouse
S
BEYEK
140
DEPARrMENT OF ECONOMIC
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4151877-3990 MEMORANDUM
FAX 872-3269
DATE: Septacher 18, 1997
TO: Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner
FROM: Bob Beyer,Economic DevelopmentfRedevelopment Project Manager
SUBJECT- Bay West Cove Draft Environmental Impact Report
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide comments to clarify and up-date some
issues raised in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) which I believe need
clarification.
Pg. 2-8 Chapter 14.2.7
w statesz.
"In accordance with the East
PF-5, the City should not grant a wastewater treatment allocation to the Project, until it
has been confirmed that the plant has available capacity, considering all currently
committed but unused allocations."
The attached memorandum dated September 16, 1997 from John Gibbs, Director of
Public Works confirms the Waste Water Treatment Plants capacity for the Bay West
Project provided that the average daily sewer flow does not exceed 200,000 gallons per
day. The projected average daily sewer flow is projected to be 192,000 gallons per day.
pg,2-9 Chapter 14.2.8h.��ten I�ur e �::s e�w cc" ties.
si
ti of a:�the e!itg
t �
a lum w t�ou siding
"The Project would incaremanse 4 e nd e�Dfse
sewer line on Hiubor Way and through pumps that have been identified in need of
replacement. "The Project could cause the failure of these facilities."' The mitigation
statement says: '*The Project applicant has agreed to contribute its share of the
unprovernent of the Harbor Way sewer line and purnpmg station before additional
wastewater flows from the Project are introduced into the collection system."
The DEIR states that the Project could cause failure to these facilities, however, provides
no data to substantiate the claim, nor does it comment on the impact of replacing Pump
3
400 Grand Avenue a P.OL Box 711 a 94083
Station #4 and its t entirely
contribute correct. The applicant has agreed to r
improvement of Pump Station r' no commitment has been made concerning
the sewer line in that there has not been a determination made or evidence presented in the
point,EM to this that r necessitate up-grade
presently Redevelopment Agency is r on the redevelopment
of the Harbor Way area between East Grand and the railroad tracks. .s development
roadway will necessitate upgrades to the entire infrastructure in that section of
the roadway, sanitary sewer, and storm &am systems. The exact extent of these up-
t yet been determined by the City's Public Works Department. In regards to
the
i • 9r t project improvement
i i
maintenance,other fees will enable the Public Works Department, through planned up-grades r
(Sierra program, to provide necessary Way development takes place within the next several years.
Pg. 3-24 Emeavr ss to the KoIHl Site Sispuft Point
The developer has agreed to provide the emergency access easement to enable a firture
connection to the Koll Site 101 Plan
EIR-5). Such
Pg. 4-10 Q�Qfeet� itl
Wr 10
1p
Poli
ed The following change °
is suggested to clarify the proposed
cc
i -resources are
sensitive and California Department Of 1
i
biological
encroachments shall only be permitted if supported by a site specific assessment prepared by a
Three intersections are described as being unacceptable for the AM� 2 s
and/or PM peak hour
for the year 2000. These are Bayshore US 101 SB - i Cities/Oyster
Point; and Oyster Point/Gateway
off-r Provision is
with the Redevelopment Agency or•improvements -r
AiMort/Sigter CQiti�es/ gterPgint : The City and Redevelopment Agency will coordinate /a
the necessary improvements as needed at this intersection.
star �a This intersection will be improved as Part Of the FlYover Project
and the oyster Point Boulevard widening project. The developer has agreed to pay a
significant amount ($5,220,680) towards the OYsW Point FIYOver PrOject- The Owner 7
Participation Agreement also provides for the developer to provide the frontage
impF ovements for the oyster Point Boulevard widening ProJeCL The Public Works
Department presently has both of these projects under design with construction to
commence in 1998.
Pg. 2-2 er 6 3 5 ine�inL S b �Ievel�"D"atfive intersecdons for the
0 1 P 9 t=c
us r
b se�:e o�ec
Five intersections are identified as operating at a LOS 'S" or worse during either the AM
or PM peak hour for the year 20 10. These intersections are:
The City will implement the necessary
Program when they are needed.
!gte e This mitigation will be implemented
e =
t r P c7 �S0 �"�ov r�0'(:;=er Point Boulevard 'widening PrOjects in
h on of the SB Flyover and
1998.
QXggLEom_t/EccIes : Tins intersection will be mitigated with the widemng of Oyster to
Point Boulevard in 1998.
necessary improvements through its Capital
g=&Gateway - This intersection will also be impacted by the redevelopment of the
Harbor Way Area between East Grand and the railroad trwks. The upgrade of this
intersection will most likely Occur at the time of these redevelopment projects within the
next several years.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments on the Draft EHL Should you
have any questions.please give me a call-
RespectUy Submitted,
—:t/Zevelopment
Ro F.
Economic Develo
Project Manager
Enclosure
Cc: Marty Van Duyn
John Gibbs 5
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM ROBERT F. 9 ECONOMIC
MANAGER,DEVELOPMENTIREDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CITY OF SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO
1 S t t the r ' 3ated treatment demand
r ® Comment . representative
City's wastewater t 200,000 gpd of
excess treatment capacity at the WQCP. However, r City's! 1 " to
ensure t the total of all new sewer connections t on-line before
rated upgrade and expansion is completed in the spring of the year 2000 does not increase dry
weather flows into the WQCP above its current ' as approved
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
If the City wishes to guarantee t treatment capacity will be provided
estimated which would utilize an ® of the 200,000 gallons per day that is
available, then the Project to 'over all other new
received development some of which may have already ! the provision
sewer service before the year 2000. An alternative to such a comprehensive dedication
available treatment capacity !the Project's
schedule that balances the Projeces treatment r requirements
other planned or approved development projects.
® tt tr r t i cause the subsidin Harbor Wa sewer line to fail. The DEIR states that Project
wastewater development would increase flows in the Harbor Way sewer line, and that
higher these for more serious backups if the [subsiding]
Harbor way sewer line breaks or becomes blocked . . ." If there is more
wastewater flowing through the Harbor Way sewer line, then any back-up in
event the the line breaks or becomes completely blocked would necessarily be more
serious r would back up more rapidly into the collection system, and
potentially, into t r mains.
r s t has
-
agreed to , discharges `into r that runs directly to , and not
into the Harbor Way gravity sewer. As a result, the improvements
sewer.would have no effect on the-Harbor Way
'N
ac eed to contribute to the
T�he D IOR n e 8,ta�ea he t�agan �
t t Pro c h
se er n&� ent
i m
s
w
a�rc�bor
E ledged. The DEIR
u a�dM e H
f
reco e t e g me t tw t e pp and the Redevelopment Agency
r nun nded tha th ree n be ei a
be expanded to include a contribution for the Projeces fair share of the cost to repair the
Harbor Way sewer, ® accordance with East of 101 Area Plan Policy PF-3. If the City
elects to defer repair of this line until Harbor Way is reconstructed as part of a future
development plan, and not require all new benefiting development to contribute to its
repair, additional funds may have to be allocated for maintenance of this line as the rate
and total volume of wastewater it carries increases in response to continued development.
In addition, if the overall Harbor Way reconstruction does not go forward, then substitute
:ftmding would have to be secured in the future for repair of this fine.
® ss asement to enable future
god. See the Preliminary Map of
e Preliminary map replaces Figure 3-
EIR.
RN!2999ME
4. roved e ttin a encie if
Y
ear the site. Encroachment shall on]
assessment. Comment
d to incorporate the text
recommended for addifton by Robert Beyer.
W b n d�a,
I m r
r v
g Po sor
® w ject�spon wouidr
Vej��' =m=enack I
0 ' ' ff-r
P in r t
towar mm m t 8 1 ati
ontribute d o ended pro e ents :
® MM9EnEEF====
T r a Comment acknowledged. The Oyster
Point/Gateway intersection would be improved as part of the US 101 SB flyover project
and the Oyster Point Boulevard widening project. Tle Project sponsor has agreed to
contribute a proportionate share toward the funding of these improvements.
® tt eL�Pm S 10�IB�=n-�r:s�b u e oft n r :�n Comment acknowledged.
01 le�ented through the Citys
ended improven to JoZtIon w uld be P
7
09/25/97 S:44 1&5033444013 MORRIS & 0 xlr
6SO-349-0885 P.01
f if
_
t am WaL'
in smw
MCLA
in
i
/
® t
MUALw
r
/ Sam& r a 1
tf
. !! n „�i l 11E1d1IPGt P
®'L
SILW
am orquo-somwo ®®
OW h4raft CA WdClff
BAY WWT COVE
RESpONSE To COMMEN7,S ON THE DEIP,BAY NEST COVE COMMERCL4L DEVELOPMENT
Capital Improvement Program. However, the City should monitor peak hour traffic
volumes at this location when project planning areas begin to develop.
® Ite_r G�te B F over m roycmentg. Comment
rm i
off�
'0' S �
S�
jog w�
Po
owledged
® Please see response to comme:t #5.
10. r
r 0 e PointMggles im s® Comment acknowledged. Intersection improvements
yge _p
would be conducted as part of Oyster Point Boulevard widening project.
r r
® AhLRoffQand fin
..... S_gvements. Comment acknowledged. Recommended improvements to
this location would be implemented through the City's Capital Improvement Program.
However, the City should monitor peak hour traffic volumes at this location when project
planning areas begin to develop.
12. gran&Gatewa imp—ro—y-m—ents. Comment acknowledged.
9
v
MEMO
0
RECEiVED
CSEP I 6W
SIOF'2=��
UOD DEPT.
Date: September 16, 1997
To: Bob r, is Redevelopment P ct Manager
From: i r TM T -BAY WEST COVE PROJECT
ct® WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPA ITY
Per your request,please note that the City has commenced an improvement program for the South
San Francisco
ca a the plant will be 13 million gallons per day,which will accommodate the total amount
p CiY of
of dev lopmted on the Bay West Cove site. The plant improvement o
t propos pr
anticipated to t in s '
In the interim,the Public Works t anticipates that the proposed initial
West Cove project can be accommodated existing r that the average
daily s not exceed 200,000 gallons per day.
Please feel free to call me at Ext. 8540 if you have additional questions.
c Marty Van Duyn,
Susy Kalkin
Mike Britten, Corollo Engineers (Faxed)
1
Y WEST
RESPONSE TO IETTER FROM JOHN p 8 CITY OF
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
r r t =0�0 �
® 3 r ®� $ t
Lxcess treatment ca aciV at a W-QCP-facilities. Comment acknowledged.
to comment #1 by Robert Beyer in r®
1 +
® 3 U5033444013 MORRIS & 0 KIEF %JVW&
MORMS & 01&F
ATrOPI&EY'S AT 1AW
400 COMMUy Club Road,Suib 350
EugwA Oxegan 97401
Tdapbow.(541)3"10
Gemp A.Mards F=d=1r- C541)3444013
1=05 IL 0,xW
Sep=ber 2:5, 1997
VA. Bob Beyer
Economic Dev&WenVRedcvcJopment Project Manner
c,tty of Sou&San FrandSCO
P. 0.Box 711
South SanFran6s=. CA 94063
Re-. Bay West COW
Commmts to Sheawata Project DER
Dear Bob:
13-y Wea Cove L. L. C, iu its mpacitY Of PrOject dCVd0PCC, b2s SCVerAl COMMCM to
the Dralft Environmental imp=Rqmt pM=ed by Morebouse Amciales- W1811Y,*0 dD
map. pl=ing a=degpadons and prqea descApdan need to be updated from the eadier
v== wbich are refined to m to DEM Cq= of 1how uplatad.maMruds (SaS==9
for figures 3-73, 3-9 and -3-9). indUding 1hC ClErmt VCZAOn Of the PrOliect UM&C maps me
andosed for your mview
in w=rd with our OnV4 di=zdong, ghe naixative pmjw dcsctiption,should read as
follows:
1) Flenaing An&1-8,tWCUW (20) a= sift fcw apecafm of one vehicle SOICS famW
devoWA to &e sale of new or hft modd p=iowly orwmoA or leamd.vebioleg
2) Pknning Am 2 - a 192 2=NtRU Sft 0002018d Of UP to 244-372 Sq- fL of
..=ial retail or, in&c ah=aflve, up to 175,000 aq- & of co=n=iaJ retan phn a hcftl
canis&g of lg4,2so sq. ft. amd up to 225 room-%
3) Pl=ning Area 3 -a 4.6 acre ske for cilba a hotel d9vC1OPmCfft COngstiDg Of
12
09/25/97 15:43 V5033444013 MORRIS & U ALt-V
16
W.RobBeyw
Sqn=bcr25, l997
Page 2
204,732 sq- & of botel Um iud�betwem 150 and 250 romM or a mudmum Of 61-420
sq. fL of Commercial,mu%
4) p1ming Am 4- a 8.5 a= shc fOr &lm R hOtd d9veloPmeot cmdsdng of tm
hotas with jL tDW of bdween 350 and 450 ==on a mmdmum of 370,260 sq. fL or a
=A== of 222
'156 .sq. &of commerdd TCWL Ratmal uses upto a ma)dmum of 9.OW
sq. & am pcmissible on plaming mm Z 3 or 4.
BWC has agreea to a uno ww easement for cu=Vmcy vehicle access 0* as
&picted on the emlosed rw (see 3.2-7 and figure 3-11).
ne de=ipdm of ?tqeetphaj4' (a 3.2, 12) is in�aia both from the 3tm&Axi=
of BWCs k=ded qp=&for bading the project ad from the standpoint of to
scheduUng and raflabft of pemmitdng approvals. In accord vA*ft confamAtIOR Pwvidad
by Chy PLiblic WoriM wLdmuw ftw=m cq=ity is not a restrictumg factOr for&c
proleces Penntt approvalL Rduence m several places m dw DER should be corrected to
refiect d=fact.
Tmspormdom ad CUallation bnpam discussed in Secdon 63 have, in some
sunces,used Wcow=wk ma=a for&e planned kqxorvements (sm Table 6
pwficwar&c nmnber of botel,UdU proposed as a ms4nmm by BWC should be changed to
reflect 925 units instad of M5 unks. Addflomftq Ulft k2P&= addressed in Seed=
® end 6-3-5 should Wm ' to fict that BWC's cammi=cnt to fund m4miardial,
r
traffic hapact few to 16ke 92. .6 1 immmuded by 68 pez-fies to nfi*BVCs dbers.
of&e cost for the UUMNMF
ftted
it is sunested*9 BWC will build L fC=along ft lWXtqcnPad arce'84"Ug to &a
B(=pgrh (sm secem 122-2,page 12-11. line 14)L pie=now dat a fence would Dw bee
planned udess required a a put of*a BCDC wnenidm The planned Ireatomaxt in tWs ans
is Planfing Of low PrOme vqptldcm-
Thank you for your coadduafum in these misders.
S,
MORRIS
GAbL-deikw
Enclosure
13
RESpONSE To COMMENTs ON THE DEM,BAY WEST COVE COMMERCL4L DEVELOPMENT
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM GEORGE MORRIS, MORRIS & ° 9
PROJECT APPLICANTS
1. The r t t t r E7 1 t —
been t s
incorporated .
2. The _ _ - -
com Pla r commercials
in r
_
. ft. of commercial is acknowledged. These changes are reflected
in revised
3.
the_Koll S t °P ov r S E t
Site. response
Robert F. Beyer in the previous letter.
® Wastawate i r r i is
gpqLovals. As discussed in r r,
timing treatment capacity may be a constraint on the r '
excess treatment capacity of the Water Quality t r
planned and approved projects.
5. d in Section 6.3 need to u dated
should
isar it t s
ackn
6.3.5. Comment acknowledged. Table 6.3 from the DEIR has been revised based
on the new Project s calculated,
the new Project r net new AM peak hour trips and
trips.1,419 net new PM peak hour This compares which
trips 893 net new AM peak hour and 1,439 net new PM peak hour trips. Such a
generation small difference in peak hour trip (less than 20 trips) would not be
measurable r j ect impacts. The funding for traffic impact
fees of r million is acknowledged by Robert Beyer in °s comment # 7.
1..4
RESpONSE To COMMEN7,S ON THE DELR,BAY WEST COVE cOMMERCUL DEVELOPMENT
6. a 12-11 line 14 th t the,
ed area d'acent to the ro sed
B C. Correction
include a low fence to keep pet
#M99Mt@t s
from entering the tidal wetland, then apter .2.2 would change from a less-
than-significant impact to an adverse impact. Ile required mitigation measure
would require that a low wire fence (e.g., 3 to 4 ft. in height) be placed within the
native plant area, where it will not necessarily even be visible, as a way to
minimize disruption to wildlife.
Changes to Figure 3-9 noted in the comment #1 above,would increase the width
of low profile native plants between the path and the slope bank descending into
the proposed marsh, from 12 feet to 25-to-30 feet. This would be a sufficient
width to allow for a fence to be located well within the native plants, and not
necessarily alongside the path.
It is recommended that the City make the provision of a low, heavy welded wire
fence with small openings, or a black vinyl-clad chain link fence, a condition for
approval of the Project, if the Project is approved. (The City of San Rafael has
adopted a 4 ft. high black vinyl clad chain link fence as its standard for preventing
intrusion into sensitive habitat areas. It also uses an open post and cable fence
alongside paths to deter humans from leaving the path.) The pet fence should be
developed between the proposed path and the downhill extent of the native plant
area.
15
RESpONSE To COMMENTS ON THE DEM.,RAY REST COVE COMMERCLIL DEVELOPMENT
Table 3-2 Proposed Mmmum BWdmg Area and Hotel Rooms
1
Floor Area Development Ratio
(grow sq.ft
W;rooms)
s .
Auto Sales
1 s Commercial
Retail f
Commercial
retail ,
and 0.43
Hotel 225 rooms
(184,258 gsf)
es Hotel 250 rooms
(204,732 °
ar-
Commercial
Retail ,
es Hotel rooms
® (370,260
r
Commercial ,
Retail
Subtotal es Range of 1,024,250 Max. 0.45 Average
Mixed Uses
and
Alternatives
Street ± 3.1 acres Oyster Point
Expansion .
Widening
Total . s re NA NA
Project e
Includes up to 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant space in 1 , 3, or
Note: Italicized alternatives used "worst e" traffic impact analysis
Chapter 6.
6. MANSPORTA770NAAD CIRCULA77ON
PEIR REvisED TABLE I
TABLE ® 2
PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION: DAILY9 AM9 AND PM PEAK HOUR 3
A. Project Component:
Planning Area #1: 20 Acres commercial-retail, includes an Auto Nation (90,000 S.0;
Planning Area #2: 175,000 square feet commercial-retail, includes large retail pads and a
225 room high-rise hotel; 7
Planning Area #3: 250 room high-rise hotel; 8
Planning Area #4: 450 room high-rise hotel.
10
B. Project Trip Generation Rates: 11
Auto Nation AM: 9.05 trips/Acre 12
:'
® 12.40 trips/Acre 110
Comm.-Retail:' AM: 1.29 trips/1,000 S-V
PM: ® trips/1,000 sV 16
17
1
:2 AM: 0.67 trips/room 8
Hotel ® 0.76 trips/room 0
39
C. Project Trip Generation a
Daily: 20 acres x
® trips/acre = 2,769 n
Auto Nation: AM: 20 acres x 9.05 trips/acre = 181 (95, 86) 21
PM: 20 acres x 12.4 trips/acre w 248(129, 119)
Daily: 175,000 s.f. x 57.30 trips/1,000 s.f. = 10,027 x
3
Comm.-Retail: AM: 175,000 s.f. x 1.29 trips/1,000
® 175,000 s.f. x 5.35 trips/1,000 s.f. x 50% =469(134,Z4Y 28
2P
Daily: 925 rooms x 8.70 trips/room = 8,048 J0
Hotel AM: 925 rooms x 0.67 trips/mom =620(372,248)
PM: 925 rooms x
® trips/room = M(38D,323)
NET NEW DAILY: 209'844
PROJECT TRIPS: AM: 914 f 376 out)
PM-0 19419 (743 Ing 676 out)
[11 Kiraley-Horn and Associates,Cjrghoice T�mc C�oun �_�M October 31, 1996. Trip rates M
increased to reflect vehicle test drives. J9
[2] Coramercial-retail trip generation rates based an the hadam of Transportation Engine= (17M, U2
G_enemtion, 5th Edition, updated February 1994, LAnd Uses 3 10(Hotel)and 820(Commercial Shopping
Center). raw (25%) for 50% total discount consistent with Brady
[31 Pass-By trip reduction rate (25%) and capture
Associates. QDJER,. t o 1 01 A�Pl a, City of South Son Francisco, January 1994.
17
Brisbane,NSWSOM A T%OMP50H
CITY OF BRISBANE
Is 50 PARK LANE
i i q
FAX 61 2 411,097
1
CALFORNIA
P
cr
PLANNING
September 24,
City of South San Francisco
Planning e e
Grand Avenue CA 94083
South San Francisco,
Attention: Susy Kalkin.Senior Planner
Re: Bay West Cove Draft EIR
Dear I am writing on behalf Ms.
of e City of °s a to comment on one e of the transportation of
draft for the Bay West Cove project.
BackgLoun
As you e City of °s a is concerned t traffic on Bayshore Boulevard. is an
off-ramp from southbound U.S. 101 which intersects with s l v in iso configuration.
During the morning,trtiffic backs up along Bayshore v a This
situation is t be resolved. situation will r aWavated if is
on Bayshore Boulevard s left into ro o commercial
Brisbane and South San Francisco have been discussing this situation since at least 1982,and it
previously t hook ramps should be built in t location. The hook ramps would provide an exit
from southbound U.S. l0l'to Bayshore Boulevard vi ys ore
Boulevard to southbound U.S. 101. This would alleviate traffic congestion on southbound Bayshore
Boulevard alleviate congestion at the intersection of Bayshore Boulevard it si
Boulevard.
Construction of e hook ramps was made a condition of rov
Transportation Auto °t authorized additional i for the Oyster Point Interchange y ,
Resolution 5®5 states:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that condition of this additional e funding
authorization, i ty [of South San Francisco) to e placement of an on-ramp from
Airport lev to southbound i a 101 north of [Oyster Point t Project
and e reconstruction of a existing exit ramp.which work will be incorporated into i 's
capital improvement ro of t separate from its s ter Point Project, vi a this
ramp construction and reconstruction wo is environmentally feasible that the funding for
such or is negotiated between the Authority and the City of South San Francisco;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that condition of is additional Measure funding
authorization,tha City also agrees to include the ramp construction in above
18
09/24/97
Page 2
paragraph,as a condition of approval or amendment of any conditions of approval,for the
Terrabay Development Project..."
The City of South San Francisco accepted the Measure A funds for the Oyster Point Interchange based on
its agreement to construct the hook ramps.
Construction of the hook ramps was implemented in the Terrabay approval proceedings. In the original
proceedings in 1983,the approved Development Agreement required the developer of Terrabay to fund the
hook ramps. (Exhibit G to Development Agreement.) In the 1996 proceedings,construction of the hook
ramps was part of the Terrabay project. (Ta y Revised SM p. 130.) The City of Brisbane
understands that the Terrabay developer has provided the funding for the hook ramps and that a design for
the ramps has been developed.
Construction of the hook ramps is essential to help relieve these traffic problems. The proposed fly-over
ramp may also help alleviate some of these problems. However,the best solution is to begin construction
of the hook ramps right away. That would alleviate traffic problem and allow access to the Terrabay
commercial area.
laa—WILt_Covl D
Because construction of the hook ramps has been planned for so long and because the funding is now
available from Te y is is starting Phase 11 construction,and because the City of South San
Francisco accepted Measure A funds conditioned on construction of the hook ramps,Brisbane was
surprised to see that the hook ramps were not considered to be part of the"base case"and do not appear on
the list of planned"traffic improvements for the Bay West Cove traffic analysis. (DEIR,pp 6-6.7-6 1
" 6-
13-6-14.)
This is all the more surprising because the Bay West Cove traffic analysis relies on the Terrabay nuffic-
analysis in several instances. For example,the DEIR assumes that the Bayshore Boulevard/U.S. 101 off-
ramp intersection will be signalized by the year 2000 and states"[t]hc assumed signalization of the
Bayshore U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp is consistent with the year 2000 and the year 2010 analyses
conducted for the proposed Terrabay project." (DEIR.p.6-9.)
That statement is not correct. The relevant table in the Revised Draft SEIR for the Terrabay project
presents information about the LOS for that intersection both with and without signalization(Terrabay
Revised SEIR Table 16,p. 129),and it also relies on construction of the hook ramps(id,p. 130). 'Me Bay
West Cove EIR is not consistent with the Te y EIR because the Bay West Cove EIR does not consider
construction of the hook ramps and does not provide information about the traffic impacts If the
Baysbore/U.S. 101 off-ramp intersection is not signalized.
it is important for the Bay West Cove DEIR to evaluate this intersection without signalization,because the
required approvals for signalization have not been obtained,and may not be feasible. As the DEIR notes,
ad signalization would require further analysis of off-peak volumes,accident history,Proximity Of Other
intersections/driveways and potential volume increases." 6-9.) One of the other considerations
is the fact that southbound Bayshore Boulevard currently flows unimpeded through this intersection.
Signalizing it would restrict that free flow.The City of Brisbane may not be willing to restrict that free
flow by signalizing the intersection. Therefore,it is not appropriate to assume that the intersection will be
signalized. It should be analyzed both with and without signalization,as was done in the Terrubay EIR.
Ile public does not have adequate information about the potential traffic impacts in the absence of an
analysis of this intersection without signalization.
,Uncompleted improvements include proposed southbound 'hook ramps'north of Oyster Point
Boulevard. This future improvement has W been included in the year 2000 baseline analysis."
19
09/24/97
Page 3
Further,the Bay West Cove DER must consider construction of the hook ramps,as was done in the
Terrabay SEIR. Signalization of the Bayshore/U.S. 101 ®r was assumed to be in connection with
construction of the hook ramps. s®the Revised SEIR states:
Phase III of the(Terrabay]project would include construction of new U.S. 101 southbound on
and off hook ramps connecting to Bayshore Boulevard at a signalized intersection that would also
serve as the primary access to the project's commercial portion. These ramps would be located at
about the same location as the existing southbound ®r connection to Bayshore Boulevard.
Provision of a new southbound hook on-ramp alon ayshore Boulevard as part of project Phase
M would remove a substantial amount of Brisbane traffic bound for southbound U.S. 101 that
previously would have traveled through the Oyster Point interchange to access the southbound on-
ramp at Dubuque Avenue. ...Tbus during the PM peak hour...operation at two of the three
intersections within the Oyster Point interchange...would be better with project Phase 1,H and M
(and the new southbound hook on-ramp alo yshore Boulevard)than without the project. As
shown in Table 16,due to the new southbound hook 0 ® to be installed as part of project
Phase M,the proliject would reduce unacceptable year 2010 PM peak hour operating
conditions..." (Ta y Revised SEIR,p. 130.)
Thus,the DER for Bay West Cove is not consistent with the Terrabay traffic analysis. The Terrabay
analysis assumes construction of the hook ramps while the Bay West Cove DEIR does not® These hook
ramps must be included in the traffic analysis in order to make it accurate and realistic.
Further,the Bay West Cove DER repeatedly states that it relies on the traffic improvements in the
Terrabay DSEE?.. (DEIR,footnotes 8 and 12.) However,the Terrabay DSEIR includes the hook ramps,
it the Bay West DEIR does not. Therefore,it is not corrct to state that the DEIR relies on
improvements listed in the Te bay DSEIR.' ...........
Additionally,to the extent that the Bay West Cove DEIR relies on the traffic analysis for the Terrabay
project,its results are not accurate unless they assume construction of the hook ramps,as did the Terrabay
analysis.
An accurate description of the traffic at the intersection of Bayshore and the U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp
is crucial to an accurate traffic analysis. As the Bay West Cove DEIR notes,the Bayshore/U.S. 101
southbound off-ramp is a"key intersection." (DEIR,p.6-9.) It will function at LOS F in both the morning
and evening in the year 2000 with and without the project. (DEM Tables 6.1 and 6.5 at pp.6-12 and 6-26;
p.6-9)'
The DEIR discusses the southbound fly-over ramps as a mitigation measure(or assumes that it will be
constructed). (E.g.DM p.6-29"notes.") However,there is nothing in the DEIR to show that such a
measure is feasible or that funding is available. The DEIR notes that without the proposed U.S. 101
southbound"fly-over"ramp,the Bayshore/U.S. 101 intersection is one of the five intersections that would
likely be affected most by proposed project traffic.(DEIR,p.6-9.) In contrast,there is funding for the
hook ramps,and their construction should be taken into account in the DEIR.
There is simply not enough information in the DEIR to determine whether the proposed U.S. 101
southbound-fly-over ramp is feasible and no information as to whether the ramp will be a single-lane or a
two-lane ramp,whether any part of the ramp is within the jurisdiction of the City of Brisbane and therefore
requires City approval,or when and if funding is expected to become'available. The traffic analysis is
based on the assumption that the fly-over will be built(e. .®p.6-14 and Table 6.6, of 1),but there is no
2 The citations in the Bay West Cove DEIR are to the Draft SEIR for Teirabay. They should reflect the
Revised DSEE?,instead of the DSEIR.
'The DEIR does not provide similar tables for year 2010 with and without the project.
20
09/24/97
Page 4
information in the DEIR to support that assumption.In the absence of this information,the adequacy of
this proposal cannot be evaluated and the accuracy of the traffic analysis has not been demonstrated.
In addition,the DEIR does not indicate that several proposed or assumed traffic measures require approval
of the City of Brisbane. 'Mese include sign alization of the Bayshore/U.S. 101 off-rarrip intersection and
any widening of Bayshore Boulevard in comiction with the proposed widening of the southbound off-ramp
to two lanes(DEIR,P.6-13). If the proposed southbound fly-over ramp or the sin alization at the scissors
ramp is within Brisbane's jurisdiction,then its construction would also require City approval. Tbe City of
Brisbane should be listed ins ti 3.4.2"Other Agencies is May Use the FIR in Their Permit
Authority"(P.3-31),if the DEIR intends to rely on these proposed measures.
Another problem is that the transportation section of the DEIR relies in several instances on the Draft EIR
for the East of 101 Area Plan. (See footnotes 1, 11, 17, 18,Table 6.5,note 1®and Table 6.6,note 1®)
However,in the Revised Draft SEIR for Terrabay,the East of 101 Area Plan EIR was admitted to be
inaccurate,because it erroneously assumed a 20%reduction in trip generation due to the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District employer trip reduction rule. That rule was invalidated by the Legislature,
and the 20%reduction could not be assumed.(Revised Draft SEIR for Terrabay,p.vii®) Therefore,the
Bay West Cove EIR cannot rely on the analysis of the East of 101 Area Plan,because that analysis is
inaccurate and outdated.
Additionally,the"Street Network"section(§6.1.1)of the"Environmental Setting"section of the traffic
analysis does not mention Bayshore Boulevard or the Bayshorc U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp to Bayshore
Boulevard. (DEIR,p.6-1-- ®) is should be corrected because the Bayshore/U.S. 101 southbound
off-ramp is a key intersection.
ne City of Brisbane is very concerned about the hook ramps. I'liese ramps are integral to South San
Francisco's approval of the T project,and were included in the development agreement for that
t® They were also made a condition of receipt of Measure A funding for the Oyster Point
interchange project. Additionally,the hook ramps cannot be omitted without revising the development
agreement and reversing the project approvals for Terrabay if legally permissable. In the absence of any
proposal to amend those documents,the book ramps must be considered when South San Francisco
addresses other projects,including Bay West Cove. 'Me City of Brisbane has worked collaboratively with
South San Francisco to ensure that both cities® traffic would be best served.
'Mank you for your consideration of these comments. The City of Brisbane hopes that the hook ramps will
be included in the final EIR and that they will be built as soon as possible. We look forward to working
with you to implement all aspects of the Oyster Point Terra bay traffic improvements..
S, ly® Sincerely,
'Y' 7ia7GV"
Carole 0.N Ison ames 11onipson
�c
Planning D ector City Engineer
cc: Ann Broadwell,Adams Broadwell&Joseph,South San Francisco,CA
21
RESPONSE TO LE=R FROM CAROLE NELSON, PLANNING DIREC77OR, AND
ENGINEER,JAMES THOWSON, CITY CITY OF BRISBANE
® r for t r ryt were not ic 1_
g t[
At the time of the st Cove DEIR traffic analysis, the c consultant was
environmental informed by Brian Kangas Faulk, the t t working
Terrabay Specific 1 ramps were no longer feasible.' The
specific reasons ' ramps not being constructed were ) that they would
be located in an archaeologically sensitive
being reduced in size from that analyzed in the revised that the ramps
longer would no be economically feasible. In addition to information, the City of
South San Francisco ' e Planners to
projections r flyover, based on growth projections
circulation improvements projections
assume hook ramps for the proposed Terrabay Specific Plan project. this
analysis latest information at the time of the DEIR 1 ramps were not
considered. After the Bay West Cove DEIR was released for review period,
CCS.informed the traffic consultant that the hook ramps were
traffic circulation improvements for the revised 1 z.
Proposed ' have e hook ramps location due to
Project is flyover ramp
Gateway/Oyster Point intersection. With new US 101 southbound on-off hook ramps
signalization. at Bayshore Boulevard, the projected B0
With r oposed Project traffic, this location would continue to operate
". With the hook ramps, three other study intersections improve e
hour LOS. These s of Oyster Point/Sister i ° r
Point/US 101 NB on/Dubuque, and Dubuque/US 101 SB on-NB off ramps.
intersections would improve c bound for southbound
US 101 from the r °e the new hook ramps at Bayshore
2. e v c psis re ' e v r a i .
Comment noted. The traffic analysis for the Bay West Cove i reference e
traffic Terrabay analysis for specific circulation improvements ( ® . intersection r
i
Jan Flaherty,Senior Planner,Brian,Kangus,Foulk, Personal communication,July 1997.
2 Mike Aronson,Traffic Engineer,M Engineers and Planners,Personal communication, October 10, 1997°
RESpONSE To COMMENM ON THE DEIP, BAY WEST COVE COMMERCUL DEVELOPMENT
signalization improvements). However, it was not referenced for the proposed
Bayshore/FJS 101 SB hook ramp intersection.
3. ram intersection with and si without a &I. Comment noted. The BWC DEIR analyzed
Sa
®S s ignal. Please refer to Tables 6.5 and 6.6 of the DEIR
and accompanying discussions of mitigation required for this location. In addition, the
Terrabay DSEIR traffic analysis did assume that Bayshore Boulevard would be controlled
if a signal were installed.
®
Comment noted. See responses #1 and #2.
5. m,,hS_T&rIAh&y D_$_FI_R_. Comment noted. See response #1.
®
to G LeMajffiptgr Point intersectigna. Comment noted. The City of South San Francisco
instructed the traffic consultant to include the US 101 southbound flyover ramp for the
horizon year 2010 and also to conduct an analysis with and without the flyover for the
horizon year 2000. Currently, this ramp is in the design process and the City of South
San Francisco is planning to have the ramp funded and constructed by the year 2003 or
sooner.
It should be emphasized that the flyover is not part of the Bay West Cove Project;
separate environmental analyses have been prepared and certified by the City of South
San Francisco.
7. Traffic measures re ire the a
pgroval ofAhe City of Brisba Comment acknowledged.
�e.
Where proposed circulation improvements fall within the city of Brisbane's jurisdiction,
the City should be included in the DEIR Chapter 3.4.2 list of"Other Agencies Which
May Use the EIR in Their Permit Authority."
affi n hcn�eo 0
® r
',lbeB DE e ff
c
y lumesL
r c all tud t ctic
e t to P geneLtion' 8 erse n:volumes used in the Bay West
�p d iv -al
t f
ra fic anal s were justed to refl the coff drive-alone percentage and not
assume a 20% reduction in t rip generation. This is consistent with the DSEIR Terrabay
analysis.
23
RESPONSE To r 8 R4Y NEST COVE COMMERCUL DEVELOPMENT
-
® section. Comment acimowledged. Additional text should have been added to the Airport
goulevard description noting that north of Oyster Point Boulevard, Airport Boulevar
changes to Bayshore Boulevard in a northerly direction. A key intersection
Bayshore Boulevard would be the Bayshore/US intersection.
r `e _. Comment noted. Please s .
09/30119,37 16.07 510-286-5513 CALTRANS R-ANNING 04 laCA3L U2
WAR OF CAUFM"--8A"W TUWWAUM AND NYASA A0&XV an Wasm GVWMW
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OAAAW. CA URNUM
W4 W"M
September 30, 1997
SM- 101-22-71
SCII#96092081
SM101211-B
® Susy Kalkin, Senior Plariner
City of South San Rarvisco
plaraiing Department
400 Grand Avenue
south San Frorudisco,CA 94M
Re: Draft Envh�� ImPRct RePort for 'he Bay West Cove V"eluPraent
F*ect
Dear Ms. Yidkizu
Thank you for including the Qdffornia State Departmertt of TMn9P0rtRtkm
(Caltrgna) in the arAmmental review proem.. We have reviewed the above
referenced document and forward the following comments:
1. Us 101 within the San &W49W and the Son Mateo County lines is liackded M1
Caltrans District 4's Ramp Mew Developatumt Plan as AL cotddOr where ramp meftaIng
will be impkmented vadun the next ten ymn ® r please.redo the ftaffic
analysis of this project to Include ramp metering.
2. On Pa`V_3-21,The statement, " The intersection improvments required by
that time are shown.in Figure is inconect since Figure 6-8 shows only
volumes.
3. On pap 6-5,Section 6.2,please shOw the cm-lant (wdstlng)law geometric alm 3
IF Ws the mum as the Year 2000 VME&k, please indicate as sudL
4. On pages 6,9,Sectim&23 and 6_14.,Section 62.8,the methodology used tD
sot seem to be vabd sk-K* it UNRUrm Out +
derive the years 20M and 2olo volumes does r
thelv is no traffic growth from 1997 to the year 2000 and fim 1997 to 2010.
5- On page&13, Secdon 6.2.S,please revise*e fourth sentence to read 'Wdh
signalization and the Widening of the US 101 wu&bOuzkd a"MMP to two lamthe
resulting LOS Would be.... -please attach a year 20M traffic analysis report for the
proposed signalized Bayshore/US 10, SB off_ramp hiteraection showing LC)9 B and A
during AM and pM peak '®respectively. aph,without the imPact Of the PfoieLt
6. on page 6-14 Section 62.8,thir l
, d paragx
the toW emtmg SB -101 off-mmp traffic-seems too SnIen Of gL percentage conVared to ihe] IV
growth of taffic for the year 20W-
25
r' rya
09im /1937 16.07 510-286-5513 CALTRANS I 4
Kalkin/SM101211-B
Sephalbff ,1
Page 2
7. On page 6-15,Figure ®wW page 6-16,Figure 6-6,all PUMed roadways'
imIuding the
8 please ' nght-tum the
.,point Blv& bae lane and
onto Gatmay Blvd,Eccim Blvd- IhO rePOrt should also address
the potential pedaftum/motmOtS C011flIcts-at mtersechOw where there am double
right-turits and triple left4urn&
9. On page , ' ,the first paragraph states that'BaSed On the
r recommendations, ffie eu&ound flyer approach is
recommended to be striped for me left-tum lane (for U-bxnw) We believe that
induce wxw%WaY
movements onto wes&*und Oyster Point Blvd. Moreover. the CCS Plarakers and
Enginem'July 3. 1997 memo an Ppdated Traffic Forecasts and OPefatiOns dd not
menfm U.tum. The second paragraph states that 'Me eaSthOUnd OYster point
Blvd. approach would need one left-turn lWW (for l` two &tough lanes' and
me r1git-turn.larimo ® Figure 6 of the CCS July '
Imp
the propcoLd Laws consist-okom - ®® one duvagh lane and one shared
airough/right®turn lane. Please elaw ..
10. On page ,tab,6 62,does InWnection ,Oyster point/Gateway,also
inciude.us in sou&bound f[yover off-ramp? If it does, fntersecWn 5 should read 10
Oyster Point/Gateway/is jol sB fiyover.off-ramp-
® r -
. .1 the
off-ramp 101 SB flyover t 1 .
us
re
striping mentioned in dis section, and the proposed Imes gown on FV= 6 of the
CQ5 July 3o 197 memo. Pleew clarify.
. . 12. C)n page 6-32,Secdon 6.&1,pleam identify the derligmted Bay West Cove
r .
Blvd on an.1he maps in this document on the lag paragraph,second-Mth year 2010 veWe tra� MUL., this locati0in would w7aiem. .Is referring
coagestion during the peak hours.- Please clarify what-fliis i
13. C)n Pages 6_S elm 6_2S,Figures 6-2 thru 6-8,please of 1he streets and wads cocresl=ding to the study bttersections on Tables 62 and 6
such as Sister Cities ., Bayshwe Blvd. and Grand Ave. F*r irdersecdOng 10 and
11,Tablm 6.2 and.6-6,please clarify if ies Grand Ave. or East Grand Ave.
E"3 /1997 16.07 510-286-5513 FL"U43"
Page 3
intersect!.on does XOt show the US 10, SB flyover kwninus as a fifth-leg connection
-to C4mW Point Blvd./Gateway Blv& intersection. Mao, it must be considered in this
report and in the analysis that the flyover left-turn movernent at C)pter Point
Blvd./Gateway Biv& into the project wM not be allowed ibr safety reasons and for -J
better operations.
25 is greater compared to that shown on IF4pne",PW 6-28,for both AM and FM
16. Any work or hWfIc control done within State riO*-Of-WMY WiU an
encroachment permit During the permit pham detalig concerning roadway desig'n
G.J. BattagUrd,Disuict office Chief
Calftwo,
mAintenanoe services and Permits
P.O.Box 23MO
Oakland,CA 94Q"W
ShoWd you have questlow OrL them comlimo#please conhwl Melinda
Pagadum of my staff at(510)M�-M"
HARRY Y. YAHATA
District Director
District
B SCH
RESpONSE To S ,ST
CHIEF,RESPONSE To LE=R FROM PHII.LIP BADAJ, DISTRICT BRANCH
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS)
1. vi 1 cl r to ° Comment noted. The
inclusion ramp metering the overall traffic analysis is er ally not appropriate for
project.single i , such analyses .
2. ct. Comment acknowledged. Figure
6.8 shows only volumes.
® Plgase show the ' e ' . t acknowledged.
consistent geometries are existing °e .
4. �, e i
7® 7® Please r for
traffic growth assumed the year 2000. Please refer to page 6-14 for traffic growth
assumed by the year 2010.
5. 1 r ° t Comment acknowledged.
Please see attached LOS calculation sheets for the proposed r
off-ramp .
6. The °s ° mr s e small. Comment
noted. As stated in the third paragraph of the DEIR, "
Engineers • s, the proposed flyover off-ramp
470 out of 710 of the eidsting vehicles a eidsting southbound off-ramp
AM peak ® During the PM peak hour, the v r would divert
vehicles °s ° ®r se are gg5fiUM11=0 include any
growth r the horizon year 2000 or for the horizon year
volumes did include the planned US 101 southbound flyover off-ramp. With the
flyover off-ramp ' D into the eidsting
southbound US 101 off-ramp r the 1 flyover off-ramp
shown in Figure .
. 1 r e i r Comment acknowledged.
attached Please see 1 r s with corrected e maps.
RESpONSE To COMMEN73 ON THE DEIR,BAY REST COVE COAMIERCUL DEVELOPMENT
b n on ter Po*n Boul d
e n at he
t
he
ta -d 'o al�t
e ts
cIr rov m
w h Id b
p
tw
th
n
0
8. P' a dre n co s e
Ga d M i p d on improvements at the
faterseeti 0
Ga ayl ter �n, and ewalk:s should be installed to allow
i t:h7s 2� pa ter P evars p st
cy ts a OiF
e e ong; t oul d. Bicycle and pedestrrian
improvements would be very similar to those currently in place at the Oyster Point/US
101 interchange at Oyster Point/US 101 northbound on/Dubuque and Oyster Point/Sister
Cities/Airport intersections. Iniese intersections have multiple turn lanes but still allow
pedestrian and bicycle travel in an east-west direction.
9• ended striping for the eastbound
Engineers in a memorandum dated
ecommended to be striped for one
th
noomrough-right lane. The proposed
eastbound
® lane (from the proposed flyover off-ramp) was to provide the access
to the main Auto Nation driveway off Oyster Point Boulevard. Since the July 3, 1997
memo was prepared, discussions with the City of South San Francisco Planning staff
indicate that the proposed eastbound left-turn lane from the flyover off-ramp has been
removed from plans. T'his decision was made in joint agreement with Caltrans, South San
Francisco Department of Public Works, and CCS Planner and Engineers. The new
eastbound approach lane geometries on the flyover would be two through lanes and a
separate right-turn lane.
10. D an e 6 2 the DE R n r�sec
r
ri t
I fo
T I of
fi r ff_r ? No it does not.
should be corrected to read Gateway/ s
11. Cl e mended Year 201 tions tLr t�he ter
woul ly
m_S 101 S fl ov 0 wit cZeir=
,���h=e
Poinlrfaewa B er off_ d Thkely not be enough right-of-
way to implement the recommended mitigation measures of one left-turn lane, two
through lanes and a separate right-turn lane. The CCS July 3, 1997 memo indicated one
left-turn lane, one through lane, and one through-right turn lane. The additional
recommended through lane was needed to mitigate year 2010 volumes with the proposed
® However, these recommendations are now invalid, based upon recent discussions
with the City of South San Francisco (see response #9 above). The new eastbound
flyover approach lanes now consist of two through lanes and one right-turn lane. While
intersection operations would likely improve with the elimination of the eastbound left-
turn lane, overall intersection LOS operation would continue to be considered a
significant unavoidable impact.
12. ldeggb Bay West Cove Boulevard. Comment acknowledged. Attached Project Figures
in the DEIR have been corrected to show all Bay West Cove Boulevard (with Project).
29
RESpONSE 710 COMMENTS ON THE DEIP,B,4Y WEST COVE COMMERCUL DEVELOPMENT
1 . r c s ° 9 's ® refers
r Point®Boulevard. The southbound
d 'vc a �o c o c o c vc proach legs of the Oyster
t yr -r r on.
13. Ide ' and streets. All mapped figures have been revised
figures.names. See the attached revised 14. The
r r ( vc
Lintersection. Comment acimowledged. Ile base maps are corrected for Figures 6-6
6-8. The flyover eastbound left-turn movement was assumed to be part of the planned
circulation improvements discussions with the South San Francisco
staff as well as CCS Planners and Engineers in August 1997. The Project sponsor is
contributing r 5 million dollars towards the r t
#2 by Robert Beyer, City of South San Francisco).
s Pro* ` r -
® _consistent. Comment acimowledged. The Project trips shown i
are at correct. Project trips shown on Figure
revised to show the correct Project . Project
to/from would be entering r ` c Oyster
flyover off ramp intersection Figures.
16. r st to t - v it t Comment
Level of Service Calculations, Bayshore BlvdJUS 101 SB Off-Ramp
Critical Movement Analysis: PLANNING
Calculation For " s;rn '-nu-! AM
AM 97
. -6 FT
Step 1. IDENTIFY LAKE GEOME79PY ® -6 1 TH.'R N' 'C'MEG-' Step Eb. VOLUME ADJUSTMENT FOR
Approach, 3-Bayshore -------Approach----- KULTIPHASE SIGNAL 51YERLA?
A 2 - -5- Possible voi ume Ad us;ec,
2- -4-;
a
R L N IaAo. of change 0 0 0 Ja Prob- Critical Carryover Criiicai
R i T T L intervaisihour iable Volume ",o nexr voiuffie
1
------------- T A H T -------------i.04 capacity on 0 0 0 01phase in Ypn phase in
---------------------------------------
Approach '--NT 1 mange (vph) '70A2' OR OyDt -6-7
G ratio
L v Y V C-11 V
H `.'wnslna --o'u-e 2156 331141AM4 L57�%K) OUR 121 A4) 157�
vph
A A A
.LT capac"k-y or! 0 'a 9' HE
;T 0 p r rl h green "vpr,';
v i.�
------------- -------------
LIMES, J, ep SUM Or- CRITICAL VC11"MES
ml
TDC"ITIFY VUUKEE, 4 n vD.k ASSIGN 1 ANE o Voin St a
1'767-A11�15703'+00+00
Approac -------- -------
A+ A
3: i6T= 0 2':R 0 7 7 i2`f VDh Po
_HM 4 fl @ P -H= 1-67 1 M u 767
N E'R�64 EC T:3 N LEVEL 1F
RT= v LT= 0 Y V vt .4 Step 2.
------------- EnVi
------------ S D I E
,,--Approach 2
'coapare step 7 at,] taole ED
i
Approach I— A A
------------- -------------
Step RK"i
V
n__ A
st e r D'T"my P�-�'E VTC
Ea.
Dh-M signal"
ADJUSTME'N'7 FAC"ORS 02 R
A22" Approach 31111
-------------
-------------
11 Approacn
V
------------- -------------
---------------------------------------
Al
31
A' C-M rl-z 41
Proble- 'Etatmert": YT- ZM
HO!ulmc I!%_!IT_VILNT rn
N L IM muJUDI: z�u
Step 'IC T IFY LANE GUE MMCTDY tee 4. LEFT C HE en nu.
'U"N.t W.—i... lu *-
Approadh 33.Bayshore -------Lmor;H"------ MULTIFFHASIE SlaNAL OVERLAP
u
BI®3 re Ad.;Ustedi
-2- -3- Possible J
R L N of cHanae J 1 0 ob- Critical C ar r.y ove r Critical'
�
i merva�s/hour :able V o"I ume
o nexi Volu me
6
QiPnase in vpn------------- 3.L�7 capacity v v phase in vpn
--------- i Iky on
Approacn '--RT change (VP10 ----------------------------------------
A_RT'd I IiMl 489(A2) OR B 1 40
V v V I :`:Sir C.6 Y� ?a'."�o A
�Lj - DS%'Al 3 R 16":
L T-�,_ I Id.Opposing VOL'ume 55b i tiSM
I i Ij
T H__'k L 1 IN I in vp
A A A L !e.1 cm-pacitq on
Approach green �Vpn`
® ------------- capac" n .0
.ra IZZ I;f
M
U S
-------------
'tao 2. ql.!!!V-m AS Try !It f! !)P! CC
ST rs-�
VE ?iuL�.�+:.u®
Approach 3
I.. LT 0 2:RT= 0 2 9 '88
4 !
Th= 596 t TH= � 9 '— 489
RT= 0 w v ii= o V v Lt ui
------------- ------------- SERVICE
(compare step with tao
(--Approach 2 ' fi)le
Approach
-
----°-------- ------------
R"= Q k
ep
AN4
------------- --------------
Approach, I
V
------------- ------------ fl
---------------------------------------
Al Q
aj
32
&.YL C.. �,,, !
a0 all, luwcle�nt M1.1 1 !v 6-Am I-v-3
7
pi,�Me, NI
t azt: All 7 '77
AD-_ . 2.1NiYSh0Te -------L:
possib!e lk*
I a N'r,. ov; change 1. 0 0 Or ob- C I CuTe! r, c al
R T T 7 L i interval S/hOUT aill i e Vo I ume t I) r� �101 use
------------- T 4 4 4 T .........---------------b.LT capacity on W 1 0 0 1D Phase in vDn phase i,n vph
Ap[.uinadh -RT chance (*Fl) ---------------------------------------
" —I - A - COB w
LT— v v v V _x I ri ki.G/C ratio I I ,----
!" SJOB(AD OR 0 ui
TV-"' voiume 508 C-1 15:�Nj 10527`AIQA4 N 2.,13 5 lk 4 52fi Ii
in Yph
A A A T E IA I
le.LT capauty on iD C, Gait
RT--v > Appr,r,#ach green Nph)
------------- L L T 'R - ------------- M T capaicity i n 1) E10 1149 M1 Is
T 'w+e)
A
H, +Left turn ioluce
2 in ;Ph
hp;rsa.C-�, 4,Bays.i,,:,re Q
a
-----------
a-
5.
n, T= 0 A6
ppu --------------
TIN= 508
RT= 0 v 0 Step B. INTERSECTION 01EIL OF
------------- ------------ pl SERVICE
(--Approv:n 2 (compare step 7 with table 6)
B
Approach I—) -------
------------- -------------
A
1:16T= 0 4: RT= Step 9. RECALCULATE
TH= 0 TH= 590
C
RT= 10 ec-,.e
mesa C h a n g a
C'Y ' 'jr!"MCC
A A.A.f
-------------- -------------
Mptproach
v
------------- -------------
------------------------------°__------i
Al A A E1 v-- B3
Approac.,,a 4
Al! 44 04 i
33
1.1:1:2,w Ana`
C-
7TI n; P AM PSE2,
Ly -17 V�T
------------------------------------
I b~a I
v
N'
A p
C ul
R L a o, 0 a n q Cr Ja c a I airy c v e T UrJt�l
R T T 7 1 i P.t ery a 1 J;our f able 110 1 u-r.e
—11, 4T al
------------- T ar: y rn 0 AV il a 5 e in vpin pnase n v P I'l
H F, T ------------ V
! --------------------------------------
AppToac'n i cnange kyDh) -
'j %. L OR G I I
i T--
L Z RTH c &I C a t 1'.0 0 1 A2BI 344(A" u
.�h-A\ �G.Dpposinq voiume 344 0 37S 10 1 E M3A4 5 0 0(A OR 189 fA A't)
L i <--Th o
TH--,, /. -1 —
i n vpn
R TH.- A A A Y--'L i le.'LT capacity on 0 0 S•22 2 1841
AppTvadh s green (vpf,'y
------------- T -------------'UT capacity in 0 8 2 2 18C.
T I;--
h
fb+e*$
0 u--,.a
k�7 T
a f h ay S C: e NO
c L T ct". 7 :!.y
05prcac:
h+
TH= 344 344
A ; V (I
v+ 0 Step 8 1 NTERSEC 6 DIN LEVEL OF
------------- ------------- SERY 7 CE
2 (compare step 7 with table 6)
A
Apprach
A A
------------- -------------
I Step 9. RECALCULATE R
T':!= 378
------- -------!Geometric "Itlange:
Aovoach 4
j.
No"urre Chance.--
-----------
------------- -------------
Approach
tl
•
rTproacO i. i
•------------- -------------
---------------------------------------
.3
34
_ R 4lY4'®-
-
C_==__.r—®•==___wn--""°..1ppR"f°L_____ � ��. � ea. nvy��g'.•� Tip °
eft®, %a IDENyT+-=i d.AMC ..o.'r��.g ! ce,- _ --. . -Up. _ut:m Step a . " -
6t Approach Mayshore ° -------AGplroI---- NU FFHASE STI aNAL uvERLAP
- lu c.;_
a _ - �71U�e AU6tEG�5a j
:aP p� o change a Q ®Prpb- Critical Carryover Critica!
g T T T L a intervals/hour a table Volume to next Volume
------------- T H n n T --------------1b.0 capacity on D O Aase in vph phase in vph
Approach 1 { ro E `r > -..®Ks W cnange (vph), ;------------mv------------------------
v i" d 'hl't iCAIC ra.10 1 A2 n' ({tfp �lt ij
Li --TH i rd.apposing volume a 967 C 156 3i4sA3A4 I'LEA4% 157'1
F
;;.v-w1H a In vph • "
�T -vJ a, .. ., ~ mapaL»my srr{ a V jr� Cb= m
1 C
--v n : Apprf acs 2 green! :vph) a 1
------------- L L T R D capacity in ® ; 944 ME
wsb 3 � 1
w . <
C.,_eOt turn vol Oe
xn �N����p iii
Amer sae' 'tiayS.°rOFe ln:. 'J _�.__ a b Mfl!'
b®®�T-� ,.. •-VILA NT
..
Approad, 1911
u U ------ _ -------e
I ee u
a
LT= ,y�y n " u NT= a 7 . '+ R 1124 vph
��kk F1[ 1 ti t �5 7 —1
r.r- a v LT- 0 r v' v+ J " Step G. INTERSECTION LEVEL Ur
------------- -------------1 a M M6GE III
<--Approacn 2 (compare step 7 with table El
fl G C � u
Approach A:
------------- ------------ .� _______________________________________.
_ 4: PT=
Step 9. PECALIULPI E
C,
-y= A, '1= tJE
------- nu- p etric .hanne:
_ a.
A a_. . .. a® _.._ ®_®.
uawmmu a �'a„ �r B
O! u
! V tall
6 -------------'
------------- I III.
I
w Y v.
"
If 9
r "
Approach
-------------
---------------------------------------
Iz - A Q
!
its,s
7
intusect-ion- 2ayshr.-m-lUES.
Step 4
Ste .
p
'Al""PHASE SM.IAL 0101 AP
U T
rrb
ossiu- u r'.a Adjus�ed
IWL I 'arryover Cr i Cal
R L a.No. of chanGE u Fr ob- Cr 4"c a� C
R inteyvalsihour fable volume to next Volume
————————————— T :b.LT capacity on 0 0 0 Wha5e in vp.n phase in v
-------------
1--RT ---------------------------------------
Approach 1 i change Npi-I'l 2) Ok N')
ME
__A V V V ic.G/'6 ratio 0 1 1 iA2B! MEW us
6�
H_A'l 16304)
LT (--TH id.Opposing voiume 758 0 320 5981AN4 299(0 OR
TH--> tv-LTi in vph
�e.�T Capacity 0,-.
RTH-v) v--LT 0 875 6 0 2
R-
_----_---®--v Approazil 2 green [vp�0
0 T7F 6 0!-
——— L 16 T R R --_---------®�;.�T capacity -in J-
T T H 7 71 113B Vs vph fkb+e)
L:
"Tr ll %41afe1Psb
V
II
A r. E ynlu-a IT un
PAI VC-1"YEE
Elan L YBIM 711TV Vri!WI ASS?G' "MEE; �
oach 'I'
i Appr
': IT= 0 :1 1 A4. 1057 vph
'R 2:RTE= 0 3 9
TH= 598 e 1 TH= 1758 752
A
RT= 0 v C LT= v V vt v o Step 3® INTERSECTION LEVEL OF
.6.1 6L-iLU I-E
------------- ------------- SERVICE
(—Approach 2 u kcomparE step 7 with taole Gj'
Approach
4 A _
11
e Ups I°
f �6
—
aaAA 8 q \\ \
a °g ¢�
cwmR
Alf ECOLOWrAL
I AM
a
I r4 ' !
pmom
rA mu
BERRA
® '° —
1 jv a PARK m�
POW
PAN
go
mov I a
4 ..
a
p
e
0
¢ ® Fammaw
maw
PROJECT
SITE
b°
I I
101
M
LN
®� cur 4
4yT E#
own am
POW
IMP
tl
a � q••�e � @ ( � ( s @ tae ° ®® � a+
abi I®AV�
ti t � a P e�sa as ffi
10
� r •
alp
t
® ve ail,° ffi
%1k SITE LOCATION MAP
Figure 6-1
0 m n 1 7,_7 /"
.i ti•
z cm
I
CD
L
IF
uj
cc
11.0
as
cr
Oj
CY C2
AlOdkily
E
C)
38
s
•
.•.:��.�.�.•.�< Vim.
off:
® r,
I
ur
ul
L
lu
o
CL
ui
Am ims"
Lij
IL
® T 4g
ui-
CL
CL
CL
now
a
63
win
win
;; ( i9 pe
OL
w`�
c
( )
L, (03)ol
j rif-
CL-� We) is
w
v
In
lu
A
r
_ I ��
12
l
1
j`( lttl b
®'0 as
tam
1 ®t g d
LU
t(set)002 U
rr a ( l)OR
i U .
cas�. gyp, d)4 f
t)£t E,s
611111 °.,• I Lo
r F( £1 at —
CYR cc
CU to
�lJ Stl
( 1 t£
( 1st 1 9 CD
(S 113 t t �®
( )61
1 l �� � ) 11 09L
( 1 i°I' cts
7�
LW0dWIV
(see)tit£
c�
LO
CD
IF
ot
if
T TT-
cc
Lo
CD
ca
CL z
loom we
CD
cm
ca
cm
`
lkl�Odl G9
s
i
z co
crji co
oc)
(Bag)
1
L-mur
t (a)16
!)3l6
(o) ®T
(0)0 _4 p
(o)
Cd
cc r
�-
L
c
l
11311 db
Wj
9 ) l }
CY
l)t �`
$ iss) l
ui
( l)
i� ' ( lt--
U.
41� )ZL
_ r l) t
�� 9
LIN,t
m�a
Cq
aa�cc
a.
Cm co 2
�� eel CM
(gat)
®®,
(m cc
( 1)t +
)6
°( ) i l� ev
(
(96C L91 aim an ti) L �° OL t
® )Y
� l i
ob
®��.9161 o
0
B Z
0 to
Fle t-
W O9L
.� ( )
( !s
9 11 oil �
4 l 9lzw OC
. 9` 114
cas
}
l)
-4
00 a
EL
L dl
CD
l
t c
� 1l�911
�
C6 0
i
6 l!
Iwo(� ) C9 (Dew On
(00109
i t !
o
gme�}
sm
Call
LU CL
c� fir. w f �(911 69,og
gn
9!!sv
�tl
* 993 c�
099 �F-flow 091
cm r tit)
l
AN
I
krry �
MOM
x
t ! l
c�
(00
z Go
s
CIO CD
(OW 69
)go t
M.7, Q
(st)SSt
sap LZ)
zg
09)alp t na
1° 90 Ot ®"
( t) t9
L)
0 cc
An
s L 1
oz
wa
)09tt o (Coe)cc t
P
-(99)99 t4 tq
ez oz
aa
`)L
94) t t �� Cow
!z)9 `�
Of
� ( ) t
I f ►� F-{ 9
� I� r t t LZ
i f
OF 09)9 (OL )ffiLgt 1 T r-
��� t
lot
Z93
cl
LU
r(gzt) t
cis
r�
S ( )
iA l9 199 �®
t tz
MOM t
98L I tun,
Iz
q� )9z it,
Imodidiv
CD
4
NAFIRK
CCAG R E r11
crry/couNTY AssociAnm oF Gov=NmMs SEP 2 2
OF SAN MIATE0 COUNff
PLANNING
AdWM a BdMW 0 BrOM 6 Bwftame 0 Ca&w 0 D*COY a East Pdo Aft 0 Faster CLY 6&W MOM ft 0 MWOMSh 0 MWAR P&4 0 Mmrae
ftcpm 0 pwh*VaUa a RMWOW CI& a SM Rnm a So C4dw a San Mateo a Sm Mmo Cam* 0&wt Sm Fmn&co 0 WOMW*
September 16, 1997
Susie KaUdn, Senior Planner
Planning Department
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Dear Ms. Kalkin:
SUBJECT: Review of DEIR for the Bay West Cove Commercial Project
As part of the "Tier 2" traffic impact analysis required by the San Mateo County Congeslion
Management Program (CMP), staff has reviewed the revised Draft EIR (DEIR) for the
proposed Bay West Commercial Project, dated August, 1997.
The DEIR does not provide analysis of the project's potential impacts on the CMP network, as
Mpired by the CW. In particular, the DEIR does not address traffic impacts on U.S. 101.
In order to conform with CM]? "Tier 2" analysis requirements, we recommend that the DEM
be amended to address ttalfic impacts on the segments of U.S. 101 between the San Mateo-San
Francisco County line and Oyster Point Boulevard, and between Oyster Point Boulevard and
1-380, in the northerly and southerly directions, for the AM and PM peak hours.
Thank you for amending the DEIR to include analysis of relevant CMP network roadways. If
you have any questions regarding C/CAG's review of this project, please contact Camry
Planner Andrew Delaney at 650/3634061.
Sincerely,
Rich Napier
Executive Director, C/CAG
RN:ATD/kcd - ATDH1396.6KN
45
10 Twvi DoLPHN DRM,SurrE C-200,Rmwow Crry,CA 94065-1036*650/599-1406 b'FAx: 6509 594-9M
M00345.WPQ
RESPONSE TO COMMEN73 ON THE DEIR,BAY WEST COVE COMMERML DEVELOPMEIVT
RESPONSE TO LEWER FROM RICH f DIRECTOR,
CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY
. 1hr, RWC D otential act on W network
acknowledged.and US 101. Comment the f the traffic
consultants contacted Andrew 1 aney (San Mateo County Planning)
(Economic and Planning Systems). . Delaney indicated that the traffic consultant
determine should s were assumed for the Project site forecast
model. Then the assumed land uses could be compared with the proposed Project
description. Should the Project r r fewer peak hour trips
analyses than those land uses assumed in the CMP model, a traffic of the Project's
forecast on US 101 would not be necessaxy. The CW e
similar or worst case analysis for the US 101 corridor. 'Me results of this approach are
below.discussed The land use
consultants were r °
use assumptions r the Project site. Ed Sullivan of EPS was able to provide
Traffic for the Project
study ® Specifically, the Project site . This zone
contains r ent projects, one of which classified r
Specific Plan t. This project contains commercial, hotel, and
uses.marina Discounting the marina use, the site totaled °
"Brisbane attached Table I from Records", by EPS). The
EPS table assumes a 750 room hotel. The traffic consultant assumed a
conservative r ° site, resulting
commercial 542,000 square feet of planned is the 750 hotel rooms.
Based on the CMP land use assumptions, the site would generate more ° s
than were calculated r the proposed Project. Therefore, the CMP analysis
already includes a worst ` Project's
corridor.
55
E {
'
9 BB S! W r' .
14 9 8
P °
w jB �
f
ai
a S
LZ 2 it uj
1 MCICE4 900- 090 88 .0
CL
UL CL
8
r �
P
5
1
° S
gi
B
®� f
I
P
® e
0000 Colo!cc 010 0
ff co MIM
i 39vd i N3V1dO-1 A3(1 1131-I3d
47
a co 60 Coco
SIC I g I I
a
s
e r�
cm cm w
1
i m
s 1 1
1
®a
®° 4 ® erg oi
ED
aj
CC
� 1
I
g � 6
{
t
t
g 9
g
II
{ 1 l f
a
o
ygg :I
U. ZZZ 6 �'
n � 6
g e s
�v t Y i a 1
1 Ali i
16- vo Vol
w
IW
00000,00000
a' a 1
911111 , {
A ) ® b 1 1
CITY OF SOL7- H SAN FR
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 9, 1997
To: susy Kalkin, Senior Planner
® Richard Harmon, Development Review Specialist
® BAY WEST COVE CONINJERCIAL PROJECT DRAFT E.I.R.
Ills
in accordance with your request of September 15, 1997, 1 have reviewed the subject
document dated August 1997. 1 have the following comments that I recommend be
addressed in the 'Firol" Environmental Impact Report for the Bay West Cove Commercial
Project.
I The last paragraph on page 6-21 of Chapter 6, "Transportation and Circulation",
states that a 25% reduction of the trip generation calculations for the project was
credited for"pass-by" traffic and (apparently)an additional 25% credit was allowed
for "internal or captured trips". Considering the types of commercial usm proposed
to be constructed at the site, its to me that these reductions are greatly
exaggerated.
I believe it is unlikely that very many commuters entenng or e7dting the "East of 10 1
area are going to frequent the Bay West Cove site during lunch time or after work.
Restaurants would be visited during lunch rime,but the 3 0 to 60 minutes provided for
lunch leaves insufficient time to accomplish much shopping and also eat lunch. After
work most employees are anxious to get home, visiting a hotel or shopping in a'big-
box" store(which is time-consuming)would not be the sort of thing someone would
want to do after working all day and facing a long commute.
Unlike the former Shearwater proposal, which had hundreds of dwelling units within
the site, it seems very=likely that many visitors to the site will patronize a hotel, then
it a'Home Depot" is k up building supplies and swing-by AutoNation to buy
a used car.
recommend a more detailed evaluation of trip generation reductions assigned to
pass-by and internal trips.
49
OCT-17-1997 151:27 P.02/04
2. Table 6.3,listing peak-hour trip generation estimates, s t
hould be augmented by a able
listing "Average Daily Trips" (ADT) estimates for each use.
3. Several of the various traffic mitigation measures recommend that the developer pay
a proportionate share of the cost to provide the mitigation improvements. We do not
have the information necessary to deten-uine what the proportionate share should be,
Therefore,I request that the traffic consultant specify the percentage of the share of
the cost of the traffic improvements assigned to the project in the mitigation
recommendations.
4. There needs to be a site plan showing details of the proposed "fly-overn and the
Oyster Point Boulevard widening and improvement plan, in order to illustrate the
matters discussed on page 6-32, regarding traffic circulation and intersections, in
front of the site.
5. Recently, in connection with the construction of the Trammel Crow biotechnology
development at 349 Oyster Point Boulevard, it was discovered that the former
Wildberg metal refining and recovery business at that site had a sewer outfall line,
prior to the 1950's (before the City had a sewage treatment plant), that discharged
toward the West, into the portion of the subject site which is now described as
'Planning Area 2", and then appaready flowed overland into the Bay. The Wildberg
operation processed heavy metals and we have no idea what might have been
discharged
to this sewer over the many years that the facility was operating, prior
to this sewer being connected to the City system. This discharge may have resulted
in unexpected, localized, hazardous materials contaminating the earth between the
outfall and the bay shoreline.
6. Chapter 15, Vublic Services", contains no discussion regarding the impact of the
project improvements on the City's public works staff and budget. I was not able to
locate any statement in the EIR. regarding which improvements within the project
are to be City owned and
t ° e ® These iternsCIMIld include the new Oyster Point
Boulevard traffic signals and widening improvements,the new internal streets, sewers,
storm drains, landscaping, etc. If the City is to be receiving new public improvements
to maintain, then there is an impact on our st rces and budget that should be
discussed and mitigated if necessary —4
RCH.op
39MAYWESTACH
50
RESpONSE To COMMEN7s oN 771E DELR BAY WEST COVE COMMERCUL DEVELOPMEIVT
RESPONSE To LETTER FROM RICHARD HARMON, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
SPECIALIST, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
d on used noted. Trip
:L umed for on the DEIR
u
TnP r
red ct-on
for le East of 101 Are opment within
East of 101 Area plan. In addition, the East of 101 Area plan used an even greater pass-
by rate resulting in an assumed retail rate that was 25% of the published ITE retail rate.
However, for the proposed Bay West Cove Project, a more conservative assumption was
made for retail and internal trips (50% pass-by reduction) which is consistent with ITE
research for commercial projects such as the proposed Project. Finally, all peak hour trip
generation was reviewed by the City of South San Francisco (Arthur Wong, City
Engineer) and approved for use prior to inclusion in the DEIR.
® r t noted. After a City review of the proposed
that average daily Project trips included in
Table 63 of the DEIR would not be used in the Project traffic impact analysis. However,
average daily Project trips were considered in Chapter 7 Air Quality dealing with regional
air quality
® See revised Table 6.3 in the response to comment #5 from George
Morris.
3. Pro' on r w nav its nro--
noted. Future traffic projections for year 2000 and year 2010 have been provided by CCS
Planners and Engineers at the direction of the aty. These projections contain numerous
other projects in the East of 101 Area that are approved, proposed, or planned. While
proposed Project traffic can be identified at all study intersections, it is beyond the DEIR
scope to identify specific development project traffic at each location. With regard to the
percentage fair-share of improvement costs, the EIR does not calculate such costs
because an EIR is not meant to be a financing plan.
4. r e .e s v er Comment
tly in the
the City.
51
T
5. r ' 1 t is rocesse envy rnf,t a 1.9 -Y--
° sit --
t - rct site mandated the Water Quality
Control Board is s of the entire site. As required
approved i , the contaminated soils
on-site. The clean-up order is
clean-up r r are not subject to
6. The )EIR s s and bud et-associated
wi main
drains d - i ' Project improvements,and landscaping will be
including s 7
maintained by
project of the Cthty, ® `
1 property r .
applicants. The City will maintain the widened intersections
the area to be mitigated. t be required to compensate the City for
works additional public
Project.expenditures for the personnel in anticipation of future sales taxes from the
r 2 7 1A®54 I NGW 41::> .� 40-47 r . , U�
�ASA
CCAG
or Sm mm comff
590 MumMm St, Second Floor,Redwood City,CA 94063;
Phone: 650663-4852;FAX 650/363-4849
aty of South Sm Francisco
PhufflingDvartment
400 Grand Ave.
South Sm Francisco. CA 94083
Dear Ms.Kallcin:
on the Doft
ALUC S has 60
Plan(CUM.as ammdc&-
Committee
5-13,5-20). HOWINW,ths prqed Wonsor mna ft FAA Facto 7460-1,"Notice of
Proposed Cam&Uuc6m Or Altmadice"with the FAA for an aftspam evaluation mpWing,
&a proposed hc#A buildinp. This rcqiwmlcd is mundoned an p&4-7,but should be
190 5-20). Tho required form can be obUisuld ftm dw FAA AkMU Dieftict Office in
possible to reodve a 6usely reply from die FAA.
The pro 1
®REDWOM m • 1
5
SEP-25-199? 14:55 R-ANNING & WILDING
op.rWo.is containcxl in Chapter 8 of the DWL 71W noise Inifig0kff mcas""
proposed by dw applicant shoWId be sufficiml to UIM92W Potential imPwU ftm a'T=ft
operatiom Specifically,complia=with East of 101 Ana Plan Policy NO-I call*for
botels to be desiviod so diat OW mjc�single-evat noise 1cvcI due to am aircraft
flyover does not exceed 55 dBA and the CNEL does not exceed 45 dBA should witigate
potel3fially sipific4mt noise impacft(pg. B-10). L&rwise,design of ofkc and retail
developma3b to be consigent wi&East of 101 Area plan Policy NO-2 so dot daytime
mtc=no=levels do not exceed 45 dBA and instantaneous mWamm nolse levels do
not axecd 60 dBA should be adequate(p&9-11). .............
3. ALU—Q—CX&G2=kKZ==
The proposed pmject nquim amendmgm to the City's East of 101 Area Plan and
approval of a Specific Plan pursuatit to Govenawd Code Section 65450. Both of dum
proposed land Use pohey acuogis require review by the ALUC and CtCAG,wtmg as the
Airport Lod Use COMMMOM for a detcrmmatioll of cOn5IOMcY w9h the rek"M' 3
pWvmjOW In*0 ConqWhamve Anpoft Lamd Use]Plan(CLUP)for SFLk- "0 rMCW
pr000ss win take about 60 days to complahs. Plow contact mc a soozi as possible to
wovfinate this WAM Alsm plesse note IW we-wil
. l gequire ff&mjtw of site plans and
elevations in an S 1/2 X I I fozm&%and exterior mderW samples for the hotels,at a
nitidmain,to wlitaft our review.
TWk you&r the opportunft to review the DER for the Bay West COVO CMMMW Project.
If ym have any qqndWU6 pie=contact me at 65aW-M2-
SiWAZ*.
LizaAMMU
ALUC Staff
baywast-air
cc: ALUC Members
Ridbaffd Napier,CICAG E�xecudvc Director
John Pfeifer,Manager,FAA Airpoits District OisM Burlingame
54 TErrpL P.03
RESPONSE TO COMMEN73 ON 771E DEIR,BAY WEST COVE COMMERCUL DEVELOPMEIVT
RESPONSE TO LETI`ER FROM LISA AOZASA, ALUC STAFF, AIRPORT'AND USE
COMMITTEE, Cm/cOUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO
COUNTY
® Sam E
® The
Comment admowledged.
3. ea Plan and a roval f the Pro d
r equirement shoul
G for a determin tion of
9E7
d be added to
Chapter 4.2.11 Consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan.
55
OCT-17-1997 15:2-8 P,03/04
U.S. Depa&mnt San FrancL%w 831 Wden Road
of Trorspodation AiWft Dishid Office Rom M
Fedwd AVk*M Butgngarm,CA 94010-1303
AdmInMmHon
October 7, 1997
Ms. Susy xalkin, senior Planner C'_
City of South San Francisco
planning Department
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, California 94083
Dear Ms. Kalkin:
C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Staff comments on Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Bay West Cove Commercial
Project, federal airspace review
My of f
is has received a copy of the September 25, 1997, C/CAG letter
written by ma. Lisa Aozasa, ALUC Staff, regarding the subject V31R. We
note that your office has been advised to submit a FAA Form 7460-1,
%Notice of proposed Construction or Alterationo . Enclosed for your use
are -five (S) copies of the form and Advisory Circular (AC) 70/7460/2j,
"Proposed construction or Alteration of objects that may Affect the
mavigable Airspaceffl . We concur with the C/CAG recommendation regarding
project notification to the FAA, as-soon-as possible.
The city of South San Francisco is a recipient of numerous federia
grants for noise mitigation projects. The grant assurances stipulate
that the City will protect the terminal airspace for the San Francisco
international Airport (SPIA) and take appropriate action to Control the
land use adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport. The
enclosed federal grant assurances, "Nonairport sponsors Undertaking
Noise Compatibility Program ProjectsO, assurance number 14 and 15 define
the City's federal obligations. _J
Please note that the submission of the FAA Form 7460-1 is not considered—
a federal environmental review action covered under Federal Aviation
Administration policy and procedure orders for the implementation of the
mational Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requirements. A federal
airspace review will be limited an evaluation of the possible hazards to
the efficient use and- preservation of airport airspace and aircraft
traffic capacity for SFIA.
:rf you have additional questions, please contact my office at (650) 876-
2805.
56
/S4 Celebrating 50 Years of Airpon Development
Oct 17-1997 15:29 P.04/04
2
Sincerely,
jose h R. Rod&
SU-pg-tviRs-or, Plannimg and
ProgrammW9
enclosure
cc: Ms. Lisa Aozasa, ALUC Staff
JAA, Wp Region, ANV-530 w/enclosure
57
T The P RESPONSE TO LE17ER FROM JOSEPH R. RODRIGUEZ, SUPERVISOR, PLANNING
AND PROGRAMMING, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
r ' 1 t r s ___ or
® Y S t t -- - re® Comment noted.
® ,ice r i ___ its
i or in Comment
acimowledged. Page 4-6 of the DEIR discusses how the East of 101 Area Plan
incorporates FAA heightthoise regulations. Chapter 4.2.11 notes that the Project
consistent with the San Francisco Master Plan, it
consistent with the East of 101 Area Plan, with respect to airport development and
operations.
3. The r ' s __ s to
the t constitute
r t Comment noted.
5
ZLATUtAICH
Pacific Gas and Electric C0111111801 111 Almaden Boulevard
P.O.Box 15005
San Jose,CA 95115-M
September 23, 1997
City of South San Francisco
Planning Department
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco,CA 94083
Attention: Ms. Susy Kalkin
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report
Bay West Cove Commercial Project
City of South San Francisco
Dear Ms. Kalkin:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed
Bay West Cove Commercial Project. PG&E has the following comments to offer.
PG&E owns and operates gas and electric facilities is is adjacent to the proposed project. To
promote the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of utility facilities,the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) has mandated specific clearance requirements between utility
facilities and surrounding objects or construction activities. 'To ensure compliance with these
standards, project proponents should coordinate with PG&E early in the development of their
pmject plans. Any proposed development plans should provide for unrestricted utility access
and prevent easement encroachments that might impair the safe and. reliable maintenance and
operation of PG&E's facilities.
Developers will be responsible for the costs associated with the relocation of existing PG&E
facilities to accommodate their proposed development. Because facilities relocation's require
long lead times and are not always feasible, developers should be encouraged to consult with
PG&E as early in their planning stages as possible.
Relocations of PG&E's electric transmission and substation facilities (50,000 volts and above)-
could also require formal approval from the California Public Utilities Commission. If required,
this approval process could take up to two years tp complete. Proponents with development
plans is could affect such electric transmission facilities should be referred to PG&E for
additional information and assistance in the development of their project schedules.
We would also like to note that continued development consistent with your General Plans will
have a cumulative impact on PG&E's gas and electric systems and may require on-site and site additions and improvements to the facilities is supply these services.' Because utility
facilities are operated as an integrated system, the presence of an existing gas or electric
transmission or distribution facility does not necessarily mean the facility has capacity to connect
new loads.
59
m
Expansion of is i do transmission i e related facilities is a necessary consequence
growth of eve a t. In addition to adding e w distribution fee , the range of electric
system improvements ee to accommodate growth may include upgrading existing s i
and transmission i equipment, i existing substations to their ultimate buildout
capacity, it i substations and interconnecting transmissi® i s® Comparable
upgrades or iio needed to accommodate additional to s system could include
facilities such regulator s do s, o oizer stations, valve lots, distribution and transmission
lines.
We would like to recommend that environmental documents for s development projects
include t evaluation cumulative i c to utility systems,the utility aci i
to o developments y potential environmental issues associated with x i
utility service to the proposed project. This will assure the project's compliance with CEQA and
reduce of is delays o the project schedule.
We also encourage i include o atio issue of electric and magnetic fields
in i nal Environmental Impact Report. It is PG&E's policy o share information
educate people issue of .
Electric and Magnetic Fields (ENT) exist v is c °ci ty—in appliances, homes,
schools and offices, and in s. There is scientific consensus on the actual
effects of EMF exposure, but it is an issue of public have s about EMF,
please call l PG&E office. A package of information whis materials from the
California e Services and other groups will be sent to you upon
remains committed to r i with i Francisco provide timely,
reliable and cost ectiv e gas and electric service to the Bay West Cove Commercial Project.
Please contact a °c 1 if v any questions
comments. We would appreciate i copied correspondence regardi is
subject is project develops.
Sincerel ,
Thomas J.Vatunich
Land Agent
cc: H Han
SATMNSNUMEMBAYWIESTDOC
RESpONSE To COMMEN73 oN 7HE DETP,BAY WEST COVE COMMERCUL DEVELOPMEIVT
RESPONSE TO LETMR FROM THOMAS J. ZIATUNICH, IAND AGENT, PACMC GAS
AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
,e sh uld de f n str'cled access to PG&Efacilities.
Eh rov' or u r t d w-th
-ble for Cos s assma I
I e ro d.Pro' :M ---
Dev ers will be re e re l tion of existin PQ
f jib 0 r ir os 10 ment
C_ 1�s 0 7
a I e mm d t_ the ro deve According to a follow-up letter
from PG there are no gas or electric transmission lines near the Project site which
will require relocation . The only transmission facilities near the site are the gas
transmission (Line 10) and electric underground b-dnsmission (San Mateo-Martin 230 kV)
that run along Bayshore Blvd. northwest of Hwy. 101. 'Me applicants win be required to
consult with PG&E subsequent to approval of the Project by the City and Redevelopment
Agency.
t, t�nd�7b n I�ri dam nver�_ _
® Rel ca on�PQ�B el= im Util t jssi U
�i�0 * i of fo from s ���n
u rn��� ifornia riblic
�Idre re he He Utilities Commission.
According to a follow-up letter from PG&E, there are no gas or electric transmission
lines near the Project site which will require relocation". it does not appear that any
approval from the PUC will be required.
® In DEIR
4).
4. Thc etic Ficlds kEhMn_@LsgciAted
ensus on the health effects f
e Bret t r evidence that exposure to
magnetic fields on the site is a significant impact. Documentation by PG&E of current
research on EMF and their possible effects on humans is on file for this Project in the
Planning Department of the City of South San Francisco. Contact Susy Kalldn, Senior
Planner (415) 877-8535.
3 lbomas I ziatunich,Land Agent;FG&F,written correspondence,Oct.8,Im.
4 ibidL
61
rip co 59 POLICE DEPARTMENT
Memo
l , Planning Division
Police Frmv
Review DO= October 6, 1997
Ra .I. .
and Specific Plan
Draft E
Some i
confusion j i into the
consistent overall site specific data relates to. Future drafts of both documents(and they
should be access, . . -
Point
primary entry should be Oyster Point and Gateway or Oyster Drive(?);the overall site main entry as Bay West Cove Drive(?) and the easternmost-J
decision exWaccess as just that.
in
the main access drives will be public •
Same ® shoreline
provided."
PggI 3-24-All references to the access road between this site -
I site should state 7he access road would be to maintain adequate response
times fnm the Koll °; officers responding to the Koll site will use the faster 10 1
freeway route. Leaving the current word W seems to imply that both sites should
contribute to construction costs, when in reality the road will be required to be
reviewed.constructed when Koll site plans are
Same page®2gd2g2iAn-H0k@M sentence should include language indicating
sidewalks shall be installed on at least one side of each main roadway in the project.
Ene 6_4- East Grand Ave. should be
identified correctly. In the report East Grand Ave. is identified as Grand Ave.
Egge_6-7
®The wording in line 3 does not make ® In lines 7-11,with the
exception of Forbes and Eccles, all of the intersections mentioned in those lines are
already signalized. Line 15 says widen Oyster Point Blvd., but shouldn't there be a
statement in there telling us if the topography will allow for the widening of Oyster
Point Blvd. from the east end of the project site to Gull Drive? Lines 19 and 20 are
very vague.
L=tions 2, 3, and 4 show movement of traffic but do not
accurately reflect the lanes that the movements are being made from. There are not
AM (PM) peak hour volumes for locations 6-11 indicated on this figure. Does that
indicate that there is no AM (PM) year 2000 baseline volume without the southbound
fly over and project at these 6 locations? -4
Ijtk1j,R@gq.§:JZ-The levels of service shown are based strictly on volumes
and do not take into consideration the geometrics and current design of the
® Case in point is the intersection of Oyster PoinVAirport/Sister Cities. 1
understand the methodology, but it is misleading to bass some assumptions strictly
on the LOS as indicated by numbers and not look at other causes that have an
adverse flow on traffic using the areas studied.
Pa e 6-13-Line 9 reads that the proposed fly over would not be required to mitigate
q_
the year 2000 baseline, but since either the scissors ramps or the fly over are
supposed to be bulk by the year 2000, should there not be a reference made as to
what they will do.
Page_6-1 5,figure 6-5 indicates what the year 2010 lane configurations should be but
no where in the document is there any mention on how to accomplish the
reconfigurations without negative impacts on existing businesses or maintain
required standards fbr traffic lanes and turning radil.
Eggg 6-17- Line 15 and 16 seem to indicate different lane configurations than lines
19 and 20. Lines 15 and 16 suggest putting in two left-turn lanes and two through
lanes and one right-tum lane. That would work. Lines 19 and 20 suggest two left
turn lanes, one straight lane, one straight right-turn option lane and a right-tum lane.
The option lane and a
® r
turn lane will not work at the northbound on ramp fo two
reasons. Long wheel base vehicles making the right turn need all of the avallable
63
a Page 2
turning into i S
lanes to one lane about' .
mitigation i i
existing --, i existing
Point Oyster intersections,
extremely large, and the distances . Adding lanes, i
some instances, will compound problems that the city has tried to resolve through
Airport/Oyster the use of traffic restrictions such as no right turn on red, 24 hours a day at
E , and no left turn 4prn to epm on Oyster
i i signals f
lanes or make the
widened Line 16-18 - Eastbound Grand Ave. at Airport Blvd. cannot be
removing i sidewalks
will i Ave.
i restriping of
include the northbound approach to
currently exists at E. merging
lane is i
P@g2L6-25_to 6-30-Once again the . . . suggests that the only mitigation 1(0
paint measures necessary are to
proportional share to take care of traffic improvements.
noise plge_8-5-Section 8.1.4 should state that
maintenance delivedw and
comment should be made whether pile drivers will , and if so, how the noise
they produce will be mitigated.
Plg%_8-7 -The last paragraph indicates that there are no noise sensitive receptors in 15
the area, such as housing. It should be noted that past construction arid pile driver
highway activity east of
section include
construction that
and start up, as I as delivery of materials and equipment. I
Mitigation indicate li
required noise
fashion.complaints in a timely
Pa 14-1 secd n Emergency services communications capabilities
become extremely limited as you drive north of Oyster Point Blvd. For example,
development on the Koll site will be required to provide on-ske communications
equipment to improve police and fire communications and response. it is unknown if
northern portions of this site have similar communications"dead spaces"; therefore,
this section should include such research with appropriate mitigation
recommendations.
Page 15-5
® i
Paragraph 4 tends to indcate that police and fire will access gated
portions of the pmject with knox box keys. The Police Department has never had a
policy or desire to use or carry knox box keys or the equipment necessary to access
some knox
® Current and future police conditions on project require digital
access pad equipment to allow police access to areas of private property
necessitating patrol.
rPa _e 7�se I o�n
c
f�!
rovi m
sion 0 1 Police Department does not wish
0 assume a d nt on private property due to
the design of substandard roadways, and as part of the plan review conditioning
process will require interim roadways to be desigrted wide enough so fire iarms are
not necessary. In addition, the applicant shall not install fire lanes as a means to
strengthen its own Inability to control inappropriate parking an private property.
E–aae 15-8 ra r h 2-Samecomment as page 3-24.
aamano-
Elgk 16-5-Somewhere in this section data should be included as to whether the
shoreline public access area is a city park and subject to the restrictions of the city Z4
park ordinance.
s ' Plan
EnLe 1_7-Open s shall be designated as open for public and
sufficient parking for the h I be assig n space. The public
parkI ng should also be 1 1 =on page 22, that indicate
the parking is for the p of any business or customers of any
arrking in the public access
business in the develo
parkIng spaces. rs will be subject to ciftlti=nand y. The specific plan
aLsign should include a sign type and plan for the public a area.
65
eftp4
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DE[A BAY WEST COVE COMMERCUL DEVELOPMEIVT
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM POLICE DEPARTMENT, CTrY OF SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO
1. Therer r i
discussed As -21, access into AutoNation (Planning Area 1) will be on
their own un-named private drive from the intersection of Oyster Point BlvdJGateway Access to Blvd. Planning Areas 2, 3 and 4 will be via a private road named Bay West
Cove Boulevard.
roads and parking® r All
aisles will private, City's s.
3. 'sit r ded. Comment
4.
t site. Comment
acknowledged. This change should also be noted on Page 15.8, ' .
5. Sidew
Comment noted. The City Council/Board of the Redevelopment Agency should consider
the sidewalks r '
reduce DEIR, sidewalks would help to
6. 1 n r Comment
7. ® r s - t t
from the Terrabay DSEIR. It is rEccles/Forbes
intersection, the remaining three intersections have been signalized since the publication
City's of the Terrabay DSEIR (August 1996). At the time of the BWC DEIR traffic analysis,
the were r '
determine Project to ' ' .
® s 2 3,and 4 on a —6-11 are not Aear. Comments noted. Figure 6-4 on page
is merely meant to show the intersection turning movement volumes (i.e. lefts,
throughs, and rights) Figure
of the DEIR. As stated on page 6-9 of DEIR, the year 2000 traffic analysis evaluated
these five study intersections. Without the proposed US 101 southbound flyover off-ramp
RESPONSE To COMAff2M ON 7HE DETP,BAY REST COVE COMMERCLIL DEVELOPMENT
connecting the Oyster Point/Gateway inter s
section, these five intersection would
experience traffic increases from not being able to use the planned flyover off-Yarnp. This
was discussed with the City before the year 2000 traffic impact analysis was prepared.
® &Sd nte e ab re d:�n r t" �rt�hi
'0:ME of I
t=
0�
T 1�
mment acknVdgSe:All t aZpo tion s in the East of 101 Area has used
the Circular 212 Planning method with modified critical volume capacities. This has been
the "accepted" method for the City of South San Francisco. It is recognized that there
can be other factors involved in the overall operation of an intersection which can affect
overall intersection operation, such as cycle length, green times and vehicle saturation
® In i ® other conditions not related to the intersection can affect its operation
such as vehicle congestion on US 101, accidents, or pedestrians movements that can all
cause further vehicle delays that are not reflected in the intersection LOS calculation.
However, this method is acceptable for planning purposes.
10° ea uture t noted. The entire focus of the
r�f
a:r 0 traf ic osed Project could be constructed
plann ramp. The City of South San
Francisco wanted to know if the proposed Project would cause any sigaificant unavoidable
impacts without the
® As noted, the proposed flyover would not be required to
mitigate the year 2000 base case without the proposed Project or with the proposed
Projea Discussion with the City indicates that the flyover may be completed by the year
2003.
ggn=am ovements;
:_ts. Comment acknowledged. The recommended intersection impr
shown in Figure 6-5 of the BWC DEIR are the minimum improvements required to allow
acceptable intersection operation for the year 2010. Some of these improvements may
require additional right-of-way which may negatively affect local businesses in the area. It
is also noted that many of these improvements have already been recommended as part
of the Terrabay SDEIR and approved in the East of 101 Area Plan.
s th e -R �be�a -nb
m ot
12. Mi a ' n me for m I
tu g radi ong wheel
Co
rope:
I
�dde�
r P SI
ase In cl si g p f
he
8 sible lth Ion whe I b
t c should bell to e mp ro t
ru.wkIs e n t (to nth n Frthbound onra
combination through-right turn lane.
67
Comment acknowledged. Recommended mitigation measures for Oyster Point Boulevard
intersections are not intended to interfere with existing turn restrictions implemented by
the City. In some cases, a right-turn installed
vehicles control right-turning intersection.
appropriate Oyster Point/F=les, a signal with s has been
Project recommended for .
14. businesses. t acknowledged. The recommended widening of E. Grand Avenue
would impact about three parking spaces and sidewalks in the area.
15. East han / s. Comment acknowledged. The
recommended right-turn -turn green arrow to
improve signal efficiency at . location, subject more detailed engineering design, t
there ensure that .
noted.16. Rr, Comment 17. Co Icisco
jMLciXal
_code. Comment acknowledged. is
milI? Chapter 8.32 will apply.
18. PNt s
ftgewU. Comment noted.
deh
Lvert of materials should also controlled, Comment acknowledged.
20. r s r
- . Comment acknowledged. Ibis.requirement
aspects extended to responding to concerns about all of the construction process,
including dust control - a concern of citizens and Planning Commissioners who spoke on
the Project at a public hearing, 10/9/97.
tr 3 -------- -----
r e_to screeninLaf antennae by an
on-site Bruno in and that research be conducted to determine if .
nse. Comment
acknowledged. The Koll Center Sierra Point has apparently contributed to police radio
equipment to overcome
RESpONSE To COMMEN7s ON THE DE[,g BAY WEST COVE COMMERCLIL DEVELOPMENT
of development at Kell Center. The City Council could consider a similar requirement
for the proposed Project, ff the police department finds that communications equipment
is needed.
®
3s of ' at r necessita
Comment
® Knox boxes would be used during construction at the request of the Fire
Department. Key-pad digital equipment for the police and fire departments should be
installed when the Project is operational. This requirement should be made a condition
for approval, if the Project is approved.
23.
sh Id�bede dn� 'd e n f ir;r� e nece Comment
acLow g ro�:s 8 U;0�
at ev
led ed. ay and pariting::e Zet'=e opment will exceed
the width of a 20 fL wide fire lane.
24. �C'rk' ffeth s�ore ',e blice ce oreline band linear
a be built, 4e and n statement should
e d into Mitigntd
ion M
Chapter 15.4.2, page 15-9, dealing with the need for trail maintenance is-n-o-t--ck--,ff about
ownership and maintenance of the trail and the shoreline band. Chapter 15.4.2
Mitigation Measures should be revised to insert responsibility for the Project developer to
construct, own and maintain the linear park.
69
RESMNSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEM,BAY WEST COVE COMMERCUL DEVELOPMENT
RESPONSE TO ORAL TFSTIMONy RECEIVED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING ON OCrOBER 9, 1997
1. Various, Commissioners. i s r r site
us® t r ' S ®t r t0
g t t It e is
t tt - Order of
the Regional Water , The clean-up Dot a p e proposed
Project. r essing clean-up is
necemary; however, if t finish
implemented and enforced by the City, dust and erosion
2. Commissioner , s t,
and m r the
proposed requires
percent perimeter of the project to screen parldng, loading areas and large buildings. "Standards
specify the s , including
for parldng lots . . . " Chapter 5.3.5
DE-21 for landscaping along property lines. The City will have the opportunity to review
the proposed landscaping during the Design Review process.
7
RESPONSE TO COMMEN73 ON THE DETK BAY WEST COVE COMMERCUL DEVELOPMENT
RESPONSE TO ORAL TESTIMONY RECEIVED AT THE PIANNING COMMISSION
HEARING ON OCT0BER 16, 1997, CONT1NUED FROM OCTOBER 9
® Commissioner Barnett. e
as
dijoLssed in Cha er 7.2. . Comment acknowledged. To reduce emissions below
the threshold established by the Bay Area Air Ouality Management District,
Project development would have to be reduced by about two-thirds.
2. Chairman Romero.
There are three approvals
which would be required as part of the Project Description which speak to
allowed activities within the 100 ft. setback The first approval would include a
general plan amendment to allow development of buildings within the 100 fL of
known sensitive resources, on a case-by-case basis based upon a site-specific
biological assessment (see detail in Chapter 4.2.3). The second approval would
include a general plan amendment to allow for "commercial" buildings - not just
"recreational"buildings within the shoreline band, such as water-oriented
businesses (see Chapter ® . for detail). 71he third approval would allow parking
within designated Open Space (the 100 ft.wide shoreline band), subject to a
discretionary permit (see detail in Chapter 4.2.9).
Chapter 12.2.2 of the DEIR describes measures to keep humans and pets from
entering the tidal wetlands where it is expected that wildlife will become
® Response to comment #6 from George Morris notes that the width
of the planting area containing native plants between the bay trail and the tidal
wetlands has been increased from 12 feet to 25 to 30 feet.
The requirement for a biological assessment, and the requirement for approval of
development in the 100 ft. shoreline band by BCDC should allow for adequate
consideration of parking and buildings in the band on a case-by-case basiL
71